Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 2 February 2009

Stop defending that troll emporer. Don't you realise how bad it makes wikipedia to looks to have crap like that inside here? Pure evil, aka Cranky Bastard who's been around long enough to know this too shall pass 06:01, 28 January 2009

PS - No self-promotions to troll emporer! You must do hard yard on ANI and ARbCom pages before you get that crown. ^_^ - brenneman 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

blp, flagged revisions, brain clouds, and a chit chat

I saw your post at Lar's page, and your 'oppose' comments at the feeler survey (isn't the polarity a bit silly and unhelpful though! - not your fault, jus' sayin') - wondered if you were interested in chit chatting about it?

I'm currently a supporter of both flagged revisions for BLPs, and a 'non public figure optout' (WP:OPTOUT if you're interested) - and it intrigues me that someone as sensible as you seems to be on the other side of the fence a bit? Fancy a cup of tea, nice biscuit, and maybe a bit of Q & A / chit chat? Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ps, my cheesy attempt at illustrative dialog isn't a bad place to start, if you've got any time, energy and inclination :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

pps (and in an evil attempt to catch you in an edit conflict!) - one of my mini techniques for taking a look at the issue is to hit random, and check out the first BLP that comes up - today it's Reinhold Aman, who came up 7th.... it raises some problems too, I reckon... Privatemusings (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way out into the sunlight for a while, but will do. Cheers big ears,
brenneman 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

that's quite enough sun now ;-) - so, you'll admit that you're totally wrong about the BLP thing, right? Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)'course I'm only joking - but I'm rarely as serious as I am when I'm being silly..... ;-) - I really do hope you're up for a chat

It was 35 degrees at ten pm. You cannot know how accurate you are on the "quite enough sun" thing. To be frank, I'm in the process of re-examining my assumptions/belief set on the issue. (Always a good idea.) When I'm much more clear on what I actually think, perhaps? - brenneman 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, but it reached 43.6 C in Mount Gambier...and in Sydney the humidity was much higher. Now all we need is a waterproof laptop and a swimming pool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

no skool like the old skool

Ah, memories of "Mr. Treason."  :) With all the spam we get, it's not always easy to avoid being bitey, but I stand by your decision. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthday Bash

Good call. The film may yet reach notability. Thanks, Schmidt, 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tori Amos

Judging by your last edit summary you have agreed to stop, so a warning would be inappropriate here. But I am going to ask that next time you move right to the talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a non-warning-warning? ^_^

"Agreed to stop" suggests I was over-reverting, although I made only the one where I explicity stated I wouldn't revert again. Thank you for doing your bit to maintain clam, though.

brenneman 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Look, that claim is really out of line, and your subsequent clarification is... difficult at best to swallow, given that the phrase "peer review" was only previously used to refer to the academic process.

Certainly, on the face of it, the comment looks like you're accusing me of, in my position as editor of that issue of ImageTexT, ignoring the standards of peer review and publishing an issue of unreviewed articles that I passed off as being peer-reviewed. Which is a really serious accusation of misconduct of the sort that I should be kicked out of my degree program for, if it's true.

It would go a long way if you were to refactor your comments to remove that line of argument. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you find my clarification unsatisfactory.

• Misplaced Pages:Peer review says it is a "review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors"
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment says its a "process for requesting outside input with respect to article content"

To my reading, it's straightforward to refer to an article RfC as a "peer review" process. As my conflation of these caused you emotional distress, I apologise for using such sloppy and imprecise langauge.

To be frank, it took three or four posts by you to understand what it was that you were aso upset about. Perhaps if you'd approached that misunderstanding (and the whole discussion) in a less adversarial tone, this unpleasantness could have been avoided?

brenneman 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since you've asked, here's my take on this : Using AN/I was a bad idea, given it's more or less a free-for-all and drive-by commentary these days. Edit warring is generally considered by others as poor form, even if you know that the parties you are trying to discuss with would not yield anything useful. (it's good that things have stopped there, I have personally seen worse elsewhere) RfC would have yielded better results, because it does look that this dispute appear to be deep-rooted and it would be able to garner more third opinion on the content itself (though looking by things, behavior issues are likely to show up in the RfC as well). Hope that helps, Mailer Diablo 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

This is here to prevent any appearance that I'm secretly compiling diffs and counting them out at night in the cold and the dark. I know that there are mixed opinions "drafts" and on what the appropiate way to get prepared for an RfC is. I genuinely see request for comment as a collective solution-seeking excercise, and am currently at 50% sucess with asking for input on user conduct. There is no such thing as "my" subspace, of course anyone is free to edit this subpage.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner

Recall request

A de facto request for me to resign my adminship has been made. If five editors in good standing say they want that, it's no big deal.

• Support recall - Aaron Brenneman initiated my first edit conflict three years ago. In this week's conflict, he made the accusation "you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate". A final (and only) warning was given, as well as reminders of my powerlessness. In the end, his accusation and the deletions of other's work turned out to be in error. Deleting and accusing, before checking the facts, are not suitable behaviors for an administrator. BitterGrey (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you. (Really.) That was concise and to the point, and included diffs even. Would but that the majoirty of the cries of "ZOMG! ADmin abuse!!" were as maturely stated.

• Strongly oppose recall (IE you keep the tools.) This kind of garbage is why Admin Recall is stupid.Hipocrite (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Think of it this way: It gives the person who feels aggrieved a chance to see how closely their feelings are alligned with those of the community. It lances the boil, to take an expression from Tony. And in the event that I have been a jerk, I'd hope that it would provide an opportunity for people to tell me.

• Oppose recall. He didn't touch the mop, nor even mentioned it. (Posting to AN can be done by any editor) If Bittergrey is indeed right, then AN would have pointed out the error quickly when he posts about it. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose recall. no abuse of tools here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • To both of the above: I'd be happy to stand down if I thought that I'd lost the faith of the community. You don't have to use the shiny buttons to do that. People fail RfA for rudeness, for example. And (to be frank) I occosionally cause unintended chaos, right?

• Oppose recall: Aaron Brenneman is a very good admin, and I think we're better off with him keeping the tools. Recall should not be used to settle disagreements or to win disputes. Acalamari 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the note on my talk page. I do appreciate it. I posted a request for reconsideration at PhilKnight's talkpage on the grounds that I was not notified and do not feel my behavior justifies the ban as described in Misplaced Pages discretionary sanctions. Discretionary sanction are allowed to be imposed on any "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Of course I am biased, but that definitely ain't my shoe! :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Chance

I'd have to say that's up to you.

In any case, if you look, I've agreed to several compromises on the Tori Amos stuff. The issue is that, while the academic criticism section as it stands is poor, the issue is under-representation, not over-representation. There's more to add. On the other hand, lengthy papers in the humanities don't condense to a sentence - if we want to summarize academic views of a subject, it takes some space. So I put in two articles that I was aware of and called it a day. The section will, I assume, expand some day. Until then, it is verifiable, reliably sourced, and a start. WP:IMPERFECT and all.

I'm happy to see the section expanded and, if need be, spun off to Academic criticism of Tori Amos. I'm happy to see the summaries rewritten to be less jargony. I'm happy to, if spin-offs are created for Neil Gaiman and Tori Amos, 97 Bonnie and Clyde, and Strange Fruit, see the content spun out to those. I've agreed happily to all three of those proposals. But the people who were so eager to remove it seem less eager to improve the content.

But it seems to me very strange to remove verifiable, reliably sourced content without a strong consensus to do so. And that's not there.

In any case, feel free to fix the content as above. I'll not revert such an improvement, and we can go our merry ways. When next we happen to cross paths (which I assume will be about 2012, as we seem to be about once every three years), please take some more care in your initial entering into the discussion. A lot of this was, at least for me, caused by the seeming venom with which you arrived upon the scene. If you avoid reactivating edit wars, making personal attacks, even inadvertant ones, and having your first response when someone is upset about the former be to run to AN/I and start work on an RFC against them, you'll probably get calmer and more harmonious results.

Hopefully this settles the issue. Pencil me in for January of 2012. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I paraphrase: I read the above as you saying "This material must stay in the article in the form that I prefer unless someone else moves it somewhere else."

• Also, I feel that you are unaware of the high level of toxicity in your general replies. Yes, I "ran to ANI" because you've blocked me over content disputes before. You've began arbitration against me over content disputes before, blissfully skipping the step of creating an RfC.
• Here's the edit that you felt venom. I've apologised for the misunderstanding, and asked if you have considered your respones at all?
• Finally, I'm not sure how I'm "reactivating" an edit war when you committed three sterile reverts, leaving the page in exactly the state that it was in before we began? Are you comfortable with the editting you've done on the article, as per the table here? Can I ask that you look at Misplaced Pages:Own#Events, in particular where it discusses "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version." Are you still going to do everything can to stop other people editing against your personal wishes?
• (I'll not discuss the actual article content here, that what the talk page there is for. I note that your last edit there was to respond to request to move away from your version was a flat "No.")

Please do consider discussing this in a more productive way, Phil. I'm not a huge fine of reuqest for comment, or arbitration, but I've been uncomfortable with your approach for some time.

brenneman 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm a bit puzzled by this response. You asked if we could have a respectful dialogue. I sent you what I think was a respectful response, and got, as a response, a list of complaints and grievances, some dating back over three years, and a declaration that you won't discuss some of the points.

I apologize for my obvious misunderstanding of your request for a respectful dialogue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall