User talk:Fluffernutter: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:31, 21 July 2014 editIhardlythinkso (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,166 editsm →Barging in: fixes← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:08, 22 July 2014 edit undoMaxBrowne (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,944 edits →Barging in: enoughNext edit →
Line 149:		Line 149:

	:::This might be a helpful analogy to understand what I meant by arbirary superficial construct re "it's different" in comments made in article Talk content discussions, vs. comments about an edit: the CIV policy. (Specifically, name-call PAs. What are they? Policy is doing a very bad job in making that definitive, because nearly every admin has their own interpretation about it. If someone tells me "You have seemingly permanent asshole-ish behavior", I might reasonably think: "He just called me an asshole." But no! Some admin like Panda will put on their grammatical magnifier glassware and say: "No, not a personal attack, see, because "asshole-ish" is an adjective modifying "behavior", so the comment is about your behavior, and that's okay; but if he said "You're an asshole" well then that's different -- asshole is a noun then see, and that's PA by policy." Right. Makes me feel all so better now. "You have extreme die-hard to-the-grave asshole-ish behavior" is not a PA, because, let me see ... oh yeah, it's an adjective not a noun, and describing my behavior is permitted, just not describing ''me''. Got it. Panda does like that, I call it "Panda-sophistry". Sounds so neat and technical, get out that grammatical detector magnifying glass, and everything will be squared away neatly. That's policy! But in the real world, it's unhelpful, unworkable, unreal sophistry. Works only in theory. Admins measure it differently. Everyone thinks they know. The policy is ill-defined and doesn't work. But there's no consistency, even though everyone pretends the issue has been laid to rest. It hasn't. <p>I don't see much difference between that (PA ambiguity) and WP:IBAN (ambiguity). But I know less about IBAN. (How many successful IBANs have their been? What happened to them? Were there any disputes, clarifications, confusions? Is the policy consistent w/ practice? Is the policy clear? Why do admins do it differently. Why is the grammarian sophist interpretation still out there, when it is so obviously inadequate to the reality. (Because it's easy to enforce and formulamatic? Even though it is pretend-time and "playing house"-interpretation?) But Panda feels he is so adamantly right. But his solutions are like a witch-doctor's medical bag. (Gotta believe!) I think the policies on WP go on and on without consensus or definition. But we are all supposed to "play house" like they make sense and hold water. But there's a hole in the bucket. (And if I say that, I'm IDHT. Right.) ] (]) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)		:::This might be a helpful analogy to understand what I meant by arbirary superficial construct re "it's different" in comments made in article Talk content discussions, vs. comments about an edit: the CIV policy. (Specifically, name-call PAs. What are they? Policy is doing a very bad job in making that definitive, because nearly every admin has their own interpretation about it. If someone tells me "You have seemingly permanent asshole-ish behavior", I might reasonably think: "He just called me an asshole." But no! Some admin like Panda will put on their grammatical magnifier glassware and say: "No, not a personal attack, see, because "asshole-ish" is an adjective modifying "behavior", so the comment is about your behavior, and that's okay; but if he said "You're an asshole" well then that's different -- asshole is a noun then see, and that's PA by policy." Right. Makes me feel all so better now. "You have extreme die-hard to-the-grave asshole-ish behavior" is not a PA, because, let me see ... oh yeah, it's an adjective not a noun, and describing my behavior is permitted, just not describing ''me''. Got it. Panda does like that, I call it "Panda-sophistry". Sounds so neat and technical, get out that grammatical detector magnifying glass, and everything will be squared away neatly. That's policy! But in the real world, it's unhelpful, unworkable, unreal sophistry. Works only in theory. Admins measure it differently. Everyone thinks they know. The policy is ill-defined and doesn't work. But there's no consistency, even though everyone pretends the issue has been laid to rest. It hasn't. <p>I don't see much difference between that (PA ambiguity) and WP:IBAN (ambiguity). But I know less about IBAN. (How many successful IBANs have their been? What happened to them? Were there any disputes, clarifications, confusions? Is the policy consistent w/ practice? Is the policy clear? Why do admins do it differently. Why is the grammarian sophist interpretation still out there, when it is so obviously inadequate to the reality. (Because it's easy to enforce and formulamatic? Even though it is pretend-time and "playing house"-interpretation?) But Panda feels he is so adamantly right. But his solutions are like a witch-doctor's medical bag. (Gotta believe!) I think the policies on WP go on and on without consensus or definition. But we are all supposed to "play house" like they make sense and hold water. But there's a hole in the bucket. (And if I say that, I'm IDHT. Right.) ] (]) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

			* Of late almost every post by an editor who has been banned from interacting with me has made mention of me in one form or other. If I am referred to one more time, or if any of my edits are referred to one more time, by the editor who has been banned from interacting with me, I '''will''' open an ANI thread. Enough is enough. ] (]) 01:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 01:08, 22 July 2014

Template:Experimental archiving

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41	Archive 42
Archive 43	Archive 44	Archive 45
Archive 46	Archive 47	Archive 48
Archive 49	Archive 50	Archive 51
Archive 52	Archive 53	Archive 54
Archive 55	Archive 56	Archive 57
Archive 58	Archive 59	Archive 60
Archive 61

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'm tired. I'm tired of feeling like the community runs on high-octane rage and like every policy or content discussion is all that stands between us and the end of the world. I'm sick of seeing people talk to each other as if they're not speaking to another human being, because typing words on a page makes it so much easier to say things you wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm exhausted from trying, in a tiny way in a few tiny corners, to make things suck here a smidgen less, and mostly feeling like I've failed, when I can muster the energy to try at all.

This isn't a retirement message. I'm still here, and I'm still editing in my usual sporadic fashion. But I'm tired of the bad, and I want to hear the good. I would so, so appreciate it if anyone who stumbles across this message could leave me a note telling me what you love about Misplaced Pages. What you do or the community does that doesn't feel draining. What's gone right lately, for you and your work here, or for the project(s) themselves. Tell me something good that came out of your time here. Remind me why we put our energy into this thing in the first place. Show me somewhere on-wiki where people completely failed to be terrible to each other even though the chance was there. Show me editors being valued without being showered in the shiny baubles that make this feel a game of trinket collection instead of a collaboration.

Remind me of the good, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's offered me their happy thoughts so far. Collapsing to keep the page from getting out of hand. Please feel free to continue to offer me your thoughts if you want! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I still edit enwiki at all is because of my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project, and the work that we are able to do. --Rs chen 7754 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) It's the knowledge equivalent of crack. Go deeper my friend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Two responses. One not asked for: I readily appreciate your efforts on the "smidgen less" and do not think you have failed, at all, it is in fact a smidgen why I am still here. 2) Off-wiki, read something, explore it, and write content about it on wiki -- it is a gift to yourself and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC) In times of trouble, Magic Word NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS comes to me. Speaking words of wisdom: 119,004 -- that's how many folks who made an edit in the last 30 -- and only a tiny portion end up on the dramaboards. By signing up for admin and oversight you've skewed your sample to see Worst-a-pedia, not Misplaced Pages. Many folks volunteer for free to contribute to the best general body of knowledge ever assembled in the history of human civilization. That's pretty awesome, that's what keeps me going. That and I'll go off-wiki for months if I need to. NE Ent 01:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I edit because Misplaced Pages is the main source of information for so many people, and I love that I'm improving it. I firmly believe that Misplaced Pages is the best thing on the internet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I just ran an edit-a-thon at a local library here in Chicago and not only was it productive, but it was great to be able to meet and interact both with editors that I'm familiar with and ones who I've never seen before. When I think of retaining editors, and generally having a good time volunteering with Misplaced Pages, I think events like these are a good approach and will go a long way to keeping attitudes about Misplaced Pages overall positive in spite of frustrations. I, JethroBT 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Kittens have the hereditary right and trait of being good and here in Misplaced Pages kittens are found aplenty, so they are one of the goods . You'll get one of those in a minute, you're lucky I never got one of those. Admins like you are good who left me a polite note when I needed one, I mean when I was new. What would new kids on-the-block do without good actions like those? I hope after brainstorming for an hour I have been able to come up with something to make you feel good and or remind that there is still something left in Misplaced Pages to rejoice over. Oh oh wait there are more! I am here, nah thats self-flattery . Who I am trying to kid? For me in the last couple of months, I have been accused of gaming the system by none-other than my mentor, I have been subject to retaliation, I have not been able to write single GA untill now, I edit bollywood articles which though get million views a year will turn wikipedia slowly but surely into a bollywood-info-paedia 10-15 years later. Look at me Fluffernut, not for inspiration but for the fact even after being buried under several layers of glum each and every day I rise, draw a smile on my face and keep on editing with a hope even though there is none. Where does that hope comes from? My imagination. I suggest you use yours too you'll feel a lot better. Sohambanerjee1998 10:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Fluff, I couldn't agree more. I've written about 60 fair sized articles and get criticised for not doing more, but I've run out of ideas and at the end of the day, I believe we should be left to write about the things we know about and are interested in. Being expected to write articles for the sake of wrting artcles defeats the purpose of voluntary collaboration. Nowadays, apart from watching over WP:WPSCH and cleaning up and expanding school articles for lazy creators, all I do is meta and admin stuff. Even there, I'm sick and tired of the constant bickering about admins and the tarring of them all with the same brush. While admins are expected to lead by example, some people hold them to ridiculously high standards and no matter what an active, front-line admin says or does, they are going to take flak for it. I've been on the verge twice this year of seriously considering handing my tools in, but the day I do that will be the day I abandon Misplaced Pages for good - and I will miss going to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Hey Fluff. Don't hang out at your talk page often, so sorry about the tardiness of this note. The thing I've always found about Misplaced Pages is that it does split pretty nicely in two - the useful and the not useful. The "not useful", everything to do with the administration of the site, needs constant managing to ensure that the useful is done. That might mean things like arbitration cases over petty arguments, or admins stepping in to stop people acting horribly to each other. It takes a toll on those who do it, especially when you can see how life could just much simpler and no one will listen. The positive is out there though. Get out of the administration of the site and suddenly there's a world of Misplaced Pages, you can see the gratitude and the difference actually being made. I'm talking about places like the Teahouse, or the article review processes, or even the reference desks. People in Wikiprojects can be so grateful if you actually write articles. Socially, go to a meet up or two! The real people behind Misplaced Pages are the ones that make it for me, I've met dozens over the years and it's a whole lot harder to be angry when you meet them. I'll give you an example, I met User:Rich Farmbrough towards the beginning of the year, he appeared at a meet up, just after my first arbitration action - I expected retribution, an earbashing of immense proportions. Instead, I found a personable chap who was friendly and didn't appear to hold ill-will towards me. I've met a number of other banned users and found the same. I've met people who were trying to spam wikipedia, yet they were just people. Get yourself to meetups, you'll soon find what people love about Misplaced Pages. And if you ever fancy a chat, you know where to find me. Worm(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Well, since you asked, I'm just a lurker 99.99% of the time, but wikipedia is in my top 5 websites that I visit on a regular basis. I barely participate in the community, and usually feel like I'm not good enough or smart enough to contribute more than the occasional revert vandalism. Sometimes I'm just here for the "drama", but more than that, I'm here to learn. I learn about the subjects of the articles, but I also learn a lot about HOW the articles come to be...the wiki policies challenge me to be aware of my own assumptions and biases, and when things are working well, the discussions demonstrate just why we've been so successful as a social species: we can, with work, overcome our differences for a great good. I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into this project and I wish it weren't such a frustrating endeavour, but then...if it weren't difficult, anyone could do it, right?Quietmarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I write articles, in one fairly narrow topic area, at a snail-like pace. I'm fortunate to have such a quiet WikiProject to work in, but I'm well aware of the bitterness that's out there. I've had one nasty spat, and I read far more of the goings-on in the "central" areas of WP than I ever comment about (that's how I wander onto pages like this, where I've never been). Writing about my chosen subject is my purpose. It's not easy; I have to absorb huge quantities of information from the sources, mull them over and let them all percolate through my mind, then try to integrate them with the next wave of sources. Yesterday I discovered that the sources that discuss my current project are so numerous that there are volumes of bibliographies just dedicated to cataloguing and analyzing them all. I yelled about how overwhelmed I felt. But then I looked back at the sources I had, and pieces started to fall into place and I started writing based on them. When that happens—when I can look at a subject and see how the disparate pieces of a subject fit together and how to make the article reflect the insight—that, for me, is what Misplaced Pages is for. And it is still possible for us knowledge gluttons to cooperate. My current project ranges out of the usual topic area (ancient Egyptian religion) and into another, so I've recently talked to a couple of editors from the neighboring field (religion in ancient Rome). My one long conversation with them was amiable and kind of amusing. The Greece and Rome project in general seems to have that sense of camaraderie, if this is any indication. I'm sure they're not alone. There are still friendly people on Misplaced Pages, and if you can avoid the shouting, the joy of knowledge is still out there, too. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I've only just spotted this, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm pretty much inactive these days, largely because I've been ground down in many of the ways you suggest -- and being an admin tends to get you the worst from the worst. Sadly, there's a surprisingly large number of people on the internet who are happy to treat you as if you're the bad one in Pol Pot's family - when they're hiding behind their keyboards. And in some ways it's understandable. As a species we've evolved to understand and respond to body language and all sorts of visual clues in our interactions with each other, and when stripped of those we often tend to be more aggressive in our interactions. (Think about it yourself, and see if you can honestly say you've never treated anyone in this online medium more harshly than you would face-to-face - I certainly fail that test.) So what are the good things that make it worthwhile? Well, I've been mostly logged out of late, and I come across Misplaced Pages when I'm Googling to find out things - and it's surprised me to be reminded just how much I (and millions of others) use Misplaced Pages every day of the week. And you know what? It's bloody good! And we did that! You, me, and the countless others who've actually worked at it. And every time I find something I was looking for, learn something new, get information I need for my day job, or just enjoy a pleasurable bit of reading - I silently thank you for it (well, all the individual yous who've donated their own valuable time with no thought of personal gain, but you're one of them). So ignore those whose lives are so empty they have nothing more productive to do than denigrate the efforts and achievements of others. (Did you see what I did there? I was far more insulting to anonymous people than I would be face to face!) And instead think of the millions who benefit from this project every minute of every day - you're doing it for them, not for the very small minority of whingers and whiners. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's offered me their happy thoughts so far. Collapsing to keep the page from getting out of hand. Please feel free to continue to offer me your thoughts if you want! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I still edit enwiki at all is because of my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project, and the work that we are able to do. --Rs chen 7754 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the knowledge equivalent of crack. Go deeper my friend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Two responses. One not asked for: I readily appreciate your efforts on the "smidgen less" and do not think you have failed, at all, it is in fact a smidgen why I am still here. 2) Off-wiki, read something, explore it, and write content about it on wiki -- it is a gift to yourself and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In times of trouble, Magic Word NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS comes to me.

Speaking words of wisdom: 119,004

-- that's how many folks who made an edit in the last 30 -- and only a tiny portion end up on the dramaboards. By signing up for admin and oversight you've skewed your sample to see Worst-a-pedia, not Misplaced Pages. Many folks volunteer for free to contribute to the best general body of knowledge ever assembled in the history of human civilization. That's pretty awesome, that's what keeps me going. That and I'll go off-wiki for months if I need to. NE Ent 01:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I edit because Misplaced Pages is the main source of information for so many people, and I love that I'm improving it. I firmly believe that Misplaced Pages is the best thing on the internet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just ran an edit-a-thon at a local library here in Chicago and not only was it productive, but it was great to be able to meet and interact both with editors that I'm familiar with and ones who I've never seen before. When I think of retaining editors, and generally having a good time volunteering with Misplaced Pages, I think events like these are a good approach and will go a long way to keeping attitudes about Misplaced Pages overall positive in spite of frustrations. I, JethroBT 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kittens have the hereditary right and trait of being good and here in Misplaced Pages kittens are found aplenty, so they are one of the goods . You'll get one of those in a minute, you're lucky I never got one of those. Admins like you are good

who left me a polite note when I needed one, I mean when I was new. What would new kids on-the-block do without good actions like those? I hope after brainstorming for an hour I have been able to come up with something to make you feel good and or remind that there is still something left in Misplaced Pages to rejoice over. Oh oh wait there are more! I am here, nah thats self-flattery .

Who I am trying to kid? For me in the last couple of months, I have been accused of gaming the system by none-other than my mentor, I have been subject to retaliation, I have not been able to write single GA untill now, I edit bollywood articles which though get million views a year will turn wikipedia slowly but surely into a bollywood-info-paedia 10-15 years later. Look at me Fluffernut, not for inspiration but for the fact even after being buried under several layers of glum each and every day I rise, draw a smile on my face and keep on editing with a hope even though there is none. Where does that hope comes from? My imagination. I suggest you use yours too you'll feel a lot better. Sohambanerjee1998 10:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fluff, I couldn't agree more. I've written about 60 fair sized articles and get criticised for not doing more, but I've run out of ideas and at the end of the day, I believe we should be left to write about the things we know about and are interested in. Being expected to write articles for the sake of wrting artcles defeats the purpose of voluntary collaboration. Nowadays, apart from watching over WP:WPSCH and cleaning up and expanding school articles for lazy creators, all I do is meta and admin stuff. Even there, I'm sick and tired of the constant bickering about admins and the tarring of them all with the same brush. While admins are expected to lead by example, some people hold them to ridiculously high standards and no matter what an active, front-line admin says or does, they are going to take flak for it. I've been on the verge twice this year of seriously considering handing my tools in, but the day I do that will be the day I abandon Misplaced Pages for good - and I will miss going to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Fluff. Don't hang out at your talk page often, so sorry about the tardiness of this note. The thing I've always found about Misplaced Pages is that it does split pretty nicely in two - the useful and the not useful. The "not useful", everything to do with the administration of the site, needs constant managing to ensure that the useful is done. That might mean things like arbitration cases over petty arguments, or admins stepping in to stop people acting horribly to each other. It takes a toll on those who do it, especially when you can see how life could just much simpler and no one will listen.
The positive is out there though. Get out of the administration of the site and suddenly there's a world of Misplaced Pages, you can see the gratitude and the difference actually being made. I'm talking about places like the Teahouse, or the article review processes, or even the reference desks. People in Wikiprojects can be so grateful if you actually write articles. Socially, go to a meet up or two! The real people behind Misplaced Pages are the ones that make it for me, I've met dozens over the years and it's a whole lot harder to be angry when you meet them. I'll give you an example, I met User:Rich Farmbrough towards the beginning of the year, he appeared at a meet up, just after my first arbitration action - I expected retribution, an earbashing of immense proportions. Instead, I found a personable chap who was friendly and didn't appear to hold ill-will towards me. I've met a number of other banned users and found the same. I've met people who were trying to spam wikipedia, yet they were just people. Get yourself to meetups, you'll soon find what people love about Misplaced Pages. And if you ever fancy a chat, you know where to find me. Worm(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, I'm just a lurker 99.99% of the time, but wikipedia is in my top 5 websites that I visit on a regular basis. I barely participate in the community, and usually feel like I'm not good enough or smart enough to contribute more than the occasional revert vandalism. Sometimes I'm just here for the "drama", but more than that, I'm here to learn. I learn about the subjects of the articles, but I also learn a lot about HOW the articles come to be...the wiki policies challenge me to be aware of my own assumptions and biases, and when things are working well, the discussions demonstrate just why we've been so successful as a social species: we can, with work, overcome our differences for a great good. I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into this project and I wish it weren't such a frustrating endeavour, but then...if it weren't difficult, anyone could do it, right?Quietmarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I write articles, in one fairly narrow topic area, at a snail-like pace. I'm fortunate to have such a quiet WikiProject to work in, but I'm well aware of the bitterness that's out there. I've had one nasty spat, and I read far more of the goings-on in the "central" areas of WP than I ever comment about (that's how I wander onto pages like this, where I've never been). Writing about my chosen subject is my purpose. It's not easy; I have to absorb huge quantities of information from the sources, mull them over and let them all percolate through my mind, then try to integrate them with the next wave of sources. Yesterday I discovered that the sources that discuss my current project are so numerous that there are volumes of bibliographies just dedicated to cataloguing and analyzing them all. I yelled about how overwhelmed I felt. But then I looked back at the sources I had, and pieces started to fall into place and I started writing based on them. When that happens—when I can look at a subject and see how the disparate pieces of a subject fit together and how to make the article reflect the insight—that, for me, is what Misplaced Pages is for.

And it is still possible for us knowledge gluttons to cooperate. My current project ranges out of the usual topic area (ancient Egyptian religion) and into another, so I've recently talked to a couple of editors from the neighboring field (religion in ancient Rome). My one long conversation with them was amiable and kind of amusing. The Greece and Rome project in general seems to have that sense of camaraderie, if this is any indication. I'm sure they're not alone. There are still friendly people on Misplaced Pages, and if you can avoid the shouting, the joy of knowledge is still out there, too. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've only just spotted this, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm pretty much inactive these days, largely because I've been ground down in many of the ways you suggest -- and being an admin tends to get you the worst from the worst. Sadly, there's a surprisingly large number of people on the internet who are happy to treat you as if you're the bad one in Pol Pot's family - when they're hiding behind their keyboards. And in some ways it's understandable. As a species we've evolved to understand and respond to body language and all sorts of visual clues in our interactions with each other, and when stripped of those we often tend to be more aggressive in our interactions. (Think about it yourself, and see if you can honestly say you've never treated anyone in this online medium more harshly than you would face-to-face - I certainly fail that test.)
So what are the good things that make it worthwhile? Well, I've been mostly logged out of late, and I come across Misplaced Pages when I'm Googling to find out things - and it's surprised me to be reminded just how much I (and millions of others) use Misplaced Pages every day of the week. And you know what? It's bloody good! And *we* did that! You, me, and the countless others who've actually worked at it. And every time I find something I was looking for, learn something new, get information I need for my day job, or just enjoy a pleasurable bit of reading - I silently thank you for it (well, all the individual yous who've donated their own valuable time with no thought of personal gain, but you're one of them).
So ignore those whose lives are so empty they have nothing more productive to do than denigrate the efforts and achievements of others. (Did you see what I did there? I was far more insulting to anonymous people than I would be face to face!) And instead think of the millions who benefit from this project every minute of every day - you're doing it for them, not for the very small minority of whingers and whiners. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC
You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme: Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture. 11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library. We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture.

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?

Wikicup: Wikicup's third round sees money, space, battleships and more

Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis

Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!

News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative

Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week

Tech News: 2014-29

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 10. It will be added to non-Misplaced Pages wikis on July 15, and to all Wikipedias on July 17 (calendar).
It is now possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. Please go to the username changes page on Meta if you want to rename your account on all wikis.
You can now read a summary of the Wikimedia technical report for June 2014.
You can now read the latest issue of the Wikidata newsletter and translate it into your language.

VisualEditor news

The tool to add templates and citations will now work for templates that include HTML comments or templates in their titles.
The button to make images full size should now work correctly.
References will now be shown in the default font size again.

Future software changes

CirrusSearch will be enabled as the primary search method on the Dutch (nl) and Japanese (ja) Wikipedias on July 14, and on the Polish (pl) and Russian (ru) Wikipedias on July 16.
The Special:Version page will soon show the exact version of MediaWiki and all extensions installed on your wiki (example).
It will soon no longer be possible to order printed books of wiki articles via PediaPress. You will still be able to create PDF files.
Pages that use {{DISPLAYTITLE:''title''}} more than once will soon show a warning. You can use {{DISPLAYTITLE:''title''|noerror}} to hide it.
Pages that have the list of references added automatically will soon be added to a tracking category. Administrators will be able to configure the name of the category on their wikis.
Administrators will soon be able to easily merge histories of two pages using Special:MergeHistory.
Administrators will soon see links to delete files on Special:ListFiles.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Special report: $10 million lawsuit against Misplaced Pages editors withdrawn, but plaintiff intends to refile

Traffic report: World Cup dominates for another week

Wikimedia in education: Serbia takes the stage with Filip Maljkovic

Featured content: The Island with the Golden Gun

News and notes: Bot-created Misplaced Pages articles covered in the Wall Street Journal, push Cebuano over one million articles

Q

Where or about what haven't I been clear? (I took the effort to be very clear in the AN what my concerns were. What do you have problem understanding?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I said there, I had trouble determining what actual question you were asking (was it "was this block right"? Was it "how do I discuss someone I'm under an i-ban with"? Was it "Does an i-ban cover indirect reference to the other user"?) and I had trouble determining exactly what the sequence of events was in the situation that had upset you, because there were no diffs, and trying to drill down through multiple users' contrib histories only goes so far when you're (I think?) asking us to judge whether a block/behavior was kosher or not.

I'm extremely prone to wordiness myself, as you can see by reading nearly anything I write onwiki, so I hope you'll take it as given in the spirit of "this happens to me, too" when I say that even if you intended to make your AN posts as clear as possible, you actually ended up with a very muddy set of comments that made it hard to give you any useful responses. Everyone struggling to understand what it was you were actually asking while you declined to clarify probably hastened the early closure of the thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked, I was threatened with a block. I linked to Sjakkalle's block threat. I did not ask "how do I discuss someone I'm under IBAN with", I asked how it is even possible to respond to an accusation of IBAN violation without referencing the "other user". (It's not.) Neither did I ask "does an IBAN cover indirect reference to the other user", since I already know what IBAN says regarding that. (But again, in what venues is it OK to refer to the user I'm in IBAN with. AN to complain about Sjakkalle's accuse that I violated IBAN? I would like to complain about a block I received by user The Bushranger, which was abusive, and since his rationale for the block was a remark I made to the user I'm currently in IBAN with, how can I address my complaint about the block without also making reference to that user? What venue would I open a complaint about his abusive block, too?) If I'm not mistaken, WP:IBAN does not give these answers.

Regarding the "sequence of events", there were none. Simply Sjakkalle reverting my post at my user subpage, with an edit summary claiming that I violated IBAN and his threatening me with a block. There's no justification for any of that; he is stretching and twisting both the nature of the edit he found in violation, and his interpretation of WP:IBAN, presumably out of a continued prejudice against me and continued hounding to do me harm at every possible opportunity, when I discontinued initiating any contact w/ him long ago. I made a diff at the AN containing his edit with editsum accuse & threat to block. (Was that diff broken?) The early close of the thread wasn't because anything was muddy; he user closing the thread kept harassing me at my user Talk, and I kept requesting him to buzz off. He was ringing the civility bell everytime he wrote anything, and didn't contribute anything substantive. I never "declined to clarify" anything anyone asked me, why are you saying I did? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The diff where Sjakkalle reverted my subpage post and accused me of IBAN violation and threatened to block, was apparently wiped out when I requested the subpage to be deleted so that I could define another one with a name without phrase "Gray Goo" in it. (I knew of no other way to replace the subsec name than to create a new one and have the old one deleted.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply looking for clarification on the IBAN. (I read WP:IBAN carefully and in good-faith so I could be in compliance. Next thing I've got a hostile admin reverting me, claiming I violated IBAN "flagrantly", and threatening a block. I do not believe Sjakkalle was on-base with what he did, but he disagrees, so that is the purpose of the ANs (getting clarification). (I see nothing at WP:IBAN prohibiting commenting on content; only commenting on users, or interacting with them. I did neither of those things. (Even the editor I'm in IBAN with, believes and has defended his right under IBAN to comment on content in discussion threads where his opinion was registered immediately after mine, and 180 counter to it. )

But I think Sjakalle is the only admin on WP that would do what he did. (Why? It's obvious. He and I parted not good company a long time ago at his user Talk after a failed discussion, where he continually defended the user I'm curently in IBAN with. I have left him alone totally, but he has initiated lots of derogatory comments my way in addition to !voting to sanction whenever the opportunity presented itself. So it is no surprise to me this hostile admin did what he did, including threat to block. It isn't like I've never experienced this kind of thing from a hostile admin before! But the hostility breaches into badness, when an admin acts out their prejudices and biases against editors through threat to use their tools to block. That kind of thing is what makes WP so sick, turns off editors, and causes editors to leave. So, the alternative to the clarification on IBAN I'm seeking, would be a one-way IBAN restricting Sjakkalle from further behavior of this type. It is a reasonable alternative, because it's my belief the whole disruptive mess stems from said bias and grudge. Clearly Sjakkalle has been stalking my edits looking for something like this, or someone else was and then informed him; since he was likely to do me bad since he's hostile towards me.)

Are my issues clearer now? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso:, let me see if I can answer your questions more specifically.

Q. "How it is even possible to respond to an accusation of IBAN violation without referencing the "other user"?"
- A. In the context of appealing the ban or a sanction given based on the ban, you can of course make a case for not having actually interacted with the other user. In such a case, however, you are expected to limit your references to the other user to only what's necessary to that issue. So if you were I-banned from me, while "I didn't say anything about Fluffernutter, I was commenting on an edit made by user:X and the admin just thought it was about Fluffernutter!" would be ok, "I didn't comment about Fluffernutter, I commented about how dumb her edits are!" still wouldn't be, nor would "I want to appeal my interaction ban from {{u|Fluffernutter}}. {{u|Fluffernutter}} is terrible and I don't think I should have to restrain myself from telling {{u|Fluffernutter}} so.". Again, without being able to track down diffs of exactly what was said in your situation, I can't give you any more detail about your specific case.
  - Followup. Well in this case, which was request for clarification, I assume you mean to include too. But look at all the other venues: here at your Talk (where the user I'm in IBAN with has asked for warning by admin for referring to him/her in that manner on your Talk), and at the MfD there are similar necessary & germane references. Of course I understand to avoid snarkiness, that isn't at issue. In my case at AN it was driven by a claim I'd violated IBAN, and a threat to block. (All of that was in an editsum of a revert of my post at my subpage by Sjakkalle, but that revert seems to have disappeared after my delete/recreation of the subpage with a more acceptable name for Sjakkalle, so there is no diff to find. (I did protest his conclusions at his user Talk though. And again that's another venue with unavoidability in referencing a user name that is not AN or ANI.)
Q. "In what venues is it OK to refer to the user I'm in IBAN with?"
- A. Pretty much only in an AN/ANI thread about the ban (or its appeal, or enforcing it) or in discussion with an admin who imposed or is enforcing the ban. As with above, even in venues where you can reference them, you're expected to not gratuitously refer to the other person.
  - Followup. First, no one admin enforced the ban. (It was an AN lynch including what I consider disgusting rationales by the likes of Panda, and unfriendlies.) Second, since Sjakkalle in this case accused of violating the ban, and threatened a block, are you saying I had a right to mention the specific username, when I went to his user Talk to protest? (Writing the username is obviously easier than a series of words stepping around it.) Also in my request for clarification in two ANs, are you saying also I could have used the specific username too? And again, in the above Followup, see how reference to the user also was germane to discussions elsewhere -- the MfD as well as your Talk, both stemming from the AN though. Although I have no current intention to appeal the IBAN, is that conductable at Arbcom also? (Because Fluff, AN & ANI are both equally miserable places. Arbcom is a horror too, but is better, since there are a panel of fixed people with expectations to make sense and be reasonable. No such expectations exist at the AN/ANI venues, so that explains the cesspools there. I'm nowhere alone in those negative views of course. (I think they are embarrassment to the eng.WP, which seemingly has no shame.)
Q. What venue would I open a complaint about abusive block ?"
- A. If you're still blocked at the time you want to discuss it, your talk page (or UTRS if your talk page access has been removed) is where you can discuss it. If you're no longer blocked, then the admin's talk page is your first port of call; if discussion there doesn't resolve the issue, ANI (for general "I want this action sanity-checked" issues) or Arbcom (for emergency "This needs to be stopped right now before it breaks something" issues) are the venues you want.
  - Followup. I'm not still blocked, the block was by The Bushranger and was more than 1.5 months ago. I tried to get understanding from him re his block rationale at my user Talk, he intentionally only chastised me instead. I went to his user Talk as well protesting. He treated me like dirt and deleted my post. ANI would never be an option for me since I hate that cesspool more than the devil. So that leaves Arbcom, but, since the issue is some time ago there is no "stop this right now" urgency, just the issue of that admin's abusive use of the block tool in complete disregard to his responsibilities in WP:ADMINACCT. The block was not right and the justification is not present. All I've gotten are insults not only from that admin, but his admin buddies. The whole situation isn't right; I was even harasses on my user Talk by his RfA nom. I think the egregious use of tool and behavior deserve a desysop, but, the awfulness of admin behavior generally at this place, and the expected inistence on "we can't do anything unless there is a pattern of this", I'm unsure qualifies since I have not done research into that admin's history to know. I feel he should be at least reprimanded by Arbcom, and no editor like me s/ have to suffer such atrocious behavior by any admin. (But again, there are so many bad admins. And they relish in being bad. Does this awful culture with its low expectations defeat my issue? Or could Arbcom recognize the egregious quality of duty shirk, and impose a reprimand, or? (I can back up everything contended.)
Q. An admin who is INVOLVED in the situation and biased against me threatened to sanction me, what do I do?
- A. You will need to make a case, including evidence (diffs), of how the admin is involved and/or biased with your issue. Simply stating "the person is involved because I had a fight with them before" isn't adequate; you need to demonstrate that involvement, so that uninvolved people reading your question can understand why you think that. If you don't provide that evidence, you're just asking everyone to take you at your word, and if we don't know you we have no way of knowing if that's something believable or not. This is where clarity in writing is useful. If you want to demonstrate that that Fluffernutter girl is totally involved here, then it will be easier for others to make sense of "And , Fluffernutter tells me that she hates everyone with names that start with 'I' and intends to get them all banned. And , she bans me!" than it is to make sense of "I wanted to ask about interaction bans, and also Fluffernutter is following me around, and also I don't like pie, but first I want to know how an interaction ban applies here and also maybe can I tell you about how I shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Plus Fluffernutter hates me, and anyway my interaction ban doesn't apply here and hey why is no one doing anything about how Fluffernutter took involved action against me, all the proof is right here!"
  - Followup. Proving personal bias and dislike would be near to impossible for anyone to do (I presume that's true by the nature of the beast; no admin is going to state matter of factly their prejudice & dislike.) So that is something "evidence" is just not available for. The best case I would have to show or demonstrate would be the initial expressions of dislike which occurred at some point, followed by all the meanness following, in the form of ridiculous arguments made to justify sanctions imposed at ANs and ANIs. (Many of these arguments are absurd on their face. The only case I could make would be premised on the fact that particular admin just can't be that clueless, or can't be that illogical, or can't be that ad hominem, unless on purpose, to cover a misdeed or shirking of admin responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT. not even get accepted? There is such a great problem with abusive admins on WP I cannot see that arbcom would be blind to it, and would want to make some kind of impact, but they don't do that by not accepting cases, or pulling teeth to get sysop or admonishment. What is the lay of the land there, I donah know. Another way that admin removal takes the fast path and overrides carefully presented evidenced argument, is the admin just flat out quitting or disappearing after their egos have been too insulted and they have an instinct for what's likely to come. But that's when fellow admins or arb admins are piling on them, not reg users in a case against them for pete's sake. I just wonder how much a carefully prepared case gets due attention anyway with all the politics going on. Arbcom might not accept any case by me, let alone the case facts, just because it's me calling. I guess I want to be realistic and not waste my time too. WP is voluntary participation, time is valuable, and why should I sacrifice my good-faith time if arbcom for example has no ambition to do anything much about bad admins? I'm not alone in questioning that. p.s. You're a girl!? ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, let me ask you a question, as I continue to try to understand exactly what happened in your case. You had a subpage where you were collecting and commenting on diffs for chess articles, and that's what triggered this, right? Were any of the edits you were collecting and commenting on made by the person you're I-banned from? If they were, then yes, you were pretty indisputably in violation of your interaction ban, because commenting on someone's edits is definitely indirectly referencing that person. That's how interaction bans are applied by pretty much all admins: no commenting, most especially negatively, on the editor or their edits. If that's what was going on, you need to avoid that in the future or else you probably will end up being sanctioned for violating your interaction ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, collecting the diff edits on chess articles is not what triggered. What triggered was somehow Sjakkalle becoming aware of one particular edit diff in the list by the editor I'm in IBAN with, and his swift revert, accuse, and threat upon finding. (It was apparently two weeks since my post.) Dennis Brown (gotta appreciate him for this admittedly) called the IBAN violation very minor or perhaps even borderline I cannot recall. But Sjakkalle, who has more than one grudge against me, called it a "flagrant IBAN violation" and stated I should have received a block without warning for making the post. (See the divergence!? It's because Sjakkale loves me, that's plain). There was only one edit by the user I'm I-banned from. But I have difficulty with the logic of equating comments/notes on quality of edits, to "interaction". (First, WP:IBAN does not say that. And I cannot even see how it implies that. Where did come from? How is commenting on the copyedit quality of an edit making even indirect reference to any person?! It is possible to make such comment for e.g. w/o even knowing who the copyedit author is. Not only that, but suppressing commentary on pure content steps into topic ban, not IBAN where users are kept from commenting on one another or interacting. Another thing, the user I'm I-banned from, has made more than one comments directly opposed to my comments, in more than one discussion page, and my participation in both places was alrealdy previously established. So why isn't that entering the circle of commenting on edit content, since it is commenting on content in opposition to comments made by only me in the two pertinent discussion threads. And this user felt he had absolute right to do so. (I saw Drmies warn a user in a different IBAN to separate their involvement in content discussions, was puzzled, and asked him about it. He responded defensively with tons of bad-faith snark & insult, but in the end asked the user I'm I-banned from to desist with comments in one of the the threads. The user I'm I-banned from responded with strong indigation to Drmies that Drmies was wrong, and that the user had every right to make content commentary in the same thread as me. Drmies just bowed out after that; even though of course my opinion is that the user was right according to WP:IBAN, and Drmies was out-of-bounds. But now you're telling me no. But WP:IBAN does not say what you're saying, and if that is indeed admin consensus, why doesn't sombody update the poor WP:IBAN page to reflec that, so we poor sheep are not lost and confused on the prarie. And why did Drmies put his tail between his legs and not respond back to the user I'm I-banned from to tell him he was clearly wrong? And clearly that editor is very confused about this as well, else he would not have held his ground and even pushed back Drmies? I notice admin xxChill (don't recall name) made a similar explanation as you about an comment about an edit by a user in I-ban with me is tantamount to "interaction" with the user, however that admin had templated me with a dumbed-down CIV template at my user Talk after making equivalent non-substantive ad hominmen remarks at the ANI, and they he posted five times at my user Talk even though I asked him to not post after his first post, second post, third post, and fourth post. (So, why should I have put any credibility into anything he had to say at the 2nd AN? I didn't. But again ... if that's the consensus, then it needs to be speified at WP:IBAN. And Drmies needed to so more than "ask as a personal favor" to cease & desist making commentary in content discussion adjacent to mine. The whole thing is confusing and messy, because there is no policy to refer to only word of mouth, and, some admins like Drmies seem to be vague about it. The purpose of my visit to Drmies's user Talk was specifically to get a better undestanding re the conditions of IBAN, because as mentioned I saw what I considered inconsistent behavior re WP:IBAN by him toward other users in IBAN. But again, Drmies answered none of my good-faith Qs, and merely insulted me in various numerous ways ("You're no Eric Corbett" -- how much sense does that even make? -- everyone's skills are a different skillset), and eventually telling me to "Fuck off". Real good show that, real good WP:ADMINACCT demo. (But again on the WP, no shame. None at all.) I would like to show you the diff whereby Sjakkalle obsessed was a "flagrant IBAN violation", but I do not know if I can put it anywhere on the WP without being accused of IBAN violation all over again. But my commentary regarding the quality of the edit was straight professionalism like the best of my editsums, nothing "negative" except an explantion to myself why the edit was subpar and disimproved the article. Of course that edit diff is again not apparently on WP anymore, when I requested the subpage to be deleted after defining a new one with a less offesnive name per Sjakkalle. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Barging in

I am stepping in here to clear up a misunderstanding. IHTS, you refer to your "delete/recreation of the subpage with a more acceptable name for Sjakkalle". The problem was not that the page was entitled "headlong to grey goo"; it was that you linked to one of MaxBrowne's edits. It does not matter what your intention with that was, what the list is called, what the purpose of the list is, or even if it was or was not disparaging. Even if you had picked out an edit by MaxBrowne that you really liked, and listed it on a subpage entitled "excellent contributions", it would still be a violation of the interaction ban. That you put the edit at a disparagingly titled "grey goo" subpage was an aggravating factor, but it was not that which caused the IBAN violation. I grant that there is sometimes room for interpretation and discretion of where the line is drawn on an IBAN (in particular on how far indirect commentary reaches), but there is no interpretation of the IBAN policy that allows you to comment on or refer to MaxBrowne's person, conduct, editing, or behavior. That is a direct, not indirect, comment on MaxBrowne's contribution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're changing your tune, Sjakkalle. Here's what you wrote when I protested your violation claim and threat to block:

You are prohibited on commenting on MaxBrowne, and disparaging his edit as bringing an article "headlong to grey goo" is a pretty flagrant violation of that. I firmly believe that you would have been blocked had that edit been noticed earlier, and given two prior blocks for violations of this ban, I belive it would have been for a week. To be frank, I think I was very lenient with you. Go right ahead and post on AN if you feel like it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice what you accused. That I "commented on a user", when I did not (I commented on the quality of an copyedit, i.e. on content, not a user). Second, I did not have any cognizance of "disparaging" the edit, only professionally noting that I saw the edit as subpar, specifically and why. And the theme of that subpage came from conversation obervations and one also had w/ Eric Corbett, on the future of WP articles generally, as implicative of WP's open-door policy "anyone can edit". You're accusing me of a personal disparagement against an edit, but all the edits in my list belonged to the general theme of "stepping toward gray goo", something I can no longer help prevent since I voluntarily decline to participate in the orthochess part of WP:CHESS any longer. The claim of disparagement is presumptive on your part, I didn't see it that way, how did you think you were so certain anyone else would? It was entirely impersonal. Dennis Brown called it "very minor" or somesuch. Another admin called it only "borderline". But you, but you: "flagrant violation" and "I'll block you" and "consider this a stern warning" from your editsum. You justified "flagrant" when non admin agreed with you that I'm aware, based on "Gray Goo" phrase: as bringing an article "headlong to grey goo" is a pretty flagrant violation of that. So you certainly did have a problem with that. I never said anything to suggest it was your only cause for your revert, accuse, and threat, just that it was something seemingly quite important part of your rationale. No discussion from you. Just chastizing me saying I was lucky that I was not already blocked. As long as you're trying to be so transparent here, please explain how the edit got your attention in the first place, Sjakkalle? (Were you staking my edits? Were you browsing my user subpages? If so why? Or were you informed? If so by who?)

there is no interpretation of the IBAN policy that allows you to comment on or refer to MaxBrowne's person, conduct, editing, or behavior. Did I say there was? Did I ever say any of that?? No. I did not comment on any editor's person, conduct, behavior, or even editing. (That's an infinitive, isn't it??) I commented on a single copyedit, the quality/content of it. (That is not commenting about someone's editing. It's a single fucking edit. I give a shit about editing in general.) And from my view, I commented on an "edit", period. I'm focussed on content and am not selective. I did not comment on "_someone's_ edit". That is your POV to achieve the violation you wanted to accuse and the sanction you wanted to threaten. (How the fuck do you know that I was even aware the edit was buy that editor in the first place?? You don't. The fact is it could have been unknown by me who the fuck the editor was at all. Instead of asking me about it, you jump all over me as though you are hotly pissed that you absolutely know it was intentionan and egregious. Maybe you could profit from a more objective view of your operating assumptions. Your assumptions are based on mind-reading and bad-faith. (But you don't see that, not at all.) Your interest was to strike at me hard owing to past grudges, resentments you told me you have for me over comments from me to user Quale, your "long-time friend". And your shitty treatment of me at every conceivable opportunity in AN and ANI threads not opened by me. Your arguments there were pure bias and I asked you to be accountable for some of them in the AN itself, but you just ignored me. To play "objective impartial admin" at this point is completely unbelievable, Sjakkalle, I'm not buying it, I've already told you more than once I want no exchanges with you, but you keep initiating to my attention, as here. I requested an IBAN with you at two ANs and I there has been good reason. I've asked you to leave me be, no interactions, but you just won't. Why were YOU the admin to find that edit on my subpage. Let's see your answer-dance. Please leave me alone. You are not "uninvolved" or impartial re, that has been overwhelmingly plain for a long time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said "I'll block you". If you want to quote from the (now deleted) edit summary, it was "I will not block". Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You gave a "consider this a stern warning" after mentioning about block. That is interpreble only one way, Sjakkalle. You're skating now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Skakkalle, why don't you answer how you got drift of that edit on my subpage? I've only asked you at least a couple times without any reply from you.

And to re-show the hypocrisy present, go take a look at this thread and take careful note of the timestamps involved. Then tell me with a straight face there is any substantive difference from my commenting on the content of an edit, and the user I'm I-banned from commenting on my contribution in that content discussion thread: .

So why didn't you revert that user's comment? And accuse him/her of IBAN violation? And give him/her a warning and threaten to block? Let's here it why it is any different, Sjakkalle. And then read this thread: and see how he/her staunchly defended his/her right under WP:IBAN to make commentary on content directly adjacent and immediately after mine. Then tell me why you are not correcting his/her understanding of IBAN, but you come here to correct mine!? (There were additional messing-arounds at a shogi discussion page where this user I'm I-banned with had shown no prior interest but where I was well established, only to contend and oppose the same kind of point in a re-hash there, where I was the only editor of three in that thread taking the stand being opposed. That user also made structural changes to that thread, in attempt to usurp a 2-to-1 !vote consensus, which was previously structured by its author as a sign-up page for interested participants in a proposed subproject. Where were you on his case for following me around and making contrarian commentary, for purpose of showing opposition to my comments with impunity. And why did Drmies use "personal favor request" instead of "IBAN stipulation" and then fold so easily after the user fiercely defended his right to make content comments anywhere he/she pleased!? Have you been inert w/ responses to my Qs because the facts aren't in accord with your bias against me and bias to support another editor? (As so painfully played out on your user Talk where I asked finally in frustration to have nothing to do with you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IHTS, someone commenting in a thread you commented in, but not to/about you, is different than you directly commenting on that person's own edit. And at any rate, you are not supposed to be discussing that person unless they violated their ban and you are asking for enforcement. Since you clearly don't think they violated their ban - you're using the lack of violation as a jumping-off point here - the discussing them needs to stop here; you've pushed things very far as it is.

I think the bottom line here is that you will have to accept that even if you think it's utter bullshit, you will be considered to have violated an interaction ban if you comment about that person or their edit(s). You can think it's dumb, you can think it's misguided, you can think the policy is crap and that admins who enforce it are terrible, but that's how interaction bans work, and you need to abide by it even if you think it's bullshit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluff, have you carefully reviewed that article Talk thread I linked? Have you examined the editors involved, and the timestamps of edits? When you say "someone commenting is different than you directly commenting on that person's own edit", you're speaking abstractly, generally. But all that abstract guidance goes out the window when you look at that thread carefully, since it is indisputable the edit commentary was for purpose of opposing me -- right in my face. (Here's how well abstactions work: FuturePerfect blocked me after asking me about a thread comment I made, what editor was I referring to? I told him "I don't remember". Seconds later he responded "That's lame. You're blocked." (Similarly when you say, "different than you directly commenting on that person's own edit", that's just abstraction that seems comfortable, but, go look at that thread -- if you were me, you would feel quite different, and know quite different, just as FuturePerfect saw and knew what he believed was bullshit and not representative of the real. The abstraction breaks down. And moreso in the shogi project page. There are undeniable edits designed to be crossing my own, right in my face, blatant, real, and with impunity. Your abstraction is like telling a man going off to war: "Be careful." Good advice. But not very helpful or relevant when rubber meets the road. (The problem I think is insistence on seeing things black & white. FuturePerfet didn't say "Damn! He avoided my question. There's nothing I can do." No, he blocked me without even considering the matter more than another second. I do not see any substantive difference with my commenting on the quailty of a user's edit, or an editor boldly laying down an opposite position to a view I contributed. It feels direct. It is direct. It is an arbitrary guidance, to say "but they aren't different", when the lack of difference is in reality only pretend. I'm not going to "play house" and pretend when it's obvious and undeniable. If you don't visit the threads and put yourself in my shoes when looking at the comments, then you can't appreciate. The difference you want is an an a denying-reality pretend lens. A legalistic, but not realistic view. And if it is so black and white, then why did Drmies advise the editor to desist with comments in that article talk discussion thread? Your position and Drmies position are at odds. (Can you see how when admins disagree, and don't answer questions or just selectively, how that might cause confusion in reg editors? It has. That's why I went to AN for answer. I didn't get any discussion or weighing of consensus. Just independent admins saying they "know" something not in WP:IBAN, were good-faith reading of WP:IBAN has misled me and apparently the other editor too.

I really don't know what you are trying to convey with "jumping-off point". You've been using phrase "user I'm I-banned with" here so I thought since you are admin and this discussion stemmed from the AN, it was alright for me to do it to. You didn't complain or advise or warn earlier when I made those references in order to discuss w/ you my Qs. I never said anything about "dumb", just that a good-faith reading of WP:IBAN does not yield censoring commenting on content, as already deeply explained, I see no substantive difference what I faced in article Talk threads, only a theoretical abstract difference which does not hold up meaning in actual in-the-Talk-page experience. I never said anything about admins being "terrible", only that I felt Sjakkalle's intpretation was wrong, and I already know he has grudges against me, so he used the opportunity to accuse and threaten. (Why him? Why not someo other admin? Why not him? Because he is "involved" and I know he holds two grudges.) I never said or thought "bullshit" policy either. Just that the policy for the umpteenth time is not what is represented in WP:IBAN in a good-faith reading, and squelching commentary on content doesn't seem to be a healthy interpretation for the WP. (Easier for admins to enforce perhaps, but not healthy for exachange of ideas/article development. If you are adamant that is absolutgely the IBAN policy, then why isn't WP:IBAN spelling that out? And why is Drmies coaching a user to go away from a content discussion at article Talk? And why does it in no way feel like I'm not being "interacted with" when a user is full-blown in my face squaring off with counter opinion laid down seconds after mine was posted, and adjacent physically to mine? You gotta be in those shoes to appreciate the "interaction" quality. Hypnotizing myself into pretending its not happening is legalistic superficial construct -- not a workable lens for dealing with the fact.

This is not IDHT, and this is not a "he just won't submit to discipline" thing. It is an incopletely written policy at WP:IBAN, differing admin behaviors regarding interpretation, and admins unwilling to advise me about any consensis when I spend hours in AN thread asking for clarification. There was NO discussion at either of the AN threads about clarification. There was no weighed consensus, or attempt to form consensus. You are the only admin who has told me "it's different" regarding comments made in discussion threads being non-interacting, even though I brought that up too mumerus times in the AN threads; if things are so clear, why didn't even one admin respond there?

Bottom line; it's confusing and contradictory and there is no discussion about the consensus you ask me to believe in. A solid first step is to get that consensus into WP:IBAN and make it clear. Why is that so difficult or unreasonable to ask!? It's logical, and would have prevented all of this. (I'm just so sure that change will be added though; because as you know I'm not certain in all this confusion that said consensus really exists. Sorry if that frustrates you so much, really. Thank you for your patient, kind help for as long as you were able. Again if it is so definitive, it should be put in WP:IBAN where reg editors can have access too. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This might be a helpful analogy to understand what I meant by arbirary superficial construct re "it's different" in comments made in article Talk content discussions, vs. comments about an edit: the CIV policy. (Specifically, name-call PAs. What are they? Policy is doing a very bad job in making that definitive, because nearly every admin has their own interpretation about it. If someone tells me "You have seemingly permanent asshole-ish behavior", I might reasonably think: "He just called me an asshole." But no! Some admin like Panda will put on their grammatical magnifier glassware and say: "No, not a personal attack, see, because "asshole-ish" is an adjective modifying "behavior", so the comment is about your behavior, and that's okay; but if he said "You're an asshole" well then that's different -- asshole is a noun then see, and that's PA by policy." Right. Makes me feel all so better now. "You have extreme die-hard to-the-grave asshole-ish behavior" is not a PA, because, let me see ... oh yeah, it's an adjective not a noun, and describing my behavior is permitted, just not describing me. Got it. Panda does like that, I call it "Panda-sophistry". Sounds so neat and technical, get out that grammatical detector magnifying glass, and everything will be squared away neatly. That's policy! But in the real world, it's unhelpful, unworkable, unreal sophistry. Works only in theory. Admins measure it differently. Everyone thinks they know. The policy is ill-defined and doesn't work. But there's no consistency, even though everyone pretends the issue has been laid to rest. It hasn't.

I don't see much difference between that (PA ambiguity) and WP:IBAN (ambiguity). But I know less about IBAN. (How many successful IBANs have their been? What happened to them? Were there any disputes, clarifications, confusions? Is the policy consistent w/ practice? Is the policy clear? Why do admins do it differently. Why is the grammarian sophist interpretation still out there, when it is so obviously inadequate to the reality. (Because it's easy to enforce and formulamatic? Even though it is pretend-time and "playing house"-interpretation?) But Panda feels he is so adamantly right. But his solutions are like a witch-doctor's medical bag. (Gotta believe!) I think the policies on WP go on and on without consensus or definition. But we are all supposed to "play house" like they make sense and hold water. But there's a hole in the bucket. (And if I say that, I'm IDHT. Right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Of late almost every post by an editor who has been banned from interacting with me has made mention of me in one form or other. If I am referred to one more time, or if any of my edits are referred to one more time, by the editor who has been banned from interacting with me, I will open an ANI thread. Enough is enough. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-30

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 17. It will be added to non-Misplaced Pages wikis on July 22, and to all Wikipedias on July 24 (calendar).
CirrusSearch was removed as the primary search method from Wikimedia Commons and the Spanish (es) Misplaced Pages due to a high server load. The plan to enable it on the Dutch (nl), Japanese (ja), Polish (pl) and Russian (ru) Wikipedias was also postponed to a later date.
The tool that stores information about languages (CLDR) was updated to its latest version. You can still help translate language names into your own language so they can be used in the sidebar and other places.
Translation memory for newly translatable pages should now offer more suggestions.
A tool to convert MediaWiki pages to LaTeX is now available on Tool Labs.

VisualEditor news

Tablet users visiting the mobile version of Wikimedia wikis will be able to use a special version of VisualEditor starting on July 31. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu. Feedback is welcome.
All windows in VisualEditor have now a new design. Main action buttons will always be located in the top bar and will use simple words rather than icons.
You can now easily open links inside the link editor, for example to see their target.
Several bugs related to the positioning of the cursor around some items (like images and references) were fixed last week.

Future software changes

It will soon be possible to watch individual discussions in the Topic namespace rather than whole pages for talk pages using Flow.
You can give comments about the new version of Winter, a proposal to have a fixed toolbar at the top of wiki pages.
An IRC meeting to organize Pywikibot bugs will take place from July 24 to July 27 on the channel #pywikibot on freenode.
A request for comments on how to improve MediaWiki API was re-started on MediaWiki.org. Your feedback is welcome.

Problems

Mailing lists were broken for about 16 hours between July 14 and July 15 due to a server problem.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)