Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 27 July 2013

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message! I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can. Please feel free to send me an email, where I will likely respond faster.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Mail

Anyway, thanks for your attention.AsceticRosé 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

strange finding

Academic, peer-reviewed publications are among the highest quality sources available for use by Wikipedians. Articles need not necessarily be based wholly on such publications, and it is acceptable and encouraged for Wikipedians to present other sources in contradiction to a proffered source in an attempt to divine the current scholarly consensus regarding a particular topic. However, it is not appropriate to reject the inclusion of such material simply because one disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the publication's author(s).

Is actually, IMO, incorrect.

What would make more sense is

While neutrally written academic and peer-reviewed sources are strong reliable sources on Misplaced Pages, they are often not about current events, and thus other sources are frequently of greater use for readers. Partisan articles about current events are, even if peer-reviewed, better used as sources of opinion than for matters of objective fact to be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice.

BTW, "need not necessarily" is pretty useless in any finding <g>. Collect (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the sentiment rather the specifics that I agree with - but it's certainly too close to ruling on content. Your updated suggestion suffers from the same issue, in my opinion - though again, I do agree with it. At any rate, I'm keeping out of that finding for the time being. Worm(talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Other than my position (which is that a neutral readable article is a reasonable goal - if you read the moderated discussion you will see pretty much where I come from) most of this entire case is "content-driven", with an extraordinarily low threshold for the "evidence" of actual behavioural issues entirely. When folks have to make a big deal of blocks from 5 years ago, one can guess that "straw-grasping" is taking place. There is, moreover, a pretty high likelihood that "my own personal stalker" will drop by Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: "tag team" proposal:

The use of a team of like-minded editors in any manner which prevents the arrival of a WP:CONSENSUS following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is prohibited.

Seems a lot shorter and fully as clear as the current wording. Collect (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

• The recruiting of a team of like-minded editors in any manner which attempts to create or prevent a WP:CONSENSUS following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is prohibited.
• An editor's use of like-minded editors in an attempt to influence a consensus according to their own view is prohibited.

What do you think? ツ Jenova20 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure how one could prove "recruiting" at all - that would be a much stronger burden to prove than is likely to ever be met. And all editors seek to "influence" other editors - the key question must be whether the editors in some way seek to prevent a normal consensus discussion. I do see why you thought of these alternatives, though. Collect (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't recruiting going to be exactly as difficult to prove as the tag-teaming? If there's only coincidences and never any proof anything is being organised by the two (or more) then they can't be accused of Tag-teaming in good faith can they? Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And the first two lines at Misplaced Pages:Tag team are pretty good, better than what I thought up. Are you trying to rewrite it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope - just trying to see if ArbCom can finally decide to simplify the boiler-plate they are so attached to <g>. I avoided the use of "tag team" because that, too, is pretty much intrinsically impossible to "prove." Thus my insertion of "in any manner" meaning that it is the repeated use of the same people doing the same things in the same topic which ought to be considered the problem - and the reason why it is a problem is that it interferes with finding a real consensus. Is that a tad clearer? Collect (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i see the dilemma. I'll leave it to Dave. Thanks ツ Jenova20 18:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• NYB has suggested that he might put a little of Bradspeak into crafting a finding on the matter, so I'll wait and see what he comes up with. Having said that, I've pinged him in this message, so he'll see your wording Collect - which I do think is useful. I do agree that "tag-team" isn't the best description, and there's certainly a bit of a fallacy that crops up - if editors agree with you it's consensus, if they don't it's a tag-team. Worm(talk) 08:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC) fix link and re-sign Worm(talk) 08:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, would you mind if I created a adoption school based on yours?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only would I not mind, I would be distinctly proud. Worm(talk) 19:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have set up my own adoption HQ.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Adoption school and Mentorship ... new ideaLab project explores some new ideas!

Hi Dave (worm that turned), it's good to connect here, you were highly recommended as a person I should speak with about a new project with big ideas :) I can see from your pages that you've done a tremendous amount of work with the Adopt-a-user program and I'd love a chance to speak with you about your experience and run some ideas by you. This is very early stage and some good conversations have started around format, design, needs etc here and here . Would you have sometime in the next few days to connect live, via phone, hangout or skype? Cheers! Sylvia slv (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am impressed with this, notwithstanding the excellent work Dave has done on adoption in the past. I haven't looked at the programme yet, but is this likely to be discussed in Honk Kong in just over a week? If so, please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, thank you for the encouraging words. I don't know if there will be any sessions/discussions on mentoring or this particular project in Hong Kong (unlikely this is pretty new), but I will enquire and will let you know. All the best, slv (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sylvia, that sounds like a really interesting idea. Please do send me an email to discuss best modes of communication and timescales. Worm(talk) 08:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Worm, sorry I scanned your User page but couldn't find an email or way to email you :( could you direct me to next best option for us to connect live? Thanks and looking forward to it! slv (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Slventura, I think the link you are looking for is here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Gilderien!! Thanks a million. :) slv (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer ban proposal

Just a quick comment - the proposal to ban Kiefer is troubling and quite badly wrong. The suggest of banning a user who was badly treated at the hands of a Wikimedia Foundation staff member is catastrophically wrong. It has all the hallmarks of criminalising the victim and apart from the questionable morality of such an option, the damage it could do to the project is enormous. The actions of the Arbitration Committee are closely scrutinised by members of our community and by people from much further afield, press and academics, and the negative reactions such a decision will create could do untold damage.

There's already a feeling of the community spreading out and clustering, of a caste system developing, with WMF staff at the top, functionaries and arbitrators also at the top, administrators some what further down, and regular editors without advanced permissions feeling really far adrift at the bottom, a decision to penalise such an editor when they were the victim of unsavoury and unacceptable comments by a WMF staffer is only going to reinforce that feeling amongst much of the community and polarise opinion unfavourably against the Arbitration Committee and the project itself.

I don't think Kiefer causes so much disruption that a permanent, indefinite block is the correct course of action anyway, the community is capable of dealing with any issues he raises, some of which are very important, such as the child protection issues. The most recent blocks have all been overturned, either at the behest or with the support of the community and some shouldn't really be on there - I blocked him for what turned out to be a spurious, bad faith outing complaint, for example. The use of his block log as a stick to beat him with is wrong and shouldn't be taking place.

I'm not suggesting no action should be taken against Kiefer, but it needs to be proportionate to the complaint, the comments made by Oliver, the overall level of action taken by the committee in the case and the risk of disruption Kiefer could conceivably cause for the project in future. I'd suggest some sort of admonishment and reminder about civility. The suggestion of a ban is a good example of what is wrong with the project - yes, Kiefer can be unpleasant, overly insistent and ultimately a little disruptive, but it's frequently because he feels he's being ignored and being unduly penalised. The current Arbitration case shows this to be largely correct, the Arbitration committee want to take no responsibility for IRC and personal attacks made via that medium, instead choosing to focus on the results and responses to those personal attacks, but only when they take place on Misplaced Pages.

I trust you'll take onboard the comments I've made and make a more appropriate serious of proposals at the RFAR, for the future of the project, for the benefit Kiefer and for the integrity of the committee itself. Nick (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)