Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 15 August 2006 (→Hi: gar. remove crap.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please abide by the following guidelines:

• Sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
  • To start a new topic of discussion, use this link.
  • To continue a pre-existing topic of discussion, edit the relevant section.
  • If you're going to be using talk page comment templates, subst: them and remember to actually sign them. I deserve that much consideration.
• I will respond on my talk page.
• I archive my talk page arbitrarily.

Cuppa tea?

Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. KillerChihuahua 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. InkSplotch 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and all...

Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about your good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.
Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why you think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?
brenneman 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but thanks for coming here to say so. You've put a lot of effort into this case, and I can tell it's important to you. I hope you don't let it overwhelm you.

As to why he probably wants those sections in...I wish I could answer your question, as I suspect it'd go a long way to defuse a lot of similarly stressful situations (User Boxes, Brian Peppers, Kelli Martin/Grue, etc.). My opinion on the two primary viewpoints keeps shifting as I try to understand things, but here's my take on it today.

On one side, we have "Consensus builds the Encylopedia", which I think it's fair to say includes yourself. This is comprised of folks wanting seek peaceful dialog to resolve any situation. On the other side, we have "The Encyclopedia is built mostly by consensus" which acknowledges that fundamental principles supercede consensus. Principles like NPOV, Verifiability, and so on, as well as the Foundation's concerns for keeping the Prohject going. So back to Tony and the proposed solutions of banning or deadmining: Tony, I suspect, understands his actions caused disruption but acted in the interests of those fundamental principles. If he's right, it's like, really, any admin action...some might object, some might complain, but it's done in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

In that second viewpoint, someone who takes bold actions in the name of those principles and does so in bad judgement is no better than a rogue admin going willy-nilly. The end result does more harm than good. I think Tony might accept an admonishment to be more respectful, and maybe to listen to others more...but when it comes to his actions outlined in the case, to breaking rules or causing disruption, I think he'll always put the principles before the rules. And I think he's absolutly serious when he says if he makes those calls and his judgement's not sound when he does, he shouldn't be an admin. I've no doubt he holds any admin to that standard.

It reminds me of the first rule I was ever taught about firearms. "Don't point a gun at anything you're not fully prepared to shoot." As the number of admins seems to grow exponentially, we need to think more carefully about who we entrust with those tools. InkSplotch 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to Mindspillage; I don't think you modified anything I said from my summary. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You had a comment in the Userboxes limited section that got factored down to David Gerard, Geni, and Septentrionalis discuss how to define "spoken human languages" within the terms of the policy. I just wanted to leave you a notice in case you felt that part of the discussion shouldn't have been reduced to one line. The original, by the way, is still on the Withdrawn page. InkSplotch 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Misplaced Pages:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Misplaced Pages:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Misplaced Pages style can be found in the Manual of Style.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding... An opinion please.

(On Tony Sidaways Talk) If you have a moment, could you take a peek here? My instinct is to revert it as unfounded opinion (NOR?), but I want to seek a more experienced opinion before acting. Thanks. --InkSplotch 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you copy those words to the talk page and query them. There may be a source for this--Pratchett or Gaiman may at some point have acknowledged drawing directly on The Omen. I don't see it myself but it's about fifteen years since I read the book--which is not one of my favorites. If nothing is forthcoming by the end of the Easter weekend, remove the words from the article until someone can source the statement. The copy on the talk page will still be available for editors to work on. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On the above, I'm familiar with Practchett, and it seems likely owning about half his works— pretty good at comedy though. I'd advise searching some of the web forums specific to sci-fi community, or perhaps start in B&N and Amazon reviews of books (this will likely turn up immediately if reviewed there). I think he's in Baen's Bar, or would hope other discussions in online communities would lead you to right place. OTHO, why not just use {{fact}} and {{disputed}} and post a note on both the (users) talks that the statement needs supported. Ahhhh Two edits total, I see now. (co-posted to user talk:InkSplotch before closing this edit on user_talk:Tony_Sidaway#An_opinion_please) FrankB

• To get off the dime, with two edits, the statement is further in peril, but I still consider the edit was likely made in good faith.

Welcome, and feel free to poke around my user page, as I've squirrilled away a lot of goodies there for my own use. Might I suggest following the TOC down in particular to the links section and find My Welcome and make a copy on a subpage to play with. If that's unclear, Put it here: User:InkSplotch/SomeGoodTricks. All in all, I wouldn't sweat that sentence much. It feels 'real'. I 'likees' your user name!

Best regards, FrankB 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You get one too!

For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony's "No refactoring page" edits

The parts which you removed here include instructions as to preferences for the cases where refactoring is mandated currently (ie. ANx pages). I know you were trying to make it better but I feel you have removed important extra instructions, like my preference for talk page refactoring as Tony has in the past redirected to User:Ansell instead of User talk:Ansell or even Ansell. Ansell 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand this, yet the page's header indicated that any instructions will be ignored. So I removed them, and all the date-time stamps, to make it an easier to scan list. You can always replace your instructions if you wish, but I believe Tony's made it clear it's unnecessary. --InkSplotch 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi InkSplotch, i enjoy your comments where we have interacted, you do well at articulating your points in defense of editors such as Kelly. You seem to be a voice of calm and reason despite the fact I may disagree with you. Is it impolite to ask where you are coming from? You are clearly well versed in policy despite this young account. And despite your statement "Hello, and welcome to my user page. It's pretty bleak because I'm not here, I'm out there. Editing 'n stuff", this seems to be contridicted by your actual editing. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the edit I made here. I'm not trying to be atagonistic towards Kelly or Tony, but these issues just keep coming up. As wikipedia becomes more hierarchial this could really be a long term problem with respect to maintaining a stable community. It seems to me that those in respected positions, and clearly this is true for Tony and Kelly, should be a little more careful. Just my thoughts. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to be candid. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I fancy myself an observationist. I've not done much editing around Misplaced Pages yet, but I do spend a lot of time reading (would that be the "'n stuff?"). Such as when a situation like this appears, I tracked comments all the way back to project talk pages, personal talk pages, and so on, and so on. I like to be informed before I open my mouth. :)

I feel a lot of the antagonism brewing on Kelly Martin's RFC and now RFAr come from, at heart, misunderstandings, or at least philisophical differences. You say, "as wikipedia becomes more heirarchical..." and the impression I get from Kelly, Tony & Cyde is that they see (or perhaps want) Misplaced Pages not to become more heirarchical. In fact, I think in this issue they don't see the hierarchy of editors/admins at all.

They tend to look at issues holistically, i.e. "is this helping or harming the encyclopedia?" They view their admin tools merely as "tools" to protect the encyclopedia. That's why the reation to Kelly's "announcing policy" doesn't appear to be sinking in for them. From their view point, anyone could have said "this is how it is," and any admin could have enforced it. It's not a question of, "does policy allow me to do it this way?" It's a question of, "is it the right thing for the encyclopedia?"

But I might be wandering off topic from what you asked. You point me to your comments on the arb, so let's look at those. You say, The common theme is that KB always has an excuse, never accepts criticism. This refusal to analyse her own behaviour, with respect to maintaining a healthy collaborative climate at wikipedia, is the primary reason I support this next step from the RfC. I think Kelly she does analyse her own behavior, by the same standard she does of other editors: what effect has it on the encyclopedia? I see she posted her statement just before you posted yours, I think she addresses this idea in the first half very well.

Admins and other respected wikipedians need to be more open to discussion. At the very least they should be more transparent with regard to their rationales. Again, I don't think they place themselves on a pedastal. If anything, they expect the same boldness of any editor.

This is a problem for wikipedia where all are volunteers. Continuing in this vain will drive some away, will make others less productive and certainly piss people off. And this brings us to the heart of the philisophical difference. I'm guessing you feel Misplaced Pages exists only because of the community, and without it, there'd be no encyclopedia. Kelly/Tony/Cydes philosophy (as I understand it) is the opposite. That the encyclopedia itself must be protected and nurtured, and that the community will adapt itself around it. It seems the height of callousness when they suggest to their detractors that wikipedia might be better off without them. I don't think they mean it as an insult, however, but as fact. Some people seem only to be here to thrive off conflict. I know, I'm nearly one of them...but I'm not here to feed it, when I involve myself it's to try and be helpful, and usually diplomatic.

Sadly, there's others who seem to live for the fight. Way back, when Kelly deleted a large number of userboxes, it sparked a huge upset. Many users "suffered", felt censored or oppressed, and left. The encyclopedia, however, perservered. In fact, enough attention was brought to the issue that people kept working on it, and working on, finally deciding on the German solution to resolve things. I don't know if it was the right way to do things, but I'm fairly certain if Kelly hadn't started things the way she did, there would still be a massive ammount of harmful and unnecessary userboxes cluttering up template space, and no sign of compromise on the horizon.

I think it's akin to a band-aid. Pulling it off hurts, but it's necessary and best not to dawdle. Well, I've rambled quite a bit, and think I've only scratched the surface. I hope some of this helps, and if you have any more questions, I'm happy to do my best in trying to answer them. Just remember, I only speak for myself and my own observations. I'm not on IRC, or the mailing list, and don't know any wikipedian's (to my knowledge) in real life. --InkSplotch 20:13, 15 August 2006 (

I'm Kelly Martin and I endorse this message. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)