User talk:Rhododendrites/2014a

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

please clarify
I do not understand this comment. Am I to understand the topic ban closure has been reversed? If so, please link me to where this is effected. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's been acted upon, but agreed with the direction that included lifting the topic ban. Not sure if he's waiting for additional support for what I had proposed, waiting for the other ANI to be created, or if he just hasn't gotten to stating so formally yet. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Has agreed where, if you could? I'd like to read the "judge's" words, assuming you are acting as an "amicus curiae". I don't want to challenge Jc37 to clarify something I am only aware of by rumor through you.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason individual diffs at the AN appear to have been scratched out, so I'll have to just copy and paste his part from the discussion: ...If we were to implement as User:Rhododendrites suggests, it would probably need to be another WP:AN/I discussion. (essentially a redo on technical grounds - both as User:Rhododendrites notes and as User:Nyttend and I discussed (wording: topic ban / page ban).) Then I in no way oppose starting a community discussion at WP:AN/I concerning whether one or more of the three editors should be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). This can be an appeal, or due to perceived confusion of the previous nomination, or even because WP:CCC... After those, I too was unclear that he was implying lifting the topic ban, so asked for clarification. He responded ...I don't oppose your proposal for a "re-do" on a discussion... and ...it would be a request to the community to consider the question: Should one or more of the three editors in question be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). I welcome this specific question being put before the community to discuss.... It would be useful for an explicit declaration of a lifted ban, yes, but given all that I don't think you could be faulted for assuming. The only other thing is in the meantime, considering the many concerns of our fellow Wikipedians, I would suggest all 3 editors stay away from the Ref Desk et al until this is resolved. Do with it what you will, I suppose? I sympathize with you that from start to finish this has been kind of confusing. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, that was a lot of work. I was just hoping for a pointer.  I appreciate it. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked NE ENT about that. The reason so many diffs were scratched was due to something having to be oversighted (in an unrelated section) which results in the loss of diff's, although the content remains untouched (in other sections including the one we're interested in). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that's frustrating. I'm sure you'll see the AN before you see this so it won't be a surprise, but apparently I'm wrong. Sorry. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand why it was necessary for them to clobber a whole bunch of diff's just to remove one item. Meanwhile, I was hinting at something at AN, and nobody seems to have picked up on it. So I'll put it slightly more directly: If one of the members of the interaction ban makes a comment indicating everyone at the ref desk is happy that we're banned, isn't that comment by itself a violation of the interaction ban? And whether it is or not, doesn't it require supporting evidence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But respectfully, I'd rather not start up that discussion on my talk page. I'm not very familiar with the nuance of IBAN policy myself, anyway. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I delete it here and post on the AN page? I only came here as you seem to be trying to be a voice of reason. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to delete. I just don't think it's something I can help with but is likely to open a larger discussion here that doesn't directly involve me. As to trying to be a voice of reason, that's one way to put it I guess. I approached this as someone concerned for the integrity of the refdesk, but the process -- from open to close to ensuing protest and defense -- was so messy that I think the imperative shifted (as far as I'm concerned anyway) to the integrity of Wikipedia policy and its application, which should be as predictable and orderly as possible. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will re-post at AN, and you can box this up or whatever. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

reason
More than once I have seen a suggestion something like: If you see a question that you can help with, feel free to do so....otherwise move on, leave questions that you don't understand, or questions that you don't like alone. That logic is followed by many of the regulars. I now see this editor's problematic behavior as intentional, with the desire to stir up drama. Your proposal, with its good intentions, was turned into a soapbox to continue the disruptions. Medeis will end up being banned, unfortunately it will be down the road, and after much more drama. 54.204.179.139 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Amazon-based 54. troll comes here for no purpose other than to cause trouble, and any content they post should be deleted on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Cards on the table
Hi, Ryan.

I'll be straight up. I find your inserting yourself at the third ANI since December seeking an interaction ban inappropriate and, frankly, personally hostile--based on hearsay, not actual misdeeds. But whatever the case, you don't find me lying about my motives, or portraying myself through sock puppets.

In contrast, however, you might want to look at the edit history of IP 54, a proxy account run through amazon to hide someone whose sole efforts have been to attack me (and one other editor the sock associates with me) since mid December.

See the edits of the following single-purpose proxy ccounts:


 * Dec 17, 2013
 * Dec 28-29, 2013
 * Dec 31, 2013
 * Jan 4, 2014
 * Jan 6, 2014
 * Jan 19, 2014
 * Jan 28, 2014

especially these contributions by soliciting two editors, and paralleling the solicitation of yourself and SteveBaker, again, tonight:

22:06, 16 December 2013 (diff | hist). . (+325)‎ . . User talk:JackofOz ‎ (→‎Baseball Bugs: new section) Is there something that can be done to get this moron to pipe down on questions at the Desks that he has no clue about? Your attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. 54.242.221.254 (talk) 10:06 pm, 16 December 2013, Monday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC−5) 22:04, 16 December 2013 (diff | hist). . (+373)‎ . . User talk:SteveBaker ‎ (→‎Baseball Bugs: new section) You need to get that moron sidekick of yours, Baseball Bugs, to find another hobby. He is of no use to the Ref. Desks. His nonsense it starting to irk me. Please find the time to get him under control. 54.242.221.254 (talk) 10:04 pm, 16 December 2013, Monday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC−5)

You will notice that nothing this user has said has been in good faith, and his only real-space edits have been to revert comments by the previous ANI subjects.

It's not my wish to attack the motives of users who've attacked me at an ANI. But I think it's worth pointing out to actual users like yourself when sockpuppets are trying you use you. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - I want to be clear that none of it is personal -- at least that's not how it's intended. Aside from perhaps being direct with my intentions I don't believe I've spoken ill about you at all outside the subject of certain refdesk editing activities. The basis of my position is twofold: problems I've seen myself (current and archived, on the desks and on the talk page[s]) and the grievances voiced by others that only serve to deepen my perception of the depth and duration of the problem. To call either the latter or the combination of the two "hearsay" ignores that it's the collaborative mechanisms like experience sharing and trust networks, combined with personal judgment, that necessarily function on every level of deliberation on Wikipedia. To put it most plainly, I do have an issue with some of the edits you make on the refdesk, but more importantly is that a lot of people have these problems and voice them to you...but, at least to my eye, you don't really seem to care. I think it would go a long way to more conscientiously balance the good you feel your actions would do -- actions which you can procedurally justify if needed, yes -- with the negative effects the actions would have on other people in the community and the productivity and morale of the community on a broader scale. Hmm...I'm pontificating now. Do with it what you will. FYI I have no [short-term, anyway] intention to launch a new ANI. Two attempts at, as you call it, "arbiter" is enough for a while, indeed. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute at the ref desk which is anywhere near large enough to override the risk of an editor committing harm to himself or others. Deleting it and turning it over to the WMF was the right and proper thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't think you have any personal animus, R. The problem is the effects are still bad.  I can understand from the uproar people might not be familiar with the policy on self-harm or realize the broader context in which the suicide thread lay.  The editor had already removed the problematic edits from his talk page, so they were not obvious unless you read his history.  When we have a single-purpose sock puppet going around making diffless, unsubstantiated accusations and complaining about drama, it is an open question whether fighting or causing drama is the secret user's intention. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want this to come back to the one example, but here we are
As I said above, I didn't want this to turn into an extended dispute of this one example. But the way you're both now wording it, a casual observer would be made to think there was someone threatening harm and removing his/her question/thread was necessary to ensure he/she didn't act on those threats. So, for the sake of talk page posterity:


 * 1) In fact, there was no threat made. The question asked was about predicting yearly suicide rates. Worded in part as a prediction, but it's a statistics question. We don't do predictions, no, but we do statistics and whether such statistical predictions have been done by others. We also do communicating with people who might not be aware of the scope of the page.
 * 2) The IP who asked the question has asked many legitimate and unrelated questions at the refdesk before. A few look for eschatological predictions or deal with some manner of religious speculation inappropriate for the refdesk, but it's clear he/she isn't disruptive. Even statistics requests have come up before.
 * 3) Medeis, your initial reaction was to close the thread and accuse the person of trolling because you didn't like that it seemed like it was requesting a prediction and the user (or someone else on the same IP) had been blocked in the past. If you're truly concerned about suicidal intentions, aggressively shutting down requests for information and discrediting intentions are pretty poor ways to help that person, no? (Even if policy did necessitate it, the way you did it does not show any indication -- as your words and Bugs's words above suggest -- that this is all for the sake of the user's well-being).
 * 4) Bugs correctly pointed out that this person is into doomsday predictions.
 * 5) You then deleted the thread based on the combination of (a) the subject of the thread (suicide statistics), and (b) the following text on the IP's user page:
 * 6) * "LAST JUDGMENT MAY 21 2011 to NOVEMBER 21 2014 / Inside myself is a dark place where I live all alone / I'm doomed / We have a problem and don't know what to do / End-time predictions: / February 22, 2014 (Ragnarök; 25 days; could happen) / February 28, 2014 (Last Judgment; 1 month; Benjamin Christen; won't happen) / June 1, 2014 (End of the world; 124 days; NASA; comet; won't happen) / November 21, 2014 (Last Judgment; 297 days; 78.156.109.166 aka Adrian Skotnicki (me); will happen) / December 16, 2014 (Google World Domination; 322 days; could happen) / October 7, 2015 (Last Judgment; 617 days; won't happen) / August 2015 - November 2015 (markbeast.com; won't happen) / 2016 (markbeast.com; won't happen) / 2017 (Last Judgment; weatherbill7"
 * 7) JohnReaves responds to an ANI on the matter (started by someone else) by saying "Looks more like a doomsday fanatic, the suicide aspect is specuation. Concerns should be directed to emergency at wikimedia.org though, not here."
 * 8) You created a new ANI to say you reported the IP to WMF/emergency. You point out the editor's recent block and refer to his/her refdesk question as evidence (the one about suicide statistics) of editing that's "disruptive at best, and suggesting we know the solution diff at their talk page amounts to self-threat." But again the contrary is the case: the link you provided (to a version of the user page with text identical to that quoted above but a diff just before the IP added the doomsday dates), specifically says we don't know the solution.
 * 9) JohnReaves reiterated that it seemed to be a person just interested in doomsday predictions and suggested you remove the ANI. You didn't. Here and also multiple times on the refdesk talk page you point to Responding to threats of harm for justification. You were absolutely right to contact WMF if you suspected suicidal behavior, yes. Number 3 at the top of that page, however, is "Contact an administrator privately to remove the revision from public view and have the user blocked" not post to a noticeboard and the reference desk talk page.

In sum, you accused a user of trolling when he/she asked a question about suicide statistics, hatted and then removed his/her question and subsequent answers, interpreted doomsday musings and predictions as suicidal threats, then used multiple public venues to try to have the user blocked, still maintaining that he/she was trolling/disruptive but continuing to point to WP:SUICIDE for justification, even though that page says to contact an admin privately...and, most importantly, even though no threat was ever made.

So you can "better safe than sorry" and point to policy as much as you like, but it was the unilateral actions you took to remedy the situation based on your own subjective judgment -- and inflexibility on those actions -- that was the disruption here. Reporting to WMF is as far as I can condone, because it's an avenue suited to discrete "see something say something" suspicion or liberal (even undiscerning) application of "better safe than sorry." Nothing else you did was in anybody's best interest -- let alone the user, whom you dismissed, accused of trolling, reported publicly multiple times, and made assumptions and judgments about their mental status. I can't imagine a clinical psychologist who wouldn't be cringing. We may not be a good venue for medical advice, but that doesn't mean we have to flip people off who might need it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this to the refdesk talk page. Not because I feel like people there really need to read it (and indeed I'm aware that I'm largely beating a dead horse here), but because I really don't want the discussion to fork here when there's one still a thread open there on the same subject. I would humbly appreciate it if we could keep it centralized. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Verasafe AfD
I think you meant "flurry" not "furry": Articles for deletion/Verasafe--Rockfang (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gah! Those single purpose furries are always causing trouble! :) Yes, you are correct. Fixed. Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

infobox
it gives more usefull to say "nazi germany" just like the infobox says "soviet union" and not "russia" 83.180.214.232 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that it's more specific, but usefulness is subjective and not reason alone to change something. The list is of "belligerents" and lists states involved. Nowhere is a country listed along with the dominant political force at the time. For anyone who is unclear that the Nazi's were in charge at the time, even though it says "Germany" it does link to Nazi Germany. Likewise Soviet Union (which is a legitimate name for the country that was the USSR, unlike "Nazi Germany" which was still Germany) links to Stalin era. Ultimately, the main concern is more pedantic: Infoboxes should be clean and clear, so having one country tagged with a political party (or whatever we want to call it) sticks out as inconsistent and confusing. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

you also edit warred! 83.180.214.232 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * not trying to give you a particularly hard time, here. I reverted two times. Wikipedia has a rule that you cannot make the same change more than 3 times in a 24 hours period. It results in automatic block. (See WP:3RR). This is because it's disruptive to constantly change the article/template. It should be discussed on the talk page [well] before being changed for the 4th time. The warning was a heads up, because you might not know about the 3RR (in other words, I didn't report a 3RR violation but now you know). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * update: When I left the WP:3RR warning on your page, I saw that there were more than just the two reverts in your contribution history. I didn't realize you undid yourself multiple times. Apologies. My mistake. Still, I wish I could make it clear that this shouldn't be controversial -- it's basic style/formatting stuff. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Universal Grammar
The page is the subject of a group project at the University of Virginia. Kns2fj (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - Excellent. Thanks. I've tagged the article talk page with an "educational assignment" template to let others know. Is this the course: Education Program:University of Virginia/Adolescent Development (Spring 2014)? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * - The class is Psycholinguistics, not the Adolescent Development class mentioned above. Additional pages involved in this project at this time include Statistical Language Acquisition and Poverty of Stimulus. Kns2fj (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The deletion prod
Yeah sorry I had to undo yours as I put a prod the guy kept on deleting. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - No worries. I had somehow forgotten that BLP PROD was different from PROD so saw its removal as reason to XfD. It might be worth mentioning, however, that if you google the full name specified in the article it returns only this article. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I once put a prod up for someone and then changed it to a speedy when they said it was a famous actor and I went "If he is so famous why doesn't the IMDB even have a page?" Wgolf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why was my reference to grafShare deteled
Not sure if you will see the reply on my talk page, so adding a comment here. Maybe you can help me out. I had created a page for my company called grafShare but it was "speed deleted". It was a simple page describing our software. So if we are not allowed to do this, then how are supposed to have a "notable" reference for pages like this. The collaborative software page is talking about software that enables collaboration, which grafShare does very well and was designed for this. Timgriesbach (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - I think many of your questions could be answered better by a couple Wikipedia policies: WP:NOTABILITY is about what is/isn't considered "notable" and WP:CORPDEPTH is a specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. The short version: a company is considered notable if it's been the subject of significant, in depth coverage in independent, reliable, third party sources. In other words, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, something has to be more noteworthy (defined as such) than most other companies out there. Similarly, lists on Wikipedia aren't intended to be exhaustive lists of all x that exist but rather a list of notable x. Basically it means if something doesn't already have its own Wikipedia article it's not supposed to be listed lest Wikipedia turn into the yellow pages, a link farm, or a directory. I'd also recommend checking out WP:COI. It wasn't a factor here, but you should know that because of a string of recent high-profile cases of people trying to edit articles for their own personal benefit, editors are extremely sensitive to people writing with a conflict of interest or anything that appears promotional. It can be frustrating for the well-meaning smaller developers, companies, websites, etc. but it's a necessary part of what makes Wikipedia work. Hope that answers your questions. If not, leave a message and I'd be happy to help. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your reply was very helpful - sounds like you have had to explain this before! I am newer to posting on wikipedia and likely don't appreciate some of what you pointed.  These policies definitely make it hard for small developers trying to get something going.  While your points make sense, too bad there's not some means on Wikipedia to account for this. Thanks again. Timgriesbach (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ultimately while Wikipedia's scope is much broader than traditional encyclopedias, it does still retain the same kinds of standards held by Britannica and the like. In other words, as a tertiary source it's not the place to break news, talk about the newest stuff, or promote the smaller players. It winds up doing a lot of that because there are so many people involved, but only when the stuff has been widely reported elsewhere already. It still reinforces the status quo -- just less so than print encyclopedias. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Act of killing
The BAFTAs are delayed by 2 hours. It's already won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowlibob (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - oh I wasn't disputing the results. Just maintaining proper counts. When I made the page I included every item listed as "pending" in the "nominated" count in the infobox since if it's pending it has already been nominated. So if it then wins that one, 1 should be deducted from the "nominated" count and added to the "won" count. If something does not win, though, it wouldn't change the count. There might be a better way to organize it, but that's what the current page reflects anyway. Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)