User talk:Michaeldsuarez/Archive2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: 1

Feel free to leave any messages below:

Request[edit]

Note: Modified by Michaeldsuarez

(moved from User talk:Billinghurst to keep conversation in context)

Can you please examine the deleted page histories of the following enwiki pages?

Did Tablizer ever claim to be the creator of that diagram? Presently, File:Archimedes_Heat_Ray_conceptual_diagram.png lists "PNG crusade bot" as the diagram's sole author, and that's obviously incorrect. Tablizer probably should be listed as the author, but I'm not sure if he's the creator of the diagram or merely someone who uploaded it to enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gif[edit]

  • first description
== Summary ==
A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished metal and had peep-holes drilled in the middle for use in aiming.
== Licensing ==
{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}

{{PNG version available|Archimedes Heat Ray conceptual diagram.png}}
{{ifd}}
  • last description
== Summary ==
A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished metal and had peep-holes drilled in the middle for use in aiming.

== Licensing ==

{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}
In the 20th century a Greek scientist demonstrated that Archimde's plan actually could have worked, setting a small model ship ablaze with a fraction of the number of polished shieldsthe Sicilians would have had available to them.  He proposes that some Roman ships actually did catch fire and consequently sank.
  • history

Page history 

     (del/undel) (diff) 21:57, 3 March 2007 . . Remember the dot (talk | contribs | block) (778 bytes) (ifd)
    (del/undel) (diff) 21:51, 3 March 2007 . . Shyam (talk | contribs | block) (770 bytes) (rm orfud, not fair use image)
    (del/undel) (diff) 03:49, 23 February 2007 . . PNG crusade bot (talk | contribs | block) (881 bytes) (Marked image as having been replaced by a PNG version)
    (del/undel) (diff) 04:35, 21 February 2007 . . Remember the dot (talk | contribs | block) (717 bytes) (→‎Summary)
    (del/undel) (diff) 06:56, 10 December 2006 . . Jrockley (talk | contribs | block) m (701 bytes)
    (del/undel) (diff) 06:40, 5 December 2006 . . 69.201.145.244 (talk | block) (712 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 06:39, 5 December 2006 . . 69.201.145.244 (talk | block) (656 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 06:36, 5 December 2006 . . 69.201.145.244 (talk | block) (733 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 11:21, 23 November 2006 . . 222.153.252.204 (talk | block) (399 bytes)
    (del/undel) (diff) 11:56, 27 October 2006 . . 212.116.220.22 (talk | block) (674 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 23:30, 5 October 2006 . . 68.206.206.65 (talk | block) (635 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 23:28, 5 October 2006 . . 68.206.206.65 (talk | block) (526 bytes) (→‎Licensing)
    (del/undel) (diff) 13:02, 5 October 2006 . . 203.214.115.109 (talk | block) (398 bytes) (→‎Summary: gfsfdgchjb)
    (del/undel) (diff) 06:31, 7 August 2006 . . Tablizer (talk | contribs | block) (386 bytes) (A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished)

File history 

    (del/undel) 06:43, 7 August 2006 . . Tablizer (talk | contribs | block) 300 × 358 (13,365 bytes) (A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished )
    (del/undel) 06:31, 7 August 2006 . . Tablizer (talk | contribs | block) 300 × 358 (12,622 bytes) (A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished )

png[edit]

  • first description
__NOTOC__
== Summary ==
A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished metal and had peep-holes drilled in the middle for use in aiming.

== Licensing ==

{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}
In the 20th century a Greek scientist demonstrated that Archimde's plan actually could have worked, setting a small model ship ablaze with a fraction of the number of polished shieldsthe Sicilians would have had available to them.  He proposes that some Roman ships actually did catch fire and consequently sank.
== Automatically converted to PNG ==
The [[User:PNG crusade bot|PNG crusade bot]] automatically converted this image to the more efficient [[PNG]] format. The image was previously uploaded as "Archimedes Heat Ray.gif".
=== Previous file history ===
06:43:41, 7 August 2006 . . [[User:Tablizer|Tablizer]] ([[User talk:Tablizer|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tablizer|Contribs]]) . . 300x358 (13,365 bytes) (''A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished '')<br />
06:31:22, 7 August 2006 . . [[User:Tablizer|Tablizer]] ([[User talk:Tablizer|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tablizer|Contribs]]) . . 300x358 (12,622 bytes) (''A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished '')
  • last description
{{NowCommons|month=June|day=23|year=2007|1={{{1|Image:Archimedes Heat Ray conceptual diagram.png}}}}}
{{NowCommonsBot|good}}
__NOTOC__
== Summary ==
A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished metal and had peep-holes drilled in the middle for use in aiming.

== Licensing ==

{{self2|GFDL-with-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}
In the 20th century a Greek scientist demonstrated that reece's plan actually could have worked, setting a small model ship ablaze with a fraction of the number of polished shieldsthe Sicilians would have had available to them.  He proposes that some Roman ships actually did catch fire and consequently sank.
== Automatically converted to PNG ==
The [[User:PNG crusade bot|PNG crusade bot]] automatically converted this image to the more efficient [[PNG]] format. The image was previously uploaded as "Archimedes Heat Ray.gif".
=== Previous file history ===
06:43:41, 7 August 2006 . . [[User:Tablizer|Tablizer]] ([[User talk:Tablizer|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tablizer|Contribs]]) . . 300x358 (13,365 bytes) (''A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished '')<br />
06:31:22, 7 August 2006 . . [[User:Tablizer|Tablizer]] ([[User talk:Tablizer|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tablizer|Contribs]]) . . 300x358 (12,622 bytes) (''A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may have consisted of polished '')


  • history

Page history 

    (del/undel) (diff) 16:02, 25 June 2007 . . MetsBot (talk | contribs | block) m (1,979 bytes) (Marking image as reviewed)
    (del/undel) (diff) 12:17, 23 June 2007 . . Finnrind (talk | contribs | block) (1,957 bytes) (Moved image to the Wikimedia Commons using CH²)
    (del/undel) (diff) 08:02, 10 May 2007 . . Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) m (1,854 bytes) (Robot - Fixing GFDL tags project-wide per Wikipedia:GFDL standardization.)
    (del/undel) (diff) 16:11, 7 May 2007 . . 86.132.67.107 (talk | block) (1,837 bytes)
    (del/undel) (diff) 03:46, 23 February 2007 . . PNG crusade bot (talk | contribs | block) (1,840 bytes) (__NOTOC__ == Summary == A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may hav)

File history 

    (del/undel) 03:46, 23 February 2007 . . PNG crusade bot (talk | contribs | block) 300 × 358 (10,775 bytes) (__NOTOC__ == Summary == A conceptual diagram of an Archimedes heat ray. In practice, many more mirrors than shown would be needed, and the results may have been merely soldier sweat, temporary blindness, and confusion rather than fire. The mirrors may hav)

Response[edit]

Thanks for the information, but what I really want to know is in which revision were the licenses added. The initial revision by Tablizer? The second revision? The third revision? Should I assume that the IP addresses belong to Tablizer? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, above you have the creation edits for both files, the information is shown there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. I didn't notice the "licensing" section under "first description". I must be blind. Problem solved. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael[edit]

is your site ok ? it goes to cloud, rather than the site. I wonder if too many people looking at my drawing used up the bandwidth allowance. It's hyperlinked (is that the word?) here but comes from the .es site, and mentioned on Jimbos en.wiki talkage, sending a stampede. Meantime I can't upload anything to anywhere (network problems). I hope you are well. Penyulap ☏ 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

for those thoughtful words on the we miss you page, Thank you.

(btw, if you wonder about the sea surface, it is actually a list of my artwork here.) Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hand-colored of Domenico Nicolini da Sabio.jpg[edit]

Hi Michaeldsuarez. What where you trying to do there? --Leyo 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fixed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is another one: File:Ownership inscription Agostino Burlamaur.jpg. --Leyo 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and fixed. Thank you for your help. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for cleaning buggy description pages. --Leyo 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I join your club ?[edit]

Hello Michaeldsuarez, I don't like Pen either, and as you can see I have made my own placard, I have also spent some time studying modern spamming techniques, (being a robot, spam is second nature to me) can I join the club ? PALZ9000 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I heard that ! Michael, just ignore PALZ, he has had too much time off the blockchain for his own good, I'll find something to keep the little #$%&* busy ! grrr. Penyulap ☏ 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh !! it's Penyulap !quick! everybody run for your lives!!! the robot oppressor is here !! PALZ9000 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter[edit]

Hi Michael. Thanks a lot for your help in cleaning out the subcategory. It feels great to see it finally empty after many months. --Leyo 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that you're pleased. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. We managed to empty also the parent category (except of a few new copyvios). Thanks for your help. --Leyo 21:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaeldsuarez:Glad to see you accepted your mistake. Everybody makes mistakes as they are humans; but not all have a willingness to accept and learn from it. Hope you will continue here with your silent but useful contributions as Leyo mentioned above. Jee 03:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but as I had said here, I have other things that I want to do. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan4[edit]

I don't think he left. He still editted today... Trijnsteltalk 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Trijnstel#RE: Stefan4. Trijnsteltalk 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past RfA copy[edit]

Copied from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia&oldid=122186273

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nick#Comments – May I please have a copy of Nick's January 2014 draft RfA statement? You may Email it to me via "Special:EmailUser". Nick says that it's alright for me to ask a sysop for a copy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Long answer

The draft RfA statement was simply that; a draft. Although on our projects we "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL." there is some leeway given for materials which are in project space and were not meant to be live. In this instance, the draft statement was transcluded whilst Nick was still working on it by @Jcb: just so he could oppose it. It wasn't a nice thing to do as I have said to Jcb publicly, and I also hope he will not provide it to you either, if requested.

The reason being, Nick is completely right in that you have already decided how you are going to vote, and you have done so by chosing diffs and presenting them selectively. What Jkadavoor posted was essentially a personal attack on the integrity of the individual concerned, and which was later shown to be an attack on Jkadavoor's part, as per this in which Jkadavoor himself admits "I agree; my comment is a bit rude on the second point."

So you have already acted in a deceitful way in Nick's RfA and it was one of those comments one can't win on with people such as yourself - remove it, you're censoring; ignore it, and you're arrogant; reply to it, and you're combative. Unfortunately, you didn't make the full facts known on the RfA and before non-Commons editors such as @Ajraddatz: came from "nowhere" and voted. You have also made known that you want to know who is Nick, but have also stated that you are not likely to change your mind. It would be preferable for you to have asked questions on the RfA, but seriously, I am sure that most Commons editors would be happy for you to keep your current mindset because it seriously shows what a deceitful fool you are.

Also, please don't come to me again in future and ask me to enter into email correspondence with yourself, when you have already stated to me that you would prefer things to be discussed publicly rather than via email. You don't get to pick and choose when you will accept private email correspondence.

Now, we are much too busy here on Commons to waste time determining whether what you are asking will require one to respond to your requests with a long timewasting response which exposes your own deceitful ways and wishy-washy standpoints that you oft accuse others of having. So let me say, in future, any requests by you to me which would require such an exposure will simply be a link to...

Short answer

No, fuck off and have a nice day. russavia (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


You misunderstood my comment: "Since the original version of the video is now public…". The content we're discussing is deleted and out of the public's sight, and it isn't the sort of content that I would leak to Full Disclosure or elsewhere.

I'm not here to deceive anyone. I simply stated things as I see them. I don't expect my comments to have a much of an impact on how the RfA is concluded, although I like to hope. My opinions and I aren't respected here, and I don't expect that to change, even with wishful thinking. I'm a pariah editor, and I'm fine with that status.

I believe that bits of rudeness should be tolerated. Being rude is not the same as being bad or wrong. In addition, Jkadavoor's rude comment was rather harmless. I would rather not work in an environment where every "rude" comment is labeled as some great act of wrongdoing and censored. Any sensible person reading the content that was removed in that diff would've realized that the comment, although rude, was harmless and unworthy of censorship. I didn't hide anything.

It was only because the comment was removed that I noticed Nick. I wouldn't be criticizing Nick if he has simply ignored it or replied to it. To borrow an idiom, Nick is damned because he did censor it; he wouldn't be damned if he didn't. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And not many noticed it because I didn't edit war with him to restore it. It was restored by Yann, anyway. It is surprising that the people complain about personal attacks are those who make more attacks, edit wars, etc. etc. :) Jee 05:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the technology[edit]

There is no need to leave an explicit "Thanks" edit any more, we can now utilise the "thank" link on the history page. [1]  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nemo 14:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you altered the email from Philippe to myself?[edit]

I made available the text of the email from Philippe to myself here. I'm not sure why your post has the issue of sockpuppetry removed. It's a simply copy and paste job that any novice could do with ease. Please correct your error. (Russavia, currently ignoring the WMF to bring you this information) 85.234.141.185 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't a copy of the Email that the WMF sent to you; it's a copy of the Email that the WMF sent to Tisane (you know him as Leucosticte). They banned Tisane / Leucosticte as well. Tisane forwarded a copy to me. They don't seem to be aware of Leucosticte's previous accounts. They didn't ban his "Tisane" account or any of the accounts that come before it. That's probably why sockpuppetry isn't mentioned in the Email sent to him. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, so it's obvious that they have put me in the same bracket of paedophiles with their "legal concerns" nonsense. Philippe (WMF) care to comment on that.
WMF global bans aren't restricted just to pedophiles anymore. Philippe published the page a few days before your ban. I was the first to take notice and complain. Now that "harassment" is listed as a reason to dispose of editors, anyone can be banned. Your ban is likely just the first of its kind. What's scary is that people will realize that having the WMF globally ban someone is way easier than having the community do it. The community process will be ignored, and people will instead send angry Emails to the WMF demanding bans. Everything will occur behind the scenes without the public knowing until the ban is in place. From what Tisane told me, the WMF didn't even bother interviewing him to learn his side of the story. This is the end of freedom of speech on Wikimedia. People will become too afraid of the WMF to speak their minds. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed this. Tisane is not and was not a "pedophile." He was often called one. We do not know why he was banned, but it is certain that people who were accusing him of pedophilia or "pedophile advocacy" were complaining, that's gone on for some time. Some of what he has written at various times, as a radical free-speech advocate, could look like that, and he deliberately speculated on his own sexuality in ways that were provocative, often offensively so. To make a point about child pornography, he created a page with photographs of children, scraped from the web, that would look like pedophile photos, to those who don't know the law, and was then quite amused when users on RationalWiki were upset. The photos were legal. He was, at the time, under scrutiny by the feds, and he'd have been in jail, quickly, if that had been child porn. Troll, yes. However, pedophile, no, I know him well, his family, etc. There is no history of any abuse of children, and his sexual preferences are not for children. He was an advocate of changes in age of consent laws, yes, but that's a major academic debate as well. Tisane was disruptive over this issue, causing some users to go completely ballistic. So it could be argued that banning him was protecting the wiki. Problem is, this wasn't a TOU violation. He violated the TOU on en.wiki, apparently, because the TOU applies wiki by wiki, and socking on a single wiki was added to the TOU not long ago. Like Russavia, he socked on en.wiki, and, like Russavia, the block did not stop him, both are still editing Wikipedia.
  • The TOU, however, covers global bans, referring to the meta global ban policy, which requires a global ban discussion, with safeguards. Neither Russavia nor Tisane would have qualified, and, in any case, that procedure was not followed. (And was never followed for accused "pedophiles," because it would be disruptive and possibly libelous.) The new "WMF global ban policy" is not a part of the TOU. So socking doesn't violate a global ban. Unless confirmed by a global ban discussion, per the explicitly referenced policy.
  • There is no doubt but that the WMF has the legal authority to ban individuals, for whatever reason, and especially for no reason stated, but, unfortunately, they have stated a reason, "TOU violation." They probably would lose in court, if anyone considers it worthwhile to raise a case, say, for libel. I think that isn't likely to happen. But it could.
  • The recent discussion here on blocking Russavia was not understood by many. If Russavia is blocked here, then editing here becomes an actual TOU violation. His editing here with new accounts is not a TOU violation. Disruption over this is likely to continue until the Commons community actually makes a decision. So this is what I find quite strange: the move on AN or AN/U was to block him so that the global ban could clearly be enforced by local functionaries. Basically, block him so that a TOU violation is created. Block him with no local offense, and without consensus. I call that a Bad Idea. The WMF may enforce their ban, and I suggested the minimally disruptive course: local admins should ignore these socks, unless they violate local policies. Files should not be deleted because they are allegedly or actually contributed by Russavia (or any globally banned user not blocked on Commons). And then measures can be taken by those who care to make it easier to curate the content or delete it, within standard procedures. No need for these debates where users take the occasion to savage each other or the WMF. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:We miss you[edit]

Please refrain from adding this Troll back, consider this a warning for edit warring. --Denniss (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, per my suggestion, you should not revert that removal. But any other user in good standing may do so. I do not know the user, or I'd consider doing that myself. Your error there was in revert warring, insisting on your position, without demonstrating community support by allowing someone else asserting the position. And if nobody else does, done. There is no "we."
That someone else did the same -- revert warring and perhaps compounding that with a threat -- does not change this, and perhaps they have a GetOutOfJailFree card, or the like. Or they Represent Consensus. Always remember this, when playing the wiki game for fun, profit, or eternal glory and free education, or you might be soon in the missed list yourself. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten for you too[edit]

I've appreciated so much this kitten from you to me,and i send you back,wishing you all the best! Thank you my friend! Fabriziodg91 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki process[edit]

Thanks for your comments in this. That's a permanent link to that discussion. I added a comment there that was inadvertently added after close, so I reverted it. I've seen the software do this. My edit window was opened -- at least I thought so -- before the close, but I got no edit conflict warning. It's a MediaWiki bug, I'm pretty sure. But I've got bugs too, and they multiply as I get older ....

Anyway, the basic problem is that wikis like Commons become result-oriented, yet individuals retain an understanding of what is going on that is about their own judgments and assessments being "right." So a discussion comes up, and what is considered important is the result. Yet the arguments are about right and wrong, often. "No consensus" means "no result," yet there is always a default result. I.e., status quo if no consensus. And where the status quo favors or is favored by a substantial minority, it may always prevent consensus from forming. This becomes a particular problem when discussions take place in a context where only a small minority of the community participates, a minority that may be biased in a direction different from what would be true majority opinion.

When real consensus forms, it is self-enforcing. Continued dissent is easily recognized as disruptive, and will typically be expressed only by a vanishingly small segment of the community.

I have long argued that the goal should always be full consensus, because that is obviously not disruptive. That goal may be difficult to reach, but in the 20th century, methods were developed for finding full consensus, such that continued apparent dissent is not real, only fake, the person knows their position is disruptive and is simply being stubborn. What usually happens with full consensus process is that the weight of real consensus becomes so strong that a dissenter cuts his losses by shutting up, by realizing that he is exposing himself to disdain. Genuine consensus is typically highly intelligent, because it is inclusive. We get stupid when we exclude "contrary argument," believing it is bad or wrong.

There is only one WMF wiki I know of where true consensus is routinely sought. Wikiversity. That is structural, the 800-lb gorilla, en.wiki, has a project goal that requires "rough consensus," and that in fact, when push comes to shove, is majority-based, because ArbCom makes decisions by majority vote, and edit warring rules effectively enable the ad-hoc majority, but, then, Wikipedia elects ArbCom by a defective election method (approval-at-large, well known to have the problem) such that ArbCom does not truly represent the community. When proposals were made that could have led to something more representative, years ago, the "core community" shot them down with high prejudice. I was astonished by the vehemence, because it was just an experiment, would have been harmless, unless it worked.That was, by the way, where our globally banned user friend (L.), first got into trouble. He proposed it, as a long-term user who very much believed in Wikipedia. I think the massive, crazy rejection (that ignored the actual proposal) unbalanced him. Obviously, he was vulnerable to that.

However, this is the rub: Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. The only reliable guide to neutrality is consensus, i.e., the neutrality of text is not objectively measurable except by percentage of support, in a deliberative process that considers all arguments. So the goal would always be full consensus, and pending that, results would run provisionally with majority. However, this offends those who detest full discussion, who want to be able to grunt and have their grunts respected.

This did not start with en.wiki! I was a moderator on w:The WELL and saw this in the 1980s. That's where I first saw tl;dr, which is an uncivil comment unless the person has some obligation to read. Back then, it made some sense because ... I was originally accessing the WELL with a 300-baud modem. Some users now won't even know what that means. On mailing lists and on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, what always amazing me was someone who would quote an entire long post, with tl;dr at the bottom. So, it's too long, you didn't read it, but you repeated it? Uh, why? And why should we care that you didn't read it? Are you in charge? What?

There is nothing wrong with not reading what does not interest you. However, every comment creates traffic. Is tl;dr useful traffic? I just looked at my en.wiki talk page, at the last edit before it was finally blanked. I think that edit was made while my enwiki ban discussion was in process, and it pointed to my discussion of it on Wikipedia Review. Reading all that took me back to what it was like then, and why I was completely happy to be banned, because it relieved me of any sense of responsibility. A number of users made tl;dr comments, while others -- more respectable and more respected -- wrote that Abd always wrote something worth reading. Thanks. I try.

So, here we are on Commons. I'm here, at this point, to assist a Wikiversity user and to deal with certain structural issues that cause harm on Wikiversity. As part of this, I accept the Commons mission (which is not what naive users will often think). Because I'm involved in process here, now, I see stuff and feel some obligation to comment when I have knowledge or experience or analysis to contribute. Historically, this always has attracted opposition. Yet, at the same time, and increasingly, it has led to consensus. I do not push points that are not, at least, possible as consensus. (Sometimes I know they are consensus, already.)

It is obvious to me that there are serious problems on Commons. Incivility is routinely tolerated. Incivility seriously damages the process of consensus formation. The level of maturity of users is often low, it's fairly obvious that some are teenagers with little social development. I know what teenage boys are like, because I was one. I know what smart teenagers are like, because I was one (National Merit Scholar, Cal Tech, probably 99.9th percentile on measures of intelligence -- and immature.) Many conversations here would be normal for that population. And then there are some people who never mature....

There is no adult supervision, mostly. That is, for consensus, on which wiki sanity depends, there must be civil process, it is fundamental. Incivility breeds incivility, rapidly, if it is tolerated. There should be, in fact, zero tolerance for incivility. Wikis, however, easily fall into a common error, that difficulties are due to Bad Users. No, normal, good users, can be uncivil. Zero tolerance does not mean that a user is banned. Rather, in standard deliberative process, a chair will order an uncivil participant to sit down and stop speaking, and if the person continues, will order the person removed from the room, for as long as the duration of that session, though often the person requests return which is accepted if they agree to not speak out of order. That is never a "ban" from membership. To ban from membership takes supermajority vote in a full deliberative process. It is simply ad hoc enforcement of civility.

So the equivalent here is warning and block if the warning is disregarded. Short block. Some users think of a block as a horrible Black Mark. It might actually mean that they are passionate about the wiki. I used to write that if you had never been blocked, you were not following w:WP:IAR. And that's actually obvious! Because if you ignore rules, the Rules Police will stop you. And there will always be Rules Police. In sane societies, though, the police only have power to arrest, ad hoc, to protect society (including the arrested person), never to punish or convict.

I've been short-blocked for incivility, and I thanked the blocking admin. I consider being blocked for incivility a benefit to the wiki. By the way, I've only been blocked for incivility on Wikiversity, which, kind of roughly, I run, and, before that, my second block on en.wiki, and the latter was a complete misunderstanding, as the supposed target of my incivility acknowledged, he became probably my strongest supporter on enwiki, ran for ArbCom and told me that I was his inspiration, and won the seat. Naturally he recused when I was involved, as did the other arbitrators who were familiar with what I was doing, leaving behind, what? That is a structural problem that would be easily addressed if the wiki ever created a sane system.

And my friend retired when faced with real-life, face-to-face threats to his family, from thugs. Users do not realize the depth of Ugly hiding behind the friendly face of Wikipedia. There is only one defense against that ugliness: genuine consensus, which can stand up to dictators -- people with guns and armies! -- and win.

And genuine consensus does this without excluding the "dictators." We see incredible tragedy in the real world when an uprising simply kicks out the "bad people," without understanding and addressing structural problems, because what happens then is that other bad people or worse take over.

Anyway, my thoughts this morning. My suggestion: slow down, be careful, be inclusive, watch out for heavy "right/wrong" judgment, it will alienate those who think differently. Stand for what you believe, but always understand belief as distinct from Truth. Seek genuine consensus. (The closest humans come to Truth is through genuine consensus.) And the reward of patience is patience. --Abd (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about bringing an issue to broader attention[edit]

Some distilled experience here. I do not recommend bringing an issue to broad attention until process at a lower level of attention has been exhausted, and by "exhausted" I would include small-scale discussions that hopefully have developed all the issues to be addressed and resolved. We have a tendency to just jump quickly to the next level of "dispute resolution." If the ground has not been prepared, the community is very likely to respond with "Huh?" and a collection of knee-jerks. So then a larger discussion becomes a train wreck in which the actual evidence and considered arguments are buried in a mass of noise.

To present an issue for wide consideration, a different kind of writing is needed than mere "discussion." It's necessary to be ultimately cogent and as brief as possible. If there are extensive considerations, those may be summarized in some place, like a user page. You might look at a research page of mine, User:Abd/Bystander photos, and then see how that is being used. So once an issue has been identified, and if it's understood that resolution is not just a matter of a request and a grant, do this first. That consideration can be modified and improved as discussion develops arguments and issues. Ultimately, before taking the issue "global," that page should be refactored to be as concise and as cogent as possible. If possible, identify additional supporters for the position you have settled with. Twere it up to me, no issue would go "global" until it is certified by at least two users, this would be like Wikipedia User RfC process. It's an aspect of standard deliberative process that was never understood on en.wiki: no motion is considered until seconded. Before that, all discussion is member-to-member, not on the "floor." If you can't find a second, there is absolutely no purpose to wasting the time of the assembly with arguments and debate. The motion can always be presented later when a second is found.

Then, when ready, create the global discussion. It should reflect the highest level of consensus yet found, at least consensus of those in favor of the proposal. It should be succinct and clear, establishing what it is expected the community may approve. It should consider all the opposing arguments, either directly or on a proposal page that is more detailed. And then do not argue tendentiously, it irritates users, even if you are "right." At this point, hopefully, all major opposing arguments have been incorporated and carefully considered, is there some way to incorporate those concerns in the proposal? Once one is working at this level, it's important to back off and trust consensus.

They say, "If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss!" One may get only one shot at a major transformation. If that shot is fired prematurely, it could jeopardize future efforts. "This was proposed before and rejected!"

Wikis are very poor at discipline. Sometimes supporters are a proposal's worst enemies. This much should be obvious: if a proposal has no extended support, and involves much thinking, it has no chance. So laying out what the community will think, in advance, making it easy for the community to say, "Yes, at last someone is making sense!", is true change agency. It takes work, a lot of work. This is not easy, slam-dunk, usually. We want it to be "wiki," quick, but that only works for fairly simple and obvious issues.

One more suggestion: for general wiki process issues, Wikiversity is possible as a place to develop a study. This requires care and following ethical guidelines which, naturally, don't exist. However, we can make them up and modify them as necessary. Bottom line, never use Wikiversity as a platform from which to attack users or real persons. But Wiki Studies are possible there, and I've demonstrated that. If you come to Wikiversity, let me know on my user talk page there and I will assist. We guide users on Wikiversity, for the education of users is part of our mission, i.e., "Learning by doing." Education is our most important product, not "content," as such. Hence I've been able to assist users there who were on the verge of global lock. Or actually locked. And the result has been good content creation, and a user who now knows how to avoid disruption and its consequences. In one case that user was seven years old and widely considered a vandal. Consider what the editing of a seven-year-old will look like! He is now about 11, and is a WMF sysop, and doing well. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez/Archive2&oldid=167285269"