Talk:RationalWikiWiki

When agreed upon to move to article page (see here)
RationalWikiWiki is a small Wiki that comments on RationalWiki. It was part of the ScribbleWiki wiki farm but moved before things broke down there, and is now hosted on the same server as RationalWiki.

Controversial?
Could somebody explain what is controversial about this article? --Bob M 14:35, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Nothing. Dilley has decided that all wikis related to RW are in the middle of a giant brawl which has spilled over to Wikiindex, and is refusing to acknowledge anyone pointing out the obvious. The major problem with this wiki seems to be CP syndrome: administrators being incapable of admitting they are in error or of changing their minds. Phantom Hoover 14:38, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Hi PH. Well, let's give then a chance to respond and assume good faith. Maybe there is a good reason for blocking this one, or maybe it was a mistake. If somebody reacted hastily no doubt they will fix it. --Bob M 14:52, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Um, have you seen the "history" for the RationalWikiWiki page? The "summary" lines on the history page seem to show some back-and-forth bickering. While I've seen much, much worse elsewhere, and I agree that "protecting" this article for 3 months is over-reacting, I wouldn't call it "nothing".
 * p.s. about this "refusing to acknowledge anyone pointing out the obvious" -- would you mind linking directly to the point where this allegedly obvious thing-pointing was refused acknowledgement? --DavidCary 11:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Um, yes I have seen the "history" for the RationalWikiWiki page. The only edit in three weeks was this one fixing a tiny grammatical error. Not very controversial. rpeh 12:08, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree that this page is, in September 2009, "Not very controversial."
 * If this article continues to slowly improve at the rate of one edit every week or so, then the "protection" should expire before the next person tries to improve it.
 * However, since the history page shows back-and-forth bickering a few months ago, I wouldn't say there is "nothing" controversial about it.
 * I am fascinated by the way different wiki seem to run on different timescales. The biggest wiki run amazingly fast -- an edit I make there is often responded to within minutes; a week ago was ancient history. The WikiIndex (with the exception of a certain prolific poster), like most wiki, runs at a much slower pace -- my edits are often the latest edit to a page for weeks; a year ago was ancient history. The original wiki seems even slower. My edits there are often the latest edit to a page for years. Many people claim the original wiki, and perhaps some other wiki, exists in a kind of eternal "WikiNow" (Wiki: WikiNow). --DavidCary 13:24, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * So .... there was some debate about this article at the end of June 2009, and as a consequence it was cut to the talk page in early September 2009? I agree that different wikis may work on different time-scales - but one might argue that taking two months to react to a problem and after everything seems to have settled down is a bit glacial. --False Flag 11:05, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Anyway, I've edited it to remove the downtime stuff. It certainly ain't controvertible now! So what's the deal?  Where are the syspos? --False Flag 12:31, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

The intensity around the edit warring of the last few months caused me to call out that I would move the articles to the talk page for things to settle down. I left that notice stand for a week, 4 or 5 Sysops seemed to agree with the idea. Now we have new folks coming to WikiIndex to weigh in on how we do things here. While I appreciate that, I also highlight what David is saying. Wiki is slow - we are not interested in being a fighting ground - that is counter to our wiki values. Maybe we were remiss in not having them clearly spelled out, but we haven't had to for the last three years. I am considering locking the whole wiki down while sysops figure this out and would like to hear what others think about that. Lumenos, while trying to help clear a path forward, you are in effect edit spamming recent changes and I can not follow what you are trying to say/do - so if you could slow your pace down, I would much appreciate that. Voting is not really something I am personally interested in. I suggested 3 sysop and 3 editors agree on the text of 5 articles (I had originally called out three). What I wanted to see was people working on them. Best, MarkDilley

Vote for re-insertion

 * --Bob M 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Phantom Hoover 11:03, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * rpeh 12:08, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Huw Powell 20:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Lumenos 14:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT) Vote to unlock the article page (not an endorsement of any version of the article).
 * Since this particular page wasn't even controversial to begin with, I don't see any problem with re-instating it. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:54, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Unprotect. I don't agree with you, Felix. There has been some edit warring here - check the article's history. That said, hopefully everyone has a had a chance to cool off and the article can be unprotected now. Also, please note: this wiki is no longer offline, so if we revert to the last version, we should edit it to reflect this. --MarvelZuvembie 15:09, 14 September 2009 (EDT)