User talk:InkSplotch/Archive/Archive-Oct2006

Cuppa tea?

A cuppa for a sitdown, all is well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. InkSplotch^(talk) 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and all...

Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about your good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Wikipedia's goals and policies.
Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why you think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?
brenneman^{T}{L} 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but thanks for coming here to say so. You've put a lot of effort into this case, and I can tell it's important to you. I hope you don't let it overwhelm you.

As to why he probably wants those sections in...I wish I could answer your question, as I suspect it'd go a long way to defuse a lot of similarly stressful situations (User Boxes, Brian Peppers, Kelli Martin/Grue, etc.). My opinion on the two primary viewpoints keeps shifting as I try to understand things, but here's my take on it today.

On one side, we have "Consensus builds the Encylopedia", which I think it's fair to say includes yourself. This is comprised of folks wanting seek peaceful dialog to resolve any situation. On the other side, we have "The Encyclopedia is built mostly by consensus" which acknowledges that fundamental principles supercede consensus. Principles like NPOV, Verifiability, and so on, as well as the Foundation's concerns for keeping the Prohject going. So back to Tony and the proposed solutions of banning or deadmining: Tony, I suspect, understands his actions caused disruption but acted in the interests of those fundamental principles. If he's right, it's like, really, any admin action...some might object, some might complain, but it's done in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

In that second viewpoint, someone who takes bold actions in the name of those principles and does so in bad judgement is no better than a rogue admin going willy-nilly. The end result does more harm than good. I think Tony might accept an admonishment to be more respectful, and maybe to listen to others more...but when it comes to his actions outlined in the case, to breaking rules or causing disruption, I think he'll always put the principles before the rules. And I think he's absolutly serious when he says if he makes those calls and his judgement's not sound when he does, he shouldn't be an admin. I've no doubt he holds any admin to that standard.

It reminds me of the first rule I was ever taught about firearms. "Don't point a gun at anything you're not fully prepared to shoot." As the number of admins seems to grow exponentially, we need to think more carefully about who we entrust with those tools. InkSplotch^(talk) 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to Mindspillage; I don't think you modified anything I said from my summary. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You had a comment in the Userboxes limited section that got factored down to David Gerard, Geni, and Septentrionalis discuss how to define "spoken human languages" within the terms of the policy. I just wanted to leave you a notice in case you felt that part of the discussion shouldn't have been reduced to one line. The original, by the way, is still on the Withdrawn page. InkSplotch^(talk) 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, InkSplotch/Archive/Archive-Oct2006, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to Layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

There's also a regular group introduction to Wikipedia for new users on IRC.

---

Happy editing!

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding... An opinion please.

(On Tony Sidaways Talk) If you have a moment, could you take a peek here? My instinct is to revert it as unfounded opinion (NOR?), but I want to seek a more experienced opinion before acting. Thanks. --InkSplotch^(talk) 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you copy those words to the talk page and query them. There may be a source for this--Pratchett or Gaiman may at some point have acknowledged drawing directly on The Omen. I don't see it myself but it's about fifteen years since I read the book--which is not one of my favorites. If nothing is forthcoming by the end of the Easter weekend, remove the words from the article until someone can source the statement. The copy on the talk page will still be available for editors to work on. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On the above, I'm familiar with Practchett, and it seems likely owning about half his works— pretty good at comedy though. I'd advise searching some of the web forums specific to sci-fi community, or perhaps start in B&N and Amazon reviews of books (this will likely turn up immediately if reviewed there). I think he's in Baen's Bar, or would hope other discussions in online communities would lead you to right place. OTHO, why not just use {{fact}} and {{disputed}} and post a note on both the (users) talks that the statement needs supported. Ahhhh Two edits total, I see now. (co-posted to user talk:InkSplotch before closing this edit on user_talk:Tony_Sidaway#An_opinion_please) FrankB

• To get off the dime, with two edits, the statement is further in peril, but I still consider the edit was likely made in good faith.

Welcome, and feel free to poke around my user page, as I've squirrilled away a lot of goodies there for my own use. Might I suggest following the TOC down in particular to the links section and find My Welcome and make a copy on a subpage to play with. If that's unclear, Put it here: User:InkSplotch/SomeGoodTricks. All in all, I wouldn't sweat that sentence much. It feels 'real'. I 'likees' your user name!

Best regards, FrankB 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You get one too!

For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

aWPThis user survived AntiWikipedia.

Tony's "No refactoring page" edits

The parts which you removed here include instructions as to preferences for the cases where refactoring is mandated currently (ie. ANx pages). I know you were trying to make it better but I feel you have removed important extra instructions, like my preference for talk page refactoring as Tony has in the past redirected to User:Ansell instead of User talk:Ansell or even Ansell. Ansell 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand this, yet the page's header indicated that any instructions will be ignored. So I removed them, and all the date-time stamps, to make it an easier to scan list. You can always replace your instructions if you wish, but I believe Tony's made it clear it's unnecessary. --InkSplotch 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi InkSplotch, i enjoy your comments where we have interacted, you do well at articulating your points in defense of editors such as Kelly. You seem to be a voice of calm and reason despite the fact I may disagree with you. Is it impolite to ask where you are coming from? You are clearly well versed in policy despite this young account. And despite your statement "Hello, and welcome to my user page. It's pretty bleak because I'm not here, I'm out there. Editing 'n stuff", this seems to be contridicted by your actual editing. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the edit I made here. I'm not trying to be atagonistic towards Kelly or Tony, but these issues just keep coming up. As wikipedia becomes more hierarchial this could really be a long term problem with respect to maintaining a stable community. It seems to me that those in respected positions, and clearly this is true for Tony and Kelly, should be a little more careful. Just my thoughts. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to be candid. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I fancy myself an observationist. I've not done much editing around Wikipedia yet, but I do spend a lot of time reading (would that be the "'n stuff?"). Such as when a situation like this appears, I tracked comments all the way back to project talk pages, personal talk pages, and so on, and so on. I like to be informed before I open my mouth. :)

I feel a lot of the antagonism brewing on Kelly Martin's RFC and now RFAr come from, at heart, misunderstandings, or at least philisophical differences. You say, "as wikipedia becomes more heirarchical..." and the impression I get from Kelly, Tony & Cyde is that they see (or perhaps want) Wikipedia not to become more heirarchical. In fact, I think in this issue they don't see the hierarchy of editors/admins at all.

They tend to look at issues holistically, i.e. "is this helping or harming the encyclopedia?" They view their admin tools merely as "tools" to protect the encyclopedia. That's why the reation to Kelly's "announcing policy" doesn't appear to be sinking in for them. From their view point, anyone could have said "this is how it is," and any admin could have enforced it. It's not a question of, "does policy allow me to do it this way?" It's a question of, "is it the right thing for the encyclopedia?"

But I might be wandering off topic from what you asked. You point me to your comments on the arb, so let's look at those. You say, The common theme is that KB always has an excuse, never accepts criticism. This refusal to analyse her own behaviour, with respect to maintaining a healthy collaborative climate at wikipedia, is the primary reason I support this next step from the RfC. I think Kelly she does analyse her own behavior, by the same standard she does of other editors: what effect has it on the encyclopedia? I see she posted her statement just before you posted yours, I think she addresses this idea in the first half very well.

Admins and other respected wikipedians need to be more open to discussion. At the very least they should be more transparent with regard to their rationales. Again, I don't think they place themselves on a pedastal. If anything, they expect the same boldness of any editor.

This is a problem for wikipedia where all are volunteers. Continuing in this vain will drive some away, will make others less productive and certainly piss people off. And this brings us to the heart of the philisophical difference. I'm guessing you feel Wikipedia exists only because of the community, and without it, there'd be no encyclopedia. Kelly/Tony/Cydes philosophy (as I understand it) is the opposite. That the encyclopedia itself must be protected and nurtured, and that the community will adapt itself around it. It seems the height of callousness when they suggest to their detractors that wikipedia might be better off without them. I don't think they mean it as an insult, however, but as fact. Some people seem only to be here to thrive off conflict. I know, I'm nearly one of them...but I'm not here to feed it, when I involve myself it's to try and be helpful, and usually diplomatic.

Sadly, there's others who seem to live for the fight. Way back, when Kelly deleted a large number of userboxes, it sparked a huge upset. Many users "suffered", felt censored or oppressed, and left. The encyclopedia, however, perservered. In fact, enough attention was brought to the issue that people kept working on it, and working on, finally deciding on the German solution to resolve things. I don't know if it was the right way to do things, but I'm fairly certain if Kelly hadn't started things the way she did, there would still be a massive ammount of harmful and unnecessary userboxes cluttering up template space, and no sign of compromise on the horizon.

I think it's akin to a band-aid. Pulling it off hurts, but it's necessary and best not to dawdle. Well, I've rambled quite a bit, and think I've only scratched the surface. I hope some of this helps, and if you have any more questions, I'm happy to do my best in trying to answer them. Just remember, I only speak for myself and my own observations. I'm not on IRC, or the mailing list, and don't know any wikipedian's (to my knowledge) in real life. --InkSplotch 20:13, 15 August 2006 (

Thanks for your perspective. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Kelly Martin and I endorse this message. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Tony Sidaway. --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. User:David Gerard/Process essay addresses this. Bad process accumulates for all sorts of reasons. IMO it's pretty much always in order for someone of clue to go "What the hell?!" and cough up a hairball. Of course, they then have to explain their intuitive leap to others convincingly - "show your working." - David Gerard 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy simplified

Excellent idea. I'm having a hack at it now. Someone tried PRODding it, I removed that and marked it 'essay' and 'proposed'. I'm sure some helpful soul will be along any moment. I'm looking at it as a guideline, i.e. short on details and long on the reasons why - David Gerard 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers

I have tried to answer your concerns on my talk page, but I'm afraid, as we were getting hopelessly interlined, that I've created two new sections. They are both for you. You needn't feel any compulsion to reply, or even read them, if you're not in the mood, but I've tried to explain my personal point of view on these matters of great shrieking and blood. I have never, ever wanted anyone else's destruction, but I have even less wanted to see the rest of the people stifled. One reason that James F can be unaware of who I am, for example, is that I stay where he never seems to look: in articles and on the more deliberative name pages. Anyway, being in that space doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention when the crises break, and previous crises have informed a great deal of my reaction to the present crisis. Geogre 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Hey, InkSplotch -- I noticed one thing in your arbitration request that I thought you might want to simply correct, rather than needing to have someone point it out in their statement. You say 'JoshuaZ blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for disruption and incivility not just for the Giano block, but "other recent behavior"'. The triggering event there wasn't the Giano block, as you make it sound, but the "lancing a boil" comment, and when JoshuaZ said "it wasn't just for that attack", that was what he was referring to. I can dig up a diff to the "lancing a boil" comment if you want. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I'll look into it and make corrections. --InkSplotch 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmm. This isn't going to work so well, when everybody on the ArbCom has to recuse :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if any choose to take this up, it will be interesting to see who does recuse and who does not. --InkSplotch 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you probably meant to say "actions and discussions resulting from Giano's behavior", didn't you? And you might want to note that the userlinks template isn't working very well for Giano, who became Giano II halfway thorugh the affair (having scrambled his password to the original account). See how it looks like his contribs stop on September 15? Bishonen | talk 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Another good catch, thank you. I'll make note of it. --InkSplotch 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One more: I think the sentence "Instead, Bishonen and Geogre questioned her status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom" is supposed to read "Instead, Bishonen and Geogre questioned her status as Arbitrator Emeritus and (her) attempts to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom". The tense of the second clause makes it look like you're talking about Bishonen/Geogre, not Kelly. -- nae'blis 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Let's say that the cause of the 24 hour block was multifaceted. The "lance a boil" comment was part, the other actions were part, and JoshuaZ will be the ultimate authority on why he imposed the block. He has said that it was for disruption, and that disruption included the comment and other actions. It was, perhaps, a dog's breakfast of behaviors involved, so it's not wrong to say it was the comment and that it wasn't the comment. Geogre 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, I know that; what I'm referring to is that it was confusing when I read it, and Bishonen has already commented in the RFAr itself, that it looks like InkSplotch is saying Bishonen & yourself were trying to "influence the actions of the ArbCom". -- nae'blis 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nae'blis, that sentance as written is correct. I posted a clarification on the page under Bishonen's question of it. --InkSplotch 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bishonen's comment on the arbitration page seems correct, you should add her as an involved party. Not as involved as Giano, Kelly Martin, and Tony Sidaway, but involved. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I do worry about how neutral a forum arbcom is for these issues - 1 Arbitrator and 2 arbitrator's clerks are named as involved in this request. Given such a close link will Arbcom feel the need to demonstrate that they are entirely impartial? Will this provide justice for Kelly, Tony and James? If they're hung out to dry will this just be seen as a rearguard action? Also, to successfully defend the accusation that kelly has used her influence upon the ArbCom, fairness should dictate that the mailing list be disclosed, to at least all parties involved; I'm sure everyone will agree that this is undesirable and unworkable, but how can a effective defence be made without it? This case seems mired in difficulties and conflicts of interest I think. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I do welcome a tranparent airing of them though - something needed to be done to try and sort this. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We must find faith in something. --InkSplotch 00:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

mmmm yeah - Anyway I'm glad User:Carcharoth has added a request for consideration of the Carnildo affair. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

16 mainspace edits?

Who are you exactly? You're "out there editing and stuff"? editing what? •Jim62sch• 03:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does this question serve a purpose? --InkSplotch 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. You start an RfAr with seemingly no experience on Wiki. I think questioning your involvement serves a purpose. So, are you gonna dance or do you have a concrete answer? •Jim62sch• 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

These are relevant questions I've been wondering about myself. I'd like to read your reply. FeloniousMonk 23:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to comment here to Mr Monk and Mr Jim. I'm an editor - I don't know how many mainspace edits I've got because I don't know how to count them - someone told me recently it was 6000+ I've also got 1FA - all my own work and 1FA upon which I collaborated, both of which have been on the front page. I'm also a frequent contributor to the architecture portal and WP:ARCH. There, credentials over, perhaps I have your ear.

Like you I held similar opinions until quite recently, mostly stemming from the abuse of admin power - particularly blocking, by people who didn't seem to be contributing content. It became quite apparent that the quality of person who holds adminship is important - so off I went to RfA and voted against a few candidates with a kind of watered down 1FA criteria and then looking to see if the candidate was a good admin. This seemed to attract some quite vociferous responses - so we talked through the issues, points were made, I rebutted some, some more were made etc.etc. All I was looking for were admins who had contributed content to the encyclopedia - which is a pretty worthy expectation I'm sure you'll both agree.

Alai then made a comment to me along the lines, that he objected to this because a rational basis for selecting someone to do administrative tasks isn't necessarily someone who creates content. This made me think for several days - so much so I did a bit of RC patrolling - have you tried that? Have you seen how much the site is vandalised every second? Have you any idea how mindlessly dull it is? A new experience for me, I was quite appalled. So my position has changed. I still believe that everyone on this project should contribute to content, but I really respect the work that people do to defend it. I personally believe that what's important here is that we don't end up with an administrative body with bad character traits, who can't communicate very well and have some questionable attitudes to blocking established users - because that is seriously damaging to the project. I think this is actually (for now) more important than ensuring admins have written that little article on javascript xyz parsing or whatever. There is plenty of admins out there who are great at the admin tasks and good contributors, there's also admins like Inksplotch here who just do a great job of being an admin.

I haven't met this guy before (and we haven't been introduced - Hi Inksplotch), but I did read some comments he made on Geogres and Kelly Martins pages in the last few days - A more skilfull attempt to broker a peace I haven't read. I sincerely believe this guy has the best intentions, and the future of wikipedia at heart. He is a diplomat and there's space in wikipedia for them too. I've no idea what his contributions are to wikipedia - he might be an really great admin for all I know, and if he is then great, but what he does seem to know about is resolving serious issues and for that I thank him. I have some misgivings about the arbcom request, but I fully respect Inks desire to do something to sort the mess out, maybe we should see how it goes, and in the mean time make sure we're electing good admins on RfA? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Two quick points: Inksplotch is not an admin, and RC patrolling shows up under mainspace edits. •Jim62sch• 01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I would urge you to trek over to User:Geogre and User:Kelly Martin's talk pages and see the attempts at mediation for yourself. My hat is pretty squarely chucked in the ring with Giano, Geogre et al - but this guy really isn't the problem in my opinion. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mcginnly, for speaking up here. Giano linked to this from the arb request, and I replied here [1] (it's since been removed). The reason I removed this section initially is, well, I guess I didn't like what I felt was the nature of the question. Who I am is just an editor with 16 main space edits, and 95 or so wiki-space edits, a little over 200 edits in all. This, I feel, tells you absolutly nothing. Why I'm here is to contribute to the success of the project. If you see anything in my pattern of behavior here to make you doubt that (and it's a short contribution list), then you ought to bring up specifics. I know the arbcom case is probably the biggie on your mind.

I started the case because although things were quieting down, I didn't feel anything was really resolved. The underlying tensions are still there, and made worse by the whole discussion. There are distinct differences of opinion, about editors and admins, about the value of contributions, quantity over quality, and most of all...questions of motive.

If you question my motives, I've honestly nothing to give you right now to assauge your concerns. My record here, as small as it is, is all I have. If you feel it's too small a record for me to do something like submit an arbitration case, I'll respectfully disagree. If you feel the case is ultimatly more disruptive than helpful, you may be right. It's in the committee's hands now. If you have other suspicions, there's checkuser, RFC and other methods of resolution. If you still have questions, let me know what they are. I can only do my best. --InkSplotch 01:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't question you motives in the least, I'm convinced of your good faith. I'd considered an ArbCom request myself (actually just about Tony but I'm happy it will all be aired). I am concerned about the wisdom of it though - but these are my personal concerns relating to the neutrality of the ArbCom, or more accurately, the perception of ArbComs neutrality, we differ on this, I respect that. I hope it works but I'm sure the final judgement will need to be of nobel peace prize winning quality to exact justice for all concerned. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (PS. just for laughs I'll let you know I spent 5 minutes there goofing off considering the possibility that you were Jimbo. It's a mad thing isn't it - he could be anyone - maybe he's Giano.)--Mcginnly | Natter 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is not Giano - trust me on that one! Giano 06:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Niccolo Machiavelli would be proud

Man, I am sooo impressed by your introduction here:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Statement_by_InkSplotch

I am going to start a new section on my user page, with your statment and use it myself. The way you harness/utilize/empower/manipulate words is fucking incredible.

And no, I am not being facetious. Thanks man. The whole entire Requests_for_arbitration really brightens my day, especially how certain wikiusers are no longer here :) Travb (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about mistakenly messing up the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. It was not my intention at all. My apologies. Best wishes and happy editing. Travb (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But who is that masked crusader?

Care to share? ??????? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed it in the Workshop today. I was a bit relieved to see Mackensen propose it, because as you've noticed I haven't been posting much to the arbitration pages. Part of that was seeing the talk of sockpuppetry come up again in the Proposed Decision talk page. George was the first person to actually name a name (Kelly) as to who I was supposed to be, and I never even thought he suspected me as a sockpuppet! Sadly, I'm still not a sock of anyone, or a returned user, or anything salacious...I'm just me. Just a person so fascinated by how this place works, how this great big community manages to function on a day to day basis, I got sucked into it myself.

I like to think I've done some small good from time to time. I'm proud of the revised blocking policy, even though I just feel like someone who started a ball rolling. I've tried to talk people down before, when things have gotten heated. A few times it even seems like it helped. This arbcom, though...I feel like I failed. I started that ball rolling because so many people were talking, even yelling, and had stopped listening a long time ago. Because so many people had such entrenched opinions as to what was what...without being able to really explain why. Some people are convinced certain editors and certain admins are vitally important assest to the project, others feel the opposite. I'd hoped this arbcom would be the chance to bring these opposed claims out into the light, scrutinize them, and be doen with them one way or another.

Indeed, for a long while I felt the workshop pages were making some small progess. Then Tony gave up his bit, and you know what's funny? All the people who've snapped at him for so long for being unable to change seem unable to acknowledge that he actually has. Maybe his all-or-nothing attitude hasn't, and that's what they bounce off of...anyway. It's gotten heated again on the Proposed Decision talk pages, and honestly, I'm afraid to speak up there. Too many people are convinced I'm a sock or returned user, no one reads what I say except to use it to try and guess who I "really am." Too many old grudges are rubbing old wounds open again.

I should have figured this would happen. I should have seen it. But you know what's the worst part of it all? I'm still not certain things would be any better off if I'd never posted the case. --InkSplotch 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(Mis)quoting from Curb your enthusiasm "A good compromise is when all parties are miserable about the result". --Mcginnly | Natter 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That aside - on the sockpuppet/returned user issue - I think your account is seen as inexplicably atypical for a normal user - the account is created and then you launch straight into WP:AN WP:AFD etc.etc. - this causes suspicion and leads people to believe everything is not what it seems. I was just wondering if you would clarify the pattern of early editing to remove that suspicion? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say except I lurked here for some time before actually creating an account. I came in around the time of the Webcomics arb case (I read a lot of webcomics, although I've never touched webcomics articles or afd's here). Before jumping in myself, I wanted to watch this for a bit...see how the wole place works. I learned a lot, about notability and sources, about inclusionists and deletionists, about dispute resolution, both the formal and the actual. The formal process of course is RFCs, Mediation and RFArs...but the actual process flows into AN, AN/I, even DRV. It's impressive how so many people can work together. But it's a stressful place sometimes, and things seem to fall apart when tempers flare the most.

If you look at my first edits, you see I jumped into the middle of a heated discussion between several admins and Dschor. He made some statements on his user page consider to be a personal attack by some, and different admins took turns reverting them. He began asserting ownership over his user page and claiming "cabal", i.e. an organized effort against him. Looking at the talk on AN/I, I think it was anything but organized. :) So I started my account to try and help out by asking the admins involved to get their POV straight before subjecting Dschor to more actions against himself or his user page, but more try and calm Dschor down while consensus was sorted out.

I might have helped for a short while...but Dshcor is still gone now. He found a cause, opposing admins he felt were out of control...which pulled him into the Pedophillia case. And even with a 2 month ban, he couldn't remain silent. After his talk page was protected, he began using a sockpuppet. Now, I think he's perma-banned. So we look at today's case, should we think it's happening again? No...not again. Still. The feelings in today's case are the same ones from back then. Some of the people are the same, some are different, but it's the same thing from then. It's kind of weird to be looking at it all from this new angle. Sorry, I wander sometimes..

Anyway, that's where I began. I realize it's atypical, and I don't claim otherwise. But if there are editors who don't admin, admins who edit and admins who don't...well, there must be room for those who don't admin or edit, but still find a way to contribute. And believe me, it's very much on my mind whether I'm really contributing or just getting in the way. I want a higher edit count, but I don't want articifically inflated. I know I could spend some time in RC and have an impressive count of mainspace edits really quick (and most of them reverts). But I like to write...you can see it in how I can't respond in less than four paragraphs. :) So, as I mentioned a section or two above I'm trying to pull back from the project for a bit, so I can come back in a while and focus more on articles than people. Despite many protests to the contrary, I think there are quite a few people who look at one's edit count before they look at what one has to say. --InkSplotch 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) InkSplotch, it is (as Mcginnly said) easy to see why people would be suspicious- you came in as a newb and acted nothing like a new user. However, I don't care much about who's who as long as nobody's being disruptive. As for people not believing Tony can change, let me try to give you a perspective here. I'm one of those editors, who, for probably the past year or so, has been of the opinion that Tony violates m:DICK way too often, and does not listen when people point this out to him. I'd become convinced that he was utterly unable to see himself in a realistic way. He steadfastly refused to "get it" time and time again.

I'll admit I was surprised, and cautiously optimistic, when he finally appeared to realize that yes, he's been way too big a jerk for way too long a time. I've since modified my opinion of Tony from "utterly unable to get it" to "able to get it only when whacked over head with a big stick." Apparently, somebody, somewhere, finally found that big stick. If he finally realizes his attitude is incompatible with being an admin, that's great.

As for people not neccessarily instantly believing we've got a whole new Tony here, well, why should they? Should one long overdue admission of poor behavior make people forget months (years?) of disruption before that time? Many people are of the "forgive, but do not forget" persuasion. It's also worth pointing out that Tony has continued to be needlessly, offensively rude and combative even after his admission of fault. Several people have pointed this out to him, and it hasn't helped.

It's true, there's been many overly-harsh statements on both sides of this debacle- singling out a single person's poor behavior isn't exactly fair. So anyway, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I'm hoping you can see why folks might be cautious here. Friday (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

Where are your talk page archives? Classical places like User talk:InkSplotch/Archive_1 seem blank. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Archives can also be found in the history. Just go to the history and find the version prior to the archive. For example, here. i would agree it is a bit of a pain to find, but as long as the edit summary includes a description of the archiving it is does not take too long. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE implies that when you archive a page, you should provide a link to the archives. Without that, it seems to be merely deleting. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a big deal. That's why we have the history, indeed. Talk page archiving is nice, and polite, but by no means required. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was indeed archiving by way of simply blanking the page. I didn't feel anything on here is vital enough to go moving pages around, or cutting and pasting into a subpage. Here's it's preserved in the relatively short history. If there's no further questions, I'll probably be blanking this later today as I'm planning on a bit of a wikibreak. --InkSplotch 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, go on a break happy in the knowledge you've done good - the refactored WP:BP is live and isn't generating screams of horror. In fact, people seem to like it. So you can rest happy in having increased the general sanity level of Wikipedia ;-) - David Gerard 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I too used to simply blank my talk page and provide a diff to the edit prior to deletion. My argument was that archiving simply mean all those items are stored on (cheap but not free) disk space somewhere twice. However, once you start to get any substantial amount of material in your history, you'll want to refer back to a conversation you had before. This is all but impossible if you use the blanking method, Google however indexes the "archive" pages. I'm totally converted.
brenneman ^{L} 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nesting

Thanks for the tweak... My page still looks the same to me, so I shall wait for further complains from the peanut gallery. As to my urge to transclude, it's because I want everything to be object oriented. At once stage I even had pages for parameter boxes in divs that I would just transclude. I found however that the wikimedia software only lets you nest pages to a measly seven levels!

Refering to the above thread, I think I've made my feeling clear in the arbitration workshop, but since there are about 150K words there you might have missed it. While I didn't like the "Splotch is no sock" finding that was only my logical purist streak coming through. I not only don't know I don't care if you're someone else, because I find you at all times polite, sensible, and an unambigious asset to the project.

brenneman ^{L} 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)