Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noformation (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 24 January 2012 (→Ludwigs2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please comment on Talk:2011

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuation

Hi, I wanted to continue here (the arb case pages are already getting long enough!). First, you're right, I'm not in your shoes, and I do apologize if my comment came across sharper than intended. However, I do empathize! I feel the same way you do sometimes (and rightly so), that there are editors watching my edits in bad faith, ready to pounce if I make the slightest mistake (or even if I don't!). I'm not sure if you're following the "civility enforcement" case or not. But anyway. I smiled when you said, "If the project were savvy". It does feel sometimes like there's an overlord brain in charge of this, but no, it's an illusion. I see Misplaced Pages more like a flock of starlings that's fluttering this way and that. From a distance, it seems to have shape and coherence, but in reality it's just a bunch of individual birds flapping as fast as they can.  ;) I also greatly agree with you that Misplaced Pages is an awful place to edit. It is. Then again, Democracy is an awful form of government -- it's just better than all the others, heh. Ultimately, I agree with much of what you say, I think you know that. Mainly I disagree, sometimes, with how you are saying it. So, just as an exercise, could you try editing some articles? Even helping out in a cleanup category, or adding sources, these kinds of things would be good to get back to. It's helpful to the project, looks great on your contrib list, and is just plain good for one's mental health. There really are lots of places where you can edit, where no one else would give two hoots as to what you do. And trust me, it's kind of nice. Quiet, peaceful, no arguing. I can get into a kind of zen mode when deep in the stacks, and it helps me keep perspective on the rest of the chaos. Maybe just give it a try? Pick any topic of your choice, or heck, c'mon and help me with one of the articles I've created recently? Or review a GA, or my current FAC? There are lots of places where your help would be much appreciated! And it doesn't mean you'd have to abandon the other discussions you're in. Just maybe, engage in them in moderation? Have a balance between arb discussion and article work, and I think everything can go much more smoothly.  :) --Elonka 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that starling analogy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka: Truth be told, I am sour on the project right now. I've gotten locked against my will into this cycle where I'll do a little quiet editing, try to be reasonable on the wrong article, find myself dragged through an administrative abattoir, take a wikibreak, come back to do a little quiet editing, try to be reasonable on the wrong article, find myself dragged through… trying to edit[REDACTED] is a huge and unpleasant waste of my time that I could better spend doing other things. The only reason I haven't left the project already is that I like the idea of it, and wish it could work the way it's supposed to work, because that would be really cool. But on the kind of articles I like to edit - politics, religion and spirituality, fringe science (mostly where it interacts with the first two) - I'm blocked out by a near-universal knee-jerk reactivity to anything I do.

I've currently set myself to making this a place that I can edit quietly and reasonably as a rule rather than as an exception. If I succeed I will happily go about editing just as you ask, as is my normal wont; if I fail then I don't want to be here anyway. That's what it comes down to for me. I mean, don't get me wrong: sooner or later Misplaced Pages is going to come around to my way of thinking, whether I'm here or not. I've seen this dynamic played out politically in too many contexts to anticipate any other outcome. I'm just trying to make it happen now for the purely selfish reason that I'm tired of putting up with endless crap over every simple, reasonable action I want to take.

I like your starlings analogy as well, but unfortunately I study politics academically; I know it's incorrect. The difference between humans and starlings is that starlings have their social behavior written into them immutably by nature; humans have an inbred drive to create abstract forms of social order. Misplaced Pages has thus far more-or-less abnegated its role of creating an overarching system of order, and so what's happened is that editors have created their own local order. Misplaced Pages is composed of bands and tribes of editors with all the standard tribal affective components: deep in-group loyalty, suspicion and hostility towards out-group members, ideological solipsism, territorialism, jingoism… If you keep in mind that it is typical among tribal groups to extirpate any threat to any member - if a tiger kills someone, hunters who never knew the victim will gather from all over the tribe to hunt it down - these arbcom cases will make a whole lot more sense to you. I remember the lashing you took when you tried to rein in ScienceApologist back when I first started editing here (I forget what page it was over, but I know I was involved somehow; my first ANI experience), so I know you know what I'm talking about.

I will keep your words in mind, and after I take another wikibreak (which I am most assuredly going to be doing soon) I'll see if I can do that. $20 says that - whatever I do whenever I return - I won't get more than a couple of weeks before someone drags me into ANI over some idiotic thing. Best you set aside the cash now. --Ludwigs2 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bighting

Please don't bight. It's his little siren call to you. Please strap yourself to something, and turn the stereo up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak

This process has become too stressful for me - I've become more frustrated and depressed by it than I can cope with healthily - so I'm on wikibreak. If someone would notify me of anything that requires my attention on the case pages that would be nice, because I won't be following them. Otherwise I'll check up on the results when I return. --Ludwigs2 04:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the need to post something but don't feel like looking at the workshop page post it here and I will move it for you. Take care of yourself, no reason to compromise your health over a webpage Nformation 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: if I decide I need to post a principle of FoF I can do that myself; I'm just not looking at the discussion any more. I'd like to know if an Arb or anyone else asks me a direct question so I can respond, but that will be the limit of my activity on the page from now on. --Ludwigs2 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

And while I'm here. I am going to be very disappointed in this project if the arbitrators apply sanctions of any kind to Ludwigs2. I implore all arbitrators to truly familiarise yourselves with this mans character, and his mission here. I haven't stalked him so I can only go on my own experience with him. He's a person of insight and intelligence and high moral fiber. He's taking on the culture of offense here. This, of necessity, means he is constantly engaged in what I've been patronisingly calling bickering. I owe you an apology for that, Ludwigs.

I urge all arbitrators involving themselves in this case to follow Ludwigs2 through one of his controversies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I just can't deal with this anymore, and I've said all I can stomach saying, so either they see it all for what it is or they don't. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of here too. I was thinking of just mooching off to some quiet backwater but can't face that either. The culture of insult and offense is everywhere. I'll be watching, though, to see what the arbs make of it all. It's interesting that these two cases, one dealing with offensive behaviour toward readers, based on wmf:Resolution:Controversial content, and the other dealing with offensive behaviour between editors, based on wmf:Resolution:Openness should be running at the same time. I think these, because they address fundamental cultural change, are the two most important cases I've seen.

I feel let down by the arbitrators on that workshop, actually. I pointed out numerous obvious blatant lies and misrepresentations about me, and numerous instances of offensive behaviour toward me, and not a word was said. I'd have thought that if there was anywhere on the project where a person would find themselves being scolded for offensive behaviour, it would be at arbcom. That it was blithely ignored, week after week, leaves me very pessimistic about any possibility of arbcom even understanding what's at stake in these two cases. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs has insight and vision as no one else has on this project. While much of what goes on Misplaced Pages is in-the-moment reactive, Ludwigs sees and understands where this kind of project has to go to grow, and to grow in a healthy way, and I know he has tried to convey that. Ludwigs unlike many has the kind of integrity that dictates you stick your neck out, and lay out what you think in a constant and forthright way. That kind of behaviour is an antidote to much of what goes on here. Ludwigs and I have not always agreed on the small things, but on his insights of what Misplaced Pages is and where it could go , his vision is far greater than mine and most on this project, and there I agree completely. How disappointing and how sad all of this is. I guess one always hopes for vision and a larger understanding. (olive (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Well, I'll wait another day for a response on the case page, and if none is forthcoming I'll take the issue to Jimbo's talk page, and see if he can get them to answer my question. Anyone who wants to support me there is welcome (i'll post a link here) but let's not turn it into a circus. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped a note on Jimbo's page, here. anyone who wants to chime in… --Ludwigs2 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As a hint as to the problem, I notice you have 1840 articlespace edits, but 19 talk page archives. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try 18,421 edits. Sheesh!(olive (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

The point John made was that there were 18,421 edits total but only 1840 of them were to actual articles. Nformation 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Yes I see. Consider this. Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines were written by editors. Nothing says the work on those policies is of less importance than writing articles. Further, at no place in Misplaced Pages is it explicitly or implicitly stated that spending time in discussion is ban able. That's an opinion.(olive (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

That's correct and L2 isn't being banned for having an abnormal ratio. It's an example of the problem though, which is that L2 can't seem to let an issue die when he feels other editors are wrong, and when you keep going without having convinced enough other editors of your position you enter the WP:TE realm (this is the crux of the issue right here). My personal opinion is that blocking/banning should be considered from a utilitarian point of view, or in other words, what is the net effect on the project? Has L2 contributed to the project via policy implementation in such a way that the positive effects of those policies outweigh the frustration he causes other editors? I don't believe so (though, as an aside, my first choice is restriction, not banning, but arbcom doesn't seem to agree). L2 is certainly here to improve the encyclopedia, I just think it would be better if he did so by actually editing the encyclopedia. Furthermore, he knew there was a good chance he was going to get banned and he knew it long enough ago to have adjusted his tactics. For what ever reason he didn't find it pertinant until now. Ultimately you have to know which battles you can win and which you can't, and considering all the policies in the way Ludwigs was Sisyphus from the start. Nformation 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

oh, this is just another line. consider:

• Misplaced Pages is not mandatory, so how much I edit is irrelevant
• I prefer to talk about disagreements, and 50% of the edits I make in article space are reverted - that guarantees I'm going to spend more time in talk discussing than editing
• I do a lot of work on policy
• I keep having editors drag me through extensive ANI procedures. easily 60% of my edits to the project are me trying to defending myself against some idiotic charge.

You want me to edit more, get your friends to stop trying to screw me every time I make a post. wouldn't that be nice? but whatever, believe whatever makes you sleep better at night. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Periyar (river)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Periyar (river). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mothballed

Template:Mothballed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)