User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 13

Any news? :-) --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Image for Frank Ponta

Hi John, any luck finding an image for Frank Ponta? I'll be holding the DYK nomination in case you have one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We have one, but we're chasing down permission for a much better photo. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, held for a few more days. Wish OTRS permissions were as easy in Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Any news? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No luck. I think we should just run with it without an image. Sorry, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll give it the tick. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The google link thing not helpful at all for Indonesian page

John, I tried this google link that you gave in the email with the intention that I know how to operate them before showing the other gals and guys on how to classified user by location. If you look at the link, it's totally collapse on Indonesian user page (search result just went unrelated-ly bezerk), unlike the English one with a lot of search result. Anyway, long story short: not working in Indonesian, might help you in the English page. No need to answer in WP EN page talk, never checked 'em :p Serenity id (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

"Indexing" looks like it has recently been turned off for Indonesian user pages. I have raised a bug. bugzilla:30757 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem is id:MediaWiki:Robots.txt. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

here is the mediawiki search for Indonesian Wikipedia userpages mentioning Yogyakarta. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
Message added 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi John, You have previously voted to decline the case against La goutte de pluie because of an open RfC/U against the user. I have presented a new diff in my section to show that it is highly unlikely the RFC will be successful, and would like to request that you revisit the situation. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am however, open to considering many other remedies proposed. I am simply not convinced that the editors involved are at all informed of the issues at hand before they called for some blanket prohibition. (Similarly, unlike how they advocated, an IP rangeblock against problematic IPs is untenable, because it would involve blocking half of Singapore.) Furthermore, unlike many other editors with much free time on their hands, I have not been going around different talk pages canvassing potential allies, so it is my impression that the sample of commenters on the RFC may be problematic. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope this will be resolved adequately with the closure of the RFC. I don't see any reason to rush; La goutte de pluie is not out of control, and the recall was very calm. The RFC has already been quite successful in that regards. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Society of Biblical Literature

Hi, since you contributed to the article in the last year you may wish to participate in the discussion on refs and tags. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Marriage of "content" and "conduct"

This is a response to a question Newyorkbrad asked. It took time for me to craft it.

To add this at this time, do I need to ask permission from you and your co-author? If so, this is my request.

If permissible, where do I add this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1 . Newyorkbrad asked a question:

I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). -- Newyorkbrad 00:44, 22 August 2011

2. This was my initial, short response.

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei 19:49, 24 August 2011

3. This is an untimely expanded analysis:

In this ArbCom case, "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced. Synergies in the marriage of information asymmetry and delegitimisation is a significant factor which ArbCom may have overlooked.

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about....".

In part, the case is about tit-for-tat diffs. Stepping back, the ArbCom case is also about Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)

Information asymmetry. Without using the term explicitly, Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry, e.g.,

"... it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." -- Magog the Ogre 06:43, 13 August 2011

The term "information asymmetry" implicates the study of decision-making where one party has more or better information than the other. In effect, Magog acknowledges an imbalance which might cause decision-making and its consequences to go awry.

The genesis of this ArbCom case is distilled in one thread. At Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972, STSC and Bobthefish2 attempt (a) to modify an intransitive verb and (b) to add "by the Americans". Both the verb usage and the three words have significant ramifications which are recognized immediately by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me. Qwyrxian doesn't "get it", and he marginalizes what he doesn't understand, e.g.,

Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about ...." -- Qwyrxian 09:44, 27 January 2011

In subsequent months, the significance of this diff is emphasized by Qwyrxian when he repeatedly points to arguing about three words as the proof that outside intervention by mediation or arbitration is needed. Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is demonstrably a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Moral Hazard. Economists distinguish "moral hazard" involving hidden actions from "adverse selection" involving hidden information. Both are special sub-sets of information asymmetry; and both exacerbated in Wikipedia by the unexamined consequences of the hortatory WP:Assume Good Faith.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "... any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."

A. Bobthefish2 proposes contriving conditions which cause Senkaku articles to be locked, e.g.,

"Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like 'Japan in World War II' and 'Nanjing Massacre'." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011

B. The strategic thinking is underscored by repeating the proposal, e.g.,

"Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial." -- Bobthefish2 21:34, 27 January 2011

C. Locking an article stigmatizes everyone in the manner of Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" which overwhelms all else ... which is part of the objective the gambit was intended to achieve.

Qwyrxian was only partly correct in assessing the impact of Bobthefish2 and others, e.g.,

"Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway." -- Qwyrxian 00:20, 9 June 2011

Summary. In our collaborative editing context, "delegitimisation" refers to a process in which an editor or editors are strategically undermined. WP:Delegitimization as a tactic is about deflecting attention away from writing or content, focusing instead on the writer or writers. Information asymmetries exacerbated the short- and longer-term consequences.

I was also asked the exact same question on my talkpage. I have replied there. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For all his complaints about this "delegitimisation as a tactic", Tenmei has been a pretty relentless practitioner of it. Even after the period of commentary is over, I still find him going all over the place and quoting my words out of context. This reminds me of those ubiquitous attack ads spammed all over the television by the Republican party during the U.S. Congressional/Presidential Election. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)