User talk:Ched

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 34 as User talk:Ched/Archive 33 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

• All Archives, Recent

DYK for Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, but I didn't really do anything. There are folks far more deserving than I. — Ched :  ?  09:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

..."than me "...get the goddamn grammar right ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So ... "There are folks far more deserving than me am"? Is this a conjunction vs. preposition thing? ... geesh - it's been 50 years since I had English classes; and, I am disadvantaged by being an American. (back at arbcom for less than a month, and already taking the Lord's name in vain) :-P — Ched :  ?  13:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC) .. at least I didn't say then I/me.

• adjustment for the highborn "There are people far more deserving than <???> [am]." "Folks" is a lowborn phrase that we unwashed tend to use in place of people. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"folks" is plenty good enough English for me ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the note letting me know what everyone was talking about as far as "outside sites" go. That was an... interesting discussion, but as I eventually found my way to a "strong oppose", based primarily on Hawkeye7's response to the questions at RFA, even knowing it existed before the close of the RFA would've made no difference to my recommendation. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I saw your request at the crat-chat talk page. It (WO) can actually be a very educational site if you're looking for perspective. There are some very good people there, many who are also members in good standing here. The site is often labeled with "disgruntled" tags, some of which is justified. One thing to understand is that over the years many people have been hounded off this site, some even outright perma-banned. (and far too often unjustifiably so). Yes, there is often a degree of resentment and loathing dripping from many threads and posts. Some of it justified, some of it simply children and trolls who love the MMPORG game of the Internet. There are many folks here much wiser to the ways of things, and more familiar with history than I - but I'll try to help if I can. (or point you to someone I think is more knowledgeable than I am.) Feel free to visit any time. — Ched :  ?  20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll definitely keep your talkpage on my watchlist for someone to go to when odd things like this get mentioned and I'm like "What the hell is going on?!?" :) Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. Remember too that I do have my own views, so take my thoughts with a degree of objectivity. :) — Ched :  ?  20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

just thinking

I'm gonna ping a few folks here: Casliber, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam, Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, and I am sure I could add to that list.

• One thing I kinda wanted folks to know is a feeling that many may not be aware of, and maybe some of you will agree here. Sure, there are plenty of admins who actually get a kick out of clicking on that block button, ... but there are some who don't actually enjoy it.

• Admins take a vow to do what's best for the project. But there are times that it means blocking a very well intentioned content contributor. I didn't make many such blocks - but every time I did - I felt that a part of my heart and soul died with that block.

• A lot of folks condemn admins, ... but until you've walked in those shoes - be careful how you judge. — Ched :  ?  04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The expression "walk a mile in someone's shoes before you judge them" is always good advice. Because when you do judge them, you will be a mile away, and they won't have any shoes. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Plenty of times I've mused on blocking and found it thought-provoking. Often someone else has come later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

kelapstick, have you ever blocked anyone other than a vandal? You are such a quiet, laid-back and mellow person, observing and listening, ... yes, I'm familiar with saying.

Cas ... yes, I've had that happen more times than not. Back when I used to try to help at various boards, by the time I had spent researching the how and why - a "solution" had been installed. — Ched :  ?  04:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The last one I can think of was Unbuttered Parsnip, who has about 16,000 edits since 2007. The block log says vandalism, but it was largely edit warring to the point of vandalism. Later (like within a week or so) turned to socking, and ended up indef blocked. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to block someone who has contributed - but when they screw it up, it's a bit easier. Perhaps I'm going off on a tangent here - but SilkTork posted recently with something that was so "spot on" that it amazed me. Something to the effect that the best content contributers often had a personality that wasn't conducive to being an "admin". It was all in general ... but it was brilliant. I'll find the diff, because it's something that should be saved. Anyway - back on topic: I once blocked Calton, RO, and a few others. Blocking sucks .. unblocking is fun. meh - you know me, "I yam what I yam". — Ched :  ?  05:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah, fun is clearing out 1500 entries from Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. :| --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll get back here as soon as I can. — Ched :  ?  05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with those opening thoughts exactly, Ched, and the tensions between intellectual content creators and rules enforcers is the root. It often seems that one set wants the best possible content above all else, and the other wants conformity and obedience above all else. But creative people are rarely conformist, while rules enforcers are rarely creative, and creativity does not come from following rules. I don't know what the answer is, and the constant battles were making my time here very unpleasant, and so I retired for a while. My personal answer now is to withdraw from anything controversial, anything to do with Arb cases, and anything related to drama on the drama boards - and to restrict my admin actions to obvious things like blatant vandalism, socking, etc (and helping to get people unblocked). I won't go near the difficult stuff now, because the partisan fighting makes it an unrewarding use of my time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Boing, as per usually, makes great points. Ched, I'll send you a message shortly, which should shed some light on my take on civility. For example. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Part of my thoughts on civility is that it is very easy to be witheringly passive-aggressive while using only "polite" words, but at the same time it is equally easy to be friendly and collegial while saying "fuck". But we have too many of the rude words police who instinctively want to punish the latter, but who don't have the intellectual ability to even see the former. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Only tangently related is the phrase "tact is being able to shit on someone's head, and have them thank you for the hat". --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 19:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK - I'm at a motel - and having issues with their network. I'll get back to ya'all as soon as I can. Cheers. (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Ok - here's the quote (taken from a larger post) I have noticed over the years that, with some very notable exceptions, prolific high quality content producers tend not to be temperamentally suited to being admins. There is a confidence bordering on arrogance and egocentrism that drives some of our best contributors. This certainty means they can move quickly and decisively and with intense focus to build an article to high standards - standards that they drive and maintain. But those same qualities means that they can sometimes act too rashly in admin situations which require the sort of consideration and consensus that can slow down and inhibit the making of featured articles.[1]

It was something that really resonated with me, and it sort of triggered the thought process to get to my original post here about the .. "hurts to block good folks". I've seen some of the folks in my original ping simply walk away - and I understand it. I wonder if others do. (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Need some advice

Could you take a look at the most recent discussion at the Billy the Kid article and provide some neutral insight? What's happening there seems to be against BRD as well as policy on consensus building. I'm going to ping Floquenbeam as well, because, in my estimation, there are two editors who are taking advantage of me being on a 1RR restriction, based on their most recent actions at the article and the mean spirited comments made about my recent block. Of course, I'm angry, so it's possible I'm seeing things through very subjective eyes. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - but it may take me a bit to get to it. I'm at a motel where their Wi-Fi and my laptop aren't playing very nice. But don't let a website make you angry ... well, if possible that is. I've certainly had my days too, so I understand. (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, because you asked, I've taken a look, and I have to say that I don't think you're "seeing things through very subjective eyes". I don't see anything to be angry about. I think the people that are disagreeing with you are being calm, polite, and making rational arguments. I don't think anyone besides you (and there seem to be 4-5 other people) are taking your side of the argument (although maybe I shouldn't count the reviewers, who may not want to take sides). I think you should stop personalizing the dispute, questioning motives, and continuing to claim the possibility of COI editing when there is no evidence of it. I think you should stop saying that normal WP methods for deciding arguments (RFC's, thorough consensus discussions) should be avoided because there's a GA clock ticking. I think you agreed to a 1RR restriction, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you are on a 1RR restriction. If someone agrees with you, they can make a 2nd revert. If they don't, you need to accept that consensus is against you. I don't see anyone making any mean spirited comments about your block.

The overarching impression I get - which may or may not be correct, but you should at least consider - is that you're letting the stress of resolving everything before the GA clock buzzes get to you, and it's turning people who disagree with you into perceived enemies. You might want to consider whether just letting the GA fail, working on it without the pressure of the 7 day clock, and re-nominating it in the future might be the best way forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(watching, un-pinged:) In practise, there's no 7-day GA clock, - both reviewers and editors have had more patience in the past. Relax, perhaps listen to some music sung by Hana Blažíková with precision and focus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(Also watching, also unpinged) I've opined there that I liked a particular solution (renaming the section) that you do not like. While I'm not impressed that the RFC is going forward without just allowing the discussion to take its course, I concur with Floq's meta take on the situation as well. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)