Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 23 August 2010 (→Inappropriate Talk: page comments: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

proposal - need collab

I've invited a number of people to join at this thread, so thank you for looking. I'd like to develop something similar to wp:AWB, except PHP based (frankly, I'm starting this because I'm annoyed that there's no version of AWB that works on Macs). My idea is to create a separate user (much like a bot-account): people can navigate to that user's page, where they will find an assortment of HTML forms where they can perform AWB-like functions straight through wikipedia's servers. My problem is the learning curve - the PHP coding is not beyond me technically, but the project is too large for me to handle on my own, given my current informational deficit. I've contacted you (as a group) because you have worked on or developed PHP bot code, and will probably be much more 'up' on this problem than I am. what I need to know is the following:

• Which of the various available bot frameworks is best suited to this task?
• How difficult do you think this project will actually be?
• What's the best approach (In your view) to achieving this?
• What considerations am I missing? I'm already concerned about keeping this from turning into a vandalism tool, for instance, and about server resources (it would probably be best to have a system of queueing requests, which would help with both problems).

I'd also like to know if any of you are interested in collaborating on this project - that would make things a hell of a lot easier for me, and make development much faster. Please let me know. --Ludwigs2 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Talk: page comments

"kindly get your heads out of whatever orifice you have them stuck in" is unacceptable language under any circumstances. Please redact that. Jayjg 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The minute you and Lisa stop playing POV-pusher and start getting down to reasonable editing, I'll consider it. Otherwise it's an accurate description of your attitude and behavior. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL isn't a matter of negotiation, it's policy; remove it please. Jayjg 22:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't see this as uncivil; I see this as factually accurate. Colorful language, perhaps, but nowhere near unwarranted given your behavior on the page. wp:CIVIL is not intended to protect editors from justified criticism of their behavior.

If you don't like people thinking such things about you, I suggest that you cease in your efforts to defame an organization you dislike and start trying to edit with encyclopedic standards in mind. Do that, and we will have no further problems. If you cannot do that, please go find a partisan encyclopedia you can edit (they exist, yes, and you'll be happier there). --Ludwigs2 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You think it is "factually accurate" that Lisa and I both have our heads stuck in some sort of "orifice"? What kind of "orifice" did you have in mind? Wouldn't that make it difficult to, for example, read a computer screen, and type responses? Not to mention breathe, etc.? Or do you perhaps you have a unique definition of "factually accurate"? Jayjg 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

factually accurate has a peculiar relationship to metaphorical statements: basically it means that the metaphor captures the nature of the focal situation succinctly and clearly. Human social behavior is usually better-captured through metaphor than mere description anyway - description lacks nuance, and fails utterly at the expression of relationships. I don't know about 'physically' factually accurate; I'd need to see some streaming video (or at least still images) to judge that, but I suspect it's not possible, and it would make no sense to think that you could accomplish daily tasks like editing wikipedia even if it were possible.

But you know, you impress me more by making reasonable suggestions on the talk page than by making irritable statements here. let's finish our discussion about the new lead, and if all goes well (as seems likely at the moment) then I'll remove the comment because it will no longer apply. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas; you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone. File this item under the subject of tolerance in the secular Jewish community: Ynet (a reliable secondary source) has a news item on Messianic Jews in today's edition. It says "They are Jews in every sense" and that some of them are Orthodox harlan (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for this, it isn't. It's a reliable source to say that the author of that article thinks that. Ynet has no standing whatsoever when it comes to determining the status of MJs. Nor is it a Jewish group or movement. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa - thanks for validating the position that I've been expressing all along. do you mind if I use this comment against you when I get a chance to return to the discussion? --Ludwigs2 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You hardly need my permission for it. What gets posted on Misplaced Pages is public. Just curious, though. I have a magazine from the Larouchies that says Obama is like Hitler. Would you consider that a reliable source? It's published, and in very large numbers, I gather. Or would you say that it's only a reliable source for the fact that Larouchies are a bunch of morons? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, my point all along has been that where there is contention on a topic, we must attribute all claims properly. we can get away with loose attribution on non-contentious topics (for instance, we can usually say "the Theory of Gravity" without attributing it as "Newton's Theory of Gravity", because no one will generally care to object. However, Messianic Judaism is not a non-contentious topic, so making claims like "Messianic Jews are Christians" without attributing it to a source is improper. but I do't really want my talk page filled up with this silly argument, so let's take it back to the talk page were it belongs. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy is starting to lose its resemblance to a mediation. The absence of the mediator is possibly not helping. ;) Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline for a couple of days (life - you remember that thing?). I'll check now. --Ludwigs2 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Post at Shell's talk page

Hi Ludwigs... in the intersts of transparency, I feel obligated to alert you of this section I started at user talk:Shell Kinney. EdChem (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed: It's all good. like Shell, I would be very surprised if the mediation result stuck (which is why I advised the participants to open a new thread on the article talk to discuss the mediation results, before they jumped into making page moves, and why I recommended formal mediation). but the informal mediation had reached a 90/10 (or so) stalemate, and there was nothing I could do to tweak or cajole people into further discussion, so the mediation no longer served a purpose. if they can't settle things on the talk page given this, then they ought to go to more authoritative forms of dispute resolution.

Even though I suspect you'd object, I really ought to go RfA one of these days. Given sysop status I could have ended this dispute in a matter of a week or two, and could probably clean up most of the pro/anti-Israeli problems on pages like this in a couple of months. Honestly, I see exactly how to do it (it's just a question of policing the proper discursive environment - I'll explain that if you really want, but it is not an easy concept to frame in lay terminology). How badly would you and your buds ream me if I tried, and what kind of guarantees would it take to get you not to? Just curious... --Ludwigs2 08:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2, I recognise that there isn't much you or any mediator could do in the face of a 90/10 stalemate. Further, I recognise the danger of a mediator having a strong personal stake in an outcome; the fact that you recognise the weakness of the outcome is also good. Shell's comments made some cogent points. You might note that Shell has now altered the comments regarding you, so you can hardly be upset about the result of my drawing leaving a note about the Israel / Apartheid mediation.

Regarding the rest of your comments, I am really disappointed to learn you see me as a partisan opponent. I have no horse in the R&I race; my interest in the case arose in part from Mathsci's actions (which the evidence does show warrant censure) and Coren's draft being such a content ruling. Yes, I was unimpressed with your comments on the talk page, but bad news: that opinion was formed in response to your postings. I have no "buds" that determine my opinions. As far as RfA goes, I rarely vote. If I were to vote on your candidacy I would have to consider carefully my view. The fact that you view the Israel / Palestine issues as being so readily solvable seems to me to be somewhere between incredibly and foolishly optimistic - and I would guess your optimisim could easily be a topic for RfA questions. You wouldn't need to do any deal with me to run, and frankly I object to deals being done to influence the outcomes of RfAs. In short, I suggest that your view of me is much more a reflection of your preconceptions than it is a reflection my actions. EdChem (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I meant no offense, and you're most likely right. Honestly, I don't have any intrinsic problem with people working with their friends or other 'people of like interests' (not saying that that's the case with respect to you, just pointing out my opinion); it's a natural and unavoidable concomitant of the kind of political structure Misplaced Pages has developed. However, there's a culture of secrecy about it on wikipedia that makes it impossible to determine when people are cooperating and when they are just (more-or-less randomly) agreeing. I tend to assume that people are cooperating as a matter of course (in a non-pejorative way) because in the majority of cases the assumption that people are not cooperating is both improbable and naïve. My apologies if that assumption was incorrect or caused you any stress.

The entire R&I kerfluffle is a case in point. It started as a coordinated attack - I had four or so editors (including Mathsci) make bizarre and more-or-less simultaneous edits across several articles from my history after I suggested I might take User:BullRangifer to RfC/U (these were either indirect personal attacks like Mathsci's or the raising of long-dead disputes I had long ago on otherwise stable pages). I ignored the others and focused on Mathsci as a matter of strategy, for reasons I won't bother to explain, but you can see why I might interpret your involvement in the same light. Again, it's not an issue for me - I wouldn't think less of you if you were cooperating, and I certainly don't think less of you if you're not - I'm just a realist about things like this.

The israel/Palestine thing (as well as most of the other tendentious disputes on wikipedia) are actually easy to resolve; that's not simple optimism. The problem on those pages is that most editors there have forgotten (and many others don't care) that this project is aiming to be an encyclopedia. They lose focus of the goal, get tangled up in political fervors that have no place in semi-scholarly discussions, and begin operating on a win/lose rhetorical model that destroys deliberative communication (and thus renders rational discussion impotent). Most administrators, worse, lack the technical knowledge needed to properly assess the problem, and fall back on a 'reticent interventionist' strategy (laissez faire non-involvement with sporadic - and usually excessive - bouts of unfocused activity. A bit like US military policy, and you can see how effective that's been). I know precisely what deliberative structures need to be created to insure productive discussion, I know how to structure situations so that achievement of editing goals is tied to usage of the correct discursive model; all I lack is the technical power that would allow me to construct such situations. This is my field, Ed...

Don't mistake me, though: I wasn't trying to 'cut a deal'. The question was more along the lines of a litmus test. You are an editor I've had some differences with, but not one of the few I've had dedicated conflicts with, so your opinion is a useful metric of how much opposition I'd run into. Believe me, if I decide to do it (which I probably will, sooner or later) I will be very explicit about why I want the sysop bit set, what I want to do with it, and what I won't do with it, and I never intentionally compromise my own ideals. But I also don't see the point in the RfA discussion turning into another monkey fight, so it's worth seeing if there's anyway to forestall the worst of that in advance. As I said, I'm pragmatic. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s. Just noticed your edit summary - . please - are you serious? lol --Ludwigs2 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to weigh in

here NickCT (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the arbitration case

I’m cross-posting this to Varoon Arya, DJ, and Ludwigs2 because I think the outcome of this case is something all three of you ought to know about. The case hasn’t officially been closed yet, but it’s pretty clear by this point what the outcome is going to be.

Mathsci is getting topic banned. That’s the most important piece of news for me to mention, because all three of you have said that the reason you stopped participating in the race and intelligence article is because you couldn’t tolerate his behavior. ArbCom is also authorizing discretionary sanctions for both POV-pushing and incivility, so hopefully there will also be a lot fewer problem with these things from editors other than Mathsci.

The other important piece of news is that David.Kane and I are also going to be topic banned. As for Mikemikev, he was indef-blocked for making personal attacks before the case was even finished. I suspect that he got himself blocked intentionally, because the arbitrators were already voting in favor of a site-ban for him, and he probably wanted to get in a last few digs at his opposition once he knew that he had nothing to lose from it.

The reason I think this should matter to all of you is because without me, David.Kane or Mikemikev, almost all of the most active users involved in this article are people like Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi who regard the hereditarian hypothesis as a “fringe” theory. Even in the presence of discretionary sanctions, and even if they aren’t going to engage in deliberate POV-pushing, I’m concerned that with this balance of editors the article will still end up being slanted in favor of that perspective. It isn’t always possible for people to recognize POV wording when there’s nobody with an opposing point of view to point it out, but on the other hand I have a lot of confidence in all three of your ability to recognize and remove slanted wording. I think this makes your involvement in the articles a lot more important now than it’s been in the past, and with Mathsci topic-banned as well as discretionary sanctions, the thing that’s been preventing your involvement there has been removed now.

I’m a little envious of you guys. You’re going to have the opportunity to experience an editing atmosphere on these articles that’s devoid of Mathsci’s personal attacks, which is not an opportunity that I’ve ever had. I hope you can appreciate how valuable that opportunity is, and make the most of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)