Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:34, 9 June 2013

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Start a new discussion thread

Only 993069477 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993069477 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon (talk)

Raspberry PI warring suckpuppet

Unfortunately the sockpuppet at Raspberry Pi has struck again, I reverted, but it probably won't last, at least thats too much to hope for. Mahjongg (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will keep an eye on it as well.

      
.---------------.  .---------------.  .---------------.  .---------------.
|       o       |  |       |       |  |     \ o /     |  |   \`. | .'/   |
|     /( )\     |  |    -- + --    |  |    --(+)--    |  | -- *BLOCK* -- |
|______/_\______|  |       |       |  |______/|\______|  | __/_'_|_'_\__ |
'---------------'  '---------------'  '---------------'  '---------------'
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Like everything the Raspberry Pi has its flaws. You need to deal with that instead of deleting useful and relevant information you apparently can't cope with. Your mindless zealotry will be counteracted. 121.72.118.83 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

HAZLOC

Saw your note at WP:AN about the talk page history. Perhaps you already knew this, but there are no deleted revisions in the article's history either. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on RfC draft

I created a draft for RfC on Dawkins position of Lewontin. Could you let me know your thoughts and suggestions? Thanks a lot. BlackHades (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See your sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note made longer

The change made by Frungi did not obviously imply anyone but Frungi was involved. The main point was they hid my reply, whether they hid their own comment is incidental. I have now put in a longer version that makes the whole sequence clear since Friungi thinks their own contribution needs to be highlighted even though they hid it. I am getting a bit fed up with them removing comments they disagree with from their RfC and then trying to make out the RfC has nothing to do with going around editing other peoples comments. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, a few editors (you, me, perhaps a couple of others) see a pattern of certain editors trying to use accessibility as a back-door way of becoming moderators, telling other editors what they can and can not write. Another, larger group doesn't see it that way, and really don't want to see an involved and detailed discussion about what they have dismissed as a trivial issue. Of course, arguing that it isn't a trivial issue just annoys them further.

So, what is the best strategy in this situation? Clearly being more annoying isn't the answer, even if the anoyee really shouldn't be annoyed. In my opinion, the best strategy is to take note of the multiple claims that this isn't about controlling of comments, and if they later try to say that the RfC authorized them to control comments, fight the battle at that time with the ammunition you are gathering now.

What I find annoying is the various methods used to try to get the control over other editors without first seeking consensus. Of course it is obvious that they won't get consensus for that, which explains but does not excuse the sneaky methods.

First we had an editor changing the policy and then two weeks later editing another user's comments while citing the added sentence. And of course we had other editors saying that was OK -- or paying lip service to it being wrong.

Then we had the edit wars. Then the "it was always in the guideline so I can add it to the guideline without seeking consensus" argument. AKA the "clarification" argument.

And finally, we have the suspicious RfC, where the exact same group of editors who just got shot down on controlling other people's comments run an "unrelated" RfC that just happens to be interpretable as giving them that power, all the while saying the RfC isn't about editing other people's comments.

It is a clever ploy, but it has a flaw; it is easily attackable when they later try to interpret the RfC as allowing them to control other people's comments. Hiding your comment appears to help them to win the battle, but it actually helps you to win the war. Later, when they claim "the majority agreed with us", we can simply point out that they suppressed disagreement.

So IMO the best strategy is to drop it for now, let them get their way, and thus lay the foundation for winning the next round. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)