User talk:Bigtimepeace

Actually I'll be offline essentially this entire time, and will almost certainly not be able to respond to talk page messages or e-mails.

Archives

1751—April 2008 May 1, 2008—May 23, 2009

In the interest of keeping conversations in one place, if you leave me a message here I will reply here (and possibly on your page as well if it's an urgent matter). Likewise if I have left a message on your talk page, I will check back for a reply.

that's a big archival move

Keep away from direct sunlight.

Haha, I was looking at recent changes, with my finger on the rollback button. Here's a houseplant to liven the place up some. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to complain about you running over here and sullying my newly fresh and clean talk page, but seeing as you brought such a lovely plant with you, how can I? :-) Oh, and what kind of computer do you have that you can actually operate the rollback button with your bare hands? That's incredible! My stupid mouse and keyboard setup is apparently no longer au courant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the word "censor" or "censors" is an inappropriate word. I said we don't need censors deciding what content our readers are exposed to which is a clear cut matter of policy and crucial to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not a personal attack any more than saying we don't want vandals, POV pushers or abusive admins. But I digress. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment speaks for itself. Speaking to another editor you say: "Do you think taking comments out of context is appropriate in a talk page discussion? Do you think you're improving Wikipedia by attacking anyone who has a differing viewpoint and attempts to abide by our guidelines for the inclusion of varyious notable perspectives? If Cheney's views are ridiculous then let them speak for themselves. We don't need censors deciding what content our readers should be exposed to." You are not simply stating policy (actually misstating, since you still don't seem to understand WP:NOTCENSORSED, but there but for the grace of god go I—again), you are clearly directing your comment at a specific editor or editors. And even if you somehow didn't mean it that way, it would likely be read that way, which is why you shouldn't be saying it. But let's cut to the chase here—is it actually necessary for you to use the word "censored" in relation to article content on the Obama articles? I mean, do you feel you must have that in your toolkit as you edit? If so let me know right now—it's still a problem but at least I'll know where you are coming from. If you feel like you can get by without talking about censorship of articles on Obama talk pages, then why don't you just do me a favor and not use those words. It's pretty silly for me to have to put it this way, but this is an inherently silly conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And as we've discussed before, your personal POV and interpretation on policy and word usage, while interesting, isn't based on AGF and civility guidelines that we have to abide by. I go by what the policies actually say. Wikipedia is not censored. There are also policies indicating we include various perspectives including minority viewpoints that are notable. So pointing that out is key to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, particularly on political subjects where we have editors try to impose their opinions on others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That was clever. You completely switched topics because before we were just talking about the word censored and its usage. But you're right, we have discussed the topics you bring up before, so let's not bother about it again. I'd like to go back to the first thing. Is it necessary for you to talk about "censorship" on the Obama articles? Since I'm an admin trying to help out over there and I'm telling you I see it as a problem which creates a less than cordial editing environment, do you think you could throw me a bone and just not talk about how there is censorship on the articles? You can just say yes or no if you like. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem BTP is that our political content IS censored. It's not supposed to be, but it is. I've made variety of suggestions, general and specific, to address the situation. Censorship is a word with a defined meaning, and I use it in that sense. I've also applied it as specifically described in the Not censored policy. If you have an alternative word that I can use to describe the ommission of notable content that some editors find disagreeable, let me know and I'll be happy to consider using it. In the meantime, I hope you'll help me by focusing on the specific and general content issues and how we can address Wikipedia's current deficiencies as well as the incivility and attacks on anyone seeking to address them. Cheers. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested before, say you're concerned that a given article doesn't measure up in terms of WP:NPOV, because that is the policy you are actually talking about whether you know it or not. You're right that "censored" has a particular meaning, one whose connotation would force us to conclude that there are people actively doing the censoring. That's where the bad faith part comes in, and that's why using that word is unacceptable. If there is censorship then there are censors, and implicitly accusing other editors of censoring (as you have done repeatedly) is a bad-faith personal attack. That's my absolute last time explaining that, and all the warnings (not threats) I have given you about that are in as much effect now as ever.

Please also note that you lose absolutely nothing by saying, "I see some NPOV issues here, the article lacks balance in respect X and respect Y." It speaks directly to your concern, and you avoid impugning the good faith of other editors. Give it a try, please. I think you'll find it a much more constructive approach.

You also might try making some specific suggestions on the Obama articles. I have not seen any from you for quite some time. You've put a lot of complaints like the above here and on article talk pages, but you're not offering much in the way of ideas about how to actually improve the article(s). Other editors need something to respond to besides complaints of censorship.

Obviously our previous conversation about WP:NOTCENSORED had no effect on your thinking, and apparently you did not ask other admins to give their view of that policy as I suggested. You continue to completely misapply and misunderstand it, just so you know. And with that I wish you a very merry rest-of-the-month of May, and also early June. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> If you think saying we are not censored or that we shouldn't act as censors is a personal attack, you are welcome to take the issue to an admin board and seek out a consensus that certain words are verboten. Your position in and of itself is a form of censorship. You're saying that certain words aren't okay even when used generally to discuss article contents. I think your position is outrageous and wrong. When censorship is going on I refuse to be compelled to use another word for it than the one that has a defined meaning that describes it. You continue to assume bad faith on me when all I've done is repeatedly point out policy and suggest ways to abide by it and asked very reasonable questions about where notable criticisms about Obama policies should be included in the encyclopedia, a question you've never answered. You've also assumed bad faith and made attacks on another editor you disagree with. This is unacceptable.

If you wish to put yourself in league with censorship that's on you. I don't share your personal interpretation of policies based on logical extensions and some kind of allusion. The policies are clear. I expect you to abide them. Do not attack and threaten good faith editors who don't happen to share your personal interpretations and perspectives. I've gone over this with you repeatedly and I want to return my focus to editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. You've refused to help address the censorship problem and I think I've been more than patient enough with your verbiage. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We don't omit notable content and notable controversies and notabile criticisms because some people find them personally objectionable. End of story. STOP YOUR THREATS. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To ChildofMidnight - you're so far off base on this it's hard to know where to begin. Wherever we begin, the end point is: do not use article talk pages, and particularly Obama probation pages, to accuse other editors of censorship, whitewashing, wikigaming, politicking, editing out of personal bias, etc. That is unwelcome. In the middle somewhere, shielding disruptive editors, and haranguing and scolding editors who try to deal constructively with the matter, is itself a disruption to the collaborative editing process. You have been warned many times by scores of administrative and non-administrative editors. If you persist you will find yourself prohibited from editing these articles. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who thinks their personal biases should be reflected in Wikipedia's article as indicated by inappropriate statements like this:

"he (Dick Cheney) is not terribly relevant to Obama's administration or the policy issue. It is also not clear that anyone is listening to him. Second, there is a backlash from some on the right for every single thing Obama does. That should be reported judiciously if at all here because it's not terribly important, remarkable, or encyclopedic."

your comments are noted as someone who has a long history of pushing your personal perspectives rather than abiding by policy. Please read and understand our NPOV and Censorship policies. We go by independent reliable sources, not your political stands and beliefs, that would be censorship. And while it might be supported by some biased admins, it's wholly inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation of NPOV and censorship is nonstandard, and I don't care to track you down that rabbit hole. You have been misrepresenting my edits for many months, which is a toxic way to behave. After writing the above, you just went to WP:3RR on the article page again over this, after recently being blocked for edit warring. Please deal with your own edits, and stop making accusations up about other editors to cover your tracks. You are on thin ice, and it is not going to support much more of your belligerence. If Bigtimepeace catches this in time, they can deal with you. Otherwise, cut it out now or else it's back to AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another lie. Here are the diffs provided by Wikidemon: a single reversion of the deletion of an NPOV well sourced statement [1]. Here's the other edit which deals with budget issues [2]. Please note I also tweaked it to make it more NPOV rather than just remove sourced content added by another editor in good faith.

Wikidemon's lies and abuse need to stop. Wikipedia is not censored and the vandalism policy makes clear that it's inappropriate to intentionally undermine it's integrity. It's also improper to and against policy to act as a censor by violating our NPOV policy and abusing processes as he's done with repeated ANI reports that have no merit. Please stop this behavior. Wikidemon's personal attacks and false accusations continue a long term pattern of abusive behavior that's well documented. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of (l) lying, (2) abuse, (3) censorship, (4) vandalism - you've accused me of that half a dozen times in the last month, (5) meritless AN/I reports -- all of mine related to your behavior were absolutely legitimate the best approach under the difficult circumstances you created, (6) personal attacks - have not made any; (7) false accuations - none. And stop leaving bogus retaliatory warnings on my talk page.[3] You are as misguided about WP:3RR as you are about WP:CENSOR. One more revert, 24 hours or not, and you are likely to be blocked longer term. You're on very thin ice. I gave you a 3RR warning to give you a chance to stop rather than taking this immediately to AN/I. Now cut it out. Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, if you do get this while you're on vacation, could you please look at ChildofMidnight's edits today and consider whether there's anything to be done? I have a feeling it will get worse if nobody jumps in to watch over the Obama articles in your sndrnvr. I'm presently trying to disengage after dealing with the 3RR/EW problem and ChildofMidnight's predictable accusations (see above), but right now COM keeps trying to take a comment of mine out of context as a way of soapboxing against me on his own talk page. I'll probably just ignore it for now because it just isn't worth the trouble, but it isn't fair to me or the Obama articles for editors who come to COM's page to see what's going on to see a selectively edited comment of mine amidst an attack by him. We can't wait indefinitely for ArbCom to deal with it, and I doubt a new AN/I report would be any more smooth then the last ones. Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I posted this there, I'd be in danger of being likened to the Chinese

For building a great wall. There's a socialism pun in there somewhere. I hear you on the length issue. Grundle has complained that he/his contributions are not taken seriously. He and other editors have complained that Wiki policy is wielded as a fallback by a clique who can't deal with "the facts". I'm addressing the facts. Presumably Grundle is invested enough in this issue to read what I wrote; I didn't write this for anybody who is uninterested in the topic or in the outcome of this discussion. He needs to have the patience to read and understand and process more than a few headlines. As to blog, I suppose I didn't need to disclose the heritage of the cars I've owned, but people wonder what one another's personal relationship to the topic is. Every paragraph is in service of facts that are germane to the three issues at hand, the first being a look forward at Obama's CAFE standards and vehicular deaths from 2011 through 2016 (as 2010 models are already just around the corner...); the second being Grundle's contradiction in damning Obama for seizing the moment and taking the very steps necessary to rectify the historical failures and recalcitrance of the U.S. automotive industry Grundle also damns, at precisely the moment he has the greatest influence on them with the public investment in them, which is yet another thing Grundle damns; and the third being Grundle's propensity in the vast majority of his edits to gravitate towards the most damning quotes of others, surely in part because of a shared personal bias but perhaps oblivious to their poor relationship to facts. Quite honestly, it would take me longer to write a briefer piece than it does to write a longer one. Quite a bit longer than it takes five people to read it.

Speaking of the Chinese, did you know the most popular and prestigious foreign car there is the Buick? Abrazame (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm pretty sure there's a good cultural studies article to be written about the relationship between Chinese car buyers and Buick! That's interesting. And listen, obviously you can write what you want, I'm just, you know, saying. Also I meant what I said when I asked if you had specific suggestions about how to write about CAFE standards, if we move on to that question we can get away from the debate about the USA Today article. And incidentally I'll soon be off-Wiki for a couple of weeks—try not to let anyone crash any small (or large) cars on the Obama articles while I'm gone. And thus do I close, not with a pun, but with a metaphor. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a great vacation! Abrazame (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: the toaster thing

Hi Bigtimepeace, I'm fairly certain we've never interacted before. I'm a new admin (as of last week, but I have hung out around the NewPage Patrol and some WikiProjects for a few years now.

I hate drama in all its forms. I make this clear to those I know in real life, to the point of belittling those who contribute to it (which I have civilly not done on Wikipedia), and I have been trying to make it clear here. Far too many man hours are wasted bickering over pointless, trivial, or petty things, and the fact that many Administrators do this is almost tragic, given that this category is chronically populated from what I have seen.

Your handling of this incident was refreshing. You made it clear from the get-go what your intentions were, despite the fact that your position could be twisted to depict you in a negative light. You (seemingly) carefully phrased your comments to make it clear that you were not necessarily "with" this or that group or "against" some other group. When badgered, you asserted your position but did not attack. When you wanted to specifically address the user in question, you posted a well-thought-out message on the user's talk page. When you made an incorrect assumption, you apologized. (forgive me for not digging out the difs :-D)

While I may not necessarily agreed with everything you had to say, I'm glad to see that there are admins like you on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's no "AntiDrama" barnstar (yet :-D) but consider this one well-deserved:

		Civility Award
		For dealing with a potentially ugly debate in a most professional and admirable manner. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...