User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 36

=July 2019=

Impact
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My birthday
Apparently it is the anniversary of my first edit to WP but, as of now, it is also the anniversary of my final edit. I understand why you would see Jimbo's clarification regarding the role of ArbCom in the Fram mess as being a turning point. However, Jimbo has made promises before and failed to keep them, and I am still at a loss as to why the Board could not in the first place say what he has since said. Their message is full of dense corporate-speak, as has noted at WP:FRAMBAN today. If the Board issue a statement that actually offers clarity and notes that the WMF cannot usurp en-WP processes then I'll be back: that has been my position from the outset, but their statement of a few hours ago doesn't do that at all. They need somehow to accept and adapt to the fact that they are dealing with laypeople here, not corporate wonks, diplomats, lawyers and PR gurus who are adept with reading between lines, spotting nuances and the like.

I am particularly concerned about possible attempts to tone-police, to move us all to some homogenised "California-speak", and to seek an unrealistic definition of harassment and/or civility. By the standards of those involved with Wikimedia DC, for example, I harass people pretty much every day here, cleaning up after socks, serial copyright violators, pov-pushers, those who misrepresent sources etc - you know this, you've seen me do it. I couldn't care less about the gender of those people whose edits I track, nor their race or creed or sexuality. I've increasingly found, however, that people closely connected to the WMF, such as many officers of WM-DC, think it is wrong to correct such issues if it might hurt the feelings of the person concerned even if the corrections indubitably are improvements. And that is my big issue in all this mess, which the recent statements of the Board and the ED do nothing to alleviate. We're in a bizarre situation where someone can get away with being repeatedly uncollaborative and dismissive of others by retorting with "cool story, bro" to shut down dialogue yet someone else, like me, can be accused of harassment despite people such as and  marvelling at my patience in trying to resolve issues.

I doubt that I am alone in thinking this and so, yes, while I can understand your optimism following Jimbo's personal statement, I remain to be convinced of both its scope and, indeed, its validity. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to Clem Rutter's excellent post above, hope you don't mind my messing with your text and I still marvel at your patience. I hope, without much optimism, that these issues will be resolved in such a way that you'll want to return. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC).


 * I fully get what you're saying, and the wording of the board's statement does lack something - I saw it just as it was posted last night, but decided I needed some time to work out what I thought of it. It is vague and a bit handwavy, yes, but I think that's just what comes of drafting by committee. I'd have liked to have seen Jimmy's "much more pointed statement", but I think his subsequent comments have made it clear that what the statement means is a lot more concrete than the wording makes it sound. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but I get the feeling that Jimmy is pissed off by the way T&S went about this. In the circumstances, I'm quite convinced it's the very best outcome we were likely to get. As for fears of a new "California-speak" civility regime, I'm in (at least two) minds. One one hand, the en.wiki culture genuinely can be intimidating, and I know intelligent educated people who would like to help but won't do so because of that. And, though I hate to have to say it, there are some regular contributors whose behaviour genuinely is disruptive. For example, during this case I've seen people being gratuitously obnoxious and insulting just for the hell it. And when it comes to dealing with problematic users, there's a whole spectrum of approach - it's not a binary choice between "super nicey nicey" and "treat them like scum". It's entirely possible to be right about a content-related issue or about someone's ability, while being unacceptably aggressive and attacking about it - and in my view, Fram has fallen too far to the "unacceptably aggressive" end of the scale too often. He does need to be made to tone it down, just not in the way it was done by T&S. And now the other hand. I don't think that need make everyone fear the T&S in the night, not if future approaches to this are going to be done with ArbCom and with proper community consultation. And as long as that happens, I think people will continue to get a fair hearing. As for you personally, I don't think you really have anything to worry about. You do, indeed, show remarkable patience, and I really can't see any new civility approach coming down on those dealing with genuinely tendentious editors as you do. Now, all this means taking Jimmy at his word, and I know you don't have a lot of faith in that (and a lot of others don't either). But he's made some pretty serious commitments today, and I think he deserves the chance to prove himself. Saying all that, I'm not going to be asking for my admin bit back. I'll wait and see how things turn out, see how any new civility thing goes, and if a regime evolves under which I'd be happy to do admin stuff, I might run for RfA. But I'll still carry on doing other stuff here (after a break, which I think I deserve), and I hope you come back soon too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "On one hand, the en.wiki culture genuinely can be intimidating, and I know intelligent educated people who would like to help but won't do so because of that."
 * Yes, but 'intimidating' isn't limited to the kind of 'civility' issues as they appear to be defined by the WFO/WMF. Sitush is dead right that, in essence, what this innovation looks like is an attempt to engineer a personality type, whose characteristics ignore the fundamentals of encyclopedic construction, the mastery of, and induction into wikipedia of reliably sourced knowledge on everything, to allow a global audience to readily access whatever information they desire to have, presented with lucidity and with, ideally, a guarantee the accuracy has been or can be, competently verified. I made some similar notes for myself this morning. I know of people with outstanding talents who would never edit here because they know that, if they bring their competence and devote their spare time to becoming editors, as often as not, they will have their patience exhausted by people with a minimal knowledge of the topic, revert trolls whose passive aggressiveness thrives on some weird pleasure in trumping 'know-alls', and whatever. They are sufficiently confident to brush off abuse, it's all water off a duck's back if you really know your subject. But polite attrition remains a major technique in that extensive constituency of editors who are passionate about their nation, creed, ethnic group and political interests, and refuse to allow complex multi-sourced academic works that contradicts their identitarian ideologies to 'mar' their pitch. None of this is caught up in the toils of the 'civility' protocols. That sort of thing flies under the radar of the tone-police. It's hard enough to pin down in arbitration. These SF folks are tuned into a cultural code that is recognizably provincial, if popular, one mandated by major social media that produce nothing but the chaff of chat, and whose efficacity in producing 'knowledge' has never been proved. I'm reminded of the following:-
 * "When a seventeenth-century university professor had to explain to parents why they should afford their children a university education, he told them that learning, humanistic learning, is the first ingredient of a better society. Knowledge of the liberal arts and sciences, he  argued, “can be acquired only with strong dedication of the mind, with long and late hours of application, with sweat, with persistent discipline, and with punctilious discipline.” For him, “our peaceful society” and its fruits are “for the most part based on the cultivation of these studies.”’ Norman Klassen, Jens Zimmermann, The Passionate Intellect: Incarnational Humanism and the Future of University Education, Baker Academic, 2006 p.14."
 * The 'community health' project, well, it doesn't frighten me, bah. It disgusts me as not only having fuck all to do with the sine qua non of writing articles of quality, disciplined mastery of a topic, but as also dropping into an already complex mechanism for (re)producing knowledge a potentially disruptive spoke that can allow any loose cannon out there to come here and work off a persecution complex. among other things. Sorry for the intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know there are lots of other problems, but that does not excuse the "unacceptably aggressive" end of the civility scale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But passive aggressiveness is as commonplace as the other kind of aggressiveness, and the protocols being developed focus on the latter to the exclusion of the former. When for years you experience reverts instantly on numerous pages, each with a polite edit summary that has nothing to do with policy or the strongly sourced matter you introduce, simply out of dislike, you have to just take it on the chin: no admin will pick up the passive aggressivity of the (team of) serial reverters because it would require a knowledge of the content, something (if somewhat understandably) they are not required to enter into the merits of. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was effectively warned off even mentioning that there are prolonged and significant issues in the article creations of a much-promoted Women In Red-affiliated contributor. By an arb clerk on my talk page, no less. That's BLP stuff but, hey, so what? The editor in question can't even get basic facts right, including the name of the subject, their qualifications, etc even when they cite a valid source (and often they do not). It's scary that these things are allowed to fester but even more scary that if I or someone else should attempt to fix them then accusations of hounding etc will follow. It is a clear case of seeking quantity over quality, it is potentially damaging to the article subjects, it misinforms the reader, and so on.So no, sorry, I do not think that I am somehow in position not to be scared of what may happen when I edit with the genuine intent of significantly improving this place. That it is tolerated in, say, the India topic area but not in some other area just makes for more confusion. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way, though I do think you overstate the danger to yourself. Anyway, I hope things will unfold better than you fear and I hope you'll want to come back. Meanwhile, I'm going to get back to writing some articles that I've been planning for ages (which are actually women whose links are currently red, but don't tell anyone I told you ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Profanity in editor interactions
Firstly, may I say that I genuinely respect the position you have taken in regard to the ongoing saga over WMF's Office Actions - it's very honourable - and I can see how cross and totally hair-tearingly frustrated you were by the utterly ridiculous proposal of EllenCT which threatened to inflame and undermine the progress currently being made to resolve the situation. I completely agree with you on the points you were making to her, but not in the way you made them. So I felt I had to drop by and say I was quite shocked by your use profanity in those interactions to reinforce your frustrations with her.

At a time when our discussions are centring around perceptions of civility and harassment, I feel that moment was out of character and not a worthy way for you to interact with another editor, irrespective of their gender or viewpoint, and no matter how dumb their proposal was. In resigning your admin rights, you already owned the moral high ground and the respect of our community. Had that discussion not now been closed, it might have been a nice gesture to have gone back and struck some of those words out. I apologise if this sounds patronising, that wasn't my intention. I just felt it had to be said. You'll have my support if you decide to go for a re-RfA (and I'm a bit relieved I held off going for my own RfA, albeit for reasons quite unconnected with WP:FRAMBAN). Respectfully, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, and I was fully expecting to see messages here on my talk page when I checked back in this morning - I'm pleasantly surprised to see only one, and such a friendly one at that. But yes, I just got so angry at such vindictive attempts to sabotage the hard work that people are doing and the progress that's been made - well, it's either deliberately destructive, or the most amazing bad-faith cluelessness I've seen in a long time. What can I say? I'm human, and humans react poorly sometimes - and that needs to be a factor in any new way forward too. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Boing, I find your reaction entirely natural and understandable, and wouldn't have dreamed of coming to tick you off on your own talk page. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It's not only that. It's also the effect on other editors. It carries the message that as soon as you "misbehave" you'll get the requisite tutorial. It's one of the less attractive attributes of wikilife. I think leaving space for people is a good thing. It doesn't have to be as big as the Grand Canyon, but a reasonable size space should be allowed. Dr.   K.  20:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading Kafka
... about frustration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

We love you Boing
Hey again. Im very proud of you for your actions during this FRAM mess. You were one of my favorite administrators, and I'm glad to have worked with you. Hell, you were a huge reason I was able to be a better wikipedian. From telling me as a little boy on another account in 2012 that I needed to meet CIR, then speaking in support of my unblock last year, then that turned into me becoming a pending changes reviewer, then today where you answered "no" on an important RFC I proposed regarding "under a cloud" status for resigned admins, I am proud to say you helped facillitate my character growth on Wikipedia. I love you Boing, and thanks for everything on this encyclopedia. I owe you one. If users like you didn't believe in me, a young changed man who would do many things to spread free knowledge globally, I dont know where I'd be now. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a really nice thing to say DrewieStewie, and it's very much appreciated. You know, the thing I liked doing most as an admin was unblocking people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
Hey, yeah sorry. Was surprised to see i did that, was on the wrong tab it seems. I am deeply sorry and it won't happen again. Kante4 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks - it's easy to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Will be more careful from now on. ;) Kante4 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This!


well said. — Ched : ?    —  21:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought it was kind of obvious ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That question is obvious, but it's "toxic" which was used in the board statement, not the other phrase. I don't "hear" anyone say "Your behaviour is toxic" when meeting a real person, - or is that just my lack of English, or of experience of real situations? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was not to suggest that calling someone "toxic" is acceptable (or that it happens face to face), as I thought I'd made clear, but that it is entirely possible (and a lot more common) to be uncivil without using bad words. Focusing on that one regrettable public comment by Jimmy is not the way forward. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't focus on one comment, but on the official board statement, issued in 2019, - as I explained later, seeing that not everyone saw in it what bothers me. I'd prefer if such a statement would not use a word that no two people seem to understand the same way. I met several users here who have bothered me in one way or the other, including the one whom Fram blocked for a year, but would call none of them toxic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, bad things have happened (and the "toxic" thing is but one of them), but focusing on them is not the way forward. That's all I'm saying. And if the board statement is imperfect, I still think it represents a very important positive move. Oh, and when I spoke of focusing on Jimmy's "toxic" thing, I didn't mean you personally. It's just that every time we discuss civility, someone posts that picture again and people bang on about it again. We really need to move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm just surprised that no-one linked to the class of civility WP has followed ever since. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ahh .. civil, from the Latin civilis; which in itself is derived from the Latin root civis. Citizen.  Hmmmm.  So is calling someone 'uncivil' akin to saying they are not a citizen of our society? The word itself is the root of so many other meaningful words.  Does speaking (or typing) in an uncivil manner mean one is no longer a member of the group 'civilized beings'?


 * The thing is that many, if not most, of us will lose our/their cool on occasion and speak in an uncivil manner. Taking the time to couch you thoughts in words you think will circumvent our own "civility policy" means you're not only taking time to deliberately be uncivil - but you're putting in an effort to be sneaky about it.  And lets face it folks - for all the premeditated 'Jimbospeak' we've witnessed, it seems very much a pot calling a kettle uncivil when our co-founder calls people out.  I can only imagine how much it hurt Bish being called a "toxic personality" (and others as well).  Personally I'd much rather have an honest and heart-felt "fuck you Ched" than some politely worded bullshit.


 * But - then again, considering that we basically began as a 'Bomis Babes' porn site - it's kind of ironic that so many of our 'civility police' are quite the pig once all the lipstick is removed. Oh well - enough of my rambling thoughts; I hope all is well with you and yours Boing. — Ched :  ?    —  15:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, can't disagree with any of that. As I said further up the page, "humans react poorly sometimes - and that needs to be a factor in any new way forward too". Hope all is good for you too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
You're awesome. - Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

= August 2019 =

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Come back? You never left!
I see you are active, Boing! Would you consider asking for your bit back? Your level-headed admin work is missed! Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please take your mop back, Boing; god knows we need more decent admins these days, not fewer... Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind thoughts, folks, but I won't be asking for the bit back. It's possible I might run for RfA again some time in the future, but as I said at resignation time: Should I ever consider re-applying to become an administrator, it would not be until the current power shift is complete, until the new rules and enforcement regime are finalized and made clear, and until I see the new enforcement structure working sufficiently well and sufficiently fairly to consider becoming a part of it. There's a lot more I could say, but I really don't want to get into any deep discussions right now. I'll just say that recent developments do not leave me optimistic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
=September 2019=

Draft
Help put article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moshe_Goldberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.188.7 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that draft has already been accepted after a review and has been moved to main article space. Congratulations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, how much it cost ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.37.197 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the creator of the article has declared their paid interest at their user page, but other than that I have no idea what you might be talking about, and I was not involved in the article review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about blocking of IPs?
I've read the blocking policy, specifically the part about I.P. addresses. I even asked an RfA question based off of it, and the answer there fits with policy the way I understand it. The reason I'm bringing this up is because something that happened a few months ago is still bugging me. I figured that I must have just been wrong, as an admin would definitely know policy better than I do (a relatively new contributor). Now, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure if it was a fluke, or if there's something I'm not understanding, but I'm still confused and would like a second opinion. Here's a diff so you understand what I'm taking about,. The block has expired by now anyways, but I still don't understand why it was nessecary to be 3 months long in the first place. Clovermoss (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you check a Whois lookup on IP 59.167.95.221, you'll see it's labeled "Likely Static IP" - see https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/59.167.95.221. A static IP is one that is permanently assigned to a single ISP account and is not dynamically reallocated, so it is likely to be the same person. To confuse things, even some "dynamic" IP addresses are repeatedly allocated to the same account. Mine, for example, is with Virgin Media in the UK, and it's technically dynamic so when I do a Whois lookup it says "Likely Dynamic IP", but Virgin always reallocates the same IP to the same account - and I've had this "dynamic" IP address for a number of years. Different ISPs have different policies regarding the length of time an IP address is allocated to the same account, so deciding whether a dynamic IP is likely to be used by a single editor over a problematic period needs to be done by inspecting the edit history - I have not done that with 59.167.95.221, so I can't say if the block length is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)