User:Technical 13/Drafts/Response


 * That's how I perceive them (unless you're saying I'm not human and therefore not allowed to have my own perceptions of things), and I'm not the only one. In that reply to, I also said "I have no issue with that and have found other things to do with my time to be productive."
 * I saw an issue and poked around on IRC (per, like you said), was told by on IRC not to worry about it since the queue had already been turned on  and was functioning as it was expected to.  It turned out it needed more poking, but I wasn't aware of that until after the changes.
 * What part of the canvassing policy does it violate to notify users of a script of a discussion about upcoming changes to that script that will directly impact them? I'm not aware of any such verbiage, and would be happy to comply if you can point me to it.
 * I offer two options near the very top of that comment after I explain why I don't do discussion on IP talk pages. Those two options were "We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make)." ANI (the hard way), or on my own talk page (the easy way).  What exactly is wrong with that?
 * I explained my interpretation of why it wasn't a canvassing violation per WP:APPNOTE. I'll expand this to say that of the, 753/885 were inactive editors (%) (15 are blocked – I admit I should have filtered those people out of the list, at least one came back specifically to comment on the discussion, at least 30 are now active again – didn't think to keep an exact count before I had already checked 500 of them ).  That means I notified 132 out of  (about %) active users.  I don't consider that a lot, sorry.  If someone wanted to specifically define a lot in relation to the  Wikipedia accounts, I'd be more than happy to respect that.
 * So, you admit that you dehumanized me by calling me a bot. Shame on you.  My claim is that I followed the letter of policy by not using a bot.  I could have very easily posted it as an RfC, but my goal wasn't "just" about the topic of a humor page. The biggest part of the goal (based on a sample of 20 random names in the list of about 1,700 that yielded a result of about 93% of people (technically 95% at 19/20, but one was real close with only one edit in a year that happened to drop them in the "active" group, so I gave only 3% for that one) using those templates being inactive (about  active users)) was to try to encourage some of our now retired and/or inactive editors to come back to Wikipedia and join a "fun" discussion about a silly humor page to remind them that Wikipedia is still here and try and peak their interest to come back.  We kind of have declining numbers of editors, and I was hoping to poke at a few decent retired ones to get renewed interest.
 * So, you admit that you dehumanized me by calling me a bot. Shame on you.  My claim is that I followed the letter of policy by not using a bot.  I could have very easily posted it as an RfC, but my goal wasn't "just" about the topic of a humor page. The biggest part of the goal (based on a sample of 20 random names in the list of about 1,700 that yielded a result of about 93% of people (technically 95% at 19/20, but one was real close with only one edit in a year that happened to drop them in the "active" group, so I gave only 3% for that one) using those templates being inactive (about  active users)) was to try to encourage some of our now retired and/or inactive editors to come back to Wikipedia and join a "fun" discussion about a silly humor page to remind them that Wikipedia is still here and try and peak their interest to come back.  We kind of have declining numbers of editors, and I was hoping to poke at a few decent retired ones to get renewed interest.

Have you ever asked me about it (hint: )? So, I'll respond. There use to be a time when the "Unclear" and "Please use 'replace X with Y' format" where separate templates, they were by  which was subsequently discussed. So, let's go through your specific examples quickly, and I'll be happy to try and explain why I closed each the way I did.
 * was not in a "Please use 'replace X with Y' format" and the text that the user wanted added to replace what they were asking be removed didn't appear to be clear.
 * I very clearly declared why I was declining the request at that time with my comment of Add it as a source to which claim(s)?
 * Please add after Area a line -Water(%) 2.34 after what area? There are a LOT of areas on that page.
 * I don't understand that request either, it is just a link to a category. What am I suppose to do with that?
 * They don't ask for anything. They quote a chunk of text and make a comment that This reads like and book review and assumes everything in his autobiography is true. Okay, so what do you want me to change to fix it?
 * Please reduce the precision of the latitude and longitude coordinates. To what level of precision? Can you point me to the MoS for it?  Your request is lacking details and information, I don't know what you want me to do.
 * You want me to remove the fact that he has received Golden Globe awards? Isn't that one of the qualifiers of some notability guideline that says if they have won awards they are notable?  Yeah, you'll need a consensus for that.
 * Talk:American Civil War makes my point on that quite clear. There was already a discussion on the topic ongoing in that section with an editor that was  who ultimately declined the request as Great idea, no sourcing at web site to confirm authorship, no editor talk page to discuss. Nothing to act on.  There was no need to leave the request open when it was already being handled.

My intentions are good, Betacommand's technical skills typically exceed my own, and I'm more than happy to respond to feedback – assuming I get feedback -- and I'm more than happy to discuss and ask questions if I don't understand the feedback I get (happens a lot).

First, the wikibreak banner in my userspace is correct, or at least I've been attempting to since my school workload has been so great this year and I've had other family issues. Second, I never requested my meta userpage deleted, and thanks for noting it for me, I emailed the deleting administrator and had it restored. They claim it was an accident, and despite being very coincidentally at a very bad time, I'm willing to AGF and leave it be.

I completely understand and respect your point of view as indicated here. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm inflexible, as I always feel I am most willing to discuss anything that is brought to my attention and try to find a reasonable compromise. I agree that I tend to be a very enthusiastic person, although I hardly find myself to be infallible. My absence was a planned thing and there were multiple editors that were aware of the fact that I was going to be away for this stretch of time, perhaps that is why PT decided to pursue this now instead of earlier or wait. I won't speculate further there, but I find it curious that the time they picked for this was when I planned to be away.

Your While I don't have any reason to doubt his good faith or desire to help comment is appreciated. I don't know who Mattisse or Merridew are, but I am aware of who Betacommand is. I believe that his technical experience exceeds my own, and I've asked him for help and advice in the past, but I've also disagreed with him about stuff as well. I welcome constructive criticism, and in no way find it disruptive. As I say in multiple other places on this page, I find it more interesting this case was opened for the period of time when I had announced I would be away.

Thank you for your comments in my absence while I was away. You seem to see things very similarly to how I do, and I appreciate you making the comments that you did. As for the one thing that you said you saw as pointless, I agree it may have been a pointless effort, but the goal was to try and increase wiki participation and bring back some retired or otherwise inactive editors. The fruit from that endevour seems to be minimal, but I see at least one person that commented on the discussion that had been defined as inactive and has made subsequent contributions elsewhere since. That's enough for it to have been worth it to me.

I have no problem with you sharing the content of our email discussions on the topic in the forum if excepted as long as any potentially personally identifying information is.

I don't recall ever having a constructive conversation with the editor who decided to open this case (I really wish I could). This user has done nothing but attack me over and over and over (I realize this user would likely say the same thing about me, and I would be happy to calmly discuss anything they feel has been a personal attack directed at them on my talk page at any time.). There's a banner on my user and talk pages (has been there for quite some time) that says that I'm on a short wikibreak. That message still applies. Everyone that is a regular on the IRC channels knew I was going to be too busy to discuss much in May or June due to an extremely high workload at school (in May I had a super condensed C++ course that taught 15 weeks of material in 3 weeks) and that I was going out of town for at least a week for a family event. Instead of waiting until I got back to continue the discussion calmly on my talk page, and instead of asking the community for help (as would be appropriate), this user decided to go right to the very top of the DR chain and skip all other forms of DR. This saddens me, but I hope it can be resolved quickly.

Thank you very much, all seems very correct and accurate. Since dragging someone to ArbCom is serious business, I do hope that the committee chooses to accept this case and apply a boomerang as this user did not go through proper channels and has done nothing but harass me be dragging me here and there to punish me because I disagreed with one of their proposals (which ended up pretty much the way I figured it would).



My draft response was (is) way too long to post, so I am doing it as a draft to get all of my thoughts on the matter in a transparent way on-wiki. I'll only post the specifically relevant stuff as size limits permit. As for me waiting since last week to finish and post them, that is due to threatening behavior from an arbitrator and me waiting for WMF legal to have my personal information deleted so that it can not be seen.

Arbitration Committee

 * : You accepted based on a fact that has been determined to be false, is your position still to accept?