Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:05, 19 January 2012

Whatever it is: NOPE, due to SOLIDARITY (07:17, 29 December 2011, minimum; indefinite, maximum)

Sock puppetry case relating to someone edit warring with you in the Battle for Australia article

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ettercamp Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo/Talknic - Prepared RFC

Hi Fifelfoo. I'm banned. It'd be a pity to waste the effort we put into the RFC. If you think it has a chance of floating, please launch it.

Thanks again. Apologies for any abrasiveness on my part during the heat of our earlier discussions

Have a Happy New Year

... talknic (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The essay

Now that that's out of the way, you should start working on yours :). ResMar 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Fifelfoo: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC help

Hey there! User:Hylian Auree sent me your way. I was scared at first with the message at the top of your page, but seeing you've contributed since you put that up, I realize you have not retired and that the link refers to something outside of hurricane-land. (I don't deal with Wiki-dramaz). Anywho, is there any chance you could help with one itty-bitty reference in an article I have on FAC? - this is one that Auraem had some troubles with (but he was very helpful and knowledgeable about the others). Cheers! And Happy New Years! (that rhymed!) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently my tools are down, and I'm only doing the wikidrama immediately related to those tools being down. I'd suggest that you take that item to WP:RS/N and carefully read WP:SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, oh, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks

I gave a possible title for the principle at the workshop page - feel free to suggest a different one. Collect (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The C word

• Is your point that no one should be upset about the use of the word "cunt"? If not, then I misunderstood you. If so, then... Doesn't matter if "cunt" is more acceptable in British usage. There are a very large number of Americans (including me), and in our usage it may be the last taboo. You can' offend a huge swath of the community and pretend it's OK (at least, not more than once). I'm not being U.S.-centric; I'm saying that the norms of any large proportion of the Misplaced Pages community should be respected within the community itself. You could try reductio ad absurdem by saying that the word "the" is taboo in Trinidad & Tobago, but that won't work because without some guidelines, the community would cease to cohere. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There are a very large number of Americans who can pull their heads in when attempting to force their morality onto others. You're suggesting that the norms of British use, or Australian use, or working class use, or Aboriginal Australian English shouldn't be respected. This is forceful moralising. This is linguistic imperialism. A large swathe of the community can't go around being offended by words used by large swathes of the community, and get off scott free because they're moralistic juveniles incapable of respecting others. That kind of action is reprehensible conduct. Mutual respect does not mean forcing your position onto others. And as the community has repeatedly stated: there are no fundamentally uncivil words. That editor who tries to tread on my use of cunt as an emphatic directed at no person, can "ram it up pim-hole, fusking cloff prunker" to paraphrase Fry and Laurie. Outside of discussing attempts to remove my capacity to write cunt on wikipedia, I doubt that I have used the word—but it is an emphatic I regularly consider when considering which emphatic to use. It is an emphatic that I use regularly, and technically, to describe a particular kind of reprehensible object, person or process. It is language I learnt as literally mother tongue. I restrict myself from using it regarding specific reprehensible persons on wikipedia, because we are bound not to make personal attacks. I am particularly circumspect about characterising other editors and their conduct, because we are bound not to make personal attacks. Yet, at the same time, if some reprehensible person removes my capacity to say "cunt," then every time I choose not to use it I will feel the lack of the word. I'm not willing to edit an encyclopaedia where I cannot choose not to say cunt; but, am bound not to even consider the language my mother taught me. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • . The are two issues: reprehensible people making personal attacks, and the word "cunt". As for the first, if reprehensible people are attacking Malleus, then eventually the wheels of justice will turn on those people. relatively prolonged injustice is an unstable equilibrium on Misplaced Pages, because our words can never vanish, since they are forever in the history of some page or other. Nothing is truly forgotten (though things may sometimes be a bit difficult to locate). As for the "c" word: communities have norms. All communities have norms. Norms are in fact a huge part of what distinguishes one community from another. What happens, then, when two communities come into prolonged contact in the context of participating within some mixed community? The norms have to be balanced out, and the usual method is: the norms of the larger groups hold sway. Ah, the discussion can go on forever. Are you OK with honor killing? Would you accept it if your neighbor, a hypothetical transplant from another community, killed his daughter because she dishonored him? What about killing and eating dogs? It's very OK in some Asian countries. If your neighbor slit her dog's throat in front of your eyes and threw chunks of it in the stew pot, would you call the police? Should we let your two neighbors go scot-free because of cultural differences? Those cases are pyrotechnic, but they illustrate a principle: someone's norms always obtain. Those cases are also not strictly applicable to the "C" word on Misplaced Pages, because here we have many members from many communities mixing, not just one large one and a single member from a different one. What do we do? Common sense says, if many people are offended by a word, the community has the right to ask all members to avoid saying it. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Please reread consensus in relation to your suggestion of tyranny of the majority. The last time consensus was tested (in December 2011), consensus carried against language gags. I have no interest in your hyperbole, or in you soapboxing (or pulpitting) on my talk page any further on this matter. In relation to justice, this encyclopaedia doesn't have a justice system, it has a board of arbitration. In relation to your questions: no, no, yes, depends on the method of butchering, I don't feel any common cause with you in relation to murder or health safety and animal welfare in butchering, and the community has repeatedly and perennially spoken against banning the use of the word cunt. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Fifefoo, it seems I have hit a nerve. I am not soapboxing, or pulpitting. I am having a calm discussion. The majority is not tyrannical; it only asks for a modicum of agreeable behavior (as for example in WP:NPA, which you support – is that tyrannical, too?). But you are unable to discuss this calmly, I am very sorry to say, so I will leave you alone. Best wishes & Happy New Year (no sarcasm there) –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't see how hyperbole like comparisons to off encyclopaedia comparative law is relevant to a calm discussion. If you'd like to have a calm discussion that's great. I do not believe that wikipedia ought to, and consensus has demonstrated that we must not, ban for use of particular words. I will occasionally use "fuck" as an emphatic, and probably very rarely use "cunt" as a generic noun verb or emphatic. Offence cannot be the core of a policy about forcibly restricting editors. False politeness really offends me, it shits me to tears—yet I wouldn't propose that obsequious editors be restricted from what I see as offensive servility. An editor who I do not know calling me "mate" is as specifically culturally offensive to me as "cunt" is to a variety of en_US speakers—in my language that is an immediate invitation to physical violence and an aspersion of absolute reprehensibility of character—yet, I shouldn't run to an administrative action. Editors should ask other editors without a strong or disciplinary expectation, and educate them into norms. Editors should learn tolerance and forbearance when they cannot accept each other. Moreover, non-disciplinary approaches to conduct that personally offend have a higher success rate than disciplinary processes. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I am sorry if I seem bombastic. I will give a less bombastic example below... I never mentioned discipline. I too believe that editors should be educated into norms. I too believe that non-disciplinary approaches to conduct that personally offend have a higher success rate than disciplinary processes. There are more points of agreement between us than you may realize... My points are only these: 1) The community has the right to ask people not to say "cunt". When used in reference to other people it is considered aggressive, and in reference to the vagina it is considered vulgar. 2) Hair-trigger blocks are grossly inappropriate. Even "moderately swift" blocks are grossly inappropriate. Is there, however, an infinite number of times that people should be permitted to say "cunt" without being blocked?... Again going to off-wiki topics (though these at least seem to make you uncomfortable, and for that I apologize), let's choose something far less bombastic: what about taking off your shoes when you go into the house of a Chinese person? If you do it once, they will feel distinctly uncomfortable. It is considered not only impolite but also dirty and uncouth. They will very probably ask you to take off your shoes (though in some cases they may be too hesitant to do so). Perhaps they will try to educate you by saying it is Chinese custom. If they ask you on more than one occasion to take off your shoes and you ignore them, they will probably "punish" you (so to speak) by never inviting you into their house again. Perhaps this "shoe" discussion is more closely paralleled to the use of the word "cunt". –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Thank you for replying. Due to responsibilities relating to the case, there will be a delay in replying to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The case

I'm sure amid all the clamour, kangaroos and noise that is a Misplaced Pages trial by ordeal that you will miss my question here . So iI thought it might be helpful to draw your attention to it here. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Hello there. Sadly, the article on the Battle of Radzymin failed at A-class assessment due to procedural reasons. All the issues were fixed but only two people actually voted for it. Since you helped to improve the article in the past, could I interest you in the new assessment? Thanks for any help. //Halibutt 12:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Fifelfoo: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo

Hi, Fifelfoo. I hope you're doing fine. The Duke of Caxias was promoted and it's n--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)ow a FA. This happened in part for your excelent review and suggestions you made to improve it. Thanks a lot. You're a great guy. --Lecen (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you find yourself drawn to writing excellent articles about Brazilian history in future. You should be proud of the high quality work you've done on articles you've edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism

As I read about Roderick Long in his wikipedia article he seems to have academic qualifications for sure, yet his associations are with US neoliberal spaces and names such as thinks tanks and editorials with names like Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of economics. I think he provides answers only in order to understand the US neoliberal vision on libertarianism. I am going to research notable and reliable anarchist opinions and definitions on this issue and so perhaps we could get a more balanced view of things.--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I do have a great deal of trust in your capacity to do this, but you may wish to recognise that Long's definition is open. More, that it is an open definition from a pro-Value form "libertarian"—Long's non-academic interests combined with his genuine academic credentials make his "open" definition very, very useful for an article that began and continued into 2011 as solely paen to the beliefs of extra-parliamentary US right-wingers; failing utterly to address the US parliamentary right, and the extra and parliamentary non-US lefts of libertarianism. Long's definition lets us cover everything the article ought to cover, and provides this immediate coverage with a gravitas rooted in academia, but combined with a known political position that holds against voluntary post-market economics (even while he considers such politics to be part of "libertarianism".) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Above and beyond the call of duty

You're doing an amazing amount of work in trawling through the ANI archives, which I hope will inform ArbCom's decision. I'm just amazed that Risker had to ask for evidence, when it's all around us every single day. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone observes that work. AN/I is the worst archive representing disciplinary (ie: permanently recordable) actions I have ever come across. Worse than half organised local branch minutes. I actually think that it is considerably lax of the authority responsible for administrator oversight that I'm cleaning up this mess—and I don't have or want the "mop"-bit attached to my user account. The lack of any core system of maintained responsibility, either Napoleonic Code style, or common law precedent style, means that we have a fucking mess of social policy. This fucking mess encourages the lowest level discipline inflicters to engage in a fucking mess of poor resolution of perceived civility problems. The hit rate of failed civility blocks, or unattended civility issue discussions, from AN/I (for only 2 months / 10+ pages) is frankly obscene. The failures at the more sedate AN are even more disturbing, including an Arbitration/Enforcement redirected to AN in which no outside party seemed to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But of course the truth that very few dare speak is that civility is used as club to beat your opponent to death, or at least get him or her blocked, and ideally banned. That's been the case for as long as I've been here, so once again I'm surprised that Risker apparently hasn't noticed. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Push them CIVILly with IDHT, poor quality scholarship, SOAPboxing, and arguments from first principles until you get them to say "cunt." Most everyone is aware of this as the way to assassinate other editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was headed this way to say thank you also, Fifelfoo. I understand why they need the evidence - although we all know this is a problem, it's never been documented before. You're doing excellent work :) Karanacs (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I'm here too - I'd like to echo Malleus and Karanacas. Great job Fifelfoo. Worm · (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Is this going to be in motion anytime soon? Have I asked this question before? I don't remember =) ResMar 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly this lies outside the case immediately associated with my refusal to productively work. We'll have to see if Malleus returns to normal editing before I work on that. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, politics. Thank the lord I've avoided them (mostly). ResMar 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lucky you :). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

What you wrote in SOPA/future legislative input is exactly what is needed. You have the smarts, the comprehension to make changes happen. Someone like me wouldn't even know where to begin...it needs you! Petersontinam (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Salvio 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: your email

I note your small hatnote, but I'd rather reply on-wiki; if you reply here, please leave me a talkback. As for the action itself: an accepted use of RevDel is testing in userspace-related pages, especially if the action taken in the test is immediately undone. Moreover, the blackout was not accompanied by any statement prohibiting admins from acting in ways that would be acceptable at other times: the blackout simply removed our ability to do most things. If you've looked at my log, you've noticed that I followed the test by using RevDel to get rid of almost 800 copyvio-ridden revisions of Logan Hayes, taking about 20 minutes to do it. I would have simply deleted the page and restored the safe revisions (it would have been far faster, since normal deletion has an "invert" button while RevDel doesn't, and I had to click the delete button for almost every revision in the page's history), but the software prevents users from deleting pages that they cannot edit. As for the comment, I stand by it: I strongly disagree with the action that was taken. Non-disruptive protests and non-disruptive disagreements with community decisions are permitted; otherwise we'd get rid of {{User anti-anon}}. If I hadn't been seeking a way to take some sort of productive action during the blackout, I wouldn't have taken any actions (logged or unlogged) at the time. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)