User talk:Owdki/Archive Nov 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Amazed

HI Owdki,

It is always encouraging to receive your constructive and positive comment (especially on grammar slips!). I am sorry to say that I think you might be exaggerating in some of your conclusions, and most importantly in your extrapolations. Not that I must explain my actions to you, but, in the best of spirits I will assume good faith from your part and a renewed willingness to talk to people that think differently.

You may conclude that my questioning was precipitated. But where do you get the deduction (or extrapolation) that it is my intention to chase and get you guys blocked or "besieged" (sic)? My intentions in questioning are not in getting Physchim62 blocked. Far from it. His behavior both as an editor and as an administrator has been civil. Nonetheless I do question some of his administrative actions that I think must be addressed and explained, if he is to aspire to a position with new responsibilities. And these questions have nothing to do with his POV or my POV. The blockage of Benimerin is one such action and it is independent of how I feel about Catalonia. It is independent of how we all feel about Catalonia. The other his unwillingness to block a page that underwent edit war and his implicit support to a particular POV -again it doesn't matter if it was my POV or your POV. An administrator should act impartially in such cases. A good example is administrator Pablo Flores, who despite having an opinion of Argentine demographics, being Argentine himself, he blocked the page from edit warring in a version he particularly disliked and refused from even commenting on the Discussion, so that he would have no interference on the consensus. Once a consensus was reached by other users -and I don't think he particularly liked it but he refused to debate in order to act impartially- he unblocked the page.

As for the last question, from which you implied that I think we are the good guys and the rest are the bad guys, I think you missed the whole point. (But of course, the question wasn't addressed to you, so I hope Physchim62 doesn't miss the point). If you read the questions asked by other users, many of them relate to the shortcomings of ArbCom in general (due to lack of time or resources) and ask what he thinks he can bring to the table in order to change them. So are my questions. Depending on the answer, I could even support his candidacy, even if I disagree with some of his previous actions. By the way, the "bad guys" are not the arbitrators. But, yes, there was a "bad" guy (in lack of a better qualifier) who despite being repeatedly blocked had resorted to cursing and insulting people and had broken several Wikipedia guidelines for which he had been blocked seven times, and that is regardless of how we feel, and regardless of my POV. I disagree with him, and I have my own POV, but I never cursed him nor insulted him in any way. I also disagree with Mountolive, but he is a very respectful user whose debates and arguments are always substantiated and well-intentioned. That is the big difference. Maurice27 could have disagreed with us, but his behavior was detrimental. Hopefully, after his eighth blockage he has returned with a constructive spirit. I am asking Physhim62 if he believes the prescribed actions for all of us suffice with a simple encouragement, or if more effective actions should have been taken.

Now, as a side note on a different subject. Since you are new at Wikipedia, let me try to explain, as an administrator myself, the spirit of WP:NPOV, which I assume you have read before. For all pratical purposes (except in some very exceptional cases in Science, and even there) we all have a POV, especially in Social Sciences. I have a POV regarding Catalonia. So do you. And so do the millions who reside there, many of who agree with me, many of who agree with you and many of who disagree with both of us and prefer extremist POVs. Which POV is right? Mine, and the rest are "hyperbiased" like you said? Or yours? Our policy here in Wikiepdia requires that all POVs be properly explained and all be given their due weight. In the case of Catalonia related articles, it seems that users from different opinions find it hard to accept any statement whatsoever from the other party, and as such, the articles sway between opposing POVs at different points in time, and are subject to continous edit wars. For example, a large percentage of Catalans feel culturally distinct from the statehood concept of Spain, and claim to have a distinct national identity. Many other Catalans (raised and born in Catalonia who also speak Catalan) do not feel that way (they may even say it is nonsense) and identify themselves with a Spaniard or Spanish identity. Both opinions have been expressed through different legal means by politicians, for example in the New Estatut. What should the article say then if we want it to comply with NPOV? Well, it must include all POVs with their due weights as well as all legal identifiers: an autonomous community (constitutional) a nationality (statutory) plus the different -even if opposing- feelings of the people without giving or implying a judicial comment. (For example, without implying that either group is right and the other is wrong, or by claiming that one is fascist or separatist or imperialist). Unfortunately, this hasn't been achieved. One group opposes vehemently to define Catalonia as a nationality (despite the Estatut), and others impose vehemently to define Catalonia as a "nation" (despite the Constitution and the divergent opinions not even of Spaniards but of some Catalans who disagree with the concept of a Catalan nation!).

I am fully committed to NPOV both here and at Viquipèdia. And I have to struggle my way through in both places. Here, I am accused of being Catalanist because I insist of including also (without excluding your POV), the statutory definition of nationality or for stating that [Non-Catalan] Academics say that Catalan and Valencian are the same language. There, I am being accused of being Statist (a loose translation of Estatista), amongst other things, for trying to neutralize categories of Catalans and revamping the hierarchical tree and setting it up by statehood, or by refusing to categorically define Galicia as a nation -bur rather contextualize the feeling of some Galicians properly. Què hi farem?

I think your POV (that is your point of view or your opinion, I want to demystify the acronym, which has acquired a negative connotation in Wikipedia) is valid (note, that doesn't mean "correct", and that doesn't mean I agree with you). And so is mine If we can bring the several POVs of any given situation, fully backed up with solid Academic references, and manage to write a comprehensive article (or articles) in which the whole situation can be impartially explained, we would have significantly contributed to Wikipedia. And we would have complied with WP:NPOV (which I assume you have read, and if not, I ask you to do so). Our task, not only as administrators but as committed users with no privileges, should be to help in that endeavor.

The question is, what will you do? Wil you defend your POV by debasing or criticizing other POVs, or will you endeavor to contribute amicably leaving all sarcasm and verbosity aside (not that you have used them, I am not implying anything, nor accusing, this is a rhetorical question, that I ask myself as well)? I will do my part, even if that means struggling my way through here and at the Viquipèdia.

--the Dúnadan 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)