User talk:FourPaws: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:21, 10 August 2022

Please read this box first!
Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic.

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let him know if he did something wrong.

Welcome!

Hello, FourPaws, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ℯ xplicit 05:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Wikipe

I'd advise putting it off the Wikipedia essays template until it's finished. If you have anything to say about this, please do so, I'm not going to undo it yet. ARandomPage (talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo it. FourPaws (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Comments

The idea that we don't need more admins doesn't have a consensus of editors, but is not a position unheard of among editors. But I'm a little more confused about "Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem." Could I understand some context for this comment? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out instead of calling me silly, dumb, or a troll. As I have listed on my profile "Wikpedia is biased for the Left". Go to and watch timestamp 3:03 to 3:45 in the video and it will explain why I think admins are the problem. Said admin in the discussion is part of WikiProject Anarchism which is something I don't believe should be an administrator. FourPaws (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I'm not being a jerk. But I am genuinely curious if you think administrators are a problem what kind of system would you have in place instead? I'm always interested to hear about different ways to structure the way we do things on wikipedia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the system I am critical of. Ideally, the system in place would be just fine. It's the administrators that run the system are the problem. Having radical people with anarchist or communist having administrators powers over others is a great way to shatter a functioning democracy. I think the Overton window is clearly slanted to the left if the community is fine with communists and anarchists making decisions but not fascist and Neo-Nazis. If people are truly fine with unelected communists having administrative powers over community and thus the culture then they should read up on the Soviet Union and move to the contemporary PRC. And these Admin Accountability committees don't have my confidence if communists and anarchists or leftist that enable them have control over who is a "bad" admin or good. This is a cultural problem and it's bigger than me or anyone to single handily change. I've seen the horrors of what happens when self-proclaimed communists are in power which is why I left the PRC and I'm seeing the West and their internet walk the same steps of Mao's cultural revolution. I don't expect people to treat me like Thomas Jefferson therefore no one should expect me to draft a whole new system of governance. But for anyone who has read Kafka, Wikipedia is fitting the definition of tyranny without a tyrant. FourPaws (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People join WikiProjects for any number of reasons. Joining WikiProject Japan doesn't mean an editor is Japanese. Joining WikiProject Crime doesn't mean an editor is a criminal.

Asking questions at RfA when those questions aren't going to make a difference in how you !vote (since you're opposing all RfAs on the principle we don't need more admins because admins are the problem) is a bit pointy, and yes, is going to strike some folks as trolling. You might want to read WP:Should you ask a question at RfA? Valereee (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. Wikipedia is biased the left by its very nature, because those are the sorts of people who will voluntarily give up their time to do work for no money. John Weiss can say that Wikipedia would be less biased if we got more centre-leaning editors signed up, but I don't think that's a realistic proposal. You're going to get a "left leaning bias" just by the project's own nature. I don't recognise a number of those so-named "socialist" media outlets, but they don't look like particularly high-quality sources to me either; the best sources to use are respected books and journals that are widely considered to be authoritative, but they don't get written until the event is well and truly in the past (in at all), so trying to plug the gap with contemporary news sources is problematic. I guess John Stossel's edit was reverted because he didn't cite a source (if he did, he would have mentioned it)? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone already said this, but admins don't run the project. The Community does. Admins are servants to and of the Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Weiss's edit was an insertion of controversial content in the middle of a sentence in a contentious article where the exact wording of that first sentence has likely been discussed. And no, John Stossel, admins do not have "the power to overrule other editors and make final decisions". Valereee (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"overrul[ing] other editors and mak[ing] final decisions" is a great way to stop being an admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great in the sense of highly effective, not the sense of highly recommended. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte - in both cases, the administrators failed to make themselves accountable to the community, and had their admin privileges removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole treatment of the sources was disingenuous. Perennial sources says Mother Jones and Jacobin are generally reliable but biased, which that vid conveniently leaves out. Fox News is rated generally reliable on everything except politics and science, and on those topics use caution. There's a huge difference between reliability and bias when considering sources and how to use them. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll make WikiProject Supporters of Fascism, WikiProject Racists Edititors, and WikiProject pro-Genocide. I'm not expecting a high membership count but I'm at least not a racist fascist that believes in genocide. If I'm in these clearly unacceptable projects that says nothing about me. This is the part where leftist conveniently ignore the fact that still having editors who are communist and anarchist in positions of power is bad as well as the shift in the Overton widow on the cultural landscape.FourPaws (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding what WikiProjects do. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate, otherwise misundstanding is inevitable and that seems very counterintuitive to your purpose in talking to me. FourPaws (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects are to improve coverage of particular subject areas, not to promote or advocate for ideas. WikiProject Crime works to improve our coverage of crime, not to promote crime. Ditto WikiProject Anarchism: it works to improve coverage of anarchism, not to advocate for it. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, at WikiProject Israel:

Goals:

To create and maintain fair and unbiased information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography.

To create guidelines and maintain standards for pages involving Israel.

To work to bring Israel articles to the highest quality possible.

As you can see, there is nothing there about promoting Israel. In fact I suspect there are many members of that project who are pro-Palestinian. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, just because Diannaa has done extensive work on Wikipedia's coverage of Nazi Germany, including being a principal contributor to Zyklon B and Auschwitz concentration camp, it DOESN'T mean she's a Nazi. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FourPaws thanks for the explanation. I'll suggest that the community has in the past lost patience with editors who don't evaluate the merits of individual candidates at RfA and so there are likely going to be better ways to express your concern with admins. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FourPaws; You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, using an RfA as a platform for that opinion when your !vote has nothing to do with evaluating the candidate is disruptive. If you actually believe that admins are the problem, then go about trying to solve that problem through starting useful discussions at WP:VP, WT:RFA, or some other place. An RfA regarding a particular candidate is not the place to be having a discussion about the greater ills of the admins we have on the project and will not yield any progress in solving the issue you perceive. Since it won't do anything towards that goal, using an RfA as such a platform is disruptive. The fact that you're even highlighting the "bad publicity" bit rather highlights this. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. There is a limit. This has been attempted before, and did not turn out well. I strongly encourage you to reconsider doing this again in any future RfA, and instead focus your efforts on doing something to solve the problem, rather than just trying to get publicity for yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like how everyone is coming to me but not a single notice on Trains' talk page. I guess calling peoples demeaning adjectives is less trollish just saying one sentence on your opinion. Let's look the other way at how the other person clearly was ready to flame. If this has already happened then the culture on Wikipedia is demonstrating the very problem I am saying. But let's ignore your point as simply trolling because it's out of place. And every editor who has been editing for 2 months should know all the ins and outs. It's not like I called this guy a poopyhead, or all of your mothers are virgins. Seems like everyone is ready to assume bad faith when an opinion is out of place but hey follow community guidelines just because, but you really don't have to if you don't feel like it. Again, I'll just call any opinion I don't like as trolling and just throw out all community guidelines when proceeding. Certainly a good culture right there that we should all over look. FourPaws (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying, and I don't think Hammersoft is either, that you shouldn't express this opinion. We are saying posting it at individual RfAs is not the right place to post it. Hammersoft gave you other places you could post your thoughts on this topic, to which I will add your user page is another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about if I can expressing opinions that is a given. I'm more about "how everyone is coming to me but not a single notice on Trains' talk page." and how everyone is so ready to call me a troll. I guess 3 edits on the past admins request outweigh my other 1000+ plus edits. I'm just a troll now and I should be branded by the community for my past 3 edits see CactiStaccingCrane reply on DatGuy's discussion. People clearly need to distinguish trolling and outlandish ideas. Talk about stifling innovative thought. Nobody else has addressed how if the community here literally branded my opinion as a troll's opinion what is the point of posting to the Village discussion whatever it is board? FourPaws (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, I don't believe anyone said you were trolling, they said that your comment was functionally equivalent to it, in as much it would generate a large amount of discussion from multiple users. The difference is, we assume good faith that you did not intend to generate all this discussion (as can by seen by your exasperation), but to those of us who have been around the block a few times at RfA, it was pretty predictable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've only started edited Wikipedia seriously for past 2 months but my last 3 edits seems like trolling so people stopped assuming good-faith even though I'm still pretty new and have over 1000 over votes to demonstrate I'm not a troll. I'm more angry at how I can be called dumb for this. As if we use people's opinions as measurements to their cognitive abilities. Might as well call me a retard! Very predictable indeed. For anyone reading this far I have submitted a proposal to the Village pump soapbox guidelines section so we can certainly combat these trolls. FourPaws (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FP, you've got multiple editors here with a combined total of 200K+ edits trying to help you understand some important things. Try not to be defensive. No one is attacking you. They are trying to help a new editor understand what was behind the reactions you're getting at RfA. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more angry at how I can be called dumb for this and that is ok.

"I call a spade a spade, and a pointless comment bordering on trolling a pointless comment bordering on trolling. See also Ritchie's reply. You doth protest too much. Nobody is censoring you, we're just telling you that you made a dumb comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]"

If you are going to respond, address the entirely of my respond and stop selectively excluding facts. FourPaws (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FP, okay, addressing the entirety:
You weren't called dumb. Your comment was called dumb. Which still isn't particularly nice, but RfA is not a good place to ask irrelevant questions or make irrelevant opposes. It's a highly-scrutinized page, it's an extremely stressful period for candidates, and people tend to be a bit impatient.

I don't actually see anything else in this most recent response that needs to be addressed? Valereee (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Village Pump post was ill-considered. It looks like you're trying to make a point rather than sincerely suggesting a change. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Attempting to deflect attention from this by highlighting the behavior of another person will not gain traction. The issue is your comment about Wikipedia having enough admins is out of place on an RfA. The opinion is not the problem. The placement of that opinion is. It is no different than if I attempted to use, say, this AfD to articulate an argument that the Wikimedia Foundation is out of line for [insert reason]. It's the wrong place for it. It contributes nothing to the discussion in any respect, and in fact detracts from the discussion. An individual RfA is not the place to be discussing what ails the project. You've been directed where you can take your concerns. If you actually have an interest in seeing those concerns addressed in a manner which might lead to progress, you should avail yourself of those. If instead you choose to continue to use individual RfAs to promote your ideas about Wikipedia having enough admins and admins being the problem, I dare say it will be viewed as disruptive editing and even potentially pointy. Please don't in any sense construe any of this as a threat. I am pointing out that your actions are likely to have consequences. If you choose the action of persisting in using RfA to voice your opinion that Wikipedia has enough admins, it will likely have negative consequences and not have any impact on progressing the project. If you choose the action of raising this issue at an appropriate place, such as the ones I have highlighted for you above, it is considerably less likely to result in negative consequences, and might actually lead to progress in the project. I am confident that you want to see the project progress. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great! It would have been so much better if someone just said that wasn't the right place instead of dismissing me as a troll and calling my comment dumb. I'm not attempting to deflect attention when people are literally ignoring the fact that a person called my comment dumb which began all of this since it implies my comment was no valid. That is what alienated me and made me become defensive along with the mass dismissal of being called a troll. People should be all shock if we invalidate other opinion with an easy "troll" stamp that it wouldn't cause some problems. There is two problems my opinion and the placement.

"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - African proverb. FourPaws (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 *::::::::Oh, and the Village Pump post was ill-considered. It looks like you're trying to make a point rather than sincerely suggesting a change. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 *:::: <small>(edit conflict)</small> Attempting to deflect attention from this by highlighting the behavior of another person will not gain traction. The issue is your comment about Wikipedia having enough admins is out of place on an RfA. The ''opinion'' is not the problem. The ''placement'' of that opinion is. It is no different than if I attempted to use, say, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed artists on Spotify (2nd nomination)|this AfD]] to articulate an argument that the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] is out of line for [insert reason]. It's the wrong place for it. It contributes nothing to the discussion in any respect, and in fact detracts from the discussion. An individual RfA is not the place to be discussing what ails the project. You've been directed where you can take your concerns. If you actually have an interest in seeing those concerns addressed in a manner which might lead to progress, you should avail yourself of those. If instead you choose to continue to use individual RfAs to promote your ideas about Wikipedia having enough admins and admins being the problem, I dare say it will be viewed as [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] and even potentially [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|pointy]]. Please don't in any sense construe any of this as a threat. I am pointing out that your actions are likely to have consequences. If you choose the action of persisting in using RfA to voice your opinion that Wikipedia has enough admins, it will likely have negative consequences and not have any impact on progressing the project. If you choose the action of raising this issue at an appropriate place, such as the ones I have highlighted for you above, it is considerably less likely to result in negative consequences, and might actually lead to progress in the project. I am confident that you want to see the project progress. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
+*:::::Ok great! It would have been so much better if someone just said that wasn't the right place instead of dismissing me as a troll and calling my comment dumb. I'm not attempting  to deflect attention when people are literally ignoring the fact that a person called my comment dumb which began all of this since it implies my comment was no valid. That is what alienated me and made me become defensive along with the mass dismissal of being called a troll. People should be all shock if we invalidate other opinion with an easy "troll" stamp that it wouldn't cause some problems. There is two problems my opinion and the placement.
+*:::::"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - African proverb. [[User:FourPaws|FourPaws]] ([[User talk:FourPaws#top|talk]]) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)