![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"We're putting together some things to bring in to you later (semi colon)" came out as "We are putting together some things to bring in to you like to suck cock ...." LULZ! Pesky ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky - It took a while for me to respond to your call. But can I interest you in this?
Best to you and your family, — Misty MORN 19:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but this was new to me: WP:REDEX. Hugz, — MistyMorn ( talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The cancer explanation: it's making the wrong pieces in the wrong place, and the bit which tells it when to stop doesn't work. Pesky ( talk) 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! In your WP:AUTIE essay you linked this test. How is it reliable? Eg., if I get 28, does it indeed mean that I am likely affected with Asperger's syndrome? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding: when talking to people who knew you as a child, be careful not to ask leading questions! So ask along the lines of "What did I used to do if I was upset / overwhelmed / excited (etc.)?", and not "Did I used to toe-walk on the spot, flap hands, cover my ears, flinch at noises other people hardly noticed?" and so on. The more medical-history (kinda thing) you can get, the more you'll get a better picture of whether you're autism-spectrum. Effectively, the more ASD-markers / indicators you had as a youngster, the more likely it is that a 28 score is a reliable indicator.
Adding more: old school reports (if you still have them!) can be quite revealing. Things like "Doesn't make friends easily", "Won't play games which involve holding hands", and little things like that. You might be interested in this. Pesky ( talk) 05:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Montana, the toe-walking thing is that thing you may have seen (much more often in kids than in adults) where, when distressed or excited, the kid goes onto tiptoes (to one extent or another) and "pads" on the spot (like a cat kneading you with its paws, a bit!), or walks keeping the heels off the ground in situations which make them edgy. Severely autistic kids often toe-walk to the exclusion of any other kind of walking. One very definitive little subtle marker is a kid who, when upset or excited, lifts the heels off the ground; tucks in the elbows, and lifts the hands up to shoulder level, close to the body, and usually palms facing forwards; and slightly curls their body around their tummy. Sometimes very, very subtle, sometimes really marked, with rapid on-the-spot tiptoe-steps, very tense tummy and noticeably hunched over, and very flappy hands, or covering the ears. It's very like a prolonged startle-response.
This is a fascinating video in many ways. Don't just listen to what they're saying (although obviously take it in, lol!) but watch the body language very closely. Pesky ( talk) 03:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The interacting / speaking thing can be a bit odd; you sound a bit like me, there! I have absolutely no problem at all in public speaking, whether the audience is 10 or 1000. But social conversation? Not good at it, at all! I used to duck right out of it and stand in my own little world on the sidelines, but now if I'm forced to be an a multi-person social situation (or force myself to be) I tend to over-compensate and become manically hyper, in an effort to appear friendly and outgoing, lol! Haven't got it right yet! (Don't really want to, as I don't like having to be part of a social situation.) I'm brill at doing the in-depth lecture on equine coat colour genetics (or a few other subjects) if anyone asks me; but lousy at noticing when they've had enough and are wishing I would shut up! If I'm the one who's in control of the situation, then all is usually fine, but not if I'm just another bee in the swarm, as it were. Much like you! Pesky ( talk) 03:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding: the hand-flapping, toe-walking, jumping, hopping, spinning, face-pulling finger-fidgeting, etc. are all called "stimming" behaviours. Search for autistic stim on YouTube and you'll see quite a lot of them. This is quite a good one; so is this. Pesky ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A few validation studies of ASQ here.
For a rather longer list which might have something of interest to you, try entering this exact search string into
PubMed (sorry, no way of linking the square brackets):
"Child Development Disorders, Pervasive"[Mesh] AND "Validation Studies" [Publication Type]
— MistyMorn ( talk) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Gotta laugh, really ... I was reading through this and effectively ticking checkboxes for what I was like at school age. Hmmm. Results: all boxes ticked for "Social/Emotional Concerns"; 2 out of 4 ticked for "Communication Concerns"; and 4 out of 6 for "Behavioral Concerns". LULZ! (Mind you, my IQ always tested as sky-high.) I think I would have got on in life so much better if HFA had been diagnosed more when I was a kid! Pesky ( talk) 09:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Question for those "in the know": does interaction with toys constitute any part of any ASD assessment? In common with several ASD-people of my acquaintance, I hated dolls (spooky, nasty, don't know what to do with them, boring), and loved animal toys and construction toys. Pesky ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I've hunted around for some other cool online things, and found a few (including an online version of the RAADS-R) over here. One of the failings I found in completing the RAADS-R is that I felt I really needed to have an option which said "sometimes"! My own results on this one are here, if anyone's interested! Pesky ( talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Peskers (and hello talk page stalkers)! I hope the little grandkiddy is doing okay. Thankfully, kids are robust little creatures. I hope he continues to get better. Anyway, I wrote an essay, (working title: "Don't diagnose other editors"). The first draft is
here, in my sandbox. It's about something I've seen people do around here - speculating unduly on the mental health of another editor, often during disputes. Quite harmful, I think. It might have a slant on it from the work I did with mental health stuff in the NHS, but I don't know. The essay is designed to discourage it (while at the same time encourage good communication about mental health). I popped a link to your AUTIE essay at the bottom, as a good example of an advice essay for people with mental stuffs to deal with while editing.
Anyway, I wrote in the space of maybe an hour or two, so it might be a bit rambling or unclear or...something. I'm a bit sleep-deprived. I'd really love if you could take a look, give some feedback! There are some hidden text comments/ramblings from me as I worked. Any talk page stalkers are welcome to take a look too. I'd appreciate any tweaks, helpful links, suggestions for improvement, anything at all. For all I know, it's terrible! :P Big hugs, as always! :)
OohBunnies!
(talk) 13:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done
Littl'un is going for surgery this afternoon. His tumour has grown a lot even in just two weeks, and is now occupying most (if not all) of his left lung. The surgeons don't know yet quite what they'll be doing (they'll make final decisions once they can actually see and feel what they're dealing with), but it may be as extensive as removing the entire lung. All good thoughts, vibes, prayers and other wossnames for him and his mum. Pesky ( talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The incredible child is walking about, and playing with the toys in the playroom! The only trouble he's having with walking is because of his swollen leg. The medical staff are astounded with his rate of recovery. Pesky ( talk) 07:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to everyone for all the moral support, and so on. It really does make a difference to me. Pesky ( talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
I participated in a research, they still need more data so would you like to have a go? [3] -- RexRowan Talk 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The process whereby a suer applies to get unblocked seems to me to be broken. Maybe it's simply coincidence but I am currently involved (not necessarily WP:INVOLVED) in three cases where this seems to be the case. Of course I accept that these editors may not end up as active unbanned editors, whatever we do, but it does seem that the way it works tends to be
block => appeal => decline => appeal => decline & remove talk page access.
Part of the reason is that the things we tell people not to do are contrary to human nature, and only a discussion (if that) will resolve these issues a lot of the time.
When someone is blocked they generally have at least three or four things that they are emotionally invested in
Probably also
As well as not dealing with these issues under standard offer, we are denying any kind of process to the blockee when they are right, and this must happen sometimes!
What do you think, can we put together a better, less confrontational process?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
Adding: I suppose, really, that the picture I'm trying to draw (and hopefully without anyone screaming "Hyperbole!" or "Godwin's Law!") is that there are two ways of sustaining what appears to be a healthy, thriving community. One is a community that notices really quickly when it's damaging people, and finds ways of reducing / eliminating the damage, and finding productive, nurturing jobs for the people we've damaged, ourselves. That's a healthy, thriving community in many ways. It has ethical health. The other is simply to shoot anyone who begins to show symptoms of community-induced ill-health, "because people are replaceable units". That way we have a high percentage of symptomless people. If people can hide their symptoms and retreat into little ghettos where they can gnome quietly away with a very low profile, so nobody notices that they're showing symptoms of damage, we don't notice them, so they don't get shot. We have, at times, a rather insidious parallel to the Ceaușescu regime. We silence the dissenting voices; we disempower, disenfranchise, and marginalise them until they become sufficiently damaged that we can eliminate them. Pesky ( talk) 07:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A time is coming when we will each have to choose between doing what is right, and doing what is easy.
Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Rowling, J.K.)
Yes, I know. I commented at the ArbCom process that silencing critics was a Ceaușistic manoeuvre, and should be considered to be unworthy of us. Br'er Rabbit has made the Lord of the Flies comparison many times, too. We know what the problem is; it's the solution which currently evades me. Pesky ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the real thing which we most need, as a community, to overcome, is the (sad) fact that it's so often much easier to pick holes in the way someone says something, to penalise them for that, than it is actually to listen to what they are saying, and to address that one. It's a thing which humans do. Pesky ( talk) 04:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
... injustice, lack of insight, inability to address wrongs, nah, no problem. But we sure as heck can stop people from saying "legs". Pesky ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So I guess this makes me an offical TPS, about which I am not sure, but I was drawn here first by the link to the ASD test (on which I scored a 36, incidentally) and then I just had to comment when I read this section. One thing I've thought about, IRT the "standard offer" and other reintegration strategies: would it not perhaps help both sides to create a dialogue framed using something like your "things angry/blocked users probably have emotional investment in" list above? In other words, rather than let the AN/I combine chow down on the heads of irate users to extrapolate possible reasons behind their anger, why don't we just flat out ASK the angry user?
(I'm painfully aware of the shortcomings of some of those questions; obviously they'd need to be tinkered with substantially til they sounded less condescending and more likely to elicit useful answers!) So rather than toss our seemingly insurmountable "standard offer" at a blocked user, or blocking their talk page access because they acted in a way consistent with human nature, we could give them a constructive way to vent, while also gathering information which would allow the rest of us to make WP a less-bureaucratic, more-welcoming environment. (I should clarify: not all blocked users would be suitable for this process! Socks, vandals, random trolls, editors in search of 'teh lulz', TheTruthIsOutThereAndI'mTheGuyToProveIt types...not a good fit. But a plain ol' Reasonably Constructive Editor (RCE) whose opinions, process, or tactics have gotten on the wrong side of one or more other RCEs...instead of blocking them, or doing any of the usual crap, we could give them the opportunity to answer some questions like these, which would hopefully be beneficial to BOTH sides. The user gets to vent and to offer his/her opinions in a way that doesn't disturb content pages; WP gets to retain constructive editors and learns where processes need to be improved. Everybody gains a little.) What do you think? GJC 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Another really cool idea, here! What do you think about the idea of actually making something like this into a standard kinda debriefing questionnaire / page / wossname, for blocked users who are worth working on / with? I guess that the people who should be reading / assessing the answers and comments from the blocked user ideally should have either the right kind of personality to be able to see through the smokescreen to the real nuggets of gold, or actually come from some kind of professional background where they're used to hunting through the smoke (maybe anyone with a background in counselling, psychology, psychiatry, anything else where they're used to untangling challenging situations and thoughts).
AN/I is a pig of a place, much of the time, and if an erring editor does answer on there, they're more likely than not to be swamped by attacks from all sides, which really doesn't help.
Resolution, rather than punishment or exile. And not requiring belly-to-the-ground grovelling, foot-licking, arse-licking behaviour from the offender; just a sensible discussion of the problems (as seen from the offender's side – the problem (offender) as seen from the other side will already have been made quite clear! – with the goal of fixing some things. Pesky ( talk) 05:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
Recently I thought of blogging. When I am awake, I feel I want to write my feelings but I would spend hours trying to find the correct word or tone and stare at the screen then write nothing and close the tab. But when I'm sleeping. I can make connections with my feelings and sometimes I wish I could wake up and write down exactly how I feel but I couldn't. When I wake up, everything went back to blank again. Do you experience this? -- RexRowan Talk 09:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Flint knapping is cutting-edge technology. Pesky ( talk) 07:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky, would you like to review this for me? Thanks a lot! It's at an idea stage, welcome further ideas! [4] -- RexRowan Talk 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"We're putting together some things to bring in to you later (semi colon)" came out as "We are putting together some things to bring in to you like to suck cock ...." LULZ! Pesky ( talk) 10:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky - It took a while for me to respond to your call. But can I interest you in this?
Best to you and your family, — Misty MORN 19:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but this was new to me: WP:REDEX. Hugz, — MistyMorn ( talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The cancer explanation: it's making the wrong pieces in the wrong place, and the bit which tells it when to stop doesn't work. Pesky ( talk) 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! In your WP:AUTIE essay you linked this test. How is it reliable? Eg., if I get 28, does it indeed mean that I am likely affected with Asperger's syndrome? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding: when talking to people who knew you as a child, be careful not to ask leading questions! So ask along the lines of "What did I used to do if I was upset / overwhelmed / excited (etc.)?", and not "Did I used to toe-walk on the spot, flap hands, cover my ears, flinch at noises other people hardly noticed?" and so on. The more medical-history (kinda thing) you can get, the more you'll get a better picture of whether you're autism-spectrum. Effectively, the more ASD-markers / indicators you had as a youngster, the more likely it is that a 28 score is a reliable indicator.
Adding more: old school reports (if you still have them!) can be quite revealing. Things like "Doesn't make friends easily", "Won't play games which involve holding hands", and little things like that. You might be interested in this. Pesky ( talk) 05:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Montana, the toe-walking thing is that thing you may have seen (much more often in kids than in adults) where, when distressed or excited, the kid goes onto tiptoes (to one extent or another) and "pads" on the spot (like a cat kneading you with its paws, a bit!), or walks keeping the heels off the ground in situations which make them edgy. Severely autistic kids often toe-walk to the exclusion of any other kind of walking. One very definitive little subtle marker is a kid who, when upset or excited, lifts the heels off the ground; tucks in the elbows, and lifts the hands up to shoulder level, close to the body, and usually palms facing forwards; and slightly curls their body around their tummy. Sometimes very, very subtle, sometimes really marked, with rapid on-the-spot tiptoe-steps, very tense tummy and noticeably hunched over, and very flappy hands, or covering the ears. It's very like a prolonged startle-response.
This is a fascinating video in many ways. Don't just listen to what they're saying (although obviously take it in, lol!) but watch the body language very closely. Pesky ( talk) 03:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The interacting / speaking thing can be a bit odd; you sound a bit like me, there! I have absolutely no problem at all in public speaking, whether the audience is 10 or 1000. But social conversation? Not good at it, at all! I used to duck right out of it and stand in my own little world on the sidelines, but now if I'm forced to be an a multi-person social situation (or force myself to be) I tend to over-compensate and become manically hyper, in an effort to appear friendly and outgoing, lol! Haven't got it right yet! (Don't really want to, as I don't like having to be part of a social situation.) I'm brill at doing the in-depth lecture on equine coat colour genetics (or a few other subjects) if anyone asks me; but lousy at noticing when they've had enough and are wishing I would shut up! If I'm the one who's in control of the situation, then all is usually fine, but not if I'm just another bee in the swarm, as it were. Much like you! Pesky ( talk) 03:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding: the hand-flapping, toe-walking, jumping, hopping, spinning, face-pulling finger-fidgeting, etc. are all called "stimming" behaviours. Search for autistic stim on YouTube and you'll see quite a lot of them. This is quite a good one; so is this. Pesky ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A few validation studies of ASQ here.
For a rather longer list which might have something of interest to you, try entering this exact search string into
PubMed (sorry, no way of linking the square brackets):
"Child Development Disorders, Pervasive"[Mesh] AND "Validation Studies" [Publication Type]
— MistyMorn ( talk) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Gotta laugh, really ... I was reading through this and effectively ticking checkboxes for what I was like at school age. Hmmm. Results: all boxes ticked for "Social/Emotional Concerns"; 2 out of 4 ticked for "Communication Concerns"; and 4 out of 6 for "Behavioral Concerns". LULZ! (Mind you, my IQ always tested as sky-high.) I think I would have got on in life so much better if HFA had been diagnosed more when I was a kid! Pesky ( talk) 09:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Question for those "in the know": does interaction with toys constitute any part of any ASD assessment? In common with several ASD-people of my acquaintance, I hated dolls (spooky, nasty, don't know what to do with them, boring), and loved animal toys and construction toys. Pesky ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I've hunted around for some other cool online things, and found a few (including an online version of the RAADS-R) over here. One of the failings I found in completing the RAADS-R is that I felt I really needed to have an option which said "sometimes"! My own results on this one are here, if anyone's interested! Pesky ( talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Peskers (and hello talk page stalkers)! I hope the little grandkiddy is doing okay. Thankfully, kids are robust little creatures. I hope he continues to get better. Anyway, I wrote an essay, (working title: "Don't diagnose other editors"). The first draft is
here, in my sandbox. It's about something I've seen people do around here - speculating unduly on the mental health of another editor, often during disputes. Quite harmful, I think. It might have a slant on it from the work I did with mental health stuff in the NHS, but I don't know. The essay is designed to discourage it (while at the same time encourage good communication about mental health). I popped a link to your AUTIE essay at the bottom, as a good example of an advice essay for people with mental stuffs to deal with while editing.
Anyway, I wrote in the space of maybe an hour or two, so it might be a bit rambling or unclear or...something. I'm a bit sleep-deprived. I'd really love if you could take a look, give some feedback! There are some hidden text comments/ramblings from me as I worked. Any talk page stalkers are welcome to take a look too. I'd appreciate any tweaks, helpful links, suggestions for improvement, anything at all. For all I know, it's terrible! :P Big hugs, as always! :)
OohBunnies!
(talk) 13:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done
Littl'un is going for surgery this afternoon. His tumour has grown a lot even in just two weeks, and is now occupying most (if not all) of his left lung. The surgeons don't know yet quite what they'll be doing (they'll make final decisions once they can actually see and feel what they're dealing with), but it may be as extensive as removing the entire lung. All good thoughts, vibes, prayers and other wossnames for him and his mum. Pesky ( talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The incredible child is walking about, and playing with the toys in the playroom! The only trouble he's having with walking is because of his swollen leg. The medical staff are astounded with his rate of recovery. Pesky ( talk) 07:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to everyone for all the moral support, and so on. It really does make a difference to me. Pesky ( talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
I participated in a research, they still need more data so would you like to have a go? [3] -- RexRowan Talk 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The process whereby a suer applies to get unblocked seems to me to be broken. Maybe it's simply coincidence but I am currently involved (not necessarily WP:INVOLVED) in three cases where this seems to be the case. Of course I accept that these editors may not end up as active unbanned editors, whatever we do, but it does seem that the way it works tends to be
block => appeal => decline => appeal => decline & remove talk page access.
Part of the reason is that the things we tell people not to do are contrary to human nature, and only a discussion (if that) will resolve these issues a lot of the time.
When someone is blocked they generally have at least three or four things that they are emotionally invested in
Probably also
As well as not dealing with these issues under standard offer, we are denying any kind of process to the blockee when they are right, and this must happen sometimes!
What do you think, can we put together a better, less confrontational process?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
Adding: I suppose, really, that the picture I'm trying to draw (and hopefully without anyone screaming "Hyperbole!" or "Godwin's Law!") is that there are two ways of sustaining what appears to be a healthy, thriving community. One is a community that notices really quickly when it's damaging people, and finds ways of reducing / eliminating the damage, and finding productive, nurturing jobs for the people we've damaged, ourselves. That's a healthy, thriving community in many ways. It has ethical health. The other is simply to shoot anyone who begins to show symptoms of community-induced ill-health, "because people are replaceable units". That way we have a high percentage of symptomless people. If people can hide their symptoms and retreat into little ghettos where they can gnome quietly away with a very low profile, so nobody notices that they're showing symptoms of damage, we don't notice them, so they don't get shot. We have, at times, a rather insidious parallel to the Ceaușescu regime. We silence the dissenting voices; we disempower, disenfranchise, and marginalise them until they become sufficiently damaged that we can eliminate them. Pesky ( talk) 07:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A time is coming when we will each have to choose between doing what is right, and doing what is easy.
Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Rowling, J.K.)
Yes, I know. I commented at the ArbCom process that silencing critics was a Ceaușistic manoeuvre, and should be considered to be unworthy of us. Br'er Rabbit has made the Lord of the Flies comparison many times, too. We know what the problem is; it's the solution which currently evades me. Pesky ( talk) 03:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the real thing which we most need, as a community, to overcome, is the (sad) fact that it's so often much easier to pick holes in the way someone says something, to penalise them for that, than it is actually to listen to what they are saying, and to address that one. It's a thing which humans do. Pesky ( talk) 04:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
... injustice, lack of insight, inability to address wrongs, nah, no problem. But we sure as heck can stop people from saying "legs". Pesky ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So I guess this makes me an offical TPS, about which I am not sure, but I was drawn here first by the link to the ASD test (on which I scored a 36, incidentally) and then I just had to comment when I read this section. One thing I've thought about, IRT the "standard offer" and other reintegration strategies: would it not perhaps help both sides to create a dialogue framed using something like your "things angry/blocked users probably have emotional investment in" list above? In other words, rather than let the AN/I combine chow down on the heads of irate users to extrapolate possible reasons behind their anger, why don't we just flat out ASK the angry user?
(I'm painfully aware of the shortcomings of some of those questions; obviously they'd need to be tinkered with substantially til they sounded less condescending and more likely to elicit useful answers!) So rather than toss our seemingly insurmountable "standard offer" at a blocked user, or blocking their talk page access because they acted in a way consistent with human nature, we could give them a constructive way to vent, while also gathering information which would allow the rest of us to make WP a less-bureaucratic, more-welcoming environment. (I should clarify: not all blocked users would be suitable for this process! Socks, vandals, random trolls, editors in search of 'teh lulz', TheTruthIsOutThereAndI'mTheGuyToProveIt types...not a good fit. But a plain ol' Reasonably Constructive Editor (RCE) whose opinions, process, or tactics have gotten on the wrong side of one or more other RCEs...instead of blocking them, or doing any of the usual crap, we could give them the opportunity to answer some questions like these, which would hopefully be beneficial to BOTH sides. The user gets to vent and to offer his/her opinions in a way that doesn't disturb content pages; WP gets to retain constructive editors and learns where processes need to be improved. Everybody gains a little.) What do you think? GJC 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Another really cool idea, here! What do you think about the idea of actually making something like this into a standard kinda debriefing questionnaire / page / wossname, for blocked users who are worth working on / with? I guess that the people who should be reading / assessing the answers and comments from the blocked user ideally should have either the right kind of personality to be able to see through the smokescreen to the real nuggets of gold, or actually come from some kind of professional background where they're used to hunting through the smoke (maybe anyone with a background in counselling, psychology, psychiatry, anything else where they're used to untangling challenging situations and thoughts).
AN/I is a pig of a place, much of the time, and if an erring editor does answer on there, they're more likely than not to be swamped by attacks from all sides, which really doesn't help.
Resolution, rather than punishment or exile. And not requiring belly-to-the-ground grovelling, foot-licking, arse-licking behaviour from the offender; just a sensible discussion of the problems (as seen from the offender's side – the problem (offender) as seen from the other side will already have been made quite clear! – with the goal of fixing some things. Pesky ( talk) 05:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
Recently I thought of blogging. When I am awake, I feel I want to write my feelings but I would spend hours trying to find the correct word or tone and stare at the screen then write nothing and close the tab. But when I'm sleeping. I can make connections with my feelings and sometimes I wish I could wake up and write down exactly how I feel but I couldn't. When I wake up, everything went back to blank again. Do you experience this? -- RexRowan Talk 09:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Flint knapping is cutting-edge technology. Pesky ( talk) 07:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky, would you like to review this for me? Thanks a lot! It's at an idea stage, welcome further ideas! [4] -- RexRowan Talk 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)