User talk:Ludwigs2

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins needed at WT:NOT

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you

It's up to you, of course, but I thought you agreed to stay away from Talk:Muhammad/images. It looked to me like they were doing fine there without you or me. It looked like they were staggering towards a reasonable consensus. I fear that your engagement there may derail that process. I may be wrong. But would you consider stepping back for a while longer and seeing what happens? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I said I'd stay off the page for a month. what's the problem? Do you think my posts are unreasonable? are they hostile? I cannot help the fact that some of the editors there want to cast me in a negative light (some people just can't help personalizing), and if my mere participation is enough to prevent a compromise from occurring then, well… trust me, that compromise was never going to occur.

I'm under no obligation not to post there, but I'll give it some thought. --Ludwigs2 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Decisions on WP

A while back you engaged with Martin Hogbin about the way WP arguments are handled. You made the statement that "The nice thing about consensus systems for Wikipedia is that it places power where it ought to be for an encyclopedia - on reason and informative sources." Of course, I am dragging this remark out of context. I just wonder if it actually expresses your opinion about how WP works, or instead, if it is a statement about how a consensus system is supposed to work in principle?

My personal experience is that the decision process on WP sometimes works when a few editors on a Talk page can come to terms over subject matter (a rare event). If that does not happen, and recourse is made to ANI or to ArbCom, or perhaps a strolling Administrator decides to settle matters themselves, then the result is entirely arbitrary and the actions taken will have no necessary relation to the problem or its resolution. Any connection to fact or reason becomes accidental. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to this a conjecture that a contributing factor to the malaise is that Administrators are presently immune to any consequences to their actions, except from other Administrators. This ingrown community that rules with impunity for life has no incentive to improve the content or conduct of affairs on WP. Their motivations are a subject for speculation. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just read your contributions to this discussion of Attrition and find myself in complete agreement with your observations of WP activity. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The comment you quoted refers to how a properly designed consensus system would improve the project. As of now (and as you point out), Wikipedia does not have anything resembling a consensus system except in the margins ('the margins' meaning articles that are entirely non-controversial and attract attention from very small numbers of editors). For the most part, 'consensus' is just a word editors use when they want someone else to shut up, which is fantastically ironic. Doing something about it, though, is a hell of an uphill battle; no one seems to want a better Wiki. any suggestions? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests by contributors for arbitration by year on Wikipedia. (Data from Wikipedia.)

The figure to the right shows the number of formal arbitration cases has dropped to about 12 per year. To me, that indicates formal arbitration has proved unsuccessful and is no longer a factor in WP activity. Which is fine: the process was no good because it suffered from the same squabbles as everything else. Which is not fine: now arbitrary decisions by single Administrators govern many disciplinary actions without even a pretense of fact finding.

Fixing things? It is not an uphill battle, it is a lost battle. With no mechanism to unseat Administrators that are derelict, no way to motivate responsible behavior, nothing can be done within the system. It remains for editors on Talk pages to engineer some methodology for forming consensus by inventing their own sub-domain where their own rules apply. That was tried with success for a brief time on the global warming pages by adopting a consensus procedure. Maybe something like that can be worked out. If so, it will surely come to the attention of Administrators that they have become simply the lackeys of Talk page requests to enforce sub-domain rules. I don't know how that will play out. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that such a Talk page consensus already exists among some editors, possibly informally or possibly engineered by e-mail or personal contact. Unfortunately, some of those that have formed cabals to enforce their views so far have been motivated by a kind of video-game entertainment and have little interest beyond their own amusement. Others are motivated by fanaticism or politics. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may come to pass that certain groups of Administrators will band together for the good of WP. In view of the "no revert" rule, a pre-emptive ruling by one Admin precludes any action by others, without a protracted hearing of some kind, so such a group by being diligent could strongly affect the course of events.

What I am forecasting I am afraid, is a balkanization of WP into fiefdoms. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Such generalizations! "Formal arbitration has proved unsuccessful..." "Fixing things... is a lost battle." As if arbitration was ever better than now. As if there was anything to fix. When was Wikipedia better than now? In the mythical early days after it was initiated? Back in 2007 when you began editing articles on electricity? Or was it in the months prior to the time you wrote Jimbo in 2009, believing that there actually was a "benevolent dictator" who would fix things? It seems to me that fiefdoms are what people create when faced with the vagaries of primitive social behavior. Can positivistic prescriptions help us back to the mythical kingdom? The presumption of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Is that not Quixotic?! revision as of Sunray (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were to make a prescription at this point (given pages of discussion here, at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, Talk: Jimbo Wales, and elsewhere) it would be a Gandhian one: WP:CIV, WP:CON, and all the fine behavioral policies and guidelines should be taken to heart by each of us. We can, and should, encourage others to do so, but if we try to dictate the change, we will likely fail. In other words: "Be the change..." Sunray (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Brews is annoyed, and understandably so: the current system on project really sucks. But with respect to your prescription… While I would normally agree with the Gandhian way, it relies on presence, which is something that simply doesn't exist on the internet. Very difficult problem to get around… --Ludwigs2 21:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that there needs to be presence. Gandhi had millions of followers, of course. But if there are enough people who believe that WP:CIV is essential guidance and practice it. And if we could come up with some simple groundrules for the application of WP:CON, things might look very different around here. In the meantime, Brews can take heart that his work has made a difference. He can continue with that work and tune out the background noise... Then things might not look so hopeless. But humans are a capricious species and panaceas are generally not available. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, I guess by your handle that you are an optimist. The notion that WP:CIV and WP:CON can serve as vehicles for improvement is a stretch in an environment populated by bullies seeking self-validation by seeing their weight thrown about. If that group consisted only of lowly editors, it would not be critical, but they also include Administrators. WP is a study for psychologists to figure out just how a stodgy project like an encyclopaedia can become a magnet for such behavior. While one might see the public face of WP as interesting if real people were running things, its hard for me to understand how promoting a pseudonym like Headbomb or Elen of the Roads as some mythic figure contributes to self-esteem. But then, I don't play Dungeons & Dragons either. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AN

I've broached the idea of an article ban for you on Muhammad, here. This is very hard for me because I think, apart from Hans Adler, you're the person with whom I most agree on this issue. I certainly won't support any other sanctions based on your present or past behaviour, I have no doubt about your good intentions, or the rightness of your position here, but I can't engage on that talk page while all that bickering is going on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)