Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 11 February 2012 (→Fae and WR again: Wnt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive2

Comments on Muhammad

Another point I wanted to make, I haven't personally noticed much incivility (beyond a little given it is a stressful process), but if someone has been repeatedly uncivil then I suggest gathering some diffs and emailing them to the committee, maybe they missed it.

Personally I think incivility is extremely serious, so I'd be happy to raise issues along those lines if I saw anything particularly bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Anthony

Too kind... as I was trying to say, these discussions attract exaggeration. But I found that whole thread one of the more interesting and encouraging. And I see you've been troubled by some misunderstandings yourself. Cheers! (literally), MistyMorn (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhh

How exactly did you revert me here? You didn't undo any of my unlinking; and what was "Didn't reduce overlinking" supposed to mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon  10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon. I think your edit summary is mistaken, Anthonyhcole. Pine 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I thought I was looking at you adding links, Jeraphine Gryphon. Being half asleep at the time might have something to do with it. I scanned your history and was thinking, "this behaviour is so out of character for this editor." Please accept my apologies for the error. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DID lead change

Hi Anthony, note this change and the edit summary. I hadn't tweaked to your idea that the specifics of the dispute shouldn't be in the lead - and on reflection I agree with your assessment - but I do think the degree of acrimony is worth noting. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good. I responded here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My response is a resounding "meh" and a pointer to WP:SAY

The term "alter" is generally more accepted I believe (more so than "multiple personality" as I've seen criticisms that we aren't seeing "personalities" from both the pro- and con- camps, but then again the DSM-IV-TR kinda switches between them ) and I like the explicit use of the word "iatrogenic". But the "iatrogenic" model has been replaced with "sociocognitive" in some circles.

One thing I would greatly prefer would be to remove "some" as I made a big stink about it here. Were I my druthers and the the boss of wikipedia I'd revert to the old version, but see what you think after reading that section. Avoid the rest of the talk page, it'll make you cry. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And I raise you a "meh" and a "wooaaah. holy fuck. Eeeergh. Oh god. No." That talk page. I just don't think I have the stamina for that. I'll look back again later. Oooeerrgh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The central issue can be summarized as this:

Me: We should follow the P&G.

Everyone else: NOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Me: What?

And you thought acupuncture was acrimonious... WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi AHC, note this section; FF is the one editor who discloses an obvious potential COI in DID (a dissociative disorder is mentioned on his/her user page) and is both civil and appears to grok wikipedia. If you are going to revert on the main page, could I beg the favour that you engage, on the talk page, about this item at least? The rest is a complete gong show and I stridently urge you to stay away, but I think extra courtesy is due to FF for being such a standout on this page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if the timestamps prove it, but I wrote this before reading your above sage advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, in the past you've always been good about this sort of thing and I didn't expect this to be an exception. I just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. Oh, did I also mention I'm a compulsive micro-manager? I'm a compulsive micro-manager.

That mushroom cloud gif is awesome but I think it's messing up my cursor. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not doing anything to mine. Should I remove it? It's pretty spectacular. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Naw, my cursor's just flickering more, and it's not doing it anymore. I say replace your user page with a 1000px version. For the lulz. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally worth it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Weeee! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy extended by both of you. Will keep it on the DID talk page now but did want to mention it personally on here. Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's great to have you here. I hope you like it and decide to stick around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

maybe it's time to organize

Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Fae's RfC

Hey Anthony, you made the following edit . As I read the edit summary and the associated link, I think you are withdrawing support for the view, but you left it count. Are you still supporting the call for a recall just with less harsh language or are you withdrawing support from the view? If the former, then no problem. If the later, you might want to indent your struck comment, thus taking you out of the count.---Balloonman 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I've clarified. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems - glad I could help. Let me know if you need anything else. GiantSnowman 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI - 3rr

{{3RR|wp:ani}} - Youreallycan 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries - its not worth a block - such as that is the main problem with additional policing of comments - different people have different interpretations of what is worth removing . I also think that if increased policing of comment happens at WP:ANI that, the same standard should be applied to all talkpages. Youreallycan 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just said to Floquenbeam at Talk:AN "I understand there will be occasions where things may/may not cross the line of civility, and on those occasions it's probably best to let such comments go. But no one with an understanding of the term would mistake "that is the bullshit I was talking about", in reference to another's comment, for civil behaviour. Tarc was uncivil. The community needs to decide whether it wants that to be normal behaviour at ANI.

And I agree with your last comment. The place to start, though, is the admin noticeboards. Lead by example. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If a more friendly, and honest place can be encouraged - I support that one hundred percent, yes, leading by example is good advice for us all - best regards and good luck - Youreallycan 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the place is ready. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I really appreciate what you're trying to do (and I support it) but I disagree with you that the place is ready yet. And I don't think "bullshit" was the right target to choose for the first outing of the new civility code in any case. IMO we need to wait until (a) we have better consensus on redacting incivility and then (b) wait for a really obvious and egregious case to kick off with. You can only lead by example if people are willing to follow and they're not, on this, yet. Kim Dent-Brown 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's policy, Kim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to clarify - I meant lead by example of not attacking anyone and being more appreciative of others, and not, leading by example by deleting others posts. Youreallycan 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, I realise redacting the comments was inappropriate and I won't be doing it again. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fae and WR again

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#For_the_record has started to draw WR links and a lot of discussion about them. I don't feel as responsible this time, and I think my comments are meant to disprove false allegations about Fae, but as my judgment on this issue has been deficient before... probably best if you had a look of your own to see what you feel is appropriate under policy. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, it's morning here and I'm moving house all day so won't be able to look for a few hours. I am so disappointed by the way this thing is going. Misplaced Pages has a lot more growing up to do. If I redact anything more from that page I'll be blocked but if when I get back on line there are links to that toxic WR thread, I'll be stripping those and any other such abuse out of the page. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this and realise I'm out of my depth there. I don't have the time for the reading necessary to fully grasp what's going on. I hope some mature admins are watching; and, however it plays out, we've got some serious lessons to learn from this experience. May I suggest you back off? Fae should be addressing the questions of his fitness to edit BLPs and his recall. Your constant engagement with his critics has, in my opinion, acted as a shield for Fae (when, without you there, he might have had to speak up) and has prolonged the ordeal which has led to the current ugly mess. I think it's time for everybody to stop speaking for him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)