Talk:RationalWikiWiki: Difference between revisions

==When agreed upon to move to article page (see [[User talk:This is not the solution#Thanks to everyone for the cooling off - here is my idea on how to move through this.|here]])==

'''RationalWikiWiki''' is a small Wiki that comments on [[RationalWiki]].  It was part of the [[:Category:ScribbleWiki|ScribbleWiki]] [[wiki farm]] but moved before things broke down there, and is now hosted on the same server as RationalWiki.

Could somebody explain what is controversial about this article? --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 14:35, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

:Nothing. [[MarkDilley|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. [[User:Phantom Hoover|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. --[[User:Bob M|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? --[[User:DavidCary|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 [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=RationalWikiWiki&diff=70142&oldid=69008 this one] fixing a tiny grammatical error. Not very controversial. [[User:Rpeh|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]]). --[[User:DavidCary|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. --[[User:False Flag|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? --[[User:False Flag|False Flag]] 12:31, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

The intensity around the [[edit war]]ring 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===

{{Table of articles}}<!--keep this section and table at the BOTTOM of this talk page-->