Wikipedia

User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 20

< User talk:Fluffernutter
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Fluffernutter in topic Tetrindole
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Q

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

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[s] 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. [1])

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. [Don't tell me you don't think so!] 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 [an] abusive block [in]?"
    • 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 [diff|here], Fluffernutter tells me that she hates everyone with names that start with 'I' and intends to get them all banned. And [diff|here], 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. [But an argument like that presumes all the readers also know this admin well enough to have an assessment of their intellectual cap, so they could spot when the admin is hiding, faking, or making up jive. And that is a tenuous bunch of assumptions to base a demonstrable case on. It would be difficult but not impossible I think. But it would also be a logical case and would take some chunk of time/patience to present so wouldn't be too blunt. And in the end a case like that would be overridden by impatience, and the overwhelming force of laziness whereby people want easy solutions to complex problems, so it's easier and more expedient to claim the person has a bad attitude, is IDHT-extreme, hasn't got CLUE, or COMPETENCE, or other simple pejoratives that to right for the throat. I think even arbcom members might not be immune; though again, they have my respect in being much better because of expectations placed on them. (It's a fact that expectations increase level of performance. Perhaps that's why admin performance is so low? The expectations are so low!?) The culture again is that admins are nearly impossible to desysop, or even admonish, which is very bad, and not in accord with Jimbo's solution of making mop easier to get & easier to lose. So the numbers seem stacked against me. (Would my case against The Bushranger and/or Panda [part of the problem with his buddy] 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: [2].

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: [3] 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. [But, wait a minute ... isn't describing my behavior, actually describing me too?! It felt like that. But I'm being told no. Let me do this again, perhaps this just needs some practice ..."] 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)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tech News: 2014-31

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 (1.24wmf15) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 24. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 29, and to all Wikipedias on July 31 (calendar).
  • You can now download the latest version of the anti-vandalism tool Huggle.

VisualEditor news

  • You can now create, edit, and view HTML comments in VisualEditor. [4] [5]
  • The cancel button in VisualEditor toolbar has been removed. You can still use the Read tab and the Back button in your browser to cancel your edit. [6]
  • If you try to use a template which has no suggested or required parameters in TemplateData, you will now be asked to add the parameters. [7] [8]
  • You will no longer be able to edit a page if you can't create it, for example on pages protected against recreation. [9] [10]

Future software changes

  • You will soon be able to filter Meta-Wiki's user rights log by wiki and user. [11] [12]
  • Wikidata will soon be able to store data about article status, for example "good article" or "featured article". If your wiki has highlighted content, please make sure it is on Wikidata's list. [13]
  • It will soon be possible to directly create empty pages, for example in the user namespace. [14] [15]

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

08:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tech News: 2014-32

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

Tech News updates

  • Tech News will be presented at the Wikimania 2014 conference in London! If you will be attending the conference, please join us in Auditorium 2 at 14:30 local time on Sunday, August 10.

Recent software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf16) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 31. Due to the Wikimania 2014 conference, it will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on August 12, and to all Wikipedias on August 14 (calendar). [16]
  • You can now test a new tool to render wiki pages as PDF files. [17] [18] [19]
  • You can now download an update to the archive of Wikimedia Commons files (uploaded up to December 31, 2013). If you have free space on your computer, please help preserve the files. [20]
  • New users using the mobile Commons site now need to make 75 edits before they can upload a file. [21] [22]

VisualEditor news

Future software changes

  • You will soon have a user option to watch pages where you revert edits. [34] [35]
  • All Toolserver data will be deleted in September. If you want to back up your data, contact Toolserver administrators before August 31. [36]
  • Pages in the Translations: namespace on wikis using the Translate extension will no longer be indexed by search engines. [37]

Problems

  • Wikivoyage wikis were broken for about 45 minutes on July 29 due to a configuration problem. [38]
  • Some users were not able to log in on test wikis and MediaWiki.org between July 31 and August 1. The problem is now fixed. [39]

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

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
 

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Krill Oil

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure how to proceed. Can I assume a COI or not? I realise that the redacted content is not for public consumption, perhaps this is a case of a good faith editor being protected from his own incompetence? Please advise me, thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I'm afraid I can't tell you anything about what the redacted information might or might not reveal about involved parties. You're going to have to judge the editing/editor on their own, onwiki merits. Not particularly helpful, I know, but it's all I can offer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. No problem. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

15:06:01, 8 August 2014 review of submission by Legal2000

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion


I was wondering why the article submitted for Louis A. Lehr, Jr. was declined. Specifically, what in the content of the article was copyrighted. If you can please advise me on this. Thank you for your help. Legal2000 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Legal2000 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Legal2000. Content in that article appeared to have been copied, both directly and using close paraphrasing, from this biography and this magazine article. Though some of the article was also original prose, our copyright policy is extremely strict and we have to delete all revisions of pages that contain copyright violations, even if they also contain usable text. You are welcome to start a new article draft as long as you're careful to avoid copying language again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed span

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It has been quite a while since our previous discussion regarding lowering the protection level of this template. Could you please reconsider? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dogmaticeclectic. Given the vandalism history on that template, I remain much more comfortable with it protected than with it mostly-unprotected. I do not specialize in templates, however, and if you'd like to ask the community to weigh in on AN or something about what level it should be protected at, I will cheerfully bow to whatever consensus develops there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you please specify what "vandalism history" you are referring to? I see precisely one incident of vandalism at that page (besides the deleted edit). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The deleted edit is what I'm referring to. The vandal who made that edit has a habit of using templates to create widespread, destructive, malicious vandalism, and I would just as soon they not get access to this one - or any other common one they've used before - again. Like I said, though, I'd be happy to abide by whatever the community were to decide on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tech News: 2014-33

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

  • Due to the Wikimania 2014 conference, there were no MediaWiki changes this week. The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf16) will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on August 12, and to all Wikipedias on August 14 (calendar). [40]
  • Bureaucrats on all Wikivoyage wikis are no longer able to merge two accounts into one. [41]

VisualEditor news

  • Tablet users visiting the mobile version of non-Wikipedia wikis will be able to use VisualEditor starting on August 12. The feature will also be enabled on all Wikipedias on August 14. [42]

Future software changes

  • Internet Explorer 6 users will soon see a JavaScript-free version of Wikimedia wikis; JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work on that browser. If you use Internet Explorer 6, make sure to update to a newer browser! [43] [44] [45]
  • If you visit a special page that requires you to be logged-in, you will soon be automatically redirected to the log-in page instead of seeing a warning. [46] [47]
  • You will now always see recent changes to the source language text when editing a translation with the Translate extension. [48] [49]
  • An IRC meeting to discuss VisualEditor will take place on August 14 at 09:00 UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). [50]

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

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Robin Williams

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Why did you fully protect Robin Williams? With a recent event such as death, the information cannot be updated rapidly now. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance says that actions should not be taken solely for performance concerns, as that is up to the System administrators. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This was very much on the advice of a staffer - see her comment on the talkpage. Direct your messages to Jdforrester (WMF) instead please. — foxj 23:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops: I didn't see your message on the talkpage. You can disregard the previous message. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflicted you both; might as well save what I was going to say anyway :) ) As I said on the article's talk page, I took the action at the recommendation of the WMF's tech staff, because there was a serious and immediate concern that the editing rate on Robin Williams could crash the site. It's definitely suboptimal, and I can understand your frustration, but keep in mind that the informational page you're referring to is talking about "normal" cases and "most" circumstances; the problem here is that this case is very, very abnormal and not at all usual (WMF servers are used to heavy loads; it takes an insane amount to cause crash concerns). The protection is short-term (12 hours), and I'm happy for another admin to lift it earlier if the load drops or if the WMF can put the needed safeguards in place before that, but in the meantime I'm afraid we're going to have to muddle along with a slightly slower rate of development on the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflicted by everybody but I hope there's a little useful information here) Don't worry about performance can safely be ignored in this case. The sheer number of edit attempts threatened to crash Wikipedia entirely, this wasn't a case of tinkering to make the page load faster. Performance issues had been observed by members of the administration team and the decision to fully protect the page was made in consultation with the system administrators (who are happy to field enquiries from you). There are details of the error rates at [51] which shows issues beginning to develop, if that's of interest to you. Nick (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Love Wikipedia, BUT Ferguson, MO, OUT of control

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I very much like being on Wikipedia, however, the Ferguson MO page is starting to again attract really degrading remarks from IP edits...maybe locking it??Coal town guy (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Coal town guy: I just took a look at the recent history after reverting an IP there, and I actually thought things seem to be surprisingly under control - a little bit of vandalism, but not a flood or anything. Is there something in particular going on there that you're concerned about? I'll take another look if so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Once the name of the officer of the conflict is made public, it might be a preventative measure to lock the thing given the near daily racial slurs that happen now. JUST a thought, appreciate your dedicationCoal town guy (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Coal town guy: Yeah things have the potential to get out of control. I'm not going to protect the page preemptively at the moment, because I still have a little hope that the protection that was put in place yesterday will have made most of the vandals lose interest, but I'll keep an eye on it (and I suspect many other admins will too) and won't hesitate to act if it becomes necessary again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work to protect Shooting of Michael Brown and its talk page, thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Bearian! I wonder at my - and your! - sanity for trying to keep order in what's likely to be a growing blow-up, but if none of us do it, well, no one does it :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

13:50:10, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Legal2000

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Thanks for your reply. Base on your information I reviewed the draft and since I footnoted the material relied on for factual statements in the article, I am having a problem locating material that goes beyond “fair use” and thus violates copyright law. Since I wish to submit a new draft, I would appreciate the benefit of your advice as to the specific language which constitutes a violation.

Thanks for your help.


Legal2000 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Legal2000. Please note that Wikipedia's internal copyright policy is different than general copyright law out in the world; the best way to summarize Wikipedia's policy is probably "use your own words, and directly quote and cite whatever small snippets you cannot avoid using from sources". So if you plan to start a new draft of the article, you should aim to write your own, original prose. It can be based on the ideas in the sources, and those should be cited when it is, but it shouldn't use direct text from those sources except if that specific text is important to the topic in those specific words. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Tetrindole

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi i am new to wikipedia and apologize if i am doing this wrong. I have proposed a deletion of an article you created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tetrindole is the link I believe. I feel that information about tetrindole would be best served as a bullet point on the page located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetracyclic_antidepressant until there is more information provided, and my justification for this is that it does not carry much information beyond it's name. After comparing it to the other tetracylcic antidepressants listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetracyclic_antidepressant

I am using — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrimTheFat (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello TrimTheFat. It strikes me as odd that your first and, to date, only involvement in Wikipedia was to locate two very different articles I wrote and attempt to have them deleted, but I'm assuming that you landed on my userpage somehow and found them that way. To answer the question in your edit summary here, anyone can remove a proposed deletion template, and once it's removed, the article may not be tagged using that template again. If you feel the article should be deleted at this point, you will need to pursue that through the Articles for Deletion process, which involves a community discussion of the article's suitability. It sounds like you're not particularly familiar with our deletion processes in general, so I would suggest you read through those policies before carrying on. For example, you will find that an article's length is generally not considered a suitable reason to nominate it for that process.

As far as whether the article "deserves" to exist or not, that would be for the community to decide in the Articles for Deletion discussion if you start one; I created the article because it was the subject of a very high number of incoming redlinks, which indicated it was a "most wanted" article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluffernutter/Archive_20&oldid=999298329"