Differences for "Users/RealComputers/Talk"

Differences:

version 63 (2009-11-03 18:28:49 by JasonAller)

version 64 (2009-11-03 19:15:26 by WesHardaker)

I think Brian is a bit too delete-happy with comments on his page. It is difficult to go back and see what has been discussed because he will delete stuff before the issues being discussed are even resolved. Of course, if somebody comes in posting nasty stuff (which hasn't happened just yet), I think he would be justified in removing that. However, I think what is being done here is abusive. Thoughts? —WilliamLewis

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2009-10-27 16:46:35 There have been a number of times where I've had to go into the history to see his reply to a question or comment I've left for him. It is his choice, but it is also a source of some of the friction he feels from the wiki. As far as I'm concerned he can keep doing it, but he should understand that he is making things rougher on himself by doing so. —JasonAller

Something I need to articulate more clearly is the fact that I think we've gone too far in saying that a user page belongs to a user. Really, a userpage is there to facilitate communication, and ultimately, editing on this project. If people want profile pages they control completely, they should go to myspace or facebook. Deleting comments like Brian does frustrates communication, which works against the intended use of a userpage. I don't think this is ok and it should not be permissible. —wl

It is a tradition to help communication, not a rule. User entries have, in the past, been routinely edited. Some of the editor profiles were written by friends or people trying to communicate. -jw

Absolutely agree. The community has bent over both backwards and forwards to accommodate Brian and to allow him to delete stuff that should, at the very least, age off over a period of time. As a result, his pages do not show an accurate journal of his interactions with the community. —JimStewart

William, I've got to agree that it is a problem, but I don't think it is a problem that a rule can solve. Either Brian will choose to change his behavior, or not. —JasonAller

If we want to build a community (or keep the one we already have) then to some extent we need a blend of things that make everyone happy. Everyone agrees that non-user davis wiki pages are publicly owned and edited. Everyone has previously sort-of-agreed that users pages are personal and controllable. I actually don't think we should change this behaviour because I believe it promotes a better "community" feel. It gives people a place to call "theirs". In the same way that a town would suck if it only had commercial space and didn't have personal "home" space I think the wiki would be less community oriented if there was no personal space. Yes, I have other web pages too (too many I think sometimes) but my personal davis wiki page makes me feel like an integrated part, oddly enough, because it's "mine". I actually think it provides motivation to become part of the greater good. At least to most people.

Yes, it's a pain communicating with Brian because of his personal choice to remove all traces of conversation from his page. But when a friend has a house I don't particularly like being inside of, I stop visiting it. That analogy doesn't work as well for wiki pages, but maybe mail does. I don't force people to keep the letters I write to them, and I don't think I should force Brian to keep my comments even if it's more convenient for me. —WesHardaker

Very well said, I agree with Wes. -ES

Maybe so, but as others have said, he doesn't seem to understand that his choice to delete all of the comments from his page is one of the things that make others react negatively to him. He wants to be treated with the respect due to a wiki citizen even though he doesn't act like a wiki citizen and doesn't treat others with respect. So, while allowing people free rein on their user pages does in general build community, it's not clear that it does so in this case because the community can't communicate with him and it feels as though he is trying to whitewash his past bad behavior. Brian's actions don't help him and they don't help the community, either. So, we can defend his deletion of the comments, but we should know that we're not ultimately helping him by doing that. —CovertProfessor

As I said elsewhere, please keep in mind what most of the recent comments left were. These are random spam-like and honestly borderline trolling about how he deletes so much - not exactly essential communications. But it's just a few 'lulz'!! For a guy who still feels that people are picking on him and is trying to go forward (and he has certainly made some strides in regards to better as a few people have noted), it doesn't help. It just makes it worse. We're taking an aggravating situation, and these sorts of things honestly keeps the entire situation negative at the least, hostile at worst. Respect should go both ways - give the guy some room to grow positively. So of course he deletes it, and yet it comes back. If someone is putting their hands in their ears and singing 'la la la', repeating comments won't help the issue. Neither does trying to force them to listen. His deleting of the comments, his past behavior, and his future prospects on the wiki should be three separate issues, and yet they're often being intertwined into one. None of it justifies any lowering of standards or change in actions of the rest of the wiki community. His lack of respect shouldn't affect ours. Either we still try to be active and help positively (and again, some gains were certainly seen [I believe noted by JA and JW at least once]), or take the wiki chill pill and attempt back of editing. Repetitive unwanted postings to keep a running joke going in no way help the situation, nor do they ever encourage him to want to keep those comments. Saying that his negativity encourages negativity might be true, but then shame on us for going around in a bad cycle. As always on the wiki, the community in my opinion should try to hold higher ground. —ES

Your POV is valid and well-taken. However, I still maintain that Brian's pages do not reflect the true nature of his personality and, by inference, the way he might relate to his customers. Just as some daviswiki users might not like to do business with a company that supported prop 8, I'd prefer not to do business with a company that can't understand and participate in daviswiki conventions and ethics. Brian's constant reverting of negative comments hide his hostile and confrontational attitude and do not give users insight on his daviswiki community behavior. —JimStewart
You're absolutely right about your points, ES. There has certainly been an inflammation of negativity from both sides as frequently happens (and is always sad). I feel badly for the parts that I contributed to myself, as well. —WesHardaker

You're right, CP, that his deletions and white-washing do fustrate those trying to help the community at large. But in the end, people can have unlisted numbers and stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to interact the way you want them too. Somehow I doubt requiring users to keep comment histories will force them to change their behaviour either, so I'm not sure we'd "help them" by enforcing another rule on them. —WesHardaker

You are one of the people who has given me the most opposition over the most trivial issues. In my opinion you are very imature and have persisted to bully a man who just asks to be left alone. The kind of treatment I get here is disgusting and then revulting when you come back and say its all me and none of it is you.

My personality is just fine and when people dont come at me as opposition, as you might imagine, things work out infinitely better. All the comments that customers have left are positive. clearly there is evidence to suggest that I am a normal nice person to those who do not treat me like dirt as you do.

2009-10-27 17:19:23 This might be a good time to look at the goal of a wiki. A wiki is meant to convey information about one or more topics. Anyone can contribute, but the ultimate goal is to achieve a reasonable reflection of "reality" within a specific wiki page, so that someone reading the page can get useful and correct information about it.

The problem here is that RealComputers' wiki page, and that of his company, do not reflect the consensus view integral to the health of a wiki. The company page reflects only his view, and is therefore an advertisement, not a consensus page as the rest of the wiki is. The page is clearly there for marketing purposes, not as a consensus effort to describe reality. Therefore, the company page is not legitimate. As for his own page, while I agree that he should have greater control over it as that is his user page, it also does not reflect a consensus view, or any view other than his. It clearly does not meet the goals of the wiki.

There's also the matter of Real's net contribution to the wiki. Much time is spent on maintenance created by his edits, while there is little or no contribution from him that helps to improve the wiki. The result is a net drain on wiki resources (and gnometime).

I submit the following questions:
-Is RealComputers company page appropriate to the wiki? If not, should it remain on the wiki? If so, who should be allowed to edit it?
-Is RealComputers's appropriate to the wiki? If not, should it remain on the wiki? If so, what is the appropriate level of control for Brian to exert over it?
-Is Brian a user who should remain on the wiki? If so, why? If not, why not? —IDoNotExist

This should probably be moved to Real Computers & Free Diagnostics/Talk, as you say that is the problem area. -jw
If a page is a one-sided advertisement of a business then it should be reworked. If he won't let you then that's definitely a problem. Most of the time nobody cares much if a page is initially advertisement-y because being a hardass about this discourages participation. —PhilipNeustrom

I think you all need to wake up and smell the flowers. I am up against a popular idea, which is that I am always in the wrong. You people need to take a look at your own words and actions and take a minute to realize I'm just a business man trying to protect his business from vandalism. The grat opposition I face here is completely pointless. Everytime I remove a comment that is clearly not ture or remove a pointless argument you people are having about how I am such a jerk from my user page, I get hastled more for the same things. None of you people have ever had a computer question or real need to talk to me at all other than when I was new to this and needed help. You persist due to some cruel "bullish" band wagen and I am the victim. I have seriously though about pressing charges for some of the things said to me here. People have said I have aspburgers disease and worse. Things like this classify as cyber bullying. A funny concept maybe but it is illegal and the consiquesces for it are real. If the hasassment gets worse than it has been in the past, or even maintains at the same level, I will be doing serious investigation into the possibility of pressing charges on those who make such statements. If you have nothing nice to say or good to add, dont add. There is no need to persist in debate over trivial issues of who said what. —RealComputers

I'd encourage you to be careful with your words and consider rescinding your legal threats. I think threatening people who are editing here with legal action is totally uncool. I realize that communication over edits can be frustrating and stressful, but there is no need for threats. It creates a hostile environment and I, for one, consider that really lame. —PhilipNeustrom

2009-10-28 13:56:28 I have to go, but here is the last thought I have on the subject of Brian's behavior for now. He has continually tried to promote his business over other businesses, and done so recently (today). It particularly bothers me when he edits the Computer Services page. The edits are almost always self-serving. He has refused to accept that the Real Computer's page is not his, and that others may legitimately edit it, and he has done so recently (today) by expressing that that page should stay as it is with no one else touching it. I see no change in his behavior. We can treat him as, oh, poor Brian, with the world against him. But he could just leave the page as is, and go away. Instead he begs all of us to leave him alone while he continues his anti-competitive behavior. I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with him, but this has to stop. Too many people are wasting time on dealing with him. —CovertProfessor

2009-10-30 11:29:34 I check the Recent Changes and see that Brian, once again, can't just leave it alone. Unfortunately, I've got no time to play today, folks, so you'll have to fight it out without me. But I vote for preventing Brian — temporarily, say for a few months — from editing any of the pages related to computer repair. Let him edit the other stuff and learn how to be a productive wiki citizen, and give him a way to complain if something *really* egregious happens on the Real Computer's page. But this has been going on for months now. It has to stop. —CovertProfessor

2009-10-30 11:48:01 90 day ban. —JimStewart

I have a feeling that a ban isn't going to change his behavior at all. While 90 days without Brian drama would be great, we're still going to have the same problems when he returns. Maybe some sort of probation is needed? —WilliamLewis

Like Double Secret Probation? —JimStewart

I've got their disciplinary files right here. Who dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the swim meet? Who delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner? Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets explode. — DeanWormer
I'm thinking more along the lines of, "We're letting you back, but if you do this, it will resort in a permanent ban." —wl

Saturday, noonish — I got off a long phone call with Brian about 40 minutes ago. I'm still not quite sure what to make of it, but he's said that he now understands that it is community site, whereas before he thought it was a business listings site that people could edit. He asked how long the ban would be, and I told him that I didn't know. He said (unprompted by myself) that he was thinking that a good rule of thumb would be to wait 10 minutes between edits. He still thinks that everybody ganged up and were opposed to him from the beginning. Sometimes I get off phone calls feeling very positive and say that the person's confusion has been settled and they understand what might be more positive in the future (I'm sure any active editors who follow these kinds of things have seen me post such messages). I have no such clear result after this conversation.

With this call, I will tentatively say that he listens much better when somebody is talking to him rather than via written communication. He also seems to have done some thinking about how to prevent some of the problems, but does not seem to realistically see his part in the edit conflicts and had no real comprehension of what had actually occurred (I went through the history and counted reverts and read his changes, which did not match his perception). He seemed to not realize the changes he had been making, either through ignorance of exactly what he was reverting (he said of reverting, "It's really easy"), or through misperception of what kinds of changes he had actually made. I told him that I would keep the ban in place until everybody had calmed down, and that he needed to not engage in edit wars (he doesn't seem to understand the concept of unilateral editing, or I would have phrased it that way). I suggested that, because he had frustrated several people, he should step lightly at first and listen more than edit. He never used the term "conversation" or "discussion" unless he was repeating what I had said, instead using the term "argument" to refer to all discussions between him and other editors. I suggested that he may want to talk to other editors before making edits or when they made changes he disagreed with, and that if he found himself in a similar escalating position and felt he could not communicate on the wiki, go out to a cafe, reflect on the situation and also invite anybody interested to discuss it face to face. As I said to him, William is a much more soft spoken person than you might think from his tone on the wiki. :)

To move farther away from the conversation and into my perceptions, I think he has difficulty communicating in written form and generally relating to other people's points of view. He (possibly as a result of that) is somewhat paranoid, thinking that other editors are working against him. He also places an amazing value on the wiki in terms of commercial relevance, saying that "changing a word" could result in "a two percent drop in business". I have no clear conclusion after the conversation, but he asked me to relate it on the wiki. I apologize that this post is a cloudy mess, but with no clear outcome or core topic in the conversation, that's the best I can pass along. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards

2009-11-01 11:46:11 having more or less stayed on the sidelines, I think that Brians view of the wiki is broadening. Hopefully he will understand that we all want to hold hands and skip forward together and in the future we can all work in concert instead of against each other. —StevenDaubert

2009-11-02 16:50:57 In the end, I think he'll hopefully agree that the recent edits of the RC&FD page have improved the content and we will all come to group peace and harmony. I certainly hope you're right that there is now a consistent understanding that every business page is owned and maintained by the community and not by the business owner.

We still may have some outstanding things to think about in the mean time. Now that things are peaceful, we may or may not want to take care of the shrapnel that is the result of the edit wars. In particular, looking back through the history of the business page you'll find all sorts of comments removed, reworded, "integrated", etc. The choices about these I can see as a way forward are probably:

Re-insert all the comments removed and/or "integrated" (I put it in quotes because the true nature of the integration was frequently lost and turned entirely into a positive spin during the integration and thus it wasn't a complete "integrate").
Leave everything as is and "just go on"
"Integrate" all existing comments on the page (which were whittled down to the positive ones) into a new "integrated" line that reads something like "Real Computers & Free Diagnostics has had at least 4 happy customers in the past" and clear out all the comments completely and start all over again and see where things end up.

Thoughts? —WesHardaker

As a big proponent of integration where appropriate, I think some of the items integrated were straight up commentary moved around on the entry to defang and reword them. Those should come back out, attributed and quoted. As much as I promote integration, it's more about comments like "They are now open to five" or "Do they have greek olives?" followed by "Yes" or even a series of people praising or criticizing a particular aspect of the subject (the swingset is always broken, the pad thai is really spicy). Trying to capture the zeitgeist or point out notable attributes in the entry from the commentary is good. Erasing them to place watered down, spun versions hidden in the entry as some kind of criticism laundering is not good. Quite a bit of the editing was commercial spin, and figuring out what was done is going to be a heck of a task. Somebody will need to go through the history carefully. Or we can, as Wes suggests, get it to a functional state and set a "from here out, keep it honest" line in the sand. For two and three: Is there any hint that those four reviews are fakes? As for proposal one, it pretty much depends on if somebody is willing to go through the history. Doing that would make the discussion moot anyway. ;) -jw

I don't think it would be awful for someone to go through the history (ideally a completely never-previously-involved gnome), but it wouldn't be fun. There wasn't so much "comment editing" as "comment removing" so I don't think it'd be hard to pick out the first post from a given commenter. The problem is the comments themselves are messy (an example is "keepingitlegal"'s post about the fact he was unlicensed, which he's succeeded in removing that negative sounding thing and "integrated" it. But, a straight copy of the original shouldn't be that hard for someone to do. Half the reason why I suggested the third option was to not require the work-load, but also as a way forward with a clean slate (though an entirely positive one with the above wording, so I'd be tempted to add "and X people that questioned the business practices" (I didn't count). It really comes down to: to clean slate, or not to clean slate. Honestly, either is fine with me. Though if I was sticking with how I think every other business has been treated and is categorized comments are never "removed". Even when management changes, they get "archived" so I guess (can you tell I'm thinking as I'm typing) they should be around for viewing pleasure somewhere. So that brings us to option 4. which would be "put everything in an archive page" (including all current reviews and of course with a link on the main business page). 4. is the 3rd clean slate option. ha. —WH

2009-11-02 18:44:05 Why not post the *first* version of comments? That would, for the most part, capture the author's intent. Is that feasible?

Alternately, post the *last* version of the comment before it was altered by RealComputers. At that point, the comment has forked off the author's intent (and probably from visibility in general).

I think that it is important that people know what has happened here, lest future generations forget and repeat the same mistakes. —IDoNotExist

I agree. You should also make sure to try and thread back any replies. -jw

I was gonna thread this above, but I

But you? —IDoNotExist

Ha! Sigh. I decided I could put it all in one place but forgot I had started this. Apparently I should seek help

2009-11-02 21:53:31 So what does the editor who takes on the task do doing that complete of a historical cleaning of both pages get? Would they get 10 good edits from everybody who had commented on this page? —JasonAller

Double the normal gnome pay? —WH

2009-11-02 22:32:27 Ok, having reviewed both steaming piles of bad edits I won't touch the userpage but I'd be willing to go through http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers?action=info and http://daviswiki.org/Real_Computers_%26_Free_Diagnostics?action=info but I'd have to get some agreement and backing before putting that much work into it. My bid for doing this is that Everyone(see exception list) who has edited either the business page or any of the comment pages owes me 10 good street photos to fill the photo requests on the Street pages. JabberWokky and PhilipNeustrom are excused from this requirement. If you accept this bid post one good faith street photo to a street page and leave a comment here indicating which street photo you've uploaded and your willingness to follow through on the other 9. —JasonAller

Ah, well I'd contribute 10. It will take me probably 2-3 weeks to even start though do to upcoming stress-conflicts. But I'll pay another interest point and make it 11. Granted, someone could still underbid you though :-) —WH
I'm sorry Jason, but I don't owe you anything. The fact remains that Brian was imparting ad-copy, white-washing stupidity to the page and the rest of the wiki was trying to fix it. Brian made this difficult by insisting that he approve of every single word that was written. He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior. I don't need to be lectured on how this was wrong. I know you don't like how I and others revert in response to people like Brian, but sheesh. —wl

I think Jason was sort of half-serious. But he can speak for himself. You're right that the end result of all this is that: A) People have wasted work and B) people (possibly Jason) will waste work as a result of the whole mess. I was offering to take his offer just because if he's doing work toward this cause, I should help him in one of his as trade (not punishment). —WH

Deletions are marked like this.	Additions are marked like this.
Line 94:	Line 94:
	* I think Jason was sort of half-serious. But he can speak for himself. You're right that the end result of all this is that: A) People have wasted work and B) people (possibly Jason) will waste work as a result of the whole mess. I was offering to take his offer just because if he's doing work toward this cause, I should help him in one of his as trade (not punishment). --WH