User talk:Geometry guy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 12 April 2023

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I am contributing rather sporadically at present and can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while and it is important, I will drop a note on your talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. I remember you for explaining with unbelievable patience. - Sorry, we didn't have "your" day this year, so I missed it, on top of being absorbed in Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is you that are precious, Gerda, for always remembering and caring about the people element of Wikipedia. Geometry guy 22:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, yes, - happy to see you here! flowers to come but now I'm hungry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is stupid because you are throwing away goodwill. And you deliver the message via bot? Have you no consideration for people? Geometry guy 22:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting a glove on your foot before kicking me in the teeth. Geometry guy 00:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment for Homotopy groups of spheres

Homotopy groups of spheres has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I love this article, and one day, I will bring it back to GA. Geometry guy 23:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes

Tamzin

Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian

Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss you

I hope all's well with you and yours these days. I wonder if you'd like to un-subscribe from the admins' newsletter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, I remember working with you. The admin newsletter helped me to know whether I was still an admin or not. Apparently now I am not, but was kicked out for doing nothing when I was busy with life. Well, if that is how Wikipedia treats its most dedicated contributors when they have a break from contributing, then I think you will have to get used to missing me. Geometry guy 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to see your name on my watchlist! Wikipedia seems to think that inactive admins loose there skills, - just tell the bureauctrats that it's not true for you, and you will be reappointed without major effort (no RfA, I mean), - I've seen that happen, and would happily support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the re-sysopping, but I suspect that it's easier if you made ten thousand edits a year, missed the inactivity for a year and a day, and then reapply, than if you've been mostly off wiki for several years. I know another long-time editor who makes one or two edits a year just to avoid this (they've told me that this is their plan for the foreseeable future, and that if they ever loose admin rights, they will never re-apply).

Although I've been active throughout, I feel like there have been some pretty big changes in the community during the last few years. I don't think it can all be put down to the pandemic, though there are certainly some new names now, and some old ones missing. I think there's more desire to follow rules rigidly. There's more of that feeling that you're not just having a conversation with another human; instead, you're playing a kind of virtual card game, and using different WP:ALLCAPS shortcuts in the discussion scores points for your side. (The problem that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions still exists; we will always have people who cite SOMETHING without realizing that they've linked to a discredited userspace essay, or that they've linked to a page that bans that thing, instead of supporting it. As an example, there is a pretty extensive problem with people, especially editors who started in the last couple of years, believing that uncited is an exact synonym for unverifiable. I had a chat with one of these editors a couple of years ago about "The capital of France is Paris", and he didn't appear to realize that I quoted the example straight out of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. He claimed that any fact added without a citation would be a NOR violation, despite that exact example being explicitly authorized as non-NOR in the policy itself.)

There's maybe a bit more sense that we have enough content, and the primary job is to exclude new contributions. As an example, I know several editors whose net contribution to the mainspace is a negative number of bytes. All they do is revert other people's contributions and then argue about it on the talk pages. These aren't RecentChanges patrollers looking for obvious vandalism; these are people who have picked a subject and police the articles to make sure that nobody adds the Wrong™ POV. Wikipedia:Ownership of content isn't new (after all, that page was written in 2003), but back in the day, I didn't know editors who only rejected other editors' contributions from a set of articles, without trying to add their own.

With all of that in mind, maybe if you've got some time again, the thing to do is to improve some article content. So long as every new paragraph contains an inline citation, you're unlikely to run into any drama, and it's the content that ultimately matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for writing to me at such great length. You really understand the system, and I would trust a GA review written by you. It does not matter to me much if I am banned: my spirit survives in GA Geometry guy 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

Too often our processes can feel so impersonal, and even if canned thanks responses weren't used on BN or the pre-notifications were delivered by a real person instead of a bot, it would still probably be impossible to avoid the appearance that it's all merely pro forma.

It hurts to let some things go, that's true even when there's time to prepare for what inevitably happens to all good things. Making people feel treated like spreadsheet entries instead of individuals certainly doesn't help either.

Anyway, there aren't all that many editors who can contribute as extensively as you have at say Penrose tiling, and you've also done some excellent work behind the scenes with reviews and assessments that has not been forgotten, it's a quite tedious area and not many have the time or experience needed to help out that area. Whatever happens, your assistance will always be appreciated.

I hope this helps in some small way at least. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of you, Geometry guy, because you used to do great work with good article reviews, that made sure people read the article and made sure it met the right criteria. You don't have to be an admin to write articles, and actually writing lots of GAs and FAs is far harder than going into AIV and blocking a vandal. Substantially and significantly harder, in fact. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your kind words. My philosophy as an admin was always to use the tools as little as possible, and I believe this was part of the reason I was trusted to use them wisely. I think Wikipedia is making a mistake to make blanket removal of admin tools for inactivity, but there are worse things going on in the world. I'm happy about the path I help GA create. Perhaps one day I will work a bit more on Penrose tiling. Geometry guy 23:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ultimately think the reason for the increased inactivity policy is to weed out the "bad apples"; there have been several Arbcom cases over the past year or two when somebody who passed RfA before 2008 used the tools in a way that flatly contradicted day to day practice, and then either doubled down or stopped responding, leading a desysop but only after a lot of discussion and disgruntled editors. I think it will weed out some "good apples" too, but I would suspect that if they ever got back into regular editing, they would pass RfA again eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2.

Also, I know a couple of longstanding editors who have no interest in becoming admins, and who wouldn't pass RfA because of a complete lack of activity in the maintenance areas - and yet it would be these editors who I would greatly miss as they make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia. And, for the record, I don't think people would be able to guess these editors unless they looked closely at what articles we both contributed to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trend that I have increasingly noticed in our society. Because it is difficult to sanction individuals for breaking some rules, it is easier to make a mass sanction so no one can break the rules. Such authoritarian behaviour needs to be opposed, which is one reason that I did not accept my current situation gracefully. Geometry guy 23:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. My experience of Rfa is that it is not a good selection process. Geometry guy 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

As promised: flowers and personal links. - I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (they don't want to pass knowledge these days, just hook by something that can be tangential to the subject, - in this case it is not tangential, but that is also an exception). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! - For a long time I had your "Every editor is a human being" in my edit notice, until Raymond died, and I needed his advice even more strongly - myself. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thank you, you are one of the warmest human beings I have ever met, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Any wise person who meets you should marry you in a second. I can be a bit more strident and confrontational, but sometimes it is important to tell people that they are fucking things up. Geometry guy 23:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard) for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing and re-opening discussion after it being closed by two administrators and an administrator/bureaucrat. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is the first time I have been blocked. You guys must be scared that I am making reasoned arguments and calling out your censorship. You should apply for jobs with the Chinese Communist Party. Geometry guy 23:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand being upset about losing your bit. I wasn't exactly happy when it happened to me, either . The way you are behaving now isn't helping the situation at all. Please take a step back, I'm afraid you're going to end up with a full block at this rate. SQL ^{Query Me!} 23:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't treat me like a child: I have extensive experience of conflict on Wikipedia. Losing my "bit" is meh, I never used it much anyway. But the process and the way I have been treated for daring to comment on it... reflect on this. Geometry guy 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish people would avoid treating you like a child, you shouldn't act like one. I was trying to be nice as I've had the same experience. SQL ^{Query Me!} 02:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I appreciate you meant well. Geometry guy 12:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy, as the one who initially reverted your edits, I did so not because I wish to silence you or because I am "scared" of you, but because the discussion had been closed; I even said in my edit summary that I had no problems with the issue being discussed further, it just had to be done in a new thread or at a different venue. You are still welcome to do so, though as SQL states above, I would try to avoid some of the rhetoric you have been using recently as it tends to put people off from wanting to engage. Primefac (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated you taking the time to reply, Primefac. And I mean that sincerely, it was polite of you to do so. I think perhaps that the 'crats were right, that I am out of date with community norms: to close and hide discussions, to delete complaints, and to block further complaints. I would not be a good admin in this regime, so you did the right thing. Geometry guy 22:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geometry guy. I've been on holiday for a week so I missed the drama. It's great to see you back - as you know, I have long held you to be one of the good folk on Wikipedia - you were a model to me back in the day, so it's sad to see that you have been desysopped, and especially your reaction to that desysopping. You are not the first to be upset regarding the admin activity process. Some, when getting the notices, accept the process and volunteer their resignation. When that happens I give them a special barnstar:

		Job Done
		Awarded to User:Example for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner.

I kind of like the sense of there being some kind of mark of respect for an admin when the admin role has come to an end. I'd like to find some way that all users who are admins can come to the end of their role with dignity with or without needing to resign. As it clearly does upset some folks when the tools are taken away without their own involvement in such a way that it feels like a disgrace. Do you have a suggestion as to a better way to inform users that their admin function is going to be removed / has been removed? SilkTork (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, great to hear from you after so long. I remember when you were on ArbCom and I thought "poor guy" - that was serious hard work. A lot of editors are imagining my emotions, but they have no clue how I feel. If I punctured some bubbles, I am happy about that. But I think I just discovered that Wikipedia is slowly rotting. Geometry guy 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And so it is

[Blower's Daughter] Geometry guy 23:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]