User talk:Kurtis/Archive 7

Just to reply from the RFA. I found all aspects of KG's behavior bad particularly what you mentioned. However on my rough and imperfect sliding scale of worse-osity, the comment was abusive and outrageous. However the application of BLPBAN was not only abuse of admin power, but abuse of an admin power designed to be a nuclear option that cuts off all challenges to authority. On a macro scale I classify that worse, although If I were Eric I'd likely feel otherwise. Won't argue though if you personally rank them differently.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:Oh OK then, that makes perfect sense to me. I totally understand where you're coming from. :-)

:I think our difference of opinion is based on two separate perspectives; my leanings are a little more geared towards the personal than the big picture (probably goes with being an INFP). Ascribing such malice to Eric bothered me even more than the arbitrary restriction that followed; the latter was a blatant abuse of power to silence a critic, but the former dehumanized him. This should not suggest that I don't find Eric to be exceedingly coarse in manner at times (although I've never failed to get along with him in our extremely limited past interactions), just that I categorically reject the accusations that were placed against him. I was also troubled by Kevin's disinclination towards an apology. At least an acknowledgement that he has caused someone serious, unjustified offense through his words would have sufficed. Maybe such introspection did occur, and if someone provides evidence that runs counter to my interpretation of events, then I'll stand corrected. Nevertheless, that whole debacle was profoundly disheartening, to say the least. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a nice and positive post over at the Arbcom case page. Don't know if it's true but you make a good case, and it's pleasing to hear something positive. It does seem sometimes that one can get a negative vibe from looking at the various places where disputes are aired, but of course the Wikipedia is generally very successful overall and continues to be. Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for your sentiments, I appreciate them.

:Yes I do get a negative vibe from certain aspects of Wikipedia. Actually, I'll broaden that to say that I find the internet in general a pretty negative place these days. For instance, every other Facebook post is about how society is going to Hell in a hand basket. There's all this reminiscing about the "good ol' days" when kids were highly motivated and respected their elders. According to some sources, crimes such as child molestation, rape, and murder are on the rise, when in fact these offences are just being reported on a more consistent basis. These atrocities have always existed, and an argument could be made that they are on the decline. Seems like everyone who participates in forums about international news stories such as Syria's catastrophic civil war or the crisis in Ukraine has some sort of conspiracy theory to push; it's as if there's no such thing as an internal conflict that was sparked by domestic sources (i.e. authentic revolution). I think the world needs to become a more positive place — it's no more unrealistic than being stuck in a cynical rut all the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I too agree that WP's gotten a lot better - I've not really seen an administrator abuse his or her power the way I've seen them in the past. Regular users seem to be a bit more civil on average, too. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

:And it's a relief, because Wikipedia functions so much better without all the power trips and misplaced aggression. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

::Agreed. Hope you feel better enough to return to the Wiki full time! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for that as well. I've been going through a huge identity crisis and it's really taken its toll on my well-being. I'm looking into adequate support structures to help me overcome these obstacles, but there is little doubt that it's going to take me a while. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

::::I've recently been having difficulties w/ what I believe to be anxiety; a lot of different pressures coming at me all at once and all. Here's hoping that the both of us can be in a better way w/ respect to our mental health. :) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Back when i was an administrator, you often had strongly left wing writers trying to impose their slant on articles about left-wing subjects and topics. Just look at the edit history of the Communist Party of Australia - you have a communist editor stating that non-communist and anti-communists shouldn't be allowed to edit the article. I got frustrated that these left wing people were getting away with it and tried to bring attention to it through taking action. Paul Austin (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:As a left-wing editor myself (albeit anti-communist), I completely agree with taking action to mitigate systemic bias in principle. But with regards to the RfC filed against you back in 2006 (holy crap, that was almost eight years ago now), the examples provided were a cause for concern. If you want my honest assessment, it seemed you were frequently too eager to play the admin card rather than attempting to deal with a given issue diplomatically.

:For example, I assume you understand in retrospect how the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AChicocvenancio 100-hour block] placed on Chicocvenancio for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=48831135 edits] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=48835412 such] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=50316991 as] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=50313745 these] (the first of which was self-reverted almost immediately afterwards) came across as unfair. Chicocvenancio clearly did have a political bias of sorts, and his edits could easily be perceived as POV-pushing. But as a new user with relative inexperience, he was not yet fully aware of Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards for neutrality; I guarantee you that in his mind, he was actually attempting to counter an anti-communist bias. The first thing anyone should do when dealing with someone who meets the definition of a "civil POV-pusher" is to approach them about it, and try reasoning with them. It was clear from his posts on the talk page that he was willing to discuss his changes with other editors, and so persuading him into accepting the established consensus might not have been a huge challenge. By administering a block, you ran the risk of turning away a potentially valuable contributor. It's also troubling that you immediately suspected him to be a sockpuppet, but failed to substantiate any evidence in support of that claim.

:Make no mistake about it, I am entirely in favour of taking a tougher stance against POV-pushing (which is precisely why I backed away from Waldorf education following my assessment of the article), but only after other venues of dispute resolution have been attempted. Editors who are chronically unable to recognize their own biases and how it impacts their editing may unfortunately have to be turned away from topic areas of concern; it's a harsh reality, but a reality nevertheless. Blocking someone from the onset to preemptively head off future trouble has two adverse effects: it deters them from contributing to the site altogether, and it sends a chilling effect to everyone else who may wish to participate in editing a given page. It's in the spirit of editor retention to favour the carrot over the stick. Wikipedia is a community-based project — pretty much everyone has something to offer. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:::I doubt I'd be made an administrator ever again though. I genuinely did see communist/extreme leftist editors thanking each other on talk pages for "looking after" articles on Lenin, Fidel Castro, et al. Someone had to do something but no one did. Paul Austin (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::I'm sure you did. There are many people who cannot acknowledge their own biases when editing, and it often clouds their judgment as to how others with differing opinions may view their changes. Just for the record, although I disagree with many of your decisions back then, I still do hold you in high regard as a long-standing and valued contributor. There are other ways to make a difference in the struggle against POV-pushing, most of which don't even mandate the use of sysop tools. You can open RfCs on article talk pages, so as to attract attention from the broader community and achieve a more impartial consensus. That being said, would you say that the problem has improved or worsened since that time? I find Wikipedia a much better source today than it's ever been. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I came here to ask you why this was still a redlink, but then I saw the mental health notice above and decided to just leave you a message wishing you lots of luck. I expect you will be feeling better soon :) → Call me Hahc21 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note, I really appreciate it. Yes, I've been struggling quite a bit in real life these days, and my activities on Wikipedia have diminished in recent months. I still haven't gotten a ton of CSD work in, unfortunately, and I'm a bit slow when it comes to anti-vandal work. I think I do eventually want to submit another RfA, once I get back into the swing of things and feel confident in my chances at passing. I suspect if I'd submitted one today, I'd fare much better than I did last time around, but I'm still not sure if it'd pass.

:Speaking of adminship, congrats on your own recent successful RfA. Always great to bring another capable hand into the fold. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 01:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks! :-) Well, I am sure you will do an excellent sysop. You have always been a mature and seasoned user, one of those who rarely loses their heads. I will be more than honoursed to serve as your nom whenever you decide to put yourself against the slaughtering wall ;-) → Call me Hahc21 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks again. I'd be glad to accept you as a nominator when the time comes. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. And per your comment at the RfA, yeah, I totally would've scattered my own eggshells around anything related to deletion after all those opposes. Thank you for assuming good faith on my part. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:No problem. And why wouldn't I assume good faith on your part? There's no reason for me to think you have any bad intentions or anything. You're doing fine — keep up the good work! Kurtis ^(talk) 13:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hands4 Overlaying.jpg

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is a courtesy notice to say you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#F.C3.A6. --Fæ (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:I've responded there. I'm sorry if you felt as if my comments had cast you in an unduly negative light. The issue I had was with your request for a WMF official to intercede; in retrospect, I probably should not have mentioned your position as chair of Wikimedia UK, the relevance of which was disputed even by the Arbitration Committee at the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:Heh. Well, this was unexpected. Thanks! :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608966072 here]. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, all it does is print out the text for each citation. In my mind, it's a bizarre thing to use as a template and it violates WP:T3. At the same time, yes, it does have 9 various assorted citations put in it with the only reasoning being that those are all somewhat related to each other and so editors can just go through them all without having to remember other citations (although the documentation that says "don't use R2, use R8 now" tells you why it's problematic. I've opened an RFC at here but I don't expect much. I'm certain I'll be told that it's used too much to be changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for posting here — I was a bit confused at first, but now I understand what the template is used for. If consensus is against its retention, perhaps the best solution would be to phase it out, using the references themselves on each article before returning it to TfD. I'm still undecided about whether it benefits the project more than individual citations, but I'll keep an eye on the RfC and participate once I've heard some strong arguments on both sides. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

:: It's cryptic as hell, it cites a variety of sources (many out of date) all in one piece (the one India one hilariously makes my point) and all it's doing is hard-coding cite web citations. It can be renamed, split or finally deleted (all of which will take years to accomplish) but if people think that it's fine as it, I'll shrug and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

:::It seems like Rich Farmbrough has a novel idea being developed at this makeshift sandbox. I think templated references can be useful when used in the right places, so as to avoid doing a bunch of repetitive work on various different articles. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::::That version has now been implemented, which means we don't need to worry about the change in the Factfinder website. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

:::::Heh. All the better, then. Good work, Rich! Kurtis ^(talk) 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you for taking the time to recognize the consideration and effort I put into that post. It means a lot, really. I'm glad the issue there is being handled effectively; neither party is innocent, but hopefully they can work this all out. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::Agreed, superior BY FAR to the great majority of TL;DR posts. I think if the same words of wisdom were instead used to comment on the editorial interaction there, it would be more productive. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your sentiments. Here's hoping you can get the situation between yourself and Paisan1 resolved, and find ways to work better with one another. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

::::That would be the hope of anyone. But it looks like some of our fellow editors are are not willing to let that possibility spring up. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, my diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is now disputed. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows:

• On the :Sohar page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614338036 your edit] caused a DOI error (help). ([{{fullurl:Sohar|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AReferenceBot%7CReferenceBot%5D%5D}} Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F614338036%7C{{Replace|Sohar| |%20}}%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new report it to my operator].

Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

:Ah, I see what I did wrong. Fixed. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)