Jump to content

User talk:Ched/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
  • A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
  • A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

... and today ;) - thank you for being around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hard to imagine it's been that long. TY Gerda - and I'm glad you're still around as well. — Ched (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Many thanks for your help and assistance over the last day or so. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss for words, but Thank You very much SchroCat. I really didn't do anything, but it is appreciated. For multiple reasons, I do cherish this above many other accolades over the years. It truly means a lot. — Ched (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November

November

Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

Dona nobis pacem

Thank you for being you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sweet Gerda. I have to admit that I do miss the old me sometimes, but no complaints. :-) — Ched (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hope for 2021

take courage

Thank you for improving article quality in December, and good wishes for a time of transition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Doing stuff is sometimes overrated... Intothatdarkness 17:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Have a good new year 2021, both! I like gnomes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Intothatdarkness: - I'll agree with that. :-) ... (sorry I failed at a reply when you posted this) — Ched (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:. For all too many people 2020 was a horrible year, and they feel that 2020 WON .. but I truly hope that 2021 won't be a 2020 TOO. (pardon the word play) :-). I hope ALL the good folks here and those not on wiki have a great 2021. — Ched (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

QAI

I tried to give a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, - did you know that you are the project's "oldest" active member? ... and that I'm next? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gerda - Happy Wiki 20 to you too. I'm not really involved with QAI anymore, but I do appreciate the sentiment. Your page looks nice too. Have a great 2021. — Ched (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ever so slowly, the advantage of infobox opera vs. the sidebar is acknowledged. Remember that there was a time it was regarded as a battlefield. Sad that some still fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's sad. Neither side wins in a fight. — Ched (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Today, no fight, but a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Beautiful photo Gerda - TY for sharing. :-) — Ched (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
... and today of Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Graph of Reply tool and full-page wikitext edit completion rates
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  • A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Harry Dixon Loes

Found this old thing in my user space, that you and I (and Gerda Arendt, and User:Xanthomelanoussprog) worked on years ago, and moved/merged it into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, forgot all about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
ps: perhaps - remembering the wise words about "lots of patience" - perhaps you could take a look at BWV 53 because one player was already taken out of the game, and I refuse to look, choosing my battles, leaving a lone woman fighting "improvements" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, Thanks sir - and thank you for letting me know. Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Precious
Nine years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, thank you — Ched (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Nice article Gerda - good work.
As far as Arbcom goes - I've never been a fan of the bench (aka the judge) helping the persecution ... err .. I mean prosecution, in framing a defendant. or the case. I'm rather a bit disappointed in a couple of their responses to this. I think several past cases that got all too heavy handed recently perhaps set some precedent that they shouldn't have. ex: BHG (maybe a temp. topic ban was called for), and Kudpung (at best a reminder to multiple folks was called for). I think the current "accept" wave shows a complete lack of real-life awareness, and it saddens me. And that's on top of some unclean hands that filed the case. Either way though - I do thank you for your kind words. — Ched (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrator advice please

Would you have a look at the history of Calligraphy, please, because I strongly suspect that 72.69.6.226 and Owl-USA are the same person (dialect, behaviour, instant reaction). Both accounts have a "chequered history". Does it really need to a WP:ANI reference? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, personal attacks dealt with (blocked), IP warned. Not being particularly educated in the field of Calligraphy, I can't really address the conflicts there, so it will have to be hashed out on the talk page. Cheers and best. — Ched (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni

Did you click the wrong button? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

yep - already fixed — Ched (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, Thank you - I did notice right away and went back to fix. Appreciate the heads up though. — Ched (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving articles in March! On Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

... and the first performance was on a Palm Sunday, and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover - putting some little ego-battles in perspective --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "little ego-battles" comes from Antandrus, - to me it reads also like "little-ego battles". Psalm 69, see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the name Antandrus around before, even recently, although I don't recall the specifics, and I don't recall interacting with them directly. Indeed, like the comma, the location of the hyphen often changes the entire meaning of a sentence or phrase. (now thinking of the panda example) In looking at Psalm 69, the phrase that sticks out in my mind is "They hated Me without a cause", and there is far too much of that in the world today. Good to see you Gerda, hope you are well. — Ched (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm missing Jerome Kohl, Flyer22, Yoninah and RexxS, so am not well, of course, but at least healthy. I'll axpand the psalm tomorrow, in memory of Yoninah. It was (partly) recited yesterday (see my talk, look for it) in a service that also had a cantata Das Leiden Jesu von seinen Freunden (about what Jesus suffers from his friends), - that's for today. You have to know Antandrus ;) - see old and new.
Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk (seen only now), - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom

Responding to this here, since it's getting off topic from the case. Let me offer a counter-narrative. It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case. Aside from the fact that I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others, it's hard to compile and write diff-heavy evidence. It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits. More than anything else, it's hard to criticise popular Wikipedians. Because you're breaking from the herd, you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions. As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.

Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why. It's easy to get away with just making the assertion, because it makes intuitive sense and most people want to believe that FamiliarUsername01 didn't do anything wrong. It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else. It's easy to write off conflicting evidence as isolated incidents, because there will never be enough bad diffs to make a dint in the number of good contributions they made. So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.

And please note that I'm not saying this to paint myself as an aggrieved party in the RexxS case. Of course I'm far from it. The only reason I participated there is because I know I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases. So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends, and partly because I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp) and wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light. I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case, so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't put myself as being on anybody's camp regarding RexxS's arbcom case. In real life I would say I am friends with Rex, having worked with him at several training events and chatted at many more social events (I didn't vote in his RFA because I didn't spot that it was happening). I don't think that enough evidence was presented at the case request stage to justify a desysop but enough was presented that the arbcom case was justified. I have not read even most of the evidence presented during the case though so I cannot say whether it justifies desysopping him or not. I will say though that I trust the committee to have read the evidence and to make their decisions based on it. If they feel the evidence justifies a desysopping then he should be desysopped. I am firmly of the opinion though that desysopping should not be seen as a permanent badge of shame, and the community would do very well to refrain from treating adminship as some sort of badge of honour.
Regarding social capital and wikifriends, this is one of the biggest problems with ANI - some editors have so many friends clamouring to support and/or defend them that constructive criticism gets shouted down as attacks and so the person being defended doesn't actually hear the feedback so can't take it onboard. This does nobody any favours, including the person being defended as they lose opportunities to change their behaviour before it reaches the level of arbcom. How you resolve that I don't know, especially as many of those doing the defending pile on opposition to attempts to reform the system. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the idea that someone might be a friend has come to mean that person is incapable of upholding neutrality, that diffs to counter what seem to be mistakes are deemed cherry-picked rather than chosen because they tell a story that supports another narrative rather than the one being presented. DR is hard; I'm not sure why anyone would think it's easy or not very challenging since the arb must sit above all of the narratives presented and chose the one that tells the most factual story no matter who is involved. I also dislike the idea that arbitration is a place to be heard; it is a place that should document long term problems and should be a last resort. In the Rexx arbitration there could have been multiple ways to deal with perceived problems. Some are saying those solutions were tried to which I say, nope, the ArbRequest had one diff of solutions tried. Further, having an editor confronted and attacked during a content dispute does nothing to open the door to discussion. And anyone who says they could deal with personal criticism while in the middle of a dispute is not being truthful or realistic. There was a point where NYB in an open a friendly manner talked to Rexx, and Rexx replied that he would take the criticism onboard. Reading into whatever else he said to negate that statement is unfortunate. That moment was the point, the fork in the road, when an admin could see that he had perceived issues, according to the community, and the arbs could have said OK, but if you're here again...But the moment passed. What a loss in time, and gain in pain and hurt. And I thank NYB for his maturity and experience. Experience does count. No one expects new arbs to have the experience of the long- time arbs but it's helpful if experience is respected and understood to be a necessary and important part of DR. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil: that someone is a friend is not the whole story, because on the one hand there is a type of friend who comments without drama and comments based on an analysis of the situation, supporting the accused (for want of a significantly better term) by explaining why they disagree with some criticism and explaining why they agree with other criticism, helping them to understand where and how they can improve. On the other hand there is the type of friend who will circle the wagons around their friend, aggressively parry any and every implication that they could be the one in the wrong and fight against anything that might tarnish their reputation. It is the second type of friend that leads to things like "unblockables" and editors with lower social status feeling that arbcom (if even there) is the only place their voice will be heard (whether that is correct or not, it is not infrequently the perception). Thryduulf (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Since I am one of the editors who never knew if I would be heard or not and since I am one of the editors who's consistently discussed changes to arbitration and DR, I can say that the line between those "friends" appearing to circle their wagons and those who feel and perhaps think they know who, and what it is to treated unfairly, is not even remotely clear cut. And one is often mistaken for the other. Nor do I think Arbitration is a "place to be heard." It is a place to right great wrongs, but unfortunately for multiple reasons if an editor appears in front the arbs often the idea that, this, is the place to be heard, takes precedent. The solution is not to use arbitration for what it's not but to create a situation where editors can be heard that is not an arbitration. There is currently no such place that really works. The Arbitration format gets it wrong on occasion maybe more often than we know. I don't blame the arbs for this but a system that currently cannot truly uncover fact and or truth. Wikipedia's underpinnings in DR are punitive whether meant to be or not, and that alone colours all of Wikipedia and its DR processes. This isn't theory, this I know from being on the other side of the proverbial arbitration fence. There are always multiple sides to every story, too, so I'm not judging, just telling what I have seen from my view. Unless we can remove one-sided views, generalization, and recognize nuance we are doomed to repeat. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I admit that RexxS is among the many people I would have liked to meet. (as are you). Unfortunately at this stage in my life that is extremely unlikely. I expect that I would get along well with most wikipedians if I had the chance to meet them. On the evidence presented, I respectfully disagree for the most part (at least in the request stage in as far as thinking it should have been accepted). My primary problem was that if they were going to look at this, then they should have looked at both sides, but they made it clear at the onset that it was only to look at RexxS. Rather moot at this point, so I won't belabor the issue.
On the second part I fully agree. Be it IRC, Facebook, Instachat, or whatever the popular venue is these days is. But we can't really police things off wiki for the most part. I recall at one point there was a wiki critical site (with a lot of banned editors) that wasn't even allowed to be mentioned on wiki. (perhaps an over generalization - and considering that today it seems it has a wide variety of editors in good standing, I'm not sure if that's still the case since I tend to keep to myself these days). Yours is a very good and valid point, and I don't know how to resolve it either. But I do fully agree with you.
I'll close with: It's good to see you around, and I hope you and yours are doing well in these difficult times. Cheers and best, — Ched (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just dropping in real quick to acknowledge that I've seen that I have these messages. I'll read through them and respond ASAP (no later than 24 hours). — Ched (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil: I think I see your point(s), and mostly agree. If there's something specific you feel I need to address, please feel free to clarify and I'll do my best. — Ched (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ched:. I have nothing more to say. You can't push a rope, an old maritime Canada saying that seems to suit my feeling right now. I was responding to others here not to you. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

re to Joe Roe

You've presented a lot of things there, so I'll need to address it in parts rather than in its entirety. If you are watching, then I beg your indulgence as I work on it, if not, then I'll ping you once I've had my say. — Ched (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case.
    As it should be, although a multitude of of people didn't seem to have that much trouble voicing their thoughts in favor of a desysop (nice to see the legal/court room lingo)
  2. I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others
    Since that touches on what you're studying in school, I won't argue the point. (although I've never noticed any shortage of criticism on wiki)
  3. It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits.
    I can agree with that. I will say however, I'm not so sure Arbs read above and below a diff when it's all in the same thread. I'll also agree that it would be very time consuming to do that with every diff. As a purely hypothetical example:
    editorA: 2+2=5
    editorB: You're an idiot
    editorA: FU - you just attacked me.
    Presented at Arbcom: editorA just violated NPA and attacked me [diff to editorB: You're an idiot] Overly simplistic I agree - but I'm just trying to provide and example.
  4. you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions.
    If you are speaking in general terms, perhaps. Not that I agree, I'm just deferring to you experience. If you're speaking of the RexxS case, that appears to be patently false IMO. Since PR wasn't even included as a party, there was little to no scrutiny that Arbcom reviewed. You seem to be suggesting that in a place filled with Admins. and Arbs that personal attacks and aspersions took place. Where there any warning given? Were there any blocks applied? Seems to me to be a rather odd claim to make - but again, I'll defer to your experience.
  5. As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.
    I'll give that all due consideration. Irony alert #1: Wugapodes also clearly stated "A desysop would be incorrect".(I'm not sure you and I got the same impression from that post) Irony alert #2: I noticed that another of Wugapode's posts was referred to as a "tirade".
  6. It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else.
    I'm not sure if you're suggesting anything here, but I'll AGF that you're speaking in generalities (if you're not, then we DO need to hash this out). Personally I've never met another wikipedian in "RL" that I know of, and I most certainly have never been out drinking with one. I'll also say that I think it's often a HUGE mistake to drink and post.
  7. So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.
    Well to begin with I never said anyone was "lazy", so I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to ascribe that to something I said (I did mention time constraints I believe). As to the rest of it, I've never felt that Arbcom was laboring under any ".. extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism)" I've always been under the impression that anyone posting to WP:RFAR was asking Arbcom to do something. But it's ok to disagree, the world would be pretty boring if we all thought the same way. as a footnote: Anyone who thinks that adding extra hats (be it admin, crat, arb, or whatever) will mean "avoiding criticism" should definitely and promptly be informed of the actual facts of wiki. There was nothing that I "didn't want to see", but rather that I fell into NYB (and other opposes) camp who didn't think RexxS should be desysoped. Again: agree to disagree I suppose.
  8. ... I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases.
    Wow, I honestly didn't know that was a perk you could get. If you don't mind me asking; is that something that all arbs get these days? I know back in the day Arbs like Kelly Martin, Rlevse, and a few others certainly weren't afforded that luxury. Or is this "wiki-social capital" something that's built up through other various means? I do appreciate you admitting this (and pretty much confirming what I was thinking). Also noting that Wikipedia was much smaller "back-in-the-day" than/then it is now
  9. So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends,
    A very fair and reasonable request.
  10. I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp)
    Actually, I did make a mistake there. There were some posts that I thought were from ex-arbs, but I was wrong. My apologies. (and no, Thrydullf wasn't one that I had any particular issues with.)
  11. wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light.
    OK.
  12. I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case
    Nothing there for me to really address - that's between you and Kudpung
  13. so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future.
    Joe I wish you had been more specific in where you feel I've cast aspersions on you. I stated my perception, what I think, and frankly there's nothing in what I said that I feel can be construed as an attack of any kind, and I most certainly never denigrated your charter. Yes, I feel your conduct could have been better. 1 (one) example: Your first, very first, bullet point is directed towards the RexxS RfA. (see: Poisoning the well) There you say RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral. Why didn't you finish that Joe? He also had 164 support votes. And by the way, the Arbcom principle here seems to be relevant as well. You said: " Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why. You want an example of "cherry-picking"? .. well that is what I consider cherry-picking. So basically, my opinion hasn't changed.
    Did you violate any policy? No, I never said you did. (and I would come to your talk if I thought you had). If you want to run around accusing me of casting aspersions on you .. whatever, fine. I'm not here to collect any "wiki-social capital". I'm also not going to go hunt down talk pages every time I see a sub-optimal post. Sorry. Maybe once in a while if I see something bad, then ok, I'll let an editor know - but I have no desire to follow anyone around.
    Now I will also say that I think you do a lot of good work Joe. I enjoyed reading some of the Jared Diamond stuff and it made me wonder if a correlation could be drawn to Wikipedia. I appreciate the work you do. Thank you. That's pretty much all I have to say. If you want to respond, that's fine. (although I will not get into any "did too, did not" bickering). If not, then I guess we're done here. Thanks for posting, and Kind Regards — Ched (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Porn

Why does porn always have to come with a negative connotation reference? — Ched (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

butthurt caps

Just a reminder to myself of the childishness one must circumvent on this project. BOTH sides. Reference. No wonder the world is in such a hateful state. So sad. — Ched (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And to think I willing came back to this place.... May be time to reconsider that. I've already lost a lot of faith policing up crap and flat-out incorrect citations in certain articles (I mean...you can't say a source says something when it doesn't...unless you're on Wikipedia apparently). That these same articles have existed for years without anyone bothering to check citations is even more depressing. Intothatdarkness 01:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there Intothatdarkness, so great to see you around! Yes, it is indeed a time where words are twisted to say things that aren't quite accurate. I really REALLY hope you'll stay for a while though. A calming voice of sanity is getting more and more difficult to find, especially here. If there are any articles I can help with - you know (I hope) that I'd be more than willing to add them to my watchlist and read through some of it. I've got my watchlist down to a pretty reasonable level these days. Not trying to rain anything down your pant leg and call it sunshine, my voice doesn't count for much these days.
Outside a couple of disappointing topics, I tend to keep to myself when I can. A lot of that {{short description}} stuff mostly. I still look in on the policy and admin areas just to keep up with what's acceptable these days - and it really is depressing.
I won't beg - but I do hope you stay. Wishing only the best for you ITD — Ched (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I ran into these articles from AfD, and there are so many examples of things being claimed that aren't even in the sources it's nuts. Does anyone ever actually check this stuff? Then I started helping with an FAR (the article had been FA until someone looked at it and started finding major issues) and it just got worse. You pretty much have to check every citation in the article and then go and check linked articles (they're often written by the same person) to clean those up as well. And these are (mostly) history articles, which makes it even more depressing. And most of them have been in this condition for ten years or more. Sorry...just felt like whining about it, I guess. But I always thought accuracy and verifiability were important parts of this whole thing. Perhaps I was mistaken. Glad to see you're still around, too. Take care of yourself, Ched. You're one of the good ones. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a LOT of PITA hard work to undertake. Aside from the common for the era "more relaxed requirements", the outright WRONG stuff is disappointing. Sadly, I see so much "history" being rewritten to fit some agenda. Absolutely NO need to apologize here ITD, my ear is always open to you. (either here or email). Everyone needs to vent at times or else we'd go insane. And thank you as well for the kind words. You stay safe and healthy as well. — Ched (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Airborne Film 1993

Wikipedia is not interested in my likes or dislikes. Wikipedia:Fancruft is discouraged here. But just to show I'm not afraid to mention some of my "likes", I will say that I'm a big fan of the TJW song: "Even Trolls Love Rock and Roll". There's really no point in continuing this conversation, but thanks for stopping by. — Ched (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Sory if Posible read Entir Mesage slowly Tonight despite Slang:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_(1993_film)

Sory if Posible reply Under each Question slowly Tonight despite Slang:

1. Acording to Website abov, Does (Airborne Film 1993) sound Familiar did You ever See Airborne?

2. Sinc most Events are Vague in my Opinion, Im wondering If I can Ask You Questions about Airborne?(98.239.101.19 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).

I have absolutely no idea why you're posting this here, or what questions you think I can answer. I haven't seen the film, and have no interest in seeing it in the future. Therefore I really doubt I could answer your questions. I can say that you may want to employ a spellchecker of some sort in your future posts. You can ask what you want to ask, but I doubt you'll get any answers you'd like. — Ched (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I wrot in Slang becuz my Leg Pain is 😡 At my Mom causing Me Stres, so I saw ur Name in Revision History for Airborne so I believd dat You r Fan of Airborne y Is ur Name in Revision History for Airborne?(98.239.101.19 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).

My username is in the article history because I imported our wikidata information to provide a {{short description}} for the article. This provides information quickly and succinctly to editors searching for information, especially on smaller and/or mobile devices. See also: Wikipedia:Short description — Ched (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
And I'm sorry your leg hurts at your mom's — Ched (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

https://ww1.123movieshub.tc/movie/airborne/watching.html

Acording to Website abov, Would You b Interested in watching (Airborne Film 1993) for ur 1st Time?(98.239.101.19 (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).

No. And please don't spam websites on Wikipedia. — Ched (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poor attempt at vandalism?

This page contains errors. The summary is completely wrong. It is about a burglar that stumbles upon espionage and a secret formula - not a woman that finds a cat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4280:4810:EC28:82C6:9885:4246 (talk)

(moved from top of page) I would try to laugh - but I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. I did fix YOUR error however, by moving it to the bottom of the page where it belongs. Hint #86: If you're going to point out an "error", maybe figure out how to post it properly? Just a thought for you to ponder. — Ched (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
But what's the point in following correct procedure? Isn't it enough to point out some random error that may or may not exist on a page that may or may not exist, and then not sign your complaint/not complaint? I mean really, Ched. We can't be expecting competency, can we? (and for those who might be easily confused...the preceding is sarcasm/sardonic humor) Intothatdarkness 13:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
LOL ... very good! Shame on me eh? — Ched (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

B vs b and W vs. w

MOS and discussions:

egg

Quick! Jump in Bishzilla's pouch. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

DFO, What a wonderful idea!! I visited there some years ago in search of Chedzilla, my own pet dino. Absolutely exquisite place to venture. Very spacious, well lit, and extremely well stocked in niceties. IIRC there's even been a picture or two posted in the past. If my 'zilla (a bit small in comparison to the original Bishzilla) hasn't eaten the egg(s) before I get there - I'll certainly sample them. (psst - a little secret: I kind of suspect that my dino had a bit of a crush on Bishzilla - but he had to stand in line of course) — Ched (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/Archive_37&oldid=1248444880"