User talk:Dumuzid

Just curious about something. You seem to be one of the most civil and levelheaded participants on the GG controversy page. In the past, it appears you have erred on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues. Why then are you spending so much time arguing for the inclusion of the Gjoni rumour? It just seems to be such a small thing to be fighting for. I have always been an "interested observer" in the whole GG saga, just kind of standing on the sidelines and watching everything unfold. As I said, you are on of the few participants who really goes out of their way to remain civil and reasoned, but I feel like you are digging in your heels on this very insignifcant detail.

I guess I am asking because maybe I am missing something. Is it not as insiginifcant as I gather? Does it really add anything to the article? I understand if you want to blank/ignore this, but I am genuinely curious. In any event, as someone who really doesn't have a dog in the fight one way or another, kudos to your sir for remaining calm and collected moreso than just about any "involved" editor I can think of.

69.63.86.114 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by! I am actually not all that interested in the retention of the line about Mr. Gjoni, but I do feel that WP:BLP is becoming a conclusory argument which was never intended, and I don't like that! Much less do I care for the WP:BLPCRIME argument which strikes me as sophistical wikilawyering at best. If the consensus is that the information doesn't help the article and should be taken out, I have no problem at all with that -- you'll note I included a proposal to remove Mr. Gjoni entirely. I still think that's advisable just in the name of parsimony. But I don't like appeals to BLP as a way to short-circuit consensus building. Strongly sourced negative material should be fully usable in Wikipedia articles. That's my meta issue here. It's strange, I know, but process and rules are kind of right in my wheelhouse. Hope that explains a bit of what's happening. Dumuzid (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thank you for your response. I still am surprised that such a battle has broken out over such a seemingly small detail, and I am even more surprised you are participating (this is a compliment BTW). In any event, you obviosuly feel strongly about adding the information so I guess we will see how everything plays out. I still maintain there are bigger hills to die on, although I understand and respect standing by one's principles (principals?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.86.114 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Always remember -- the principal is your pal! So that's the guy who runs a school. We're talking principles here, or, even more dogmatically, process. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Things that make me go urgh...

Expanding on the discussion over there ... I think, from some of your previous comments, that we might share a common affinity for things being done the right way. In my case, and beyond the current discussions, I have pet peeves for, amongst other things, explicit vote counts or vote tallies in RfCs; for mid-discussion claims of consensus by involved editors; and for the use of the word "sources" in article text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72:, yes, I certainly have a fondness for process, in all its multifarious forms. And I can get on board with the platform you present. I too am peeved by vote tallies. That's not how things are supposed to work! But even our mutual peeving is not, to me, reason enough to remove a comment. As I see it, many less-than-brilliant things are said on Wikipedia, and most deserve to stand. It's a stretch for me to see the offending section as 'disruptive' when collapsed. I understand your issue about the drive-by nature of the comment, but I still don't think that rises to the level of removal. We both know the light/heat ratio on all things Gamergate is suboptimal. It's Sayre's law come to digital life. I'm not quite sure where I'm headed with that, so I will simply say have a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dumuzid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversial Reddit communities

Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Koncorde:, I apologize, I'm not sure I'll be of much help. There are some pretty reliable sources which call SRS "controversial." Now I think that controversy is all about denizens of less salubrious subreddits being, for lack of a better term, jerks, but unfortunately, whether for good or bad reasons, it seems like a fair characterization given the sources. If you want to tell me why you think the adjective doesn't fit, I'm all ears. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not asking for help, was asking for your input as someone who is an established editor. "Controversial" in the sense of the wiki article is related to objectionable or illegal content, or that generated sizeable actual controversy such as the_donald, rather than controversial because they came top of a pop culture analytics "poll" for relative toxicity which the writer of outlined reasons against taking at face value.

In the end, whether it is included or not, I would rather have other users input as to what the content should say rather than the SPA's current motivated narrative. Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dumuzid, for being reasonable about this. I have no axe to grind, I am not an SPA, and I don't want to cause trouble. I read an article saying SRS was controversial and I attempted to add it. It has been an unmitigated disaster ever since. I actually would also welcome your input - whether you feel it does or does not belong. You are one of the few editors who remains level headed during disputes so your opinion is valuable. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)