Jump to content

User talk:Geometry guy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Mkat retiring: now you know
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)
→‎Mkat retiring: the truth indeed ought to be told
Line 76: Line 76:


Malleus...that doesn't make sense...Tom Harrison was crucified by three admins that overlooked his extensive contributions history, yet you expect everyone else to allow you to get a free ride? You're here now still insulting me and assuming I deserve some sanction for questioning the poor judgement of three admins yet you have been questioning all admins for anytime they try to sanction you for some of your egregious behavior. Be it known now that there is a reason I didn't show up at that arbcom case involving you...'''I made a promise to someone I wouldn't''', and I wasn't solicited to avoid the case but made the promise to do so on my own....even though I had listed off wiki over a hundred instances not only demonstrating your silly poor choice of words, but definitive evidence of bigotry, the kind of which would have ended your contributions here for a long time and it's all there in your edits, not some made up stuff. There is much more of a problem with your contributions than the "C" word and it has brought many a chuckle from me to see so many wikilawyering about how that word and similar isn't a "bad" word in some regions, or to see so many argue about how others are also insulting...but they aren't on trial there, you are, yet you've offered nothing but promises to continue to act as you have. I also kept 5 other editors from coming there to ask for an end to your editing...all of them administrators in good standing, but I asked them to also avoid the case, which they did. I know you have no idea of the forces that were aligned against you, so I can't say here that you are ungrateful, but now that you know, should you survive what the arbcom committee might do anyway, I would hope that you might realize that as I mentioned before, if I had wanted to seek retribution and be petty as you have repeatedly and erroneously stated, I could have filed an arbitration case with your name flashing on top of it anytime I wanted. My evidence was also clear as to the actions of administrator John...and it is likely what I had would have led to a desysopping...the part about him unblocking you was just a small fragment of the case against him...and even though he has come after me in every Rfc and at every noticeboard he could, and the temptation to finally get "revenge" was oh so strong, I didn't do so...even though it was a golden opportunity. As far as the admin who resigned...well, if there was no mistake on their part, then why resign? As you, Malleus might put it...we can't have administrators going around sanctioning people just to feel mighty...on this issue surely we should be in agreement.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Malleus...that doesn't make sense...Tom Harrison was crucified by three admins that overlooked his extensive contributions history, yet you expect everyone else to allow you to get a free ride? You're here now still insulting me and assuming I deserve some sanction for questioning the poor judgement of three admins yet you have been questioning all admins for anytime they try to sanction you for some of your egregious behavior. Be it known now that there is a reason I didn't show up at that arbcom case involving you...'''I made a promise to someone I wouldn't''', and I wasn't solicited to avoid the case but made the promise to do so on my own....even though I had listed off wiki over a hundred instances not only demonstrating your silly poor choice of words, but definitive evidence of bigotry, the kind of which would have ended your contributions here for a long time and it's all there in your edits, not some made up stuff. There is much more of a problem with your contributions than the "C" word and it has brought many a chuckle from me to see so many wikilawyering about how that word and similar isn't a "bad" word in some regions, or to see so many argue about how others are also insulting...but they aren't on trial there, you are, yet you've offered nothing but promises to continue to act as you have. I also kept 5 other editors from coming there to ask for an end to your editing...all of them administrators in good standing, but I asked them to also avoid the case, which they did. I know you have no idea of the forces that were aligned against you, so I can't say here that you are ungrateful, but now that you know, should you survive what the arbcom committee might do anyway, I would hope that you might realize that as I mentioned before, if I had wanted to seek retribution and be petty as you have repeatedly and erroneously stated, I could have filed an arbitration case with your name flashing on top of it anytime I wanted. My evidence was also clear as to the actions of administrator John...and it is likely what I had would have led to a desysopping...the part about him unblocking you was just a small fragment of the case against him...and even though he has come after me in every Rfc and at every noticeboard he could, and the temptation to finally get "revenge" was oh so strong, I didn't do so...even though it was a golden opportunity. As far as the admin who resigned...well, if there was no mistake on their part, then why resign? As you, Malleus might put it...we can't have administrators going around sanctioning people just to feel mighty...on this issue surely we should be in agreement.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:Not to put too fine a point on it, you're full of shit MONGO. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:55, 12 February 2012

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 not contributing frequently at present and can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page.

Yama, Dharmapala, the Lord of Death.

Excellent. I hope you don't mind my gentle copyedit - feel free to rv of course. Coincidentally it's along the lines of something I was thinking about myself: basically that there are people who seem to know instinctively how to conduct themselves in a given situation, and others who don't. Inevitably rulesets are developed to enable those who don't to conduct themselves like those who do, but because such conduct is enforced from without rather than coming from within they end up following the letter of the ruleset and missing the spirit. Adherence to the rules becomes more important than adherence to the philosophy that pre-dated them, and the rules—which become ever more prescriptive to account for all situations—are then applied to those who never had a need for them in the first place. Thus does friction arise... EyeSerenetalk 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you approve, and appreciate the copyedit. This is a quite subtle matter, and your comment here articulates the issue much more clearly than it was in my own mind: I began the Hosea section partly to be self-critical, but what you have explained is why such different approaches are necessary – as well as the reasons they can lead to friction. The essay is only in my user space to let it mature: I encourage others to improve it. If it proves to be consonant and helpful, I would be happy to move it into project space. If it doesn't, I will probably delete it. You may also have better ideas for the title of the essay and the development of the main concept: I like the shortcut and the basic idea of the essay, but my knowledge of the prophets is rather limited, as is my supply of good jokes :) Geometry guy 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a corollary: "No editor is Angry Jesus". I have thought a lot, lot, lot about my time on Wikipedia. I have had many opportunities to put space between myself and my past edits. And I have come to one central conclusion. I dunno where or when I lost my way, but I do know how – I stopped seeing myself as an editor, and began seeing myself as a gatekeeper and guardian of the Wiki... If Angry Jesus is too sacrilegious, try Cerberus or Byalah or Komainu or Shishi or Dtuwamaum or Yama, Dharmapala Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ling - always good to see you here. You are unduly critical about your own past contributions, but I understand the issue you are raising about the "gatekeeper/guardian of the Wiki" mentality. I've been accused of that once myself! One essay cannot solve every problem, and, in my view, this goes beyond the Moses issue that the essay raises. But if others see a nice way to incorporate it, then give it a shot! Geometry guy 03:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you

A basket of nuts for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been making so many thoughtful posts everywhere lately that I wanted to give you a small token of my appreciation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To share with the nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you'd prefer to make mincemeat to go with your nuts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that: it motivates me to go out and find such nutritious food! I was just replying when you added the mincemeat: it looks delicious.
I certainly try to think (and read) before I post: it is a habit I strongly recommend to all editors. Most of all, I am glad when my comments are read and appreciated. Wikipedia faces many challenges, and editors need to work together to deal with them.
Thanks in turn, SandyG, for all that you do Geometry guy 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Geometry guy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonathan. Thanks for stopping by, but I regret that I must decline your invitation. In any case, I am a somewhat atypical admin, in that I hardly ever use the admin tools, and what little administration I do is mostly technical. I wish you success with your project. Geometry guy 13:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I'll drop by here tomorrow and chat a bit. I saw your reply, and I'm not ignoring anything .. just have some real life stuff to deal with tonight. all my best .. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I couldn't imagine you deliberately ignoring something. (Alas, I frequently ignore things through carelessness or lack of time, but welcome being pinged when I do.) I look forward to chatting with you whenever you would like to do so, on this topic or any other. Geometry guy 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey .. first, I know you have a lot more pull around this site than I do, and I admire all the great stuff you do. Pretty much a lot of things I was going to say were posted by Risker below. The thing that jumped out at me was the idea that BarkingMoon was not a new user. From everything I've seen or been told either on or off wiki makes me think that he actually was a new editor. Now, did Rlevse/Pumpkinsky have some influence on him .. I'd say that's pretty obvious that he did. My thought is that if someone encouraged a friend/fellow student/co-worker/friend of the family to edit Wikipedia ... cool .. glad to have more people here. I think the way the project treats new users is disgraceful. But, I think that the individual people here are good people. I'm not really familiar with either JV or Hersfold, so I can't really comment on that. I know that by nature everyone wants to know what the hell is going on here. I'm also painfully aware that there's a very fine line between "transparency" and "privacy". I'm not really sure what more I can say here. I have no problem with trying to respond to any questions you or anyone else might have - but I think almost anything and everything has been pretty much covered at this point. It's obvious that there's no consensus to just ban and shun PS/R ... so at this point, I'd say it's pretty much up to him. If he decides he wants to edit here .. then I will most certainly encourage him to do so. I look at the content he added, and it was damn good stuff. Perfect? nope, all our articles can be improved. Anyway .. I admire your work here, and feel free to ping me anytime. cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss

Really, I am. What exactly do you want over at WT:AC? Everyone is thrashing over and over again with the same information; there's nothing else there than what is there. I can usually understand you very well, so it has to be me completely missing what you're driving at.

On the other hand, this situation has tied up literally thousands of hours of volunteer time: is it worth many more? Risker (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your frustration. There are other editors (e.g., Hersfold and John Vandenberg) who should be commenting on this, but it has apparently been left to you. I'm glad you think you usually understand me well, but if you do, you will know that my prime interest is in Improving the Encyclopedia, and supporting a climate in which that can happen. In particular, I am as interested as you in moving on from this, and avoiding "thrashing again and over again with the same information". I have no control over other editors doing so, but have been trying to form their concerns into a coherent whole, so that some mutual understanding can be reached.
If it is worth a little more of your time to deal with this issue, I am willing to commit some of mine. If so, lets discuss it. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just concerned that you (or anyone else) thinks either of them have any more information than I do, because they don't. I'm going to be focusing this evening on completing the proposed decision for a case that a different (but overlapping!) group of editors feel should have been Arbcom's priority over the last week or two; however, I might be able to pop back in tomorrow, or sneak a peek later tonight. Risker (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern was an example of an issue that needed to be addressed, and you have addressed it. It also suggests to me a way of dealing with the issue in general. Geometry guy 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC) PS. Good luck with the PD work: that's a tough case![reply]

Mkat retiring

My read of the situation is that Mongo, Toa, and AQFK jumping on Mkat caused other editors nursing old grudges against Mkat to seize the moment. Essentially, editors who already had issues with Mkat saw in this situation an opportunity to settle a score. That aside, I think it is better if you avoid engaging MONGO further on this issue. He is having the most trouble letting this go and that has been leading him to make some rather irresponsible comments (see the RFAR talk page). If people stop bringing the issue up it may allow him to cool down so he doesn't get himself boomeranged.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't he find himself boomeranged? If anyone deserves it surely he does. Malleus Fatuorum 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw hell. Mal, please stay out of this. Your tense relationship with MONGO, to put it mildly, is only going to escalate the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not presume to offer advice to me. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or me: since I didn't engage MONGO on this issue, how can I avoid engaging him further? Thanks for sharing your analysis of the situation, however. I can respond that I had no plans to comment more than I did on this regrettable development. Geometry guy 13:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus...that doesn't make sense...Tom Harrison was crucified by three admins that overlooked his extensive contributions history, yet you expect everyone else to allow you to get a free ride? You're here now still insulting me and assuming I deserve some sanction for questioning the poor judgement of three admins yet you have been questioning all admins for anytime they try to sanction you for some of your egregious behavior. Be it known now that there is a reason I didn't show up at that arbcom case involving you...I made a promise to someone I wouldn't, and I wasn't solicited to avoid the case but made the promise to do so on my own....even though I had listed off wiki over a hundred instances not only demonstrating your silly poor choice of words, but definitive evidence of bigotry, the kind of which would have ended your contributions here for a long time and it's all there in your edits, not some made up stuff. There is much more of a problem with your contributions than the "C" word and it has brought many a chuckle from me to see so many wikilawyering about how that word and similar isn't a "bad" word in some regions, or to see so many argue about how others are also insulting...but they aren't on trial there, you are, yet you've offered nothing but promises to continue to act as you have. I also kept 5 other editors from coming there to ask for an end to your editing...all of them administrators in good standing, but I asked them to also avoid the case, which they did. I know you have no idea of the forces that were aligned against you, so I can't say here that you are ungrateful, but now that you know, should you survive what the arbcom committee might do anyway, I would hope that you might realize that as I mentioned before, if I had wanted to seek retribution and be petty as you have repeatedly and erroneously stated, I could have filed an arbitration case with your name flashing on top of it anytime I wanted. My evidence was also clear as to the actions of administrator John...and it is likely what I had would have led to a desysopping...the part about him unblocking you was just a small fragment of the case against him...and even though he has come after me in every Rfc and at every noticeboard he could, and the temptation to finally get "revenge" was oh so strong, I didn't do so...even though it was a golden opportunity. As far as the admin who resigned...well, if there was no mistake on their part, then why resign? As you, Malleus might put it...we can't have administrators going around sanctioning people just to feel mighty...on this issue surely we should be in agreement.--MONGO 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, you're full of shit MONGO. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]