User talk:Amarkov/Archive 15
[insert signature bot name] is turned off on my talk page. Feel free not to sign your comments if you don't want to.
Want to help?
[edit]Would you like to help me tackle User:GRBerry/ArbComm PreEvidence#Allegations of Apartheid? I've got 40+ more page histories and talk pages and talk archives and logs to go through looking for evidence. Divide and conquer might be helpful. GRBerry 17:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
What if?
[edit]Amarkov, what if you were to see evidence that the editor who prompted you to write that out is completely correct? Would it change your view?Proabivouac 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. It's not just this one thing, and some of my problem with this holds irrespective of if he is correct. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Re your latest update, who has gotten in trouble?Proabivouac 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- The wording isn't exactly correct, but hey, I'm frustrated. I am being told essentially that it's my fault, along with anyone who agreed with me. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- My comment was directed at Viridae, who threatened to block MONGO. I do think you should investigate a little before passing judgment. If MONGO is telling the truth, that is hardly a trivial point, and it's our duty, I believe, to know the answer, be learning the answer, or leave it to people who will take the time to investigate. Otherwise our participation might have a negative effect despite our best intentions.
- The trouble with the prior accusations is that they were only half accurate: 6OD/7OD is the sock of a banned editor, dedicated to trolling him - that much is pretty obvious - but not the particular banned editors he was accused of being. As more and more people are banned, yet we (currently) have no way of stopping them from reappearing to cause trouble, this will become a more frequent occurrence.
- I appreciate that you see this as being no excuse for incivility, but put it in perspective: what is the bigger problem? Sentences which begin, "It's true that he's been trolled, but…" are acceptance of serious - well, critical - community-level failure, as if trolling and harassment are the heat and Wikipedia the kitchen we must get out of if we can't stand it. It doesn't need to be that way. One reason it's becoming that way is due to the stalking horse problem I'd outlined on the noticeboard: editors have axes to grind with other established editors, not with socks.
- Look at the Matt57 thread - "sure, he was framed for misconduct he didn't commit (and never would have committed) by socks of banned users and unjustly blocked, but let's get back to the main subject…" as if that first point didn't far outweigh whatever else could follow. The ongoing completely bad-faith and malicious manipulation of the system, and the fact that we've not the will to stop it, is much bigger than the myriad flaws of good-faith contributors. The second is inevitable to any enterprise, especially one which relies upon volunteers; the first shouldn't be allowed to occur at all.Proabivouac 06:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- If 7OD is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned user created only to harass MONGO, then he should be blocked already. If nobody who has the power to block believes this, then it's not clear at all, and presenting it as if it is established fact is silly. Anyway, excusing bad behavior because someone else also is doing something bad is stupid, still. Your arguments might make sense if trolls were the only subject of his incivility, but anyone who criticises him is also subject to the same incivility. And even if he were only incivil to trolls, it wouldn't matter, because it's those who he identifies as trolls. Which included me once. -Amarkov moo! 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- The wording isn't exactly correct, but hey, I'm frustrated. I am being told essentially that it's my fault, along with anyone who agreed with me. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Re your latest update, who has gotten in trouble?Proabivouac 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Murder
[edit]You and I seem to agree that MONGO gets away with murder. At some point during that discussion (early on) an IP editor proposed that MONGO be put on permanent civility parole. It was promptly removed, but I believe it is an idea worth testing out at CSN. Your opinions? ViridaeTalk 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but I'm worried that the thread would just turn into a "Support MONGO more!" fest. I think that formal dispute resolution (meaning Arbcom) will eventually be necessary, but if you want to try that, go ahead. -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer to head it off at this point - or at least attempt that. And if the worst comes to the worst at least we can say we tried. From what I have heard he does good work. The problem is it doesn't seem to be without a torrent of insults and name calling. ViridaeTalk 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to head it off here too, so go ahead. I'm preparing an RfC in case it doesn't work, though, since I'm really not confident it will. -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer to head it off at this point - or at least attempt that. And if the worst comes to the worst at least we can say we tried. From what I have heard he does good work. The problem is it doesn't seem to be without a torrent of insults and name calling. ViridaeTalk 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"I get that you knew he was a sock from the getgo. And I admit that you were right about that, against what I thought. The point is that you kept calling him a sock with no evidence."
- The point is that MONGO was right, and the people who said he was wrong were wrong. The evidence was always there; it's not MONGO creating it now. MONGO's no more responsible for figuring out exactly which banned editor it is than are you and I. Just as MONGO is responsible for his own mis-identifications, so whoever spoke without investigating is responsible for his/her own mistaken recommendations.Proabivouac 12:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say that he is responsible for figuring out which banned editor it is. If he has concrete evidence that someone is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, I'm not going to demand that he find out who it is before a block. But he had given no evidence up until now, just said that 7OD was a banned user and expected everyone to believe him. -Amarkov moo! 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- And you're also obviously right that all those CU's didn't help. As in previous threads, it seems we're not so much disagreeing as emphasizing different considerations. Thanks for listening. I appreciate your integrity in arriving at the conclusion you did, after all that had transpired.Proabivouac 22:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say that he is responsible for figuring out which banned editor it is. If he has concrete evidence that someone is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, I'm not going to demand that he find out who it is before a block. But he had given no evidence up until now, just said that 7OD was a banned user and expected everyone to believe him. -Amarkov moo! 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Beat ya to it
[edit](: Wrt User:Amarkov/But the kettle is black! please see WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The point is actually slightly different; my point is that the user being complained about may still have a problem, even if the one who complains is being a hypocrite. -Amarkov moo! 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Well that's a good point. >Radiant< 08:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The point is actually slightly different; my point is that the user being complained about may still have a problem, even if the one who complains is being a hypocrite. -Amarkov moo! 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Section
[edit]- "How naïve of me. Turns out communism ends up as oligarchism on the Internet too."
- That's very true. Therefore, it makes no sense to aim for Communism unless you intend to achieve an oligarchy of insiders. Look at ScienceApologist's complaint; it's very interesting.[1] He wants an expert policy - that's not egalitarian. But neither is cabalism; it's just that the latter is in denial.Proabivouac 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you reword that? I don't understand what you're saying. -Amarkov moo! 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I meant to say that if hierarchy is inevitable, it makes sense to ask what kind of hierarchy you want to have. SA has his idea: experts should occupy a position of authority in their fields of expertise. The criticism of this is that it's elitist. That criticism only makes sense if we don't now have an elite. Aiming for pure egalitarianism doesn't bring egalitarianism, but a hierarchal system that would be far from one's first choice if one knew what was choosing at the outset. Of course, that doesn't directly address what you were talking about, and you may not find it remotely useful. I was just observing that your general point was true.Proabivouac 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that's my complaint. Wikipedia was founded on the idea that all contributors are equal, so instead of a reasonable hierarchy, we got the clique of "ZOMG TROLL FITERS!!!" basically doing whatever they want without sanction. -Amarkov moo! 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I meant to say that if hierarchy is inevitable, it makes sense to ask what kind of hierarchy you want to have. SA has his idea: experts should occupy a position of authority in their fields of expertise. The criticism of this is that it's elitist. That criticism only makes sense if we don't now have an elite. Aiming for pure egalitarianism doesn't bring egalitarianism, but a hierarchal system that would be far from one's first choice if one knew what was choosing at the outset. Of course, that doesn't directly address what you were talking about, and you may not find it remotely useful. I was just observing that your general point was true.Proabivouac 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you reword that? I don't understand what you're saying. -Amarkov moo! 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. HermesBot 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Strawmen
[edit]So, people have realized that the "but I'm being trolled, and that excuses anything I do!" line is getting old. Does this lead to reasonableness, though? Nope. Instead it leads to STRAWMEN!
For instance, let's take the case of Betacommand. He was desysopped, primarily for running an unapproved bot on his admin account (why other people openly admit to doing this against consensus without anyone CARING, I'm not sure...), and using that bot to do things people didn't agree with anyway. So, seeing an RfA, I expected an apology, or admission of wrongdoing, or something. Instead I got STRAWMEN!
He said he'd try to be more civil; I didn't even know that there were ever civility concerns until then. And the supporters are busy vigorously disagreeing with the almost nonexistent people who are opposing just because they don't like his bot. The real issue is his judgement in things completely unrelated to images, but I'm sure that when the RfA is closed everyone will go "OMG, see! Image patrollers are all harassed!", or some such thing. It's really annoying.
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
new AN/I here - [2]. please participate. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Amarkov. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Moo
[edit]I couldn't resist the urge to moo @ u :)--BigCow 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lol. Thanks. -Amarkov moo! 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Appreciation
[edit]This is to let you know that I appreciate your question in the homeopathy discussion.
quote Um, what harassment of other editors? I could just be missing it, but I don't see any. endquote.
Thank you. Wanderer57 07:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize
[edit]Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.
I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.
Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:
- Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)
Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.
If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.
Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)