![]() | This user's talk page might be
watched by |
no archives yet ( create) |
Many of your filter-log reports can mask more urgent cases. I have much experience with monitoring filters. My advise: do not report IPs with a few trigger attempts and no recent edits. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a comment at WikiProject merge discussion assessing the consensus there. From my perspective, there is no significant disagreement, and I want them to go ahead with the merger if there's consensus rather than letting the proposal stagnate. However, I did not close the discussion because I want to leave it open for participants to coordinate their actions. Do you think I did a good job? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 06:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar and for the kind words. Doing what I can to help rookies around here and try to spread the word. Red Director ( talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey MJL, hope you're well. Sorry I've been away for a bit, but I have finally replied to your most recent email. :) Not trying to seem like I'm breathing down your neck or anything, but I saw the drama with JzG/ElKevbo, and I stumbled across User talk:ElKevbo#Helpful note. I understand and appreciate the fact that you were trying to help. But, I have some critiques regarding your message there. First, ElKevbo is a highly established editor, with nearly 70k edits from 2005. That's an extreme degree of dedication to the project, and when an editor of that magnitude makes a complaint to AN/I, we tend to take it very seriously and give it a fair hearing, even if the complaint ends up being in the wrong. Second, you're not wrong that AN/I is generally a last resort...but that's for petty, everyday matters. When it comes to admin abuse/misconduct, which is an extremely severe issue if it happens, it tends to be more of a first line of defense. Arbcom is the body responsible for handling admin misconduct, but they require prior attempts to resolve the issue. That usually means AN/I is a required prerequisite to actually dealing with an issue, even if the community is very hesitant to sanction an admin. Thirdly, it's worth considering that you encouraged a user to strike a complaint that was subsequently endorsed by the community. In other words, your instinct that the complaint should not have been filed was wrong. Fourthly, with absolutely no disrespect to you intended, somebody who's invested a significant portion of their life into the project over the long term does not need a newbie unilaterally telling them to strike anything. This gets into the "hierarchical" culture I tried to explain to you. And, lastly, you've been repeatedly warned to not get out of your depth in terms of meta-involvement and authoritativeness. AN/I gatekeeping/mediating is certainly not something you should be engaging in, nor should you be sticking your nose in drama like this. You're just going to continue rustling feathers this way.
Another thing, this. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that a user can't assess a discussion and designate its AN/C listing as "on hold" due to a lack of consensus, but there is nothing wrong with doing so. This is more of the same authoritativeness that is getting you in hot water.
Here, you come across as making light of the numerous requests that you slow down and work your way up, saying you need an NAC "safeplace", amazingly increasing the number of admins threatening to CIR-block you. BrownHairedGirl has thoroughly explained, basically, the same exact thing that I have already attempted to explain to you, about the need to start small in the content space and gradually work your way up over the long-term. I have to be honest, this is not something that you should have needed to have explained to you again, and focusing on how you're being treated rather than focusing on actually following the advice people are giving you is not going to help the situation. This isn't about you being bullied out of participation, this is about you learning how things work around here and being capable of adjusting to criticism in good faith. That's part of CIR. It is not escaping anyone that you have amassed nearly 5k edits, and not even 20% of those are contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Seriously, this is a large project, and it is possible to contribute primarily behind the scenes, but you seriously need to become a respected and established editor before you can start branching out. As BHG explained, it doesn't work the other way around.
Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I'm honestly trying to help you. You're continuing to get into hot water and continuing to involve yourself with drama. This is not good. Like I said, I have your back, and I'm willing to help you improve, and I have a modicum of respect where other admins will defer to my mentorship, but this is now five admins that I know of who want to CIR-block you. That's not a problem with Wikipedia admins, that's quite simply a point where you need to seriously listen and hear what we're trying to tell you to do. I cannot realistically defend you against five admins who think you should be blocked, simply because I have adopted you. Please, take my advice, and bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. No editor this new should be nearly as controversial as you are, it isn't normal. There's an unlimited number of ways to contribute to the project, find a niche you like and focus on it! If you need help in that regard, I can refer you to resources. It's fun, that's fundamentally why we're all here. Those of us who manage things behind the scenes do so at the pleasure of the content editors, after we've earned our place. The best editors never piss anyone off, and make changes when they do. Please start taking this seriously. Focus on the encyclopedia. Involvement in other areas should, and does, come naturally with experience. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. All of it. Really. Seriously. Now.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Matt. Sorry to reply to your email on your talk page, but given the nature of your request, I feel that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, I am obligated to respond on-wiki. My assessment, unequivocally and unreservedly, is that your idea to discreetly create a new account in the current context would be incredibly inappropriate and could not possibly be considered to be a WP:LEGITSOCK. More than anything, it comes across as an attempt to evade scrutiny, and I quite seriously think it's the worst possible move you could even consider making right now. There's literally nothing hanging over your head if you simply take on board criticism and adjust accordingly, and having Kudpung breathing down your neck is not remotely an acceptable reason to create a secret sock account. GorillaWarfare is a far more senior editor than I, and if she disagrees with my assessment, you should defer to her judgment without question. But, I seriously doubt she would think this is okay, and frankly, I'm surprised that you'd even consider such a thing. You know you're on extremely thin ice right now, and that means you have to show everyone that they're wrong to want to block you. Thinking that you should create a secret account to start over with is unbelievably boneheaded and extremely alarming. cc: @ BrownHairedGirl, TonyBallioni, Ad Orientem, and Nick: ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | MJL is currently experiencing
mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with:
|
I have already received a response from GorillaWarfare and was satisfactory. I was floating this idea and had already decided against it last night. I really really did not expect a response like this this morning. I mostly just figured I would force myself to make the decisions I didn't want to. Updating my watchlist, getting rid of the admin-y scripts, and actually start mainspace editing. The hounding issue has seemed to go away for the time-being (which I rather surprised you did not mention considering that was the primary reason for this idea). I'm seriously trying to do things the right way, but I don't have the mental fortitude to devote to this project if it means I wake up to 4 talk page messages every morning.
My mistakes have given me an above average level of scrutiny. The whole point of this temporary spa was to just give me a month away from project space in an organized setting. You were fully aware that a highly respected admin has taken to denigrating me, and I suspect that was the only reason they were not pinged in regards to this concern.
I'll get to reading everyone's replies soon, but I need a wikibreak after all this. I can't handle being a source of distress for this many people. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 14:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot ( talk) 04:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I failed to make my views known during the request for comment period, except to you on your page. I would like to if this Current Events Notice Board has been created, and if so, where it is.
Its biggest difficulty will be the non-uniformity and non-agreement about appropriate use of the template "current" as well as its proliferation of functionally similar or identical copied templates, as well as similar proliferation related to category usage.
Regards, Yellowdesk ( talk) 18:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This user's talk page might be
watched by |
no archives yet ( create) |
Many of your filter-log reports can mask more urgent cases. I have much experience with monitoring filters. My advise: do not report IPs with a few trigger attempts and no recent edits. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a comment at WikiProject merge discussion assessing the consensus there. From my perspective, there is no significant disagreement, and I want them to go ahead with the merger if there's consensus rather than letting the proposal stagnate. However, I did not close the discussion because I want to leave it open for participants to coordinate their actions. Do you think I did a good job? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 06:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar and for the kind words. Doing what I can to help rookies around here and try to spread the word. Red Director ( talk) 03:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey MJL, hope you're well. Sorry I've been away for a bit, but I have finally replied to your most recent email. :) Not trying to seem like I'm breathing down your neck or anything, but I saw the drama with JzG/ElKevbo, and I stumbled across User talk:ElKevbo#Helpful note. I understand and appreciate the fact that you were trying to help. But, I have some critiques regarding your message there. First, ElKevbo is a highly established editor, with nearly 70k edits from 2005. That's an extreme degree of dedication to the project, and when an editor of that magnitude makes a complaint to AN/I, we tend to take it very seriously and give it a fair hearing, even if the complaint ends up being in the wrong. Second, you're not wrong that AN/I is generally a last resort...but that's for petty, everyday matters. When it comes to admin abuse/misconduct, which is an extremely severe issue if it happens, it tends to be more of a first line of defense. Arbcom is the body responsible for handling admin misconduct, but they require prior attempts to resolve the issue. That usually means AN/I is a required prerequisite to actually dealing with an issue, even if the community is very hesitant to sanction an admin. Thirdly, it's worth considering that you encouraged a user to strike a complaint that was subsequently endorsed by the community. In other words, your instinct that the complaint should not have been filed was wrong. Fourthly, with absolutely no disrespect to you intended, somebody who's invested a significant portion of their life into the project over the long term does not need a newbie unilaterally telling them to strike anything. This gets into the "hierarchical" culture I tried to explain to you. And, lastly, you've been repeatedly warned to not get out of your depth in terms of meta-involvement and authoritativeness. AN/I gatekeeping/mediating is certainly not something you should be engaging in, nor should you be sticking your nose in drama like this. You're just going to continue rustling feathers this way.
Another thing, this. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that a user can't assess a discussion and designate its AN/C listing as "on hold" due to a lack of consensus, but there is nothing wrong with doing so. This is more of the same authoritativeness that is getting you in hot water.
Here, you come across as making light of the numerous requests that you slow down and work your way up, saying you need an NAC "safeplace", amazingly increasing the number of admins threatening to CIR-block you. BrownHairedGirl has thoroughly explained, basically, the same exact thing that I have already attempted to explain to you, about the need to start small in the content space and gradually work your way up over the long-term. I have to be honest, this is not something that you should have needed to have explained to you again, and focusing on how you're being treated rather than focusing on actually following the advice people are giving you is not going to help the situation. This isn't about you being bullied out of participation, this is about you learning how things work around here and being capable of adjusting to criticism in good faith. That's part of CIR. It is not escaping anyone that you have amassed nearly 5k edits, and not even 20% of those are contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Seriously, this is a large project, and it is possible to contribute primarily behind the scenes, but you seriously need to become a respected and established editor before you can start branching out. As BHG explained, it doesn't work the other way around.
Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I'm honestly trying to help you. You're continuing to get into hot water and continuing to involve yourself with drama. This is not good. Like I said, I have your back, and I'm willing to help you improve, and I have a modicum of respect where other admins will defer to my mentorship, but this is now five admins that I know of who want to CIR-block you. That's not a problem with Wikipedia admins, that's quite simply a point where you need to seriously listen and hear what we're trying to tell you to do. I cannot realistically defend you against five admins who think you should be blocked, simply because I have adopted you. Please, take my advice, and bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. No editor this new should be nearly as controversial as you are, it isn't normal. There's an unlimited number of ways to contribute to the project, find a niche you like and focus on it! If you need help in that regard, I can refer you to resources. It's fun, that's fundamentally why we're all here. Those of us who manage things behind the scenes do so at the pleasure of the content editors, after we've earned our place. The best editors never piss anyone off, and make changes when they do. Please start taking this seriously. Focus on the encyclopedia. Involvement in other areas should, and does, come naturally with experience. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. Just focus on mainspace editing. All of it. Really. Seriously. Now.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Matt. Sorry to reply to your email on your talk page, but given the nature of your request, I feel that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, I am obligated to respond on-wiki. My assessment, unequivocally and unreservedly, is that your idea to discreetly create a new account in the current context would be incredibly inappropriate and could not possibly be considered to be a WP:LEGITSOCK. More than anything, it comes across as an attempt to evade scrutiny, and I quite seriously think it's the worst possible move you could even consider making right now. There's literally nothing hanging over your head if you simply take on board criticism and adjust accordingly, and having Kudpung breathing down your neck is not remotely an acceptable reason to create a secret sock account. GorillaWarfare is a far more senior editor than I, and if she disagrees with my assessment, you should defer to her judgment without question. But, I seriously doubt she would think this is okay, and frankly, I'm surprised that you'd even consider such a thing. You know you're on extremely thin ice right now, and that means you have to show everyone that they're wrong to want to block you. Thinking that you should create a secret account to start over with is unbelievably boneheaded and extremely alarming. cc: @ BrownHairedGirl, TonyBallioni, Ad Orientem, and Nick: ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | MJL is currently experiencing
mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with:
|
I have already received a response from GorillaWarfare and was satisfactory. I was floating this idea and had already decided against it last night. I really really did not expect a response like this this morning. I mostly just figured I would force myself to make the decisions I didn't want to. Updating my watchlist, getting rid of the admin-y scripts, and actually start mainspace editing. The hounding issue has seemed to go away for the time-being (which I rather surprised you did not mention considering that was the primary reason for this idea). I'm seriously trying to do things the right way, but I don't have the mental fortitude to devote to this project if it means I wake up to 4 talk page messages every morning.
My mistakes have given me an above average level of scrutiny. The whole point of this temporary spa was to just give me a month away from project space in an organized setting. You were fully aware that a highly respected admin has taken to denigrating me, and I suspect that was the only reason they were not pinged in regards to this concern.
I'll get to reading everyone's replies soon, but I need a wikibreak after all this. I can't handle being a source of distress for this many people. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 14:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot ( talk) 04:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I failed to make my views known during the request for comment period, except to you on your page. I would like to if this Current Events Notice Board has been created, and if so, where it is.
Its biggest difficulty will be the non-uniformity and non-agreement about appropriate use of the template "current" as well as its proliferation of functionally similar or identical copied templates, as well as similar proliferation related to category usage.
Regards, Yellowdesk ( talk) 18:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)