Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 6 June 2013

Welcome to my talkpage

Let's talk. I'm Michael. If you have any query feel free to post it on this talk page.

Date: Sunday, January 5. Time: 04 hrs 12 min(s) 07 second(s) (UTC)

Re essay on consensus

Hello, Wikid77 here. I have read your essay about wp:consensus, and understand the frustrations with the current system. In many cases, "management by consensus" has become a slanted form of "management by committee" as "management by self-appointed committee" rather than control by a broad consensus of active Wikipedians. To overcome the current powerplays, in gaming the consensus viewpoints, I think Misplaced Pages will need to run wide-ranging user surveys to gain "1,001 random opinions" (3% margin of error) as done with political polls. However, I think your point about "governance" is a valid priority, if only those in charge were more objective and pro-active to stop the games. The core concept behind "consensus" was to be a near unanimous consent, focused around a mutual compromise agreement, of editors working together in good faith (not insulting others, or else removed from the agreement). The deduction I have used is: "Two people discuss an issue, and one says they have reached consensus but the other disagrees". The way true "consensus" would stop the committee could be a lone voice insisting, "I object" and then the decision would be stopped, until a true consensus was formed. Unfortunately, such mutual agreements (as compromises) are very time-consuming, and the result in practice has been, instead, "We discussed this issue in an RfC last year which established consensus, and 'You do not have consensus' to change that viewpoint". For people who want to control the rules, then majority vote (with "consensus thumping") is the preferred method (as "tyranny of the majority"), and they often drag any dissenter to wp:ANI claiming the dissenter's repeated requests to change consensus as wp:DE "disruptive" to so-called harmony on Misplaced Pages. So, we are back to "governance" which depends on fair-minded admins to police the consensus games, and declare "consensus dissolved" when dissenters say no. Hence, I think the solution is to have more fair-minded admins, and they could block the biased admins who do not respect a broad consensus which includes most people but instead favor the majority-vote style of powergames. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was so spot-on that I couldn't help shifting it to the comments page of that essay. Mr T 08:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful condescending note by Faizan, based on wrong presumptions

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:109.145.244.1 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Faizan 11:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring, I did not see anything wrong with MrT's warning template.-sarvajna (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is not vandalism (removal of well-sourced content and that too without any explanation in the edit summary), then I don't know what is. Are you operating the IP? If yes, you need to be upfront about it. Mr T 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he is operating the IP but he did award the IP a cookie, Faizan may be you should have asked MrT the reason why he placed the tag before wrning MrT for placing the tag. -sarvajna (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Faizan, don't revert my comments on others' talk page without prior discussion, it really annoys me. Mr T 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this warning is more than appropriate for your vandalistic behaviour Mrt Faizan just beat me to it or I would of put on a more severe warning 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

// needless header removed //
Mrt please stop your vandalism edits and refrain from removing legitimate tags from articles do not engage in edit wars due to your nationalistic indian pov and one last time adding tags is not vandalism go read rules first 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"legitimate tags" - or tag bombing? Tagging should be the last resort. Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Tags should be added as a last resort.. (cf. Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute) Mr T 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not twist wiki rules to cater for your nationalism that article is pov mess with cherry picked sensationalism 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You don't even know the difference between vandalism and addition of tags. Faizan 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Azevêdo

It isn't. I was with several open tabs and reverted the wrong page. My target was this article. One i noticed the mistake I reverted it myself, as you can see here.

Talkback

OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)