User talk:Chedzilla

Photo by User:PumpkinSky

Poor little Chedzilla!

Poor little Chedzilla abandoned by master! Commiserations! [Bishzilla considers inviting the zilla to her harem for wild sex. Hmmm. That turned out a little problematic with User:Floquenstein's monster. Maybe not. These fellows need their masters around to keep them in check, probably.] P.S. Bishzilla boldly bite Miszabot in half. Does not wish her good wishes to be archived in 3 days! bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

rrawrrRRR ... <tail thump and scales flushed at thought of wild monster sex with most sensual 'Zilla.> But me not abandoned master. He say things to tell all little users: He say much speculation ( what mean "speculation"?> over why he gone. He say MANY things. Not just "case", but also many other things on wiki that he can not fix. He say it foolish to bail water from Titanic with thimble, especially when captain not steering ship in good direction. Main reason master gone is real life things though. If ship still afloat in time, he try to find way back. — ChedZILLA 07:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

teehee!... <closes eyes. too young to watch monster sex> ship made of cork. will float forever!```Buster3.5 Talk 12:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Boardwalk Fire in New Jersey....

Hi, In regards to your edit on Atlantic City, New Jersey and FYI the boardwalk fire that occurred in New Jersey was in Seaside Park and part of Seaside Heights, New Jersey not Atlantic City which is over 60 miles south from Seaside Park/Heights. Please research your information before you post thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well then I hope you at least moved it to where it was relevant TGG. And please don't "lecture" me, I don't have much tolerance for that kind of behavior, and my pay grade doesn't require that I do. — ChedZILLA 07:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I wasn't trying to lecture you I was just trying to inform you that's all. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sorry if I was short. For me, I don't care - just that new or timid users might be put-off by "research your information" type of posts.

There's so many miles of "boardwalk" in NJ - and it was a big story. I did a NJ., boardwalk search - and that was the article that came up. I don't live there - but was there as a kid. I noticed reference to damage from Sandy above where I posted in the article - and thought I had the right spot. Anyway - thanks for all you do for the project, and again I apologize for being defensive. I know my temperament hasn't been as calm as I'd like - but I'm working on getting back to a more pleasant personality. Well - my "master is - 'Zilla always "rrawrRRR". Cheers. — ChedZILLA 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Use this to file your fangs down just a bit. Not much, just a bit. ```Buster 3.5 Talk 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Like :-) — ChedZILLA 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A note

I would have hoped it would be obvious, but enabling[1] a sanctioned user to circumvent their ArbCom sanctions is not good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh ... OK - fine. I won't add another infobox. But I'll tell ya what David - contrary to our current policies - you (the committee, not necessarily you personally) have definitely ignored the rules of our site. You've ignored stalking issues. You've ignored wp:own issues. And you have smacked one side of the infobox debate and patted the other side on the head. And I'll tell you something else - Andy researched that article - he wrote it - he referenced it ... and there is no damned good reason why he shouldn't be able to have an infobox in it. Obvious? Yep .. there's a LOT becoming "obvious" lately. Flat out? Your damned "committee" sucks buddy. Anything further I have to say wouldn't be suitable for ladies or small children - but do feel free to talk to me in email - cause I won't hesitate for a second to tell the freaking committee where they can get off. Are we clear on where I stand? — ChedZILLA 17:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm with Ched on this one. AC has LOST ALL CREDIBILITY and anything they say or has no standing with me whatsoever. PumpkinSky talk 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Intothatdarkness 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Go Chedzilla: The Jedi return! Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
4. To restrict users from adding an infobox to their own articles - where they are certainly not in conflict with anybody nor the guidelines - seems without reason. What is it then, restriction for restriction's sake? How is it improving the project? Helping the readers? - it-WP has beautiful infoboxes for operas, and this looks promising! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• NO ... I am not gonna let this drop. David - we are gonna talk this out. My talk, your talk, AC/N ... I don't care ... but this is total bullshit - and I will have my say. I told one friend that I wouldn't be one of those "go on about it" people once the "case" was close ...but NO I am not gonna be chased quietly into the night. If all this is about some sort of WMUK v. WMF thing ... then put it out in the open. I love this project, but I have had it. I'm fed up with the bullshit here. I give you credit for being man enough to come talk to me ... thank you for that. But the damned case didn't solve a thing ... and when I tried to start a RfC page ... it was a "not now - later" reply. OK ... I'm starting to type foul language words ... so I'll be back later. — ChedZILLA 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• sorry .. don't mean to ignore you other folks .. ty for the comments. — ChedZILLA 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• this ann't over by a long shot .... ya all done pissed me off. And I'll tell ya another thing ... I'm coming .. and I'm bringing hell with me. — ChedZILLA 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ched, it wasn't a well thought out edit. Nothing wrong with the infobox but waving the red "I'm doing this in defiance of the committee" edit summary. Obviously you gotta do what you think is right but any time I see one of the "gets it" admins on their way out it makes me sad. A wiki-suicide (or suicide-by-arbcom) departure won't make this place any better. NE Ent 02:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(watching) "Nothing wrong with the infobox", - well observed. Then how would you advise to show the next one to the reader, on the background of my request (supported by uninvolved editors) and my comment above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The tide of users totally fed up with arbcom and willing to ignore them as they no longer matter is ever growing. AC needs abolished. It's way past the time for the arbs to wake up and smell the dead roses. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ NE Ent ... it honestly wasn't my intent to defy arbcom or throw anything in their face. But I didn't want to try to "sneak something by" either - so it (edit summary) was more about transparency. I actually did talk to Andy before I did it too - and he actually did want the box there. So often it seems like this place is a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" thing. I just don't know anymore. Like I said - I won't add another box. And I damned sure never edit warred with anyone to push one through. Either way - thank you, I do appreciate the note. — ChedZILLA 13:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  So if departures "don't make things better" and the system is structured so that meaningful change is impossible, what does fix things here? That may sound like a flip question, but I'm asking it in all seriousness. What can we do to make things better? I mean really better, not just another band-aid on a festering wound. Considering how easy it is for one of the shadow bureaucracies to stall out or frustrate any attempts to change policies they OWN, is it even possible? From what I've seen the system is just too easy for POV warriors to game, especially if they have the right friends in the right locations (or at least allies of convenience). Or should people just say "fuck 'em all" and walk away? And STAY away, not come back in two weeks thinking it will all be better when we know that it has a higher chance of being worse. Intothatdarkness 13:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I think it is unfixable; the bullies and POV warriors will fight to the bitter end and there's no effective mechanism to deal with them. As horrible as things are, we need more people to stand up and refuse to put up with this BS, such as a totally unfunctioning arbcom. Such as abusive admins, they make horrible blocks and nothing happens to them, yet the innocent victim gets a blemish on their record that wiki will never forget and is a black mark on Scottywong's tool. All totally sickening. PumpkinSky talk 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) and re: to Into. Actually I think that sooner or later there's going to have to be some sort of "paid" management put in place. Not the go round up school kids to edit and PR kind - but put in place trained paid people to deal with all 3 aspects of the site. (content, behavior, and policy). Maybe 3 folks for each - and some sort of oversight to make sure they are good people doing a good job. And no .. that's not a cheap jab at the current arbs - I have no doubt they are good folks doing the best they can (although WHY they would want to is beyond me). Not that wikipedia is going to fall apart tomorrow - but it sure as hell has gone downhill over the last few years. The content is still there - but the behavior issues are tearing the place apart. There is simply no consistency in management here. Wikipedia makes enough money I'm sure to make those changes - but the question is WILL they? And when? If all the money simply goes to recruiting and tolerating children that do nothing but stir shit-pots .. then the truly experienced and capable content creators aren't going to want to stick around. It doesn't even really matter if it's a more lax management or a more strict one .. so long as it is consistent, fair, and uniform. Then the editors can know what to expect if they do x.y.z. When management says in January that it's ok to edit by proxy - and then complains when it's done in September .. it's simply a no-win situation. So I suggest that we pay NYB and Carch enough to retire from their real jobs so they can put 40 hours a week into managing this website ... lol. Thus ends my "op-ed" for today. :P — ChedZILLA 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's actually pretty ridiculous that a resource that is supposed to be this important is managed (and I use that term loosely) by a pack of volunteers with no real training or stated qualifications. Although I'd want to go outside the established power structures to find those paid managers. But I suspect that's about as likely to happen as real admin reform... Intothatdarkness 17:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In order for things to get better here, editors have to decide what's really important. I think the amount of energy, emotion, and time invested in the infobox question far exceeds its actual importance to the project. We've created a situation where our most passionate and talented editors spend all their time fighting over things that, in the grand scheme of things, don't really matter much either way.

Here are the things I think are really important: we have an ongoing problem with BLPs, particularly low-profile BLPs. We have a major problem with inaccurate, misleading, or outright dangerous medical misinformation. We have a real head-in-the-sand problem with regard to conflicts of interest.

If we could take one small fraction of the time, effort, and passion invested in the infobox question and instead apply it to problems that really matter, then things will be better here. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My view is a bit different. I don't see so much "energy, emotion, and time invested in the infobox question", for example most of the arb case of the same name was NOT devoted to it. I see more infobox discussion in the simple case mentioned above, with participants from both "sides" (which the case portrayed as opponents in battle), with results and improvements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@ PS - yep .. add that one to the "content, behavior and policy" jobs. The "admin" aspect needs to be fixed too. — ChedZILLA 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And at David - if you stop back to read. If I overreacted to the "enabled" comment - just remember it was the committee who outright "enabled" people to violate wp:stalk, wp:own, and wp:ew - so sauce for the goose my friend. — ChedZILLA 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't said you overreacted, or tried to stifle your discussion, or told you to be quiet, or anything that you seem to suppose with your comments. I do wonder what's the point of the scare quotes on select words, but I suppose that's a formatting oddity. I will leave you with one rhetorical question on your comments above—how is Andy's right to add an infobox due to his creation and referencing of the page different from the perceived ownership issues of articles by others if they wish to remove infoboxes from articles they have shepherded in much the same way? As for the rest, it's clear we hold differing points of view on the matter. While I might agree with you on some possible sources of issues within Wikipedia's community, by my estimation it's a very refractive looking glass through which you espy them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are an arb., and even if we disagree on something I think the position deserves some respect. I'm frustrated with many things on wiki, including the committee - and I've said some disparaging things about the group. I didn't want it to come across as yelling at you personally. I looked back at your post and wondered why I got so upset by it, and I think it was the word "enabled" that ticked me off. When I hear that word I take it in a negative light - such as "enabling" a banned sock puppet to edit. So that's why I put it in quotes - so yes, just a formatting thing. In a sense I can agree with what you're saying as far as ownership of articles - but again, that's precisely what a group of people who work on classical music and composer articles have done; so why is it ok for some, and not for others? I've read the link, and I do understand the intent there, but I also think that people who actually do the building of articles should get some consideration too. If someone else had written or expanded that article I wouldn't have added the box - and I doubt Andy would have approved of me doing so. I know you and Dave (Worm) had to put in a lot of time reading and drafting, and even if I disagree on results, I do appreciate your time. (and Carcharoth put a lot of time and thought into it as well.) I don't know how much you and I agree or disagree on things only because I don't recall ever talking to you that much. Risker and Dave I've talked to at times over the years, and I've read a lot of the things NYB and Carch. have had to say - but I don't really know the other members of the committee all that well. I know it's a tough job, and I honestly don't see much upside to having the position, but I appreciate that you all do it. Do I think some of the things in the remedies were wrong? Yes. Do I think it came across as the committee choosing a side to favor? Absolutely. Do I think the 2013 committee as a group has made some very poor choices? Yes I do; but not because of the individuals, more because the group is so large and diverse. Do I recall who supported or opposed which points in the PD? No, not really, I don't keep score of those sorts of things. Too easy for grudges to build up that way. To be honest, I'm not even sure if you personally lean more towards strict or lenient on the scale. I've always considered you a fairly quiet person, although I have seen some of your stuff in various RfA pages over the years. Anyway - thanks for letting me have my say. — ChedZILLA 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Many good points here...But there are more. I'm shocked wiki limps along at all. No meaningful change can be effected. People have argued about RFA reform 7-10 years and the result is ZERO changes. Abusive admins run amok and no one will do anything about them. The amount of effort and time expended to get Raul's name removed from FA-land AFTER he left was ridiculous. I agree with Mastcell about BLPs and COI. As for medical misinfo, I wouldn't know it if I saw it, that's why I go to a doctor and don't treat myself. The socking policy is a joke. It needs completely rewritten. We should be able to remove a bogus block. Crats should be able to remove bits...the proposal by 28bytes was brilliant but since change is impossible here, it didn't quite make it. We need an efficient way to deal with abusive admins...dealing with that is like asking the SS to investigate the Gestapo. It's just like the real world, the bad guys get all the rights and the victims get shit upon. Wiki never forgives and never forgets. We need a Rule of Law; NOTADECOMCRACY needs to go. PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some good points being made here, and I'll respond in a day or two when I have a bit more time. — ChedZILLA 01:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wohltemperierte" discussion

I would like to point out the "wohltemperierte" discussion about an infobox for composer Talk:Robert Stoepel. There were comments such as

"*A failed "proposal"? What are you smoking? The article should have an infobox, regardless of whether some content needs discussion. I have written many bios, and edited 1000s more, and never seen a fight over a legitimate infobox.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)"

The composer has an infobox, - the state of the art we had in March 2013. The Case looked only at a past before that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)