User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 14

User:71.127.142.120

He's back, and back to the same edit-warring and harassment. I'm writing up a new 3rr report, continuing from yesterday. I've also started a sockpuppetry case on his talk page as well. It looks like all the Pizzle disruption is from one person. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, what I said to the anon below, is equally directed to you. Those are my conditions for helping. I should post this somewhere permanent, I reckon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it okay that the User Ronz has edited the "Pizzle" article 15 times in the last 2 days? How do I report this, I am trying to contribute, but he seems to just follow me around and keeps threatening me! I appreciate any pointers you could give me. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited it just as much as he has. If you're both edit-warring, why should I help you and not him? If you want me to do something, give me links showing that Ronz is repeatedly reverting to the same version. Also, if you want help from me, show that you've taken the initiative of bringing up the dispute on the talk page. On the talk page, describe the content dispute calmly and independently of the behavior issues. When you've done that stuff, let me know.

If you want an admin to play cop, and write the other guy a ticket, then you don't want me, cause I don't roll that way. All I do is dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Badagnani Doctrine

Doesn't this heading violate talk page guidelines? See Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Don't worry, I've made this mistake in the past as well. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read guidelines. What I was trying to do with that section was put my finger on the exact point where Badagnani seems to be disagreeing with others. I only used his name because he's been the only person arguing for his edit. After many rounds of discussion, I think I know what he's claiming and what I'm claiming, and I think they're both reasonable positions that a sane and sober person my hold.

I would like to find out what a larger cross-section of the community thinks of the principle that Badagnani is applying, but before doing that, I thought it would be advisable to be sure that I'm stating his position correctly. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, so do I need to turn a guideline into a policy to get you to read it? :) Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are doubly avoided. I also refuse to recognize the distinction between the two. It's okay, I'm trained in paradox-swallowing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I was hoping to sucker punch you with WP:NPA, from which that particular material on WP:TALK is inherited. Your IAR-fu is simply too powerful for me, and I must bow down at the feet of a greater warrior. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you tell me I've violated WP:ACRONYM, I'm likely to say I don't read guidelines. If you tell me I'm being a jerk to another editor, I'm likely to listen to you, take a critical look at my behavior, and respond thoughtfully. I'm a little surprised that you, knowing who I am, would approach me with guidelines and policies instead of ordinary talk.

I have, as you've no doubt noticed, changed the section title, which was never intended to offend anyone. I continue to welcome your input on the larger issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, offense is perceived, not intended. I recommended the change due to Badagnani's protest on the talk page. Some people do try to offend others, and others offend them without really knowing it or caring if they offend. The best response to those people is a huge smile and a compassionate tone, but as you are well aware, it is difficult to do that here, where we are reduced to ASCII and smilies. One thing I have noticed is how some people take offense just for the sake of taking offense. It seems to be an attention-getting tactic that allows them to vent their anger at the world, and gives them an excuse to fight with anyone who doesn't agree with them. But at the end of the day, look at how many people are here to fight, bicker, and throw their weight around. It takes an extra effort to make a concession, to compromise with an opponent, and to truly work together. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...The reason I haven't participated in the external links discussion is because I am totally, unabashedly biased on the subject. Whenever possible, I remove external links and if necessary, I merge them as references into the body of the article. Other editors seem split on whether to link in an ext. links section if the infobox already has the main link listed. In that case, I could go either way. But if I'm the main contributor to an article, you will very rarely see any external links, and if you do, it's likely they are there because another editor requested them, not me. Now, there are times when I take the external links and use them in a "further reading" section; This only works if it is a good source and has potential to add more material to the body of the article. So, because of my strong feelings on this issue, I generally stay away from articles and discussions where my POV could interfere with the outcome, and I generally participate in articles and discussions where I consider myself neutral. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links in lists

FYI: Similar disputes have occurred many times. Mostly, we just quickly agree to remove any links that aren't from reliable sources. Sometimes it doesn't go so smoothly. I spent a great deal of time summarizing the arguments against keeping such links in Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Website_urls:_Trying_to_summarize. The summary there for inclusion is missing a summary of the WP:IAR viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re. ANI

Just FYI, the comment of mine from the NPOV Noticeboard has now been used by Tznkai at ANI to go after my credibility. See here. Just thought you shoulod know. No need for you to get involved at ANI. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth

I appreciate that you are trying hard to resolve this dispute - but let me suggest to you, that you're getting more frustrated than we're worth. I hope you can avoid the trap, and maintain your presence at the article long term, you're a credit to the wiki. I hope in time you can respect me as I do you - I assure you, whatever disagreements we have, they are not personal to me in anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, and thanks also for the vote of confidence. I think I made a mistake the other evening. What I was looking for was a calm place to edit and get away from the stres of events elsewhere in the 'Pedia. Choosing Talk:Abortion as a nice cozy place to relax may have been folly, or at least not very well thought-out.

It's hard for me to predict where my interest will lead me to edit or discuss, but I am a bit drawn in by the image question. I will generally be in a better mood than I was the other day.

Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your squirrels

Although you didn't ask for it on the reference desk, another good squirrel deterrent is the squirrel baffle. These are intended to prevent the squirrel from climbing up to or falling from above onto the feeder. The effectiveness depends on the location and setup of the feeder. It won't help if there are branches or ledges nearby where the squirrel can jump directly to the feeder. Also, if you have a hanging feeder, the squirrels will happily jump onto the baffle to knock seeds off which tends to frighten off the birds in the process. My grandmom uses a very effective setup (I have yet to see a successful squirrel) where the feeder is hanging from a sturdy metal pole stuck in the ground. The pole has a cylindrical baffle. The whole thing is set back from nearby trees so she doesn't have to worry about squirrels jumping on from above the baffle. Also, because the pole is steady, the squirrels can't jump into the pole to shake seeds off. While is stymies the squirrels, it doesn't stop the bears... Anyway, I really think a pole mounted setup is a good option.
If you have to use a hanging feeder minus a pole, then you might try to get a heavy weight and hang that from the bottom of the feeder so Newton's third law is on your side; squirrels seeking to transfer momentum to the feeder to knock off seeds will find the high mass results in unfavorably low velocity. If you do try the weight, do note that heavy wind may cause the feeder to swing which would be bad for nearby windows or other breakables. Sifaka ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Award

		Civility Award
		for sensible suggestions regarding methods to add to or change WP policies. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regard to the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deprecate .

Thank you very much! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple.

Don't feed the Trolls. ThuranX (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. What I did wasn't feeding; what you did, was. The proof is in the pudding. Let me do it my way, and see if he keeps coming back. That was the effect of your approach - he kept coming back. You encouraged him.

I think you should stop encouraging them. They seek to get a rise out of you. When you call them "troll", they win. Please stop making them win. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember, ThuranX, the last time you tried to teach me about trolls? You were dead wrong then, too. Learn from experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in WP:Linking

I didn't want to mess up the give-and-take in the talk page there, as you've sorta asked a question of the floor, so I'm responding to you here. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to add that sentence to the policy page - it's already there. But I haven't been able to get the people who were repeatedly deleting it to explain why they were doing so beyond extremely brief, vague statements such as "it's inappropriate." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we'll get a clear reply from one of them, and figure out what's really going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrels 'n peppers

I always miss the good ones on SciRef! I didn't see it mentioned - your problem is that the actual seeds have almost no capsaicin content. The good stuff is in the fleshy/fibrous stuff just around the seeds. The common chef's imprecation is that to make the peppers less hot, remove the seeds - but think about how knives work, removing the seeds will generally involve scraping out the bits the seeds are attached to as well.

I can't conjure up a RS for that, but I'm a bit of an aficionado and have done some reading on the subject (regardless of Scoville units, I recommend Thai bird's-eye chilis for subtle and deep heat and least impact the next day; and beware of vinegar-based sauces, oil-based is much better). I think your best solution is to get pure capsaicin extract, a clear solution to which my local chicken-wing purveyor had to make eventual resort to defeat me. It's Sc1,000,000 or so and could be used to directly coat the birdseed. This will obviate any problems with noxious solvents (vinegar) used to extract the capsaicin from the peppers, or rot/mould problems using the organic material.

Of course, use extreme precautions - don't touch eyes, nose, mouth or other "sensitive" body parts during the coating procedure and use liberal soap and hot water to clean up afterwards. Avoid capsaicin aerosols, but don't worry too much if you make contact, it's just a little intense pain and maybe a little bleeding, nothing too serious. ;)

As far as cost, I'd bet that 4 ounces of capsaicin will do you for a lifetime. If squirrels have the TRPV1 receptor, I'll pretty much guarantee you they won't be back. Only really stupid humans such as myself go back to the same place and cry out for more and worse pain! :) Franamax (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might do this. Thank you. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Allowing all wikilinks

A great way to reintroduce contact. Inspiring me to reach such a level myself. Thx. (no irony here) -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working the ropes for consensus

I've contacted you directly, because as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the "backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved. All I could do on the MOS:DAB talk-page ("Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)") is to re-iterate the use of the real policy WP:Consensus. Actually convincing so many people, who do not understand the concept of "kept by consensus else removed", is a very difficult task. I'm sure you realize the quick AfD process is used just because it is expedient, but not the best way to treat people. Thank God, someone can emphasize, "Your article can be restored when notability sources are added". Wikipedia is an amazing collection of pages, but also an amazing collection of people: including former vandals, now rehabilitated, recommending ways to reduce vandalism. For MOS:DAB, I quickly tested the waters, and you can clearly see how the Wikipedia procedures are in sad shape, with people confused about the split-personality of consensus by sort-of non-voting-votes versus AfD-huh. Do you realize how totally baffling Wikipedia must be to them? Only a few people thrive on architecting a social-system to handle 9.5 million registered users. (Kids, don't do this.) Perhaps there is some way to refer the MOS:DAB guideline to a negotiation committee. It is only one of hundreds of issues I am working. I am actively trying to streamline translations into other languages, improve the use of center-page floating images, and numerous other issues expanding the concept of Wikipedia, including predicting the eventual article count (exceeding 3 million in August):

WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth.

Meanwhile, I realize many people can just "WP:Ignore all rules" for the MOS:DAB when applied to those 109,000+ disambig pages, so perhaps fixing MOS:DAB can wait (another year?). How do you feel? (reply below or my talk). Thx. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That's a lot to respond to. What do you think of what I've been saying, about the practical expediency of using rhetoric that is likely to convince people? I don't think I've seen you address that issue. Did I miss it?

I tend to think that extra links on disambiguation pages are deprecated for a good reason, and I refrain from using them. The argument that convinced me is that disambiguation pages are not articles, and they serve precisely one purpose: to get someone to the article that they were actually looking for in the first place. What do you find unconvincing about that argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply: "as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the "backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved". I do not know this to be true. Decisions in which I am involved seem to be discussed publicly, on talk pages. If there is a whole layer of behind-the-scenes decision making, I have no part in it, nor wish to. I think it's best to discuss policy issues in the relevant forums. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to awaken people to the deadlock situation, with "Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Does linking Grateful Dead confuse readers. At this point, I don't see any hope of change. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... I don't see a problem that needs solving here. I've replied at the guideline talk page. You can say all you like about backrooms, but I personally stay out of them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rhetoric, examples and declarations

16-April-2009: (subtopic) In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached. It is not just a matter of using the proper rhetoric. In America, there are a lot of attitude conflicts, in public arenas (including courtrooms), so instead, discussions in the "backroom" are typically used as the main method to reach decisions. When a city council meets, they "rubber stamp" the decisions already pre-determined among the various private conversations. In a court case, the lawyers return before the judge to announce a "change of plea" or some other form of arbitration that was decided outside the courtroom. In the case of the MOS:DAB, the concept that "wikilinks confuse the reader" has persisted (due to inertia) for 5 years. Do you really think a few mild words would break the deadlock, after 5 years? Typically, the issues must be carefully considered, with each person involved, but smoothtalk within a public forum is unlikely to work. I came to the MOS:DAB to correct the "wikilinks-are-confusing" notion, but such a radical change requires clear declarations, and forceful examples, plus the realization that most people don't understand that a negotiated rewording is the basis for WP:Consensus, rather than "everyone agrees it is fine though you disagree". Rhetoric will not work. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience disagrees with your assessment. I've seen way too many people use "emphatic" language, as you call it, and come to grief on Wikipedia. I've also seen a lot of people learn that more conciliatory rhetoric is their friend, and they end up being very successful here. You can ignore that, or you can take it on-board. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other reply: "In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached." I have found that people in public forums become defensive precisely in proportion to the extremeness of the rhetoric used. I have been very successful, in public Wikipedia spaces, avoiding the defensiveness reaction by speaking in ways that people don't interpret as needing defense against. The rhetoric with which you introduced your topic at the MOS talk page was very likely to provoke a defensive reaction. You might consider presenting your ideas differently. My experience indicates that you'll see a lot less defensiveness if you moderate your own tone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

Thanks for dealing with that. I tried to move the page, and I got an error message that I'd never seen before about the target page name being on a blacklist and requiring an admin to move it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. That's weird. I didn't get any special message moving it. Anyway, cheers! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On redirects and warring

I see he has reverted my edits again,, back your version,, which has the header "Supressing redirects" [sic], which I had specifically expanded for him...honestly, this really appears to be WP:TE to me. I'm going offline, you deal with it. –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi GT, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to consider refactoring your comment that, "Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." It leaves the impression that I insisted on refactoring someone's comments which is clealry not the case. Thanks for your kind consideration, have a nice day, and feel free to correct my spelling or grammar any time! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that, and I'm not certain the sentence does so, but I'll reword it, since it bothers you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I appreciate your clarification.

On another matter, sometimes an editor can be harangued and harassed by persons with ill intent or a lack of good sense. I felt that you didn't seem to appreciate this fact in dealing with a situation involving another editor recently. Certainly that editor can be hard headed in their approach, but as a long term editor with an enormous record of collaboration and contribution, I thought your approach could have been more appreciative and respectful. There are enough articles on Wikipedia that those seeking to remove spam links have plenty to work with and there is no need to stalk someone with whom they are in dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't know how much of that interaction you got to witness, but I was extremely insulted by that editor's treatment of myself, and I admit that I posted at least once or twice in frustration, which is never a good idea. I started out with a much more conciliatory tone, but after being insulted a few times, I was a bit combative. If you want someone to help you, then imperiously telling them how to do their job is a terrible idea.

My one previous interaction with that user didn't help. He was making blatantly racist insults on a talk page, and I asked him to stop. He responded by laughing in my face, and telling me that we make racist comments all the time, and that I must be a newbie or a fool. Then I told him I was an admin of three years, and he got very quiet. That's a bad way to give a first impression, don't you agree?

As for the "ill intent" or "lack of good sense" in the other editors, I can't speak to that too directly, because I can't read their minds. The faults I saw in them were entirely parallel and comparable to similar faults in the one editor, and in a situation such as that, my conscience does not allow me to say that one side is "right" and the other "wrong". I took his side as best I could, but he continued to spit in my face, over and over again. How many times would you take it?

I have made comments (including today) to the editors you mention, and I hope you don't imagine that I'm turning a blind eye to provocative behavior from anyone. I simply cannot see the situation as a "good guys" and "bad guys" issue. If you have any position of trust with that editor, perhaps you can let him know that dictatorially demanding that an admin do what he says is a very, very, very foolish and bad idea. It leads directly to sadness, 100% of the time. We're humans, it turns out, and we're not being paid for this.

Also — and this is my experience in life, perhaps yours is different — The more someone repeats a statement about themselves, the less likely that it's true. Insisting repeatedly that one is an important and valuable contributor is very likely (100%) to convince people that one is not. Again, if the editor listens to you, and if you agree, then maybe you can pass that on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> I think we basically agree on most of the points involved. It takes all types to build a great encyclopedia and I try to be tolerant of those whose styles and approach are different than mine. That editor has been extraordinarily gracious and helpful to me when I've had questions, even as they are stubborn and obstinate on editing points. They've been here a while and have contributed a massive amount that makes me feel puny and insignificiant in comparison. I noticed you wrote someone's as a conjunction of someone has on an editor's talk page, but I didn't dare fix it under the circumstances. Isn't that just silliest and saddest state of affairs on a wiki? Anyway, thanks for your collegial replies and discussion. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may consider yourself welcome to copyedit my text; I'm not bothered by it. Of course, under the present circumstances, I can see why you'd refrain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just doesn't seem to get the point. Fixing someone else's grammar or spelling is nannyism. It is not his place to do that, unless invited, which you just did. Otherwise, it is potentially very impolite. Now, if you say to someone, as a followup, "Did you mean...?" then that's fair. They can then change it if they want. Or they can say, "Yes, that's what I meant." And I'll be the first to agree that spelling and grammar here, and on the internet in general, is atrocious. It often offends my own eyes to have to look at it. But it is not my place to mess with it. At best, I can call someone's attention to it, if the meaning is unclear. But it is not my place to tinker with their actual words. It's a line not to cross. I will also add that if you see spelling and grammar mistakes in my writing, you are welcome to call my attention to it. And then I can change it, as I see fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's not your place to correct another editor's grammar and spelling (I agree), but it is your place to leave drive-by insults on ANI? I notice you didn't actually respond to the content of my note. You changed the subject. ChildofMidnight is not the one being uncivil in this situation, at least not the part I can see. You get your own house in order, then criticize others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you just said you would steer clear of this editor. Bald-faced lie, much? Don't post here again, please, unless you grow up first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that the ograbme has been lifted, a couple of points of fact: first, keep in mind that the 13 1/2 is in rabbit years. Second, I have facial hair, so I can't let you get away with calling me a bald-faced liar. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bet I've got more. :{)}}} (<--- attempt at mustachioed and bearded smiley) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does "longer" qualify as "more"? It's still the same number of roots. :) So are you saying you look like this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnies have facial hair of course as well as on their ears. --Caspian blue 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was going to be my next comment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

You seem like a smart person, so you've got me wondering about this. Is this really true? Who are these people? Everyone I can think of with that kind of ineptitude has ended up causing way more harm than good, as I remember it. Friday (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ones who aren't disruptive, you don't know about, right? That's what it's like under the radar. Wikipedia is full of people who have terrible collaboration skills, but who manage not to offend enough people severely enough to cause real trouble. I mean, this guy's been around for years. Has he caused "way more harm than good," before someone complained about that picture? If so, I haven't seen the evidence.

Did you read that article, like, yesterday, about a study that showed that people who contribute to Wikipedia tend to have poor social skills, and don't contribute out of altruism? Now I wish I could remember where I found that link.

I can think of three or four users off the top of my head (ok, 5 or 6) who are complete assholes, but who generally stick to WikiGnoming, so it isn't a problem. (Having put it that way, I'd rather not name names publicly.)

As for "ineptitude," I'm not sure what you see as "inept" about the user in question. I think he's a jerk, but I don't see that he's an idiot. What do you mean by "inept"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's just a selection bias on my part. I remember the inept users who have blown up spectacularly, because they blew up spectacularly. I basically meant "socially inept", but apparently this description fits me today, too. In my brain I made the connections thus: 1) I see someone with "because I can" syndrome. 2) Some of our more famous disruptive editors have suffered from the same syndrome, 3) therefore this person is, or will turn into, an overly disruptive editor, 4) He needs to go away because such editors cause trouble. #3 looks like the error - it does not follow from #2. I do think the community in general is far too tolerant of childish nonsense, but that doesn't mean that making an example of someone for mildly disruptive behavior is a good solution. I just wish it wasn't like pulling teeth to at least get people to mostly agree that such behavior is undesirable. We completely feed the jerks when half the community shows up in their defense. Once you've convinced someone that they're "fighting the good fight" against those evil fascists, that person becomes extremely difficult to deal with in any rational way. I didn't see the article you mention, but it sounds interesting and right on. I also wonder if, along with poor social skills, we get way more than our share of people who feel disempowered in real life, and thus see Wikipedia as a way to "exercise freedom" or something. People having the misguided belief that Wikipedia is about self-expression would certainly explain a whole lot. Friday (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good call. That actually is the direction the article went, saying that many Wikipedia contributors do not feel empowered in normal social settings, and try to attain that here instead. I've been told by more than one editor in the last couple of weeks that they're here for themselves, no more. I hear it, and I'd like to block them and throw away the key, but I don't think that's a tenable solution. They are, after all, making good edits, a lot of the time. I just try to give them a wide berth, and when I have to interact with them, I put on my best professional face and try to take the inevitable abuse gracefully.

There's a skill that we never really talk about here, but it would be a good one to see more of. I'm thinking of diplomacy, basically. There's a way to ask someone to do something so that they want to do it, and think they're being really cool by doing it, rather than thinking someone has just forced them into something they don't want. People who can do this well are very powerful in the world. I don't know how we can encourage more diplomacy in the interactions here. It's a cultural change, and those are hard to bring about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM

I've had it with that character, and will try to steer clear of him in the future. At the rate he's going, I expect him to eventually be banned. But that will be for someone else to take care of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I think your advice to yourself is excellent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a large part of the reason I don't work on the Obama articles anymore. I found his "dark night" essay [1] highly insulting to the rest of us, and I just posted it on ANI a few minutes ago, because he called my "coddling vandals" statement a "personal attack", so I thought it necessary to post the specific reason I said that, and that should be the end of that discussion from my standpoint. I called that one as I saw it, and maybe others would see it differently, and they can comment on it or not, as they please. The point being, that instead of helping out, he chided the defenders for being too mean to the sleeper accounts and other redlinks that came out of the woodwork to commit mayhem, thanks to an offensive WND pack-of-lies article about wikipedia. His priorities here are 180 degrees wrong. And that's the problem. I've stopped watching his talk page as of right now, but his so-called RfA nomination page is definitely still on my watch list, though he's very unlikely to follow through on it, but just in case... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user will not become an admin (sorry, CoM, but that's my prediction); you needn't worry about it, silly boy. I'm absolutely uninterested in whatever you're talking about. I can judge editors around here by my own standards; thank you very much. Run along now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone whose time was being wasted by it has precisely one person to thank for that." This statement seems clear to me, but I expect it will be read exactly the opposite way by others. And maybe I'm wrong in my understanding. Was the ambiguity on purpose? If not perhaps a clarification might be in order. I look forward to learning for sure just who the one person is!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mess up my quantifiers, did I? Let's be formal: "for every editor X who feels their time was wasted, there exists precisely one editor Y whom they can thank." Yeah, that works. The solution is X=Y!

That's unless you've been going door-to-door and forcing people at gunpoint to comment on your not-yet-begun RfA. Really, you should know better than that... some of us haven't got doors! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution help needed

From village pump. The article is Illegal immigration in the United States. You'll see my attempts to resolve this issue in both Camaron's talk page (he archived it) and Tnxman's talk page. Please leave your comments in your talk page so I can find them. Thanks.-166.199.243.171 (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration to the United States, eh? Let's have a look. I've got a good hour left in me tonight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to bounce around IP addresses a lot. Is there a reason you don't set up an account? I'm not suggesting you should; just asking. It actually gives you greater anonymity, in the sense that people can't figure out that you're posting from... Massachusetts? Am I right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through some article history and talk page discussion. If you could summarize for me your primary issue with the content of the article, that would be very helpful; thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there's this: I can only help you if you accept my condition. That condition is that you'll talk about the article content only, and allow me to determine for myself whatever I need to know about other editors' behavior. If you're willing to do that, then I can probably help you. My initial impression on that talk page is that it's worth looking further into. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you might not see all the relevant posts in all the related pages if I stick only to content. However, at. this point, I'm desperate. I'll accept your condition. The fact that my IP keeps changing is due to my using an IPhone. The reason I don't have an account is rather complex. It started because I was being stalked by another editor. I felt safer being anonymous. Truth be told, I still do. However, since I started having true anonymity, I've come to believe that anonymity makes one a better editor (I've seen editors work too often judged by that editor's identity (or lack of it) rather than the edit's content).-166.199.165.88 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So it appears your issue with the article relates to the possible involvement of the government of Mexico in helping Mexicans cross the border illegally into the US, right? I'll post a question at the talk page, and see what people say. I suspect we can get it unprotected, because I'm working with you, and you've agreed to drop the personal side, at least for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the article has to do with a pattern of behaviour by certain people and how that pattern of behaviour has impacted, is impacting, and will likely continue to impact the article. On that point there's nothing more I feel at liberty to say given the agreement above except that this particular incident (alternative points I view being suppressed in the talk page) is only one example and I'll be asking you for help in a lot more examples of the underlying problem in the future.-32.167.210.217 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my condition I set is that I'm actually pretty good at determining disruptive behavior. It'll be clear to me who's abusive and who isn't. However, if come in on someone's side, I lose my powers. I've got the article on my watchlist, and I've already begun a conversation on the talk page. Let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've promised not to make any personal comments, but I haven't received any promises that the personal attacks against me will stop or that a certain editor will stop screwing around with my comments in the talk page. Without those promises, the talk page doesn't feel like a place I can work.-166.198.218.30 (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm getting back handed attacks like "turn over a new leaf". I will not conceed culpability in maintaining this problem. I will cop only to the fact that way back when this thread started (that is, before Tnxman urged us to use the article's talk page to discuss content disputes), several editors said things that probably shouldn't have been said and I was one of the editors saying them.-166.198.100.190 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance to participate if you're going to be attacked. What you ask for is fair, and I do promise to defend your right to participate without being attacked. If you're talking about article content, and someone wants to mess with your comments, I've got your back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll wait for you to respond to the comment about turning over a new leaf.-166.199.38.64 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this back-handed attack? Will I find it when I click over to the talk page in a second here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about it there, and the talk page is no longer semi-protected. Tread carefully though, until we've set up a good collaborative rapport with the page, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like, if anything, the personal attacks against me have increased. Your right, I'm feeling frustrated. I tried to get a third party involved to resolve a conflict issue and the other editor declined and made a personal attack, I tried to use the talk page to resolve disputes and had my comments screwed with and then was made unable to post. I tried to get you involved to help and it's been treated as an admission of guilt. I read those posts Will Beback posted and what I saw is a long history of abuse against IP anons. I could go on and on and on about the activity in that talk page and article.-32.165.26.47 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hold off on posting to the article talk page and see if there's anything more you can do to stop the personal attacks.-32.165.163.142 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a lot of today, but I'm back now. Let's have a look. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "turn over a new leaf" is really the worst insult we're talking about right now, I'd suggest that's a small enough matter to let it go. You feel insulted, but I'll guarantee you that others feel insulted as well, by you. Now you know you haven't been trying to insult people, and I'm comfortable with that, but if you've done it unintentionally... I think some small gesture of good will can go a long way. The article is more important than any of us is, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already copped to saying things which probably shouldn't have been said before Tnxman locked down the article. That's my measure of good will and, while I'm not the only one who was guilty of that, I am the only one copping to that. After Tnxman locked down the article, I tried to work use the talk page for it's intended purpose and got attacked and shut out. I am not going to capitulate culpability for the current problem.-32.165.53.136 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Semicolons make text bold; colons indent)

I certainly am not asking you to "capitulate culpability", nor anything resembling that. You won't find it in my words. If you wish to stand on ceremony, and not participate until you get the right apology from the right person, then you'll remain standing there. I'm not going to twist someone's arm and force them to make nicer than they're willing. First of all, it wouldn't be effective, and second, it would make me a real jerk.

You either care more about the article, or more about your pride. I'm happy either way. The fact is, you were interlacing irrelevant and impolite remarks in your comments about the article right up until the end. If complaining about your posts being "screwed with" is so important to you, then you can do that, and have no input on the article. If you wish to have input on the article, you'll get past all of this pride, drop the past, and pony up to the talk page with some serious, 100% focused discussion. If you had followed that policy previously, you wouldn't be in this fix now.

I don't care one way or the other. I'll help you, if you'll be helped, but I won't stroke your wounded ego. What do you want more? You may shop around, but I think you'll find I'm more accommodating than most administrators would be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdented and moved these comments up a subsection. Feel free to undo if you don't like that.)

Having the statement "turning over a new leaf" when no one else will cop to -anything- wrong is certainly capitulating culpability. You said you needed to be neutral, then you expected the only person to make concessions to be myself. So far, you haven't done anything other than attempt to have me roll over when people have prevented the talk page from being used for it's intended purpose.-32.165.77.214 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want me to do? Make them change? How? I can't just start issuing blocks, you know. I'm no more empowered than Camaron? What do you want me to do? What do you want, justice? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username question

Is there some reason why the anon is not willing to get a username? Not having a username makes it very difficult for editors to communicate with you, or even to know what to call him. While an occasional anonymous edit is fine, participating in extensive editing and talk page discussions without getting a name is not consistent with community norms. The appearance is that he is avoiding scrutiny. Will Beback talk 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might see it that way. The editor answered above, in this section, your question: He felt he was being harassed. My suggestion would be a middle ground between anonymous editing and an account: use some kind of standard name to sign posts, in addition to the regular four-tilde sig. Would that be an improvement, in your mind? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for harassment is not to hide - it's to seek dispute resolution. If the user has a complaint then he should make it rather than skulking around. But yes, if he signs his edits and talk page comments with a common name then that'll do it - it doesn't have to be registered. Will Beback talk 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the editor was seeking dispute resolution when he posted the message to the Village Pump that inititally got my attention. I think that, by posting to my talk page here, he's seeking dispute resolution. Meanwhile, he doesn't trust people around here much, and I don't blame him. If editing from an IP does no harm, and it makes him feel better, then I'm okay with it. I suspect we'll see what he thinks of leaving personally identifiable signatures. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason does he have to not trust people here? If he's the user I think he is, then he he hasn't been harassed or persecuted, though he may feel that way. We're not here to accomodate unfounded paranoia, but to write an encyclopedia. If the user cannot follow this project's norms then there are others where he might feel more comfortable. This user's been making personal attacks,[2] yet he claims to be the aggrieved party. He's been acting the same way for three years. If you can change his behavior then that'd be great. Will Beback talk 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I can't answer why somebody feels persecuted. However, I do believe that the feeling is sincere. The idea that recognizing this means that "we're here to accommodate unfounded paranoia" is a bit of a stretch, I think. I'm willing to accept that he might be upset for "the wrong reasons," but I'm still going to practice de-escalation, y'know? The ideal is that we all work together.

I'm not interested in charging him with personal attacks because I might not agree that his feelings of being hounded are sufficiently justified. If he's willing to leave off the personal remarks, then I'm willing to let all of the past go. I'm here for the present, and for the future, not for the past. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justice

I think the activity that has brought more people to grief on this site than any other is seeking justice from Wikipedia. People feel slighted, and they want those who wronged them to be somehow punished. This is an understandable desire, and maybe it's a weakness of Wikipedia, but... this site just isn't designed to do that. We've optimized our setup (to some extent) for writing an encyclopedia. As it turns out, trying to use an encyclopedia-writing construct (i.e., the software + the policies + the community) to attain justice doesn't work. Maybe it would be cool if it did, but it doesn't. Admins aren't cops, and those who try to be cops are terrible admins.

When someone wants justice on Wikipedia, my best advice to them is to forget it. If you want a community where transgressions against you will be punished, start a wiki for that. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia more than you want other things, then contribute here, and learn to use Wikipedia to your advantage. If you want satisfaction in a personal dispute, ground yourself in an intense focus on edits, and in a rigid policy of respect, professionalism and dignity. Work the dispute resolution process that I'll be delighted to show you... but I can't show you until you drop the hunt for justice.

If you do these things, you will find that your power multiplies a thousand-fold. After that... you end up getting the "justice" you wanted, in the sense that you're empowered to deal effectively with problems from other editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I want justice? Sure. Am I naive enough to think I'm going to get it in a system where the people with the power have no accountability? Where no one watches the watch men? Where the watch men shelter people who agree with their politics and use their power to attack people who don't? No. We are talking about a system which sheltered Jossi Fresco among others. As for what I'd like that is, or at least, should be realistic? I want a system that works the way it's suppossed to. I want a system where personal attacks aren't treated differently depending on who is making them and who they are made against. I want a system where the talk page is used to discuss the article and all available points of view are free to be expressed, where admins will do their job, not stop from doing so because they are afraid they'll be seen as dicks. You want to know why I stick to being an IP anon? Just look at how many people here are acting out of concern for their identity on Wikipedia, or concerned about somebody else's identity on Wikipedia. What I want? I want to see a little integrity, because I believe the articles will be better for it.-32.166.100.142 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd appreciate if you refrain from making your posts all boldface.) Tell me something specific you want me to do, and maybe I'll do it. Tell me how upset you are that nobody watches the watchmen, and that I won't play cop, and... you won't get what you want. You might get some satisfaction out of complaining, but I was under the impression you're here to edit articles. Meanwhile, criticizing the person who's trying to help you is... fun? I dunno. If I'm so useless, get someone else. If you decide to get over your desire for justice, and that what you want is input on the encyclopedia, then I will help you, a lot. I am your servant, if you decide that you want to prioritize the encyclopedia over your wounded ego. 'Til then.... good luck. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seperate the fact that people can make personal attacks and admins will selectively enforce whether they'll do anything about it as an issue of personal ego. I'm telling you that it impacts the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You seperate the fact that whether or not all available points of view can be expressed in the talk page as a merely a matter of personal ego. I'm telling you it's not. It impacts Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. One-sided capitulation of culpability has as much to do with dispute resolution as being carpet bombed. I want something to do something about the personal attacks and abuse of the talk page.-166.199.224.135 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want someone to do what? You want me to grow powers that I haven't got? You want me to block... whom? What have I selectively enforced? Why take your frustration with the whole community out on me? Am I not trying to help you? Is this how you express gratitude?

Figure out what you want, and how to pragmatically get it. If you just want to complain, I don't want to hear it. I'm here to find solutions. Cough one up. Don't say you want "someone to do something"; say what you want specifically, and from whom. Then, if it's realistic, we've got something to talk about. Right now... it's pretty clear that expressing your upsetness is more important to you than the article. Get that out of your system, and come back when you wish to be productive. Nobody's stopping you but yourself right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want this entire drama stripped from the article talk page. I want Wikidemon to receive a warning for calling me tendentious and disruptive. And I want a statement from a neutral admin which I can use to defend myself if somebody tries to use this whole bs in a future attack because, frankly, bringing bogus charges against someone which don't stick and then using those bogus charges against someone later seems to be happening (Will Beback's links are an example of that). I want the personal attacks to stop. I want to have my comments in the talk page unmolested. I want the name of an admin who is willing to block people who make repeated personal attacks (I know admins have that power, I've seen them use it).-32.164.101.98 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And... you're under the impression that I can do these things? Let me talk about your requests, one-by-one.

You want this whole drama stripped from the article talk page.
Camaron has already suggested moving one section of that talk page here, to my talk page, and I've agreed to host it. Any other sections you want moved, specifically request it, and we'll see what happens.
You want Wikidemon to receive a warning for calling you tendentious and disruptive.
If I see Wikidemon attack you as tendentious or disruptive when you're not being tendentious or disruptive, then you can bet your bottom dollar I'll warn him. I'm not going to go digging for wrongs in the past to redress. You really want me to, but you're the one asking me for help here, so you're not actually in a position to make many demands. I work in realtime, not in finding crimes in the past. The advantage of this to you should be obvious: in anyone brings up past transgressions of yours, I'll be equally uninterested, and I'll point out that such digging is unhelpful. I will take your side, if you just let me do it my way! Tell me how to do my job, and you'll lose. Capiche?
You want a statement from a neutral admin that you can use to defend yourself.
I'm offering to be a neutral admin who will edit alongside you and help defend you in realtime, but you're spitting on my offer. That's not wise. Two more rounds of this attitude, and I'll be unwilling to help you. Then what? If you want help from me, stop insulting me. I'm not accusing you of a personal attack (I don't believe in that kind of shit). I'm requesting courtesy.
You want the personal attacks to stop.
If you agree to my offer, they will. I will be there, helping and defending you, in realtime. If you'd rather stand on ceremony, then you will lose. What's more important: your pride or your edits? Make a choice.
You want your comments to be unmolested.
That's easy. You've always had that power. Just restrict your comments to focused comments about the article, don't use them to insult or complain about other editors, and nobody will mess with them. I've got your back on that count, if you decide to stop shitting on me, and accept my help instead.
You want the name of an admin who is willing to block people who have made repeated personal attacks.
I don't know too much about other admins. I know I'm more likely to help an IP editor with a history of personal attacks than most others. However, here is the full list. Good luck. I know that I'm much more willing to help you than most admins, but I only take a certain amount of abuse.

There is only one reply for you to make here. Are you willing to accept my help, on my terms? If so, let's do it. If not... then please leave. Remember, you're the one asking me for help here. If you were doing so well on your own, we wouldn't be here. I know that you're frustrated, and you have every right to feel that way. I will agree that you have been wronged. However, I will not let you dictate to me how to do my job, how Wikipedia works, or how you want to get justice out of an encyclopedia, which is a bit like trying to get blood out of a turnip. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you want to get the attention of a lot of admins at once, post to WP:AN/I. Posting there with an expectation of justice often leads to sadness, though. We're all volunteers, you know, and like other humans, we resent being bossed around, especially by someone who's asking for help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice you asked me what I want in the article dispute. You posed it as a direct question and you even bold typed it. Then, when I answer, you treat it as if I'm bossing you around. I know it's too much to ask for justice. I'm trying to deal with the fact that it's too much to ask for integrity. What you seem to have meant to ask isn't what do I want, but how little will I settle for. I'm trying to work the answer to that question out.-32.166.45.34 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I don't mean to be inconsistent or rude. I'm sorry. It has happened in the past that people ask me for help, and then start telling me how to do my job. In fact, it has happened to me quite recently, so I'm probably letting some of my irritation from that interfere with this issue. I apologize for that.

Now... I see what you're asking for. I don't think I have the power to do that. I can't make people apologize, I can't make people take back things they said, I can't even warn them in a way they'll take seriously. I'm just some guy. There are two other admins against me, for crying out loud! What am I supposed to do, grow wings?

What I can do, and I'm pretty good at, is help you in a content dispute. If you're bothered by behavior, then I can help you with that, but I can only do it one way. I'm a one-trick pony. I can't play cop; I'm incompetent at that. All I can do is help negotiate a content dispute. It turns out that this is also the only effective way to deal with the type of behavior you're complaining about. But... I guess you just don't believe me about that. I don't know how to help you. I'm a one-trick pony. If you want that trick done, I'll do it, but I won't play cop, because I can't. There are, like, 1500 other active admins. The only ones who are willing to play cop, are assholes. I avoid them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, and I foolishly didn't say this sooner... I don't believe in "culpability". I don't think that you're in the least bit to blame for anything. I don't believe in the reality of "blame". That's why I was not suggesting anything about culpability. I think it's like the tooth-fairy, only pernicious. I can defend this point with all the vigor of a degree in philosophy and a pretty well-examined life, but I don't think that's the conversation you're looking to have. Suffice to say that I hold you to be utterly blameless, forever, in all matters. Everyone else, too. I'm weird....

But! If you just agree to put aside whatever you're hung up on, and let me edit content alongside you, you'll find that I'm a pretty good person to have around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to existing personal attacks, your response is stating that you are powerless to do anything about it. Yet, you insist that you will help against such attacks in the future. If you are powerless now, how exactly is it that you won't be powerless the next time it happens?-166.197.64.191 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. Firstly and most importantly, I work in a context. Dressing someone down for something they did a week or a month ago is useless. Our site policies explicitly note that we never take punitive measures, only preventative ones. Also... give me a chance. What have you got to lose? In context, I'm telling you that I'm pretty good at dealing with people making personal attacks. It involves being there when it happens. You got more questions?

Just give me a chance, man. It doesn't cost you a thing, and what's your alternative? I'm offering you so much, and you're being so picky... I'm offering to get down in the trenches with you and work alongside you. You don't like it; walk away, see how far that gets you. Have you even asked any other admins, or why are you still even talking to me? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've reached out to try dispute resolution so many times you have no idea. In this dispute alone, I tried to Wikidemon to agree to a third party opinion. He declined and made a personal insult. I tried to resolve the issue as Tnxman suggested. I got more personal attacks and was shut out of the talk page. I tried to work with Camaron. He turned a blind eye to the attacks I'd been getting. You offered to help. I said "sure". It was treated as an admission of guilt. Then you said you didn't want to do anything about what has happened for fear of looking like a dick. Turns out, your idea of dispute, so far, is the equivalent of being carpet bombed. So, yeah, I've got some trust issues right now. And your answer to that is to just blindly trust you. I don't trust anyone on Wikipedia right now. I've asked you to give me a reason to.-166.197.141.126 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut gallery

There are several addresses on that range that the anon hasn't hit yet. He needs to get busy. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hitting them as fast as I legally can. Yes, a home made bot net is an option. No, I'd rather not use one.-166.196.5.16 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I am protecting this talk page again, it is not a coincidence that soon after protection is lifted civility declines along with anything else, and I see no benefit to Wikipedia in leaving the talk page open to such abuse. I have until recently assumed good faith in the intentions of the unregistered user, despite repeated violations of behavioural policies and guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Comments such as [3] however shows an intent to game the system to test the limits of free speech; that does nothing for article improvement so is not welcome here. It does not matter who is right is wrong in a content dispute, and as I have said before I have no view on illegal immigration in the United States, but policies will be enforced. Users can either learn to follow policy and guidelines and become constructive contributors, or be shown the door, it is unfortunate that the latter option has had to be taken in this case. When the protection expires anyone is again welcome to contribute for constructive purposes, though again polices will be enforced, even if it means limiting free speech, which is not a right on Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been approached by the IP editor, and I've agreed to look into the dispute on this page. I see that the talk page is semi-protected now. If the IP editor agrees to refrain from commenting on other editors, would it be possible to lift the semi-protection? I think maybe I can help resolve the dispute; it's certainly not a topic that I care enough about to be biased. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why the IP doesn't just get a username? - Schrandit (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. On my talk page, he(she?) said he was stalked when he had one, so he stopped using it. Now, the IP addresses jump around because he's editing from a phone. I'm comfortable working with anonymous editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well I don't really care about this topic either, my involvement only came from WP:RFPP due to behaviour on this talk page, and I gave up trying to communicate with the user because we were just going round in circles. If the user agrees to talk only about the article and not resume commenting on other editors, I am happy to unprotect the page and allow the dispute resolution process to continue with full participation. I am more optimistic than I was given the user is showing an initiative to engage in dispute resolution, a long way from earlier comments; if there is a civility problem not from the user him/herself, as alleged, it will show if the user follows the conditions. That does not mean page protection if off the cards if things deteriorate again however. With that said, I will unprotect page now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistorian

(Note: Normally discussions of editors are best on their talk pages, etc, but since this editor doesn't have a current talk page there are few other options.)

If I'm not mistaken, the "anon" account has a username - Psychohistorian (talk · contribs). That account, along with several often-used IPs, has racked up numerous warnings over the past several years. Here are some of the past postings about him:

Now there is renewed disruption and even personal attacks. This has been a problem with articles related to this topic for too long. The user was a problem three years ago and is still a problem. The use of anonymous IPs is masking a pattern of disruption. If the user is willing to go back to using an named account and following Wikipedia standards then it might work out. Otherwise I think it's time to take this back to ANI for final disposition. Enough is enough. Will Beback talk 10:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware the history went back that far, that does explain a lot. There is little doubt as far as I can see that this is the same user, the editing styles and behaviour are very similar. On the side note whilst investigating range blocks I noticed that a similar IP range has also been editing Birthright citizenship in the United States of America recently, though nothing at a quick glance which is a big cause for concern except a bit of edit warring. I am however willing to give the user another chance if (s)he will turn over a new leaf. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea this page had that history. With that in mind I think we should give the IP the benefit of the doubt that they are not Psychohistorian (talk · contribs), at the same time I wouldn't object to insisting he/she get an account. Wikipedia doesn't require enough information to open an account to fear exposing ones' self to anything bad, the IP should pony up and get a name. - Schrandit (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot ignore the evidence, I would really prefer if the user just said if (s)he was or was not the former operator of the account Psychohistorian (talk · contribs), so this could be brought to a close. I would also prefer if the user got an account as well, though we can't really force the user to get one. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts with two previous posts) Will Beback, thanks for putting this information together. I'm concerned that it's slightly off-topic for this talk page. I've been communicating with this editor, and I'd like to offer some mediation in this dispute. Since I'm helping out, perhaps I can offer my talk page as a locale for discussion that doesn't directly relate to this article here? Please feel free to start a thread there, anytime.

On the evidence you've presented, I will make one remark here. That RfC is anything by damning.

Camaron, while this editor has agreed to certain conditions relating to this dispute, I think it's fair to note that they also feel a bit insulted and maligned by the way they've been talked about on this page. Now, I've got no interest in digging through the history to see who called whom a dirty birdy. However, in the interest of dispute resolution, I think it's fair to wipe the slate clean, all around, at least to see how it goes.

From what I have read in the history, I see our IP colleague making remarks that seem to stem pretty directly from frustration, and a feeling of being ganged up on. Whether or not you agree with that characterization of the situation, I think we all know how that feels. Therefore, I understand when he tells me on my talk page that your comment about "turning over a new leaf" is a back-handed insult. I don't think you meant it that way. Sill, in the interest of moving forward, would be willing to strike it? Your doing so would acknowledge that we're not dealing with a criminal we need to reform, but with a frustrated person reacting to what he perceives as unfair treatment. Being frustrated, even to the point of lashing out, is something we've all done I suspect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the state of your (GTBacchus') talk page and unconvinced that it is helpful to attribute years-long issues to "frustration". We are here to edit an encyclopedia, not to waste the time of productive editors dealing with process. If any editor wishes to engage in good faith editing and civil discussion they are welcome to edit like everyone else. No special agreement or arrangement is needed for that. If we want this to become a worthy treatment of the fairly important demographic / geographic subject we need to consider the article as a whole and what needs to be done, and not get lost on single issues. The article as it existed last year[4] was a mess. Setting aside POV most of the sections stated or implied broad concepts (e.g. illegal immigration leads to terrorism, illegal immigration causes racial tension, illegal immigrants increase the crime rate, people become illegal immigrants through sham marriages, illegal immigrants hurt the environment) that are uncited, then list a series of examples, incidents, opinions, studies, polls, and other random facts rather than actually reaching the substance of the issue. The article was disorganized and included a lot of statistics and tables without context or explanation. It is somewhat better now,[5] particularly with respect to being organized into coherent sections, but it has a long way to go. The section on the "Mexican government" supposedly teaching its citizens how to enter illegally was one of many such problem sections. To improve the article we need to deal with this one and the others at a reasonable pace, not get hung up in long-term drama. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I'm not here to get hung up in long-term drama. That's why I set a condition for helping the IP editor, that I would only do it if he leaves off all personal comments, and focuses on content. If he doesn't do that, then I'll leave you in peace. The only way I wish to resolve any dispute is by working alongside the parties, and helping keep the focus on improving the article. Is that a bad plan, or an okay one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: I'm not attributing years-long issues to frustration. If you read that in what I said, you must have read it in, because I certainly didn't mean it. I'm simply pointing out that there is frustration, and that it doesn't hurt to recognize that. Do you think that's a bad idea? Do you think of the IP editor as a criminal, more or less? I sure don't, and I don't care what kind of poor dispute resolution skills he or anyone has displayed in the past. I work in the present, and in the present, the frustration level is actually kind of high. What's the best de-escalation strategy: Ignore that, or acknowledge it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of this does not belong on this talk page, so I am not surprised the editor is not happy about it since it contradicts this 'talk page are only for discussion of the article' concept, I think it would be a good idea if we move it all to your user talk page or some other venue if it can be agreed on. As for the suggestion of turning over a new leaf being a "back-handed insult", lets have a look at the definition of the word, To engage in self-improvement; to begin a good habit or shed a bad habit. [6] My use of the term fits that definition exactly, (s)he himself states that there were things that should not have said including by him/herself, and by simply agreeing with you to talk about the article only from now on, and sticking to it, (s)he will have turned over a new leaf. We all turn over new leaves occasionally, reconsigning that is not an attack, more a compliment in my opinion, and I do not appreciate my words being twisted in that way. I have never once suggested anything close to him/her being a hardened criminal in need of reform, disruptive at times maybe, but I have been happy to give another chance when it is due, and I more see this as a user with ambitions to contribute more which have not always being successfully implemented. I appreciate your attempts to mediate GTBacchus, and I agree with your suggestion on moving this discussion elsewhere, but I decline to strike it as it was not, in any way shape or form, an attack. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camaron, I never said you attacked anyone. I didn't say I thought you insulted anyone. Why would you intentionally offend someone? I don't imagine you doing that. I did say that someone felt insulted.

If you're getting on a bus, and you accidentally step on someone's foot, do you refuse to apologize, because you didn't mean to step on them, and apologizing would be an admission of guilt? Personally, I say, "excuse me, I didn't mean to do that." When someone feels insulted by something I've said, I tend to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as an insult." Is that unreasonable behavior?

I won't say you have to do this or that — you remain true to yourself. My only goal here is to help get sort out a dispute with someone who asked me for help. I'm not asking people to walk on eggshells or become best friends. Small goodwill gestures can go a long way, and they don't cost a thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree that I did not intentionally insult or attack anyone. What strikes me here is this users rather confusing criteria on what classifies as an attack. (S)he has not hesitated to make potentially offensive comments to myself [7], but does not appear to consider them personal attacks. I have more taken them as heavy criticism than personal attacks and have archived them unstuck and unaltered with no request for an apology. However, there were also comments made at Wikidemon that were clearly very offensive such as [8], the user does seem to regard these as personal attacks. Yet, some how recognition of "Turning over a new leaf" gets classified as an attack. This does not make sense to me, and does not seem reasonable, I am sorry if people see it as an attack, though I more confused really. I do not want punishment, I want change - that is why I unprotected this talk page and responded positively to the agreement that was made, if I had thought of him/her as a criminal (i.e. troll or vandal) I would not have done so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camaron. Is it really so unusual that someone who is upset applies different standards to themselves and to others? Is it really so unusual that someone who believes they are right, and that they have been wronged, goes on to see their own statements as entirely justified, and others' as unfair? Is that really so weird? Does it make the person such a sociopath that we can't work with them? Is your comment so important that you'd rather stand on ceremony than care about the fact that maybe it really did hurt someone, whether or not that's reasonable?

If you believed that you have been acting appropriately, and then someone suggests that you're finally going to start acting appropriately, wouldn't you see that as rude? Is it really so hard to guess what it's like in this guy's shoes? That's all I'm suggesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not unusual, and I have never suggested it is, although that does not make it right. I have already said it was not an attack, not even close, and I am sorry if people see it as one. No the comment is not important to me, and I think it has been overblown. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overblown? No doubt. Did I claim anything was "right"? No. Would I very much like to see the IP editor and the others editing here together constructively, and am I willing to go out of my way to help make that happen? Yes. Do I believe that conciliatory action is worth it, if it brings people to a table together? Yes. Do I believe that these people can work together, and by doing so make the article and the encyclopedia better? Yes. Are each of us in a position to learn more about working well with others? Yes.

I don't know what your goals are. Do I think you're being helpful by standing on ceremony over a remark you don't care much about? No.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, here. I'm trying to be helpful. How is it such a trauma that you might go a centimeter out of your way to help someone feel they're being dignified, a little bit? Why insist that another person totally abase themselves, and accept that they're the only party that's been rude, or anything? Why not go out your way to be a peacemaker? Why not help the guy? He's not a bad person, and it doesn't cost us a penny to help. If we just work together, the article and the encyclopedia will be better for all of our collaboration, and more points of view are helpful to have on board.

This is depressing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are trying to be helpful, and in many ways you are being helpful. I am sorry you feel you are not being fairly treated, we disagree on some points maybe, but please do not take it personally. My aims are similar to yours - for people to work together, peace, and civility. While I am not looking for revenge, justice e.t.c. I was to be honest hurt by these accusations, and it is clear in the past that other editors have been as well. As I see it, for these aims to be achieved these accusations have got to stop. If that happens, I will withdraw the comment that has caused offence, which is a fair resolution for both sides. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for making such a scene earlier. I got upset, but then a friend came over, and we studied some mathematics, and then we had some drinks, and I'm feeling better. I usually don't freak out like that; sorry.

I think it's pretty clear that people all around the issue feel offended, and that nobody's goal was ever to offend anyone else. When people get defensive, they end up coming across as offensive, and then you get a cycle of hurt feelings and grudges, and it's straight up difficult to break out of that. The only way I know of is for everyone to swallow their pride, and I really want for the good of the project to be sufficient reason for people to do this.

This is why I've started insisting that if someone wants me to help them, they drop any and all mention of personal issues. A lot of people aren't willing to do this, and I'm still trying to figure out the best way of dealing with that dynamic. Perhaps I should invest a little less, emotionally, in what happens here. It's just that I care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology, that is very kind of you, and I am glad you are feeling better. I hope your mediation of this article is successful, I will be at least watching from the side lines for a while. I do think you hit the spot when you say personal issues should be left out of article content disputes, that is a message I, as well as many other admins including you, have been trying to get out for a long time, not always successfully. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I mostly stopped editing this topic is that I got tired of dealing with the user. If someone ignores dozens of complaints over years and intentionally avoids scrutiny then that's a problem. If the user is willing to deal address that problem then there's hope. Let's see what he says to GTBacchus before we take further steps to address this longterm disruption. Will Beback talk 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's already agreed to cut out the personal comments. What do you want? Can we work together here, or what? If he starts insulting people, I won't defend that behavior. Am I out of line here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of him using a name for his edits and talk page postings. That would address the issue of avoiding scrutiny. Will Beback talk 04:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one object if I move this thread to User talk:GTBacchus as it is probably a better venue? Given that it has little to do with the article itself, and discussion is currently fragmented between the two pages. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since the user this is about seems to want it moved as well I will move all non-article talk now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abitrary break point - coffee?

As one of the editors who was involved with disputes last summer with an anon-IP editor (who may or may not be the current anon-IP, and who may or may not be the legendary Psychohistorian), I suppose I should probably say something here.

My main interest and goal is to help improve the article on Illegal immigration to the United States and related articles. I'm not "out for blood". I'm not trying to ridicule or ostracize someone for issues not directly related to their work on this and other articles.

Does it matter to me if the current anon-IP is or is not last summer's anon-IP, or if he/she is or isn't "Psychohistorian"? Yes, to some extent, I'll have to say it does — not because I have some sort of vendetta which I won't let go of, but because if the current anon-IP is that same person, that may say something about how he/she really is likely to act now and in the future (something which I believe is a legitimate concern and not the same as terminally dwelling on the past or denying people the opportunity to improve).

I do believe that a very productive step by the current anon-IP would be for him/her to clearly state either "Yes, I am the same person who worked on this and other articles from several different IP addresses last summer" — or "Yes, I am Psychohistorian" (if that happens to be the case) — "and whatever you might have thought or said about me in the past, let's leave that in the past and get back to editing" — or else "No, I am not and never was Psychohistorian or that other anon-IP editor, and now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to editing". Saying one of these things (whichever happens to be true) would help clear the air and make it easier for people to move on. But saying "That issue simply doesn't matter, let's just drop it and get back to editing" — or simply ignoring the issue and refusing to say anything about it — isn't likely to work, even if the current anon-IP thinks he/she has a right to expect that it should.

Do I think the current anon-IP (or any regularly contributing anon-IP) would be well advised to create and use an account? Yes, I do. Even though using an account is not demanded by WP policy, it is still highly advisable. Doing this, for instance, will go a long way toward drawing people's attention away from the anon-IP and refocussing everyone in the direction of the article content. I believe it is much less likely that the current dispute would have escalated to where it is now (and be getting hashed out on anyone's talk page) if the anon-IP had been using an account rather than insisting on being an anon-IP. Although I think I understand the anon-IP's concern that using an account would somehow constitute a validation on his/her part of inappropriate behaviour by other editors, I really don't buy it. If he/she feels other editors ought to do better, then he/she should lead by example rather than criticize from the sidelines.

Hopefully the current anon-IP and the rest of us will be able to work together productively to improve this and other articles. If so, I'll be very happy. If not, I would encourage him/her to go ahead and bring the matter up at WP:ANI — albeit keeping in mind GTBacchus's words of caution, which I believe are very well taken. Richwales (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Rich. I hope he or she reads it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I generally agree with you here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over the links Will Beback posted and what I see are IP anons being accussed of everything under the sun. What I didn't see was any of these accusers providing evidence that these IP anons were guilty of any of these multitudinous crimes. Sounds familiar. You've said that you think a big reason this has played out the way it has is that I'm an IP anon. I 've said before that I choose to post anonymously because of just how much the identity of editors gets in the way of editing. As far as I'm concerned, I -am- leading the way by editing anonymously. More people should drop their identities (and the politics they create) and post anonymously.-166.196.248.230 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... so there's an option: live in ideal-world, and assume that things are as you feel they should be... or live in this world, and let pragmatism be a consideration. Easy choice for me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatism vs. Principles. We both find it an easy choice. I'm trying to find a principled way to resolve this dispute, because just sweeping it away as pragmatic won't last.-166.196.177.114 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think I'm trying to sweep something away. You have no idea. The missing link is that following the pragmatic approach will "magically" lead you to a place where your principles will find fertile soil, put down deep roots, and thrive. You got two options here. I guess you know that, though.

Standing on the principle you're standing on now... good luck. Did you notice the "new leaf" comment was struck? All I had to do was have my worst morning ever on Wikipedia, and it happened. How else can I eviscerate myself to help you? Oh wait - that's not your principle. Forget me... I don't exist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "just sweeping it away as pragmatic won't last". I didn't say you are just trying to sweep it away. I no more meant that then your comment about me sticking to principles meant that I'm just being pointlessly bull headed.-166.197.32.13 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Point well taken. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secret, which people find extremely difficult to believe, is this: the best way to win a personal dispute is to stop trying to win it. That's a beautiful paradox, and it works, and unless you take a leap of faith, you never find that out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm from personal experience that this method works very well, and that the more straightforward approach generally doesn't. But I think it's not so much a matter of believing it works, but a matter of whether one actually wants to win the dispute or to fight. Winning without fighting is an acquired taste. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but winning by fighting fails to work. Gets you banned, eventually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that much of this anon-IP's behaviour may be explained by the following: "I've said before that I choose to post anonymously because of just how much the identity of editors gets in the way of editing. As far as I'm concerned, I -am- leading the way by editing anonymously. More people should drop their identities (and the politics they create) and post anonymously." If this is in fact what he/she is trying to accomplish, I think he/she is going about it in the wrong way. If the anon-IP feels there is a serious flaw in a long-standing and well-ingrained Wikipedia practice (namely, the custom that editors normally use accounts) and wants to propose a major change in that practice, he/she should really bring this idea up in an appropriate forum and try (if he/she can) to build a consensus for it. The way he/she has been going about it so far, though — just "going anonymous", insisting that others accept it, and refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for the resulting overall increase in stress — has in my view (whether it's been his/her intention or not) really served only to upset and/or confuse other editors, distracting their attention away from the editing process and redirecting it toward the anon-IP him/herself — ironically the opposite of what it sounds like he/she is hoping for. And I'm concerned that this same mindset may also be manifesting itself in a "principles vs. pragmatism" debate that many may see as challenging the concept of consensus. If this behaviour isn't literally a violation of WP:POINT or related policies or guidelines, it certainly seems to come close enough in my opinion that the community is justified in wishing it would stop. Hopefully the anon-IP won't jump in now and accuse me of incivility for suggesting a problem with his/her current style, but if he/she feels pressed to do so, so be it. Richwales (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. What you say here is clearly well thought-out, and I largely agree. I don't think the editor's "going anonymous" is necessarily a cause of so much stress. There are anonymous contributors who do very well; we've got a regular at Wikipedia:Requested moves who helps keep the page flowing, and occasionally even does "adminly" actions. When people question those, I defend the guy. I really dig anonymous editing, and I do it myself sometimes.

When one wants to get past some kind of dispute... what you've said kicks in with full force. Either having a static IP address (like the RM helper), or else making an account, will get you where you want to go faster. Even if you don't want to do that, doing something such as making an identifiable signature - "JJ 99.121.41.55," with the number changing, but keeping "JJ" - would do the trick.

If the phenomenon of people editing anonymously is going to catch on, which I doubt, then it will happen because a lot of people are doing it successfully, and not because people are generating tons of static while doing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

I much prefer spending my time editing articles. I don't see any admins who would be willing to take on that gang, so I don't think it's worth the bother. I spent several hours putting up evidence at the O-Arb tribunal :), so we'll see how that goes. I'm guilty of trying to include notable criticisms and controversies in the appropriate sections of the article, and for calling for an end to the personal attacks and hostile editing atmosphere on those articles. I don't care whether the notable controversies and criticisms are in a section of the article, or in some form that's linked so editors can find them, but our guidelines and article standards are clear about appropriate inclusion. This is the core of the dispute. These editors don't want any of the criticisms or controveries included in Wikipedia in any way that is readily apparent. And by the way, I happen to think some of the controversies are ridiculous, but when they're notable they should be included and made accessible in a way that's appropriate. I don't think this is a radical position, and our failure to fix the situation so far is inconsistent with our guidelines. This isn't about these frivolous claims against me, it's about an "I don't like it" approach to content and an ends justifies the means approach to obstructing and disrupting my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. And I haven't even gotten to the core of the fixes needed. One of their recent ANI reports was against my trying to include that Barney Frank has been an advocate for gay rights in that article's introduction. These aren't POV statements or even criticisms we're talking about, these are basic edits. They're clearly in the wrong so they've taken extraordinary measures to oppose, disrupt, attack, and frustrate my good faith efforts. That is what this is really about. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see, here's the trouble. Consider an admin who doesn't really know the details of the case. When they look into it, it's not remotely clear who is the good editor, and who is harassing whom. It might seem very clear to you, in the thick of it, but from someone else's perspective, you're the troll. Once both sides have called each other "troll", we might as well give up on writing, and just go roll around in the mud together. Splish splash.

No admin will "take on that gang" as long as you and they seem equally tendentious and equally disruptive. How can I tell that you're right and they're wrong? If you step back and take a long view of the situation, you'll realize that it looks quite symmetric from the outside. I certainly can't tell that they're a "gang" and you're an innocent. I see mud flying in all directions, and I associate good editors with a lack of mud.

I do hope that you'll consider my offer to mediate disputes with these people at the content level. If you trust me enough to do that, then your complaints at the behavior level will take care of themselves.

If you really can't find an admin to "take on that gang", there might be a good reason for that. Admins who play "policeman" tend to be terrible admins, and we tend to get rid of them. Wikipedia has no cops, and the best way to handle personal disputes is at the content level. Then you've got both feet planted firmly in the encyclopedia, and that's where your power flows from. This is just what I've noticed. Some people don't believe this... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I think you're missing the point that the whole purpose of the mudslinging is to muddy the water so nobody can see clearly. There's nothing I can do to stop these absurd ANI reports one after the other. That's the beauty of their strategy. It's making it difficult (and if I'm topic banned at Arbcom impossible) to deal with the content. And your turn the other cheek approach is nice and all, but if you let enough people go around saying enough bad things about you without responding, your reputation isn't going to be very good for long. I'd love to focus on the content. How do I do that? That's all I do when I'm not engaged in these ridiculous attacks on my character. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pick an article to start with, and point me to it. We'll work on it together. I'm not much longer for this evening, but I'll be around over the weekend, and I seldom get very far away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, although I do respect that you are trying to work with ChildofMidnight and that empathy is sometimes helpful, the notion that there is anything symmetric about this or that there is a "gang" that is "equally" anything to ChildofMidnight is seriously unfair. At a content level every editor is free to propose what they wish, but at some point consensus is consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, I do respect that you are trying to work with ChildofMidnight, that empathy is sometimes helpful, and that some administrators see their role as being mediators. However, please keep in mind that by saying there is something "symmetric" about this or that there is a "gang" that is "equally" anything is implicitly endorsing an accusation, one that I consider grossly undeserved an unfair. At a content level every editor is free to propose what they wish, but at some point consensus is consensus. A single editor with a different viewpoint does not a real dispute make. Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "gang" language, I'll adress people in the language that I think will get the point to them most easily and quickly. I do not consider you to be part of a gang, but sometimes, I have to speak different languages to different people. I hope that's understandable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the single editor with the single viewpoint... please take me to your content dispute! Since you're right (see, I'm speaking your language now), show me. Show me the money! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't made it clear that you're any less of a mudslinger, from what I've seen. Since you're confident that you're right, you should welcome my offering to take a look at the articles and get to the bottom of this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't assume that anyone in particular has my support or empathy, I view every single one of you as infinitely valuable expressions of the divine, and I also view every single one of you with extreme caution. If you try and guess what I'm up to, you've got a very high probability of being wrong. I surprise people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really sweet. Well, the issue is that as far as I can tell ChildofMidnight's main concern is the Obama articles, a matter squarely in Arbcom. Perhaps the Barney Frank one. That has me perplexed, and I may even agree with COM on the content there. Wasn't there some issue at Drudge Report too? Both of those are very bite-sized content issues.Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, and Drudge Report? If ArbCom's already looking at the president, why don't we have a look at one of those others? Barney Frank it is then. One advantage is that I've never heard of the guy, and I find it easy to be pretty neutral about topics that I don't give a shit about. Meet me at the talk page there? You too, Midnight! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News about Barney Frank is not allowed in the state of Texas. Children might see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been born in Texas, and I may live here now, but I moved from Seattle, the gayest city in America. I think it might have passed San Francisco the year they couldn't decide whether to hold the pride parade in the traditional gay district or downtown.... so they did both. Before that, I lived in Portland, where you're not considered very cool if you aren't a lesbian. Good ol' west coast... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Truth to tell, if I hadn't caught him on The O'Reilly Factor, I would likely never have heard of the guy either. They both help each other in the publicity department, so my guess is they have the same agent. Here in the midwest we have our own colorful characters, like Rod Blagojevich, Richie Daley, Jesse Ventura, and Al Franken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... is this an active dispute, Wikidemon? I don't see CoM editing the article or talk page for over a week. If there's not an active dispute, except for the one in ArbCom... then what is all this about? I'm looking at the history of Drudge Report, and I see him editing constructively and collaboratively... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You lived in the gayest city in America and haven't heard of Barney Frank? I find that suspicious, GTBacchus, and am determined to get to the bottom of that once I have an infinite amount of time and am incredibly bored. You've been warned!

In all seriousness though, as far as I know the locus of the dispute really is Barack Obama articles (I'm not sure Wikidemon was even involved in whatever happened at Barney Frank, but I don't know the specifics of that). If you want to mediate GT, you might want to simply extend the offer indefinitely and ask folks to come to you the next time an intractable problem comes up on a Barack Obama-related article. I imagine that could be useful regardless of when ArbCom concludes their case or what exactly they decide. I've made some feeble efforts at it in the past, but in general there is a shortage of mediator-type help on Barack Obama and its various spinoffs. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were proposing to do a post mortem on the content issues raised during one of these disputes. I have no active content dispute with ChildofMidnight, and so far as I know COM is not currently edit warring anything. The issue is entirely behavioral. I have a big problem with the premise, though. When you say that I haven't made it clear that I am any less of a mudslinger, I don't have to. Why should I? As far as I know my body of work here has never been under any legitimate challenge. One cannot disprove a negative. There is nothing particular I want content-wise, nor do I have any desire for ChildofMidnight or anyone else to get sanctioned or go away. As long as the personal attacks, edit warring, etc., cease I am more than content. I thought about that, and under the circumstances if you (GTBacchus) want to broker anything, a behavioral truce would be most welcome. I would go further. If we could get all the parties to the Obama arbitration to stipulate by agreement: (1) that they do not ask the Arbitration Committee for sanctions against any editor, but rather guidance on how editing, talk, and article patrol will work on the Obama pages; (2) that they personally pledge to honor whatever ArbCom finally decides in that regard, (3) while awaiting ArbCom's ruling they will stick to 1RR, no complaints about other editors on talk pages and edit summaries, etc., and (4) we have an expedited simple system for making sure people honor their promises, then the Arbcom case would likely sail through much more efficiently and we might be able to get from here to there without any further blow-ups. Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I watched the Barney Frank thing going on but took no part in it, and had no particular content position, In some ways I was more convinced by ChildofMidnight's. Further, even where I do have a content position I have largely confined myself to 1RR for any given point, whether on the Obama articles or most anywhere, except in clear cases of vandalism and the like. So you will not find me edit warring or doing anything else, just laying out my position on the talk page like a good editor. What shocked me at Barney Frank were the sudden accusations of homophobia and bad faith editing. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-- unindent) Yeah... I don't do anything I'd call a "Post mortem". I only deal with active disputes, and I only deal with behavioral issues in the context of content disputes. Otherwise, both my feet have left the ground, and I'm playing Cloak-and-Dagger instead of writing an encyclopedia.

The "truce" that you outline above seems reasonable — which group of editors in particular would you like to see this from? Everyone named in the ArbCom case, or... who?

The only point I hoped to make about the mud is this: it's not clear to me in this context that any particular party is "in the wrong". I don't accept the "the problem is editor X, and his or her attitude". As far as I'm concerned, one-editor-problems solve themselves. Any problem that reaches my attention involves at least two editors conducting a dispute inappropriately, at which point, I'm in no position to take a side. All I can do is wade into the underlying content dispute (there had better be an underlying content dispute...), and judge for myself who behaves in what manner.

All of that said... I don't specifically remember seeing you say anything out-of-line, so I apologize for painting in overly broad strokes, and including you in a description that doesn't apply. It is usually my experience that personal attacks and other unhelpful actions tend to go in both directions, but let me take an extra shot of AGF (actually your faith was never it doubt, I'm just not too knowledgeable about your behavior), and say, I'm sorry for unfairly characterizing you as a mudslinger.

I am interested in mediation - indeed, it's all I can really offer in the current situation, since I don't play "cop", and I'm happy enough to say that my offer is extended indefinitely. If there's an editor whom you think is a problem, and there's an article where they're causing trouble, please feel free to tug on my sleeve. It's possible I can help. Also, tell me more about this truce idea; it sounds cool. Talk to me about specifics. You know: who?, what?, when?, where? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut gallery 2

As I recall, User:Soxwon, who also leans conservative, came to me a week or two ago and asked if the "gay activist" business should be in Barney Frank article. I asked him to find me citations, since I didn't enough about it to know the right answer. He's from that part of the country, so he new. And he found citations. So I said, yes, it belongs. That's called "collaboration". Certain users, such as ones who ask for a nomination for adminship and then can't decide whether to run, and who talk collaboration but don't walk it, could take a lesson from that approach. Although, admittedly, it's bland and boring, as all it does is improve article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs... you have a strange notion of what's helpful. If you're going to make oblique references to "certain users," I'd actually appreciate your fucking off again. I don't talk about people that way, and I don't appreciate seeing that kind of talk. Shoot straight here: 100% honest, 100% above board, 100% helpful. No little digs at people. If you can't do that, then I don't welcome your input. This talk page is a respect zone. I failed to respect you on this talk page yesterday, and I apologize for that. I was upset, and that's never a good time to post.

Now, can you handle a "no insult of any kind" policy here? I'll keep up my end, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Finance: "Sir, you try my patience!"

Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho): "I don't mind if I do! You must come over and try mine sometime!"

A sense of humor, however warped is vital to sanity. And I agree with that. And so do I. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. If you're not able to be funny without insulting or degrading anyone, you're not very clever. I work with people in disputes, who are upset. I'm more interested in de-escalating situations than in showing people up as insufficiently humorous. If you cannot separate sense of humor from lack of respect for others, that's sad. What do you think? If you cut out the gratuitous insults, will you still have a sense of humor left? I think you will. I think you're significantly better than you've been acting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should take that as a compliment, and I appreciate it. Or, I could refer to what Mark Twain said about Wagner, that "his music is better than it sounds." :) P.S. No need to apologize to me for anything you've said. I am made of tougher stuff than possibly the average user is. :) I don't care what anyone calls me. I do care about wikipedia content, because ultimately that's what matters here - not the coddling of vandals (which I see all too often from a variety of users), or running to ANI every time someone says a cross word (which is also a too-frequent occurrence from a variety of users). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I'm "coddling vandals"? Do you know what a vandal is? It's someone who is trying to make Wikipedia worse — not better from their perspective. People who wish to improve the project, but have insufficient understanding of how to work well with others are not vandals. Calling them that is a great way to increase the drama! quotient. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not coddling vandals. And you haven't listened to a word I've said about what happened on the night of March 8-9. So enough already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I haven't commented on that. What would be the point? Going back into the history to decide who was wrong when? That's not helpful. I'm not remotely interested in identifying bad guys. I'm interested in the encyclopedia, and that starts now, not on March 9. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, CoM thinks the same way he did on March 9, and the same way he did the moment he started here - that he's on some kind of mission to "purify" wikipedia of its infestation of liberals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'll deal with it in realtime, not in history. What's your brilliant suggestion? Ban him now? I'm all ears, funny-bunny; what you got? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community will take care of it eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... we eventually do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

GT, when you get a chance could you please userfy List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems in my userspace if it isn't too much trouble? Thanks mucho. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I agree that it's a awesomely hilarious article. What a long way to spell "durian," right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it looks like Bigtimepeace beat me to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sorry to steal your thunder. I deal with all things durian-related here in case you didn't know, though ironically I still have not taken the time to figure out what in the hell a durian is. I like the mystery of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get similar kicks out of stub sorting. Sometimes, I've got no idea what an article's about, but I can tell it's happening in India. Thus: {{India-stub}}! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitey nite GT. In the a.m. can someone clue me in on where the article is? I'm not seeing it. Is it like a hidden userpage? Will I get a barnstar if I find it? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on C of M's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems Pretty good. Remind me not to buy that product on my next trip to Piggly Wiggly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bugs, this was helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I should have looked there first. Mea culpa. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off to bed

After I play Text Twist. This has been a busy day on Wikipedia, anything that happens at the end of it, I'll see tomorrow. Goodnight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badge

I haven't read over whatever it is that's troubling you, but please don't get discouraged or turn in your badge... You're an excellent mediator. Some folks (again, speaking from general principles here) just refuse to drop the stick and there's little-to-nothing we admin folk can do... –xeno ^talk 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have appreciated your efforts to help mediate some of the disputes here and without your involvement I might have stopped editing Wikipedia. Thanks again. Ward20 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, geez. I didn't mean to do that. I'm not likely to go anywhere. I kind of love this crazy-ass project, it turns out. I learn a lot here, and usually I feel pretty good about it.

I thank you both, for the words of confidence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay then

Need I say that statements like "Or, more politely, anyone who doesn't know how to be assertive without being a dick is a fucking idiot." are WAAAY in violation of WP:NPA? I don't think I should. If a situation is bothering you, step away and please don't make statements like this again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:28

Hey... I'm sorry. I was making what I thought was a funny joke. If you think I called you an idiot, then I obviously screwed up, and I'm sorry. I didn't mean to call you anything. I imagined it was clearly funny. I'm not upset; I'm being playful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking you called me an idiot, but it was a statement to everyone. I appreciate the quick apology and striking. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:35

I was kind of hoping the self-deprecating irony would be clear, i.e., that I was saying something about courtesy (something which I believe to be true!) in a very rude way. It was really just a badly executed attempt to inject humor into what I was saying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you - Lean Dynamics

Situation unravelling quickly. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it to AfD and let the community determine notability or not. Don't try to take it on your own shoulders. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm going to make a suggestion to the upset editor. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN posting about an essay

I noticed your posting on the AN board wondering about an essay, as well as the work you've been doing in trying to help CoM over a difficult hump. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but I did one early on that I've never really finished. here. I never got back to it as I didn't want people dropping me links about NOTAWEBHOST, or SOAPBOX, or "we're here to build an encyclopedia" type of things. Didn't know if you'd be interested or not, but I thought I'd drop you a link just in case. Cheers ;) — Ched : ? 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but I'm not sure if it's okay to refer to the disruptive and obstructionist editor I've been dealing with as a "difficult hump". ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I wasn't referring to any individual editor in that way; the "hump" I was referring to was the situation. The time frame issues, and decision making process are more along the lines of what I considered to be a milestone to be breached - not any particular millstone you may be experiencing. I try to look more often to the edits that are performed in most cases, rather than try to ascribe any particular "personality" to one. The edits I had seen suggested to me that one may be in search of an essay about communication, as I had touched on that topic some time ago, I sought out the originator of the AN post where I noticed it. In brief review of user:GBTaccus, I noticed that GTB had been attempting to assist you in your quest to become an administrator, and felt that several of those individual posts were also reflective of the nature of my essay. Henceforth, I brought GTB the link to said essay. :) — Ched : ? 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry Ched. I knew I should have added a smiley face to my comment, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Sorry for butting in. I might have a look at your essay later so I can add my 2 cents and drop some knowledge on that subject. Communication is important. I'll let you and Yoda get back to your discussion now. Sorry for the disruption. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often say it, but "LOL". I've been likened to the Dude before, but the little green guy is new for me. If I draw any more of these comparisons, I'll have to start a section on my user page documenting them! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, hi. Thanks for the link. I like the look of that essay. There's one I wrote a little while ago called WP:On assuming good faith (horribly un-catchy name, I know; the acronym sucks, too). I was on the Wikipedia irc channel when I saved the first version, and I immediately received the feedback, "Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia with your essay-cruft." I'm pretty confident it was tongue in cheek. ;) I'm definitely a fan of the wiki-essay. My most recent attempts are User:GTBacchus/Dealing with conflict and Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if.... Thanks again for the link, and for fighting the good fight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughed my but off on the wikilawyering one - I could hear Foxworthy doing it out-loud. Then I realized how many of those I was guilty of .. not sure if I should laugh or cry now ;) — Ched : ? 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but he left out "if your family tree does not POV fork." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that actually means anything, then please add it. If it's just a pun, do whatever you like. My original intention of the page is that it makes valid and valuable points in a funny way. If the humor leaves the ground completely, I'll keep my grumbling to a minimum. My intention with the page is actually to improve the encyclopedia by pointing out unhelpful behaviors, but I don't own it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that you don't know who Jeff Foxworthy is, and hence you are culturally deprived. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I recognize that your line above is a reference to the cultural phenomenon that I consciously referenced when writing the page. Good work; super. Rock and roll. Imma go do somethin' else now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppiree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A Portland Editor

Hi GT, long time, no talk.

Sure, feel free to pass him along to me. If it turns out that I get pinched for time -- one of the drawbacks of being a new father is that this happens -- I know several other local Wikipedians who could help him. And yes, the weather is lovely -- if you like warmth & blue skies. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised

I did not ever expect you who wished to be a mentor of Badagnani, suggesting to block him alone. You can get my sympathy from now. You're so honestly saying that your mentorship is failed. The next step for DR right after the useless RfC/U would be filing to the arbitration because he never responses to the raised concerns or refuses to fix his problems. --Caspian blue 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I think, I'm an extender of last chances. If someone burns through my patience, there's a good probability they've also exhausted the community's patience. If someone shows me wrong, I'll be very happy. I never like seeing someone go.

If there's an ArbCom case, I'm sure I'll see you there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly speaking, admitting your failure on the mentorship seems to be not easy one. You may know that I have not still added my view on his behaviors at his RfC (I have "lots to add" about his editing to Asian cuisine/history subjects) because I hoped that he can change his attitude "a bit"....but well that seems to be not gonna happen without administrative interventions. I don't think I'll raise an ArbCom case against him, but if the case is open, I might get involved.--Caspian blue 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying this. The positive side of failing is that I have a chance to learn something. I hope I can figure out what my lesson is in this case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've tried everything that you could do. But enough is enough...(I'm afraid that the dreadful supporter of him appears here or ANI)--Caspian blue 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful supporters are the worst kind! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, you'd know I just used the "singular" and "definite" article. :( --Caspian blue 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out GT's "for every editor X who feels their time was wasted, there exists precisely one editor Y whom they can thank... The solution is X=Y!" explanation. If you find a cryptologist to solve his new math puzzle (I hear Elonka is good at these sorts of things), you may be able to track down this "dreadful supporter". I have a feeling they're wonderfully charming and good looking, whoever they are... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things, we are just not meant to know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was staring at this in incomprehension, a streamer of drool gradually descending from my lower lip to the keyboard, eyelids fluttering hypnotically, when I was shocked into awakenness, partly by a coughing fit, and partly by realizing that, hey! I'm a math teacher! I'll bet I can figure this one out.

Let's see... X is an editor who feels their time was wasted by your RfA... Y is the person they have to thank... there's a square on the hypotenuse, and the law of cosines says the driver on the z-axis has right-of-way if they're facing into the sun, and I'm in GMT-5, and a kilo is 2.2 pounds.... no. No, I lost it. I've gotta write an algebra test for tomorrow morning. Anybody got a clue about "3x² - 5x + 8 = 6"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is 42. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use Ctrl + F with "dreadful" in the page. Cheers!--Caspian blue 02:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he does turn up. I gave him a link. I'd like to see what he has to say right now. I encouraged him to post a positive comment at the RFC, but he wasn't supportive enough to do that... just to allude that he might later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be ...

ya know, I was so tempted to mention WP:OR vs. WP:SYN (yes, I know they both point to the same NOR policy) at a recent thread here. But I fared so poorly at the Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if... test, I decided not to. Re: Bugs' suggestion of adding the "if your family tree does not POV fork." to the essay.

Support per ... something.

Oh my ... I need a wiki-break! ;) — Ched : ? 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey GT, I just wanted to thank you for your good sense of humor, patience and enthusiasm for helping resolve disputes. I have not yet personally achieved a nirvana like state of embrace with your methods/ madness, but lifting X-wing fighters out of a swamp takes big time mental focus and it may be that I'm just not ready yet. Anyway, cheers. Sorry if this comes across as a "backhanded" or snide compliment. It's not meant to be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you think I have a sense of humor. Baseball Bugs might disagree. At any rate, if this is nirvana, I don't want to know what want to know what Maya is like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... settle for this Maya you might have to. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badagnani

You try to mentor him and he turns on you? Perhaps you've heard the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished"? (And I'll leave out the more pointed Biblical reference about casting pearls and such.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your negativity is as unwelcome as you can possibly imagine. Don't talk to me, if you're going to do this. I told my page was a respect zone. Are you going to respect that boundary? Your negativity is not welcome here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest esitmation, you bring more harm to the project than Badagnani does, by your unwillingness to eschew the sniping, barbed, hurtful, poisonous remarks. Your sense of humor would be infinitely better if you left out the spite. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to get you to laugh, and you turn on me just as Badagnani turned on you. Fine. He's yours. See ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to get me to laugh by disparaging someone I'm currently putting my emotion on the line to work with. Duh! Would you hang out in a classroom and mock the students, expecting the teacher to appreciate that? That's not the kind of support I need. I'm not trying to be a dick, but... come on! -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you getting emotional about it? Don't let him get to you. Don't let me get to you. Don't let anyone get to you, or they win. Be strong. And remember, it's not life-or-death, it's only wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea. You can't see into my soul. I know it's not life or death, but I also know that I'm here to make the world a better place, and that I strongly believe in the idea of "blessed are the peacemakers". I try to be one of those. I try to get opposing parties to respect each other, and I have received positive feedback for doing this in the past.

From my perspective, and I welcome correction, you're injecting disrespect into situations where I'm, quite voluntarily and freely, investing some of my real feelings in. My doing this is not a crime, and I know how to control it. That doesn't mean that I appreciate humor that derides someone with whom I'm trying to work.

I really am a teacher; this is how I make a living. If you start making fun of one of my students, I'm not going to appreciate it, and if I did, I'd be a shitty teacher. That's sure as hell extra-true if you do it somewhere they can hear or read it later.

I'm a grown up, and I can decide just how much I want to invest where. I can decide when I want to take on a student who requests it, and when I want to try and convince someone of something, whether or not they're willing. I appreciate your respecting me enough to let me set my own boundaries. When I told you this page was a respect zone, I thought it was clear what that meant.

I like funny stuff. I like really out-there, off-color, bizarre humor. I just don't use it to make fun of people I'm trying - of my own free will - to help. Is that unreasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think our different approaches to humor is a generational thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in 1976. I don't buy that it's a generational thing. When I'm in the context of dealing (out of my own free will!) with someone who has fragile emotions and needs delicate handling, I'm not going to appreciate remarks disparaging them, that they can see. I don't think you're too old or too young to recognize that one can be funny without insulting or disparaging anyone. The best comedians I know of, from any generation, manage to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely a generation apart. I come from a time when humor was a lot more rough-hewn, which is something I've been called also, and that's fine. We all have our different approaches. You take the kinder, gentler approach. I take the approach of bringing them out. Sometimes your approach works, sometimes mine works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you can respect where I'm coming from? I'm not sure I know what "bringing them out" means, but is it something that's done via humorous insults? I tend to deal with people who are not prepared for that, and with whom that is a bad idea. Do you generally consider who your audience is, or not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can. Your approach is just different. It's the schoolteacher's approach, which requires a great deal of patience. My approach is much more blunt - to try to figure out where they're coming from, which sometimes requires pushing them a bit; and then once their pent-up emotion is released, hopefully we can negotiate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Marx Brothers movies, for example, but I wouldn't want them in the room where I'm trying to mediate a dispute between upset parties. I don't think that makes me a prudish bore, nor an overly politically-correct tight-ass. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen and a half

Curious, Bugs, aren't you in your early 20s? (if not or over even 30s, I will be very shocked)--Caspian blue 03:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen and a half. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...in rabbit's year? How much do I multiply? Your humoring is those of high teens' or college students, but articles that you edit seems to be popular for seniors....So the gap is too deep. Or rabbits tend to live up for 4~5 years, so you're incarnated 3 times. :) --Caspian blue 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Citizen vs. High School. Hmmm... Age and maturity are not the same thing. Let's just say I'm chronologically somewhere between those two extremes. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I note your comment that, "Generosity and admonishment do not work so far." Another way to put that is "good cop" and "bad cop" have both failed. Now, every case is different, so I'm only speaking hypothetically here, not about this particular case: In some cases where neither good cop nor bad cop will get the job done, there is regrettably only one alternative. Well, maybe two. Both involve sending someone over to the hypothetical editor's house for a little visit. One option there would be my cousin Vito, who, unlike me, seriously lacks a sense of humor. The other option would be to send an insurance salesman over. ["No! No! Anything but that!"] Regrettable, yes, but tough situations can call for some "tough love". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rough-hewn

I find the idea that my sense of humor is "kinder and gentler" rather absurd. Some of my favorite jokes are among the most offensive I can imagine. I like Encyclopedia Dramatica for example, and consider Uncyclopedia to be written by and for gerbils. My favorite YouTube is the George Washington rap, and I wrote and recorded the song, "I Love You; I'll Still Fuck Your Sister". I just don't bring this stuff up while trying to mediate a dispute between parties who almost certainly come from different cultures, as well as different generations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said, or meant to say, that your approach is kinder and gentler, not necessarily your sense of humor; which, from your description, is too far out for my tastes. But that's OK. Whatever works for you. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, I hope you didn't take any offense. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken offense at anything you've said to me. Or if I did at the moment, it didn't last long enough that I can recall it now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Do you understand why I'm a bit prickly if you drop off "humor" that would likely people with whom I'm trying to do delicate mediation work? Diplomats do not generally make fun of the upset parties between whom they're trying to broker peace. That's been true since a long time before you were born, right?

There is a time and a place for "rough hewn" humor, and there's a time and a place for handling matters delicately. I hope you'll trust me to distinguish between those two cases, and to try and respect that distinction on my talk page. I'm not asking for much.

If you want to make me laugh, just do it in any way that doesn't look like disrespect for people I'm trying to help. There are millions of funny things to say that don't disparage anyone here. I don't think this is a weird or unfair request. Am I being reasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And never lose sight of the fact that wikipedia's primary purpose is to inform the public. That goal is more important than nursemaiding difficult users. The public could not care less about the internal soap operas here. They come to wikipedia to learn information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Do you imagine for a second that this isn't constantly in my mind? How about a little more credit, Bugs? Maybe, just maybe, I have a clue what I'm doing? If Badagnani were not contributing a lot of good content, I wouldn't be trying to help him. However, if you think I'm "nursemaiding" difficult users, then you fail to understand what I'm doing. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Why are you talking to me? Seriously. Are you trying to help me? Why? Are you nursemaiding this difficult user called GT? Why? Do you want to convince me that Badagnani isn't worth helping? I'll keep my own counsel about when that's true. Do you not trust me to set my own boundaries and maintain them? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From word one, I've been raising issues that I think you need to consider. Whether you actually do consider them or not, is up to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do consider what's said. I'm not sure that you realize that I've thought this stuff out pretty well. If I seem to reject your suggestions, it's because I've considered them, and I've considered my own beliefs about the world and about other people. I trust my beliefs more than I trust that you are fit to advise on the topic of dispute resolution. I've never seen you resolve a dispute. Maybe you're quite the diplomat; I don't know. I haven't seen it.

What do you want to bring about? How do you want me to change, and why should I change based on your wants? Shall I accept you as an authority on how I should behave? Why?

So far, all the suggestions I've seen you make have amounted to, "don't bother to try and make this situation better, GT. Don't bother to try and help Badagnani, GT. Don't bother to follow your own conscience and ideals, GT. Don't bother to try and learn as much as you can about how disputes work, and how we can find ways out of them. Don't bother. Be more cynical and pessimistic."

Maybe I should be reading something different from your suggestions, but that's how they've been coming across to me. If that's not what you're saying, then maybe you haven't been entirely clear. If that is what you're saying, then I say get thee behind me. I believe in things. You can't change that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the basic question: When I defend wikipedia articles such as Sarah Palin and Barack Obama against POV-pushing marauders, and then get told that that work is not important, and that the important thing is to coddle those people, what am I supposed to think? What am I supposed to do? Why do some people here think that wikipedia is about nursemaiding belligerent users, rather than being about providing content for the general public? What can I do to help fix that problem? If anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you still think I'm "nursemaiding". That's too bad. If you've got a problem with specific people of specific articles, then I can help. I can't answer your question in the abstract, because that would imply that so many situations are clear cases of black and white, good editors versus difficult editors... I don't buy it. Things are more complicated than that.

So you ask me what you're supposed to think? You ask me what you can do? I've got an answer. Take the moral high ground, do it right, let others help you, and let's get there. I am available to help with any situation that comes up; otherwise, I'm a goddamned hypocrite to give anyone advice about anything. You think there's an easy answer? There isn't. If you want to help fix the problem, don't be a part of the problem. Don't be someone who is willing to simplistically judge other editors as "difficult". Join me in the struggle to get everyone on board. Don't tell me that my ideals are worthless, or I will hate you forever, and dedicate my life to proving you wrong.

Now, if you say that anyone claims that the important thing is to "coddle these people," I don't believe you. Point out anyone who has said that, ever. If you can't, then stop lying. I sure as fuck never say it. Stop portraying my position as some kind of spineless, mindless mollycoddling. Nobody advocates that. You want to help? Let me help you. Don't give me your fucking jaded, cynical, "these people" vomit. There are no "these people". We're one species, trying to survive. If you want anything from me, lead me to situations where I can help in an actual context. Don't try to pump overgeneralized shit about "nursemaiding" into my ears. Step up, with some courage and some honesty, and let's get to work on these problems. I'm standing here with a goddamned shovel, saying "Let me help you in the trenches," and your reply is to come back with lazy-assed cliche bullshit platitudes about who's worth working with and who isn't? Grow a fucking pair, and show me where the problem is, and let's work on it. If you're not willing to fight to the motherfucking death to be part of the solution, then I never want to hear anything from you again. Is that clear enough? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before where I needed help, and your answer was that my efforts are not important. So we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're still talking because...? Yeah. That's what I thought. See ya! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whatever you claim to have told me, was lost among your attempts at humor. If you want to communicate clearly, practice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help on reading if a RfC has consensus

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this when I'm back online later tonight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone for a few hours

I'm off to a funeral. There are a few conversations I'm in the middle of, so I'm posting a reason for my sudden silence. I'll be back, unless the funeral turns out to be mine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance.

You offered your assistance. I'm going to take you up on your offer, if it still holds. Our buddy, Shrandit, is engaging in an edit war to preserve what I consider a highly non-neutral version of Abortion and religion, while sandbagging discussion with incivility. His only supporter is the blatantly "pro-life" partisan, Ferrylodge. Moreover, I was informed by an interested third party that Shrandit is quite likely trying to trick me into either being uncivil or tripping over the 3rd reversion rail, with the goal of getting me blocked and smearing my reputation. Rather than sink to his level, or if my source is right, fall into his trap, I'm coming to you to ask for mediation. Please show me that Wikipedia is indeed the last bastion of truth, neutrality and justice for all. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I was informed by an interested third party that Shrandit is quite likely trying to trick me into either being uncivil or tripping over the 3rd reversion rail, with the goal of getting me blocked and smearing my reputation." And who said that? - Schrandit (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real question is whether it's true. It sure does look like your insults were bait. And I wasn't even aware of this reversion magic number rule, so I would have totally shot myself in the foot. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats curious, I know a user who would have given that same answer. - Schrandit (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for a week or so. There was a death in the family, and concerns other than Wikipedia have been pressing. I'll look at this situation, and tell you what I think, TruthIIPower. Schrandit, hi. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about the death in the family. I've been through that several times in recent years, and it never gets any easier. Regarding TruthIIPower, I'll save you some time: He was proven to be a sock of Spotfixer, which is what Schrandit was alluding to; and both user ID's are now indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to see you here, Baseball Bugs. This page is not mine, I know, but your input so far has been so negative and unwelcome that I want to leave Wikipedia when I see you post here. If your goal is to make me feel worse about this project, then by all means, keep helping out here on my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on the subject of how to handle users. You are of the "new school" that says everyone can be "saved". I am of the "old school" that says everyone is already "saved" or "lost" before they get here. My highest priority here is to try to defend wikipedia content. Your highest priority here apparently is to try to make troublesome users into productive users. That's a noble and very challenging effort. In any case, we operate under different philosophies, and that's just the way it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that "everyone can be saved". You are wrong about my beliefs. You're wrong about my priorities. I don't care that you're wrong, but you're wrong. My top priority is the encyclopedia and its content. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree that content is the top priority. So please stop accusing me of being "negative" when I take a stance to defend content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of negativity, I offer a condolence and your response is effectively "F.U." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mostly want is for you to leave me alone, Baseball Bugs. I disagree with your methods of defending content. The negativity of your methods will hurt content more than it help it, in the long run, in my opinion. We disagree. I will keep my own counsel as to whether your methods are negative enough for me to call them that. Now please, leave me alone. Please take me off your watchlist. I won't bother you, either. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just re-read your comments from a week ago, and while taking into account the possibility that you were going through personal anguish and that I was a good vent for it, I find your own comments to be more negative, and far more vile, than anything I've ever said or done here. In short, I find your own comments to be thoroughly offensive. So don't you dare ever lecture me about negativity again. And now I'm done watching your page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in lecturing you. I'm happy just to note that we disagree, and to see you go. I'm happy to know that you feel good about your input, and see me as hypocritical/wrong/whatever. I wish you the best; goodbye. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves now go for seven days

Hey, I saw you moved the backlog header up after I'd reset it to seven days; could you put it back, please? No need to re-open any discussions you closed, of course. See WT:RM.--Aervanath (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see that. I'll put it back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

		The Special Barnstar
		For bringing lucidity and sense to a difficult discussion. Dloh cierekim 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why... thank you! I'm glad to know I am making sense, to someone other than myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with this. While my position on the issue in question is not the same as yours, your intelligent and logical presentation of your thoughts, as well as your professional and reasoned choice of words has (thus far...) prevented that thread from degenerating into petty nonsense as so many similar threads have. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get away from me.

I don't know how much more of your trolling harassment I have to take for you to get the message, so I'm making it clear. STOP TROLLING ME. Next step is AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to the user's null edit message with an apology and note that he's going his separate way? It takes two to agree to disagree, and GTBacchus has already done so. –xeno ^talk 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a sincere apology taken as trolling before. I don't know what to say. I clearly screwed up badly, and I've already disengaged. I was taught to apologize when I know I was wrong, and I'm going to continue to live that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, you're a saint.--Caspian blue 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no... I'm quite the sinner. Thanks, though. :)

I might as well have known that there was no point talking to him. I did genuinely believe he might hear something from me, but I never know how to pitch my tone with someone whose own approach is so abrasive. Sometimes, they respond well to bluntness. Sometimes, that really doesn't work.

By the time of my last post, which provoked this, I was genuinely trying to apologize and go away without the disruption of leaving a message he would have to delete. It backfired, but whatever. This isn't the kind of situation that finds my skin thin. When someone really freaks out on me, I stay pretty calm.

Aren't we a funny species?

If I learn from this, that'll be good work. Here's hoping.

The important issue has nothing to do with me or ThuranX. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia is going to develop some smartness about what trolling really is, and how to deal with it. Right now, we've got everyone, each working from his or her own personal theory, and I don't think we can all be right. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody were in your shoes, s/he might've naturally gone to report his "extreme incivility" to ANI or WQA. So you're indeed very patient of such insults. Well, I thought last summer how come the guy is not sanctioned "yet" for such behaviors, but well, my thought was proven right.--Caspian blue 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThuranX doesn't exist yet, but it's already on my watchlist, waiting for the day it does. He does a lot of work defending oft-trolled articles such as Barack Obama, but I suspect that his style of "defense" might be multiplying the problem that it should be solving. That seems to be a page where feeding trolls has been enshrined as an institution. Damn shame, if you ask me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a funny idea. :) (but the community may have suffered his attitude a bit longer)--Caspian blue

How logical

I very much appreciated the logic of your explanation that IAR is not a logical paradox because it is not an exercise in formal logic[9]. Chillum 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It took us a few years to get the idea down to that few words. It's certainly been a fun idea to help incubate and develop. Wikipedia is a remarkable kind of system. Like they say, it doesn't work in theory, only in practice. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome message and the heads up on leaving comments on Users' talk pages. I really appreciate it. I went ahead and put my post at the bottom of the user's talk page so they would be more likely to see it. I hope grad school is going well for you and thanks again!

Arthur —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurThomas24 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. As for grad school, I'm taking three exams next week, so I'll hold off on saying anything too confidently about how it's going. ;) I enjoy learning more mathematics, anyway.

Feel free to let me know if I can help you use the site in any way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM Backlog

There are too many days in the WP:RM#Other proposals section. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Extension to seven days. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there; thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue of home life

Hey! Back on the Ref Desk you mentioned you were making a catalogue of living creatures found in your house. Can I get a list of those things? :) Thanks. Mac Davis (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at your page. Come to think of it, I might as well just post it as a subpage here. Let's see.... ~~User:GTBacchus/Home species list~~User:GTBacchus/Species list. It actually has encyclopedic merit, because I can provide photos of a lot of these critters. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, translating it from Notepad++ into wiki-markup seems to be non-trivial. I might try to figure this out later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is an ok place to post it if you ask me. As for what I would do with it, I was thinking of making a video to upload to YouTube based on this. Jayron's comments on natural, live, exceptionally "unnatural" food, and people's level of disgust with different foods in different cultures struck a chord in me. Mac Davis (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these species have nothing to do with food - they're mostly from the lawn and garden, plus my houseplants, and my friends. However, I have learned about a good half dozen garden "weeds" that make for good eating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemidactylus turcicus

Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean house gecko - Seen on outside of house, evenings.

Yes, you've seen it, but surely, you've heard them? Those suckers are loud. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I imagine it is hot where you live, and you may have fans and air conditioning blocking out most natural sounds. In the event that you don't, there are times of the day/month, when the sound is more noticeable. They sound like loud chirps or clicking. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't turned on the AC yet, but it's bound to happen before it gets much warmer. Texas summers will cook ya. I wonder if I've heard them and assumed it was crickets? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They actually sound like birds, not crickets. And they are only vocal for less than five seconds. If you hear what sounds like a bird, late at night, when all the birds are asleep, that's probably a gecko. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their voices can be very persuasive. They saved me a bundle on car insurance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with User:Radiojon

I could use your advice on this. Radiojon (talk · contribs) has been moving articles for several years,[10] but either doesn't seem to understand the concept or won't go to the talk page to propose the move first. Many of his moves have been contested and reverted. I'm wondering what is the best way to deal with this. Obviously, I don't want to upset him. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does reverting his moves provoke any conflict; does he fight or argue over it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but in my case, no. His talk page has several incidents that you can pour over, and he's been asked to stop the moves at least once. It's really weird, because I've never seen a serial "bad mover" before, except for the obvious vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving or being forever

I think the thread seems to be on ANI forever because Viritidas obviously does not want to let the thread go; she thinks commenting the last is winning! Reading her constant attacking and harassing editors who disagree with her view on the situation is very tiresome and horrendous. I think you can archive the tread by using "archivetop". If somebody wants a new discussion on him or her, then so be it. However, as I said you earlier, I believe the unnecessary extended thread led Badagnani's block. What is she doing? I've never seen such "weird mentorship". Anyway, would you archive it? Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging any other editor is not a good way to get what you want from me. You're sounding more and more like Badagnani. I'll see if I can figure out how ANI archiving works. Now it's a subpage, and I don't know if that changes anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has intentionally used my previous ANI reports filed by sockpuppeters or Spi in order to attacked other editors even though I have ceased talking with her. So since Viritidas is breaching "civility" violation, she does not deserve my respect at all. Moreover, didn't she disparage me on your talk? I believe the report on ANI that has been for an excessively long period is "humiliation" to Badagnani, regardless of the matter being resolved or not. Anyway, thank you for stepping in. --Caspian blue 04:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your email. If you have issues with Viriditas, I recommend following WP:DR. If you tell me that someone does not "deserve" your respect, I will respectfully disagree. Rationing out respect to those who you think "deserve" it... is precisely the attitude that causes wars to still be fought among men. Treat others as you would like to be treated, take the moral high ground, rise above the conflict. These old lessons are still quite valuable.

If someone disrespects you, and you disrespect them back, then you're both the same. If someone disrespects you, and you respect them anyway, then you win. If you can point me to specific situations where you are being attacked, then maybe I can do something, but after-the-fact, I cannot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind and prudent advice. I don't think the thread is about Badagnani any more, so expending the thread over and over only affects Badagnani's reputation badly. As I said many times, I have an ambivalent feeling about him because I had good and bad days with him, and had tried to work together with him, vice versa. When you suggested me to request a RFC on Badagnani twice, I did not do that. However, Viriditas does only see what she wants to see. I don't think DR with her is worthy for my time unlike Badagnani's case because I do not work nor wish to work with such editor. I still have to work with Badagnani regardless whether he changes himself or not. On the other hand, I have many disagreement with ChildofMidnight on Badagnani's editing, but we are good together because we do not breach civility. I don't think Viriditas's behavior helps Badagnani. I've tried to not encounter her for now. I think that is a best way for me.--Caspian blue 05:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Viriditas has taken his/her own advice about how to catch flies, nor has Viriditas been entirely consistent in approaching the situation. As for "seeing what one wants to see," I think we're all guilty of that on occasion.

That said, I would tend to agree that Viriditas is not helping Badagnani. I'm not sure anyone can help Badagnani, until Badagnani decides to accept help. If you are able to avoid Viriditas, then that sounds like a good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I believe you would finish up your semester very well because of your goodness to editors. :)--Caspian blue 05:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is "neutral ground", I would like to offer Caspian blue an olive branch and suggest we put the past behind us and start fresh. He doesn't have to accept, but I want to be on record saying that I don't hold grudges or think interpersonal conflict should come before the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and we need to put our conflicts aside and keep our eyes on the prize. If Caspian blue chooses to accept my olive branch, then I look forward to a more civil discussion and working relationship with him in the future. Perhaps it is too soon to offer such a "peace plan", but Caspian blue is welcome to take as much time as he likes to think about the offer. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of formalized policy

A reply awaits you at User_talk:M#Lack_of_formalized_policy. –M^T 06:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll food

Here's hoping Hamlet's input was useful? Durova^Charge! 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's either a really big troll or a really small pizza. A good snack while taking coins at the troll booth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's input is useful, insofar as I get to see a broader cross-section. I'm not familiar with this particular Danish Prince. (Perhaps he prefers pastry to pizza?) I'm unlikely to incorporate his advice verbatim into an essay, but I know that some people do think that way, and I would like to somehow address those people.

The trick is that the people who need the advice most are precisely those who are least likely to listen. A good essay might be able to gain enough consensus for people to call it a guideline, though. As much as I like to disdain such reindeer games, tinkering with the "status" of a page, sometimes common sense needs all the leverage it can get. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I'm just now figuring out... yeah. I'm sticking by my guns. Hamlet gets the same answer anyone would. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Bee or not Do Bee, that is the question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, I try to make the disclosure really obvious on Hamlet's user page. Think of him as the exiled prince from Trollmark--the anti-troll. He's the sort of fellow who tinkers away usefully on articles about trolls, socks, puppets, and parodies of Shakespeare (like this). Alternatively, think of him as the gentle humor of my alter-ego. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to that understanding. Hamlet will certainly be welcome to pitch in whenever I try and write down some of these thoughts in some format for general consumption. I think his comments are already helping temper my Quixoticity to an extent. That's always helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotism. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that it sounds like a form of autism. "Slow? Nah, he's got the Quick's Autism." Of course, "quixoticity" sounds like a form of "toxicity". -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That had crossed my mind. There's normal autism, then there's quix-autism, which leads to such bizarre behavior as obsessively counting the number of windmills tilting on the horizon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a touch of humor helps to maintain perspective in difficult online situations. That was the motivation three years ago when I named a serious essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons: most people can chuckle at the thought of prehistoric encyclopedia editors getting trampled by enraged megafauna. Hamlet happens to have a large family of fellow troll sockpuppets, and he owns a complete sockpuppet theater performance of "The Three Billy Goats Gruff". More trolls and other puppets can be imported from Trollmark upon request, to assist with making your planned essay as effective and entertaining as possible. A bridge entrance even has a troll in a troll booth. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's wild that I come across as someone who has to be told that sometimes humor is helpful for maintaining perspective. I must be a terrible communicator. Maybe I just have the wrong sense of humor for this project. I'd do alright at ED, but I'm more interested in building an encyclopedia than I am in documenting the foibles of Internet culture. Now those guys know how to handle a troll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ED, eh? Have they tried Viagra? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident they use it recreationally. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To restate a joke I first heard decades ago, Viagra is so powerful that if they don't swallow it quickly, they can get a stiff neck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain a lot, I'm sure. :) I wonder if the English apply it to their upper lips. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood, there are folks over there who need it. Getting back to Wikipedia (where all the really cool geeks hang out), how can Hamlet and his entourage be of service? Durova^Charge! 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Honestly, the idea of funny, cartoon-character trolls isn't much help - to me anyway. I think the important message is that we all need to respect each other 100%, and that people who treat situations here adversarially need to change or else leave. I don't know how sock puppets can help convey that. I'm sorry if this makes me a jerk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing the noble Hamlet, don't forget his ne'er-do-well cousin, Spamlet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Link

Hi, I noticed your contributions to the talk page, and thought that you might like a look at this essay. My hope is that it will be helpful in the debate. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Oei

I don't know why you have chosen to dredge up a three-week-old discussion, but I find it disruptive and more than a little harassing. Please stop. If you want to discuss something with me without being disruptive and harassing, I'm more than willing to join, provided you use an appropriate venue for doing so.

Also, I've a solution for Badagnani: simply block him until he offers a solution for interacting with him. If that solution doesn't work, or it does not change his behavior, then repeat until he either offers a solution that works or no one is willing to continue working with him. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what that was? It was a mistake. For some reason, I missed the datestamps. Nevertheless, I don't really think you can say I was disrupting the talk page if you chose to reply to me there. As for your "Badagnani solution", he offers the same for dealing with you. I can't tell that either of you is much better than the other, as far as handling disputes here. You find an admin willing to block him, and that'll be great. I'm involved, so I can't. I won't overturn it. Until you can get someone to do that, he's all of our problem.

If you want to tell me how to do my job, become an administrator, or at least successfully resolve some dispute. Meanwhile, if I see you interacting with Badagnani in an escalatory way, I have little choice but to say something. I hope you understand.

I will, in the future, be more careful about replying to threads that haven't fallen quiet for weeks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake. Not a problem. Wouldn't it be better to discuss your concerns on my talk page instead? That way you are not escalating the problem.

"he offers the same for dealing with you." I don't understand.

"If you want to tell me how to do my job, become an administrator, or at least successfully resolve some dispute" Wow! I hope you could take a step back from this, and stop taking it so personally. I was merely suggesting a solution that hadn't been offered yet, because I think your insights on this solution would be valuable. I didn't mean it as something you should do. You've already gone above and beyond in your dealings with him. I was thinking of offering it as a solution the next time someone asks for help with him at ANI.

Besides, we know that Badagnani's problems have nothing to with me. I just was one of the people that thought it best to do something about him given all the problems he causes. Many people, when confronted with a difficult problem, will attack the person for pressing that the problem be solved. This is such a case. - Ronz (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the discussion. Hope you don't mind. --Ronz (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't it be better to discuss your concerns on my talk page instead? That way you are not escalating the problem." - Um... have I not already done this? What else can I do? Here we are! What do you want from me: public apologies and breast-beating?

When I say "he offers the same for dealing with you," I mean that Badagnani offers the solution of blocking you, while you suggest blocking him. Unless one of you seems more interested in dispute resolution, I can't prefer one over the other.

"Besides, we know that Badagnani's problems have nothing to with me." No. We don't know that. "Know" is a very strong word. I believe that those who suggest that Badagnani is being harassed and hounded have a very good point. I see nobody in this conflict who has consistently worked towards resolution rather than escalation. When I've suggested that you be more resolution-oriented, you've blown me off. I will cheerfully provide diffs if you don't remember. You're either pursuing active diplomacy, or you don't care about resolving disputes. Wikipedia is all about resolving disputes and not prolonging them. How have you helped to resolve this one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Please stop disrupting this article's talk page. Thanks!" is a great thing to say to me if what you wish to communicate is, "I have zero respect for you, GTB". If that's not your message, then talk to me differently. If your goal is to destroy any possibility of working with me, keep up with that tone. Seriously, how were you not born knowing this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If that's not your message, then talk to me differently." It's not my message. I've removed the discussion. I hoped we could move on. Can we move on? --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move on? If not, I'm happy to discuss what I meant. I hope I've made it clear that I did not intend the meaning that you are so upset about. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need some time away from all of this. I think I've been lashing out randomly, so I'm going to walk away for a while. Keep the faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and respect that. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at talk page

You mentioned that a comment of mine "has no place on this talk page, nor indeed on this project". Would you please clarify which comment you're referring to? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete

Hello GTB. This "original" article was merged into this article some time ago based on agreement of the editors involved in discussion at that time [12]. No concerns have arisen with the merge so wonder if you would mind deleting the original. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe a redirect would be a better way of dealing with this so the history remains ... I'll try that.(olive (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(Edit conflict - nice timing :)) Is there any reason to delete the history, or should it be kept under the redirect? We usually don't delete after merges because there's a question of attribution, as some of the merged content has its history at Maharishi Vedic Science. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perfectly. That's what I did in the end - created a redirect so the edit history is intact. Thanks very much for your input. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Forgot to check back here.(olive (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Long weekend?

Weekend good you having ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I've been almost fully inactive for the last week, playing computer games into the wee hours, because I'm suddenly on vacation. Next week I'll rejoin the human race. About 90% of what I've done on wiki in the past week should probably have never been done. As the poet said, "everyone goes south, every now and then." -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Talk:ASUS

"Political opponents ..."

This old political joke goes (sort of):

An experienced MP (UK) / Congressman (USA) / deputy (Fr) / etc. who was showing a rookie the House / House / Assembly pointed across the floor and said, "That's were the (other party) sits."
"Well," said the rookie, "it's good to know where the enemy are."

"No," replied the veteran, "those are your political opponents - your enemies are behind you."

My use of "behind" was a pun - you and DT both advocate accountability for admins, but you have reservations about him and now I suspect he has reservations about you. --Philcha (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trollery

I would be delighted to collaborate with you (and any other interested parties) on an essay (or other appropriate document) regarding identifying and effectively dealing with trolling. Let me know if you're interested! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested. Anything I write will reflect my point of view, of course. Some people think that I feed trolls, and I think that they feed trolls. It's kind of fun. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread concerning you

Hey GTB, how you doing these days? hey, I just wanted you to know that I started a thread concerning you, and some help you may be willing to provide at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech. It's at the bottom of the page titled "Path Forward". I don't know if you're still willing, or if the community is agreeable to it - but I thought I'd give it a shot. Best — Ched : ? 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<* Ched tips his hat in respect on the way out the door *> Good luck buddy, if anyone can, you can. ;) — Ched : ? 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

FWIW, you may wish to comment here. Kind regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I have commented there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting it out,

I saw your post after I posted my most recent reply. Just letting you know. Please reply on my talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I learned on Wikipedia this evening

If you tell someone that you, being sane and intelligent, disagree with them....

...then they might think that you're calling them insane, or unintelligent.

You might actually be pointing out: "Here we are: sane and intelligent people holding both points of view."

Your real point might be that we should therefore view the issue as debatable and open, rather than settled and done.

If this is what you're saying, you should probably make it more explicit that you consider both of you to be sane and intelligent, and go ahead and explicitly draw the conclusion about the issue being debatable. If they misinterpret it as above, they might take it as quite an insult. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I haven't yet learned

Ok, now suppose you've said something, like above, that is misread due to the reader applying a different tone to the words than the writer intended. Suppose also that, at roughly the same time, the reader who mistook your tone typed something in a parallel discussion that came across to you as very rude, and suppose you replied by saying, "how rude," or something.

Now, suppose that person took the stance that you're in the wrong in both cases, both when he mistook your tone, and when you mistook his. How do you communicate the symmetry of that situation, without just further offending the other person? I'd like to know that. Maybe that's not something you get to do. Hmmm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

It might come down to a difference in certain habits of thought. This isn't a difference that I'd associate with any kind of value-judgment; it's just an observation about morally neutral facts. Some people prefer, in many cases, to take a position on a point, and hold that position, arguing in defense of it. Good stuff. Other people prefer to try and juggle several points of view, seeing an argument from all around, and suspending judgment.

I can certainly see advantages and disadvantages to both, and I would not want to live in a world where either type disappeared. It's also certainly true that people don't fall into those two categories so much as lie along a continuum, with almost every one using both approaches at different times.

I don't know; I'm rambling, but I'm doing it here, because it's about online communication, which is relevant to the project. I care about dispute resolution, so I care about how to get past differences - sometimes profound differences - in the ways that different people think. I'm also really irritated with being misunderstood when I'm trying goddamned hard, and failing and failing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and ways of dealing with thinking and knowledge are possibly inborn, although much of it can be built... Generally and simplified, some of us are more whole brain thinkers, looking for holistic over-arching principles and placing the specifics inside that paradigm or principle. Some are more so-called left brain thinkers who build up knowledge point by specific point until they can devise a paradigm based on those points. Neurosurgeons are aware that every brain is unique and that for brain surgery every single brain must be mapped individually for its unique structure and organization. This translates as, no one sees the world as we do. So respect is for the realization that we can't really understand anyone else very well, and if do even a little, that is a gift. It also means, assume the best and deal with the worst as it arises, if it does. Now I'd better go away and work, and quit leaving comments on user pages despite the interesting quality of what seems to be the topic-what underpins successful collaborative communities.(olive (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I just keep learning!

This is a cool observation.... a lot of misunderstandings that I run into are brought about by a common cause. It's this: I don't care what anyone "deserves". I don't believe there is any reality to the notion of "deserving" one thing or another.

This seems to be a very uncommon view. I don't believe that bad people deserve bad things; I don't believe that good people deserve good things. I don't believe that anyone deserves anything, and more than I would believe that anyone jjjjhes anything. What does it mean to "jjjjh" something? Nothing. That's the point.

The trouble is, when I argue to do something, people think that I am arguing we should do it because someone "deserves" it. That's never what I mean, just as nobody ever means that someone really jjjjhed anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happened on this comment and don't know if you mind further chat on these matters... but... not to be deterred by my own reluctance...We all may deserve "something" in a big (its the-universe-talking sense) but I'm pretty sure I'm not the one to decide what that is...Good and bad are subjective. I'm not going to decide on that either . All I an do is deal with what I'm capable of dealing with and walk away from the rest. Now if I could just remember that when I'm getting trod on, on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I don't necessarily mean to deny the reality of moral valuations. I just deny that I'm in any position to make them, so I try to define them out of the picture, and then make decisions on practical grounds, proceeding from one or two moral axioms. In particular, I tend to define each human life as an infinitely valuable expression of the divine, and I define Good Action as that motivated by love of the whole (God) and the parts (one's neighbors). I deny "free will" except as a subjective feeling of uncertainty (thus jettisoning moral credit and blame), and identify the Good with the Actual.

These are, of course, mutually self-contradictory religious claims that are not subject to testing or proof. Thus, I don't expect anyone in particular to agree with me, and I'm pretty happy when someone does. Also, because they're non-trivial religious claims, I constantly fall short of really living according to them. But, you know, that's why there's always a tomorrow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting user talk pages

For what it's worth, there doesn't seem to be particularly strong consensus to delete user talk pages (cf. Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#User talk). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you that's true in this particular case, or just in general? I was carrying out the users request, more than trying to do what it says on a page somewhere, but if people think I'm wrong, I'll undo it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hadn't seen the discussion at WP:AN/I before posting here. So my apologies for that. Personally, I don't have an issue if a user is actually requesting to vanish to fulfill it. (And I've done quite a few in my time here for others.) However, others seem to disagree. I just thought it would be polite to point to the discussion, in case you cared. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah... it turns out I care. Thanks for taking the time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will make sense: the default position is to do nothing- don't delete the user talk page. In order to delete it, you need a reason why it's better to do so. The only argument I've seen is that it's courteous to delete on request, but to me this is a non-starter. It's also courteous to let spammers leave their spam here. I care way more about what's courteous and useful to those still here doing useful work, than I do about what's courteous to some disruptive person making demands. And yes.. I suppose there's a certain amount of "they're a jerk- don't give them what they want" in my rationale, which is unfortunate. But, we damage the Wikipedia environment in the long term by giving jerks what they demand simple because they demanded it. It teaches other aspiring demanding jerks that this technique works. That's not at all what we want, in the long term. If you care more about the short-term specific case than the long-term general case, I can see how you'd decide differently on this.

So I still contend that it's a little bit better to not delete user talk pages, even on request. It's not a huge deal- it's only a little bit better, but I still consider it a best practice. Friday (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between this and spammers. Letting spammers leave their spam here degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. Deleting his talk page would not.

Actually, I keep reading, and I see that you're making an argument that... let's see: Capitulating to this request would embolden future banned users to make similar demands. I guess my reply to that is... that I see no disadvantage in deleting those pages, so... I'm okay with that.

The "he was a jerk anyway" attitude... I understand, but I try to avoid it in my own mind. That's not a judgment; I don't expect anyone to share my views.

I think that, if someone comes back with the same bee in their bonnet, then we'll know it, talk page or no talk page. I mean, we've still got the "contributions" button, which leads to a lot more information than their talk page, y'know? If they come back without the bee, then they're welcome. Meanwhile, the only benefit to keeping the talk page around is that it encourages busy-body behavior, and amateur Wiki-sleuthing, and I don't see that stuff as positive at all. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just might be surprised at who shares your views. Don't doubt yourself. — Ched : ? 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no... It'll take more than this to scare off old GT. I might recede into the woodwork for a while, and do a bunch of wiki-gnoming or something, but I'll be around... Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- I avoided talking about the main concern (the readers) because I don't think they're relevant in this case. Spammers damaging article content actually harm the readers. But, we don't allow spam in project space, either, and that's not very relevant to someone who is just a reader. Maybe having talk pages encourages busybody sleuthing, but so does making it easy to see people's contributions. These things might be harmful, but they're engrained and you'd be hard pressed to get rid of them. And, sure, busybodies can be a problem. It would be great if everyone ignored other editors and just wrote articles. But this is not the world we live in. In actual practice, disruptive editors are Wikipedia's biggest problem. Somebody has to deal with them. User talk pages are a useful record because when someone causes problems, they help us decide whether the person needs a nudge in the right direction, or an outright ban, or something in between. I don't see any way to replace the important function user talk pages serve. Also, I tend not to buy it for a moment when someone claims to be retiring. I've just seen it so many times, and very very rarely does the person in question actually retire. (And even when they do, I suspect in the majority of those cases they've come back under a different name.) Sure, if they don't get up to their old nonsense, this is fine. But more often, they do. Friday (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Having read a bit more of the discussion here.. I understand if you'd rather just not worry about or discuss this anymore. For the record, I don't think the deletion was wrong per se- I just consider such deletions (in almost any circumstance) to be a sub-optimal solution and have been trying to discourage that practice. Maybe this will clarify a bit where I'm coming from- I strongly feel we should not be rude to editors who claim to be departing. I (perhaps less strongly) feel we should not be nice to them either. We should ignore them as irrelevant. Maybe it's a stretch, but I think allowing dramatics to achieve a desired goal only encourages more dramatics. And more dramatics is something I think pretty much everyone can agree we don't need. Friday (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think I'm all out of things to say. Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I do have two more things to say. First, I don't think DT was a "dramatic". I think he was taking a good-faith stance about our standards for admins. I think that determining him to be a "dramatic" is just as wrong as it is always - dead wrong - to call someone a troll. There is no support for that kind of behavior from an organization that wishes to run according to anything resembling professional standards. We respond to behavior, not to perceived intent. What we need is not to keep "dramatics" away, but to learn how to deal with them correctly. This is another brick in the dealing-with-them-incorrectly wall. We made that drama - he didn't.

Second, in order for the "detection" argument to make sense, we would have to believe the possibility of a world where he sneaks back, only remains undetected because non-admins can't see his talk history, and then somehow does harm while remaining undetected. I think that world is somewhere the other side of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If disruptive editors are Wikipedia's biggest problem, it's because we childishly refuse to get good at dealing with them. This is my greatest disappointment here. We've institutionalized childishness when it comes to handling disruption, and we coddle editors who typify the worst of this kind of behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The only dramatics I noticed from him was his "look at me, I'm leaving" stuff. That's what I was referring to. People who make these retirement announcements show that they're trying to make things about them rather than about the project. This is a common tendency in personalities of course but at a place like Wikipedia it's always undesirable. If people want attention, they should have real life for that. On Wikipedia, it has no place. I think it's ok to recognize dramatics in a place that's trying to maintain a professional atmosphere. The first step in solving a problem is identifying it, right? Much of our policies and guidelines are aimed at describing and discouraging undesirable behavior. I don't see a good reason for undesirable dramatics to be treated differently. Friday (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those dramatics as his. He tried to just leave his talk page as a statement attached to an unblock request, and we wouldn't let him. He asked if he could invoke RTV, which I see as anti-dramatic, and when we wouldn't let him, at least not as far as the talk page. I see that he tried to walk away, and that... some unnamed Wikipedians edit-warred over his page, and brought our own dramatics to the table. He didn't make anyone fight over that page. Leaving a goodbye note that doesn't name names, but pretty much indicates dissatisfaction, does not count as "dramatics" in my book. It counts as trying to leave with some scrap of dignity. We didn't let him, because we preferred sending him off with contempt. We're not very big, it turns out.

This is the general problem of dealing with "trolling" behavior. Identifying is not the first step to solving that problem. That's because as soon as we identify it as trolling - a troll earns his wings somewhere. The correct way to deal with trolling is to respond in a drama-negative way that will be perfectly acceptable whether or not they're trolling. Trying to identify them and act accordingly gives them power. We do not have to empower trolls, but this community has a very bad habit of doing precisely that. I'm disappointed at how few people seem to care, and how willing the community is to allow our worst troll-handlers and troll-feeders to maintain control over the most controversial articles.

We have got to stop institutionalizing troll-feeding, and this episode has been a great example of how we consistently do it wrong. The correct approach is to let him leave his goodbye note in whatever format he prefers (within reason), and then to slap the living shit out of anyone who tries to meddle with it after that. Those busybodies cause the dramatics, not DT. Those are the people that we coddle, rather than running out of town, like we should. Critics are excellent to have around, and we just lost one. Meanwhile, we prop up those who prefer not to hear criticism, thus weakening our community. It's disgusting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Side-comment: I've been reading your thoughts here and above with great interest, and this particular point rang especially true to me. A few generalised thoughts of my own, unrelated to this particular thread: The taking of sides, and desire for rapid resolution turns many disagreements into battles. It seems to be partly our drive for efficiency, that means we take less care than we otherwise might (part and parcel of any large organization/bureaucracy). Partly, editors don't like feeling obliged to take the time to educate other stubborn editors with gentle persuasion (I've been pointed towards WP:BATTLE ("Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish") a few times recently, when I suggested that more effort at communication/diplomacy/potential-compromise was needed). Partly, it is oh-so-human tendencies to believe oneself better than average (I'm not a better than average driver^[13] or mediator, though I often wish I was (and sometimes delude myself temporarily)), and to hesitate at admitting mistakes (even internally acknowledging mistakes is often hard). Plus the thousands of other factors I haven't written/thought of/realized yet, of course.

I wrote the following for a thread elsewhere, but wasn't sure whether it would be understood in the context I intended. It might not make sense here, but possibly there's a speck of use to it. "Educating the masses, is part of our mission. Slightly sugary water solution generally works better than vinegar. If we're cops, we have to be good cops, even after someone has reacted inappropriately [in regards to our subcultures of "vandal-fighting", etc]. Sometimes humans just don't react well to being told what to do (unsuprisingly!)."

That's all. Sorry for stumbling into the conversation. Hope everyone has good weather and healthy computers. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech Talk Page

I didn't mean for it to look like I was joining in on the edit war. I was in fact trying to stop it. It was silly to have a line about the page being deleted, when it wasn't deleted, hence why I reverted to the indefblock template. You might want to make a note at WP:RPP that you protected the page as I requested the page to be protected (toward the top) earlier this evening. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears someone has already noted that. Thanks for the heads-up, and no worries about the page. I just hope it's over now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi GTB..I noticed your request on Wikiquette Alerts.

I've always found you to be one of the sane, intelligent, open-thinking voices on Wikipedia. That said, as an artist I've found that the solutions to "creative" problems which pretty much includes any kind of novel solution related to art or anything else often comes in the silence between the words or activitiy. Sometimes the quiet has to be long enough for the solution, which is most surely there, to have the time and space to surface. If this problem in discussion is not being resolved with words then you might allow the solution to show itself in other ways. I have no opinion on the discussion, hope I am not intruding, and send best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Olive. You're not intruding, and I'm happy to hear from you. That was a difficult situation, where I kept trying to account for my words, because I thought I was being asked to account for them. It didn't seem to work out. I'll probably be quiet for a while, and maybe I'll come back cleverer about these things. Thanks for your thoughts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pure apology is an act of grace, without reservation, and without strings attached; it is a gift, in the truest sense of the word. In its truest sense, an apology is a submission, and one who truly apologizes does so seeking nothing in return. One who truly apologizes does not offer any claim of justification for the transgression prompting this gift, as such a claim would be a demand on the recipient for recognition that the transgression was justified. In this light, any expression that seems like "Sorry, but...." is not an apology, and if an apology was expected, this won't do (although only a petulant child would demand a gift).

We all say "sorry" a lot, but then again, often we do so only as a promise not to violate the mutually-accepted rules of civil discourse, so that we may continue a conversation concerning a disagreement. As my mother taught me, everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten (still trying to remember all of that, and teach it to my son). In that spirit, there does seem to be a difference between an "apology" conceding a dispute, and a "promise to act better" in the course of continuing some disagreement. Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here). Steveozone (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. I mean, all those sentences make sense, but if you're describing what happened... I'm not following.

I had an extremely unpleasant set of interactions with someone, in which a lot of apologies were demanded of me, and I found myself simultaneously attacked in various ways. An apology was demanded of me that seemed to involve "admitting" to have said something I never said. If that's the kind of apology that someone demands, then I think it's very fair to point out that the conditions demanded are at odds with reality - if someone says, "apologize for purposely insulting me", when I didn't purposely insult the person... then where does this act of pure grace come in.

Finally, I have no idea what this means: "Perhaps the ambiguity can be resolved by considering and performing one act as an "apology," the other as a "promise" (which you evidently intended and made here).". What? What promise?

Can you be more specific and concrete, because I have no idea whether you're criticizing me (which would be fine), or what. I'm sorry (whatever that means), but I do not follow what you're saying, and how it applies to the situation I assume you're talking about.

If you're offering advice, can you make it clear? I'd love to learn from this situation, but this seems very cryptic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, GTB. I wish I'd gotten back on sooner, so you wouldn't think I was just a hit and run commenter. My point is that people don't agree what it means to "apologize," and I think that in the situation at issue, you were confronted with someone who, although bright, clearly sane and reasonable, and generally positive, (1) demanded an apology, and (2) seems to have had a different idea than you as to what a proper "apology" would be in this particular context.

As for (1), as I tried to explain, no one has the right to demand an apology from another, and anyone who would attempt to do so must recognize that they are unlikely to receive one (at least, a true apology). A "gift" given in response to a demand is not a gift at all; it's an extraction at best, if not extortion. Such a demand is generally notice to end the conversation.

As for (2), who knows what "apology" means if we aren't talking about a pure apology? Clearly you and the other party to the debate at issue had different ideas as to what he was requesting and what you were willing to offer. I think that was a good part of where the train headed into the ditch. You wished merely to "apologize," by explaining that you made a poor choice of words in making a point, and then continue the dispute. Conversely, it appears to me that the other party was expecting you to concede at least some of the point that you were trying to communicate, and your conduct in continuing to press that point, in different words, was not viewed as consistent with an "apology." I think that you were expected to admit that you were wrong -- but, and this is important, it was perfectly reasonable for you to decline to do so, and simply leave the page and drop the discussion. Of course, that's not exactly what happened; although certainly acting in good faith, you nevertheless attempted to "apologize" at the wrong time, in the wrong way.

The solution? I think here, you confirm that you believe that the person is in fact sane and reasonable, you "agree to disagree," thank them for the conversation, and leave the room.

Some might consider your efforts to continue to press a point in these circumstances the sort of behavior that is exhibited by assholes. I'm certainly not one of them. You tried too hard to defuse tensions with someone who was not in a mood to reciprocate, and you tried too hard to clarify a point that this someone was tired of hearing. Moods change, and a bit of time passing will make this go away. Steveozone (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you've managed to say what nobody else has, to make me feel somehow understood. Thanks very much for that. I've already stopped caring about whatshisname, but I was still bummed out by the lack of human feeling from anyone here. You've just made me feel a lot better about that, and I thank you very much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, what? I mean, what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most infantile and counter-productive ways of handling "trolling"!!

GBT, I've been following your comments on B-Bug's with interest, and found this one quite compelling: I think that our community has managed to enable - to the point of institutionalizing - the most infantile and counter-productive ways of handling "trolling". I could not agree with you more, having had two incidents with problem users in the past two weeks that onel reinfoce my belief that you are correct. Between July 2007 and early 2009, I had a long, tiring battle with several trolls. Obviously, there are going to be bad reactions in such situations, but every time I said something I might have been better not to say - and I few comments that I still stand by - I'd get 3-6 admins slamming me immediately, while doing absoultely nothing about the trolls! (In truth, they were using dynamic IPs, so nothing really erffective could be done, but then that (open editing) is one of those "infantile and counter-productive ways" you mentioned!) As such, I've now declared myself (on my talk page) to be a troll in such situations, and asked them to not feed me. ;) Let's see how long it takes for me to be warned, blocked, or banned! - BillCJ (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean, but I know that this is a topic the community has not really ever talked about, at least not in a way that led to any kind of consensus. I wonder, what do you think would be a smart strategy? Is it a question of identifying and stopping trolls, or is it a question of finding a way to respond to all callers that will not reward trolling? I find that we reward them quite a lot, which seems wrong. I'm pretty sure that calling them "troll" counts as rewarding them, for example. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think perhaps I mis-understood your original comment to mean the opposite of what you actually meant. Sorry. In any case, I'm moving on. - BillCJ (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia election

Hi. I was just looking into the speedy deletion of File:2001 Results VA.JPG when I noticed that it was actually different from the file it was supposed to be a duplicate of, File:Virginia 2001 Election Results.JPG. At least three counties changed colors between the two images. I posted a message to User talk:Hekerui, who tagged it for speedy deletion, but by the time I had composed that message the image was gone. I'm just giving you a heads-up; perhaps the second image is more accurate. If it turns out to have been an error, I'm sure we can just get the correct file re-uploaded. Anyway, have a good day! -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the image; you can figure out for yourselves which one is right and list the other on FFD. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

Concerning this, please see this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that we are in agreement on this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. B. Reid

May be we will try to fix this article. Will it be possible to get it back? Thanks. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at K. B. Reid, I see that it's an article I deleted due to notability concerns. Would you like for me to copy the contents of the article to a page where you can use them to prepare another article? If so, sure, I can do that. Just let me know, but do please familiarize yourself with our guideline WP:BIO, and be sure that the requirements there are met by the subject. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i will try to save this. Thanks. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. In short: I've restored the article and moved it to: User:Donotask-donottell/K. B. Reid. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DG

Okay, I don't like the guy, which is actually playing down how I feel about this particular user. My comments were a little out of hand. That said, he isn't stupid; he knows how his coming to an article I wrote to dismantle it is going to be perceived. I mean, the user didn't even bother going to the article discussion. Had they actually come to edit constructively, they would have contributed to the discussion, or added to the article using any of the dozen or so conveniently-researched sources also located there. At the very least, the user is blind bull in a china shop; at worst, he's spoiling for a fight. Okay, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I felt a little provoked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may be right. Maybe he's got problems. However, we've got to make sure that content disputes don't turn into personal disputes. I mean, if his behavior is really out of line, there is recourse. If you can handle it as a content dispute, however, that's better. Be assured that I've got my eye on the page now, and other admins probably do too. Just keep your eye on the prize, and if you need any help dealing with the other editor, let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infanticide

I am really concerned about the tons of info being removed from Infanticide since I was blocked unfairly. I hope another editor will re-add the removed material and discuss with the editor who is doing the removal.

I am going to bed right now... Thantalteresco (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some sourcing issues have been brought up on the talk page. If those can be addressed, and the sources determined to be reliable, then there shouldn't be any problem re-adding the information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But who will do the job and the discussion there (remember that I have been threatened to be blocked if I ever dare to pop out in the watch list of a blocking admin)? The problem has not been solved. Do you know an editor who might be interested in discussing content in the Infanticide talk page (just one name)? Thantalteresco (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: 99.142.2.89`

I am growing concerned with the SPA anon account 99.142.2.89 (talk · contribs); (s)he is now refactoring article discussion comments including notice of DYK. I do not think this is a new user; they simply have too much wiki know-how. What is your opinion on the subject?

(from http://cqcounter.com/whois/):

99.142.2.89 - Geo Information
IP Address 99.142.2.89
Host adsl-99-142-2-89.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
Location US, United States
City Hanover Park, IL 60133
Organization SBC Internet Services
ISP SBC Internet Services
AS Number AS7132
Latitude 41°97'63" North
Longitude 88°14'41" West
Distance 8374.40 km (5203.61 miles)

all edits in this account are in Grief porn, dating fron 16-21 June, 2009 - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be someone, for sure. I agree that these edits are not someone's first exposure to Wikipedia. Beyond that, it's hard to say much. In a way, it doesn't matter, because the answer to the sourcing question doesn't depend on figuring out who this IP is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed; but it isn't the sourcing issue which has me concerned; the other edits, particularly the refactoring of talk page commentary, seems out of hand.

Oh, bte, I checked, and apparently, grief porn is actually in the published book form of Urban Dictionary: Fularious Street Slang Defined. This would seem to address the reliability issue, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could. I'd be inclined to ask around, which we can do anytime, of course. I do most of my work in areas other than evaluating sources, so I'm not necessarily up to date on best practices.

What's the refactoring issue, exactly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is at least the one I noticed. then there is the removal from different wikiprojects withoput discussion. I am a big believer in discussion, and none of it is really happening there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I thought you meant he was like, editing your comments in a discussion or something. I get it. I don't really know anything about those {{dyk}} templates. They usually live on the talk pages of articles that have been featured in "Did you know?", right?

As for discussion, I'm pretty sure we're having it now, and I've also posted to the talk page there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they don't get removed, as they are milestones for the article. And the ediut summary voices disagreement with its awarding. It's like trying to edit an closed and archived discussion after the fact. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

demonology again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demonology&diff=297947254&oldid=297664121
DreamGuy (talk | contribs)
(removing nonnotable trivia per WP:CONSENSUS on talk page and WP:BRD/WP:STATUSQUO -- editor would need a demonstrated consensus to add this)

discussion is not finished yet! but user:DreamGuy doesn't want to wait until it ends and deletes it again! and actually he/she only the person who thinks that it is a trivia (Idot (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

When he does that, don't revert him. If you revert him, you're edit-warring. ALL reverts are inappropriate until discussion is complete. If you want to report him for edit-warring, don't also edit-war yourself. The only way for you to hold the high ground is to stop reverting, and to convince someone else to do it for you. I can't even help you now, because you reverted him. Rise above it, already. Do you want to win, or not? If you revert, you'll lose. I've seen it happen so many times. Don't be another one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

may your archive old disscussions? I can't read my own post :-( Idot (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunetelly I can't see my message :-( so I'll write here (please put in the rignt section, and please archive old discusions). the story of the question:
"Demonology in fiction" section was made by user:Ian.thomson
the reason is explained in Talk:Demonologist
that means^ according Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it was the situation which is called "Previous consesus"
DreamGuy didn't want to discuss anything (and even now he/she doesn't show a big will to do it) and just deleted from the article
even after writing few post in the disucssion he/she didn't wait for response and just deleted it again
so according Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle his/her actions are exactly that which is called Bold change

Ian.thomson used to think that merging Demonologist with Demonology is the best solution
now Ian.thomson thinks "leaning a good bit towards leaving it out. It could be done, but there is little justification for what was there. If there was a good amount of material that wasn't just a list of bits of fiction that mention the word demon and summoning within a hundred words of each other, that'd be something to keep. If there was a major difference between fantasy demonology and what people in the real world dabble in, that'd be something to keep."
(i.e. according Ian.thomson's opinion the section is porly writeen, but might exist if it will be rewriten quite bette)
all actions of DreamGuy in this article are just deleting, deleting, and deleting again
which means that actions DreamGuy does not give a time (and a chance to improve the section)
as DreamGuy only the only the peson who thinks that this section is a triva => all his/her actions are pure bold vandalism (Idot (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to have to get back to you tomorrow. I'll have a good look at this situation then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy has broken WP:BRD again [14] (Idot (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- You can't "break" BRD. It's not a law. We haven't got laws here. What do you want most? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - so, does it mean that I could revert his/her action? (Idot (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - what I want is that info which is was in demonologist should exist whether as separtate article or as section. which means should I revert an action of Ian.thomson, who made from demonologist a redirect, accordingly to WP:BRD ? (Idot (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- And you should read BRD for understanding, as I was the one who was following it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which raises the question - given that a revert is allowed, when is it actually a good idea? Not always, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear about something

Are anon IP users able to see their talk page? My new best friend is now editing under a new IP. I just finished linking them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting an answer, GT. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been offline, and now typing is difficult with this splint on my finger...

IP users certainly can see their talk page, but it can be tricky to find it. If someone else leaves them a message, then they get the same orange banner we get, but once that's gone, they haven't got the "my talk" link. What I do, when I'm editing anonymously and want to see my talk, is go to some article I've edited, look at the history, and find myself that way.

Does that answer your question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks. And sorry about your finger. A broken finger for me would be akin to a broken arm.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your finger GTB. I guess you overdid it on all the force directing... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must be that. The doctor is convinced it's a sports injury, despite my protests that I haven't done any kind of "sports" in the last n months, where n is some large number. I can't accept that it's a typing injury, and the doctor says no, it couldn't have been cracking my knuckles that did it. I don't know whether to trust my own account of events, or the guy who's been to medical school.

Thank you both for your kind condolences. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it teaches you to stop cracking your knuckles then some good will come of it. It drives me crazy when people do that! :) Cheers. Feel better. And ummm... make sure to take care of your health, being 900 and however many years old, you're not as young as you used to be! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is answered. An IP user can see and comment their user talk page. They just have to want to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agressive warnings against accepted policies

Per your comments on Talk:Demonology#possible_sources_for_this_section, I am at a loss to understand how you thought that comment was at all appropriate for the situation. Is it that you somehow find WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO to be invalid standards which you think should be turned completely on their heads so that new content added without consensus has to stay there until a consensus to remove it is established? You seem to be quite aggressively warning me about alleged violations that are nothing of the sort and, indeed, accepted and even encouraged editing standards. I can't see how that's at all helpful. I would suggest you either read those links above if they are unfamiliar to you, or if you just let them slip your mind take a minute to reassess the situation. I realize that you are trying to help, but good intentions alone aren't helpful when you seem to be actively taking a side in a dispute, and especially one that runs counter to accepted practices. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only online for a minute right now, and this post is confusing me. That thing about BRD being invalid... huh? No, I don't think that. I don't oppose any of our usual policies, so if something I said seems to indicate that, then I must have been unclear. When I have more time later, I'll be back and try to figure out what happened. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not taking a side, for one thing. You'll find that I am perfectly capable of criticizing those with whom I agree, defending those with whom I disagree, and arguing against reverting even when I agree with the edit. I am absolutely not taking a side, except for the side of what I consider to be best editing practices. I will be perfectly happy to explain myself at length later this evening. If you want to make edits that stick, sometimes leaving the article in your non-preferred version is a smarter strategy, that will get you where you want to be faster than reverting will. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you did not intend to take a side, but when your comments there consist solely of telling one side that they are in the wrong (the one actually following WP:BRD and other standards), the comments for all practical purposes take a side (how I react, others seeing it and thinking they can continue their bad behavior -- what I was getting at in the "seem to be" in the above statement). I get frustrated being the one actually following standards and then having the people who don't even try to (or think they don't have to) yelling at me, but it's worse when an admin makes statements that seems to support the bad behavior and discourage those following accepted practices. If you confirm that BRD is valid, then a statement to that effect on the talk page would have been more helpful than telling me I was wrong when I was following it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. I sometimes am more quick to criticize a party who seems to be in the right if I think that they could be more effective. It's easier to get you on board, it seems to me, than to get Idot on board. I see that I criticized you without making what I was trying to say at all clear, and I apologize for that.

Whatever BRD allows, reverting is not always the smartest strategy. Sometimes you're much better off working from the other position, and letting a bad edit stand for a while is a very powerful technique, albeit a very non-intuitive one. I'm pretty sure that the most successful editors follow a zero-revert rule. I try to.

Regarding BRD, there's the letter of it, and there's the spirit. The spirit is infinitely more important than the letter, and this is true to the point that I would discourage editors from reading the letter at all once they get the spirit. The spirit of BRD is: "once there's been a single reversion, everyone stop editing and talk." That WP:STATUSQUO seems to me to give bad advice, that contradicts the spirit of other policies, and it should probably be rewritten. Insisting that a certain version of the article be visible while discussion is happening is a terrible idea, an invitation to gaming, and not how we should do it. If BRD turns into BRRRRR...., then the point isn't to ensure that the number of Rs is an odd number. The point is to stop adding Rs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to take what I see as more practical solutions. Not reverting bad edits with the hope that the editors will just ive up and change their minds when it's clear they don't have consensus seems rather pointless when they already have demonstrated that they don't care about consensus. In other situations, sure.

I appreciate the rewrite of the talk page comment in question. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not reverting bad edits with the hope that the editors will just give up and change their minds when it's clear they don't have consensus", is absolutely not what I'm talking about. Read my comments again, keeping in mind that I didn't actually say anything that dumb. I'm talking about getting a few ducks in a row, and getting someone else to revert for you, because it's stronger from 2 editors than from 1. The strategy I'm suggesting is significantly more practical than reverting, based on real world results. Do what works, not just what you figure might work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace maker and Wikistress

Hi, Tony. Sorry to hear your splint on a finger. I wish you get well soon. Actually, when Mathsci (the user has been brought to noticeboards for his ownership issue and incivility) was accusing CoM for absurd reasons on CoM's talk page, I considered to draw your attention because you could be a good helper to de-escalate the dispute....but things are getting uglier and uglier. I'm totally disagree with CoM's interpretation of BLP and US politic dramaz, but I do not wish him to be chased by the flocks that has unfinished political disputes with CoM, so he are driven to decide to leave Wikipedia. To me, he is a good contributor to cuisine and culture articles. My advices so far do not work at all for him......so if you do not mind, would you give your input to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles? As for Wikistress, I was taking several wikibreaks due to severe stresses for an ArbCom case, but I did not know that just commenting things not directly related to me is also very stressful....(beginning to understand admins' stress which stems from meditating disputes between editors) Well...I think I'm not good at de-escalating dramas...so I ask you a favor. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casp, thank you very much for helping, but there comes a time when you just have to let things go. It's all going to be okay, or it won't. Don't sweat it. Try to be more relaxed and to just have fun. Like I do. GTBacchus needs to rest up. Getting around with a cane can be tiring, and he's got a bum finger from oversuing the force, and the young Jedi keep him very busy with their antics. Cheers to you both. Be good. And stay out of trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your above comment is precisely what I've suggested you to do so for the past 4 days and you did not care to listen to....I'm glad you seem to regain your usual coolness and wit, but I'm really stressed out by the whole event and I guess I need to take another Wiki break after my break on 19th.......If I do not help you any more, please do not blame me or Wiki System without practical plans for improvement. Being in a minority means you need to very carefully and civilly approach editors in majority who would feel your view insecure and hostile. With sound rationales, you can get your supporters instead of being unnecessarily rhetoric, pushing your view over and over or affronting to them. That is a wisdom from my own experience. After all, Wikipedia is a place to provide free and neutral knowledge, editors and admins are here to "write articles". Cheers.--Caspian blue 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for causing you stress. I very much enjoy having you around and editing with you. Take whatever break you need and please don't feel the need to protect me. Have a good relaxing meal or two, take some time off, and then report back to me on what you ate and how it was. Truly I'd be in much deeper trouble without your sane interference, but there's no need for you to be drawn into a supernova of conflict just because at the center of it I'm fighting a life and death struggle against the dark side.

I hope you don't mistake my lame humor for insensitivity or lack of caring. I'm just a ChildofMidnight after all, and again, I apologize, sincerely. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look at that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]