Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 17 February 2012

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I am not contributing frequently at present and can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

No editor is Moses

Excellent. I hope you don't mind my gentle copyedit - feel free to rv of course. Coincidentally it's along the lines of something I was thinking about myself: basically that there are people who seem to know instinctively how to conduct themselves in a given situation, and others who don't. Inevitably rulesets are developed to enable those who don't to conduct themselves like those who do, but because such conduct is enforced from without rather than coming from within they end up following the letter of the ruleset and missing the spirit. Adherence to the rules becomes more important than adherence to the philosophy that pre-dated them, and the rules—which become ever more prescriptive to account for all situations—are then applied to those who never had a need for them in the first place. Thus does friction arise... EyeSerene 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve, and appreciate the copyedit. This is a quite subtle matter, and your comment here articulates the issue much more clearly than it was in my own mind: I began the Hosea section partly to be self-critical, but what you have explained is why such different approaches are necessary – as well as the reasons they can lead to friction. The essay is only in my user space to let it mature: I encourage others to improve it. If it proves to be consonant and helpful, I would be happy to move it into project space. If it doesn't, I will probably delete it. You may also have better ideas for the title of the essay and the development of the main concept: I like the shortcut and the basic idea of the essay, but my knowledge of the prophets is rather limited, as is my supply of good jokes :) Geometry guy 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You need a corollary: "No editor is Angry Jesus". I have thought a lot, lot, lot about my time on Misplaced Pages. I have had many opportunities to put space between myself and my past edits. And I have come to one central conclusion. I dunno where or when I lost my way, but I do know how – I stopped seeing myself as an editor, and began seeing myself as a gatekeeper and guardian of the Wiki... If Angry Jesus is too sacrilegious, try Cerberus or Byalah or Komainu or Shishi or Dtuwamaum or Yama, Dharmapala Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Ling - always good to see you here. You are unduly critical about your own past contributions, but I understand the issue you are raising about the "gatekeeper/guardian of the Wiki" mentality. I've been accused of that once myself! One essay cannot solve every problem, and, in my view, this goes beyond the Moses issue that the essay raises. But if others see a nice way to incorporate it, then give it a shot! Geometry guy 03:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A gift for you

Thanks for that: it motivates me to go out and find such nutritious food! I was just replying when you added the mincemeat: it looks delicious.

I certainly try to think (and read) before I post: it is a habit I strongly recommend to all editors. Most of all, I am glad when my comments are read and appreciated. Misplaced Pages faces many challenges, and editors need to work together to deal with them.

Thanks in turn, SandyG, for all that you do Geometry guy 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Geometry guy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jonathan. Thanks for stopping by, but I regret that I must decline your invitation. In any case, I am a somewhat atypical admin, in that I hardly ever use the admin tools, and what little administration I do is mostly technical. I wish you success with your project. Geometry guy 13:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

hey

I'll drop by here tomorrow and chat a bit. I saw your reply, and I'm not ignoring anything .. just have some real life stuff to deal with tonight. all my best .. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I couldn't imagine you deliberately ignoring something. (Alas, I frequently ignore things through carelessness or lack of time, but welcome being pinged when I do.) I look forward to chatting with you whenever you would like to do so, on this topic or any other. Geometry guy 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey .. first, I know you have a lot more pull around this site than I do, and I admire all the great stuff you do. Pretty much a lot of things I was going to say were posted by Risker below. The thing that jumped out at me was the idea that BarkingMoon was not a new user. From everything I've seen or been told either on or off wiki makes me think that he actually was a new editor. Now, did Rlevse/Pumpkinsky have some influence on him .. I'd say that's pretty obvious that he did. My thought is that if someone encouraged a friend/fellow student/co-worker/friend of the family to edit Misplaced Pages ... cool .. glad to have more people here. I think the way the project treats new users is disgraceful. But, I think that the individual people here are good people. I'm not really familiar with either JV or Hersfold, so I can't really comment on that. I know that by nature everyone wants to know what the hell is going on here. I'm also painfully aware that there's a very fine line between "transparency" and "privacy". I'm not really sure what more I can say here. I have no problem with trying to respond to any questions you or anyone else might have - but I think almost anything and everything has been pretty much covered at this point. It's obvious that there's no consensus to just ban and shun PS/R ... so at this point, I'd say it's pretty much up to him. If he decides he wants to edit here .. then I will most certainly encourage him to do so. I look at the content he added, and it was damn good stuff. Perfect? nope, all our articles can be improved. Anyway .. I admire your work here, and feel free to ping me anytime. cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your general concerns about new users. It is problem, although I don't know how extensive/systemic it is: we do tend to hear only about the cases where new users have been treated badly. I certainly wasn't, but that was 5 years ago.

Concerning BarkingMoon, you don't have to take my word for it that he was not a typical new user: read Hersfold's and Steven Zhang's comments at the SPI, or check the earliest edits on the account for yourself: less than 3 hours after creating the account, he is commenting at ANI on a case of prior interest to RLevse.

Of course, that doesn't disprove your theory, and there is some evidence for it: BarkingMoon's second edit refers to "cajoling by my friend" to create an account, and Kiril's comments on the SPI are suggestive. It is a theory I've considered, find plausible, and would not dismiss. But there are caveats: if this was a new user (rather than an experienced user faking it) then there is some atypical editing. RLevse, frustrated about not being able to edit, may have cajoled a friend into creating an account, but the evidence suggests he did more than just mentor: either he had access to the account or had his friend make some edits on his behalf. Geometry guy 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I remain interested in your view and/or response, Ched. Geometry guy 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss

On the other hand, this situation has tied up literally thousands of hours of volunteer time: is it worth many more? Risker (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with your frustration. There are other editors (e.g., Hersfold and John Vandenberg) who should be commenting on this, but it has apparently been left to you. I'm glad you think you usually understand me well, but if you do, you will know that my prime interest is in Improving the Encyclopedia, and supporting a climate in which that can happen. In particular, I am as interested as you in moving on from this, and avoiding "thrashing again and over again with the same information". I have no control over other editors doing so, but have been trying to form their concerns into a coherent whole, so that some mutual understanding can be reached.

If it is worth a little more of your time to deal with this issue, I am willing to commit some of mine. If so, lets discuss it. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm just concerned that you (or anyone else) thinks either of them have any more information than I do, because they don't. I'm going to be focusing this evening on completing the proposed decision for a case that a different (but overlapping!) group of editors feel should have been Arbcom's priority over the last week or two; however, I might be able to pop back in tomorrow, or sneak a peek later tonight. Risker (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your concern was an example of an issue that needed to be addressed, and you have addressed it. It also suggests to me a way of dealing with the issue in general. Geometry guy 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC) PS. Good luck with the PD work: that's a tough case!

Request and "sandbox" by ASCIIn2Bme and further comments

Thanks to Will getting the ball rolling, there is now growing evidence that Rlevse may have been using IP addresses outside of his own town at FACR . It's possible he may just have been traveling though. Besides harping on Will's motives, one of the IPs uses familiar edit summaries. And so does (ps for extending comment, except in all caps this time. I covered this one in my main AN evidence.) "thanks for proving" The 216 IPs geolocate to California. The 206 one is in Florida. Both sets use extremely similar edit summaries, address the same "content" concern, and use the appellation "Mr. Beback": . Another 206 IP editing in the same article, with the same charges against Will. More edit summary matches: So, this is someone who can beam back and forth from Florida to California back to Florida within a day. Some days later, edits from Virginia ! The 206 and 207 IPs appear to be web hosting sites. Another post was made from a coloc in Pennsylvania . Others, like this 174 was blocked as open proxy. I suspect he thought that using his PumpkinSky account on scouting articles would have made it too obvious who it belonged to. As it's now typical in this Rlevse affair, we're not hearing the whole truth. Again. It's clear that Rlevse was far better at changing his IP than his writing style. (Apologies to Geometry guy for using his talk page as a sandbox, but I think he was sleeping while I did it.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ASCII asked me to look at this because I'm a (former) FA delegate (ASCII, I have resigned). " ... there is now growing evidence that Rlevse may have been using IP addresses outside of his own town at FAC . " Those are not at FAC; they are at FAR (I see the arbs in the civility case refer to FAC as Featured article reviews-- I wish they'd get the terminology correct, as those are two different places). At any rate, if an IP posted at FAC, I waited for futher feedback or some indication of the legitimacy of the comments, and at FAR, those edits made no difference to the outcome. So, the IP didn't affect process-- whether it's more Rlevse socking is another issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. How much of this has been hushed up by his enablers? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, few folks have paid attention to FAR lately. It's been in decline for several years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the FAC/FAR confusion. Fixed now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been a little bit disappointed by a shortfall in care/carefulness on your behalf recently, ASCIIn2Bme. You seem to be in a bit of a rush for some reason, whereas when discussing serious conduct issues, striving for accuracy is important. I noticed it at the Civility PD talk page as well as in your actions here (which led to the above reprimand from Risker on her talk page). I don't want to overstate this, as I try to be a fairly relaxed and tolerant guy, especially with regard to my userspace. However, you should not presume another editor is asleep and/or that it is therefore okay to use their talk page as a sandbox. As it happens, I wasn't logged in while you were posting, but I might have been.

Anyway, enough said and apologies accepted: I will now look at the substance of the new concerns/allegations you and Will have raised. Geometry guy 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks putting up with me. I realize I need to present the above better. The reason for my prolonged impromptu was that when I first posted here about that issue, I was expecting that the little evidence mentioned on PumpkinSky's talk page was nothing more than an editor logged out. But then it seemed to morph into a real can of worms. I don't know how stable IP geolocation data is over time. Given the IPs edits are all from last summer, it's perhaps still relevant enough. I got it from ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did this ever amount to anything?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky withdrew his unblock request, so it makes no sense to take this to AN now. I stopped working on it when I saw that. If there's a compelling reason to still pursue this, I can finish it (mostly tedious table formatting) an put it in sandbox or SPI, although I don't know what practical purpose it would serve at this point. As far as I can tell, the Rlevse-type IP edits were confined to the article and FAR page of one article that Rlevse had promoted to FA before his "vanishing". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkat retiring

I wanted to respond to you but I can't

You raised the level of discourse so high, it's scraping the ceiling, and I can't raise it.

In some seriousness, Pesky made an interesting observation, and i hope they tweak the wording.

Otherwise, we'll have the unintended consequence that we should start conversation in the gutter, so we have a little room for improvement. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be an easy fix. I hope my contribution brought a few smiles, as bit of light-heartedness which should not be taken at anyone's expense. Writing clear resolutions is not easy, and you may (or more likely may not!) be interested to know that in mathematics, the concept of "improving the level of discourse" would often be interpreted to mean "maintaining or improving the level of discourse". So if Arbitrators wanted even mathematicians to give up and quit the project, they would have to say "strictly improving the level of discourse" to rule out the defence that "zero improvement" is still improvement. Geometry guy 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. But wouldn't it be a cool way to close an argument, to out-polite your adversary, so that they are unable to reply? :)

It's a technique I've tried on occasion :) Mathematics is a weird discipline; where else would it be considered satisfactory to end an investigation by establishing nothing more than that a solution exists? EyeSerene 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your closing point reminds me of what became an inside joke at a conference last week, where we were prioritizing improvements to a system, and in response to a query about a potentially neglected area, the project leader said there would be some percentage improvement in that area. Another participant mentioned a Simpsons episode, where a manufacturer claimed a product contained some percentage of recyclables. When Lisa learned it contained no recyclables, the manufacturer retorted, "zero per cent IS a percentage." We've been using every opportunity since to promise some percentage improvement in results.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but you might have taken a different view on what "improving the level of discourse" should mean. Surely "improvement" should be linked to improving the encyclopedia, not merely civility? I made another post to the thread, taking such a view. I may have further comments on this, which I believe could be illuminating in multiple ways. Geometry guy 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy,

Do you agree the reasoning on the RfA--talk-page ban proposal is weak?

Perhaps others have counted the votes, and decided not to worry about the decision.... (I had wished that some of the ArbCommers would have reconsidered, and realized that they were making a mistake, with at least the argument.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several weaknesses in the argument, but Arbcom is an elected body, not a logical machine. I don't find their conclusion here so unreasonable that I want to invest time arguing against it. You are welcome to press your case, but if you are unhappy with the result, vote for change in the next Arbcom elections. Geometry guy 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What do we do when there is no consensus to unblock a controversial block?

Newyorkbrad has asked this a few times, but discussions I have read remind me of the treatment of the "Irish potato famine" in 1066 and All That, a humorous 1930s take on (English/British) history and the way it was taught: in this parody, the Tories "doggedly maintained" that the Irish people had the choice to "eat the potatoes" or "not to", whereas the Liberals attempted to supply bread.

When a block is contested, a debate "to endorse the block" or "not to" is likely to be polarizing. I have attempted to propose an environment in which contested blocks might be handled (and hence used!) more wisely. Geometry guy 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add that while I would like to draw attention to the idea, I don't want to push it. I offer it in the spirit of GFDL: read freely, reuse, modify, and distribute. If some version of it becomes useful in the future, that would be a great outcome. Geometry guy 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

re ..

this post, and its relevance. I dropped by to mention it myself, and ask for some input - I shouldn't have underestimated you. :) ... then again - I'm finding it more and more difficult to overestimate you each day. By the way .. a wiki-friend put some time into C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy) which I really enjoy(ed) reading. Not sure it's up your preferred reading venues, but thought it may be. cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. I like astronomy articles (they are at the nice borderline between my professional expertise and leisure interests), so I will take a look. Geometry guy 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. NYB may be tempted to watch and see what happens: there are already signs of editors simply restating their contrary positions on the conundrum. To some extent that is reasonable, as it is reasonable for NYB and others to observe, but I also hope NYB and other similar editors see scope for engagement, as I do believe there is potential for compromise between the two positions along the lines I have suggested. Geometry guy 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I can even understand (often) the why some folks hold the views that they do. But like you, I'd rather find some compromise that all parties may find an acceptable way forward. — Ched :  ?  01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)