He's back, and back to the same edit-warring and harassment. I'm writing up a new 3rr report, continuing from yesterday. I've also started a sockpuppetry case on his talk page as well. It looks like all the Pizzle disruption is from one person. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it okay that the User Ronz has edited the "Pizzle" article 15 times in the last 2 days? How do I report this, I am trying to contribute, but he seems to just follow me around and keeps threatening me! I appreciate any pointers you could give me. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 ( talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want an admin to play cop, and write the other guy a ticket, then you don't want me, cause I don't roll that way. All I do is dispute resolution. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this heading violate talk page guidelines? See Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Don't worry, I've made this mistake in the past as well. Viriditas ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to find out what a larger cross-section of the community thinks of the principle that Badagnani is applying, but before doing that, I thought it would be advisable to be sure that I'm stating his position correctly. Does that make sense? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have, as you've no doubt noticed, changed the section title, which was never intended to offend anyone. I continue to welcome your input on the larger issue. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI...The reason I haven't participated in the external links discussion is because I am totally, unabashedly biased on the subject. Whenever possible, I remove external links and if necessary, I merge them as references into the body of the article. Other editors seem split on whether to link in an ext. links section if the infobox already has the main link listed. In that case, I could go either way. But if I'm the main contributor to an article, you will very rarely see any external links, and if you do, it's likely they are there because another editor requested them, not me. Now, there are times when I take the external links and use them in a "further reading" section; This only works if it is a good source and has potential to add more material to the body of the article. So, because of my strong feelings on this issue, I generally stay away from articles and discussions where my POV could interfere with the outcome, and I generally participate in articles and discussions where I consider myself neutral. Viriditas ( talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Similar disputes have occurred many times. Mostly, we just quickly agree to remove any links that aren't from reliable sources. Sometimes it doesn't go so smoothly. I spent a great deal of time summarizing the arguments against keeping such links in Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Website_urls:_Trying_to_summarize. The summary there for inclusion is missing a summary of the WP:IAR viewpoint. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, the comment of mine from the NPOV Noticeboard has now been used by Tznkai at ANI to go after my credibility. See here. Just thought you shoulod know. No need for you to get involved at ANI. Thx. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are trying hard to resolve this dispute - but let me suggest to you, that you're getting more frustrated than we're worth. I hope you can avoid the trap, and maintain your presence at the article long term, you're a credit to the wiki. I hope in time you can respect me as I do you - I assure you, whatever disagreements we have, they are not personal to me in anyway.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hard for me to predict where my interest will lead me to edit or discuss, but I am a bit drawn in by the image question. I will generally be in a better mood than I was the other day.
Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Although you didn't ask for it on the reference desk, another good squirrel deterrent is the
squirrel baffle. These are intended to prevent the squirrel from climbing up to or falling from above onto the feeder. The effectiveness depends on the location and setup of the feeder. It won't help if there are branches or ledges nearby where the squirrel can jump directly to the feeder. Also, if you have a hanging feeder, the squirrels will happily jump onto the baffle to knock seeds off which tends to frighten off the birds in the process. My grandmom uses a very effective setup (I have yet to see a successful squirrel) where the feeder is hanging from a sturdy metal pole stuck in the ground. The pole has a cylindrical baffle. The whole thing is set back from nearby trees so she doesn't have to worry about squirrels jumping on from above the baffle. Also, because the pole is steady, the squirrels can't jump into the pole to shake seeds off. While is stymies the squirrels, it doesn't stop the bears... Anyway, I really think a pole mounted setup is a good option.
If you have to use a hanging feeder minus a pole, then you might try to get a heavy weight and hang that from the bottom of the feeder so Newton's third law is on your side; squirrels seeking to transfer momentum to the feeder to knock off seeds will find the high mass results in unfavorably low velocity. If you do try the weight, do note that heavy wind may cause the feeder to swing which would be bad for nearby windows or other breakables.
Sifaka
talk
00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
for sensible suggestions regarding methods to add to or change WP policies. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
This is in regard to the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deprecate .
Don't feed the Trolls. ThuranX ( talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you should stop encouraging them. They seek to get a rise out of you. When you call them "troll", they win. Please stop making them win. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you remember, ThuranX, the last time you tried to teach me about trolls? You were dead wrong then, too. Learn from experience. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to mess up the give-and-take in the talk page there, as you've sorta asked a question of the floor, so I'm responding to you here. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to add that sentence to the policy page - it's already there. But I haven't been able to get the people who were repeatedly deleting it to explain why they were doing so beyond extremely brief, vague statements such as "it's inappropriate." -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I always miss the good ones on SciRef! I didn't see it mentioned - your problem is that the actual seeds have almost no capsaicin content. The good stuff is in the fleshy/fibrous stuff just around the seeds. The common chef's imprecation is that to make the peppers less hot, remove the seeds - but think about how knives work, removing the seeds will generally involve scraping out the bits the seeds are attached to as well.
I can't conjure up a RS for that, but I'm a bit of an aficionado and have done some reading on the subject (regardless of Scoville units, I recommend Thai bird's-eye chilis for subtle and deep heat and least impact the next day; and beware of vinegar-based sauces, oil-based is much better). I think your best solution is to get pure capsaicin extract, a clear solution to which my local chicken-wing purveyor had to make eventual resort to defeat me. It's Sc1,000,000 or so and could be used to directly coat the birdseed. This will obviate any problems with noxious solvents (vinegar) used to extract the capsaicin from the peppers, or rot/mould problems using the organic material.
Of course, use extreme precautions - don't touch eyes, nose, mouth or other "sensitive" body parts during the coating procedure and use liberal soap and hot water to clean up afterwards. Avoid capsaicin aerosols, but don't worry too much if you make contact, it's just a little intense pain and maybe a little bleeding, nothing too serious. ;)
As far as cost, I'd bet that 4 ounces of capsaicin will do you for a lifetime. If squirrels have the TRPV1 receptor, I'll pretty much guarantee you they won't be back. Only really stupid humans such as myself go back to the same place and cry out for more and worse pain! :) Franamax ( talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A great way to reintroduce contact. Inspiring me to reach such a level myself. Thx. (no irony here) - DePiep ( talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've contacted you directly, because as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the " backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved. All I could do on the MOS:DAB talk-page (" Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)") is to re-iterate the use of the real policy WP:Consensus. Actually convincing so many people, who do not understand the concept of "kept by consensus else removed", is a very difficult task. I'm sure you realize the quick AfD process is used just because it is expedient, but not the best way to treat people. Thank God, someone can emphasize, "Your article can be restored when notability sources are added". Wikipedia is an amazing collection of pages, but also an amazing collection of people: including former vandals, now rehabilitated, recommending ways to reduce vandalism. For MOS:DAB, I quickly tested the waters, and you can clearly see how the Wikipedia procedures are in sad shape, with people confused about the split-personality of consensus by sort-of non-voting-votes versus AfD-huh. Do you realize how totally baffling Wikipedia must be to them? Only a few people thrive on architecting a social-system to handle 9.5 million registered users. (Kids, don't do this.) Perhaps there is some way to refer the MOS:DAB guideline to a negotiation committee. It is only one of hundreds of issues I am working. I am actively trying to streamline translations into other languages, improve the use of center-page floating images, and numerous other issues expanding the concept of Wikipedia, including predicting the eventual article count (exceeding 3 million in August):
Meanwhile, I realize many people can just " WP:Ignore all rules" for the MOS:DAB when applied to those 109,000+ disambig pages, so perhaps fixing MOS:DAB can wait (another year?). How do you feel? (reply below or my talk). Thx. - Wikid77 ( talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think that extra links on disambiguation pages are deprecated for a good reason, and I refrain from using them. The argument that convinced me is that disambiguation pages are not articles, and they serve precisely one purpose: to get someone to the article that they were actually looking for in the first place. What do you find unconvincing about that argument? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
16-April-2009: (subtopic) In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached. It is not just a matter of using the proper rhetoric. In America, there are a lot of attitude conflicts, in public arenas (including courtrooms), so instead, discussions in the " backroom" are typically used as the main method to reach decisions. When a city council meets, they " rubber stamp" the decisions already pre-determined among the various private conversations. In a court case, the lawyers return before the judge to announce a " change of plea" or some other form of arbitration that was decided outside the courtroom. In the case of the MOS:DAB, the concept that "wikilinks confuse the reader" has persisted (due to inertia) for 5 years. Do you really think a few mild words would break the deadlock, after 5 years? Typically, the issues must be carefully considered, with each person involved, but smoothtalk within a public forum is unlikely to work. I came to the MOS:DAB to correct the "wikilinks-are-confusing" notion, but such a radical change requires clear declarations, and forceful examples, plus the realization that most people don't understand that a negotiated rewording is the basis for WP:Consensus, rather than "everyone agrees it is fine though you disagree". Rhetoric will not work. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that. I tried to move the page, and I got an error message that I'd never seen before about the target page name being on a blacklist and requiring an admin to move it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see he has reverted my edits again,, back your version,, which has the header "Supressing redirects" [sic], which I had specifically expanded for him...honestly, this really appears to be WP:TE to me. I'm going offline, you deal with it. – xeno ( talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi GT, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to consider refactoring your comment that, "Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." It leaves the impression that I insisted on refactoring someone's comments which is clealry not the case. Thanks for your kind consideration, have a nice day, and feel free to correct my spelling or grammar any time! Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My one previous interaction with that user didn't help. He was making blatantly racist insults on a talk page, and I asked him to stop. He responded by laughing in my face, and telling me that we make racist comments all the time, and that I must be a newbie or a fool. Then I told him I was an admin of three years, and he got very quiet. That's a bad way to give a first impression, don't you agree?
As for the "ill intent" or "lack of good sense" in the other editors, I can't speak to that too directly, because I can't read their minds. The faults I saw in them were entirely parallel and comparable to similar faults in the one editor, and in a situation such as that, my conscience does not allow me to say that one side is "right" and the other "wrong". I took his side as best I could, but he continued to spit in my face, over and over again. How many times would you take it?
I have made comments (including today) to the editors you mention, and I hope you don't imagine that I'm turning a blind eye to provocative behavior from anyone. I simply cannot see the situation as a "good guys" and "bad guys" issue. If you have any position of trust with that editor, perhaps you can let him know that dictatorially demanding that an admin do what he says is a very, very, very foolish and bad idea. It leads directly to sadness, 100% of the time. We're humans, it turns out, and we're not being paid for this.
Also — and this is my experience in life, perhaps yours is different — The more someone repeats a statement about themselves, the less likely that it's true. Insisting repeatedly that one is an important and valuable contributor is very likely (100%) to convince people that one is not. Again, if the editor listens to you, and if you agree, then maybe you can pass that on. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> I think we basically agree on most of the points involved. It takes all types to build a great encyclopedia and I try to be tolerant of those whose styles and approach are different than mine. That editor has been extraordinarily gracious and helpful to me when I've had questions, even as they are stubborn and obstinate on editing points. They've been here a while and have contributed a massive amount that makes me feel puny and insignificiant in comparison. I noticed you wrote someone's as a conjunction of someone has on an editor's talk page, but I didn't dare fix it under the circumstances. Isn't that just silliest and saddest state of affairs on a wiki? Anyway, thanks for your collegial replies and discussion. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem like a smart person, so you've got me wondering about this. Is this really true? Who are these people? Everyone I can think of with that kind of ineptitude has ended up causing way more harm than good, as I remember it. Friday (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you read that article, like, yesterday, about a study that showed that people who contribute to Wikipedia tend to have poor social skills, and don't contribute out of altruism? Now I wish I could remember where I found that link.
I can think of three or four users off the top of my head (ok, 5 or 6) who are complete assholes, but who generally stick to WikiGnoming, so it isn't a problem. (Having put it that way, I'd rather not name names publicly.)
As for "ineptitude," I'm not sure what you see as "inept" about the user in question. I think he's a jerk, but I don't see that he's an idiot. What do you mean by "inept"? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a skill that we never really talk about here, but it would be a good one to see more of. I'm thinking of diplomacy, basically. There's a way to ask someone to do something so that they want to do it, and think they're being really cool by doing it, rather than thinking someone has just forced them into something they don't want. People who can do this well are very powerful in the world. I don't know how we can encourage more diplomacy in the interactions here. It's a cultural change, and those are hard to bring about. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had it with that character, and will try to steer clear of him in the future. At the rate he's going, I expect him to eventually be banned. But that will be for someone else to take care of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Anyone whose time was being wasted by it has precisely one person to thank for that." This statement seems clear to me, but I expect it will be read exactly the opposite way by others. And maybe I'm wrong in my understanding. Was the ambiguity on purpose? If not perhaps a clarification might be in order. I look forward to learning for sure just who the one person is!!! :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's unless you've been going door-to-door and forcing people at gunpoint to comment on your not-yet-begun RfA. Really, you should know better than that... some of us haven't got doors! - GTBacchus( talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
From village pump. The article is Illegal immigration in the United States. You'll see my attempts to resolve this issue in both Camaron's talk page (he archived it) and Tnxman's talk page. Please leave your comments in your talk page so I can find them. Thanks.- 166.199.243.171 ( talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You either care more about the article, or more about your pride. I'm happy either way. The fact is, you were interlacing irrelevant and impolite remarks in your comments about the article right up until the end. If complaining about your posts being "screwed with" is so important to you, then you can do that, and have no input on the article. If you wish to have input on the article, you'll get past all of this pride, drop the past, and pony up to the talk page with some serious, 100% focused discussion. If you had followed that policy previously, you wouldn't be in this fix now.
I don't care one way or the other. I'll help you, if you'll be helped, but I won't stroke your wounded ego. What do you want more? You may shop around, but I think you'll find I'm more accommodating than most administrators would be. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdented and moved these comments up a subsection. Feel free to undo if you don't like that.)
I'm not interested in charging him with personal attacks because I might not agree that his feelings of being hounded are sufficiently justified. If he's willing to leave off the personal remarks, then I'm willing to let all of the past go. I'm here for the present, and for the future, not for the past. - GTBacchus( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the activity that has brought more people to grief on this site than any other is seeking justice from Wikipedia. People feel slighted, and they want those who wronged them to be somehow punished. This is an understandable desire, and maybe it's a weakness of Wikipedia, but... this site just isn't designed to do that. We've optimized our setup (to some extent) for writing an encyclopedia. As it turns out, trying to use an encyclopedia-writing construct (i.e., the software + the policies + the community) to attain justice doesn't work. Maybe it would be cool if it did, but it doesn't. Admins aren't cops, and those who try to be cops are terrible admins.
When someone wants justice on Wikipedia, my best advice to them is to forget it. If you want a community where transgressions against you will be punished, start a wiki for that. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia more than you want other things, then contribute here, and learn to use Wikipedia to your advantage. If you want satisfaction in a personal dispute, ground yourself in an intense focus on edits, and in a rigid policy of respect, professionalism and dignity. Work the dispute resolution process that I'll be delighted to show you... but I can't show you until you drop the hunt for justice.
If you do these things, you will find that your power multiplies a thousand-fold. After that... you end up getting the "justice" you wanted, in the sense that you're empowered to deal effectively with problems from other editors. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Figure out what you want, and how to pragmatically get it. If you just want to complain, I don't want to hear it. I'm here to find solutions. Cough one up. Don't say you want "someone to do something"; say what you want specifically, and from whom. Then, if it's realistic, we've got something to talk about. Right now... it's pretty clear that expressing your upsetness is more important to you than the article. Get that out of your system, and come back when you wish to be productive. Nobody's stopping you but yourself right now. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And... you're under the impression that I can do these things? Let me talk about your requests, one-by-one.
There is only one reply for you to make here. Are you willing to accept my help, on my terms? If so, let's do it. If not... then please leave. Remember, you're the one asking me for help here. If you were doing so well on your own, we wouldn't be here. I know that you're frustrated, and you have every right to feel that way. I will agree that you have been wronged. However, I will not let you dictate to me how to do my job, how Wikipedia works, or how you want to get justice out of an encyclopedia, which is a bit like trying to get blood out of a turnip. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Now... I see what you're asking for. I don't think I have the power to do that. I can't make people apologize, I can't make people take back things they said, I can't even warn them in a way they'll take seriously. I'm just some guy. There are two other admins against me, for crying out loud! What am I supposed to do, grow wings?
What I can do, and I'm pretty good at, is help you in a content dispute. If you're bothered by behavior, then I can help you with that, but I can only do it one way. I'm a one-trick pony. I can't play cop; I'm incompetent at that. All I can do is help negotiate a content dispute. It turns out that this is also the only effective way to deal with the type of behavior you're complaining about. But... I guess you just don't believe me about that. I don't know how to help you. I'm a one-trick pony. If you want that trick done, I'll do it, but I won't play cop, because I can't. There are, like, 1500 other active admins. The only ones who are willing to play cop, are assholes. I avoid them. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But! If you just agree to put aside whatever you're hung up on, and let me edit content alongside you, you'll find that I'm a pretty good person to have around. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just give me a chance, man. It doesn't cost you a thing, and what's your alternative? I'm offering you so much, and you're being so picky... I'm offering to get down in the trenches with you and work alongside you. You don't like it; walk away, see how far that gets you. Have you even asked any other admins, or why are you still even talking to me? Why? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There are several addresses on that range that the anon hasn't hit yet. He needs to get busy. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am protecting this talk page again, it is not a coincidence that soon after protection is lifted civility declines along with anything else, and I see no benefit to Wikipedia in leaving the talk page open to such abuse. I have until recently assumed good faith in the intentions of the unregistered user, despite repeated violations of behavioural policies and guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Comments such as [3] however shows an intent to game the system to test the limits of free speech; that does nothing for article improvement so is not welcome here. It does not matter who is right is wrong in a content dispute, and as I have said before I have no view on illegal immigration in the United States, but policies will be enforced. Users can either learn to follow policy and guidelines and become constructive contributors, or be shown the door, it is unfortunate that the latter option has had to be taken in this case. When the protection expires anyone is again welcome to contribute for constructive purposes, though again polices will be enforced, even if it means limiting free speech, which is not a right on Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On the evidence you've presented, I will make one remark here. That RfC is anything by damning.
Camaron, while this editor has agreed to certain conditions relating to this dispute, I think it's fair to note that they also feel a bit insulted and maligned by the way they've been talked about on this page. Now, I've got no interest in digging through the history to see who called whom a dirty birdy. However, in the interest of dispute resolution, I think it's fair to wipe the slate clean, all around, at least to see how it goes.
From what I have read in the history, I see our IP colleague making remarks that seem to stem pretty directly from frustration, and a feeling of being ganged up on. Whether or not you agree with that characterization of the situation, I think we all know how that feels. Therefore, I understand when he tells me on my talk page that your comment about "turning over a new leaf" is a back-handed insult. I don't think you meant it that way. Sill, in the interest of moving forward, would be willing to strike it? Your doing so would acknowledge that we're not dealing with a criminal we need to reform, but with a frustrated person reacting to what he perceives as unfair treatment. Being frustrated, even to the point of lashing out, is something we've all done I suspect. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're getting on a bus, and you accidentally step on someone's foot, do you refuse to apologize, because you didn't mean to step on them, and apologizing would be an admission of guilt? Personally, I say, "excuse me, I didn't mean to do that." When someone feels insulted by something I've said, I tend to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as an insult." Is that unreasonable behavior?
I won't say you have to do this or that — you remain true to yourself. My only goal here is to help get sort out a dispute with someone who asked me for help. I'm not asking people to walk on eggshells or become best friends. Small goodwill gestures can go a long way, and they don't cost a thing. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you believed that you have been acting appropriately, and then someone suggests that you're finally going to start acting appropriately, wouldn't you see that as rude? Is it really so hard to guess what it's like in this guy's shoes? That's all I'm suggesting. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your goals are. Do I think you're being helpful by standing on ceremony over a remark you don't care much about? No.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, here. I'm trying to be helpful. How is it such a trauma that you might go a centimeter out of your way to help someone feel they're being dignified, a little bit? Why insist that another person totally abase themselves, and accept that they're the only party that's been rude, or anything? Why not go out your way to be a peacemaker? Why not help the guy? He's not a bad person, and it doesn't cost us a penny to help. If we just work together, the article and the encyclopedia will be better for all of our collaboration, and more points of view are helpful to have on board.
This is depressing. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that people all around the issue feel offended, and that nobody's goal was ever to offend anyone else. When people get defensive, they end up coming across as offensive, and then you get a cycle of hurt feelings and grudges, and it's straight up difficult to break out of that. The only way I know of is for everyone to swallow their pride, and I really want for the good of the project to be sufficient reason for people to do this.
This is why I've started insisting that if someone wants me to help them, they drop any and all mention of personal issues. A lot of people aren't willing to do this, and I'm still trying to figure out the best way of dealing with that dynamic. Perhaps I should invest a little less, emotionally, in what happens here. It's just that I care. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Does any one object if I move this thread to User talk:GTBacchus as it is probably a better venue? Given that it has little to do with the article itself, and discussion is currently fragmented between the two pages. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As one of the editors who was involved with disputes last summer with an anon-IP editor (who may or may not be the current anon-IP, and who may or may not be the legendary Psychohistorian), I suppose I should probably say something here.
My main interest and goal is to help improve the article on Illegal immigration to the United States and related articles. I'm not "out for blood". I'm not trying to ridicule or ostracize someone for issues not directly related to their work on this and other articles.
Does it matter to me if the current anon-IP is or is not last summer's anon-IP, or if he/she is or isn't "Psychohistorian"? Yes, to some extent, I'll have to say it does — not because I have some sort of vendetta which I won't let go of, but because if the current anon-IP is that same person, that may say something about how he/she really is likely to act now and in the future (something which I believe is a legitimate concern and not the same as terminally dwelling on the past or denying people the opportunity to improve).
I do believe that a very productive step by the current anon-IP would be for him/her to clearly state either "Yes, I am the same person who worked on this and other articles from several different IP addresses last summer" — or "Yes, I am Psychohistorian" (if that happens to be the case) — "and whatever you might have thought or said about me in the past, let's leave that in the past and get back to editing" — or else "No, I am not and never was Psychohistorian or that other anon-IP editor, and now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to editing". Saying one of these things (whichever happens to be true) would help clear the air and make it easier for people to move on. But saying "That issue simply doesn't matter, let's just drop it and get back to editing" — or simply ignoring the issue and refusing to say anything about it — isn't likely to work, even if the current anon-IP thinks he/she has a right to expect that it should.
Do I think the current anon-IP (or any regularly contributing anon-IP) would be well advised to create and use an account? Yes, I do. Even though using an account is not demanded by WP policy, it is still highly advisable. Doing this, for instance, will go a long way toward drawing people's attention away from the anon-IP and refocussing everyone in the direction of the article content. I believe it is much less likely that the current dispute would have escalated to where it is now (and be getting hashed out on anyone's talk page) if the anon-IP had been using an account rather than insisting on being an anon-IP. Although I think I understand the anon-IP's concern that using an account would somehow constitute a validation on his/her part of inappropriate behaviour by other editors, I really don't buy it. If he/she feels other editors ought to do better, then he/she should lead by example rather than criticize from the sidelines.
Hopefully the current anon-IP and the rest of us will be able to work together productively to improve this and other articles. If so, I'll be very happy. If not, I would encourage him/her to go ahead and bring the matter up at WP:ANI — albeit keeping in mind GTBacchus's words of caution, which I believe are very well taken. Richwales ( talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Standing on the principle you're standing on now... good luck. Did you notice the "new leaf" comment was struck? All I had to do was have my worst morning ever on Wikipedia, and it happened. How else can I eviscerate myself to help you? Oh wait - that's not your principle. Forget me... I don't exist. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The secret, which people find extremely difficult to believe, is this: the best way to win a personal dispute is to stop trying to win it. That's a beautiful paradox, and it works, and unless you take a leap of faith, you never find that out. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
When one wants to get past some kind of dispute... what you've said kicks in with full force. Either having a static IP address (like the RM helper), or else making an account, will get you where you want to go faster. Even if you don't want to do that, doing something such as making an identifiable signature - "JJ 99.121.41.55," with the number changing, but keeping "JJ" - would do the trick.
If the phenomenon of people editing anonymously is going to catch on, which I doubt, then it will happen because a lot of people are doing it successfully, and not because people are generating tons of static while doing it. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer spending my time editing articles. I don't see any admins who would be willing to take on that gang, so I don't think it's worth the bother. I spent several hours putting up evidence at the O-Arb tribunal :), so we'll see how that goes. I'm guilty of trying to include notable criticisms and controversies in the appropriate sections of the article, and for calling for an end to the personal attacks and hostile editing atmosphere on those articles. I don't care whether the notable controversies and criticisms are in a section of the article, or in some form that's linked so editors can find them, but our guidelines and article standards are clear about appropriate inclusion. This is the core of the dispute. These editors don't want any of the criticisms or controveries included in Wikipedia in any way that is readily apparent. And by the way, I happen to think some of the controversies are ridiculous, but when they're notable they should be included and made accessible in a way that's appropriate. I don't think this is a radical position, and our failure to fix the situation so far is inconsistent with our guidelines. This isn't about these frivolous claims against me, it's about an "I don't like it" approach to content and an ends justifies the means approach to obstructing and disrupting my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. And I haven't even gotten to the core of the fixes needed. One of their recent ANI reports was against my trying to include that Barney Frank has been an advocate for gay rights in that article's introduction. These aren't POV statements or even criticisms we're talking about, these are basic edits. They're clearly in the wrong so they've taken extraordinary measures to oppose, disrupt, attack, and frustrate my good faith efforts. That is what this is really about. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No admin will "take on that gang" as long as you and they seem equally tendentious and equally disruptive. How can I tell that you're right and they're wrong? If you step back and take a long view of the situation, you'll realize that it looks quite symmetric from the outside. I certainly can't tell that they're a "gang" and you're an innocent. I see mud flying in all directions, and I associate good editors with a lack of mud.
I do hope that you'll consider my offer to mediate disputes with these people at the content level. If you trust me enough to do that, then your complaints at the behavior level will take care of themselves.
If you really can't find an admin to "take on that gang", there might be a good reason for that. Admins who play "policeman" tend to be terrible admins, and we tend to get rid of them. Wikipedia has no cops, and the best way to handle personal disputes is at the content level. Then you've got both feet planted firmly in the encyclopedia, and that's where your power flows from. This is just what I've noticed. Some people don't believe this... - GTBacchus( talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(<-- unindent) Yeah... I don't do anything I'd call a "Post mortem". I only deal with active disputes, and I only deal with behavioral issues in the context of content disputes. Otherwise, both my feet have left the ground, and I'm playing Cloak-and-Dagger instead of writing an encyclopedia.
The "truce" that you outline above seems reasonable — which group of editors in particular would you like to see this from? Everyone named in the ArbCom case, or... who?
The only point I hoped to make about the mud is this: it's not clear to me in this context that any particular party is "in the wrong". I don't accept the "the problem is editor X, and his or her attitude". As far as I'm concerned, one-editor-problems solve themselves. Any problem that reaches my attention involves at least two editors conducting a dispute inappropriately, at which point, I'm in no position to take a side. All I can do is wade into the underlying content dispute (there had better be an underlying content dispute...), and judge for myself who behaves in what manner.
All of that said... I don't specifically remember seeing you say anything out-of-line, so I apologize for painting in overly broad strokes, and including you in a description that doesn't apply. It is usually my experience that personal attacks and other unhelpful actions tend to go in both directions, but let me take an extra shot of AGF (actually your faith was never it doubt, I'm just not too knowledgeable about your behavior), and say, I'm sorry for unfairly characterizing you as a mudslinger.
I am interested in mediation - indeed, it's all I can really offer in the current situation, since I don't play "cop", and I'm happy enough to say that my offer is extended indefinitely. If there's an editor whom you think is a problem, and there's an article where they're causing trouble, please feel free to tug on my sleeve. It's possible I can help. Also, tell me more about this truce idea; it sounds cool. Talk to me about specifics. You know: who?, what?, when?, where? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, User:Soxwon, who also leans conservative, came to me a week or two ago and asked if the "gay activist" business should be in Barney Frank article. I asked him to find me citations, since I didn't enough about it to know the right answer. He's from that part of the country, so he new. And he found citations. So I said, yes, it belongs. That's called "collaboration". Certain users, such as ones who ask for a nomination for adminship and then can't decide whether to run, and who talk collaboration but don't walk it, could take a lesson from that approach. Although, admittedly, it's bland and boring, as all it does is improve article content. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, can you handle a "no insult of any kind" policy here? I'll keep up my end, ok? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
GT, when you get a chance could you please userfy List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems in my userspace if it isn't too much trouble? Thanks mucho. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems Pretty good. Remind me not to buy that product on my next trip to Piggly Wiggly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
After I play Text Twist. This has been a busy day on Wikipedia, anything that happens at the end of it, I'll see tomorrow. Goodnight. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read over whatever it is that's troubling you, but please don't get discouraged or turn in your badge... You're an excellent mediator. Some folks (again, speaking from general principles here) just refuse to drop the stick and there's little-to-nothing we admin folk can do... – xeno talk 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Aw, geez. I didn't mean to do that. I'm not likely to go anywhere. I kind of love this crazy-ass project, it turns out. I learn a lot here, and usually I feel pretty good about it.
I thank you both, for the words of confidence. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Need I say that statements like "Or, more politely, anyone who doesn't know how to be assertive without being a dick is a fucking idiot." are WAAAY in violation of WP:NPA? I don't think I should. If a situation is bothering you, step away and please don't make statements like this again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:28
Situation unravelling quickly. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your posting on the AN board wondering about an essay, as well as the work you've been doing in trying to help CoM over a difficult hump. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but I did one early on that I've never really finished. here. I never got back to it as I didn't want people dropping me links about NOTAWEBHOST, or SOAPBOX, or "we're here to build an encyclopedia" type of things. Didn't know if you'd be interested or not, but I thought I'd drop you a link just in case. Cheers ;) — Ched : ? 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi GT, long time, no talk.
Sure, feel free to pass him along to me. If it turns out that I get pinched for time -- one of the drawbacks of being a new father is that this happens -- I know several other local Wikipedians who could help him. And yes, the weather is lovely -- if you like warmth & blue skies. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not ever expect you who wished to be a mentor of Badagnani, suggesting to block him alone. You can get my sympathy from now. You're so honestly saying that your mentorship is failed. The next step for DR right after the useless RfC/U would be filing to the arbitration because he never responses to the raised concerns or refuses to fix his problems. -- Caspian blue 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If there's an ArbCom case, I'm sure I'll see you there. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's see... X is an editor who feels their time was wasted by your RfA... Y is the person they have to thank... there's a square on the hypotenuse, and the law of cosines says the driver on the z-axis has right-of-way if they're facing into the sun, and I'm in GMT-5, and a kilo is 2.2 pounds.... no. No, I lost it. I've gotta write an algebra test for tomorrow morning. Anybody got a clue about "3x2 - 5x + 8 = 6"? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
ya know, I was so tempted to mention WP:OR vs. WP:SYN (yes, I know they both point to the same NOR policy) at a recent thread here. But I fared so poorly at the Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if... test, I decided not to. Re: Bugs' suggestion of adding the "if your family tree does not POV fork." to the essay.
Oh my ... I need a wiki-break! ;) — Ched : ? 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey GT, I just wanted to thank you for your good sense of humor, patience and enthusiasm for helping resolve disputes. I have not yet personally achieved a nirvana like state of embrace with your methods/ madness, but lifting X-wing fighters out of a swamp takes big time mental focus and it may be that I'm just not ready yet. Anyway, cheers. Sorry if this comes across as a "backhanded" or snide compliment. It's not meant to be. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You try to mentor him and he turns on you? Perhaps you've heard the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished"? (And I'll leave out the more pointed Biblical reference about casting pearls and such.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From my perspective, and I welcome correction, you're injecting disrespect into situations where I'm, quite voluntarily and freely, investing some of my real feelings in. My doing this is not a crime, and I know how to control it. That doesn't mean that I appreciate humor that derides someone with whom I'm trying to work.
I really am a teacher; this is how I make a living. If you start making fun of one of my students, I'm not going to appreciate it, and if I did, I'd be a shitty teacher. That's sure as hell extra-true if you do it somewhere they can hear or read it later.
I'm a grown up, and I can decide just how much I want to invest where. I can decide when I want to take on a student who requests it, and when I want to try and convince someone of something, whether or not they're willing. I appreciate your respecting me enough to let me set my own boundaries. When I told you this page was a respect zone, I thought it was clear what that meant.
I like funny stuff. I like really out-there, off-color, bizarre humor. I just don't use it to make fun of people I'm trying - of my own free will - to help. Is that unreasonable? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the Marx Brothers movies, for example, but I wouldn't want them in the room where I'm trying to mediate a dispute between upset parties. I don't think that makes me a prudish bore, nor an overly politically-correct tight-ass. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I find the idea that my sense of humor is "kinder and gentler" rather absurd. Some of my favorite jokes are among the most offensive I can imagine. I like Encyclopedia Dramatica for example, and consider Uncyclopedia to be written by and for gerbils. My favorite YouTube is the George Washington rap, and I wrote and recorded the song, "I Love You; I'll Still Fuck Your Sister". I just don't bring this stuff up while trying to mediate a dispute between parties who almost certainly come from different cultures, as well as different generations. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a time and a place for "rough hewn" humor, and there's a time and a place for handling matters delicately. I hope you'll trust me to distinguish between those two cases, and to try and respect that distinction on my talk page. I'm not asking for much.
If you want to make me laugh, just do it in any way that doesn't look like disrespect for people I'm trying to help. There are millions of funny things to say that don't disparage anyone here. I don't think this is a weird or unfair request. Am I being reasonable? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are you talking to me? Seriously. Are you trying to help me? Why? Are you nursemaiding this difficult user called GT? Why? Do you want to convince me that Badagnani isn't worth helping? I'll keep my own counsel about when that's true. Do you not trust me to set my own boundaries and maintain them? Why? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you want to bring about? How do you want me to change, and why should I change based on your wants? Shall I accept you as an authority on how I should behave? Why?
So far, all the suggestions I've seen you make have amounted to, "don't bother to try and make this situation better, GT. Don't bother to try and help Badagnani, GT. Don't bother to follow your own conscience and ideals, GT. Don't bother to try and learn as much as you can about how disputes work, and how we can find ways out of them. Don't bother. Be more cynical and pessimistic."
Maybe I should be reading something different from your suggestions, but that's how they've been coming across to me. If that's not what you're saying, then maybe you haven't been entirely clear. If that is what you're saying, then I say get thee behind me. I believe in things. You can't change that. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So you ask me what you're supposed to think? You ask me what you can do? I've got an answer. Take the moral high ground, do it right, let others help you, and let's get there. I am available to help with any situation that comes up; otherwise, I'm a goddamned hypocrite to give anyone advice about anything. You think there's an easy answer? There isn't. If you want to help fix the problem, don't be a part of the problem. Don't be someone who is willing to simplistically judge other editors as "difficult". Join me in the struggle to get everyone on board. Don't tell me that my ideals are worthless, or I will hate you forever, and dedicate my life to proving you wrong.
Now, if you say that anyone claims that the important thing is to "coddle these people," I don't believe you. Point out anyone who has said that, ever. If you can't, then stop lying. I sure as fuck never say it. Stop portraying my position as some kind of spineless, mindless mollycoddling. Nobody advocates that. You want to help? Let me help you. Don't give me your fucking jaded, cynical, "these people" vomit. There are no "these people". We're one species, trying to survive. If you want anything from me, lead me to situations where I can help in an actual context. Don't try to pump overgeneralized shit about "nursemaiding" into my ears. Step up, with some courage and some honesty, and let's get to work on these problems. I'm standing here with a goddamned shovel, saying "Let me help you in the trenches," and your reply is to come back with lazy-assed cliche bullshit platitudes about who's worth working with and who isn't? Grow a fucking pair, and show me where the problem is, and let's work on it. If you're not willing to fight to the motherfucking death to be part of the solution, then I never want to hear anything from you again. Is that clear enough? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm off to a funeral. There are a few conversations I'm in the middle of, so I'm posting a reason for my sudden silence. I'll be back, unless the funeral turns out to be mine. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You offered your assistance. I'm going to take you up on your offer, if it still holds. Our buddy, Shrandit, is engaging in an edit war to preserve what I consider a highly non-neutral version of Abortion and religion, while sandbagging discussion with incivility. His only supporter is the blatantly "pro-life" partisan, Ferrylodge. Moreover, I was informed by an interested third party that Shrandit is quite likely trying to trick me into either being uncivil or tripping over the 3rd reversion rail, with the goal of getting me blocked and smearing my reputation. Rather than sink to his level, or if my source is right, fall into his trap, I'm coming to you to ask for mediation. Please show me that Wikipedia is indeed the last bastion of truth, neutrality and justice for all. TruthIIPower ( talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been offline for a week or so. There was a death in the family, and concerns other than Wikipedia have been pressing. I'll look at this situation, and tell you what I think, TruthIIPower. Schrandit, hi. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you moved the backlog header up after I'd reset it to seven days; could you put it back, please? No need to re-open any discussions you closed, of course. See WT:RM.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For bringing lucidity and sense to a difficult discussion. Dloh cierekim 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
I don't know how much more of your trolling harassment I have to take for you to get the message, so I'm making it clear. STOP TROLLING ME. Next step is AN/I. ThuranX ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I might as well have known that there was no point talking to him. I did genuinely believe he might hear something from me, but I never know how to pitch my tone with someone whose own approach is so abrasive. Sometimes, they respond well to bluntness. Sometimes, that really doesn't work.
By the time of my last post, which provoked this, I was genuinely trying to apologize and go away without the disruption of leaving a message he would have to delete. It backfired, but whatever. This isn't the kind of situation that finds my skin thin. When someone really freaks out on me, I stay pretty calm.
Aren't we a funny species?
If I learn from this, that'll be good work. Here's hoping.
The important issue has nothing to do with me or ThuranX. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia is going to develop some smartness about what trolling really is, and how to deal with it. Right now, we've got everyone, each working from his or her own personal theory, and I don't think we can all be right. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I very much appreciated the logic of your explanation that IAR is not a logical paradox because it is not an exercise in formal logic [9]. Chillum 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome message and the heads up on leaving comments on Users' talk pages. I really appreciate it. I went ahead and put my post at the bottom of the user's talk page so they would be more likely to see it. I hope grad school is going well for you and thanks again!
Arthur —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurThomas24 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There are too many days in the WP:RM#Other proposals section. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Extension to seven days. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Back on the Ref Desk you mentioned you were making a catalogue of living creatures found in your house. Can I get a list of those things? :) Thanks. Mac Davis ( talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My talk page is an ok place to post it if you ask me. As for what I would do with it, I was thinking of making a video to upload to YouTube based on this. Jayron's comments on natural, live, exceptionally "unnatural" food, and people's level of disgust with different foods in different cultures struck a chord in me. Mac Davis ( talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean house gecko - Seen on outside of house, evenings.
I could use your advice on this. Radiojon ( talk · contribs) has been moving articles for several years, [10] but either doesn't seem to understand the concept or won't go to the talk page to propose the move first. Many of his moves have been contested and reverted. I'm wondering what is the best way to deal with this. Obviously, I don't want to upset him. Viriditas ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the thread seems to be on ANI forever because Viritidas obviously does not want to let the thread go; she thinks commenting the last is winning! Reading her constant attacking and harassing editors who disagree with her view on the situation is very tiresome and horrendous. I think you can archive the tread by using "archivetop". If somebody wants a new discussion on him or her, then so be it. However, as I said you earlier, I believe the unnecessary extended thread led Badagnani's block. What is she doing? I've never seen such "weird mentorship". Anyway, would you archive it? Thanks.-- Caspian blue 03:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone disrespects you, and you disrespect them back, then you're both the same. If someone disrespects you, and you respect them anyway, then you win. If you can point me to specific situations where you are being attacked, then maybe I can do something, but after-the-fact, I cannot. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That said, I would tend to agree that Viriditas is not helping Badagnani. I'm not sure anyone can help Badagnani, until Badagnani decides to accept help. If you are able to avoid Viriditas, then that sounds like a good idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this is "neutral ground", I would like to offer Caspian blue an olive branch and suggest we put the past behind us and start fresh. He doesn't have to accept, but I want to be on record saying that I don't hold grudges or think interpersonal conflict should come before the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and we need to put our conflicts aside and keep our eyes on the prize. If Caspian blue chooses to accept my olive branch, then I look forward to a more civil discussion and working relationship with him in the future. Perhaps it is too soon to offer such a "peace plan", but Caspian blue is welcome to take as much time as he likes to think about the offer. Viriditas ( talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A reply awaits you at User_talk:M#Lack_of_formalized_policy. –M T 06:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's hoping Hamlet's input was useful? Durova Charge! 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's input is useful, insofar as I get to see a broader cross-section. I'm not familiar with this particular Danish Prince. (Perhaps he prefers pastry to pizza?) I'm unlikely to incorporate his advice verbatim into an essay, but I know that some people do think that way, and I would like to somehow address those people.
The trick is that the people who need the advice most are precisely those who are least likely to listen. A good essay might be able to gain enough consensus for people to call it a guideline, though. As much as I like to disdain such reindeer games, tinkering with the "status" of a page, sometimes common sense needs all the leverage it can get. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes a touch of humor helps to maintain perspective in difficult online situations. That was the motivation three years ago when I named a serious essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons: most people can chuckle at the thought of prehistoric encyclopedia editors getting trampled by enraged megafauna. Hamlet happens to have a large family of fellow troll sockpuppets, and he owns a complete sockpuppet theater performance of "The Three Billy Goats Gruff". More trolls and other puppets can be imported from Trollmark upon request, to assist with making your planned essay as effective and entertaining as possible. A bridge entrance even has a troll in a troll booth. Best regards, Durova Charge! 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In discussing the noble Hamlet, don't forget his ne'er-do-well cousin, Spamlet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your contributions to the talk page, and thought that you might like a look at this essay. My hope is that it will be helpful in the debate. Cheers. HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you have chosen to dredge up a three-week-old discussion, but I find it disruptive and more than a little harassing. Please stop. If you want to discuss something with me without being disruptive and harassing, I'm more than willing to join, provided you use an appropriate venue for doing so.
Also, I've a solution for Badagnani: simply block him until he offers a solution for interacting with him. If that solution doesn't work, or it does not change his behavior, then repeat until he either offers a solution that works or no one is willing to continue working with him. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to tell me how to do my job, become an administrator, or at least successfully resolve some dispute. Meanwhile, if I see you interacting with Badagnani in an escalatory way, I have little choice but to say something. I hope you understand.
I will, in the future, be more careful about replying to threads that haven't fallen quiet for weeks. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
When I say "he offers the same for dealing with you," I mean that Badagnani offers the solution of blocking you, while you suggest blocking him. Unless one of you seems more interested in dispute resolution, I can't prefer one over the other.
"Besides, we know that Badagnani's problems have nothing to with me." No. We don't know that. "Know" is a very strong word. I believe that those who suggest that Badagnani is being harassed and hounded have a very good point. I see nobody in this conflict who has consistently worked towards resolution rather than escalation. When I've suggested that you be more resolution-oriented, you've blown me off. I will cheerfully provide diffs if you don't remember. You're either pursuing active diplomacy, or you don't care about resolving disputes. Wikipedia is all about resolving disputes and not prolonging them. How have you helped to resolve this one? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned that a comment of mine "has no place on this talk page, nor indeed on this project". Would you please clarify which comment you're referring to? Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello GTB. This "original" article was merged into this article some time ago based on agreement of the editors involved in discussion at that time [12]. No concerns have arisen with the merge so wonder if you would mind deleting the original. Many thanks.( olive ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Maybe a redirect would be a better way of dealing with this so the history remains ... I'll try that.( olive ( talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Weekend good you having ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Talk:ASUS ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -Zeus- u| c 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This old political joke goes (sort of):
An experienced MP (UK) / Congressman (USA) / deputy (Fr) / etc. who was showing a rookie the House / House / Assembly pointed across the floor and said, "That's were the (other party) sits."
"Well," said the rookie, "it's good to know where the enemy are."
"No," replied the veteran, "those are your political opponents - your enemies are behind you."
My use of "behind" was a pun - you and DT both advocate accountability for admins, but you have reservations about him and now I suspect he has reservations about you. -- Philcha ( talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be delighted to collaborate with you (and any other interested parties) on an essay (or other appropriate document) regarding identifying and effectively dealing with trolling. Let me know if you're interested! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey GTB, how you doing these days? hey, I just wanted you to know that I started a thread concerning you, and some help you may be willing to provide at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech. It's at the bottom of the page titled "Path Forward". I don't know if you're still willing, or if the community is agreeable to it - but I thought I'd give it a shot. Best — Ched : ? 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, you may wish to comment here. Kind regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw your post after I posted my most recent reply. Just letting you know. Please reply on my talk page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you tell someone that you, being sane and intelligent, disagree with them....
...then they might think that you're calling them insane, or unintelligent.
You might actually be pointing out: "Here we are: sane and intelligent people holding both points of view."
Your real point might be that we should therefore view the issue as debatable and open, rather than settled and done.
If this is what you're saying, you should probably make it more explicit that you consider both of you to be sane and intelligent, and go ahead and explicitly draw the conclusion about the issue being debatable. If they misinterpret it as above, they might take it as quite an insult. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now suppose you've said something, like above, that is misread due to the reader applying a different tone to the words than the writer intended. Suppose also that, at roughly the same time, the reader who mistook your tone typed something in a parallel discussion that came across to you as very rude, and suppose you replied by saying, "how rude," or something.
Now, suppose that person took the stance that you're in the wrong in both cases, both when he mistook your tone, and when you mistook his. How do you communicate the symmetry of that situation, without just further offending the other person? I'd like to know that. Maybe that's not something you get to do. Hmmm. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It might come down to a difference in certain habits of thought. This isn't a difference that I'd associate with any kind of value-judgment; it's just an observation about morally neutral facts. Some people prefer, in many cases, to take a position on a point, and hold that position, arguing in defense of it. Good stuff. Other people prefer to try and juggle several points of view, seeing an argument from all around, and suspending judgment.
I can certainly see advantages and disadvantages to both, and I would not want to live in a world where either type disappeared. It's also certainly true that people don't fall into those two categories so much as lie along a continuum, with almost every one using both approaches at different times.
I don't know; I'm rambling, but I'm doing it here, because it's about online communication, which is relevant to the project. I care about dispute resolution, so I care about how to get past differences - sometimes profound differences - in the ways that different people think. I'm also really irritated with being misunderstood when I'm trying goddamned hard, and failing and failing. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a cool observation.... a lot of misunderstandings that I run into are brought about by a common cause. It's this: I don't care what anyone "deserves". I don't believe there is any reality to the notion of "deserving" one thing or another.
This seems to be a very uncommon view. I don't believe that bad people deserve bad things; I don't believe that good people deserve good things. I don't believe that anyone deserves anything, and more than I would believe that anyone jjjjhes anything. What does it mean to "jjjjh" something? Nothing. That's the point.
The trouble is, when I argue to do something, people think that I am arguing we should do it because someone "deserves" it. That's never what I mean, just as nobody ever means that someone really jjjjhed anything. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
These are, of course, mutually self-contradictory religious claims that are not subject to testing or proof. Thus, I don't expect anyone in particular to agree with me, and I'm pretty happy when someone does. Also, because they're non-trivial religious claims, I constantly fall short of really living according to them. But, you know, that's why there's always a tomorrow. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there doesn't seem to be particularly strong consensus to delete user talk pages (cf. Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#User talk). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this will make sense: the default position is to do nothing- don't delete the user talk page. In order to delete it, you need a reason why it's better to do so. The only argument I've seen is that it's courteous to delete on request, but to me this is a non-starter. It's also courteous to let spammers leave their spam here. I care way more about what's courteous and useful to those still here doing useful work, than I do about what's courteous to some disruptive person making demands. And yes.. I suppose there's a certain amount of "they're a jerk- don't give them what they want" in my rationale, which is unfortunate. But, we damage the Wikipedia environment in the long term by giving jerks what they demand simple because they demanded it. It teaches other aspiring demanding jerks that this technique works. That's not at all what we want, in the long term. If you care more about the short-term specific case than the long-term general case, I can see how you'd decide differently on this.
So I still contend that it's a little bit better to not delete user talk pages, even on request. It's not a huge deal- it's only a little bit better, but I still consider it a best practice. Friday (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I keep reading, and I see that you're making an argument that... let's see: Capitulating to this request would embolden future banned users to make similar demands. I guess my reply to that is... that I see no disadvantage in deleting those pages, so... I'm okay with that.
The "he was a jerk anyway" attitude... I understand, but I try to avoid it in my own mind. That's not a judgment; I don't expect anyone to share my views.
I think that, if someone comes back with the same bee in their bonnet, then we'll know it, talk page or no talk page. I mean, we've still got the "contributions" button, which leads to a lot more information than their talk page, y'know? If they come back without the bee, then they're welcome. Meanwhile, the only benefit to keeping the talk page around is that it encourages busy-body behavior, and amateur Wiki-sleuthing, and I don't see that stuff as positive at all. Does that make sense? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Second, in order for the "detection" argument to make sense, we would have to believe the possibility of a world where he sneaks back, only remains undetected because non-admins can't see his talk history, and then somehow does harm while remaining undetected. I think that world is somewhere the other side of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the general problem of dealing with "trolling" behavior. Identifying is not the first step to solving that problem. That's because as soon as we identify it as trolling - a troll earns his wings somewhere. The correct way to deal with trolling is to respond in a drama-negative way that will be perfectly acceptable whether or not they're trolling. Trying to identify them and act accordingly gives them power. We do not have to empower trolls, but this community has a very bad habit of doing precisely that. I'm disappointed at how few people seem to care, and how willing the community is to allow our worst troll-handlers and troll-feeders to maintain control over the most controversial articles.
We have got to stop institutionalizing troll-feeding, and this episode has been a great example of how we consistently do it wrong. The correct approach is to let him leave his goodbye note in whatever format he prefers (within reason), and then to slap the living shit out of anyone who tries to meddle with it after that. Those busybodies cause the dramatics, not DT. Those are the people that we coddle, rather than running out of town, like we should. Critics are excellent to have around, and we just lost one. Meanwhile, we prop up those who prefer not to hear criticism, thus weakening our community. It's disgusting. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean for it to look like I was joining in on the edit war. I was in fact trying to stop it. It was silly to have a line about the page being deleted, when it wasn't deleted, hence why I reverted to the indefblock template. You might want to make a note at WP:RPP that you protected the page as I requested the page to be protected (toward the top) earlier this evening. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi GTB..I noticed your request on Wikiquette Alerts.
I've always found you to be one of the sane, intelligent, open-thinking voices on Wikipedia. That said, as an artist I've found that the solutions to "creative" problems which pretty much includes any kind of novel solution related to art or anything else often comes in the silence between the words or activitiy. Sometimes the quiet has to be long enough for the solution, which is most surely there, to have the time and space to surface. If this problem in discussion is not being resolved with words then you might allow the solution to show itself in other ways. I have no opinion on the discussion, hope I am not intruding, and send best wishes.( olive ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
A pure apology is an act of grace, without reservation, and without strings attached; it is a gift, in the truest sense of the word. In its truest sense, an apology is a submission, and one who truly apologizes does so seeking nothing in return. One who truly apologizes does not offer any claim of justification for the transgression prompting this gift, as such a claim would be a demand on the recipient for recognition that the transgression was justified. In this light, any expression that seems like "Sorry, but...." is not an apology, and if an apology was expected, this won't do (although only a petulant child would demand a gift).
We all say "sorry" a lot, but then again, often we do so only as a promise not to violate the mutually-accepted rules of civil discourse, so that we may continue a conversation concerning a disagreement. As my mother taught me, everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten (still trying to remember all of that, and teach it to my son). In that spirit, there does seem to be a difference between an "apology" conceding a dispute, and a "promise to act better" in the course of continuing some disagreement. Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here). Steveozone ( talk) 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I had an extremely unpleasant set of interactions with someone, in which a lot of apologies were demanded of me, and I found myself simultaneously attacked in various ways. An apology was demanded of me that seemed to involve "admitting" to have said something I never said. If that's the kind of apology that someone demands, then I think it's very fair to point out that the conditions demanded are at odds with reality - if someone says, "apologize for purposely insulting me", when I didn't purposely insult the person... then where does this act of pure grace come in.
Finally, I have no idea what this means: "Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here).". What? What promise?
Can you be more specific and concrete, because I have no idea whether you're criticizing me (which would be fine), or what. I'm sorry (whatever that means), but I do not follow what you're saying, and how it applies to the situation I assume you're talking about.
If you're offering advice, can you make it clear? I'd love to learn from this situation, but this seems very cryptic. - GTBacchus( talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GBT, I've been following your comments on B-Bug's with interest, and found this one quite compelling: I think that our community has managed to enable - to the point of institutionalizing - the most infantile and counter-productive ways of handling "trolling". I could not agree with you more, having had two incidents with problem users in the past two weeks that onel reinfoce my belief that you are correct. Between July 2007 and early 2009, I had a long, tiring battle with several trolls. Obviously, there are going to be bad reactions in such situations, but every time I said something I might have been better not to say - and I few comments that I still stand by - I'd get 3-6 admins slamming me immediately, while doing absoultely nothing about the trolls! (In truth, they were using dynamic IPs, so nothing really erffective could be done, but then that (open editing) is one of those "infantile and counter-productive ways" you mentioned!) As such, I've now declared myself (on my talk page) to be a troll in such situations, and asked them to not feed me. ;) Let's see how long it takes for me to be warned, blocked, or banned! - BillCJ ( talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking into the speedy deletion of File:2001 Results VA.JPG when I noticed that it was actually different from the file it was supposed to be a duplicate of, File:Virginia 2001 Election Results.JPG. At least three counties changed colors between the two images. I posted a message to User talk:Hekerui, who tagged it for speedy deletion, but by the time I had composed that message the image was gone. I'm just giving you a heads-up; perhaps the second image is more accurate. If it turns out to have been an error, I'm sure we can just get the correct file re-uploaded. Anyway, have a good day! - GTBacchus( talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this, please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
May be we will try to fix this article. Will it be possible to get it back? Thanks. -- Donotask-donottell ( talk) 01:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, i will try to save this. Thanks. -- Donotask-donottell ( talk) 10:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I don't like the guy, which is actually playing down how I feel about this particular user. My comments were a little out of hand. That said, he isn't stupid; he knows how his coming to an article I wrote to dismantle it is going to be perceived. I mean, the user didn't even bother going to the article discussion. Had they actually come to edit constructively, they would have contributed to the discussion, or added to the article using any of the dozen or so conveniently-researched sources also located there. At the very least, the user is blind bull in a china shop; at worst, he's spoiling for a fight. Okay, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I felt a little provoked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am really concerned about the tons of info being removed from Infanticide since I was blocked unfairly. I hope another editor will re-add the removed material and discuss with the editor who is doing the removal.
I am going to bed right now... Thantalteresco ( talk) 01:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am growing concerned with the SPA anon account 99.142.2.89 ( talk · contribs); (s)he is now refactoring article discussion comments including notice of DYK. I do not think this is a new user; they simply have too much wiki know-how. What is your opinion on the subject?
(from http://cqcounter.com/whois/):
99.142.2.89 - Geo Information
IP Address 99.142.2.89
Host adsl-99-142-2-89.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
Location US, United States
City Hanover Park, IL 60133
Organization SBC Internet Services
ISP SBC Internet Services
AS Number AS7132
Latitude 41°97'63" North
Longitude 88°14'41" West
Distance 8374.40 km (5203.61 miles)
all edits in this account are in Grief porn, dating fron 16-21 June, 2009 - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What's the refactoring issue, exactly? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As for discussion, I'm pretty sure we're having it now, and I've also posted to the talk page there. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Demonology&diff=297947254&oldid=297664121
DreamGuy (talk | contribs)
(removing nonnotable trivia per WP:CONSENSUS on talk page and WP:BRD/WP:STATUSQUO -- editor would need a demonstrated consensus to add this)
When he does that, don't revert him. If you revert him, you're edit-warring. ALL reverts are inappropriate until discussion is complete. If you want to report him for edit-warring, don't also edit-war yourself. The only way for you to hold the high ground is to stop reverting, and to convince someone else to do it for you. I can't even help you now, because you reverted him. Rise above it, already. Do you want to win, or not? If you revert, you'll lose. I've seen it happen so many times. Don't be another one. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
may your archive old disscussions? I can't read my own post :-( Idot ( talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
unfortunetelly I can't see my message :-( so I'll write here (please put in the rignt section, and please archive old discusions). the story of the question:
"Demonology in fiction" section was made by
user:Ian.thomson
the reason is explained in
Talk:Demonologist
that means^ according
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it was the situation which is called "Previous consesus"
DreamGuy didn't want to discuss anything (and even now he/she doesn't show a big will to do it) and just deleted from the article
even after writing few post in the disucssion he/she didn't wait for response and just deleted it again
so according
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle his/her actions are exactly that which is called Bold change
Ian.thomson used to think that merging
Demonologist with
Demonology is the best solution
now Ian.thomson thinks "leaning a good bit towards leaving it out. It could be done, but there is little justification for what was there. If there was a good amount of material that wasn't just a list of bits of fiction that mention the word demon and summoning within a hundred words of each other, that'd be something to keep. If there was a major difference between fantasy demonology and what people in the real world dabble in, that'd be something to keep."
(i.e. according Ian.thomson's opinion the section is porly writeen, but might exist if it will be rewriten quite bette)
all actions of DreamGuy in this article are just deleting, deleting, and deleting again
which means that actions DreamGuy does not give a time (and a chance to improve the section)
as DreamGuy only the only the peson who thinks that this section is a triva => all his/her actions are pure bold vandalism (
Idot (
talk)
02:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
Are anon IP users able to see their talk page? My new best friend is now editing under a new IP. I just finished linking them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
IP users certainly can see their talk page, but it can be tricky to find it. If someone else leaves them a message, then they get the same orange banner we get, but once that's gone, they haven't got the "my talk" link. What I do, when I'm editing anonymously and want to see my talk, is go to some article I've edited, look at the history, and find myself that way.
Does that answer your question? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your kind condolences. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Per your comments on Talk:Demonology#possible_sources_for_this_section, I am at a loss to understand how you thought that comment was at all appropriate for the situation. Is it that you somehow find WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO to be invalid standards which you think should be turned completely on their heads so that new content added without consensus has to stay there until a consensus to remove it is established? You seem to be quite aggressively warning me about alleged violations that are nothing of the sort and, indeed, accepted and even encouraged editing standards. I can't see how that's at all helpful. I would suggest you either read those links above if they are unfamiliar to you, or if you just let them slip your mind take a minute to reassess the situation. I realize that you are trying to help, but good intentions alone aren't helpful when you seem to be actively taking a side in a dispute, and especially one that runs counter to accepted practices. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever BRD allows, reverting is not always the smartest strategy. Sometimes you're much better off working from the other position, and letting a bad edit stand for a while is a very powerful technique, albeit a very non-intuitive one. I'm pretty sure that the most successful editors follow a zero-revert rule. I try to.
Regarding BRD, there's the letter of it, and there's the spirit. The spirit is infinitely more important than the letter, and this is true to the point that I would discourage editors from reading the letter at all once they get the spirit. The spirit of BRD is: "once there's been a single reversion, everyone stop editing and talk." That WP:STATUSQUO seems to me to give bad advice, that contradicts the spirit of other policies, and it should probably be rewritten. Insisting that a certain version of the article be visible while discussion is happening is a terrible idea, an invitation to gaming, and not how we should do it. If BRD turns into BRRRRR...., then the point isn't to ensure that the number of Rs is an odd number. The point is to stop adding Rs. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. Sorry to hear your splint on a finger. I wish you get well soon. Actually, when Mathsci (the user has been brought to noticeboards for his ownership issue and incivility) was accusing CoM for absurd reasons on CoM's talk page, I considered to draw your attention because you could be a good helper to de-escalate the dispute....but things are getting uglier and uglier. I'm totally disagree with CoM's interpretation of BLP and US politic dramaz, but I do not wish him to be chased by the flocks that has unfinished political disputes with CoM, so he are driven to decide to leave Wikipedia. To me, he is a good contributor to cuisine and culture articles. My advices so far do not work at all for him......so if you do not mind, would you give your input to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles? As for Wikistress, I was taking several wikibreaks due to severe stresses for an ArbCom case, but I did not know that just commenting things not directly related to me is also very stressful....(beginning to understand admins' stress which stems from meditating disputes between editors) Well...I think I'm not good at de-escalating dramas...so I ask you a favor. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
He's back, and back to the same edit-warring and harassment. I'm writing up a new 3rr report, continuing from yesterday. I've also started a sockpuppetry case on his talk page as well. It looks like all the Pizzle disruption is from one person. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it okay that the User Ronz has edited the "Pizzle" article 15 times in the last 2 days? How do I report this, I am trying to contribute, but he seems to just follow me around and keeps threatening me! I appreciate any pointers you could give me. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 ( talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want an admin to play cop, and write the other guy a ticket, then you don't want me, cause I don't roll that way. All I do is dispute resolution. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this heading violate talk page guidelines? See Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Don't worry, I've made this mistake in the past as well. Viriditas ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to find out what a larger cross-section of the community thinks of the principle that Badagnani is applying, but before doing that, I thought it would be advisable to be sure that I'm stating his position correctly. Does that make sense? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have, as you've no doubt noticed, changed the section title, which was never intended to offend anyone. I continue to welcome your input on the larger issue. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI...The reason I haven't participated in the external links discussion is because I am totally, unabashedly biased on the subject. Whenever possible, I remove external links and if necessary, I merge them as references into the body of the article. Other editors seem split on whether to link in an ext. links section if the infobox already has the main link listed. In that case, I could go either way. But if I'm the main contributor to an article, you will very rarely see any external links, and if you do, it's likely they are there because another editor requested them, not me. Now, there are times when I take the external links and use them in a "further reading" section; This only works if it is a good source and has potential to add more material to the body of the article. So, because of my strong feelings on this issue, I generally stay away from articles and discussions where my POV could interfere with the outcome, and I generally participate in articles and discussions where I consider myself neutral. Viriditas ( talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Similar disputes have occurred many times. Mostly, we just quickly agree to remove any links that aren't from reliable sources. Sometimes it doesn't go so smoothly. I spent a great deal of time summarizing the arguments against keeping such links in Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Website_urls:_Trying_to_summarize. The summary there for inclusion is missing a summary of the WP:IAR viewpoint. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, the comment of mine from the NPOV Noticeboard has now been used by Tznkai at ANI to go after my credibility. See here. Just thought you shoulod know. No need for you to get involved at ANI. Thx. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are trying hard to resolve this dispute - but let me suggest to you, that you're getting more frustrated than we're worth. I hope you can avoid the trap, and maintain your presence at the article long term, you're a credit to the wiki. I hope in time you can respect me as I do you - I assure you, whatever disagreements we have, they are not personal to me in anyway.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hard for me to predict where my interest will lead me to edit or discuss, but I am a bit drawn in by the image question. I will generally be in a better mood than I was the other day.
Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Although you didn't ask for it on the reference desk, another good squirrel deterrent is the
squirrel baffle. These are intended to prevent the squirrel from climbing up to or falling from above onto the feeder. The effectiveness depends on the location and setup of the feeder. It won't help if there are branches or ledges nearby where the squirrel can jump directly to the feeder. Also, if you have a hanging feeder, the squirrels will happily jump onto the baffle to knock seeds off which tends to frighten off the birds in the process. My grandmom uses a very effective setup (I have yet to see a successful squirrel) where the feeder is hanging from a sturdy metal pole stuck in the ground. The pole has a cylindrical baffle. The whole thing is set back from nearby trees so she doesn't have to worry about squirrels jumping on from above the baffle. Also, because the pole is steady, the squirrels can't jump into the pole to shake seeds off. While is stymies the squirrels, it doesn't stop the bears... Anyway, I really think a pole mounted setup is a good option.
If you have to use a hanging feeder minus a pole, then you might try to get a heavy weight and hang that from the bottom of the feeder so Newton's third law is on your side; squirrels seeking to transfer momentum to the feeder to knock off seeds will find the high mass results in unfavorably low velocity. If you do try the weight, do note that heavy wind may cause the feeder to swing which would be bad for nearby windows or other breakables.
Sifaka
talk
00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
for sensible suggestions regarding methods to add to or change WP policies. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
This is in regard to the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deprecate .
Don't feed the Trolls. ThuranX ( talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you should stop encouraging them. They seek to get a rise out of you. When you call them "troll", they win. Please stop making them win. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you remember, ThuranX, the last time you tried to teach me about trolls? You were dead wrong then, too. Learn from experience. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to mess up the give-and-take in the talk page there, as you've sorta asked a question of the floor, so I'm responding to you here. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to add that sentence to the policy page - it's already there. But I haven't been able to get the people who were repeatedly deleting it to explain why they were doing so beyond extremely brief, vague statements such as "it's inappropriate." -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I always miss the good ones on SciRef! I didn't see it mentioned - your problem is that the actual seeds have almost no capsaicin content. The good stuff is in the fleshy/fibrous stuff just around the seeds. The common chef's imprecation is that to make the peppers less hot, remove the seeds - but think about how knives work, removing the seeds will generally involve scraping out the bits the seeds are attached to as well.
I can't conjure up a RS for that, but I'm a bit of an aficionado and have done some reading on the subject (regardless of Scoville units, I recommend Thai bird's-eye chilis for subtle and deep heat and least impact the next day; and beware of vinegar-based sauces, oil-based is much better). I think your best solution is to get pure capsaicin extract, a clear solution to which my local chicken-wing purveyor had to make eventual resort to defeat me. It's Sc1,000,000 or so and could be used to directly coat the birdseed. This will obviate any problems with noxious solvents (vinegar) used to extract the capsaicin from the peppers, or rot/mould problems using the organic material.
Of course, use extreme precautions - don't touch eyes, nose, mouth or other "sensitive" body parts during the coating procedure and use liberal soap and hot water to clean up afterwards. Avoid capsaicin aerosols, but don't worry too much if you make contact, it's just a little intense pain and maybe a little bleeding, nothing too serious. ;)
As far as cost, I'd bet that 4 ounces of capsaicin will do you for a lifetime. If squirrels have the TRPV1 receptor, I'll pretty much guarantee you they won't be back. Only really stupid humans such as myself go back to the same place and cry out for more and worse pain! :) Franamax ( talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A great way to reintroduce contact. Inspiring me to reach such a level myself. Thx. (no irony here) - DePiep ( talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've contacted you directly, because as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the " backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved. All I could do on the MOS:DAB talk-page (" Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)") is to re-iterate the use of the real policy WP:Consensus. Actually convincing so many people, who do not understand the concept of "kept by consensus else removed", is a very difficult task. I'm sure you realize the quick AfD process is used just because it is expedient, but not the best way to treat people. Thank God, someone can emphasize, "Your article can be restored when notability sources are added". Wikipedia is an amazing collection of pages, but also an amazing collection of people: including former vandals, now rehabilitated, recommending ways to reduce vandalism. For MOS:DAB, I quickly tested the waters, and you can clearly see how the Wikipedia procedures are in sad shape, with people confused about the split-personality of consensus by sort-of non-voting-votes versus AfD-huh. Do you realize how totally baffling Wikipedia must be to them? Only a few people thrive on architecting a social-system to handle 9.5 million registered users. (Kids, don't do this.) Perhaps there is some way to refer the MOS:DAB guideline to a negotiation committee. It is only one of hundreds of issues I am working. I am actively trying to streamline translations into other languages, improve the use of center-page floating images, and numerous other issues expanding the concept of Wikipedia, including predicting the eventual article count (exceeding 3 million in August):
Meanwhile, I realize many people can just " WP:Ignore all rules" for the MOS:DAB when applied to those 109,000+ disambig pages, so perhaps fixing MOS:DAB can wait (another year?). How do you feel? (reply below or my talk). Thx. - Wikid77 ( talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think that extra links on disambiguation pages are deprecated for a good reason, and I refrain from using them. The argument that convinced me is that disambiguation pages are not articles, and they serve precisely one purpose: to get someone to the article that they were actually looking for in the first place. What do you find unconvincing about that argument? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
16-April-2009: (subtopic) In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached. It is not just a matter of using the proper rhetoric. In America, there are a lot of attitude conflicts, in public arenas (including courtrooms), so instead, discussions in the " backroom" are typically used as the main method to reach decisions. When a city council meets, they " rubber stamp" the decisions already pre-determined among the various private conversations. In a court case, the lawyers return before the judge to announce a " change of plea" or some other form of arbitration that was decided outside the courtroom. In the case of the MOS:DAB, the concept that "wikilinks confuse the reader" has persisted (due to inertia) for 5 years. Do you really think a few mild words would break the deadlock, after 5 years? Typically, the issues must be carefully considered, with each person involved, but smoothtalk within a public forum is unlikely to work. I came to the MOS:DAB to correct the "wikilinks-are-confusing" notion, but such a radical change requires clear declarations, and forceful examples, plus the realization that most people don't understand that a negotiated rewording is the basis for WP:Consensus, rather than "everyone agrees it is fine though you disagree". Rhetoric will not work. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that. I tried to move the page, and I got an error message that I'd never seen before about the target page name being on a blacklist and requiring an admin to move it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see he has reverted my edits again,, back your version,, which has the header "Supressing redirects" [sic], which I had specifically expanded for him...honestly, this really appears to be WP:TE to me. I'm going offline, you deal with it. – xeno ( talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi GT, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to consider refactoring your comment that, "Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." It leaves the impression that I insisted on refactoring someone's comments which is clealry not the case. Thanks for your kind consideration, have a nice day, and feel free to correct my spelling or grammar any time! Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My one previous interaction with that user didn't help. He was making blatantly racist insults on a talk page, and I asked him to stop. He responded by laughing in my face, and telling me that we make racist comments all the time, and that I must be a newbie or a fool. Then I told him I was an admin of three years, and he got very quiet. That's a bad way to give a first impression, don't you agree?
As for the "ill intent" or "lack of good sense" in the other editors, I can't speak to that too directly, because I can't read their minds. The faults I saw in them were entirely parallel and comparable to similar faults in the one editor, and in a situation such as that, my conscience does not allow me to say that one side is "right" and the other "wrong". I took his side as best I could, but he continued to spit in my face, over and over again. How many times would you take it?
I have made comments (including today) to the editors you mention, and I hope you don't imagine that I'm turning a blind eye to provocative behavior from anyone. I simply cannot see the situation as a "good guys" and "bad guys" issue. If you have any position of trust with that editor, perhaps you can let him know that dictatorially demanding that an admin do what he says is a very, very, very foolish and bad idea. It leads directly to sadness, 100% of the time. We're humans, it turns out, and we're not being paid for this.
Also — and this is my experience in life, perhaps yours is different — The more someone repeats a statement about themselves, the less likely that it's true. Insisting repeatedly that one is an important and valuable contributor is very likely (100%) to convince people that one is not. Again, if the editor listens to you, and if you agree, then maybe you can pass that on. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> I think we basically agree on most of the points involved. It takes all types to build a great encyclopedia and I try to be tolerant of those whose styles and approach are different than mine. That editor has been extraordinarily gracious and helpful to me when I've had questions, even as they are stubborn and obstinate on editing points. They've been here a while and have contributed a massive amount that makes me feel puny and insignificiant in comparison. I noticed you wrote someone's as a conjunction of someone has on an editor's talk page, but I didn't dare fix it under the circumstances. Isn't that just silliest and saddest state of affairs on a wiki? Anyway, thanks for your collegial replies and discussion. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem like a smart person, so you've got me wondering about this. Is this really true? Who are these people? Everyone I can think of with that kind of ineptitude has ended up causing way more harm than good, as I remember it. Friday (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you read that article, like, yesterday, about a study that showed that people who contribute to Wikipedia tend to have poor social skills, and don't contribute out of altruism? Now I wish I could remember where I found that link.
I can think of three or four users off the top of my head (ok, 5 or 6) who are complete assholes, but who generally stick to WikiGnoming, so it isn't a problem. (Having put it that way, I'd rather not name names publicly.)
As for "ineptitude," I'm not sure what you see as "inept" about the user in question. I think he's a jerk, but I don't see that he's an idiot. What do you mean by "inept"? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a skill that we never really talk about here, but it would be a good one to see more of. I'm thinking of diplomacy, basically. There's a way to ask someone to do something so that they want to do it, and think they're being really cool by doing it, rather than thinking someone has just forced them into something they don't want. People who can do this well are very powerful in the world. I don't know how we can encourage more diplomacy in the interactions here. It's a cultural change, and those are hard to bring about. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had it with that character, and will try to steer clear of him in the future. At the rate he's going, I expect him to eventually be banned. But that will be for someone else to take care of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Anyone whose time was being wasted by it has precisely one person to thank for that." This statement seems clear to me, but I expect it will be read exactly the opposite way by others. And maybe I'm wrong in my understanding. Was the ambiguity on purpose? If not perhaps a clarification might be in order. I look forward to learning for sure just who the one person is!!! :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's unless you've been going door-to-door and forcing people at gunpoint to comment on your not-yet-begun RfA. Really, you should know better than that... some of us haven't got doors! - GTBacchus( talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
From village pump. The article is Illegal immigration in the United States. You'll see my attempts to resolve this issue in both Camaron's talk page (he archived it) and Tnxman's talk page. Please leave your comments in your talk page so I can find them. Thanks.- 166.199.243.171 ( talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You either care more about the article, or more about your pride. I'm happy either way. The fact is, you were interlacing irrelevant and impolite remarks in your comments about the article right up until the end. If complaining about your posts being "screwed with" is so important to you, then you can do that, and have no input on the article. If you wish to have input on the article, you'll get past all of this pride, drop the past, and pony up to the talk page with some serious, 100% focused discussion. If you had followed that policy previously, you wouldn't be in this fix now.
I don't care one way or the other. I'll help you, if you'll be helped, but I won't stroke your wounded ego. What do you want more? You may shop around, but I think you'll find I'm more accommodating than most administrators would be. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdented and moved these comments up a subsection. Feel free to undo if you don't like that.)
I'm not interested in charging him with personal attacks because I might not agree that his feelings of being hounded are sufficiently justified. If he's willing to leave off the personal remarks, then I'm willing to let all of the past go. I'm here for the present, and for the future, not for the past. - GTBacchus( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the activity that has brought more people to grief on this site than any other is seeking justice from Wikipedia. People feel slighted, and they want those who wronged them to be somehow punished. This is an understandable desire, and maybe it's a weakness of Wikipedia, but... this site just isn't designed to do that. We've optimized our setup (to some extent) for writing an encyclopedia. As it turns out, trying to use an encyclopedia-writing construct (i.e., the software + the policies + the community) to attain justice doesn't work. Maybe it would be cool if it did, but it doesn't. Admins aren't cops, and those who try to be cops are terrible admins.
When someone wants justice on Wikipedia, my best advice to them is to forget it. If you want a community where transgressions against you will be punished, start a wiki for that. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia more than you want other things, then contribute here, and learn to use Wikipedia to your advantage. If you want satisfaction in a personal dispute, ground yourself in an intense focus on edits, and in a rigid policy of respect, professionalism and dignity. Work the dispute resolution process that I'll be delighted to show you... but I can't show you until you drop the hunt for justice.
If you do these things, you will find that your power multiplies a thousand-fold. After that... you end up getting the "justice" you wanted, in the sense that you're empowered to deal effectively with problems from other editors. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Figure out what you want, and how to pragmatically get it. If you just want to complain, I don't want to hear it. I'm here to find solutions. Cough one up. Don't say you want "someone to do something"; say what you want specifically, and from whom. Then, if it's realistic, we've got something to talk about. Right now... it's pretty clear that expressing your upsetness is more important to you than the article. Get that out of your system, and come back when you wish to be productive. Nobody's stopping you but yourself right now. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And... you're under the impression that I can do these things? Let me talk about your requests, one-by-one.
There is only one reply for you to make here. Are you willing to accept my help, on my terms? If so, let's do it. If not... then please leave. Remember, you're the one asking me for help here. If you were doing so well on your own, we wouldn't be here. I know that you're frustrated, and you have every right to feel that way. I will agree that you have been wronged. However, I will not let you dictate to me how to do my job, how Wikipedia works, or how you want to get justice out of an encyclopedia, which is a bit like trying to get blood out of a turnip. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Now... I see what you're asking for. I don't think I have the power to do that. I can't make people apologize, I can't make people take back things they said, I can't even warn them in a way they'll take seriously. I'm just some guy. There are two other admins against me, for crying out loud! What am I supposed to do, grow wings?
What I can do, and I'm pretty good at, is help you in a content dispute. If you're bothered by behavior, then I can help you with that, but I can only do it one way. I'm a one-trick pony. I can't play cop; I'm incompetent at that. All I can do is help negotiate a content dispute. It turns out that this is also the only effective way to deal with the type of behavior you're complaining about. But... I guess you just don't believe me about that. I don't know how to help you. I'm a one-trick pony. If you want that trick done, I'll do it, but I won't play cop, because I can't. There are, like, 1500 other active admins. The only ones who are willing to play cop, are assholes. I avoid them. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But! If you just agree to put aside whatever you're hung up on, and let me edit content alongside you, you'll find that I'm a pretty good person to have around. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just give me a chance, man. It doesn't cost you a thing, and what's your alternative? I'm offering you so much, and you're being so picky... I'm offering to get down in the trenches with you and work alongside you. You don't like it; walk away, see how far that gets you. Have you even asked any other admins, or why are you still even talking to me? Why? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There are several addresses on that range that the anon hasn't hit yet. He needs to get busy. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am protecting this talk page again, it is not a coincidence that soon after protection is lifted civility declines along with anything else, and I see no benefit to Wikipedia in leaving the talk page open to such abuse. I have until recently assumed good faith in the intentions of the unregistered user, despite repeated violations of behavioural policies and guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Comments such as [3] however shows an intent to game the system to test the limits of free speech; that does nothing for article improvement so is not welcome here. It does not matter who is right is wrong in a content dispute, and as I have said before I have no view on illegal immigration in the United States, but policies will be enforced. Users can either learn to follow policy and guidelines and become constructive contributors, or be shown the door, it is unfortunate that the latter option has had to be taken in this case. When the protection expires anyone is again welcome to contribute for constructive purposes, though again polices will be enforced, even if it means limiting free speech, which is not a right on Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On the evidence you've presented, I will make one remark here. That RfC is anything by damning.
Camaron, while this editor has agreed to certain conditions relating to this dispute, I think it's fair to note that they also feel a bit insulted and maligned by the way they've been talked about on this page. Now, I've got no interest in digging through the history to see who called whom a dirty birdy. However, in the interest of dispute resolution, I think it's fair to wipe the slate clean, all around, at least to see how it goes.
From what I have read in the history, I see our IP colleague making remarks that seem to stem pretty directly from frustration, and a feeling of being ganged up on. Whether or not you agree with that characterization of the situation, I think we all know how that feels. Therefore, I understand when he tells me on my talk page that your comment about "turning over a new leaf" is a back-handed insult. I don't think you meant it that way. Sill, in the interest of moving forward, would be willing to strike it? Your doing so would acknowledge that we're not dealing with a criminal we need to reform, but with a frustrated person reacting to what he perceives as unfair treatment. Being frustrated, even to the point of lashing out, is something we've all done I suspect. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're getting on a bus, and you accidentally step on someone's foot, do you refuse to apologize, because you didn't mean to step on them, and apologizing would be an admission of guilt? Personally, I say, "excuse me, I didn't mean to do that." When someone feels insulted by something I've said, I tend to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as an insult." Is that unreasonable behavior?
I won't say you have to do this or that — you remain true to yourself. My only goal here is to help get sort out a dispute with someone who asked me for help. I'm not asking people to walk on eggshells or become best friends. Small goodwill gestures can go a long way, and they don't cost a thing. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you believed that you have been acting appropriately, and then someone suggests that you're finally going to start acting appropriately, wouldn't you see that as rude? Is it really so hard to guess what it's like in this guy's shoes? That's all I'm suggesting. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your goals are. Do I think you're being helpful by standing on ceremony over a remark you don't care much about? No.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, here. I'm trying to be helpful. How is it such a trauma that you might go a centimeter out of your way to help someone feel they're being dignified, a little bit? Why insist that another person totally abase themselves, and accept that they're the only party that's been rude, or anything? Why not go out your way to be a peacemaker? Why not help the guy? He's not a bad person, and it doesn't cost us a penny to help. If we just work together, the article and the encyclopedia will be better for all of our collaboration, and more points of view are helpful to have on board.
This is depressing. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that people all around the issue feel offended, and that nobody's goal was ever to offend anyone else. When people get defensive, they end up coming across as offensive, and then you get a cycle of hurt feelings and grudges, and it's straight up difficult to break out of that. The only way I know of is for everyone to swallow their pride, and I really want for the good of the project to be sufficient reason for people to do this.
This is why I've started insisting that if someone wants me to help them, they drop any and all mention of personal issues. A lot of people aren't willing to do this, and I'm still trying to figure out the best way of dealing with that dynamic. Perhaps I should invest a little less, emotionally, in what happens here. It's just that I care. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Does any one object if I move this thread to User talk:GTBacchus as it is probably a better venue? Given that it has little to do with the article itself, and discussion is currently fragmented between the two pages. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As one of the editors who was involved with disputes last summer with an anon-IP editor (who may or may not be the current anon-IP, and who may or may not be the legendary Psychohistorian), I suppose I should probably say something here.
My main interest and goal is to help improve the article on Illegal immigration to the United States and related articles. I'm not "out for blood". I'm not trying to ridicule or ostracize someone for issues not directly related to their work on this and other articles.
Does it matter to me if the current anon-IP is or is not last summer's anon-IP, or if he/she is or isn't "Psychohistorian"? Yes, to some extent, I'll have to say it does — not because I have some sort of vendetta which I won't let go of, but because if the current anon-IP is that same person, that may say something about how he/she really is likely to act now and in the future (something which I believe is a legitimate concern and not the same as terminally dwelling on the past or denying people the opportunity to improve).
I do believe that a very productive step by the current anon-IP would be for him/her to clearly state either "Yes, I am the same person who worked on this and other articles from several different IP addresses last summer" — or "Yes, I am Psychohistorian" (if that happens to be the case) — "and whatever you might have thought or said about me in the past, let's leave that in the past and get back to editing" — or else "No, I am not and never was Psychohistorian or that other anon-IP editor, and now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to editing". Saying one of these things (whichever happens to be true) would help clear the air and make it easier for people to move on. But saying "That issue simply doesn't matter, let's just drop it and get back to editing" — or simply ignoring the issue and refusing to say anything about it — isn't likely to work, even if the current anon-IP thinks he/she has a right to expect that it should.
Do I think the current anon-IP (or any regularly contributing anon-IP) would be well advised to create and use an account? Yes, I do. Even though using an account is not demanded by WP policy, it is still highly advisable. Doing this, for instance, will go a long way toward drawing people's attention away from the anon-IP and refocussing everyone in the direction of the article content. I believe it is much less likely that the current dispute would have escalated to where it is now (and be getting hashed out on anyone's talk page) if the anon-IP had been using an account rather than insisting on being an anon-IP. Although I think I understand the anon-IP's concern that using an account would somehow constitute a validation on his/her part of inappropriate behaviour by other editors, I really don't buy it. If he/she feels other editors ought to do better, then he/she should lead by example rather than criticize from the sidelines.
Hopefully the current anon-IP and the rest of us will be able to work together productively to improve this and other articles. If so, I'll be very happy. If not, I would encourage him/her to go ahead and bring the matter up at WP:ANI — albeit keeping in mind GTBacchus's words of caution, which I believe are very well taken. Richwales ( talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Standing on the principle you're standing on now... good luck. Did you notice the "new leaf" comment was struck? All I had to do was have my worst morning ever on Wikipedia, and it happened. How else can I eviscerate myself to help you? Oh wait - that's not your principle. Forget me... I don't exist. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The secret, which people find extremely difficult to believe, is this: the best way to win a personal dispute is to stop trying to win it. That's a beautiful paradox, and it works, and unless you take a leap of faith, you never find that out. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
When one wants to get past some kind of dispute... what you've said kicks in with full force. Either having a static IP address (like the RM helper), or else making an account, will get you where you want to go faster. Even if you don't want to do that, doing something such as making an identifiable signature - "JJ 99.121.41.55," with the number changing, but keeping "JJ" - would do the trick.
If the phenomenon of people editing anonymously is going to catch on, which I doubt, then it will happen because a lot of people are doing it successfully, and not because people are generating tons of static while doing it. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer spending my time editing articles. I don't see any admins who would be willing to take on that gang, so I don't think it's worth the bother. I spent several hours putting up evidence at the O-Arb tribunal :), so we'll see how that goes. I'm guilty of trying to include notable criticisms and controversies in the appropriate sections of the article, and for calling for an end to the personal attacks and hostile editing atmosphere on those articles. I don't care whether the notable controversies and criticisms are in a section of the article, or in some form that's linked so editors can find them, but our guidelines and article standards are clear about appropriate inclusion. This is the core of the dispute. These editors don't want any of the criticisms or controveries included in Wikipedia in any way that is readily apparent. And by the way, I happen to think some of the controversies are ridiculous, but when they're notable they should be included and made accessible in a way that's appropriate. I don't think this is a radical position, and our failure to fix the situation so far is inconsistent with our guidelines. This isn't about these frivolous claims against me, it's about an "I don't like it" approach to content and an ends justifies the means approach to obstructing and disrupting my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. And I haven't even gotten to the core of the fixes needed. One of their recent ANI reports was against my trying to include that Barney Frank has been an advocate for gay rights in that article's introduction. These aren't POV statements or even criticisms we're talking about, these are basic edits. They're clearly in the wrong so they've taken extraordinary measures to oppose, disrupt, attack, and frustrate my good faith efforts. That is what this is really about. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No admin will "take on that gang" as long as you and they seem equally tendentious and equally disruptive. How can I tell that you're right and they're wrong? If you step back and take a long view of the situation, you'll realize that it looks quite symmetric from the outside. I certainly can't tell that they're a "gang" and you're an innocent. I see mud flying in all directions, and I associate good editors with a lack of mud.
I do hope that you'll consider my offer to mediate disputes with these people at the content level. If you trust me enough to do that, then your complaints at the behavior level will take care of themselves.
If you really can't find an admin to "take on that gang", there might be a good reason for that. Admins who play "policeman" tend to be terrible admins, and we tend to get rid of them. Wikipedia has no cops, and the best way to handle personal disputes is at the content level. Then you've got both feet planted firmly in the encyclopedia, and that's where your power flows from. This is just what I've noticed. Some people don't believe this... - GTBacchus( talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(<-- unindent) Yeah... I don't do anything I'd call a "Post mortem". I only deal with active disputes, and I only deal with behavioral issues in the context of content disputes. Otherwise, both my feet have left the ground, and I'm playing Cloak-and-Dagger instead of writing an encyclopedia.
The "truce" that you outline above seems reasonable — which group of editors in particular would you like to see this from? Everyone named in the ArbCom case, or... who?
The only point I hoped to make about the mud is this: it's not clear to me in this context that any particular party is "in the wrong". I don't accept the "the problem is editor X, and his or her attitude". As far as I'm concerned, one-editor-problems solve themselves. Any problem that reaches my attention involves at least two editors conducting a dispute inappropriately, at which point, I'm in no position to take a side. All I can do is wade into the underlying content dispute (there had better be an underlying content dispute...), and judge for myself who behaves in what manner.
All of that said... I don't specifically remember seeing you say anything out-of-line, so I apologize for painting in overly broad strokes, and including you in a description that doesn't apply. It is usually my experience that personal attacks and other unhelpful actions tend to go in both directions, but let me take an extra shot of AGF (actually your faith was never it doubt, I'm just not too knowledgeable about your behavior), and say, I'm sorry for unfairly characterizing you as a mudslinger.
I am interested in mediation - indeed, it's all I can really offer in the current situation, since I don't play "cop", and I'm happy enough to say that my offer is extended indefinitely. If there's an editor whom you think is a problem, and there's an article where they're causing trouble, please feel free to tug on my sleeve. It's possible I can help. Also, tell me more about this truce idea; it sounds cool. Talk to me about specifics. You know: who?, what?, when?, where? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, User:Soxwon, who also leans conservative, came to me a week or two ago and asked if the "gay activist" business should be in Barney Frank article. I asked him to find me citations, since I didn't enough about it to know the right answer. He's from that part of the country, so he new. And he found citations. So I said, yes, it belongs. That's called "collaboration". Certain users, such as ones who ask for a nomination for adminship and then can't decide whether to run, and who talk collaboration but don't walk it, could take a lesson from that approach. Although, admittedly, it's bland and boring, as all it does is improve article content. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, can you handle a "no insult of any kind" policy here? I'll keep up my end, ok? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
GT, when you get a chance could you please userfy List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems in my userspace if it isn't too much trouble? Thanks mucho. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems Pretty good. Remind me not to buy that product on my next trip to Piggly Wiggly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
After I play Text Twist. This has been a busy day on Wikipedia, anything that happens at the end of it, I'll see tomorrow. Goodnight. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read over whatever it is that's troubling you, but please don't get discouraged or turn in your badge... You're an excellent mediator. Some folks (again, speaking from general principles here) just refuse to drop the stick and there's little-to-nothing we admin folk can do... – xeno talk 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Aw, geez. I didn't mean to do that. I'm not likely to go anywhere. I kind of love this crazy-ass project, it turns out. I learn a lot here, and usually I feel pretty good about it.
I thank you both, for the words of confidence. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Need I say that statements like "Or, more politely, anyone who doesn't know how to be assertive without being a dick is a fucking idiot." are WAAAY in violation of WP:NPA? I don't think I should. If a situation is bothering you, step away and please don't make statements like this again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:28
Situation unravelling quickly. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your posting on the AN board wondering about an essay, as well as the work you've been doing in trying to help CoM over a difficult hump. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but I did one early on that I've never really finished. here. I never got back to it as I didn't want people dropping me links about NOTAWEBHOST, or SOAPBOX, or "we're here to build an encyclopedia" type of things. Didn't know if you'd be interested or not, but I thought I'd drop you a link just in case. Cheers ;) — Ched : ? 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi GT, long time, no talk.
Sure, feel free to pass him along to me. If it turns out that I get pinched for time -- one of the drawbacks of being a new father is that this happens -- I know several other local Wikipedians who could help him. And yes, the weather is lovely -- if you like warmth & blue skies. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not ever expect you who wished to be a mentor of Badagnani, suggesting to block him alone. You can get my sympathy from now. You're so honestly saying that your mentorship is failed. The next step for DR right after the useless RfC/U would be filing to the arbitration because he never responses to the raised concerns or refuses to fix his problems. -- Caspian blue 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If there's an ArbCom case, I'm sure I'll see you there. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's see... X is an editor who feels their time was wasted by your RfA... Y is the person they have to thank... there's a square on the hypotenuse, and the law of cosines says the driver on the z-axis has right-of-way if they're facing into the sun, and I'm in GMT-5, and a kilo is 2.2 pounds.... no. No, I lost it. I've gotta write an algebra test for tomorrow morning. Anybody got a clue about "3x2 - 5x + 8 = 6"? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
ya know, I was so tempted to mention WP:OR vs. WP:SYN (yes, I know they both point to the same NOR policy) at a recent thread here. But I fared so poorly at the Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if... test, I decided not to. Re: Bugs' suggestion of adding the "if your family tree does not POV fork." to the essay.
Oh my ... I need a wiki-break! ;) — Ched : ? 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey GT, I just wanted to thank you for your good sense of humor, patience and enthusiasm for helping resolve disputes. I have not yet personally achieved a nirvana like state of embrace with your methods/ madness, but lifting X-wing fighters out of a swamp takes big time mental focus and it may be that I'm just not ready yet. Anyway, cheers. Sorry if this comes across as a "backhanded" or snide compliment. It's not meant to be. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You try to mentor him and he turns on you? Perhaps you've heard the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished"? (And I'll leave out the more pointed Biblical reference about casting pearls and such.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From my perspective, and I welcome correction, you're injecting disrespect into situations where I'm, quite voluntarily and freely, investing some of my real feelings in. My doing this is not a crime, and I know how to control it. That doesn't mean that I appreciate humor that derides someone with whom I'm trying to work.
I really am a teacher; this is how I make a living. If you start making fun of one of my students, I'm not going to appreciate it, and if I did, I'd be a shitty teacher. That's sure as hell extra-true if you do it somewhere they can hear or read it later.
I'm a grown up, and I can decide just how much I want to invest where. I can decide when I want to take on a student who requests it, and when I want to try and convince someone of something, whether or not they're willing. I appreciate your respecting me enough to let me set my own boundaries. When I told you this page was a respect zone, I thought it was clear what that meant.
I like funny stuff. I like really out-there, off-color, bizarre humor. I just don't use it to make fun of people I'm trying - of my own free will - to help. Is that unreasonable? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the Marx Brothers movies, for example, but I wouldn't want them in the room where I'm trying to mediate a dispute between upset parties. I don't think that makes me a prudish bore, nor an overly politically-correct tight-ass. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I find the idea that my sense of humor is "kinder and gentler" rather absurd. Some of my favorite jokes are among the most offensive I can imagine. I like Encyclopedia Dramatica for example, and consider Uncyclopedia to be written by and for gerbils. My favorite YouTube is the George Washington rap, and I wrote and recorded the song, "I Love You; I'll Still Fuck Your Sister". I just don't bring this stuff up while trying to mediate a dispute between parties who almost certainly come from different cultures, as well as different generations. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a time and a place for "rough hewn" humor, and there's a time and a place for handling matters delicately. I hope you'll trust me to distinguish between those two cases, and to try and respect that distinction on my talk page. I'm not asking for much.
If you want to make me laugh, just do it in any way that doesn't look like disrespect for people I'm trying to help. There are millions of funny things to say that don't disparage anyone here. I don't think this is a weird or unfair request. Am I being reasonable? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are you talking to me? Seriously. Are you trying to help me? Why? Are you nursemaiding this difficult user called GT? Why? Do you want to convince me that Badagnani isn't worth helping? I'll keep my own counsel about when that's true. Do you not trust me to set my own boundaries and maintain them? Why? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you want to bring about? How do you want me to change, and why should I change based on your wants? Shall I accept you as an authority on how I should behave? Why?
So far, all the suggestions I've seen you make have amounted to, "don't bother to try and make this situation better, GT. Don't bother to try and help Badagnani, GT. Don't bother to follow your own conscience and ideals, GT. Don't bother to try and learn as much as you can about how disputes work, and how we can find ways out of them. Don't bother. Be more cynical and pessimistic."
Maybe I should be reading something different from your suggestions, but that's how they've been coming across to me. If that's not what you're saying, then maybe you haven't been entirely clear. If that is what you're saying, then I say get thee behind me. I believe in things. You can't change that. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So you ask me what you're supposed to think? You ask me what you can do? I've got an answer. Take the moral high ground, do it right, let others help you, and let's get there. I am available to help with any situation that comes up; otherwise, I'm a goddamned hypocrite to give anyone advice about anything. You think there's an easy answer? There isn't. If you want to help fix the problem, don't be a part of the problem. Don't be someone who is willing to simplistically judge other editors as "difficult". Join me in the struggle to get everyone on board. Don't tell me that my ideals are worthless, or I will hate you forever, and dedicate my life to proving you wrong.
Now, if you say that anyone claims that the important thing is to "coddle these people," I don't believe you. Point out anyone who has said that, ever. If you can't, then stop lying. I sure as fuck never say it. Stop portraying my position as some kind of spineless, mindless mollycoddling. Nobody advocates that. You want to help? Let me help you. Don't give me your fucking jaded, cynical, "these people" vomit. There are no "these people". We're one species, trying to survive. If you want anything from me, lead me to situations where I can help in an actual context. Don't try to pump overgeneralized shit about "nursemaiding" into my ears. Step up, with some courage and some honesty, and let's get to work on these problems. I'm standing here with a goddamned shovel, saying "Let me help you in the trenches," and your reply is to come back with lazy-assed cliche bullshit platitudes about who's worth working with and who isn't? Grow a fucking pair, and show me where the problem is, and let's work on it. If you're not willing to fight to the motherfucking death to be part of the solution, then I never want to hear anything from you again. Is that clear enough? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm off to a funeral. There are a few conversations I'm in the middle of, so I'm posting a reason for my sudden silence. I'll be back, unless the funeral turns out to be mine. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You offered your assistance. I'm going to take you up on your offer, if it still holds. Our buddy, Shrandit, is engaging in an edit war to preserve what I consider a highly non-neutral version of Abortion and religion, while sandbagging discussion with incivility. His only supporter is the blatantly "pro-life" partisan, Ferrylodge. Moreover, I was informed by an interested third party that Shrandit is quite likely trying to trick me into either being uncivil or tripping over the 3rd reversion rail, with the goal of getting me blocked and smearing my reputation. Rather than sink to his level, or if my source is right, fall into his trap, I'm coming to you to ask for mediation. Please show me that Wikipedia is indeed the last bastion of truth, neutrality and justice for all. TruthIIPower ( talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been offline for a week or so. There was a death in the family, and concerns other than Wikipedia have been pressing. I'll look at this situation, and tell you what I think, TruthIIPower. Schrandit, hi. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you moved the backlog header up after I'd reset it to seven days; could you put it back, please? No need to re-open any discussions you closed, of course. See WT:RM.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For bringing lucidity and sense to a difficult discussion. Dloh cierekim 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
I don't know how much more of your trolling harassment I have to take for you to get the message, so I'm making it clear. STOP TROLLING ME. Next step is AN/I. ThuranX ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I might as well have known that there was no point talking to him. I did genuinely believe he might hear something from me, but I never know how to pitch my tone with someone whose own approach is so abrasive. Sometimes, they respond well to bluntness. Sometimes, that really doesn't work.
By the time of my last post, which provoked this, I was genuinely trying to apologize and go away without the disruption of leaving a message he would have to delete. It backfired, but whatever. This isn't the kind of situation that finds my skin thin. When someone really freaks out on me, I stay pretty calm.
Aren't we a funny species?
If I learn from this, that'll be good work. Here's hoping.
The important issue has nothing to do with me or ThuranX. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia is going to develop some smartness about what trolling really is, and how to deal with it. Right now, we've got everyone, each working from his or her own personal theory, and I don't think we can all be right. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I very much appreciated the logic of your explanation that IAR is not a logical paradox because it is not an exercise in formal logic [9]. Chillum 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome message and the heads up on leaving comments on Users' talk pages. I really appreciate it. I went ahead and put my post at the bottom of the user's talk page so they would be more likely to see it. I hope grad school is going well for you and thanks again!
Arthur —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurThomas24 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There are too many days in the WP:RM#Other proposals section. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Extension to seven days. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Back on the Ref Desk you mentioned you were making a catalogue of living creatures found in your house. Can I get a list of those things? :) Thanks. Mac Davis ( talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My talk page is an ok place to post it if you ask me. As for what I would do with it, I was thinking of making a video to upload to YouTube based on this. Jayron's comments on natural, live, exceptionally "unnatural" food, and people's level of disgust with different foods in different cultures struck a chord in me. Mac Davis ( talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean house gecko - Seen on outside of house, evenings.
I could use your advice on this. Radiojon ( talk · contribs) has been moving articles for several years, [10] but either doesn't seem to understand the concept or won't go to the talk page to propose the move first. Many of his moves have been contested and reverted. I'm wondering what is the best way to deal with this. Obviously, I don't want to upset him. Viriditas ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the thread seems to be on ANI forever because Viritidas obviously does not want to let the thread go; she thinks commenting the last is winning! Reading her constant attacking and harassing editors who disagree with her view on the situation is very tiresome and horrendous. I think you can archive the tread by using "archivetop". If somebody wants a new discussion on him or her, then so be it. However, as I said you earlier, I believe the unnecessary extended thread led Badagnani's block. What is she doing? I've never seen such "weird mentorship". Anyway, would you archive it? Thanks.-- Caspian blue 03:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone disrespects you, and you disrespect them back, then you're both the same. If someone disrespects you, and you respect them anyway, then you win. If you can point me to specific situations where you are being attacked, then maybe I can do something, but after-the-fact, I cannot. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That said, I would tend to agree that Viriditas is not helping Badagnani. I'm not sure anyone can help Badagnani, until Badagnani decides to accept help. If you are able to avoid Viriditas, then that sounds like a good idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this is "neutral ground", I would like to offer Caspian blue an olive branch and suggest we put the past behind us and start fresh. He doesn't have to accept, but I want to be on record saying that I don't hold grudges or think interpersonal conflict should come before the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and we need to put our conflicts aside and keep our eyes on the prize. If Caspian blue chooses to accept my olive branch, then I look forward to a more civil discussion and working relationship with him in the future. Perhaps it is too soon to offer such a "peace plan", but Caspian blue is welcome to take as much time as he likes to think about the offer. Viriditas ( talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A reply awaits you at User_talk:M#Lack_of_formalized_policy. –M T 06:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's hoping Hamlet's input was useful? Durova Charge! 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's input is useful, insofar as I get to see a broader cross-section. I'm not familiar with this particular Danish Prince. (Perhaps he prefers pastry to pizza?) I'm unlikely to incorporate his advice verbatim into an essay, but I know that some people do think that way, and I would like to somehow address those people.
The trick is that the people who need the advice most are precisely those who are least likely to listen. A good essay might be able to gain enough consensus for people to call it a guideline, though. As much as I like to disdain such reindeer games, tinkering with the "status" of a page, sometimes common sense needs all the leverage it can get. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes a touch of humor helps to maintain perspective in difficult online situations. That was the motivation three years ago when I named a serious essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons: most people can chuckle at the thought of prehistoric encyclopedia editors getting trampled by enraged megafauna. Hamlet happens to have a large family of fellow troll sockpuppets, and he owns a complete sockpuppet theater performance of "The Three Billy Goats Gruff". More trolls and other puppets can be imported from Trollmark upon request, to assist with making your planned essay as effective and entertaining as possible. A bridge entrance even has a troll in a troll booth. Best regards, Durova Charge! 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In discussing the noble Hamlet, don't forget his ne'er-do-well cousin, Spamlet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your contributions to the talk page, and thought that you might like a look at this essay. My hope is that it will be helpful in the debate. Cheers. HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you have chosen to dredge up a three-week-old discussion, but I find it disruptive and more than a little harassing. Please stop. If you want to discuss something with me without being disruptive and harassing, I'm more than willing to join, provided you use an appropriate venue for doing so.
Also, I've a solution for Badagnani: simply block him until he offers a solution for interacting with him. If that solution doesn't work, or it does not change his behavior, then repeat until he either offers a solution that works or no one is willing to continue working with him. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to tell me how to do my job, become an administrator, or at least successfully resolve some dispute. Meanwhile, if I see you interacting with Badagnani in an escalatory way, I have little choice but to say something. I hope you understand.
I will, in the future, be more careful about replying to threads that haven't fallen quiet for weeks. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
When I say "he offers the same for dealing with you," I mean that Badagnani offers the solution of blocking you, while you suggest blocking him. Unless one of you seems more interested in dispute resolution, I can't prefer one over the other.
"Besides, we know that Badagnani's problems have nothing to with me." No. We don't know that. "Know" is a very strong word. I believe that those who suggest that Badagnani is being harassed and hounded have a very good point. I see nobody in this conflict who has consistently worked towards resolution rather than escalation. When I've suggested that you be more resolution-oriented, you've blown me off. I will cheerfully provide diffs if you don't remember. You're either pursuing active diplomacy, or you don't care about resolving disputes. Wikipedia is all about resolving disputes and not prolonging them. How have you helped to resolve this one? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned that a comment of mine "has no place on this talk page, nor indeed on this project". Would you please clarify which comment you're referring to? Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello GTB. This "original" article was merged into this article some time ago based on agreement of the editors involved in discussion at that time [12]. No concerns have arisen with the merge so wonder if you would mind deleting the original. Many thanks.( olive ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Maybe a redirect would be a better way of dealing with this so the history remains ... I'll try that.( olive ( talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Weekend good you having ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Talk:ASUS ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -Zeus- u| c 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This old political joke goes (sort of):
An experienced MP (UK) / Congressman (USA) / deputy (Fr) / etc. who was showing a rookie the House / House / Assembly pointed across the floor and said, "That's were the (other party) sits."
"Well," said the rookie, "it's good to know where the enemy are."
"No," replied the veteran, "those are your political opponents - your enemies are behind you."
My use of "behind" was a pun - you and DT both advocate accountability for admins, but you have reservations about him and now I suspect he has reservations about you. -- Philcha ( talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be delighted to collaborate with you (and any other interested parties) on an essay (or other appropriate document) regarding identifying and effectively dealing with trolling. Let me know if you're interested! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey GTB, how you doing these days? hey, I just wanted you to know that I started a thread concerning you, and some help you may be willing to provide at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech. It's at the bottom of the page titled "Path Forward". I don't know if you're still willing, or if the community is agreeable to it - but I thought I'd give it a shot. Best — Ched : ? 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, you may wish to comment here. Kind regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw your post after I posted my most recent reply. Just letting you know. Please reply on my talk page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you tell someone that you, being sane and intelligent, disagree with them....
...then they might think that you're calling them insane, or unintelligent.
You might actually be pointing out: "Here we are: sane and intelligent people holding both points of view."
Your real point might be that we should therefore view the issue as debatable and open, rather than settled and done.
If this is what you're saying, you should probably make it more explicit that you consider both of you to be sane and intelligent, and go ahead and explicitly draw the conclusion about the issue being debatable. If they misinterpret it as above, they might take it as quite an insult. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now suppose you've said something, like above, that is misread due to the reader applying a different tone to the words than the writer intended. Suppose also that, at roughly the same time, the reader who mistook your tone typed something in a parallel discussion that came across to you as very rude, and suppose you replied by saying, "how rude," or something.
Now, suppose that person took the stance that you're in the wrong in both cases, both when he mistook your tone, and when you mistook his. How do you communicate the symmetry of that situation, without just further offending the other person? I'd like to know that. Maybe that's not something you get to do. Hmmm. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It might come down to a difference in certain habits of thought. This isn't a difference that I'd associate with any kind of value-judgment; it's just an observation about morally neutral facts. Some people prefer, in many cases, to take a position on a point, and hold that position, arguing in defense of it. Good stuff. Other people prefer to try and juggle several points of view, seeing an argument from all around, and suspending judgment.
I can certainly see advantages and disadvantages to both, and I would not want to live in a world where either type disappeared. It's also certainly true that people don't fall into those two categories so much as lie along a continuum, with almost every one using both approaches at different times.
I don't know; I'm rambling, but I'm doing it here, because it's about online communication, which is relevant to the project. I care about dispute resolution, so I care about how to get past differences - sometimes profound differences - in the ways that different people think. I'm also really irritated with being misunderstood when I'm trying goddamned hard, and failing and failing. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a cool observation.... a lot of misunderstandings that I run into are brought about by a common cause. It's this: I don't care what anyone "deserves". I don't believe there is any reality to the notion of "deserving" one thing or another.
This seems to be a very uncommon view. I don't believe that bad people deserve bad things; I don't believe that good people deserve good things. I don't believe that anyone deserves anything, and more than I would believe that anyone jjjjhes anything. What does it mean to "jjjjh" something? Nothing. That's the point.
The trouble is, when I argue to do something, people think that I am arguing we should do it because someone "deserves" it. That's never what I mean, just as nobody ever means that someone really jjjjhed anything. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
These are, of course, mutually self-contradictory religious claims that are not subject to testing or proof. Thus, I don't expect anyone in particular to agree with me, and I'm pretty happy when someone does. Also, because they're non-trivial religious claims, I constantly fall short of really living according to them. But, you know, that's why there's always a tomorrow. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there doesn't seem to be particularly strong consensus to delete user talk pages (cf. Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#User talk). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this will make sense: the default position is to do nothing- don't delete the user talk page. In order to delete it, you need a reason why it's better to do so. The only argument I've seen is that it's courteous to delete on request, but to me this is a non-starter. It's also courteous to let spammers leave their spam here. I care way more about what's courteous and useful to those still here doing useful work, than I do about what's courteous to some disruptive person making demands. And yes.. I suppose there's a certain amount of "they're a jerk- don't give them what they want" in my rationale, which is unfortunate. But, we damage the Wikipedia environment in the long term by giving jerks what they demand simple because they demanded it. It teaches other aspiring demanding jerks that this technique works. That's not at all what we want, in the long term. If you care more about the short-term specific case than the long-term general case, I can see how you'd decide differently on this.
So I still contend that it's a little bit better to not delete user talk pages, even on request. It's not a huge deal- it's only a little bit better, but I still consider it a best practice. Friday (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I keep reading, and I see that you're making an argument that... let's see: Capitulating to this request would embolden future banned users to make similar demands. I guess my reply to that is... that I see no disadvantage in deleting those pages, so... I'm okay with that.
The "he was a jerk anyway" attitude... I understand, but I try to avoid it in my own mind. That's not a judgment; I don't expect anyone to share my views.
I think that, if someone comes back with the same bee in their bonnet, then we'll know it, talk page or no talk page. I mean, we've still got the "contributions" button, which leads to a lot more information than their talk page, y'know? If they come back without the bee, then they're welcome. Meanwhile, the only benefit to keeping the talk page around is that it encourages busy-body behavior, and amateur Wiki-sleuthing, and I don't see that stuff as positive at all. Does that make sense? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Second, in order for the "detection" argument to make sense, we would have to believe the possibility of a world where he sneaks back, only remains undetected because non-admins can't see his talk history, and then somehow does harm while remaining undetected. I think that world is somewhere the other side of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the general problem of dealing with "trolling" behavior. Identifying is not the first step to solving that problem. That's because as soon as we identify it as trolling - a troll earns his wings somewhere. The correct way to deal with trolling is to respond in a drama-negative way that will be perfectly acceptable whether or not they're trolling. Trying to identify them and act accordingly gives them power. We do not have to empower trolls, but this community has a very bad habit of doing precisely that. I'm disappointed at how few people seem to care, and how willing the community is to allow our worst troll-handlers and troll-feeders to maintain control over the most controversial articles.
We have got to stop institutionalizing troll-feeding, and this episode has been a great example of how we consistently do it wrong. The correct approach is to let him leave his goodbye note in whatever format he prefers (within reason), and then to slap the living shit out of anyone who tries to meddle with it after that. Those busybodies cause the dramatics, not DT. Those are the people that we coddle, rather than running out of town, like we should. Critics are excellent to have around, and we just lost one. Meanwhile, we prop up those who prefer not to hear criticism, thus weakening our community. It's disgusting. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean for it to look like I was joining in on the edit war. I was in fact trying to stop it. It was silly to have a line about the page being deleted, when it wasn't deleted, hence why I reverted to the indefblock template. You might want to make a note at WP:RPP that you protected the page as I requested the page to be protected (toward the top) earlier this evening. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi GTB..I noticed your request on Wikiquette Alerts.
I've always found you to be one of the sane, intelligent, open-thinking voices on Wikipedia. That said, as an artist I've found that the solutions to "creative" problems which pretty much includes any kind of novel solution related to art or anything else often comes in the silence between the words or activitiy. Sometimes the quiet has to be long enough for the solution, which is most surely there, to have the time and space to surface. If this problem in discussion is not being resolved with words then you might allow the solution to show itself in other ways. I have no opinion on the discussion, hope I am not intruding, and send best wishes.( olive ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
A pure apology is an act of grace, without reservation, and without strings attached; it is a gift, in the truest sense of the word. In its truest sense, an apology is a submission, and one who truly apologizes does so seeking nothing in return. One who truly apologizes does not offer any claim of justification for the transgression prompting this gift, as such a claim would be a demand on the recipient for recognition that the transgression was justified. In this light, any expression that seems like "Sorry, but...." is not an apology, and if an apology was expected, this won't do (although only a petulant child would demand a gift).
We all say "sorry" a lot, but then again, often we do so only as a promise not to violate the mutually-accepted rules of civil discourse, so that we may continue a conversation concerning a disagreement. As my mother taught me, everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten (still trying to remember all of that, and teach it to my son). In that spirit, there does seem to be a difference between an "apology" conceding a dispute, and a "promise to act better" in the course of continuing some disagreement. Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here). Steveozone ( talk) 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I had an extremely unpleasant set of interactions with someone, in which a lot of apologies were demanded of me, and I found myself simultaneously attacked in various ways. An apology was demanded of me that seemed to involve "admitting" to have said something I never said. If that's the kind of apology that someone demands, then I think it's very fair to point out that the conditions demanded are at odds with reality - if someone says, "apologize for purposely insulting me", when I didn't purposely insult the person... then where does this act of pure grace come in.
Finally, I have no idea what this means: "Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here).". What? What promise?
Can you be more specific and concrete, because I have no idea whether you're criticizing me (which would be fine), or what. I'm sorry (whatever that means), but I do not follow what you're saying, and how it applies to the situation I assume you're talking about.
If you're offering advice, can you make it clear? I'd love to learn from this situation, but this seems very cryptic. - GTBacchus( talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GBT, I've been following your comments on B-Bug's with interest, and found this one quite compelling: I think that our community has managed to enable - to the point of institutionalizing - the most infantile and counter-productive ways of handling "trolling". I could not agree with you more, having had two incidents with problem users in the past two weeks that onel reinfoce my belief that you are correct. Between July 2007 and early 2009, I had a long, tiring battle with several trolls. Obviously, there are going to be bad reactions in such situations, but every time I said something I might have been better not to say - and I few comments that I still stand by - I'd get 3-6 admins slamming me immediately, while doing absoultely nothing about the trolls! (In truth, they were using dynamic IPs, so nothing really erffective could be done, but then that (open editing) is one of those "infantile and counter-productive ways" you mentioned!) As such, I've now declared myself (on my talk page) to be a troll in such situations, and asked them to not feed me. ;) Let's see how long it takes for me to be warned, blocked, or banned! - BillCJ ( talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking into the speedy deletion of File:2001 Results VA.JPG when I noticed that it was actually different from the file it was supposed to be a duplicate of, File:Virginia 2001 Election Results.JPG. At least three counties changed colors between the two images. I posted a message to User talk:Hekerui, who tagged it for speedy deletion, but by the time I had composed that message the image was gone. I'm just giving you a heads-up; perhaps the second image is more accurate. If it turns out to have been an error, I'm sure we can just get the correct file re-uploaded. Anyway, have a good day! - GTBacchus( talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this, please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
May be we will try to fix this article. Will it be possible to get it back? Thanks. -- Donotask-donottell ( talk) 01:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, i will try to save this. Thanks. -- Donotask-donottell ( talk) 10:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I don't like the guy, which is actually playing down how I feel about this particular user. My comments were a little out of hand. That said, he isn't stupid; he knows how his coming to an article I wrote to dismantle it is going to be perceived. I mean, the user didn't even bother going to the article discussion. Had they actually come to edit constructively, they would have contributed to the discussion, or added to the article using any of the dozen or so conveniently-researched sources also located there. At the very least, the user is blind bull in a china shop; at worst, he's spoiling for a fight. Okay, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I felt a little provoked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am really concerned about the tons of info being removed from Infanticide since I was blocked unfairly. I hope another editor will re-add the removed material and discuss with the editor who is doing the removal.
I am going to bed right now... Thantalteresco ( talk) 01:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am growing concerned with the SPA anon account 99.142.2.89 ( talk · contribs); (s)he is now refactoring article discussion comments including notice of DYK. I do not think this is a new user; they simply have too much wiki know-how. What is your opinion on the subject?
(from http://cqcounter.com/whois/):
99.142.2.89 - Geo Information
IP Address 99.142.2.89
Host adsl-99-142-2-89.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
Location US, United States
City Hanover Park, IL 60133
Organization SBC Internet Services
ISP SBC Internet Services
AS Number AS7132
Latitude 41°97'63" North
Longitude 88°14'41" West
Distance 8374.40 km (5203.61 miles)
all edits in this account are in Grief porn, dating fron 16-21 June, 2009 - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What's the refactoring issue, exactly? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As for discussion, I'm pretty sure we're having it now, and I've also posted to the talk page there. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Demonology&diff=297947254&oldid=297664121
DreamGuy (talk | contribs)
(removing nonnotable trivia per WP:CONSENSUS on talk page and WP:BRD/WP:STATUSQUO -- editor would need a demonstrated consensus to add this)
When he does that, don't revert him. If you revert him, you're edit-warring. ALL reverts are inappropriate until discussion is complete. If you want to report him for edit-warring, don't also edit-war yourself. The only way for you to hold the high ground is to stop reverting, and to convince someone else to do it for you. I can't even help you now, because you reverted him. Rise above it, already. Do you want to win, or not? If you revert, you'll lose. I've seen it happen so many times. Don't be another one. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
may your archive old disscussions? I can't read my own post :-( Idot ( talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
unfortunetelly I can't see my message :-( so I'll write here (please put in the rignt section, and please archive old discusions). the story of the question:
"Demonology in fiction" section was made by
user:Ian.thomson
the reason is explained in
Talk:Demonologist
that means^ according
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it was the situation which is called "Previous consesus"
DreamGuy didn't want to discuss anything (and even now he/she doesn't show a big will to do it) and just deleted from the article
even after writing few post in the disucssion he/she didn't wait for response and just deleted it again
so according
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle his/her actions are exactly that which is called Bold change
Ian.thomson used to think that merging
Demonologist with
Demonology is the best solution
now Ian.thomson thinks "leaning a good bit towards leaving it out. It could be done, but there is little justification for what was there. If there was a good amount of material that wasn't just a list of bits of fiction that mention the word demon and summoning within a hundred words of each other, that'd be something to keep. If there was a major difference between fantasy demonology and what people in the real world dabble in, that'd be something to keep."
(i.e. according Ian.thomson's opinion the section is porly writeen, but might exist if it will be rewriten quite bette)
all actions of DreamGuy in this article are just deleting, deleting, and deleting again
which means that actions DreamGuy does not give a time (and a chance to improve the section)
as DreamGuy only the only the peson who thinks that this section is a triva => all his/her actions are pure bold vandalism (
Idot (
talk)
02:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
Are anon IP users able to see their talk page? My new best friend is now editing under a new IP. I just finished linking them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
IP users certainly can see their talk page, but it can be tricky to find it. If someone else leaves them a message, then they get the same orange banner we get, but once that's gone, they haven't got the "my talk" link. What I do, when I'm editing anonymously and want to see my talk, is go to some article I've edited, look at the history, and find myself that way.
Does that answer your question? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your kind condolences. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Per your comments on Talk:Demonology#possible_sources_for_this_section, I am at a loss to understand how you thought that comment was at all appropriate for the situation. Is it that you somehow find WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO to be invalid standards which you think should be turned completely on their heads so that new content added without consensus has to stay there until a consensus to remove it is established? You seem to be quite aggressively warning me about alleged violations that are nothing of the sort and, indeed, accepted and even encouraged editing standards. I can't see how that's at all helpful. I would suggest you either read those links above if they are unfamiliar to you, or if you just let them slip your mind take a minute to reassess the situation. I realize that you are trying to help, but good intentions alone aren't helpful when you seem to be actively taking a side in a dispute, and especially one that runs counter to accepted practices. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever BRD allows, reverting is not always the smartest strategy. Sometimes you're much better off working from the other position, and letting a bad edit stand for a while is a very powerful technique, albeit a very non-intuitive one. I'm pretty sure that the most successful editors follow a zero-revert rule. I try to.
Regarding BRD, there's the letter of it, and there's the spirit. The spirit is infinitely more important than the letter, and this is true to the point that I would discourage editors from reading the letter at all once they get the spirit. The spirit of BRD is: "once there's been a single reversion, everyone stop editing and talk." That WP:STATUSQUO seems to me to give bad advice, that contradicts the spirit of other policies, and it should probably be rewritten. Insisting that a certain version of the article be visible while discussion is happening is a terrible idea, an invitation to gaming, and not how we should do it. If BRD turns into BRRRRR...., then the point isn't to ensure that the number of Rs is an odd number. The point is to stop adding Rs. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. Sorry to hear your splint on a finger. I wish you get well soon. Actually, when Mathsci (the user has been brought to noticeboards for his ownership issue and incivility) was accusing CoM for absurd reasons on CoM's talk page, I considered to draw your attention because you could be a good helper to de-escalate the dispute....but things are getting uglier and uglier. I'm totally disagree with CoM's interpretation of BLP and US politic dramaz, but I do not wish him to be chased by the flocks that has unfinished political disputes with CoM, so he are driven to decide to leave Wikipedia. To me, he is a good contributor to cuisine and culture articles. My advices so far do not work at all for him......so if you do not mind, would you give your input to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles? As for Wikistress, I was taking several wikibreaks due to severe stresses for an ArbCom case, but I did not know that just commenting things not directly related to me is also very stressful....(beginning to understand admins' stress which stems from meditating disputes between editors) Well...I think I'm not good at de-escalating dramas...so I ask you a favor. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)