Hammersoft (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
I fixed spelling for ya at the CDA Draft-page. Hope ya don't mind. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
I fixed spelling for ya at the CDA Draft-page. Hope ya don't mind. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
=== Further comment RE: your second post there === |
|||
Re: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=341695566 this post]. Jehochman, it might do for me to state to you, if you do not already know, that I am not a proponent of CDA. In fact, I'm quite strongly against it. That said, I am far, far, far more against an attempt to develop any inherently bureaucratic process using non-professional means. Doing so invites disaster, ''even if it is a good idea''. |
|||
CDA, in any implementation, will require input on a variety of fronts in order to create the best process. To develop the best process, we must use some form of a model that analyzes the status quo with an eye towards improving it, developing requirements for the new process in light of the shortcomings of the status quo, developing a process that meets those requirements, analyzing potential impacts of the proposed process (and going back to earlier steps as necessary to refine the product until hazardous impacts are removed), implementation, verification, and maintenance of the ongoing process. Each of these steps in the process will involve discussion in regards to that step. There is an appropriate time for abstract, overall discussion regarding a particular new proposal for a new product or process. That time is not during discrete discussions regarding specific elements of the development process. |
|||
My question to WP:AN was specifically designed to address the "analyzing potential impacts" stage of this process. It wasn't designed to garner feedback on CDA overall. This isn't to say that I don't think such debate has merit. It most emphatically does. The point is such debate is inherently based on a better foundation when discrete steps in the process have had an opportunity to develop research and analyze output of the discrete discussions. These discrete discussions do not have to exist for abstract discussion and debate to exist, but are certainly tools to aid in such debate. I do think such debate has its place, but I'm attempting to resolve some of the discrete steps of the process rather than muddle it with an abstract debate. If we were to have an abstract debate overwhelm each discrete step of the process, the process is doomed from the start, even if it's the best idea the world has even seen. |
|||
I, like you, feel the proponents of CDA have been trying very hard to ignore, squelch, and otherwise criticize 'outside', disagreeing input on the process they are developing. In no way would I ever seek to mimic such atrocious behavior. I am not suggesting you not raise red flags when you see a need. I am suggesting that a discrete discussion on one aspect is not the place for it. |
|||
The proponents of this process have been, in my opinion, using a very unprofessional approach in developing this process. The process, as proposed, exists because of a general feeling that it would be a good idea. There's no basis in research and no basis in analysis of the existing status quo. There's no requirements for the process written anywhere that I can find. There's no specifications for the process itself. There's no means to evaluate, post implementation, if it is meeting expectations in the form of requirements and specifications. It is setting the stage for a massive, massive drama bomb. That's the only metric by which it currently will be evaluated. It is an undirected effort to solve an unspecified set of problems, declaring itself to solve at least some of what ails ArbCom, RfA and RfC. In short, it's being declared to be a miracle drug with not a drop of verifiability behind it. |
|||
Worse, the proponents effectively will not listen to outside input. This dooms their process. With this one question to WP:AN, I am hoping to highlight one of the major shortcomings of their development process and hopefully have an effect on someone who is willing to sit down and rethink their approach to the development model (or rather, lack thereof) being used. I think it's interesting that one of the outcomes of the answers so far has been what appears to be a delineation between types of admin work; non-controversial vs. controversial. This is a question the developers should be answering, but have not. Their answer instead is essentially "well, if you're a good admin you shouldn't have to worry about doing controversial things because you'll always do the right thing", which of course is woefully inadequate for a response as it fails to recognize that doing the right thing in controversial areas is, by definition, going to upset swaths of editors. In the very least, the developers may at least begin to recognize that there will be an impact on administrators that work in controversial areas should CDA be implemented, and that effect may be wholly undesirable. |
|||
Thanks for reading. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:51, 3 February 2010
StumpWM
Ping. --Gwern (contribs) 21:40 16 January 2010 (GMT)
- Thanks! --Gwern (contribs) 15:05 17 January 2010 (GMT)
Would you mind taking care of its comrades that I made the mistake of making the AFD first and then realizing after it was closed as no consensus (largely because it was a batch nomination) that WP:PROD was the better course of action? Jafeluv unilaterally deprodded the other 29 claiming that all of them have to go through AFD again, but he seems to have disappeared.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, an article cannot be proposed for deletion after an AfD. You've got a special case here, but it would be too controversial for me to process all of these that way. Instead, I recommend WP:DRV. Jehochman Brrr 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thach Weave
Just to note that I, at least, am not involved in any coordinated activity on Lar's talk page. It's bad enough getting crap like that from people who don't know better. You do know better than to inflame. --Tasty monster 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you feel the need to come here and comment like that sort of proves my point. Jehochman Brrr 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I don't sound obtuse, but what is your point? --TS 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (Tasty monster is an account I use from a mobile phone)
- Tony, you're like a chameleon. I never know with what account or signature you'll pop up. My point is that it takes two sides to have a battle. When there's a battle both sides are wrong. One is wrong for being foolish. The other is wrong for arguing with fools. Jehochman Brrr 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting argument. Pray tell, if one thinks that Wikipedia is an important tool being used by impressionable people to guide their understanding of how the world works and feel that some are abusing that tools to guide said impressionable people to believe wrong things, how do you make it such that articles reflect reality, as opposed to the ideological views of the other? Please note that I am quite certain that the other would write exactly the same thing here regarding the ideological views of the corpus. Do you just block everyone who is obviously here to push an agenda - either side? Do you reach consensus with everyone willing to negotiate, do you argue with fools, or do you declare that wikipedia has no real effect on how the world works? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, you're like a chameleon. I never know with what account or signature you'll pop up. My point is that it takes two sides to have a battle. When there's a battle both sides are wrong. One is wrong for being foolish. The other is wrong for arguing with fools. Jehochman Brrr 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I don't sound obtuse, but what is your point? --TS 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (Tasty monster is an account I use from a mobile phone)
- Okay, looks like you misread my comments at some point. I'm not engaged in any kind of battle. If you look at my comments on User talk:Lar [1] [2] and at User talk:2over0 [3] [4] [5] [6] you will be able to verify that for yourself. I very strongly support this probation because, while not quite at the stage of "a plague on both your houses", I think the area of editing global warming articles has become like trench warfare. I think we both see things very much the same way.
- That is why your use of the term "Thach Weave" to describe the situation on Lar's user talk page is so distressing. I am not responsible for, nor do I agree with, comments by others on that thread (or this one, for that matter). If discussions between me and administrators are being hijacked for the purpose of attacking the administrators (and it looks, sadly, as if this is the case) I regret it and I reprove those doing it. Note that I have, far from attacking administrators working in this area, commended them and sought to widen the range of administrators doing so. For instance I asked LessHeard VanU, with whom I cannot be accused of often being in agreement, to look at one or two cases. I think administrator responses have been, broadly speaking, very good, though I agree with Lar that 2over0 could have paid more attention to some of the evidence of broader incivility by William M. Connolley in a recently closed case. I don't think that affair is anywhere near over and I find the ongoing promotion of hostility and partisanship by numerous parties here very ominous.
- By the way I'm only using two accounts. I use Tasty Monster from a mobile phone where the risk of an accidental rollback makes my main account unsuitable. I'm nobody's chameleon. --TS 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I thought it over and now I think I am at the stage of "a plague on both your houses" (not you, Jehochman, but the factions involved in editing global warming articles). I've cleaned out my watchlist of global warming-related pages and I'll stop discussing the articles, their editing, and conduct issues arising. If I can be mistaken for a partisan so easily any good I'm doing in the area must be negligible, and it's not as if I wasn't expending considerable energy in an effort to help. This isn't a criticism of you, it's a result of realising how hard it is to maintain the degree of detachment needed to handle this very delicate situation. --TS 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The matter needs arbitration. It's not your fault. The troublemakers need to be removed conclusively, and then things may get better. By the way, my comment was meant to reflect that the Thach Weave is an excellent defensive tactic, nothing more. Yes, when you go into a battlezone, you better have some defenses or you will get shot down by somebody. The problem is navigating through without joining the battle. Very hard to do. Jehochman Brrr 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't want to walk around in what trustworthy and effective administrators like you obviously (and possibly rightly) believe to be a free-fire zone. Thanks for the heads-up. --TS 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably didn't watch the State of the Union Address this week. Obama said that everybody recognizes global warming as a real problem, except a few fringe climate change deniers, and the whole Republican caucus snickered. Surreal. We have a real world political battle being played out on Wikipedia. It's about the money in petroleum and coal production. Jehochman Brrr 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Don't go there. No really. Don't go there. -TS 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse the intrusion into the banter, but which "there," do you mean, Tony? Proofreader77 (interact) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is the injection of politics to this explosive on-wiki situation. We should leave politics at the door. --TS 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remember The Matrix, "There is no spoon."? ... There is no door. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Matrix is a mundane and derivative work of fiction. Wikipedia is a rather superb encyclopedia. We work hard to keep it that way. Any questions? --TS 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was one of those patented Prooreader77 paralogic dual-statements ... First part was a distractor to lull readers into a false sense of trajectory ... While the second presents the actual rhetorical thrust — there is no door separating this rhetorical realm from the broader cultural realm which includes the political. I.E., there is no door one could leave anything outside of.
Of course, we imagine there is a door within which we have a set of (preliminary, much to be improved for effectiveness) rules for rhetorical moves here. And so, the first part of the sentence does have meaning ... but only in retrospect ... after one has thought about all of this for a few days. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was one of those patented Prooreader77 paralogic dual-statements ... First part was a distractor to lull readers into a false sense of trajectory ... While the second presents the actual rhetorical thrust — there is no door separating this rhetorical realm from the broader cultural realm which includes the political. I.E., there is no door one could leave anything outside of.
- The Matrix is a mundane and derivative work of fiction. Wikipedia is a rather superb encyclopedia. We work hard to keep it that way. Any questions? --TS 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remember The Matrix, "There is no spoon."? ... There is no door. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is the injection of politics to this explosive on-wiki situation. We should leave politics at the door. --TS 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse the intrusion into the banter, but which "there," do you mean, Tony? Proofreader77 (interact) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr --TS 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Proofreader: It would be misguided to expect anyone to accept your arguments if you express them at such tedious length. A little conciseness never hurt anybody. AGK 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The original version was concise. Longer version provided due to inability of reader to unpack ... I.E., I unpacked the suitcase for them. Feel free to repack the suitcase to original concise form. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- When I said "conciseness", I should instead have said "clarity". I was asking you to speak clearly, and not in the form of more-or-less obscure references. Just say what you mean, and be done with it, eh? AGK 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Much more precise, AGK. Bravo. :-) But in any case sometimes precision is good, and sometimes paralogic (#2) is good ... Sometimes sonnets work better. ;-) ... Depends on the rhetorical context/moment. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- When I said "conciseness", I should instead have said "clarity". I was asking you to speak clearly, and not in the form of more-or-less obscure references. Just say what you mean, and be done with it, eh? AGK 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The original version was concise. Longer version provided due to inability of reader to unpack ... I.E., I unpacked the suitcase for them. Feel free to repack the suitcase to original concise form. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No. This is about the end of fighting. We must not fight. It is not a battle. Nobody can win. It is just an encyclopedia. It isn't a blog. It isn't a forum. --TS 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google delivers all to this rhetorical space ... What happens here is a natural result of that. We live in a rhetorical world. Proofreader77 (interact) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking me to look at whatever nonsense Google turns up? Pull the other one. --TS 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google global warming
Google climategate
See #1 results. Nonsense? Proofreader77 (interact) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google global warming
Argumentum ex googlii? Then you could power an automobile with a cheap powder added to ordinary water, but it's implausible that men lived and worked on the moon. Send me a postcard from whatever planet you live on. --TS 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no there outside of Google results. You arrived here like everyone else - via Google. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- can you prove that point, not everyone arrives here via google in fact many people arrive here because of third party relationships that have occurred without the necessity of google intervention. Gnangarra 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the 1,000 ... um, 500 ... well, 100 of us usually hanging around ... Or the hundreds of thousands that arive because they Google something, and Wikipedia is the #1 result? Proofreader77 (interact) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- can you prove that point, not everyone arrives here via google in fact many people arrive here because of third party relationships that have occurred without the necessity of google intervention. Gnangarra 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No. There is an outside world. I live in it and one day we may send volunteers to rescue those poor people who are unable to find anything that isn't linked from google. If you need Google, you are doin it rong!!!!!1!!!! --TS 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Metacommentary
- Alas, we are abusing Jehochman's hospitality ... contending the incommensurable. We should head over to the
brothelsaloon ... and have lots of beer. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)- Did I mention, free beer. (Compliments of Google. LoL) Proofreader77 (interact) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(more waywardness) Jonathan Earp?
Pondering Wikipedia Western musical ... and the pre-fame Wyatt Earp ... a bouncer in a brothel ... when he got an opportunity to perform a lawman-like adventure ... and the path was paved to the Wyatt Earp. (Note: From PBS.) Does that sound Jehochman-like? :-)
Meanwhile, here's a version of Western-tinged true love. Proofreader77 (interact) 08:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- PS ArbCom logo design (challenge)
There's some talk about the possibility of replacing the scales with something well-designed. Given your insightful comment about ArbCom being a negotiation, what about a concept based on this tea ceremony at Burning Man. The bandana'd bikers are, of course, ArbCom members — the woman and man facing off respectfully (on their own mat) the disputants. (More simply, something like this) Proofreader77 (interact) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's what I call negotiatin', Mister
Dillon[Earp]. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's what I call negotiatin', Mister
Unblock on hold
At User talk:AdmiralKolchak, your input is appreciated. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no feelings on this. The record looks clear, and there's nothing else going on that I know of. Jehochman Brrr 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Any news from Carlos Ortiz Longo?
Hello Jehochman. A couple of weeks back you tried emailing the above person for me. I have a suspicion that the response so far has been a defeaning silence, but you never know, you might just have forgotten to check. Seems unlikely though ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutralhomer—not so neutral any more
Hi. I wonder if you could keep an eye on the actions of User:Neutralhomer? There appears to be some systemic issues developing. Thanks. HWV258. 09:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Why?
I am sorry, if you felt I was "snarky" toward you. I just tried to make a joke because it was kind of funny that after all SPI and CU that were run over me you came to conclusion that I do not look as a sock :) Maybe my sense of humor is very different than yours is. Still I cannot understand why did you strike out part of your statement "generally it is best not to threaten users with any process like Checkuser. If process is needed, just do it without threats. Also, calling a user a troll is invariably unhelpful." I thought it was your opinion in general not connecting to me, opinion of fair minded person and a fair minded administrator, the right opinion. So I guess now because I was snarky to you, chummer, your opinion has changed, and you believe that it is OK to call users a troll and threat them with CU? Oh well... Warm regards. I will bother you no longer.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary is offensive, as well as a violation of WP:NPOVD. Please self-revert and please recognize that I make suggestions in good faith. THF (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate this, please don't remove the neutrality tag from Waterboarding. The ongoing debate is located at WP:NPOV/N. Swarm(Talk) 01:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- There was nothing uncivil in that edit summary, just a statement of fact and policy around here. The whole "waterboarding isn't really torture" thing has been done to death recently and we are all a little sick of it. If you find such criticism uncivil, I suggest always reading all the way down an article talk page before contributing there. You might also note the probation tag there at the top. If you wish to place a tag indicating a dispute, please check the talk page of the article to see if you are re-opening a dispute that has been resolved recently. Such actions will likely avoid people making assumptions about you that you feel uncomfortable with in the future, and will definitely avoid the possibility of your being placed under Arbcom restrictions. Jehochman, don't change a thing. --John (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the post at WP:AN
Thank you for your post at WP:AN in response to the question I posted regarding CDA. Yesterday, I was hopeful the discussion would stay focused on the question and not spin off into a debate about CDA itself. I guess I was too optimistic :) I appreciate your answer to the question in the "re-focus" section. I think answering this question is an important step in understanding the impact CDA might have should be it be implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed spelling for ya at the CDA Draft-page. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Further comment RE: your second post there
Re: this post. Jehochman, it might do for me to state to you, if you do not already know, that I am not a proponent of CDA. In fact, I'm quite strongly against it. That said, I am far, far, far more against an attempt to develop any inherently bureaucratic process using non-professional means. Doing so invites disaster, even if it is a good idea.
CDA, in any implementation, will require input on a variety of fronts in order to create the best process. To develop the best process, we must use some form of a model that analyzes the status quo with an eye towards improving it, developing requirements for the new process in light of the shortcomings of the status quo, developing a process that meets those requirements, analyzing potential impacts of the proposed process (and going back to earlier steps as necessary to refine the product until hazardous impacts are removed), implementation, verification, and maintenance of the ongoing process. Each of these steps in the process will involve discussion in regards to that step. There is an appropriate time for abstract, overall discussion regarding a particular new proposal for a new product or process. That time is not during discrete discussions regarding specific elements of the development process.
My question to WP:AN was specifically designed to address the "analyzing potential impacts" stage of this process. It wasn't designed to garner feedback on CDA overall. This isn't to say that I don't think such debate has merit. It most emphatically does. The point is such debate is inherently based on a better foundation when discrete steps in the process have had an opportunity to develop research and analyze output of the discrete discussions. These discrete discussions do not have to exist for abstract discussion and debate to exist, but are certainly tools to aid in such debate. I do think such debate has its place, but I'm attempting to resolve some of the discrete steps of the process rather than muddle it with an abstract debate. If we were to have an abstract debate overwhelm each discrete step of the process, the process is doomed from the start, even if it's the best idea the world has even seen.
I, like you, feel the proponents of CDA have been trying very hard to ignore, squelch, and otherwise criticize 'outside', disagreeing input on the process they are developing. In no way would I ever seek to mimic such atrocious behavior. I am not suggesting you not raise red flags when you see a need. I am suggesting that a discrete discussion on one aspect is not the place for it.
The proponents of this process have been, in my opinion, using a very unprofessional approach in developing this process. The process, as proposed, exists because of a general feeling that it would be a good idea. There's no basis in research and no basis in analysis of the existing status quo. There's no requirements for the process written anywhere that I can find. There's no specifications for the process itself. There's no means to evaluate, post implementation, if it is meeting expectations in the form of requirements and specifications. It is setting the stage for a massive, massive drama bomb. That's the only metric by which it currently will be evaluated. It is an undirected effort to solve an unspecified set of problems, declaring itself to solve at least some of what ails ArbCom, RfA and RfC. In short, it's being declared to be a miracle drug with not a drop of verifiability behind it.
Worse, the proponents effectively will not listen to outside input. This dooms their process. With this one question to WP:AN, I am hoping to highlight one of the major shortcomings of their development process and hopefully have an effect on someone who is willing to sit down and rethink their approach to the development model (or rather, lack thereof) being used. I think it's interesting that one of the outcomes of the answers so far has been what appears to be a delineation between types of admin work; non-controversial vs. controversial. This is a question the developers should be answering, but have not. Their answer instead is essentially "well, if you're a good admin you shouldn't have to worry about doing controversial things because you'll always do the right thing", which of course is woefully inadequate for a response as it fails to recognize that doing the right thing in controversial areas is, by definition, going to upset swaths of editors. In the very least, the developers may at least begin to recognize that there will be an impact on administrators that work in controversial areas should CDA be implemented, and that effect may be wholly undesirable.
Thanks for reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)