User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 22
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SuggestBot in topic Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I think we've been talking past each other on this talk for a few days, but coming to the same conclusions and now both basically saying the same thing–see here; do you know how to redirect the RFC proposal so that the voting includes safeguards against bloat, and we can have peace in our time, at least for a few moments? If your willing, lets ping Wtfiv as they wrote 85.2% of the article[1], and would be best placed to judge what should/not be in the box. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ceoil, I've been watching, but not commenting. But I should weigh in. I'll toss some suggestions into the RFC. Wtfiv (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Joyce followup query
Hi, Shibbolethink. I have long/always believed that AGF is Wikipedia's most important policy, and have always been willing to rephrase, retract, or clarify any areas of misunderstanding resulting from my (frequently hurried) prose. (I also think when we've goofed that apologizing and getting it over with is the fastest way to calm flames and get back to work, but more on that later.) I am at a loss to understand your comment here reminding me to AGF. How is my statement a failure to AGF given that editors who do not follow an article but who are summoned by bot or WikiProject posts to a discussion are not likely to be around later when nuanced understanding and thorough knowledge of the sources and article history are needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I think definitely providing some context would be helpful.That discussion devolved pretty quickly (along with related ones) into an A vs B of longterm editors vs newer editors, FA shepherds vs newcomers. And the implications that followed were essentially: A) are new editors just drive-by hitting this article, slapping it with an IB because they love infoboxes, and running away without ever stopping to think of the effects of having an infobox, of slow creep towards more parameters, etc? And then on the other side, B) are longterm editors so steeped in the history of the page, the prior infoboxes "skirmishes" and their knowledge of the subject, that they cannot conceive of any benefit for an infobox?From my perspective, the entire point of an RFC is to get third-party input in a deadlocked disagreement. There's no equivalent to an RFC that is only summoning past editors of a specific article. And, likewise, nobody's "!vote" counts more than anyone else's here. We don't discount IP contributors, as long as they are actually editing in general and not SPAs. We don't discount the discussion input of non-EC editors just because our plugins have different colors for their names or whatever, either. But all that aside, I understand the implications of WP:FAOWN, and why long-term contributors who have worked so hard to create an FA would be so protective of the article. However, the animosity that has been stirred up by some in that discussion (and in the other recent IB discussions) towards non-long term editors was really pretty toxic. I felt myself essentially chased away from contributing to some of these FAs, because all of my pretty small style edits were continuously reverted, citing FAOWN. Why would anyone want to (even in minor ways) improve these articles, when 1-3 longterm contributors essentially have their preferred version and have zero interest in collaborating with others in ways which change the article. Granted, these are not major edits, they are not infoboxes being added, they are not changing major sentences or actually altering the facts in an article. These were just grammar and spelling. Not exactly what FAOWN was written for.All of which to say, I think my citing AGF was not the fairest thing to do. But the environment there is a bit accusatory of anyone outside that small FA group, when multiple editors have said repeatedly they would be interested in helping keep out infobox parameter creep. That environment was so heightened (and not to mention the AN posting you've also seen I think), that I was a bit premature on asking for AGF. My apologies for assuming you weren't AGF. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for the explanation. I don't think the discussion necessarily devolved as you state; I think it was positioned that way from the get-go, and I've seen backing off on that entrenchment only from the long-time followers, while others have to be continually reminded to keep discussion collegial. Yes, I've seen the AN thread, and even as someone who has never been in that particular "alleged" FANCLUB, I think the filing was vexatious and the diffs misrepresent the facts; I think we have here several editors behaving in a way that is duplicating the environment that led to the original infobox arb case, that an arb enforcement action is warranted and needed, that the discussion you describe at Joyce was started that way and resulted from said behavior spilling from other articles to Joyce, and that some editors are silent now as they don't want to get wrapped up in an ugly arb case. I think BOOMERANG on the filers of the AN thread would have kicked in long ago except that people are wary to engage what is likely to end up in arb enforcement. As the longest still-involved editor of Joyce (a few who have maintained it longer than me are now gone), my conclusion is likely to be that I will allow myself to be chased away, because working to keep FAs at standard is no longer worth the effort. There won't be enough knowledgeable editors who stay involved over the long term, and working in an acrimonious environment is not my idea of a useful hobby. But thanks for the AGF clarification; I was worried! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
even as someone who has never been in that particular "alleged" FANCLUB, I think the filing was vexatious and the diffs misrepresent the facts;
BOOMERANG on the filers of the AN thread would have kicked in long ago except that people are wary to engage what is likely to end up in arb enforcement
Certainly, these are your opinions and it is your right to have them. But quite a few editors (many of them FA contributors and admins) disagreed with you. I myself was uninterested in any AN filing until it was already happening (see above), and it was clear others agreed there was a problem. I try to avoid AN/ANI until it is very clear to other editors what the problem is.my conclusion is likely to be that I will allow myself to be chased away, because working to keep FAs at standard is no longer worth the effort
That's a shame, but it is also your right to avoid things you feel are not worth your effort. I wish more of the FA editors I've encountered recently would focus their effort on keeping the important parts of the article up to standard, and care less about disagreements about where a semicolon goes and WP:MOSCAPS, two areas I am very specifically interested in, but which I will admit are minor and not worth edit warring over. (and definitely not WP:FAOWN-applicable matters)I'm glad you see there are plenty of reasons to avoid these things unrelated to 'being silent to avoid an arb case'. I myself will avoid infobox discussions and editing other FAs associated with any of the particularly OWN-y and difficult to work with editors, not because I'm afraid of an arb case, but because it isn't a particularly fun or enjoyable experience. And if anyone else, down the line, brings that AN user back to AN or to ArbE or wherever, I will happily pipe up and describe how I was chased away from contributing to the area by their incivility.working in an acrimonious environment is not my idea of a useful hobby
Couldn't agree with you more.Overall, truly, my goal here is to be able to contribute to articles when I feel they are unclear, weirdly worded, or otherwise inaccessible to our readers. And to correct clear factual errors. I am not interested in these long protracted discussions about infoboxes or the culture of wikipedia or its infobox wars, a thing about which I knew literally nothing two weeks ago. I wish, desperately, to return to that state of bliss and ignorance. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)- You say that ("But quite a few editors (many of them FA contributors and admins) disagreed with you.") like it's a bad thing :) :) :) On the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, is it really a bad thing to find that others don't always agree with you?
- I have never been in a position of being accused of being a SchroCat fan (that's a wild understatement, but not relevant here), but one of the original diffs presented was to this discussion, which did NOT make the case the filer pretended it did. Hence, a vexatious and poorly represented filing, which combined with everything else stated there and elsewhere, looks like an attempt to silence someone over a disagreement. The spirit of WP:NPA wrt commenting on one's frame of mind involves a) "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; and b) "Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Saying someone has a persecution complex is decidedly commenting on the contributor and their frame of mind, and you would have done yourself a favor to acknowledge that and apologize, instead of replying with "Sometimes I forget what people do and don't know about medicine" (which sounds condescending); drawing the distinction between when a behavior becomes a diagnosable disorder does not make it any less of a comment on the person's mental state. As a counterexample, suppose I said the filers were displaying obsessive compulsive traits over infoboxes; if I then came back and said OC traits are not a mental disorder as OCD is, would that make my comment acceptable? No; it's a comment on the contributor, with an intended effect. This is but one example (there are more) of why that discussion probably hasn't gone the way the filers wanted it to; the diffs simply don't back the case, and it looks pretty much like the real problem there (a return to unacceptable discourse in infobox discussions from the filers) has not been addressed simply because people are wary to get involved in what really should be headed to arb enforcement. I will unwatch every FA I've maintained over the years rather than have to deal with these kinds of behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- PS, I responded as you were adding to your post; just to let you know I didn't intend to ignore parts of what you wrote. I will be chased off of Joyce, and any other FA where IB disagreements descend, because the joy of curating top content is removed in the presence of the behaviors like those that spilled over to Joyce from other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think calling me "unethical" and "disgusting" had the intended chilling effect, and I am surprised to see you have not commented on it whatsoever. I apologized at the time about using the phrase "persecution complex" and it did very little to de-escalate tensions. Perhaps you're right, I was being condescending at the time, and that is part of why. But if that's the only personal attack you can find, then I will say I think my conduct is probably on the whole not so bad. I certainly did not call anyone an "idiot" or a "stalker" or "disgusting".When editors assume you're acting in bad faith, apologies do very little, if anything at all. There is essentially nothing one can do when one is called a stalker and harasser, other than be effectively chilled by the accuser and avoid them (and any discussion they do not want to see you participate in) like the plague. Which is, of course, the intended effect, an effect it absolutely had on me.To sum up my response to your post here: respectful editors will have to agree to disagree. I have every intention to avoid interacting with SchroCat as much as possible, but I disagree with your interpretation of events. The fact that I cite how many editors disagreed with your interpretation is only to point out that interpretations other than yours appear to be reasonable. And while I think your interpretation that it has no merit is also reasonable, I do not think calling it "vexatious" is. There was clearly something to talk about. Whether something was to be "done", that I absolutely see a reasonable disagreement in. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Quick reply 'cuz tired and will re-read tomorrow, but I was not so much saying your conduct was questionable as suggesting a better way forward in the minefield that are the infobox wars ... which have pretty clearly been reignited across multiple articles by the other participants who brought the thread; their claims simply aren't justified by their diffs, and the hounding and bludgeoning and badgering that is going on in the New And Not Improved InfoBox Wars are the likely reason they aren't getting the desired result in the AN thread. Older experienced editors have been there, done that. One can say "this is not about infoboxes" as often as they want, when it quite apparently is, and the thread comes across as an attempt to eliminate an editor to win an infobox dispute. Just my opinion, but if I see it that as a non-FANCLUB member, likely that others do as well. I have not attempted to explain all of my problems with those diffs; the "persecution complex" example was only one where I thought it could have been handled differently, and the diff did not support what the editor who gave it claimed it did, so it's not surprising that the editor who presented those diffs is not happy with the outcome. My broader point to you, a productive editor, is to take care with language ala persecution complex, and apologize/retract as needed even if it doesn't change the other editor's behavior. As you can surely see, I've engaged as little as possible on that AN thread, because the only thing lamer than infobox wars are wars about infoboxes that pretend not to be wars about infoboxes. Well, actually, there are even lamer things still in that thread, but I digress ... I have about as much interest in comments about how many FAs any given editor has as I do about how great a participant at WT:MED another is :). One of the most prolific WT:MED participants has never added anything useful to the project, and many FAs aren't, so those digressions are yet another reason to stay away from that thread. If the AN thread ever gets around to what it should be doing ... examining the real issues driving that disagreement and the behaviors of all involved ... meaning inappropriate conduct wrt infoboxes that is driving the underlying dispute ... then I may engage, because the discord being spread across multiple articles is unacceptable and both of them have been made aware of discretionary sanctions and the past infobox arb cases. It took quite a bit to chase me off of one of the oldest FAs I follow, but I don't want to rub elbows with those kinds of behaviors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for the explanation. I don't think the discussion necessarily devolved as you state; I think it was positioned that way from the get-go, and I've seen backing off on that entrenchment only from the long-time followers, while others have to be continually reminded to keep discussion collegial. Yes, I've seen the AN thread, and even as someone who has never been in that particular "alleged" FANCLUB, I think the filing was vexatious and the diffs misrepresent the facts; I think we have here several editors behaving in a way that is duplicating the environment that led to the original infobox arb case, that an arb enforcement action is warranted and needed, that the discussion you describe at Joyce was started that way and resulted from said behavior spilling from other articles to Joyce, and that some editors are silent now as they don't want to get wrapped up in an ugly arb case. I think BOOMERANG on the filers of the AN thread would have kicked in long ago except that people are wary to engage what is likely to end up in arb enforcement. As the longest still-involved editor of Joyce (a few who have maintained it longer than me are now gone), my conclusion is likely to be that I will allow myself to be chased away, because working to keep FAs at standard is no longer worth the effort. There won't be enough knowledgeable editors who stay involved over the long term, and working in an acrimonious environment is not my idea of a useful hobby. But thanks for the AGF clarification; I was worried! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
AN: Postmortem
I never responded to your last comment on the AN and I wanted to thank you for your commentary during that process. In hindsight, there were too many editors willing to excuse problematic behavior either because they admired him or were poisoned by years of infobox discourse. The issue was always the behavior of the editor. Those attempting to change the subject were never really concerned about the subject in the first place. I doubt that would change if another proposal was submitted.
Thanks again for your work in making this a better community. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)