Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to User talk:Coffee/Archives/2016/May) (bot |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →GMOs: new section |
||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::It can too easily be seen as commenting on users related to the dispute; it's basically in an extremely gray area. And as your sentence still makes sense without its presence, I see no need to reverse my action. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
:::It can too easily be seen as commenting on users related to the dispute; it's basically in an extremely gray area. And as your sentence still makes sense without its presence, I see no need to reverse my action. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::OK, I can accept that. Thanks. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
::::OK, I can accept that. Thanks. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
== GMOs == |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I just did this to put to rest, once and for all, the claims that there isn't the authority under DS. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:14, 5 June 2016
Trump
You recently added a warning to the Donald Trump article that 1RR now applies there. I had been considering trying to bring that high-profile BLP up to "good article" status, and then maybe up to "featured article" status, but that will apparently be impossible as a practical matter if I'm limited to 1RR. Right now, for example, I feel helpless to do anything about a long series of edits that are making the article much worse, since my last revert was less than 24 hours ago. Any advice from you would be appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant: I understand your frustration but I refrain from becoming involved in content disputes (which this is). I hope you are aware that this decision was made to prevent disruption on one of the most viewed articles this year, and is not intended to inflict any more work on editors than required for such biographies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the reply. I will keep at it, and see how it goes. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to report 1RR violations, and if so where do I report them? If I'm subject to 1RR, then I would like other editors to be as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant: Feel free to contact me here, or, if I'm not available, make a report at WP:AE. For now I've blocked the user in question for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits (I wasn't able to find the 1RR violation, but if you can give me some diffs that would be helpful). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to report 1RR violations, and if so where do I report them? If I'm subject to 1RR, then I would like other editors to be as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the reply. I will keep at it, and see how it goes. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
here that reverted to this version: [1]. Earlier on 14 May, this series of edits reverted lots of stuff (including a change to a header).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gosh darn it, thanks for the link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant: The one time I lose it in my edit summary... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gosh darn it, thanks for the link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
wearing my Trump suit
Hey, Coffee, I see that you've blocked ShadowDragon343 with an AE block for Trump-related shenanigans. They've posted a normal unblock template--if I understand correctly (AE is *not* my forte), that should be declined out of hand, since it takes more than that to overturn an AE block. Yet I also thought that a user must be notified of active AE sanctions before one can be blocked under them, and I can't see any warnings in ShadowDragon's talk page history. Am I missing something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper: It is declined out of hand unless they request it be copied to WP:AE (which, besides contacting ArbCom, is the only way to get it removed). In this case they violated the page restrictions in effect, which are under a slightly different system. Page restrictions, according to WP:AC/DS, need only be placed in the page's editnotice (as it was in this case), and do not require a message about them on every editor's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee, does the edit notice appear if someone simply reverts an edit, for example with Twinkle (as opposed to opening the edit window)? I don't believe they do, and If not, then how are you justifying blocking some of these editors for a week without prior warnings?- MrX 20:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- MrX: If someone manually undoes an edit, as ShadowDragon343 did, then they definitely see the editnotice. With Twinkle or moblie edits the users do not see the warning (this should definitely be fixed somehow), but I have ensured that everyone who I've applied blocks/sanctions to so far has seen the editnotice. (In fact I just looked over almost all of my recent ArbCom blocks and saw that no automatic tools or mobile devices were used for the actionable edits.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. That does put my mind at ease.- MrX 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- MrX: No problem! I definitely don't want to concern anyone with my actions... This is just a very tedious area to try to administrate, especially when the information on these remedies is not exactly easy to find. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. That does put my mind at ease.- MrX 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- MrX: If someone manually undoes an edit, as ShadowDragon343 did, then they definitely see the editnotice. With Twinkle or moblie edits the users do not see the warning (this should definitely be fixed somehow), but I have ensured that everyone who I've applied blocks/sanctions to so far has seen the editnotice. (In fact I just looked over almost all of my recent ArbCom blocks and saw that no automatic tools or mobile devices were used for the actionable edits.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
ballot-stuffing
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination), User:Hallward's Ghost has started placing multiple !votes [2]. Because of the extreme length to which this disruptive AfD has bloomed, the closing admin may - whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not - employ some level of !vote-counting. Multiple !votes will, therefore, balloon a disruptive AfD into a very disruptive AfD. I don't believe I have leeway under WP:SIGCLEAN to strike Hallward's Ghost's older !votes and would like to request you do so. LavaBaron (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Suggestion In the interests of transparency, why doesn't User:LavaBaron take this request to the talk page of an admin who hasn't indef'd the nominator...?! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with transparency? Coffee is the most active admin in the AfD and has not registered a !vote either way. This is the most concise, succinct, and appropriate avenue to request a redress of ballot stuffing in an AfD. Traversing WP pinging random admins is the most disruptive approach that could possibly be imagined. LavaBaron (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It's of no real concern as I won't be taking any action on this request by LavaBaron. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Copy that. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It's of no real concern as I won't be taking any action on this request by LavaBaron. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with transparency? Coffee is the most active admin in the AfD and has not registered a !vote either way. This is the most concise, succinct, and appropriate avenue to request a redress of ballot stuffing in an AfD. Traversing WP pinging random admins is the most disruptive approach that could possibly be imagined. LavaBaron (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh good lord, stop. I simply endorsed the reasoning of the nomination, since you were trying to scuttle the AFD (which is clearly not going how you want it to) on procedural grounds. It is not intended to be (nor do I think any rational person would view it as) a second !vote in the AFD. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you fine with me striking your older !votes? You currently have one !vote for "Rename" and one !vote for "Delete." LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. And you need to stop hounding people who disagree with you. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you fine with me striking your older !votes? You currently have one !vote for "Rename" and one !vote for "Delete." LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your comments here. I felt that I was correct in making the comments that I made, but had to disengage from someone who was clearly too involved in that deletion debate. But if I may trouble you for a moment more of your time and opinion, do you think I was wrong to unstrike the text of the nomination in the first place? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Athomeinkobe: Not at all; only administrators should be striking comments/nominations at AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for handling the Abbatai situation. But this now begs the question, with such blatant violations of the AA2 and continued personal attacks, shouldn't his AA2 topic ban be extended from 1 month to a longer amount of time? I believe this edit alone, which is highly disruptive and POV in and of itself, should merit such an extension. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:EtienneDolet: The ban has been extended to 6 months. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
We have a problem...
Hi, Coffee. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I really don't know what else to do. SSTflyer whom you granted WP:Page mover rights to a few days ago has seemingly gone rogue. The discussions about this are (currently) here and Anthony Appleyard's Talk page. At this point, SSTflyer really seems to qualify for revocation of Page mover rights under #1 and #3 (and for effectively wheel warring). I'll leave the decision to you, but I thought you should be made aware. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- No wheel warring has taken place, because I only performed the move after discussion has solved the problem. I was merely moving an article back to its long-term stable title, after an undiscussed move and an RM discussion closed due to lack of consensus. My move was reverted by administrator Anthony Appleyard, with the rationale that an RM discussion was taking place. I only moved the article back after the RM closure, meaning that the initial revert by Anthony Appleyard was invalid when I moved the article back. SSTflyer 07:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee may well come to a conclusion that agrees that you haven't "violated" anything. But Coffee still needs to be made aware and take a look at it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: What's your opinion on this matter? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee may well come to a conclusion that agrees that you haven't "violated" anything. But Coffee still needs to be made aware and take a look at it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Lying Game (TV series) has stopped running, and if it is still primary, its primaryness will likely fade with time, as with most terminated television shows. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did SSTflyer wait long enough to see if discussion had finished or if discussion would continue? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: I don't believe he did, and I am currently of the opinion that he shouldn't have the page mover flag. But, I'm open to your opinion on the matter. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have known instances where a dispute over a quite minor matter, generates over a megabyte of repetitive arguing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- My $0.02? I've come around to the idea that SSTflyer shouldn't lose Page mover over this, because I've come to conclude that there wasn't malice involved here (perhaps just over-zealousness), provided that SSTflyer learns from this to carefully check Talk pages (and any relevant RM discussions) before performing moves like this one, and defers to leaving the status quo in any situations where consensus is in any way ambiguous. (Worst case: SSTflyer can always open a "new" WP:RM in cases like these, if circumstances warrant.) As long as something like this doesn't happen again, I think things are kosher now that the dust has settled. (Note: In the specific case of The Lying Game, I intend to open a new WP:RM on it in late June on my end, provided the pageview stats continue to confirm that the TV series is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the next 2–3 weeks...) Thanks Coffee! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you please help?
Hello Coffee, The other day editor HappyValleyEditor personally attacked editor Jzsj at a AFD that I was on. I called out HVE and sent him a warning on his talk page about it. He then came over to my talk page and denied the whole thing and again attacked jZsj on my talk page so I warned him again. I noticed later that you wrote a warning to him on the HappyValleyEditor talk page. I believe me he thinks I reported him to you which of course I did not. Now he is trying to get me in trouble on the editwar board here. [3] He has lied and said I made 4 reverts when I made 3. He also made three. It is obvious what he reported is not true, so he is trying to make something out of nothing. I have been trying to help Jzsj go over the pages and afds on the articles he made. These are of course the article HVE has been, gutting, prodding, and AFDing, so we both show up as editing most of those pages. We also both patrol new pages, so we have pages in common there. HappyValleyEditor has been sending me email that are unwanted. He is trying to make me stop helpinG Jzsj because he is a "Jesuit" I am really getting scared about the bully attempt and unwanted emails. Can you please get him to leave me alone? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee, I took your advice and went away to make nice new stubs, but this editor insists on following me around and leaving unwanted message on my talk page. There are 4 reverts, check them. Please make this person stay away from me. The emails I sent were very reasonable-- read them. I askedd him/her to pelase drop the stick/and/or leave me alone. At this point I do not care if you block me, but I am hoping you block this other person. I'm pretty fed up with what passes for maturity in Wikipedia. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually a great solution would be if you just blocked me permanently, forever, for any reason you can come up with... then I would not have to see this editor again. Thanks!! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- After all this HappyValleyEditor has sent me another email just now. I have said these emails are unwanted and scary to me! Please Coffee make him stop emailing me. Please! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee, check the emails. Also, please block me, take me out of this hassle.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just woke up and I am really dissapointed that my accont still works.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee, check the emails. Also, please block me, take me out of this hassle.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- After all this HappyValleyEditor has sent me another email just now. I have said these emails are unwanted and scary to me! Please Coffee make him stop emailing me. Please! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually a great solution would be if you just blocked me permanently, forever, for any reason you can come up with... then I would not have to see this editor again. Thanks!! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
RMNac
Should I still put {{RMnac}}
on the RMs I close? I'm not an admin but I've got the Page Mover rights, which is basically all a person needs to do everything required when closing an RM. Anarchyte (work | talk)
- @Anarchyte: IMO, we should still tag it (it's still not "Admin closed"), but with "Page mover closure" rather than "Non-admin closure". (The text at WP:RMNAC can then be updated accordingly.) So somebody should quickly come up with a {{RMpmc}} template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anarchyte, IJBall, the extendedmover permission is not some form of special status. You must still notate any closures as "non-admin" unless you go through an RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall and Coffee: I've created the template and updated the non-admin closure page accordingly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte:: I don't think you understood me at all. Page mover is not a status, and discussions should not be closed with anything other than non-admin closure. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall and Coffee: I've created the template and updated the non-admin closure page accordingly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anarchyte, IJBall, the extendedmover permission is not some form of special status. You must still notate any closures as "non-admin" unless you go through an RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
You have helped Wikipedia appear messy and bizarre
WTGDF? (I'd accidentally posted this at Talk:Coffee, then replied to a comment at Cracked. Then I followed the comment back to First World problem, and you were there again. So I'm assuming now you're aware, but figured I'd still notify and congratulate you on your edit summary.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: The ironic thing is that one of my goals while working on these political articles was to keep them out of the media. Granted Cracked.com isn't really a media organization in the same way The New York Times is, but it still gets a ridiculous amount of views. I guess I can rest easy though, since at least they were only covering me losing my marbles in an edit summary instead of any actual content concerns. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- For YouTube, Reddit and other such crazy corners, they pixelate the usernames. But Wikipedians are apparently public figures or notable authors (or something). That's kind of nice of Cracked, if a bit reckless. There are certainly less flattering places to unwittingly feature. Anyway, keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
Feedback
While the reaction you got was clearly way over the top, I'm having a hard time understanding your decision to remove Izkala's template editor right a) after an obviously rhetorical request, b) after the "request" had already been declined by another admin, c) two days after the matter was settled, and d) without leaving a notification. People get very frustrated when their regular Wikipedia activities are interrupted by passing admins exerting "power" like that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis: I wasn't aware there were such things as "rhetorical requests". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Secondly, anyone with a block log that bad, and blocks so recent we would never grant the right, should not continue to have access to editing extremely sensitive pages. If they wish to continue to edit productively in the future, then they can work on everything other than templates until they are no longer bordering on being indefinitely blocked. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- The recognition and appreciation of snark is not evenly distributed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow your first response; even if you take that as a serious request and not a rhetorical point, it's still one that had already been handled and acknowledged two days before you arrived. Unless you decided to enact the request after looking at the block log?
- On your second response, that's not how user rights are supposed to work. This isn't an immediate issue now, but none of the criteria in WP:TPEREVOKE are met. To echo a good point you made in a thread a bit above this one, a user right is a tool, not a status. (But then, so is the admin bit.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I did indeed look at the block log first, and while I understand you're likely correct on the letter of the policy I feel that it's well within administrator discretion to remove high risk rights from editors on the verge of an indefinite block. If this user can show proof that they actually intend on not getting permanently blocked, then I am fully behind restoring the right. But, that doesn't appear to be the case here. If you think they stand a high chance of ending their disruption, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore Opabinia regalis, per my reading of the 4th criteria it seems that TEREVOKE is met, as this is considered edit summary vandalism. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- To put it briefly, I disagree. But I won't comment further now; in retrospect, I shouldn't have started this conversation to talk about someone else in a venue they can't respond in, about a matter that is their choice to pursue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Small edit
Hi Coffee. It was recently brought to my attention that some of my language on the GMO RfC talk page could introduce some unintended hyperbole in this comment of mine. I'd rather tone down the language and have it be more descriptive so there isn't potential ambiguity (and more drama), so could you redact "witch-hunt tactics" and switch to "aspersions about COI"? I could do it myself too when the talk page opens up again if you'd rather not touch any of this. Do you think such as change is even worthwhile at this point or would draw unneeded attention to comments we really shouldn't need to revisit anymore for the purposes of the RfC?
I do want to stress that even though that particular comment was about an editor, I thought for quite awhile on how to best handle it because it was weird gray zone where it looked like we needed to comment on how an editor that could have acted as an admin at the RfC was involved in some related disputes. Basically a process issue rather than pursuing behavior problems. I still didn't like commenting on an editor at all though since I've been one of the people trying to push others to focus on content (or structuring the RfC). I don't think there was any ideal place to breach the issue without ruffling feathers any less, but it was a different situation than pursuing action against an editor at AE, etc. where such an example absolutely wouldn't belong on the RfC talk page. I'd rather just focus on the RfC itself now agreeing exactly with your comment here, so if you think it's better just to leave those comments alone entirely and move on, I'm perfectly fine with that too. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The redactions actually accomplish the same intent better. You've been referencing a "moderated content RFC" below, but are you aware we've been discussing procedure more than anything in the current talk page discussion (re: my comment above)? I just wasn't sure if you'd caught that context yet (even though things should have spiraled into a lot of what they did beyond just procedure). We're switching to focus on purely content now starting on Monday, so do you think it would be better to archive the entire talk page so that it's blank for content discussion only? Even with our attempts at dealing with the various behavior issues cropping up during procedure discussion now being redacted, most of what remains probably isn't immediately relevant to RfC responds when we launch into the next phase. Just a thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that goes to my concern below – these have, so far, been discussions about procedure rather than about content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to try to explain that to all of the editors who think they should be allowed to do the same during the actual RFC (and who will point to their existence as a reason for later disruptive actions), be my guest. At any rate, there was no actual need for any of the comments regarding editors to be there, and as such I won't be revisiting this with either of you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you, really, about setting clear boundaries for editors going forward, and I agree with you about comments about other editors. If I were explaining that, it would be a simple matter of explaining that the previous discussion was about procedure – because The Wordsmith said so, and both he and Laser brain said not to discuss content – but that going forward, the discussion changes to be exclusively about content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to try to explain that to all of the editors who think they should be allowed to do the same during the actual RFC (and who will point to their existence as a reason for later disruptive actions), be my guest. At any rate, there was no actual need for any of the comments regarding editors to be there, and as such I won't be revisiting this with either of you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that goes to my concern below – these have, so far, been discussions about procedure rather than about content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I also want to reiterate that no one here is saying we should have been commenting on editors in the first place in the procedure discussion (even my example above being a gray zone I was not entirely comfortable with). The Wordsmith and Laserbrain did a good job keeping the RfC development itself rolling along (which is the end goal we really needed), but things did spiral out of control to the point involved editors were having to try to hold behavior issues at bay while also trying to set up the RfC procedure.
- We needed strong enforcement on focus on content (i.e., RfC procedure at the time) to prevent the behavior issues from getting confounded into the procedure discussion. What happened wasn't ideal, but we got through the first phase. I'm really glad it's looking like you're going to take a much stronger stance on focusing on content. We could have used that earlier, but it's even more crucial that it's enforced at this upcoming phase. If you're willing to take a no-tolerance approach for the RfC itself, that's exactly what we've been looking for from the start. Hopefully I've clarified myself enough, and I don't think you'll need to hear from me on your talk page anymore from the looks of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, I want to express strong support for something else that Kingofaces said, which is that, when the RfC moves into mainspace, it would be a good idea not to move the existing talk page with it, but rather, to start the RfC with a fresh new talk page. That will actually make it easier for you and The Wordsmith to keep the RfC discussion on track, without resuming the prior arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Redactions
About [4], where you redacted the phrase "self-appointed "good editor"", please take another look. I was not referring to anybody. Rather, I was referring to where the other editor had talked just above about "choose a small group of good editors", and I was trying to make the point that there is no valid way to choose "good editors". Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tryptofish: "I was trying to make the point that there is no valid way to choose 'good editors'", that is exactly why I redacted it. Such arguments have no place in a moderated content RFC. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand, honestly. An editor says that, as part of the RfC process, a small group of good editors should be chosen for a task, and I respond in part by saying that there is no way to choose such editors – how is that inappropriate? Again, I was not referring to anybody as being such a self-appointed editor. Rather, I was talking about the RfC process, and about how it is contrary to community norms to consider some editors better than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It can too easily be seen as commenting on users related to the dispute; it's basically in an extremely gray area. And as your sentence still makes sense without its presence, I see no need to reverse my action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I can accept that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It can too easily be seen as commenting on users related to the dispute; it's basically in an extremely gray area. And as your sentence still makes sense without its presence, I see no need to reverse my action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand, honestly. An editor says that, as part of the RfC process, a small group of good editors should be chosen for a task, and I respond in part by saying that there is no way to choose such editors – how is that inappropriate? Again, I was not referring to anybody as being such a self-appointed editor. Rather, I was talking about the RfC process, and about how it is contrary to community norms to consider some editors better than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
GMOs
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I just did this to put to rest, once and for all, the claims that there isn't the authority under DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)