User talk:TenOfAllTrades

Talk archives

November 2004 to March 2005 April and May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August and September 2005 October and November 2005 December 2005 to February 2006 March to May 2006 June to August 2006 September and October 2006 November 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to January 2008 February 2008 to November 2008 December 2008 to February 2009 March 2009 to October 2009 November 2009 to May 2010 June 2010 to September 2010 October 2010 to November 2011 December 2011 to November 2012

Andrew Wakefield

I don't think it's appropriate to criticize someone for suboptimal dispute resolution when you consistently ignore their requests for help in this area. Nernst (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to keep making the same request over and over again when your arguments have failed to gain any traction with other editors. A stubborn refusal to listen on your part does not create an obligation on my part. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, each edit sought to simplify and clarify the debate based on the comments of others. Each was accompanied by a request for dialogue and guidance. I listened actively, sought compromise and was met with an obtuse refusal to engage in discussion or even suggest how the discussion could proceed. There is no obligation on any part but this hypocrisy is astounding and ultimately futile. The debate was ended with clarification of the terms in use and 3 lines of explanation on secondary sources and NPOV. Nernst (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med

Hi

Just making sure you're aware of m:WikiMed. Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

SUL and usurption

I noticed your comments on usurption at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. I largely agree with what you say there, but what would be your views are on what I mention here? That's on MZMcBride's talk page as I didn't want to add to what was already a very long thread at WP:BN). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Help changing Reference Desk boilerplate

Hi TenOfAllTrades, I think you may be an admin? And familiar with the Reference Desk?

We're looking for an admin to change the desk boilerplate header for us. The two consensus discussions are here (that's a diff - the section was just archived, apparently, but somehow I can't see it in the archive) and here and the consensus verion of the new text is here. Could you please review and make the change to the template?

Many thanks, 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about how the Ref Desk headers are structured to want to mess with them—and I'm not sure when I'll be free long enough to troubleshoot if I break something. Sorry about that... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

BN

I'm going to reply here, because I'd rather keep controversy off BN, and really I think your comment should have been addressed to me only. The statement was entirely my idea and my initiative, albeit various crats appended their names or supported at least aspects of it.

I was responding to several things, and none of them were personal to you, nor do I feel you made any bad faith posts.

So many of our institutions are or have been damaged, by shortcomings in office holders and/or by the Wikipedian mob chipping away at them. The Bureaucrats, until recently, have, I feel, retained their status, despite the difficult and hotly contentious decisions we must sometimes take. I care deeply about this trust the community has in its Bureaucrats, and as one of not very many currently active Crats, feel a responsibility to protect. To do so, I would go to far greater lengths than sticking my neck out by organising an unusual Crat statement. Although I do strongly regret that it can be read as if the statement was accusing you in the process, for which I apologise (the fault is entirely mine).

The usurp question came in the following context:

• I feel that Arbcom's acceptance and handling of the resysop case damaged the position of Bureaucrat on en:. I don't believe I'm the only Crat to feel that way.

• Increasing amounts of drama at BN, which in the past has always been a haven of sense and calm

• Various community initiatives to corral Crats, which could be read as declining trust in us

Yours was not the only voice in that BN thread and I may have been overreacting, but while you are clear that you were not suggesting we were trying to expand our powers I did detect that there was at least a whiff of it in the air. And the tone of the overall discussion was anything but the calm and sensible one of yesteryear that I'd fight to regain and that would have helped us reach an appropriate conclusion quickly. Instead of which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has actually dared address the underlying instructioncreep issues to fix them.

I hope you get the gist of where I'm coming from. Thanks for your patience. Please respond here when you have time, I'll be watching. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly have more to add later, but I'm still not able to find the 'resysop' ArbCom case you've mentioned. I've searched the last year's WP:ACN archive for the keywords 'bureaucrat', 'desysop', 'resysop' and so forth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's because my faulty memory had it as "acceptance", rather than ultimately rejecting it as moot, because the resyopped admin resigned. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysopping, which led to this lot. This bad feeling around the Crats has had various fallouts, including (IMO) this cri de coeur. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is much that I've thought about saying, and much that I've decided best not to say. I get the impression from your words – and from your tone – that you're feeling burned out in your role as a 'crat right now, and there is little be gained to add to your sense of being piled upon. I've tried drafting a response here a few times over the last few days, but I don't know that it would be productive, and you don't sound like you're in the sort of place it would be helpful.

Briefly, I would urge you to read the last couple of comments from your fellow bureaucrats WJBscribe and UninvitedCompany at the end of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 27#Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines. WJBscribe and (particularly) UC's posts reflect taking the time to look at the origin and context of the guidelines in question. They calmly summarized the key issues raised in the discussion, without suggesting that anyone – 'crat or otherwise – approached the situation in anything other than bad faith. What they wrote there went a long way towards easing any tensions or concerns the community might have had precisely because they took the community's concerns seriously. While avoiding insincere obsequiousness and abasement, they acknowledged that it was possible the 'crats understanding and actions might have diverged from the broader community's wishes in this area, and they suggested ways that that divide might be bridged in the future. That is the sort of calm, dispassionate, clearly-expressed, problem-solving, consensus-building approach that the community expects from its 'crats, and it's why we have always granted 'crats extensive discretion and trust.

Compare the tone of those statements to that of your posted statement and follow-up comments (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 27#Bureaucrats' statement on recent discussion regarding potential usurpation of accounts with edits) delivered a day later. It sounds defensive. It implies that (unspecified) individuals who have expressed disagreement with you are doing so in bad faith. Running through it is a thread of "It's not our fault, stop being so mean to us." Your suggestion that I hadn't read the usurpation discussion in its entirety before I commented was a cheap (and misguided) shot. While the ArbCom isn't (even close to) perfect, reading the discussion among the Arbs doesn't seem to reflect the sort of 'damage' that you ascribe to it. Before FCYTravis resigned his adminship, there were ten Arb votes (plus one comment) on the case. Five were clear 'decline' votes, one more was 'leaning towards a decline'. One Arb had suggested a motion to kick the decision back to the 'crats for an en banc declaration of 'crat consensus. Only two Arbs had voted to open a full arbitration case; both of them (Jclemens and Elen of the Roads) were soundly rejected in December's ArbCom elections. Just one Arb had proposed a flat overturn of the resysopping by motion. Any way you slice it, a majority of the voting members found no problem with your conduct. And yet, until I asked you to clarify your comments, you had that situation twisted up in your mind as having been accepted by ArbCom and an implicit repudiation of your judgement. If you go looking for an adversarial relationship with the community, it will give you one.

Are there some people who come across as inconsiderate hotheads on WP:BN? Sure. Is there likely to be more controversy on BN as the project ages, as more desysopped (and potentially resysoppable) former admins accumulate? Yep. Does that mean that the community as a whole is losing faith in the judgement of 'crats? Nope—at least not yet. I would balance your perception of initiatives to 'corral' the 'crats against both the increased responsibilities the 'crats face – especially with the drastically increased number of de- and re-sysops you now handle, and the account renaming role you carry out – and the repeated proposals to employ you as magic consensus fairies for deciding everything from article content RfCs to fast-desysopping lynch mobs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm finding it hard to communicate how I feel on this topic, as you've so thoroughly misunderstood me on so many aspects. The proof is that many of the points you make above are ones I'd heartily agree with. Maybe the real problem is that my mind is a little messy on the subject, in part due to some offwiki correspondence I've had. Maybe. Not sure. But I didn't set out to pick a fight (on the contrary, my intention was always to calm things) with anyone.

So, perhaps it's better that I disengage before leading you further up the garden path. However, it is worth making a couple of things crystal clear.

First, and most importantly, I'll reiterate what I said above and strengthen it. I did not and do not intend to say or imply, at BN or here, anything that laid accusations of bad faith or poor behaviour at your door. That you still feel that way is clearly down to my own lackings and fallibility and I apologise.

Secondly, I'm not burned-out as a Crat or any other type of Wikipedian. I remain as engaged as ever, across a similar broad range of onwiki interests. I'm finding less time to write FAs or assess FACs, but still engaged with FAs in general, as this project shows. And my consistent position on all Crat issues is that whether or not I have an opinion on a topic, I'm always happy to follow the community consensus. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Coren

He's not new to ArbCom - he's served several terms in the past. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn. No excuse, then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hihimanshu70

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding new page quality and possible paid editing. The thread is Hihimanshu70. Thank you. —Andrew³²⁷ 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert?

Hola,

Why'd you revert Misazbot? 'Cause the arb hearing is ongoing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver

Hello, have replied on the Medical uses of silver talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tactfulness in dealing with others' behavior

Please allow me to table any extended response regarding my particular behavior and let us assume your warning is registered and will be considered carefully. That aside, could you please clarify the difference between what Wikipedia considers improper personal attacks, and proper handling of concerns/complaints with others' conduct. If I feel an editor has behaved improperly, am I supposed to drop the matter on any talk page and register a private complaint? What is the process? For that matter, what if I feel general behavior on a talk page has been handled improperly apart from any particular editor, that is, in a plausible denial-esque scenario in which no particular party is to blame but where something needs addressing or improving?

On the side, I honestly feel a genuine need to politely inform you that I think your empathy and tact could use tweaking. I understand your general valid right/obligation to correct a scenario in which you find improper behavior going on, but your lack of empathy with an editor being thrust for whatever reason into a frustrating ordeal, is just cold. A proper reprimand would include sympathy of my situation whether or not you feel it is the fault of WP or my naivete, and presenting the basic information that I'm behaving improperly before leaping to being "close to being blocked". In general, how is someone supposed to correct behavior their behavior until they know they're doing something wrong?

An editor already (calmly) addressed my "rhetoric" and I used this to correct myself and express my concerns more logically. If anything I was doing counted as a personal attack I could have been told once with a polite explanation on the proper process to follow if I have a dispute with an editor. It's just surreal to me that you don't pair whatever reprimand you think is necessary with a mental note to address issues that landed me in the unfortunate situation. A reprimand with elite tact would include a calm, proper level of sympathy and non-hostile information of what I'm doing wrong, as well as a note of where you think WP or the system may have gone wrong.

Your reprimand might be appropriate if I just logged onto a talk page randomly and started posting "I just hate this person!" knowing exactly what I'm doing, with no reasoning, case, or cause, and in a scenario that had nothing to do with an incident that may involve flaws in the WP system. You should ask yourself, what went wrong in the system that an editor was placed in this situation? What courses of action could be taken to better inform editors of proper behavior? Why were all the editors on the talk page inquiring about information ignored? You can assign whatever magnitude of negativity, however light, you like to the scenario of editors questions not being answered properly, but it's certainly not proper WP behavior to ignore people's basic questions (i.e. asking "where can I find this information?" and receive no answer).

You should notice here the very first trigger of the scenario was something that went wrong here. This is proved retroactively by the fact that it's been addressed/corrected on the article page. That should warrant your careful attention and consideration of the process that led an editor to what he feels is a massive problem. You don't have to agree with my reasoning to recognize that something has gone out of place.

I'm sorry for writing so much here but as I feel your reprimand is just sub-elite, not wrong, I've felt the need to present fine details that I really think you should consider when addressing editors in such situations. I will consider your words carefully, but I know from the wide spectrum of tact on WP that other editors would have handled this situation more politely. Squish7 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)