User talk:Ihardlythinkso

Archives

Userboxes

vn-8This user talk page has been vandalized 8 times.

Welcome

I am very gald to see you back to Wikpedia and be ready to read more your chess variant article. I am a chess variant and abstract strategy games fan and often write and translate releated article from En Wikpedia into Zh Wikpedia, like Racing Kings...etc. --220.128.77.234 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome back – you are so kind! I don't know Chinese language of course, but clicked on some of the links starting at Racing Kings and saw several of your work there on Zh WP – good job! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Dennis Brown's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MOS:LQ

I saw you reverted some changes citing MOS:LQ. The same editor made similar changes to chess and pawn (chess). Should these be reverted? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected article Chess; looks like you got Pawn (chess). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Do you see any conflict in this statement?: "I'm no leader, but just follow me." (Because, you seem to "say it" a lot.)

Nobody Ent's mistaken Arbcom Clarification. Malleus's Talk. IMO you have nothing to "teach" Malleus. IMO you've been just an irritant. (No doubt you think it's "befriending", "offers sincere counsel", etc. But in my strong opinion your contributions there boil down to mishmashes of useless and pretentious puffery. And that's irritating.)

I'm the only editor who's challenged directly your self-concept. You attacked me for it. You seem to think you're some kind of "new Admin" that can "lead us to Jesus", so you perpetually "guide" others that don't need it, or want it. (What I think you should do, is go in front of a mirror and stay "blocked" there, until you gain a clue how that kind of overblown self-esteem can come off as pretentious and irritating to others who might possess more of a WP:CLUE than you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, just so there's no misunderstanding, if admins are classified per your one of the good guys versus, well ... the opposite ... then I definitely consider you in the group w/ Roy Rogers (i.e., "good guy" group). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate the kind follow up here, it does make a difference to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm happy to see you are editing regulary and I hope the past is in the past. So, let's keep moving forward to improve chess articles! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar & comment, OTAVIO! (I'm especially happy Quale is back again, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairy chess pieces

I created articles about the archbishop and chancellor, but which fairy chess pieces deserve their own articles? Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The amazon (RNB) is now available. An idea for fairy chess pieces which don't have standardised notation is to use Betza's funny notation: an amazon moving from d5 to f5 would be notated as (RNB)d5-f5 or (RNB)f5. (Of course, we can use QN instead of Betza's RNB.) Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Double. Was gonna say, perhaps "rose as bookend to nightrider, amazon as bookend to archbishop & chancellor". You're fast! Good work. (It's your specialty more than mine, so you know better. One thing I'd like to see sometime, are articles on Ralph Betza, George Dekle, R. Wayne Schmittberger, and Tony Paletta. But bio writing is definitely not my forte. Nevertheless I might try and start one on Dekle in future.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)p.s. How 'bout an article on the camel!? (A popular and classic piece, e.g. Wildebeest, janggi elephant. Maybe janggi elephant pattern is close association!?)

The rose is my next target. The janggi elephant is really a non-jumping zebra (J in Betza notation, (2,3) leaper), so I'd probably cover it in the same article as the zebra. Camel is definitely a must, and I think I could (soon!) create articles on all the (m,n) leapers with m ≤ n ≤ 3. (That would be wazir, ferz, dabbaba, alfil, threeleaper, camel, zebra and tripper).

The wildebeest is the NL, right? (This makes me start thinking about one article for all of Betza's augmented knights, and the wildebeest is one of them.)

Others: omega chess champion (WAD) and wizard (FL), perhaps? Crooked bishop (zB) and related crooked rook (zR) in one article? Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to start using Betza notation in the algebraic notation. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A Betza general leaper article seems very logical! If fuzzy could be described clear & easy, that'd be good, too. Yes on NL for wildebeest (was that piece a creation of Schmittberger?).

Argh! I can't draw the full rose (qN) move on boards smaller than 13 × 13! qK (the circular king) would fit on 8 × 8: see below. Double sharp (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the rose will not be the next target after all. I'll write on the leapers first. They have much richer history anyway. (BTW, is it spelt ferz or fers?) Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

qK (circular king). How should we make the circular pieces easier to understand?

Re

Don't push your luck; 1. I don't "hang out" with Toddst1 (in fact the last time we ran into each other was in December on opposite sides of an issue) and 2. continuing the battleground behavior that got you dragged to ANI in the first place isn't a good idea. I'm trying to resolve this without people getting blocked, and I'd really like to not have to go that route. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of luck, it is a matter of prejudice. I have seen you support, backup, team with, partner with, befriend, cooperate with admin User:Toddst1 to know better, that you and he are not distant, disassociated admins. By far.

I really resent you're putting me in the same teacup as User:ChessPlayerLev ("both reasonable editors", "10 year olds"). As far as being "dragged to ANI", I would like to discuss that terminology with you...

User:ChessPlayerLev made his own voluntary decision to open the ANI case. It was my voluntary desision to respond to his BS there. I was not "dragged". (Dragging, implies by force of authority, e.g. police "dragging" a criminal to jail, or to court.) So, your assertion I was "dragged to ANI" is completely wrong, otherwise you are assigning value and authority to any editor who voluntarily decides to open an ANI case against any other editor, for any reason whatever (including, any manufactured reason whatever).

I really don't enjoy dialoguing with you, Blade, since I do see you as extension of Toddst1, my undesired nemesis. So please leave me alone. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Back up your assertions with diffs and maybe we'll talk. Until then, stop making accusations or you'll be blocked, if not by me then by someone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You know as well as I do, no series of diffs can prove something so abstract as "admin buddy" on WP, they could only serve to indicate or support what would always be subjective interpretation, since there is no objective criteria to measure that within the scope of WP practice, and you know it. I've seen the edit histories enough to draw my own conclusion about the relationship between the two of you. The fact you two are "chuckling it up" over at your Talk, is not meaningless. After the overturn of the indef by User:Toddst1 by Arbcom, I knew I should be wary of Toddst1's WP "admin buddies", who might act on his behalf. Specifically I thought of you then as top contender. It was no accident. And now you come along, making threats of block. Surprise, surprise. Please leave me alone. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about with ArbCom, but I can assure you I act entirely of my own volition. I'm now trying very hard to think of a reason not to start using my admin tools here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not aware that 10-year olds bring up topic of ethics on school playgrounds or anywhere else. I was dead serious at the ANI, so I don't appreciate the insult. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I don't enjoy dialoguing with you, and why. I've asked you to stop twice, yet you keep posting here, and making threats. Who is instigating this dialogue, you or me? Please leave me alone. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I never asserted that you "don't make your own decisions", BNL. However, there's great discretionary swath regarding admins and their exercise of tools, and that includes the all-too human tendency of getting involved in issues concerning their WP-friends, and tending to favor their interests unless there is a clear reason not to. (I'm not stupid.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I've made a comment or two at my talk page and the ANI. You might not like everything I have to say and find it a bitter pill to swallow, but I understand that. In this case, you might consider stepping up and admitting the tone was improper (it was, I know because I've done the same thing more than once) and trying to move on by taking the path of least drama. Of course, you are free to do as you choose, but I'm trying to solve the issue fairly, but only you can take the next step, good or bad, at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Being compared to a 10-yr. old wasn't pleasant, or fair – it was insulting. But because they are admins, they don't have to "watch their tone". (I don't get it!)

I'll admit there is some snarkiness is some of my replies to the false accusations I've had to face recently. But that does not disqualify the accuracy of the meaning of the bulk of my replies. It is not you facing a stream of false accusations; it is me. So you can hardly know how it feels on my end. (Ditto being indef-blocked by Toddst1, or any other admin).

p.s. There's no emotionalism in my responses anywhere. If I oppose what's being said, and it is condescending or unfair of me, then I've written a reply, that's as accurate in meaning as I can muster. (That's being emotional?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a sensitive person, sometimes overly so. While this allows you great compassion and empathy, it also can work against you, and I think you have taken his words in the most negative light. Admins have to deal with a lot of issues, and sometimes the wording we all use is more generic, more along the lines of "ok, move along, get it over with" and less sensitive than they should be, but you are taking them more personal than you need to. You WERE more than snarky at both the ANI and on the talk page. Maybe he is being a little oversensitive, too. But you are playing a game of chicken at the edge of a cliff and at some point, someone either needs to back down just a little, or someone is going to get hurt. Admin bit or not, the odds aren't in your favor. I'm telling you as someone on the outside looking in, and I'm extending every bit of favor I can by butting in at ANI where I wasn't particularly needed or wanted because I think you are a good person, but I still think that of the two of you, you are more in the wrong in this particular instance, and I wouldn't be honest if I said otherwise. I'm trying to provide an easy out, block free, drama free, but if you can't come to the conclusion that you messed up a little (whether or not he was a little rude) then I can't help here. Sometimes we all just grin and bear it, take responsibility for our own actions and ignore the actions of others because it serves a better purpose of just getting along. Trust me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I trust you, Dennis. But the issues here are overblown. There's no doubt all the weight on me now, is due to admin feelings I was "more than snarky" too. (Why don't they do what all other editors are advised to so when incivilities arise? To ignore them? Instead, if they get emotionally upset, the world must stop for them?)

The thing about Malleus, he doesn't get along in a world filled with hypocrisy. He points it out. And there is plenty to point out at WP. (I personally think, he should be promoted to strategic direction around here, in a team of brilliant contributors, mind you. Because they know best. He is very smart guy, and I've never seen him to be wrong, though I don't practice "return as good as I got" per him. Instead I reply to accusations, and sometimes it is laced with snarkiness.)

To repeat, for the betterment and survival of WP, I really do think he and other brilliant contributors ought to be put in charge. If they'll agree to do it. (Why not? They know best re the quality of encyclopedia articles, what are drags to that, what are supports to that. Has anyone ever proposed this before?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, and 10 other generally accepted as brilliant content contributors. A team of 11. (Odd number so no !voting ties.) In charge of WP strategic direction (internal policies, that directly affect the quality of the encyclopedia). Ihardlythinkso (talk)

A team consisting of the top 11 brilliant content contributors. (Think about it: They already know, what the problems are. And what the solutions are. So putting them in charge is the smartest, and most expedient way, to solving WP's ills. Cultural ills. Article-degradation ills. Retaining good people ills. Attracting new talent. Etc. They already know how to do it. They should be put in charge. All internal policy directly affecting article development and quality.)

Arbcom rules on disputes that can't otherwise be resolved. It is just ruling on case-by-case. Not the same as providing a strategic direction re growth, or setting a vision. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is a smart guy, but he isn't always right, just right often enough. I don't suggest using him as a mold, as there is only room enough for one Malleus, and that mold was broken after he was made. Some might say before. There are some problems at Wikipedia, but jumping on a soapbox and taking a stand won't fix them or make you a martyr, since you won't be remembered 3 months after your indef block at all. I think you come across way stronger than your realize. I understand because I do as well, and I've learned to tone it back just a bit. Ok, a lot, and there is still much work to be done for me as well. There are two ways to note problems, the negative way and the positive way. Like it or not, the vast majority of people who just soapbox and take a negative view are no longer here. It is the simple reality. If you want to do more than complain, if you want to affect real change, then you will have to take a more balanced approach. This isn't unique, the same holds true in corporate America as well. I'm not saying do things my way, but you have to pick your battles, and in particular, when you are 100% in the right. In this entire ANI report prior, you weren't. I saw the case and chose to not involve myself because I think you were coming across too strong, and I will not be other than honest here. I might be mistaken about things from time to time, but they are honest mistakes.

I admire your passion, but I fear that if you don't properly channel it, you will NOT be around very long. Soapboxers have a very short life expectancy here, and I can't change that. In this case, I genuinely thought a block was too severe. It wasn't a personal favor, it was my opinion. That doesn't change the fact that you share the bulk of the burden here. I knew going in that no one would like what I had to say, which is why I said it going in, as I pretty much knew how it would play out. Thankfully, I'm not running for any popularity contest, just trying to do what I think is right. And I know that me saying this might piss you off a bit, and I just ask that you sleep on it. I'm not asking you to change your opinions, I'm only asking you use a more persuasive method of expressing them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't pissed me off. But I'm puzzled, what is it exactly you think I'm "soapboxing"? (It is not in me to soapbox, and don't know what you're referring to. Please clarify, you got me puzzled.)

My idea about putting 11 top brilliant content contributors in charge, including Malleus as one, is just an idea that came out of me now. I guess it has been on the back of my mind for some time, too. I had no intention of expressing it at the ANI, no plan to. I've only been defending myself against unwarranted accusations, at the ANI. This is something completely different, and not really related.

I didn't suggest putting Malleus in charge; I suggested putting a team of 11 top brilliant content contributors in charge, including Malleus. (You say the mold broke when they made him. Not really. Integrity is time everlasting, it doesn't peter out with the fashions. Now, as he is a super-strong individualist, are you rather saying, he couldn't perform in a team with 10 other brilliant contributors? I think he would love it. I think he would be in his element. I think he would be all for this idea. I think the group of 11 could come to consensus anyway they chose, and of course there may be disagreements. But brilliant minds often think alike. And the purpose of the encyclopedia is really a single thing: article quality [development, preservation, and growth]. With single purpose, I believe the top content contributors, already knowing what the problems are, already knowing what the best solutions are, can come to terms.)

The idea is a right idea. Corporate culture or not. (Isn't WP a consensus-driven body? Can't a reorg plan such as this, be weighed as a matter of consensus in WP community? I have no idea how the politics of WP work. Clearly, the reins of power would have to be transferred, from whatever entities hold them [is it Arbcom?], to the new team of 11. And transfer of power is always a difficult thing to accomplish. That's why WP consensus-driven change is so interesting here. [Is a new structure a candidate for community consensus? Or is organizational structure dictated by WMF/Jimbo?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(Probably the reason this idea popped out now, is due to the recent additional threats I received from Administrators, of block. The deal is, the problem with individual admins having power to block, creates a number of ills on WP, including uneven enforcement, abuse, and [as already mentioned] a hostile and intimidating environment. Because people are not Gods, they have human weakness, and power often corrupts. One of the possible outcomes, of putting 11 top brilliant contributors in charge of internal policies, is that ... there might not *be* anymore "administrators". Now, what other control to bring, to prevent "damage to WP", I do not know, but I do know who does know ... the top 11 brilliant content contributors. [More exact, they can figure out what to do. Better than any other formulation.])

Is that resource utilized? No. Corporations often make dumb mistakes, and I've read, that often CEOs are not even really needed, they are figureheads many times. The horse knows the way (to carry the sleigh). Unless the CEO is a particularly good visionary and leader. The thing is, WP is consensus-driven by philosophy. It held the black-out up to consensus vote. So why not this?

Put the 11 top brilliant WP contributors in charge. Of everything directly affecting article quality. (They know what the problems are; they know what the solutions are.)

If you doubt the value of this idea, then do this thought experiment: Imagine the team of 11 top brilliant content contributors already in place, already in charge. They get together. They reformulate a number of things. (OMG!)

Now I ask you ... Do you think, whatever the reformulations ended to be, that they somehow might damage or be in the worst interest of the encyclopedia?

(I think the answer to that is: That would be impossible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked me to trust you Dennis. I do. (To a reasonably-expected degree.) What about WP's top brilliant content contibutors? Do you trust them? Can the body of WP community trust them? (I think the answer is obvious. Such a team, if put in charge, *are* the intelligence [heart and soul] of what the encyclopedia is envisioned to be. As a team, they are already in position to know better than any other formulation, what levers need to be set or reset, to have the best chance to most practically bring about the vision that is WP, to a reality.)

(Is that my soapbox, Dennis? Or a real idea for the health & survival of a WP growing sicker by the day, that is desperately looking for solutions to cure its ills, evinced by the WikiProj Editor Retention.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Put the top 11 brilliant content contributors in charge. Of everything related to article quality (development, maintenance, growth). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(It'd no doubt result in radical changes. And equally no doubt, a more vital and on-target encyclopedia. Sometimes radical surgery is necessary and desirable, if the patient is to live or to have extended life. I think this would be a great move, the best move, perhaps even the only move, to stop what's happening from getting worse, leading to a too-sick patient to survive surgery.) Please perform the thought experiment (defined above), then, let me know what you think! Thx. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a nomination venue, where the community uncovers its opinions, to identify are the top brilliant content contributors at the Eng WP. Then the identified contributors could be solicited regarding whether they would want to perform in a capacity with 10 others, to lead WP internal policies related to article quality (development, maintenance, growth). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Any editor, including already accepted top brilliant content contributors, can recommend for consideration to the body, any other editor. (Afterall, they know who each other are, don't they.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

When I talk about soapboxing, I mean you tend to take a position based purely on principal (which I agree with and admire) and become verbose and perhaps preachy to a fault. This is another issue I totally understand, as I'm also more verbose than I need to be, but I am getting better. It isn't intentional, I'm sure, and likely you are typing like you speak, but most people read slower than they listen, which means effective communications here have to be excruciatingly pithy. As to my feelings on content creators, I've always said they are more important than admins (even if some don't believe an admin could believe that) and that was the driving force behind starting the Project.

The culture here is similar to a corporate culture in only a few ways. Namely, those that stick their neck out tend to get it chopped off. Malleus is an anomoly and has an amazing way of riding the line that can't be duplicated. I actually think highly of him and learned a great deal from him. I also think he is a pain in the ass. Of course, I've told him this before, and have spoke in his favor when it was appropriate, so he and I have a mutual respect for each other, and accept that we just have different methods to achieve the same goals. But to emulate him is to guarantee your demise. It can't be done, there is only room for one, as I said before.

Let me share something else on admin abuse. I do review a great deal of admin abuse situations, and most of the time, when someone says admin abuse, it is the admin being abused. This doesn't change the fact that you and agree that very often admins use blocks more aggressively than we think they should, but it is a fact. The overwelming majority of blocks are well deserved. I do a lot of them at SPI and ANI myself, and you know I'm loathe to block unless I know it is the only possible solution. I was just taken to ANI two days ago for "admin abuse", for example. I say this because if you want admins to be less aggressive about blocks, you must reward the admins that do it right, and let them lead by example. If you lump all admins together, you alienate yourself from the very situation you wish to influence. A bad block doesn't mean admin abuse. Most of the time, it means the admin didn't have all the information, misread the situation, has an older philosophy on blocking that needs updating, or just fucked up. We all make mistakes.

You called me out on a mistake. I then told you that you were wrong. Then a second party came in, and enough time passed that I could see in hindsight a little better, and I corrected my mistake as best I could. Had you never heard of me before that RfA, and had you left before Malleus came in, you would have no choice but to assume that I was an abusive admin. This is certain. The only reason you feel differently now is that you have more information. Often when someone is claiming abuse, it is the same thing, a lack of information, people come in, see a snapshot, jump to conclusions. This is why I try to engage an admin who makes a mistake (often privately) and not be quick to judge him. Mistakes happen, it is a big place after all, so if you come across as unforgiving, unyielding, and uncompromising, then you develop a reputation and you are judged by the same measuring stick. Sometimes there is real abuse, however rare, and I can promise you that it isn't nearly as overlooked as you might think, even if it isn't aired out publicly. The Code of Silence isn't so silent off-wiki, btw.

The politics here are much, much more complicated than even I understand, and I'm an admin that has been here almost 6 years. I don't recommend it for a content creator like yourself. Get involved, sure, and be a part of the system, !vote for changes, offer an idea, but your greatest contribution is your content by far. Me, I'm not a very good author actually. Oh, I'm a decent gnome and can source, clean up, start basic stuff, tag and all that, but I'm not wizard with prose. I didn't go to college and entered the business world instead, so my grammar and prose writing is subpar perhaps, but I do understand people and groups remarkably well and how to get people together to compromise. I tend to get involved with some (but not all) of the politics because I typically have a calm, measured approach, and that is where I can make a difference. And I do listen to the content creators, who I hold in the highest esteem, and try to be their voice.

Anyway, I preach to you about being verbose and here I write a book. My main point is that you should do what you do best, creating new content, and try to avoid the politics. We have a shortage of good content creators anyway, and the Project and most of my efforts are centered around keeping them here at Wikipedia. What I would suggest is this: If you get into a contentious situation, ping me, have a cup of tea, let me help put things in perspective and keep things from getting intense. By the same token, I would hope that if I have some content, I could ping you, and you could help me turn some rough sentences into something that flows nicely and is a joy to read. We each do what we do best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for your thoughts, I read them all over carefully. First, "pithiness" is a skill. (To be concise.) Malleus is a master. (I don't know if it's a talent inborn, or learned. I work at it w/ each edit I make, the learning is slow & painful. I'm improving, and I like that. However, when someone accuses me falsely on an ANI, or any other important situation, I try to avoid misunderstanding, by replying clearly and completely. That can cause a lot of words to spill. But I'd rather that, than the "intersection collision" of a misunderstanding, because that just causes more waste of time & words, to straighten out. [So now you understand, when I'm writing long, I'm doing it to be clear & complete. Pithiness then can leave a lot of holes to be filled in by imaginations, leading to said misunderstandings. Even in those situations I could be "pithier", but in those situations it seems to me putting meaning down on paper is a higher priority, so I don't count the words then, or approach it like a prose edit.])

Second, I have a healthy respect for facts, not just principle. Third, there's no way I *am* or would even consider, to "emulate" Malleus. (I already have my self-identity well formed. One's most effective communication is to be genuine, and imitation is not genuineness.) I can admire Malleus, without imitating him. There's no doubt he is a Myers-Briggs 'T' attribute, and probably an 'NT' personality temperament type. (I think you, are M-B 'F' attribute.) This might cause you to get mistaken notion that I mimick Malleus. No. There are only 16 M-B personality types! Within a type, values are essentially the same, and behaviors too. (Pesky, surprisingly, says she's 'T'. I think she should re-type herself! A preference to see human interaction in terms of people's feelings is 'F' attribute. In terms of facts first, feelings second: 'T'.)

Third, I have no interest in Wiki politics, or to become an Admin. (But that doesn't mean, I can't suggest two ideas to improve WP! One is simply what many many others have said: allow only defined usernames to update articles. The second idea is more radical (has it been suggested before at WP?): Put the 11 top-most brilliant content contributors (who will take the job) in charge of internal WP policies that directly affect article quality (development, maintenance, growth).

Thanks for pointing out, the vast majority of blocks are good blocks, not bad. (Didn't know that. But it does not sweep away the damage, when there is a bad block.) You say that blocks are often not bad-faith but based on mistake(s). Ok. But again, that does not sweep away that there is such a thing as a revenge block. There are. You mentioned too, how more than 50 percent of claims of abuse, is the editor abusing the Admin. Ok, didn't know that (thanks). But Dennis, let me tell you this: the situation is not equal. (An Admin, knows he can do something, when being abused. He knows he has power of the block. The very fact he knows this, that he can exercise the block if he wants, may give him the extra equanimity, to suffer the situation. Whereas Dennis, a regular editor is without such powers, has no such discretionary recourse, and is subject to the situation, and to the mood of the Admin. He has no powers to comfort him. Different situation. Not equal. The inherent toleration conditions are inherently not the same. Tell me you understand this and I don't have to prove further. [I can.])

You mentioned you "listen to" content creators. That is great. My idea is more radical: To give the 11 top ones, control.

You mentioned that you wield a softer touch, because if you "come across as unforgiving, unyielding, and uncompromising, then you develop a reputation" etc. I agree of course, that yours is a better way. (But have you noticed? There are quite a few Admins, that have those unfortunate reputations you named, but the Admins may even know, and ... "Don't give a rat's ass."?) My idea is interesting, because I doubt very much if the top 11 brilliant content contributors were in charge, that they would retain the current structure (individual admins with power to block, seldom questioned or challenged, and having the tool for life). (Would you think so?) It is a soil rife for abuse, and Dennis, that has driven editors away from WP, and is so-far not well recognized in WikiProj Editor Retention, as prev mentioned. I know you replied the project is just getting underway. Ok. But why do you think Malleus will no longer add new articles? And where is FleetCommand? IMO it is the biggest issue; the pink elephant. Since you support most blocks, and Malleus has serious issues with the unilateral subjective use of power of the block, please tell me what you think about Malleus's position.

You weren't really responsive to the idea to put the top 11 brilliant content contributors in charge of WP policies that affect article quality (development, maintenance, growth). (I think because, the idea is so totally radical. "Radical" has a bad name; most think it means something undesirable. Not so.)

I read your concluding offers, and that suits me just fine. (I've humility re editor skills go though. I'm amazed all the time how easily the really good editors show command of prose. There are some real masters around. I'm less than an apprentice. It's *fun* to try and help small articles in big shambles, however!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the things I enjoy about conversing with you is that I always have to go look up something at least once mid paragraph. I actually think you have some very interesting ideas. I didn't respond to the idea of a crew of 11 because honestly, that is so radical that I couldn't just quickly come to a conclusion. I would be lying if i said the idea didn't scare me a bit, but I try not to jump to conclusions too rapidly. You are right that there are many problems, and there are some bad blocks that happen. Even if they are only a tiny percentage of the blocks that happen (and I'm pretty certain they are, we blocks hundreds of vandals and sockpuppets) they are still a problem that I can say I work on every day. Yet in most of those, again, it was a good faith mistake. It is actually a little harder to find "fresh" blocks that fit that mold, if you go through the block logs because most blocks are ones that you and I and everyone would agree were good blocks. This is part of the problem, locating them. But this is a good thing that they are so rare. More importantly, those "good" blocks actually help content creators, when vandals, socks, abusive POV editors and the like are blocked, it clears the path for the content creator. Blocks aren't inherently bad, and Wikipedia would be unworkable without them.

And you are right that since admins have the tools and you don't, it puts you at a disadvantage in one respect, but it doesn't really matter except in very contentious situations. I've always been quite bold and outspoken and I've never been threatened with a block. I worked ANI before becoming admin quite a bit, as a matter of fact. Then, I will walk away from a situation if I find myself getting upset as it isn't worth it. Tomorrow, the same issues will exist and I can hammer away then, and getting blocked would only hinder my efforts, not help them. I'm quite practical in that respect, always thinking about problems in the long term rather than today. Then again, most of my conflicts haven't been about ME, they have been when I'm advocating for someone else. When I had a problem, I would just take it to the proper venue, report it, and move on. It isn't that I accept "authority", I just accept that "justice" here or in the real world is a roll of the dice, and what happens here is important, but it isn't the most important thing in my life.

But in order to fix the problems around here, first you must BE here. Next, you have to engage, then you must persuade. My first year or two, I'm shocked I didn't get into some trouble, but soon I learned the policies and learned to communicate with more authority in my words, and people would listen to my ideas on articles a bit more. The best approach is to assume the best of faith in everyone, a ridiculous amount, then go do your homework in each instance, and come back if you need to. I want you to be here, and I know you have a lot to offer Wikipedia, in both content and ideas, but it does require a bit of complying with some of the protocols around here, and sometimes killing them with kindness. A bitter pill to swallow sometimes but not that different than the real world. If you stay focused on the long term goals, it isn't that hard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, isn't it a bit more than obvious now, what is going on? It seems to me it went way overblown, and now has veered way out of control even. Man! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. And you wonder what drives editors away from Wikipedia?!

It's amazing Dennis, I see "block! block! block!" as the only thing an admin or admin-wannabe (not you, mind you) see as "effective solution" to something they don't like. Also, another rather constant mantra is "ongoing behavior". (Well my God, what about the behavior of the admins or admin-wannabe's saying this, accusing this?? Do they think their behaviors aren't plain to see? Do they think their behaviors aren't astonishingly bad?) Duh. (And also: Wow.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

[1]

If I did anything even remotely similar to the above, I'd be blocked in a minute. What makes Guy Macon so special, that he can be so hypocritically contrary to WP:CIVIL, while still preaching to others about being civil?? (How can anyone conclude other than that the WP civility policy, far from being inconsistently enforced, is really just a complete joke to wipe one's nose on?) I'm very interested to try and understand this. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I apologize for not having done this earlier, but I've corrected some of the statements you made on ANI. I'm sure you're just remembering them differently and not trying to misrepresent things, but please refrain from further incorrect statements about this interaction. I have never been your nemesis and I don't believe I have interacted with you since the last time I blocked you. I'd like to go back to that pattern. Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• What matters most is how we move forward. Likely, just moving on and leaving each other to do what it is we do is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Toddst1, I've replied at the ANI page. Do you see any conflict between these two statements?:

  I'm sure you're just remembering them differently and not trying to misrepresent things

  IHTS ... would do well to take to heart instead of fabricating conspiracies

  Because I do. Regarding "never being [my] nemisis", I don't know why you say that. "Actions speak louder", is the saying, yes? I never stated we had interaction since your last block of me. It wasn't that long ago that you blocked me indef. And of course there was no reason for any interaction since then. And I did not ask for any in the current ANI, this was your choice. And you made a block recommendation at the ANI. All these things aren't the most friendly kind of gestures, or did you think so? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And I wish you hadn't. You seem to be intentionally trying to inflame the situation, now asking another user I've been in disputes with to join with his negative comments about me further. Wow. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice & requests

Please don't break other editor's comments when replying like you did here -- it makes the thread hard to follow. Wikipedia is dysfunctional in many ways but somehow works overall, but ANI is not a forum for improving it. Forget the WP-this and WP-that stuff -- the real unwritten rule is don't annoy the other editors. Continuing to pursue issues after the rest of the community has lost interest affects your long term Wiki-reputation. Like every other organization on Earth, Wikipedia has double standards, so long term editors and administrators often go unsanctioned for edits that get lesser status editors in hot water. I strongly suggest you just drop all the discussion about Toddst1 and The Blade of Northern Lights, stay off their talk pages, and get back to editing. This is not a threat (I'm not an admin and I very very rarely report editors to the noticeboards) -- this is sincere advice from an old guy whose been around a long time and seen how these things work. Nobody Ent 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody Ent is spot on, as usual. All parties need to just move on, drop the stick, and allow the heat to vent off a little, so we can focus on what matters here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments User:Nobody Ent. For the record, I had no interest whatever to continue the ANI thread; Toddst1 & Macon were continuing to add accusatory posts to my attention, I responded rather than not. I have no reason to go to any of the editors' Talk pages; the reason I posted at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights was because I had genuine issue regarding his summary remarks and the ANI was closed to further adds at that point. My comments about WP at the ANI came out of complete dismay at the conditions there, not any notion of campaign to improve things, which I see as impossible, and leave to good people like Dennis Brown. My main concern with continuing to edit normally at WP, is the inherent hostility and abusiveness in the environment that has struck at me when attempting to discuss and improve the quality of an article in my niche. The user has continued a campaign of harassment and baiting at every opportunity, doesn't hide his incivilities toward me in the slightest, as though presuming he has free reign to attack and be disruptive, as though WP goals re collegiate atmosphere are a complete joke for his amusement. (How the hell am I supposed to respond to a user such as this? He is not interested in my editorship value, only to continue to harass and disrupt. I'm completely nonplussed why this user gets away with his behavior and has not been already blocked.) Also it seems there is accepted acknowledgment, that to be an annoyance to an admin, can get one blocked. But, to block on the basis of "being annoyed", is itself an offense of incivility and abuse of admin tools, and should result in sanctions and/or de-sysop. If the state of affairs at WP is really that users must cower to the mood of admins, less they use their tools to block, what kind of fear-chaos-cesspool environment is that, in the name of "collegiate environment/community of editors"? Why don't experienced editors call a spade a spade, rather than allow the reign of terror and driving away editors at WP, who decide to be abusive and use WP as a playpen for their own amusement and sadistic entertainment? This is very confusing to an editor as myself with 1+ years experience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I entertained not even going to the ANI at all. The accusations by User:ChessPlayerLev were baseless, exaggerated, distorted, falsified. I really already learned that ANI is not any decent place to be. (An environment of complete irresponsibility.) May I ask, with a list of false accuses left by the complainant, had I not gone to ANI at all, not responded at all, ... what would have been the likely result? (I would really like to know this. It is not knowing this, that led me to decide to respond at the ANI at all.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what would have happened, but this I do know: The best way to respond to an ANI complaint naming you is not to respond to the initial post but rather to wait to see how (relatively) neutral third party editors respond. In the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Abusive_Behavior_from_Ihardlythinkso the first editor in was Jasper Deng, who addressed critical remarks to the poster, with somewhat of a sideways swipe at yourself "which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso." After another brief exchange with JD, you and the poster went back and forth until The Blade Of Northern Lights made his statement. You absolutely would have been better off not responding at all until another party directly commented about your behavior or addressed a question to you. There's no justice system on Wikipedia, dispute resolution is all about resolving conflicts as quickly and simply as possible so editors can get back to editing. So a statement like the one Blade made is not a ruling both of you guys were equally culpable -- it's more like no one on Wikipedia really wants to expend energy parsing out which of two editors in a conflict is more "at fault." Nobody Ent 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. (Sit until third party comments or queries.) Had there been no third party responders after JD's last remark, there would have been nothing for me to respond to or answer, and, that is the way it looked like it was going, and, I was concerned what my complete silence might yield at closing time. (A sanction because of my disinterest to respond? Then I would have had that to deal with!?) A different point, I still don't understand why the venue wasn't questioned; I've read numerous times ANI is to be used only as last resort after all other options are exhausted. Even the opener sugggested Wikiquette seemed like a more appropriate venue, and tried to justify why he didn't. I don't buy his experience or WP knowledge on it. I understand the closing motive, if Blade decides to leave an unnecessary insulting comment, I don't see why he can't take an objection on his Talk after the thread was closed. (IMO, that would be an example of "taking responsibility". Why does an admin feel inherent right to insult a voluntary editor without comment? And if one objects, the block weapon comes out of holster, immediately. I do think this is a terribly abusive & hostile environment, but have no interest to play martyr as Dennis supposed. Yet, if *no one* ever objects or says anything or demonstrates any resistance in any way [about incivilities, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, abuses], how ever in any universe could or would there be even possibility of improvement or change?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a contradiction present ... If the purpose is to close the ANI as efficiently as possible, so editors can get back to editing, then, wouldn't the most efficient thing for Blade to do, after I registered my view of his summary comments on his Talk after the close, would be a one-liner with me, accepting or disagreeing, which would have been a logical end of the exchange? (Instead, he opened the thread again, proposed a block, and then sat back as the piling-on occurred, with plenty of time and disruption and drama, all a waste, all irrational, all non-productive.) Is it fair for me to conclude then, that his decision to reopen the thread, was for purpose of punishment (a punishing block), in retaliation for registering my view on his Talk? (And if true, isn't that agaist policy admins supposedly are here to enforce, and weren't his decisions and actions sanctionable? Although I don't expect anything like that would really happen, the scenario at least has more logic and consistency and fairness attached to it IMO, than the chaotic & hypocritical wilderness that was the reality of what unfolded.) It was like: "Hm, come to my Talk and complain, huh? Ok ... TAKE THIS!" (Block-time and pile-on time and insult-time opens wide and gushes forth.) I think that whole scenario, besides contradictory, is entirely abusive and punishing and BATTLEGROUND mentality. Yet no sanctions. No challenges. Nothing. (But I did see you had words w/ Blade, which I appreciate very much. Thank you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, the miracle of Wikipedia is not that it works so well but rather that it works at all given how dysfunctional it is. There's vast gray areas of behavior. There lot's that messed up and I know I can't fix it, but I don't get paid to fix Jimbo's mess. What I can, and try to do, is just make it a little better, whether that's politely asking an admin to tone it down a bit, or encouraging a new editor who's stumbled in the the ANI shark tank to persevere.

We don't get paid for doing this, so it should be fun. BNL and Todd are not going to get reprimanded or desysoped or otherwise sanctioned (beyond someone like me bitchin' at them a little bit). All in all they're good admins regardless of the fact I think they are a little too harsh with their words sometimes. And Todd is not your "nemesis," he's just someone trying to do a thankless job the best they can. If your enjoyment of a webspace requires it to be Lawful Good instead of Chaotic Good you're highly unlikely to find it an enjoyable experience longterm. This is not a "you're not welcome here" message, it's a "this is the way the place is" message. Life is too short to waste time on Wikipedia unless you enjoy the experience. Nobody Ent 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for answers. I respect your experience and wisdom. For clarification, Toddst1 has gone out of his way several times, to try and end my WP life here (using admin powers, not words). That kind of targeting is the basis I chose the word I did. A non-admin editor has gone out of his way several times, to try and make my WP life as unpleasant as possible (words). He has followed me around to do so, and that is a targeting, too. Both experiences run deliberately counter to "collaborative, collegiate editing environment" making mine a hostile, abusive one instead. (These are "good" editors?! How can I possibly agree? Perhaps it is difficult or even impossible for you to know the feeling on my end, because you have not been in the editors' crosshairs, I have.)

I'll continue to read and reflect on your thoughts above. Thank you again for your involvements and counsel, I sincerely appreciate. (In fact, your involvements here, plus Dennis's, is the only thing that's given me any feeling of encouragement to return to editing. Your "go back to editing now" was uplifing, as though I needn't worry so much about the safety of the environment here. But, my instincts aren't convinced. As a result, my ambition to edit anything is way down. [Perhaps without your encouragements, there wouldn't be any.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Life is too short to waste time on Wikipedia unless you enjoy the experience." You're a true "WP philosopher", Nobody Ent! (And, I think I enjoy reading WP articles, more than editing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence, Please.

Recently User:Ihardlythinkso made the following accusations:

"Do you see yourself as "always civil"? Because I have an off-Wiki list of 15 things you've done toward this editor, now 16, that were far from civil. I can back up what I say, if you happen to be sometime interested.)"[2]

"Macon, please tell, is this an example of your respect for WP:CIVIL?"[3]

Yes. please back up what you say with diffs. The one diff you posted does not contain the smallest hint of incivility. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your post was completely baiting and outside any concept of expected editor behavior on WP. Your hypocrisy re civility is astounding, more so that you constantly admonish others to follow WP:CIVIL and then conduct yourself in the manner you do. I've concluded any dialogue w/ you would amount to unpleasant irrationality, and why would I do that to myself? You have zero credibility with me. Please leave me alone, and stay off my Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Evasion noted. You are the one who wrote "I can back up what I say". It's really simple. Back up what you said or apologize for making a false accusation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an evasion. I can back up what I said. It is just that you, are too unpleasant an individual to interface with. Tell you what: We need a third party, a neutral mediator. Then your incivility points can be gone over and evaluated fairly. I won't deal with you directly (too disgusting; too irrational). We find a neutral third party, or nothing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to make your user page look better?

Do you want to make your user page look better? I can help you with that and make it look like this here. Tonymax469 (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)