User talk:Fabrictramp

'rational discussion'

I am sick to death of attempting cold discussion, because of two things: 1) It all gets swept away anyway. So why not get angry? As WWWAG said, the drum needs to be banged louder and louder until someone actually does something. 2) It really doesn't matter what is said or how. The vicious defence of the status quo ensures that nothing will ever get changed around here.

I try anyway. → ROUX ₪ 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't give you a pass to take broad swipes at whole groups of people. And how things are said does matter. Both on wiki and in real life. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When it's as futile as getting admins subjected to the same standards as regular editors? No, it really does not matter. Nobody will listen anyway, and the only hope is to bang the drum loud and often until finally something is done. → ROUX ₪ 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Something was done before you banged the drum a second time. [1]. What were the intervening several hours of discussion all about? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

About exactly the same issue: admins--in the second case Jehochman--getting off scot-free for behaviour that would get any regular editor blocked. Or, apparently, threatened with one. Your collection of diffs was interesting, I'll grant you that, but nowhere did I sink to the level of accusing editors of meatpuppetry and collusion--without a single substantiating diff, yet. Thing is, Jehochman is better at the Wiki-game than I am; he couched his ridiculous accusations in such a way that if someone were to squint from a great distance they might consider it reasonable. It wasn't, of course; unfounded accusations of his sort are quite explicitly considered to be personal attacks. And yet.. he gets a nicely-worded warning. Editors who get pissed off at this double standard get.. the double standard reinforced by way of threats. Interesting.

You see, I believe quite passionately in the aims of this project. The very idea that people from all over the world devote unpaid time--and even spend their own hard-earned money on research materials--to a project whose goal is as lofty as collating the sum total of important human knowledge. Where that falls down is in the unfortunately predictable human tendency for power and associated structures to accrete to the point of stultification. At which point someone's Law of Bureaucracy comes into play (it may have been Frank Herbert somewhere in the Dune novels): (paraphrased) "At some point every power structure reaches a tipping point whereafter more and more of its energy is devoted to retaining that power." The admin corps as a body--with exceptions--has drawn closer and closer to that point over the past 18 months or so, if indeed it hasn't already passed it. Admins frequently gloss over behaviour that would get a regular editor slapped on the wrist at the very least--hell, look at the brouhaha over Bishonen finally being taken to task for telling an editor to fuck off. Any user other than Giano, and possibly Ottava or Malleus, would have been blocked on sight. Bish? Not. It's all too Orwellian for words, some users being more equal than others, and Animal Farm is exactly where the editor-vs-admin divide is heading.

What the admin corps needs is a Gorbachev; the project needs wiki-glasnost and wiki-perestroika, coupled with an adamant refusal on the part of the admin corps to ever let behaviour like this slide from admins. I doubt you can honestly tell me that a newbie making the unsubstantiated allegations that Jehochman made would have escaped without at least a severe warning with a block threat immediately. What the project needs even more is accountability, and a recognition that what worked when a thousand people were here does not scale to worldwide reach and engagement.

But I guess that's all neither here nor there. What those hours were about was a welling up of intense frustration at an admin corps that lets behaviour from admins slip by, go past, apparently solely because they are admins. And yes, I do indict the entire admin corps for this. Whether it's conscious or not, admins are given wider latitude when it comes to unacceptable behaviour, when that latitude should be noticeably narrower than that afforded to regular editors, particularly new ones. Whether or not policy says so, it is an unavoidable fact that admins are regarded as leaders within the project, and as such they should be setting an example--not behaving poorly and having their colleagues brush it off. Jehochman is well aware that WQA serves no real function and has no real effect on user behaviour. As such, his attempt to shuffle a problem off to there is very clearly roundfiling the whole concern; sending it to die in committee, as it were. That is the proximate cause of this becoming a bigger issue, followed immediately by his incendiary allegations.

And he just gets a little warning, hours after the fact. You don't see this as a problem; non-admins do, and you don't seem to be giving that any weight or credibility whatsoever. Which is basically the root of the problem. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you feel it's necessary to lump all admins into the same pot. I hope you'll understand that every time you (or anyone else) makes sweeping statements about all admins that I will be offended by it. This really saddens me, because I know you care about the project as much as I do. And frankly, it makes it that much harder for me to do a thorough, careful, even-handed job whenever I pick up the mop when I know that my thanks for it will be to have undeserved mud slung at me. I hope you achieve your goal -- I really do, because we actually have the same aim, which is to get the bad admins out. But I feel strongly that insulting all admins will make the goal harder to achieve because everyone will stop paying attention to you and the admins who are on your side won't be motivated to help you if it only means we'll get kicked in the teeth. But still, I wish you well.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you feel that way. But if you want to get rid of the bad admins, why did you say nothing about Jehochman's badfaith allegations? It may be trite, but you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, and at this point every admin that does not take a hard line against administrator abuse is part of the problem. You know, I hope, that I respect you and what you do, but in this specific context there is a disconnect between what you say and what you do. → ROUX ₪ 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything because I only skimmed through most of the drama above. I generally stay off of ANI because of all the mud flinging and whining, both by admins and non-admins. But the pictures at Wikipedia:ANI#Drama_level_down.2C_please caught my eye, I was offended by the caption on the second one, and it was followed by a general round of admin abuse from a number of parties. I was already in a mood from comments Malleus made earlier, flinging mud at all admins because of a rather stupid edit summary one admin made in reference to someone else, and that mood wasn't one where I wanted to read the previous sections. Should I have? Possibly. But I also might have been so mad that I would have said something really stupid. After all, I'm only human.

I was going to offer to read through the whole section and work with you about a plan to go forward. But I felt my blood pressure rising just reading the complaint -- I've seen worse directed at admins in general in the last week by multiple editors in multiple venues, yet any requests for a toning down of the abuse are met with more abuse. It's always the same few names. Perhaps they are just the few who are brave enough to speak out. Or perhaps they just like to poke people with sticks until they get a reaction. All I know is that I'm going to take a break from this place for a couple of days because they've poked me about all I can take.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much my word means to you, but I guarantee I am not a member of the Pokes-With-Sticks tribe, though I'm sure you and I could think of at least three names that are definitely members of that group--self-admittedly so, in one case (unless my memory is faulty). I think the reason that requests to tone it down are met the way they are because admins hold all the cards in these situations. The actions of admins are what's being complained about.. and then admins say, essentially, "hush now, be good kids." Whether or not that is the intent, that's how it comes across. This is enraging, because it's yet more evidence of how many admins are simply blind to the divide. We already have to act on whatever terms admins set, and then when admins try to frame the discussion about admin abuse the way they want it--which invariably means 'under the rug'--it just becomes yet another reason to be pissed off about how so many admins act. Jehochman's laughable 'rudeness' rubric is the perfect example of this behaviour in action: it gives him licence to not only be as rude as he wishes, but to dictate precisely how people must react to it in order to get any sort of resolution out of the matter. The net effect of these requests from admins, from the point of view of those of us without admin buttons, is "I will behave exactly as I please, my colleagues will support me overtly or through inaction, and I or they will dictate how you will behave." And it's really that simple in how it comes across. If such requests were prefaced with "what that admin did was wrong, you guys are right, and this will be dealt with" it might go some distance towards ameliorating the problems in such discussions. But that virtually never happens; the regular editors get smacked down for being pissed off at uncontested admin abuse, and then get further pissed off at the smackdown. And then it very neatly becomes absolutely nothing about the admin, despite the efforts to keep bringing up the subject; editor is pissed off and makes their point in stronger terms, admin tells them to tone it down, editor gets more pissed off because the admin is paying zero attention to the actual complaint, lather rinse repeat.

For what it's worth to you, I am sorry that I've been a proximate cause of you needing to take a break. But I do stand unequivocally by this: you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Allowing admin abuse to pass uncommented because you're pissed off is very, very much being part of the problem. Understandable, yes, but doesn't go far in reaching the goals we share. Admins, by and large, have absolutely no conception of how their behaviour comes across to those of us who are not admins. And most of the time, that behaviour appears to consist of closing ranks and telling the peons to stop complaining. Is that how it's intended? Unarguably, in many cases. In others it is merely spillover from that attitude. There's the rub, as someone once said. I'd like to work with you; I understand if you wouldn't. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back, with a clearer head. Fresh air and lunch with old friends always does one good.

In no way do I lump you in with the pokes-with-sticks crowd. Hopefully you won't change your mind about working together after you read this.

I see the problem of abusive admins as part of the larger one of respect Wikipedians have (or don't have) for each other. We like to throw around things like AGF and CIVIL, but those are just pale reflections of the necessity of seeing the person on the other end of the internet connection as an equal human being with feelings. The great thing about Wikipedia is that we can't see that other person's age, race, gender, physical disabilities, or sexual orientation unless they choose to reveal it, but the bad thing is it's too easy to see that person as just a bunch of letters on a screen. Respect for each other means the difference between building the greatest encyclopedia in the world and the greatest insane asylum.

So why this seeming diversion from the issue of abusive admins? Because to me any victory that involves renouncing respect for the basic humanity of others is a pyrrhic victory, if that. If the means has to be one of posting joke images implying sexual assault, I can't be a part of it. (Yes, I know you didn't post the image.) If the means is one of slinging mud at large groups of editors, I can't be a part of that. But if it involves sitting down and working out the exact extent of the problem and a solution that has a chance of working, then I'm your gal.

Even if you decide you don't want to work with me on this, feel free to let me know if there are instances of admin abuse you'd like me to look at. Malleus complained that two unblocks wasn't enough, and s/he's certainly right, but I'm just not fond of the drama boards where such events usually come to light. (And WP:ANI is already off my watch list. I'd rather spend less time around the pokes-with-sticks crowd, at least for a while.) E-mail is enabled, and while I don't generally encourage editors to email me since I believe in transparency, I can also understand the wish to avoid retaliation by abusive admins.

Best,--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PS My internet access may be spotty for a few days - computer is acting up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And in rereading this, I see I accidentally deleted one of my main points from my draft. Argh! The most important part of the respect equation is that in every "admin type" interaction, admins simply must remember they are dealing with a real human being, and one who is probably frustrated coming in to the interaction, either because of a deletion request, potential block, or whatever. That's why remembering there's a human involved is so critical, and why we need a system to de-sysop those who aren't grasping that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I'm very tired, and have family visiting, so the nutshell version: of course I'd like to work with you; see WP:RFDA; need sleepnow. → ROUX ₪ 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it and looking forward to it. Enjoy the family visit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment made at the talk page. My big concern is will this go far enough to solve the problem? It's a great first step, but I'm wondering if there will need to be a second step here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. I'm borrowing my roommate's computer intermittently until I can buy a new monitor next week, will respond in more depth then. → ROUX ₪ 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just when I fixed my bad capacitors, you lose a monitor. I feel like I passed my computer woes on to you somehow! LOL--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point

Obviously my comparison of text wasn't as useful as it should have been. Reviewed it again today, agree with your initial assessment. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To Fabrictramp

Hi

Would you please, please send me the deleted page for Daily-Update Publishers. I did not have a copy, not suspecting that this could happen. My email address is du@dupublishers.com

I would like to rewrite the article so that it conforms to Wikipedia policy. I also promise to contribute to general editing of Wikipedia

Thanks

Cameron Russell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.5.179 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not email it, if it's all the same to you, because then my email address is out wandering around on the internet. :) And since you're not logged in, I can't send it to a subpage of your userpage. However, since it was deleted via prod, I have no problem restoring it, and you can copy any text you'd like from there. Just be aware that anyone can come along and nominate it for deletion via AfD at any time, so I'd suggest grabbing whatever text you want quickly.

Also, it doesn't seem like Juliancolton answered your question about being blocked. The block notice at User talk:DUP2008 has instructions on how to get unblocked. I think a more helpful notice might have been {{Uw-ublock}}, and you could follow those instructions instead. I don't see a problem with getting unblocked if you follow one of those two sets of instructions. Hope that helps!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Don Philpott

Thanks for letting me now. It does seem that he's notable enough to merit an article, but I'm concerned about the conflict of interest since Philpott himself is the sole contributor to the article. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to rewrite it, though. - XXX antiuser 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really, really, really not fond of those autobiography articles. But it's not blatant enough for G11, either. *sigh* --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-vandalism tool for OSX?

Hey there, do you know if there are any counter-vandalism tools for Mac OS X other than WikiGuard? WikiGuard seems to be broken (won't install, older version does nothing) and I'm getting tired of reverting stuff by hand :)

Cheers - XXX antiuser 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I use twinkle with Firefox on the Mac for semi-automated reverting and warning/reporting. To find vandalism in the first place, I use Lupin's tool. IIRC, Twinkle doesn't always play nicely with Safari, but I gave up on Safari a long time ago, so no big deal to me. :) HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Doen Silberberg

Fabrictramp, please delete this page. After reading the criteria for notability, I do not feel that I can provide supporting citations at this time. Perhaps after Doen's book has come out in October and subsequent independent articles have been written about him. Thank you for your attention to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Markham (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All you need to do is put a {{db-author}} template on User:Jeff Markham/Daniel Doen Silberberg, which is the page I assume want deleted. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to my commentary

Thanks for your response to my commentary to the article, Homeowners' association. I didn't join as an editor because I don't have special extertise on HOAs. I went to the page because I wanted information, but I noticed that there are notations of "weasle word" and citation needed" next to negative remarks. I think these citations can be overused and even misused as a means of beating down people whose opinions are different. For the example, the comment about officiers of HOA's being protected against liability for lawsuits was tagged "citation needed." That is nonsensical to me since the officiers of most corporations are protected from liability and it is not uncommon for them to use that immunity as a means of evading accountability for unethical actions. There have been too many financial scandels, particularly with banks and stock trading houses, for me to buy the idea that any intelligent, reasonably informed person is unaware of this aspect of corporation law. So why single out HOAs for a citation needed unless one is trying to protect HOAs?

As a practicing litigation attorney (employment law, not real estate), I see these tactics in court all the time. I have no desire to see them on Wikipedia as well.

Bill Brawner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.14.128 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There are (as I type this) 154,121 articles on Wikipedia marked as needing citations. Hardly singling out a single article.

But I'm afraid you missed the point of my message to you. If you want to make a comment on the article, please do it on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. That was the only issue. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WYNP

Thanks a lot for the help. Epitome! Epidemy is a medical term I believe... for an epidemic. =]

And sorry about the notice. I didn't know it meant anything on a user page. I'm still fairly new here, and I'm just trying to grab the ropes.

My apologies if this isn't the correct place to post; you did say the bottom. :) WYNP (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I left you a friendly message. :)

And you got the place on my talk page exactly right. Have fun here!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. I was also wondering if you had any ideas of how to make a sexy article-like user page? :) I'm a very creative person, and I would like to do something creative and neat that people would stop and say "hey, that's cool!" Also, I was wondering if there is any kind of code that lists my contribution counts, usage statistics, anything I can show off in a proud manner? I am usually proud of my work and contributions to anything, so yeah. :)

Glad I got the spot right. :) I like this talk page; very clean and well presented. WYNP (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I try not to clutter up the talk page too much, because it needs to be functional first and foremost.

I'm not great at userpage stuff -- almost everything on mine has been swiped creatively inspired by other Wikipedians. However, a quick bit of searching led me to Wikipedia:User page design center. Sounds like poking around there might get you some ideas.

I've seen the contribution counts on some user pages, but have no clue how to do them. I'd suggest when you find one on someone's user page, hit the "edit" button just to see what the code is that does it, then cancel out so you don't edit anything on their page. Most users are flattered when you copy a design element from their page, so drop them a line letting them know. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrin Campbell page

Hello,

Thanks for the links, i'm sure they'll come in handy as i work my way around the trials and tribulations of putting up my 1st wikipedia page. Again, said it just before but Thanks it's heartening to see a nice person out here on the interwebs. :P

Chocobofarmer86 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy it here!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Skitzo Metal

An article that you have been involved in editing, Skitzo Metal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skitzo Metal. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of La Martina

An article that you have been involved in editing, La Martina, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Martina. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the new version of page you deleted?

Here is its new version, with more information about this composer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BETEP/Bern_Herbolsheimer

This composer has over 300 works, so the list of works is far from complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BETEP (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that independent sources showing he's notable are a bit missing from the article. (It would also help tremendously if they were inline cites: see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations for how to do this.) The Seattle Weekly bit is great, but awfully short. UW and Cascadian Chorale are not independent of him, and the NY Times is basically a passing mention.

WP:BIO might help you understand what's needed in the article. Hope that helps!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, I will continue my research, finding cites showing that he's notable. Some publications exist in such magazines as Opera News and New Yorker, but those may not be online, so I could not link to them, but I will see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BETEP (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article about Nemos Music indie label

I checked the help articles about how to create new (and better :) articles. There was a definition about indie labels (an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). The first double cd "Tulevikutee" released in 2006 included artists which have been in the atmospheric scene for a very long time (P.B.K., Pariah, Intersperse, Aural Imbalance). Pariah and Intersperse have both been released by LTJ Bukem's Good Looking Records for example. Aural Imbalance has been the starting point for some noted labels such as Cadence Recordings, Within Records and Deep Space Recordings and is also scheduled to be the next release under Nemos Music within this year. This would be the fifth release in three years. A slow, but a quite stable start for an indie label which is also one of the very few releasing atmospheric drum and bass on physical media (cd, vinyl).

However most of these artists are not present in Wikipedia. The only artist related to Nemos Music who is also present in Wikipedia is Blu Mar Ten, but although this is a long friendship, there probably are no public sources to cite. So it almost seems like a dead circle. The label has been active for 3 years, 4 releases have been released, co-operation with some of the big names (confirmed by "Tulevikutee" tracklisting) has been done...

So, it seems that in the intelligent drum and bass article the label deserves a place, but the label itself would not qualify as an article yet? As information both articles would add to each other. Please advise. I'm puzzled... :)

Thanks. Planetaryfunkalert (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're going to need to track down some independent, reliable sources that show the label is notable. Any magazine articles about the label? Major newspaper articles? Those types of things would establish notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ajloun Forest Reserve

I've added some information about a page you marked for expansion. I'm new to wikipedia and was hoping that you could take a look at it and tell me if I'm citing/organizing things correctly. I could also use some suggestions for further work if you have any. You can find it here Ajloun Forest Reserve. Thanks. TheLastShot (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)