User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 18

Cold lava

 * Seems to be a reference to lahar. (See this description) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Otium
This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to turn this into a Good Article. Any suggestions or ideas?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Roberta Black
Thanks for reviewing my efforts. Not everything I write is correct, and I enjoy the chance to get some well-thought-out feedback. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll over at DYK
Hey there, there is a straw poll going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools. Your input would be much appreciated. P.s. I am sending you this message based on your heavy involvement in DYK, rather than at random. I hope this is ok. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Erratic?
I'm not sure where you are coming from. I don't rush into enforcement decisions, and always evaluate the evidence carefully before taking a decision. I won't speak at greater length or in more specific terms because you reverted your edit, but, with respect, it is wrong to state that an administrator's judgement is erratic without justification. Thank you for your comment, in any case. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I figured it would be opening a can of worms, and I can really do without teh dramaz right now - as I'm sure you can! Maybe sometime I can get around to a few specifics, if you really want to hear them. In the meantime, if you do get the job, I look forward to you proving my apprehension completely misplaced ;) Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK behavior
What exactly was the point of this remark that you addressed to User:Plot Spoiler at Template:Did you know nominations/TAT Technologies? I'm asking because I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you thought it was a constructive contribution to the DYK discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought my point was self-evident: users involved in a contentious topic area are not supposed to approve the articles of their political bedfellows, per rule H2. There has been far too much of that sort of thing occur at DYK in the past, which is why the rule was added. I simply reminded Plot Spoiler (since he appeared not to know or to have forgotten) of the existence of the rule.


 * However, I'm glad to see you have returned to the discussion. What do you think of the alt hook? I think it's fine, but as the nominator I would like to have your endorsement. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's not what H2 says. H2 specifically refers to "DYK novices." Seeing as you yourself acknowledged that Plot Spoiler isn't a novice in the DYK arena, I'm still not understanding how you thought your comment was applicable or helpful there.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed the second clause which states: as are editors active in those areas. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why he ticked the DYK nom in the first place, since another editor already did before him. If your comment was an earnest reminder that he shouldn't be confirming I/P DYKs generally, I can see how that makes sense. But given that his tick was in essence gratuitous, the real substance of his contribution was his comment regarding a modified hook. And it sounded – not just to me, evidently – like your remark was aimed at invalidating his contribution to the discussion. If that wasn't the case, then ok, I suppose it could have been a misunderstanding.—Biosketch (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Otium
See User talk:Panyd. Can you take care of this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this. I appreciate it!--Doug Coldwell talk 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sources
Hi, Gatoclass. I noticed you took exception previously at AE to admin WGFinley's remarks that included the statement, "We shouldn't be drawn into their content disputes by analyzing sources in taking action." I just noticed a statement on his main user page that may help elucidate his philosophy on that score. He writes there,


 * "During discussion of a block or a ban, particularly in general sanction areas the call of "didn't you read my edit, how could you not support that!" or something along those lines is heard. I can honestly say "no". Why? I don't analyze content in areas where I'm serving in an admin capacity for one ..."

If he's not reading diffs that are presented as potential misrepresentation of sources, then of course he's not going to be interested in sanctioning anyone on that basis. From these and other remarks he's made, it's my impression that it's all about form and protocol for him, and that he just really doesn't care much at all about the actual content of edits. Perhaps he sees that as a more efficient use of his time here. Anyway, I thought this might be helpful to you in trying to understand his perspective.

I've informed him about this comment, btw, in case he'd like to clarify in any way. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody asked him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: correct) to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, AGK   [&bull; ]  15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AGK, all due respect, but my tone only became heated after repeated failures by WGFinley to answer basic questions about continual factually incorrect comments he made. An admin is required to justify their actions, and in this case WGFinley refused to do so. Look at the threads at AE, see where I repeatedly, and politely, raised the fact that he was saying things that were plainly false. He never responded. After being ignored by an admin seeking to either a. sanction me for reverting socks of banned users, and then b. ignoring the repeated lying about sources to push a fringe POV, my tone admittedly grew harsher. That does not, in any way, justify an admin refusing to rectify basic errors that raise serious questions of competency and whether or not he should be involved in administering, or even commenting, the topic area. If I were to say that I do not think WGFinley is competent to be an administrator I would be assuming his good faith, otherwise I have to believe that he understood that a user was lying about sources to push a fringe POV and refused to allow him to be sanctioned because of his sympathy with the user and that POV. If the admin had simply responded and shown that he understood the issue neither assumption would be necessary and my tone would have remained mild.  nableezy  - 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's for a second assume Nableezy used a harsh tone (which I think was justified after repeated attempts to get WGFinley to address the matter at hand), would that explain WGFinley not answering the same question posed by other editors? It is obvious to see either a) the dude made a mistake and was not willing to suck it up and admit a error in his original judgement or b) he does indeed sympathize with POV of the user who was being reported. Effectively, T Canens and Ed were calling for a topic ban based on the fact that JJG blatantly misrepresented a source, but WGFinley filibustered the matter by refusing to even look at the point. -asad (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all really simple. Nableezy's first attempt to discuss my position on this issue on my talk page was this missive. When you start out with "You simply do not know what you are talking about" and then insult me about counting on my fingers, that's a clear personal attack and not something I'm going to respond well to. I never said what JJG did was right, I said I didn't find it sanctionable, there's a difference. Since I was stating my point of view and not taking action I don't owe an explanation, particularly after a direct personal attack. --WGFinley (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have read the counting fingers comment as a personal attack but it didn't read that way to me or I might have said something myself. IMO it was just his way of emphasizing the point that dispute resolution is not such a simple exercise. So I think you are misreading that comment.


 * With regard to the wider issue, I'm aware that your reading of policy is not without foundation, if that were not the case, we would probably have ironed out the problems with dispute resolution long ago. My point to you is that your comments were out of step with prevailing practice at AE, where the most experienced admins have long been taking into account issues like questionable sourcing, misrepresentation of sources etc. in coming to their conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That actually wasnt my first attempt to discuss that issue with you. That diff was in relation to your arguing that I should be sanctioned due to the number of times I reverted socks of banned editors in a different AE thread. The first time I attempted to raise this issue with you, after repeated ignored requests at AE, was this. To which you responded with this where you, once again, completely ignored the point. You still have not told me why you said on AE what you claimed was the sole thing that Jiujitsuguy did, you still have not told me that you read the diff that shows him lying about a source, and you still have not answered why you dont treat the deliberate distortion of a source as being more serious than Nableezy's tone. I still welcome you to answer those questions.  nableezy  - 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * asad in particular, and Nableezy and Gatoclass have a point. WGFinley's sympathies are manifest when he can say (presumably, with a straight face) that he is "... aware of the type of behavior JJG gets drawn in to...". Should we include falsifying sources in the list of acceptable behaviour now? Really? As Gatoclass points out, WGFinley's comments are completely out of step with the current practice at AE. Indeed, while the Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy requests were open, there was a request for Pantherskin on the same page; notice the closing action and comment, I'll repeat it here (emphasis mine) "Pantherskin indefinitely blocked due to evidence that that the cited book does not contain the material that he stated." How is that any different from JJG's actions? It has nothing to do with the quality of the sources he used, it is all about deliberate misrepresentation of sources and introducing factual errors in to an encyclopaedia. Timotheus Canens has now been hounded from the encyclopaedia and we're left with WGFinley, who steadfastly refuses to answer reasonable questions about his comments, admit when he is wrong and is out of step with the current AE process. The P-I topic area and AE are the worse for it, and the encyclopaedia is all the worse for loosing another editor over it. 86.174.1.16 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed he requested his adminship be taken away two minutes after he closed the JJG thread by saying, "Clearly no admin consensus to do anything". I think we all know what that means, WGFinley. -asad (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

req for opinion
Hello Gatoclass. Do you feel the events outlined here are grounds for an RFC/U?  nableezy  - 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think they are sufficient grounds for an RFC/U. I think you are not paying sufficient attention to the fact that different people can have genuinely different views about the same facts. To begin with, though JJG's edits misstated the sources, you ought to have some appreciation of the fact that when someone has a particular bias, he is going to have a tendency to see those aspects that support his POV while missing those that don't. This has happened to me when interpreting sources as I'm sure it has to everyone. My point is that while JJG was certainly careless in his reading of those sources, I think it not impossible to AGF that JJG did not deliberately set out to misrepresent them. Against that, of course, is his record of misrepresenting sources, which should also be taken into account in an AE case. However, considered separately, as you have done in your draft RFC/U, I don't find it to be such a persuasive case.


 * Given the above, I have to conclude that it was therefore not altogether unreasonable for WGF to take the view that the evidence was not strong enough to take action against JJG. This is especially the case given that WGF has stated on his user page that as a matter of principle he pays minimal attention to the content of edits in his adjudications but prefers to focus on procedural breaches. His responses to you are, I think, consistent with that position. So in summary I think this RFC/U is weak and unlikely to achieve anything useful.


 * With regard to the broader question of WGF's attitude to you personally, I am increasingly of the opinion that it is problematic. However, that is not the thrust of your proposed RFC. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem isnt with the judgment that JJG didnt in fact misrepresent the source (though I have to say, using a source that says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and writing that The summit of Mount Hermon straddles the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria is a pretty clear cut case), though WGF doesnt appear to have even addressed the issue much less make a judgment on it, my problem was with him saying I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. when none of the diffs showed any content about a ski resort at all. The refusal to back up the statement or admit the error is what upset me. He made a statement on the content of a diff, and that statement is false. None of the diffs is about the location of a ski resort, but WGF never, despite repeated requests that he do so, explain why he wrote that was what he thought the content of the diff was. I dont know, maybe the is more trivial than it seems to me, but I cannot get around that sequence.  nableezy  - 05:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that JJG's edits were factually incorrect; the summit straddles two borders according to the sources, not three. However, JJG did find a source which described Mt Hermon as "famous as Israel's highest mountain" and this was obviously sufficient justification in his mind for adding "Israel" to the mix. But I think you should consider that, from the POV of someone who is not terribly interested in the topic area, like WGF, issues like whether or not a source is factually accurate in its description of Mt Hermon as "Israel's highest mountain", or whether "the summit" of a mountain straddles a border or it is just, perhaps, the lower slopes that straddle it, are nuances unlikely to leave much of an impression as clear examples of POV pushing - especially on an admin with a stated reluctance to look at such evidence in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Unique attack transports
Category:Unique attack transports, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)