User talk:Karanacs

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, I will likely respond on this page if you begin a conversation here. If I've begun a conversation on your talk page, I'll watchlist that page until you respond.

Todo list

• Currently at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of San Patricio/archive1 (article)
• Next up: Battle of Agua Dulce or Welcome to Temptation or Vision in White
• Review Battle of the Alamo and create comprehensive list of what needs to be done on the talk page (back to the library!)
• Create articles for books that received the Romance Writers of America's RITA Award.
• Tornel Decree

Rationalobserver

Hi Karanacs, also pinging admins @Cassianto: and @Dennis Brown:, and my fellow "kicked off the talk page" editors @Sagaciousphil:, @Victoriaearle:, and @Giano: just to keep the discussion confined to one thread (sorry to hijack yours, but had to pick someone!) Rationalobserver has banned the four of us from posting on her talk page and reverts/removes anything we post. (you noted this on her page) But as Dennis has offered support for the concept of an interaction ban between RO and some of us, I realize that important voices have been silenced. Given that there is no forum where we four can interact with RO to discuss this matter, such a proposal could, in theory, be passed without any of us having a fair chance to weigh in, and so I am posting here so that someone has a heads up. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the other three editors, but I for one am not at all comfortable with the idea that those of us who have been - legitimately - critical of the problems Rationalobserver is causing could be asked to unilaterally disarm when we happen to be the people who are among the most cognizant of the issues. RO may call our comments "harassment" - while viciously harassing others such as Victoriaearle in particular (and also Eric Corbett a while back) - I call it "pointing out legitimate concerns." To be prohibited from calling it as one sees it raises a risk that this editor could continue to seek the unwary and present her usual MO for getting articles to GA status: Making it sound good, but using a lot of offline source material and when one actually goes into the source material, it is discovered that research materiala are misunderstood, misattributed, misstated, or just plain unverified. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
While RO has complained that people (including me) are stalking and harassing her, I must point out that she WAS the person who posted that Irataba was up for FAC on a wikiproject page where I am a member, and I went over there because I am qualified to review the topic. Her behavior aside, I am particularly troubled by ROs article writing: at Irataba, I commented upon a troublesome tip that - post0block - led to the discovery of a huge iceberg of problems with the article - it has since been subject to an extensive rewrite by two of the other FAC reviewers to resolve many of the problems, and due to the changes and need for a new review, the FAC coordinators withdrew it from consideration. Some of her other articles, such as Rose-Baley Party also had problems. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So, long story short, while I oppose lifting the block on RO due to clear evidence at her talk that she hasn't changed a bit, even if it is, I also think that the IBAN question should not be discussed there without the input of the people most likely to be involved - I personally think RO does need significant restrictions placed upon her if she is unblocked, (in particular she should not be allowed to interact with Victoriaearle at all) but I think it is important that the people who are the innocent parties not be subjected to a "you are all equally responsible" false equivalency. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I've argued the same in other cases not concerning you. Without commenting specifically on this case, while a mutual interaction ban often sounds like a great idea to stop the disruption, I believe it's often suggested (or embraced) as a way to hide the cause of the disruption. Me reacting poorly to something that you say in no way means that you were disruptive, a fact that some seem not to see. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Interaction bans, in my view, are counterproductive, perpetuate divisiveness in an environment of collaboration, and should only be imposed in the most egregious of cases, which this doesn't even come close to. I wouldn't agree to one under these circumstances. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, usually just a source for more trips to the drama boards. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the ping Montanabw, and I'm in total agreement with you about RO. They are a nasty piece of work and I can never forget the disgusting comments made about me in January when OrangesRYellow accused me of glorifying the act of rape. RO was instrumental in that arguement and sided with the the other two filthy specimens who made the comments. This resulted in a block for me, a month or two away from the project, and a lasting reluctance to return to FA writing. RO is a toxic personality. They should have been banned months ago, and this block has been a long time coming. The Iritaba article is was, in my opinion, a load of old rubbish and certainly not worth the paper it's written on. The last time I looked in, it was littered with mistakes and needed a complete rewrite; something that has since taken place, and all the better for it. I'm not to up to speed with the dispute with Victoria but to me, it sounds like she has discovered what sort of person RO truly is. By the way, I'm not an admin but I wish I was because I'd have blocked them indef months ago. ;) Cassianto^Talk 06:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments. A disruptive attitude combined with content that requires constant in-depth checking and major re-work by others is just going to keep leading to more drama. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

She also removed a response to her email from Chillum regarding her block.[1] EChastain (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

fyi

[2] - request for iban against Scalhotrod, in case it gets deleted from LB's page.

[3] evidence, now deleted by LB, that LB's request was discussed by arbs and turned down. EChastain (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sent you another one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing experiment

FYI, this was on my talk page. I'm assuming because I subscribe to Tech News. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a comment over there. I think we're a good example of a success story in this concept :) Karanacs (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I believe you are in the US. Are you familiar with the saying elephant in the room? Our article suggests that it is an English phrase, which is somewhat ambiguous even though linked (British? English language?). It does mention US usage. I ask because I've got the horrible feeling that someone thinks I am talking about their weight or looks, even though I've never set eyes on them and would be highly unlikely to comment as such even if I had. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we usually use this to mean that there is something everyone is thinking but no one is willing to say. It's not usually about talking in code (hinting around that someone is overweight, etc). It's more about pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing to see here, everyone mind your own business, etc. It's sort of like The Emperor's New Clothes - everyone knew he was naked but everyone ignored it except the one kid. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That is my understanding, too, and I'm pleased to see that it isn't restricted to the UK or similar. I've no idea why such a song-and-dance is being made about using the phrase but, hey-ho. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Monroe Edwards

Eric's done his magic on the prose, I can't find anything else about the guy - do you have any comments, etc to add before I drag him off to FAC shortly? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

LB Arbcom

Hi Karanacs, I have a question for you as an Admin. Given the requests for amendment that LB made[4], what's the best way to respond and say that I don't want to be involved? I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB dragged me into which resulted in a 6 months Topic Ban for both of us for Edit Warring. I didn't even contribute Comments to either case. Per your filing, I feel that this is just another tactic to silence Editors LB considers an obstacle to the way LB edits.

In fact, the more I think about it, this ANI from September of last year now almost seems like it was "practice" for LB to go after other, more senior Editors. Your input, if you don't mind giving it given the circumstances, is appreciated. And if not, I completely understand. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion as a party to the case is that if I were in your shoes, I would submit a statement and state why I believe I should not be considered a named party. You can enter pretty much exactly what you wrote above if you like. The Arbs will start responding within a few days and probably asking questions. At that time, you may want to say more, and I may do so as well. Personally, I do not believe that either Gun control or GGTF should be reopened, as the behavior spans multiple subject areas and project space as well as article space, but since I am already a party, it doesn't make sense for me to say anything else until more Arbs start to weigh in and I see if there is any traction for that proposal. In your shoes, as someone who could be added as a party, I would speak up now. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Team editing

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations at the place I'm not allowed to mention. Donner Party was a standout for me, as was Peterloo Massacre. Even with just one collaborator life is so much easier. Eric Corbett 21:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised to realize how many of my FAs would never have been tackled if someone else hadn't invited me or challenged me to participate in the article improvement - and that includes Donner Party. I wouldn't be the editor I am today if users at WikiProject Texas A&M hadn't decided to do a push to FA and invited me to help back when I was a newbie. Heck, I'd still be in retirement if Maile66 hadn't pinged me into the Texas Revolution collaboration - the idea of having a partner made the whole project (article and WP) seem a lot more inviting. And that's me, today, with 25+k edits and almost 2 dozen FAs. Imagine the possibilities if we could foster an appropriate environment for new/inexperienced/advanced editors - of all genders - to find or develop the right partnership. It is just going to take someone with more vision (and determination) than I have to make it work. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So far as I recall I was the only male working with you girls (can I say that?) on the Donner Party, but we seemed to get along just fine. More recently Sagaciousphil and I have worked on loads of articles together, and are still doing so. I rather fancy though that if we hadn't stumbled across each other neither of us might still be editing today. She's a dab hand at the research, leaving me just to move a few commas around when she's done. Eric Corbett 22:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm at the point where I'm now being called "ma'am" a whole lot more often than "miss", so by all means, call me a girl. Helps me pretend I'm not getting older ;) After a day of chasing kids around, I feel ancient. Karanacs (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia that involves teamwork makes all involved better editors in the long run. And that includes doing reviews on any given level. Even the most seasoned editors can still learn a few new ideas from working with others. And the newer editors will better learn how to navigate through the Wikipedia framework. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Eric has certainly enticed/encouraged me back to editing on several occasions, even very recently when I spent a day contemplating whether to throw in the towel by putting a retired template up. I'm not so sure a formally arranged way of putting teams/collaborators together would necessarily work so well though. Thinking back, Eric and I first stumbled into each other, when (as he frequently does and receives so little recognition for) he helped me after a now banned GA reviewer quick failed my nomination; I'd say that gradually since then a deeper working relationship has developed and more often than not we now work on articles together, hopefully Eric doesn't disagree, and he does far more than move a few commas around! Another excellent example of collaboration between several editors, I think, is Florence Nagle: Giano mentioned he'd created a stub for a feminist, which after some great work from lots of people, developed into the FAC it is at the moment. I guess what I'm saying is that, as is so often the case in real life, a naturally evolving working relationship can be stronger.

  Picking up on Maile66's comment, perhaps GAN (and maybe DYK) are areas that could be looked at as having potential for developing further collaboration? Experienced editors concentrating on reviewing GA/DYKs submitted by inexperienced editors, rather than the well meaning enthusiastic but inexperienced reviewing each others? The next step being the experienced editor guiding/collaborating with/helping the newer editor to either further develop that article or moving on to improve another (associated) article? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Perhaps GAN as you suggest. I'm just dipping my toes into GAN reviewing, and I feel a comfort zone in working there. WikiProject Military history has a working system that exemplifies what teamwork should be accomplishing on reviews - everybody working together to bring up the quality of an article. I pretty much learned the basics of how to construct an article through doing reviews at DYK. That said, the project, for a number of reasons (or no reason at all), is a lightening rod for caustic situations. I have much fondness for many at DYK, but it can be dicey over there.— Maile (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to spend a lot of time doing reviews at DYK as well - it's also where I learned a lot of basics. I never go anywhere near it now for several reasons ... ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. — Maile (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Trending gnome work

Smaller watched supporting articles re Crockett, Houston, and a variety of Alamo aspects, normally not edited at all. People are going in and tidying up, a little tweak here, a jiggle there. Interesting timing. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

wer

[5] 26 jan re EC at WER. EChastain (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get an email. Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you settings OK, are you receiving email at all? I've had this problem before. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you turn your function off? I don't see the link in the menu. I just created a new email address that seems to work now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I just double-checked my preferences and everything is still set up the same. I've gotten email through the link several times in the last few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In the past few days emails from here have gone missing for me as well, or only partially arrived. Eric Corbett 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe I triggered some kind of automated block by using it too many times in a row. Anyway, my new for WP use only email is wikiscalhotrod@gmail.com. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Karanacs, I'd like to email you too. Is that ok with you? (I find this arbcom very confusing.) If so, like Scal, I get a message that your email isn't set up.

I gave you a link, above regarding a comment on a mailing list of WMF about WER and EC. All the archives of that list are available here for anyone to look through. EChastain (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tip of iceberg?

While I agree with the rationale of this and the related removal, it may constitute only the tip of the iceberg in view of this. Like it or loathe it, the case is already being "genderised" and it will continue. Nothing can be done, of course. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be quite surprised if this is not being discussed on the private list. One of the justifications for the KaffeeKlatsch was that women needed a place to go when they felt attacked, and pretty much everyone would see an Arbcom proceeding against oneself as an attack. I debated requesting access to the mailing list to see what was going on (it would be quite hypocritical if I was rejected since I have all the parts that should earn me access), but it would be equally hypocritical of me to sign up for something that goes against my principles. Instead, I'll trust that those who appear after being canvassed will make that incredibly obvious (as is the case of the person who is posting on the workshop page). Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you've noticed! - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)