| Revision as of 16:21, 19 September 2014 editIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,500 edits →Cordial editors: I agree← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:24, 19 September 2014 edit undoHighInBC (talk | contribs)Administrators41,786 edits →Cordial editorsNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| ::Indeed, Eric. That's the major flaw in a lot of the civility-based discussions. I've just read that diff, though. It looks like some might be consider me to be an "artistic type". Good to see you dabbling again, Dennis. - ] (]) 16:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | ::Indeed, Eric. That's the major flaw in a lot of the civility-based discussions. I've just read that diff, though. It looks like some might be consider me to be an "artistic type". Good to see you dabbling again, Dennis. - ] (]) 16:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree; I think Dennis is unintentionally giving the impression that there is a black-and-white choice: manage with rude editors who do excellent work, or manage with polite editors who don't. I know he doesn't believe this, and so I feel it to be unfortunate that he is conveying this message. ] (]) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | ::I agree; I think Dennis is unintentionally giving the impression that there is a black-and-white choice: manage with rude editors who do excellent work, or manage with polite editors who don't. I know he doesn't believe this, and so I feel it to be unfortunate that he is conveying this message. ] (]) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::While I agree the position that great content contributors should be given leeway in terms of civility is a position that a reasonable person can take, it has not gained consensus. The idea has been repeatedly rejected by the community and consensus based policy makes no such exception. I would oppose such a change if it were proposed again, but I can see why people would think that way. | |||
| :::Until such a time as consensus changes in our policy the idea that people should be given leeway because of their content contributions is contrary to community expectations. If the community wanted that then they would support a change in policy. It may not be black and white, but the community has weighed in on it several times. ] 16:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:24, 19 September 2014
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Absurd comment
Hi Dennis, this comment is absurd. This list is not going to help you to administrate. In no way this list is going to help you with reverts or with anything else for that matter. I agree that it is "a shame list", except it is a shame of anybody who has ever supported a ban of a person who was not even allowed to defend himself, it is a shame of anybody who supported a ban while involved, it is a shame of anybody who lied in ban discussions, knowing quite well the discussed person is not allowed to respond those lies, and you know what it is a shame of anybody who has seen this kind of Kangaroo courts and said nothing to stop them, which means this list is your shame too, Mr. Brown. One more thing, this list will not help you with your administration, but treating people with respect and dignity will. 188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- What about the people who really were jerks and got banned, which is most of them? Anyway, purely rhetorical question, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am mine, although opining on that page is more appropriate than on my talk page. Dennis 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Even "jerks" deserve a fair trial, and the real jerks are users who deny that essential right to human beings. 1.234.20.21 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) No one "deserves" a "fair trial" on a private website that has specific Terms of Service Rules that everyone agrees to when they edit here, but, in fact, everyone banned by Arbcom or the community has had a public airing of the claims made against them, and they have had the opportunity to respond, which is more than sufficient to be considered to be "fair". The banned editors who run around talking about how their banning was a terribly miscarriage of justice are, frankly, full of it, and the vast majority do not deserve our sympathy. BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- " No one "deserves" a "fair trial" on a private website"... It's probably true, but no decent person would ever support a ban of a person who is not allowed to say a word in his defense, and no decent person would support a ban, while involved.
- " but, in fact, everyone banned by Arbcom or the community has had a public airing of the claims made against them, and they have had the opportunity to respond" I would never understand what is a purpose of lying, if it is so easy to demonstrate one is lying.
- "and the vast majority do not deserve our sympathy." Do you believe somebody gives a damn about your sympathy, Beyond My Ken? My post was not about "sympathy". It was about sanity, your sanity, wikipedians. Even your leader Mr. Wales said on Wikimania that people should not be shamed, not should be screamed at. Treat people with respect and with dignity, and I assure you, you would be much more effective than by maintaining the shameful list. 107.178.219.146 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- The editors who were banned by and large shat in the hallways, pissed in the elevators and covered the walls with ugly grafitti. They deserve to be shamed, regardless of the opinion of Jimbo Wales. (He may have laid the foundation, but we have raised the building with our hard work and perseverance, not him.) Any respect those folks were due dissipated when they chose to take the actions they did. The community and ArbCom responded, and it is now the task of those banned editors to show us that they are deserving of a second chance, where they can earn again the respect which comes from working together with the community to help build an encyclopedia. Right now, that is all we owe them, a fair chance to show they have changed, and nothing more. In the meantime, let them remain shamed and without respect, their approbation is well-earned.
Outlaws are fun to root for in movies and books and television programs, but they're not much fun when they ransack your home and disrupt your life. BMK (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, many banned editors appear to have no sense of shame whatsoever. In fact, more than that, if their actions had taken place physically in the real world, instead of online, they would soon be typed as sociopaths: unconcerned about right and wrong, intensely egocentric, willing to lie and cheat whenever it serves them, disregarding the feelings and concerns of others, unable to learn to correct their behavior from negative consequences, unable to control their aggressiveness.
Sounds awfully familiar to me, any number of banned editors fit the bill. BMK (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, many banned editors appear to have no sense of shame whatsoever. In fact, more than that, if their actions had taken place physically in the real world, instead of online, they would soon be typed as sociopaths: unconcerned about right and wrong, intensely egocentric, willing to lie and cheat whenever it serves them, disregarding the feelings and concerns of others, unable to learn to correct their behavior from negative consequences, unable to control their aggressiveness.
- The editors who were banned by and large shat in the hallways, pissed in the elevators and covered the walls with ugly grafitti. They deserve to be shamed, regardless of the opinion of Jimbo Wales. (He may have laid the foundation, but we have raised the building with our hard work and perseverance, not him.) Any respect those folks were due dissipated when they chose to take the actions they did. The community and ArbCom responded, and it is now the task of those banned editors to show us that they are deserving of a second chance, where they can earn again the respect which comes from working together with the community to help build an encyclopedia. Right now, that is all we owe them, a fair chance to show they have changed, and nothing more. In the meantime, let them remain shamed and without respect, their approbation is well-earned.
- (talk page stalker) No one "deserves" a "fair trial" on a private website that has specific Terms of Service Rules that everyone agrees to when they edit here, but, in fact, everyone banned by Arbcom or the community has had a public airing of the claims made against them, and they have had the opportunity to respond, which is more than sufficient to be considered to be "fair". The banned editors who run around talking about how their banning was a terribly miscarriage of justice are, frankly, full of it, and the vast majority do not deserve our sympathy. BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Even "jerks" deserve a fair trial, and the real jerks are users who deny that essential right to human beings. 1.234.20.21 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- What Ken said. And no where in my comment did I support an editor not being able to speak for themselves. My comment was simple: If we are going to have a banned list (which makes sense to some of us admin and non-admin alike that mop up), it should only contain the name and a link to the decision, proving they really are banned. No opining, no listing their "crimes", just the name and link. I don't have a problem limiting it even more if it is usable. Reading more into my simple comment than what I've said is dishonest. Dennis 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I've never said you supported editors not being able to speak for themselves, but there are people who were not allowed to speak for themselves listed in the list, and you're arguing for keeping this list, which means that you see nothing wrong with the fact that at least some people listed there were mobbed out with no opportunity to speak for themselves, and it was done by involved users.
- "What Ken said"... And what Ken said? Ken said that many banned editors are sociopaths, that "The editors who were banned by and large shat in the hallways, pissed in the elevators and covered the walls with ugly grafitti. They deserve to be shamed" and so on, and so on. Are you ready to put your signature under that rant, Dennis? Really? If so, I am probably loosing my time here.
- I'd like to repeat the points I tried to make one more time please:
- The only purpose of this list, as you and Ken correctly noticed, is to shame people, which in at least some situations, means to bully them.
- You say this list helps you to administrate, and once again I repeat it is an absurd statement. You do not need to know who is banned and who is not to make reverts, just revert vandalism, revert bad contributions, and let good ones to stay, as you,wikipedians are saying: "look at contributions, not at a contributor".
- Treat people with respect and with dignity, and I assure you, you'd be much more effective than with shaming and bullying them. 180.183.81.85 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've run out of AGF with you, I'll just assume now that you are a banned user. BMK (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Is it because I'm making sense, and speak as a normal person who is free from wikipedia bs? 103.245.88.248 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- When you tell me I will be effective if I don't shame and bully people, you are implying that is my modus operandi. You seem to be very busy telling me what I think and you haven't asked a single question, which tells me I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you. For future reference, it is easier to persuade someone if you first try to get to understand their perspective. Dennis 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "you haven't asked a single question" is incorrect. I asked you at least one question, in particular I asked you this question: "Are you ready to put your signature under that rant, Dennis? Really?"
- I don't tell what you think. You told it yourself. You told that this list helps you to administrate, and I told you it is not. Okay, let me ask you one more very specific question please: Would you please describe a few recent examples, in which this list helped you to administrate? Thanks. 103.245.88.248 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Nice to see you around, Dennis - you've been missed. Your comment was fair, and sensible. If there is a utility for such a list, which I can see there is, it should be that - a utility, with the bare essentials, and a link to find out more if necessary. That would be an improvement, and show some respect. A list, not a list of little opinion-piece essays. Good call, and I'm sorry for those who don't see these attempts to improve for what they are. Never any shades of grey, here, sadly... Don't be a stranger. Begoon 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get too used to it, I'm just gnoming a tiny bit, and got involved in that ban discussion solely because I felt that the middle ground made sense and no one was presenting that perspective. I'm sure I will regret it soon enough. The real world has been keeping me quite busy (in a good way) and I haven't had time to miss enwp, to be honest. Dennis 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you do stay around a bit. On the list, I exercised my right to change my mind, after some thought, and voted delete, which will probably make little difference to the outcome. Whatever I think about it, in the end, though, I'm sorry your attempt to put forward what you thought was the best solution to address all concerns was met so negatively. I suspect that is how it will close anyway, as "trim", and that will be an improvement. Improvements are good. Cheers. Begoon 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's the beauty of the consensus system, it doesn't require we always agree. On the important stuff, like the grave dancing portions of the list, we do agree, which matters most. And I understand the perspective of those that want it deleted. It isn't a matter of me thinking that choice is wrong, I just think trimming it down instead is a more workable choice. Just my opinion. Hopefully others will see the wisdom in at least trimming it down to a useful minimum, instead of what it is, a spiteful list. Those on the list that use their real names can always ask Arb to vanish, which will remove their real name from the list. It only takes one email. Dennis 13:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wish it was that easy. A certain Arb ran for 'crat recently specifically because it wasn't and now that renames have gone global, again it will not be. The fact is that removing your name (especially your real name) from that list is nigh on impossible. Worm(talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Then that is a separate problem. It used to be fairly easy. Dennis 13:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wish it was that easy. A certain Arb ran for 'crat recently specifically because it wasn't and now that renames have gone global, again it will not be. The fact is that removing your name (especially your real name) from that list is nigh on impossible. Worm(talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's the beauty of the consensus system, it doesn't require we always agree. On the important stuff, like the grave dancing portions of the list, we do agree, which matters most. And I understand the perspective of those that want it deleted. It isn't a matter of me thinking that choice is wrong, I just think trimming it down instead is a more workable choice. Just my opinion. Hopefully others will see the wisdom in at least trimming it down to a useful minimum, instead of what it is, a spiteful list. Those on the list that use their real names can always ask Arb to vanish, which will remove their real name from the list. It only takes one email. Dennis 13:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you do stay around a bit. On the list, I exercised my right to change my mind, after some thought, and voted delete, which will probably make little difference to the outcome. Whatever I think about it, in the end, though, I'm sorry your attempt to put forward what you thought was the best solution to address all concerns was met so negatively. I suspect that is how it will close anyway, as "trim", and that will be an improvement. Improvements are good. Cheers. Begoon 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get too used to it, I'm just gnoming a tiny bit, and got involved in that ban discussion solely because I felt that the middle ground made sense and no one was presenting that perspective. I'm sure I will regret it soon enough. The real world has been keeping me quite busy (in a good way) and I haven't had time to miss enwp, to be honest. Dennis 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- What Ken said. And no where in my comment did I support an editor not being able to speak for themselves. My comment was simple: If we are going to have a banned list (which makes sense to some of us admin and non-admin alike that mop up), it should only contain the name and a link to the decision, proving they really are banned. No opining, no listing their "crimes", just the name and link. I don't have a problem limiting it even more if it is usable. Reading more into my simple comment than what I've said is dishonest. Dennis 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
List of banned users MfD
Hi Dennis. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm(talk) 09:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Created article found in the Rovio Entertaiment news
Hi. Read here: http://www.rovio.com/en/news/blog/540/selfie-slam-out-now-in-finland-sweden-and-canada And i know that found in the article this Selfie Slam by Rovio Entertainment. Do you want to accept it the nomination please! COME ON! :( MandatoryTeaser (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
I thought about you yesterday. Nice to see you around; hope all is well. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
- Beer sounds good, thanks. It's 10am here, but I'm sure it's 5pm somewhere. I'm just dabbling here though, real world is keeping me busy. Nothing worse than anyone else has had to deal with, so I won't cry in this beer. Probably will just forgo WikiCop duty and gnome for a bit. I expect to still be fairly scarce. I'm writing an article on UV lamp placement for maximum resin cure, after writing one on the Inverse Square Law and one on how ambient temperature affects UV propagation in a fluorescent lamp. Not for here, of course, it's all original research. Dennis 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Cordial editors
Regarding this comment: I've seen you express this sentiment before, and while I don't disagree with the idea of showing tolerance towards others in recognition of their good qualities, I think you are underselling the value of those who make excellent contributions while collaborating calmly with others. I know you realize from the Editor of the Week initiative that there is lots of good work that just gets quietly done, so I'm a bit dismayed to see you make statements that appear to dismiss the abilities of those who strive to remain cordial. I hope that you will bear this in mind in future, and not offer an inaccurate view of collaborative editors not writing good content. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- The flaw in your argument is that you're discussing a rather subtle social interaction – collaborations in article writing – in black-and-white terms. There is absolutely nobody, you included, who is always cordial or always aggressive. Eric Corbett 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, Eric. That's the major flaw in a lot of the civility-based discussions. I've just read that diff, though. It looks like some might be consider me to be an "artistic type". Good to see you dabbling again, Dennis. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree; I think Dennis is unintentionally giving the impression that there is a black-and-white choice: manage with rude editors who do excellent work, or manage with polite editors who don't. I know he doesn't believe this, and so I feel it to be unfortunate that he is conveying this message. isaacl (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree the position that great content contributors should be given leeway in terms of civility is a position that a reasonable person can take, it has not gained consensus. The idea has been repeatedly rejected by the community and consensus based policy makes no such exception. I would oppose such a change if it were proposed again, but I can see why people would think that way.
- Until such a time as consensus changes in our policy the idea that people should be given leeway because of their content contributions is contrary to community expectations. If the community wanted that then they would support a change in policy. It may not be black and white, but the community has weighed in on it several times. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)