Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PackMecEng (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 8 June 2018 (→Watch your language, please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

An apology

Hi Volunteer Marek, I wanted to apologize for not posting here to alert you when I posted the IBAN notice at the Arb noticeboard last night. I want to make clear that it was an oversight on my part (and my part alone) and not something deliberate on the part of either myself or the Committee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI - uncivility

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncivil comments by Volunteer Marek in page subject to DS.

Ugh

Any of you talk page stalkers know how to jump to a user's contributions from several years ago in their editing history? It used to be trivial to do this but then they changed the software and now you more or less have to scroll 500 edits at a time to get to where you want to look at. Why did they screw this up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can enter a to or from date. Should narrow it down. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not working for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dang, that's pretty lame. Used to work but who knows what they have done now. Works for me if I fill both boxes, not if I fill just one. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

13 years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, Volunteer Marek, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Tried to hat

Hello Volunteer Marek - I tried to hat this comment but it ended up removing it completely. Would you consider reverting the comment as it assumes bad faith, personalizes the matter, and could be in violation of the page restriction? Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is none of these things and I'd appreciate it if you left it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The comment is a very civil and accurate description. It should not be hatted. I have commented on the page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DS AP BS AE

The only way things are going to get better is to get more Admins and in particular Admins who understand and are willing to implement the sanctions that Arbcom placed in recognition that these AP article are not business as usual. Only one Admin, Coffee, understood this and despite the horrific hazing he got (likely because he made some other Admins look like feckless weasels by comparison) he did a huge service by tightening up and briefly trying to enforce DS. I was going to post a "help-wanted" notice at AN looking for such volunteer Admins, and I ran the idea by Sandstein, who said that's an appropriate place to do it.

It's pointless to badger Admins who are unwilling or unable to enforce constructive editing environments on these pages. With a fairly large population of Admins, I think we should be encouraging a group of the willing to lend a hand. Half of what's on the talk pages these days should get a warning or a block. It's what happens when editors can't find policy and sources to support their preferred edits. It's obvious that editors who follow the abundance of RS reporting and analysis are able to comply to edit NPOV and reflect the sources. we can't let this turn into "The encyclopedia that any fool can edit."

Anyway, I haven't posted for help at AN. Feel free if you have time. If nobody else does, I may do it next week. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Coffee was in the fast lane for a desysop. I’m not sure he’s the best example for you to use. Anyways, yes more admin help is definitely warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

QED. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited America First Policies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Veto power

Re , I'm interested in exploring this, but I don't want to clutter that talk page with yet more off-topic. What is this veto power, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

One person makes an edit. Another person removes it. Nobody - neither the original person nor anyone else - can restore. If there are two groups (which sort of approximates reality) then this restriction basically gives each group, regardless of its size, veto power over the other one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This combines with the first-mover advantage of the editor who rushes to frame the question in one of these now common "informal poll" (aka falsely structured) discussions. The effect is that "Consensus" then means "Unanimity is required". SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

YES! Exactly!!! (If I understand you correctly ). This has come up "before though I can't remember where or when" but most likely at a corporate article. What scares me is to think that gradually special interest groups will figure out just how and when to manage our articles to their advantage. It could happen. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well one Admin went off the deep end recently by attributing the dysfunction to editors' identities and beliefs rather than their abuse of process. As I've said repeatedly, we also have nowhere near the level of Admin oversight on these articles and the best and brightest Admins rarely intervene. There's way too high a bar to go to AE, and the whole point of DS was supposed to be that Admins would preemptively prevent abusive behavior, not that we should be diverted to preparing litigation briefs for a select panel of Admins. It's extremely unlikely that POV advocates would not learn how to manipulate WP process under these circumstances. It's just trial and error. No evil genius dark money required. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The effect is that "Consensus" then means "Unanimity is required". - There is zero evidence for such a claim. If I wanted to spend the time, I could easily produce multiple examples of surveys that have produced non-unanimous consensuses, and surely you know that. Surveys don't preclude threaded discussion, and that happens regularly. The only difference is that a survey provides a convenient way for people to show their current positions, imposing a degree of order on the usual chaos. While it may make it easier to count votes, that's not a problem with the method but with the misuse of it. So if you see people counting votes in a survey, you advise them that's not how it's done at Misplaced Pages, problem solved. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody - neither the original person nor anyone else - can restore. - That's incorrect. Nobody can restore without consensus, which is hardly the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's trivial to claim "no consensus" isn't it? SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if one editor claims "no consensus" they should be, and generally are, ignored. If the group can't agree as to whether a consensus exists, you request an uninvolved close at ANRFC. If editors can't edit in good faith and play fair for the most part, there really is no solution, period. We will not repeal human nature. I currently choose to believe that they do—for the most part. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't cure ignorance. We have plenty of both. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - it's not unanimity but something close to it. Add to that that starting RfCs and seeing them to closure is a verrrrryyyyy time consuming process which means that unless it's something you know you're gonna get ... near-unanimous, support for, why bother? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, like justice, the wheels of Misplaced Pages consensus turn slowly. I've yet to see a coherent proposal for an alternative that doesn't closely resemble "Get process out of my way so I can impose my policy interpretations." It's easy to find fault with the existing system, coming up with a fully-developed workable solution is an entirely different matter.
My view is that the root problem is self-selected "self-governance", and as long as Misplaced Pages clings to that model many of its more serious problems will be intractable. I'm not aware of any community in the history of mankind that was this large and diverse and succeeded for any length of time with that model, but somehow the founders felt they were smart enough to disregard that experience. We have spent the past 17 years constructing an enormous baroque castle on a foundation of mush. There is virtually no support for my view, so intractable it is for the foreseeable future. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well gee whiz Mandruss. I've been saying much of what you just said for some time now, often with swift rebukes from you. Self-selection is fraught. But the policies and guidelines are quite robust and reflect a lot of understanding. We do not enforce them. Just in the context of American Politics, we have long threads in which a small group of editors deny DUE WEIGHT and deny mainstream sourcing, who lack the necessary background knowledge to evaluate sources, and who fail WP:CIR in various ways. Enforcement of site norms would require Admins with tough interpersonal skills. And the many Admins that do have those skills are also too wise to get mixed up with the motivated minority of difficult editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Any admin who went rogue and did anything dramatic enough to improve things significantly would be flayed by the whip of ADMINACCT and would go the way of Coffee. You know it, and admins damn well know it, so never fault admins for not acting. Fault the system of government that created the world they and every other editor lives in—that's where the power is, and along with it the responsibility. I'm quite sure I have never seen you advocate against that system of government, let alone rebuke you for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My impression was that Coffee in part faced a backlash from other Admins whom he'd shown up as having been too passive. Easier to destroy him than to redirect their own efforts. He reacted over-the-top to the stress and the unwarranted criticism. But of course that's a common pitfall for anyone who faces opposition on the more-or-less anonymous internet. Have a look at @Snooganssnoogans: talk page today. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a look. There is no policy against what MarkBassett was accused of doing, and it would be impossible to create such a policy because you have to define a behavior before you can prohibit it. There is a policy against PA, and a very important guideline against ABF. The other editor assumed that it was bad faith rather than a dumb mistake ("How deceptive and shameless can you be?"), and they deserved the warning Melanie gave. Even if MarkBassett had acted in bad faith, he is only one editor and could have been overridden by consensus. It served no purpose to attack him, and that kind of thing does far more damage than good.
As far as I'm concerned, the "justified personal attack" doctrine—which exists entirely outside of policy—is one of the serious problems resulting from self-selected self-governance. It enables hostility when the editor is in the right, disregarding the fact that editors always feel they are in the right and therefore always feel justified in being hostile. It exists only because the self-selected governing group is heavily skewed toward (1) the combative and (2) those who believe that virtually unlimited tolerance of combativeness is good for the project. Most editors with milder dispositions avoid ANI like the plague because they can't stand to be around that craziness for long.
You'll never convince me of the rightness of that thinking, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No that wasn't my point. My point was that a few very battleground aggressive editors baited Snooganssnoogans into doing something obviously unacceptable and managed to deflect attention from their own behavior to Snoog's lapse in loosing his temper. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen battleground in Markbassett, the target of the PA for which the editor was warned. And I don't buy the "baiting" excuse, ever. We are grownups and able to make grownup choices as to how we respond to others. It's an overused cop-out enabled and perpetuated by the self-selected combative crowd. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No it's just a weakness of some editors that is evident to predators. Just like an antelope with a gimpy leg out in Yellowstone. Anyway we're too far into the details on Bassett. I don't see any baiting from him either. I started out just meaning to show you all the red stop sign templates on his talk page. That's not the best way to work things out with an experienced but excitable editor. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Watch your language, please

VM, please calm down and keep it within the bounds of reasonable discussion. This kind of talk poisons a discussion even if the tirade isn't directed at a specific individual. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "reasonable discussion", by definition, is not possible, with people who spout insane conspiracy theories. The whole fucking problem with these articles (and more generally, out there in the real world) is that reasonable people have bent over backwards to accommodate folks who believe some seriously wacky stuff and pretend that these ridiculous notions can be part of "reasonable discussion" (maybe because the people who spout these ideas run around Misplaced Pages talk pages giving people barnstars and kissing up and ingratiating themselves with everyone and their dog). It's a fool's game. It's impossible. At some point it becomes necessary to point out that idiotic ideas are idiotic ideas.

Here, maybe a quote will convey this better:

"Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. The last thing I want to do with him is to get involved in a technical discussion of cavalry tactics at the Battle of Austerlitz. If I do that, I'm getting tacitly drawn into the game that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. " Robert Solow .Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is also how people can get away with saying messed up crap like "It's more like disparagement of the criminal aspects of Latino and Muslim populations" !!! That right there is wayyyyy more offensive and problematic than calling out conspiracy theories for what they are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can avoid discussing tactics with a lunatic without exploding into a tirade of expletives. I though maybe a gentle nudge would be enough for you to get the message. It wasn't - you appear to be defending your right to post this kind of objectionable language - so I will be more explicit: posting comments full of "fucking idiot" and "bullshit" and "Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb" is disruptive and violates WP:CIVILITY. It poisons discourse and encourages others to reply in kind. You can expose nonsense and denounce conspiracy theories without this kind of explosion. Please restrain yourself in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Responding to your edit summary: It actually hurts your argument to post this kind of rant. It makes you look unstable, emotional, hostile. It leaves the other person (the one who posted the conspiracy theory) looking like the rational one. Remember the old saying "never argue with an idiot, because people watching may not be able to tell the difference". Make sure people can tell the difference - by the tenor and reasonableness of your own posts. Another saying (saw it on Misplaced Pages, forget where, so paraphrasing): "When I argue with someone, I am not hoping to convince them; I am hoping to convince the onlookers." You are more likely to get consensus for your position if you post like a mature adult with reason on your side. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what people like to tell themselves. Good always triumphs over evil, rational discourse beats out emotional propaganda, be nice even when others aren't, etc. etc. etc. But the proof is in the pudding. How effective has this kids-glove nicey-nice "your crazy ideas are just as valid for discussion as everyone else's ideas" been on these articles? Not particularly successful, judging by the quality of the relevant articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why give them ammunition? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)