Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 11 April 2012

Archives

2007 April May June July August September October November December 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 January February March April

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Just for you

	I bought them all for you!
	… and I have a wonderful recipe for mushroom omelette ;P Pesky (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you were right. This is what happens when someone puts a "Feel free to poke the tigers! Then we can sell tickets to watch them being shot!" banner up at the zoo. Deliberate baiting should get a default week-long block for starters; that might make people less inclined to do it. When will anyone ever see the benefit of emergency blocks for baiting? Pesky (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they ever will, because baiters can always hide behind the "assume good faith" clause. When called out, they can simply hide behind that and claim to be victims of a bully or something similar. Granted there are bullies out there, but the existence of passive-aggressive "professional baiters" is something that people don't seem to want to acknowledge.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't baiting, I'm not a bully and I'm not passive aggressive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason for you to be on the page of an editor who is taking a break after you tried to have him topic banned and then baited him into an exchange that got him blocked? I think not—please disengage and stop posting here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony's not the villian here, and I don't think Malleus has any problem with him --Epipelagic (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I wasn't talking about AC specifically. I was replying to Pesky's comment about emergency blocks for baiting. Baiting is an issue, even if it may not apply to this specific case.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, apologies if I mischaracterised you. I'm just shocked that the response was considered blockworthy, seeing what whistles right on by without causing the slightest flutter in the dovecote, in WikiLand. Pesky (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I think I also mentioned the b-word ("baiting") somewhere, and I probably said something about one party being blocked but not the other. I fell for the oldest partisan falsehood, that if one is unjustly punished then the other one must have been wrong. This was not correct; my apologies for jumping to conclusions like too many editors and admins did in this case. No one should have been blocked, that's clear. Your comments since then in various places are greatly appreciated, and I'm saddened that a discussion, even in strong language, was made to lead to these consequences. MF was right about all those comments he made about the impossibilities of enforcing our NPA policies/guidelines/oukazes. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the internalised concept behind the wording which needs to be clarified. If only we could put the concept into clear, unambiguous, "see the light" stuff, and create a Road to Damascus sea-change in the way it's understood; if only we could wave a magic wand so that everyone could suddenly see "Oh, that's how it's supposed to work!", then it would work. But we have a problem ... the tip of the iceberg of it is on my talk page – words chain us. The concept is so simple, but so huge. It's like the sky. Pesky (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

This fits in really oddly here at this point, but thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

...continued

I've been watching every single diff on User_talk:Courcelles since Sunday night. I would've given the same suggestion to redact the comment no matter who it had come from. That the first comment came from a sysop was just what it was. I've blocked editors in the past for civility, and I doubtless will do it in the future. However, while watching that page, I decided I would take the nicest of approaches when dealing with civility issues no matter whom it was from because I am trying to diffuse the drama that surrounds a recall. I felt that if I could keep the peace by keeping a light tone without raising to blocks, that the entire event might just blow past without too many hurts, grudges, and resentments. That's why I gave him time to redact it himself. I considered redacting it myself but felt that if it led to an edit war it would cause more drama.--v/r - TP 01:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And I think that's all I'll say on the subject too. I've got some P90X to do and I'll be too tired to discuss this afterwards.--v/r - TP 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in excuses, as they solve nothing. The fact is that because this personal attack came from an administrator it was allowed to stand. End of story. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You should ignore personal attacks, no matter who they come from. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? Were they ignored in this case? What it seems to me is that "personal attacks" are in the eye of the beholder, and those who either are or have the favour of the administrators get away with murder. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I get blocked on a regular basis for saying things no worse than any administrator says here on a daily basis, so I think you should rein in your neck Baseball Bugs. 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe you should stop saying those things, and you won't get blocked. :) Why should you care what some bigmouthed admin or anyone else says about you? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should you or anyone else care what I say about those big-mouthed admins? Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer to that type of question is, "How badly do you want to edit?" What's your priority? Is it more important to you to fight other editors, or is it more important to you to be able to improve wikipedia's contents? You can't control what anyone else says or does. But you can control what you say and do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple. I no longer want to edit Misplaced Pages at all. It's a disrespectful place that reminds me of nothing more than the American Marine Corps attitude to training; break the recruits' spirit and then rebuild them in the mould of the corps. That may suit some editors, but it's not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At some point, they will probably take your talk page privileges away here. Maybe you should join Weekly Reader, where they can't touch you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly, that's the usual approach to dealing with any dissent here. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object. I'm an admin, and my dentist always complains that my mouth is very small. I'm furious. Where do I get one of these big mouths from? I've been left out and I'm deeply unhappy. I'm sure it'd hurt my jaws less next time if I had a bigger mouth, next time I need some work done on my pearlies. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, not all admins are big mouthed. Just some of them. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a shame if Misplaced Pages's discourse descended into that of an average online forum, since name-calling rarely advances a debate constructively. I think Misplaced Pages's pillars and behavioral policies were crafted with avoiding that in mind, keeping the place more adult and maybe even professional, even if there's currently a significant segment of editors who don't see the need. Equazcion 12:27, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite true, as even a moment's thought ought to tell you. What there is, is a significant number of administrators who believe that the rules don't apply to them, only to those they sanction for breaking the rules they don't comply with themselves. The issue and problem has always been about that inequitable enforcement, no matter how many times you and others try to pretend otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You continue to invoke the "look what they did" and "look what they made me do" arguments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I continue to do no such thing. What I continue to do is to insist that the same rules are applied equitably to everyone; that that seems to be such a foreign concept to so many here tells its own story. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there are administrators who break the rules and get away with it. My own block log consists mainly of overturned blocks due to that. I just don't think that's the problem. Part of maintaining an adult atmosphere is not taking others' childish actions as an excuse to respond in kind. It doesn't matter if others "started it". I think people see you doing that deliberately and proudly, and have more of a problem with it than with the odd civility slips that precipitate it. Equazcion 12:47, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)

People see whatever it is that they're looking for, not what's really there; always have and always will. There is absolutely no reason why I should be expected to put up with continual streams of abuse day after day, but get blocked if one day I should snap back at one of my tormentors. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"People see whatever it is that they're looking for, not what's really there" -- Yes, I'm noticing that. Equazcion 13:26, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I think we've said all that there is to say here now. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey

We hadn't finished discussing that. What I'm driving at there is, it is conceivable that some people are terribly distressed by the existence of a public web page aggregating the story of their life, as told by others.

Whether the subject of the article in question is one of those, I don't know. I do know that only one person on this planet knows how much distress this article is causing him. And it's not you.

Given that, my instinct on that question is that he's more outraged at its existence than hurt. But I can't be sure the outrage isn't masking hurt.

This raises two questions, to what extent should we take into account distress, and how should we respond to a demand for removal. What is our appropriate social-affective response in such cases? What is the socially responsible response? Do we have a social responsibility? I have my own views on these questions. Tarc recently made a proposal on Jimbo's talk page, with regard to this. I'll look for the links when I have a bit more energy.

I'd like to continue this discussion, if you would. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

? Ning-ning (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose are blindingly obvious: if there are plausible grounds for believing that the contents of an article are causing stress then we should examine whether the material has been presented fairly, neutrally, and with appropriate balance. If it has, then the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. In this specific case the subject has basically objected to the existence of an article that he implausibly claims is causing him stress for some reason he is unwilling or unable to explain, but is self-evident -- the contents are not under his sole control. The "socially responsible response" is to ask him either to say what it is in the article that's causing him stress, and when he once again proves incapable of doing that then to explain to him that the subjects of articles don't get to decide whether or not the article should exist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be policy you're reciting at me but it isn't written in stone. Why should that man have to disclose to you what it is about that article that distresses him? Huh? You see, this is my problem. To quote the subject, it's none of your damn business. And it's none of your damn business judging how much pain the article is causing the man, or whether the content justifies the degree of hurt it's causing him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not be policy, not the point. Hawkins has no obligation to tell me anything, just as I have no obligation to take his implausible claims seriously. Which I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which implausible claims, in general terms, not diffs? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely we've been down this path before? Is there any new ground to be covered here? Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you. If I knew which implausible claims you were referring to, I wouldn't ask. Are you referring to claims that the article causes him distress? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what it is you expect to achieve by prolonging this discussion Anthony. You already succeeded in getting me blocked, so I can only presume that you're trying to repeat the trick. I made my position abundantly clear during the recent AfD, so I'm certain you know perfectly well what I think about this subject and his article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I wasn't sure what you were referring to. And you're mistaken about my motive. I don't want you blocked. I want to challenge your assertion that the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. They're relevant to me. They're relevant to the subject. I bet they're relevant to a lot of people here.

The other question I'd like to discuss is the appropriateness of you editing the article of a subject whom you've described in insulting and gratuitously demeaning terms. My problem with that is that it makes you not a fit and proper person to edit that page. I'm struggling with the obvious self-evidency of that. I see that as an obviously humiliating position to put our subject in. I guess it's the certain social hurt the man will experience, knowing someone who called him what you called him will be writing the article the world goes to to learn about him, that rules you out. So it comes back to the first question, above: to what extent do we take account of distress?

And you won't be blocked for anything you say about me here, at least not by anyone with a brain. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, excuse me for butting in, I hope you don't mind being TP stalked. But I wanted to say to Anthony - please drop this! FWIW I actually agree with you that it might be better if editors like Malleus with strong views about JH did not edit that article. However this was very thoroughly put to the test in the AN thread I started and was decisively rejected by the community. I'd say that there was a consensus that Malleus' edits were reasonable and there was certainly a majority against any topic ban. I've learned my lesson from the community's decision which was vey clear, even if it was not the decision I would have made. As far as the WP community is concerned, Malleus is both fit and proper. A formal process has been invoked to ban him from the page, and that process failed. We have to respect that; doing otherwise and raising this here again is the equivalent of making a page move request a week after a decisive NO at WP:RM. I do agree with Malleus that JH has been needlessly vague about his reasons for not wanting an article. Indeed, he doesn't have to articulate his reasons but then by the same token we don't have to take any action until he does (and possibly not even then.) For the sake of a quiet life, could you drop this and can we leave Malleus' talk page in peace? No good will come of further poking. Kim Dent-Brown 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? Poking? Baiting? What is this crap? I'm trying to have a serious conversation with Malleus that was rudely interrupted by a trigger-happy admin blocking Malleus mid-sentence. Malleus is perfectly capable of answering for himself here. I don't know who you're patronising more here with that. I'm getting the message that Malleus has no response to the obvious humiliation him editing that man's biography represents. Is humiliation or hurt a likely response to that, Malleus? If you do concede that, what makes it right for you to insult and humiliate him and edit his page? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question. It's a moral question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to take my own advice that this is neither a fruitful argument nor the right place to have it. In other words I will indeed leave it to Malleus himself to respond (or not) and not prolong this further myself. Kim Dent-Brown 15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't have strong views about Hawkins at all, but I do have strong views on the kind of back-door censorship this issue has exposed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, but the reason I have nothing further to say to you is that you seem to be unable to understand what you have already been told many times, so there's clearly no point in repeating it for you not to understand again. I note with contempt your suggestion that I am not a "fit and proper person" to edit Hawkins' page, which I had no intention of doing again anyway, topic ban or no. I would simply point out to you that a corollary of your argument is that only members of the BNP are "fit and proper" to edit the article on Nick Griffin for instance; anyone who's expressed disapproval of Griffin's political stance (including incidentally the main editor of that article) ought to be topic banned from it. That just so far off-base I wouldn't even know where to begin with it. I really don't care what Hawkins says about being stressed any more than he cares about me being stressed by this stupidity. Now, please, there's nothing more to be said, and certainly nothing that you or anyone else could possibly say that would change my mind on this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see that what you said about him disqualifies you from doing so, morally, but I'm relieved you won't be editing that article. And I'll just reiterate, you have no idea, none, how much distress that article is causing him. It's not relevant to your "argument" (the bald assertion that the wishes of the subject are irrelevant) so I didn't follow up earlier. But before I go, I just want to make sure you hear me. You people make me sick. You people who deign to intuit how much a person is hurting. Fuck you. Really, fuck you, all of you. How dare you? How fucking dare you? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

His details are a matter of public record. They do not belong to him and he has no right to restrict their publication. If he doesn't like that then maybe he should move to North Korea. Parrot of Doom 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)