This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He is one of the more prolific editors but he's extremely biased and for the most part he has no idea about the subjects he contributes to. I don't mean to turn this into a witch hunt but what can be done about him?--Craigboy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've talked to multiple times but he doesn't really listen and then goes off on strange tangents that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.--Craigboy (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also becoming increasingly tired of his disruptive editing. He keeps flogging a dead horse with the ISS dialect dispute, as soon as he thinks its been forgotten he just brings it back up again trying to wikilawyer to get his own way, and when the consensus invariably goes against him, he just claims it is invalid. It's got to the stage now that I can't have a discussion with him because he just goes off at a tangent claiming everything I say is invalid because I don't accept his position on this issue. It is at best disruptive editing, and at worst harassment. --W.D.Graham14:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Morning folks, nice to be back. I can't agree more with this - ever since he waltzed in, making 'improvements' to the ISS article which led to its FA delisting and current sorry state, I've been appalled by his behaviour - take the section above regarding the new portal which arrived. He's marked it as resolved, but all that's happened is he's 'made contact' and written a load of gibberish in response. No discussion took place at all. Takes it upon himself to declare policy and make edits which should be via consensus, and it's extremely irritating & disruptive. SalopianJames (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penyulap, it might actually do you some good to read these comments rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're in the wrong place, and if you do read them you might notice that I didn't put the discussion here, I only joined it. In any case, you should be glad we're discussing it here, and not elsewhere; here we might find a way to help you contribute constructively, if we took it to ANI, you'd probably just end up with a topic ban or another block. Your call. I think your main problem is that you can't stay serious and on-topic long enough to discuss anything with you. --W.D.Graham01:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 It's OK now, everyone stay calm, I've unplugged his Arduino, please go back to what you were doing, oh yes, that's right discussing me... Penyulap ☏ 01:07, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Pen, nobody disputes that you're passionate and knowledgable, it's just that if you listened when people discussed you, and accept that the reason they often discuss you might be you, not them, there'd be a whole lot fewer discussions about you. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listened in regards to what Bushranger ? Penyulap ☏ 01:13, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
And what would you suggest in relation to any specific issue ? prove your point ? well what issue ? choose one. Penyulap ☏ 01:20, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
That's his other main problem, he never listens to anybody who he disagrees with. For example, he's been taking the ISS talk page around in circles for the last year with three or four proposals to change the article's dialect, just ignoring the opposition to his proposal and claiming he has consensus regardless of the previous outcomes; restarting the discussion whenever it dies down. On one occasion he put up an {{editprotected}} to try and push through part of his proposal (despite a page of objections below it), and then nearly got into a revert war with the admin who declined it. --W.D.Graham01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cn, since when am I trying to change the var ? more importantly, where is the consensus for it to be change, or kept as it is ? Penyulap ☏ 01:31, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess you don't want to diff anything then ? well I can diff a straw poll where WDGraham tied it up back to front, so that the status quo votes were hijacked in his own favor, to keep the eng var template against consensus,. interesting read that one, I can show you many editors who were quite upset about it too. yes, but you think there is consensus do you ? but you can't diff anything can you ? Penyulap ☏ 01:41, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Well Craigboy is upset because on the CSS article, he didn't like the picture I drew, he wanted to delete it and replace it with his own. I don't care when it's just 1 to 1, however since April, Academica Orientalis has stated support for the image which I drew, which is based on the Chinese Government's own website's picture. So with 2 to 1, I would either put both pics in, or just the one that has support from Academica Orientalis. Then Academica Orientalis had put it into an overview article of science and technology in China, and Craigboy swapped it for a very inappropriate pic there, which I thought didn't provide the feel that the editor was aiming for, and I supported the original pic. Which he didn't like, and kept changing back. (that pic has since gained wider support, but Craigboy still is unhappy apparently)
Then there is the ISS article, where two other editors besides myself thought that an in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system didn't belong in the China section, so that was 3 to 1 against, and he kept putting it in. The problem here isn't actually Craigboy, who I think is a fine editor for reasons you'll never know unless I told you. The problem is WDGraham continually ignoring all editors on the ISS talkpage who disagree with him, over and over again for is it four years now ? I don't know, but it's like, three times longer than I have been an editor that he and Ckatz have been suppressing other editors on the ISS talkpage. So if they are like "Oh penyulap isn't listening to me" it's because I can freaking count is what I can do. I can diff consensus and support because I do not ignore people. So it is the remarkably poor example being set by WDGraham in regards to 'if it's archived it doesn't exist' that is confusing other editors. However, even when there are editors who are objecting to his point of view, in the same discussion, and same section he still refuses to acknowledge them. (not me, other editors) Penyulap ☏ 02:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
So Bushranger, I'd like to know, as you seem happy to give advice, tell me how I could possibly be any more accommodating to these two ? -Pen
(I made Bushranger aware of my question on his talkpage, but he seems to not wish to answer) -Pen
"Well Craigboy is upset because on the CSS article" I'm upset over more then just that. "he wanted to delete it" I never nominated your image for deletion, although you did nominate one of my images for deletion and the reason you listed was "If there was an artist with a computer who could be bothered making space station images, then this image could be replaced". "Craigboy swapped it for a very inappropriate pic there" Penyulap please stop lying. The image I replaced was that of the Chinese space station. "then there is the ISS article, where two other editors besides myself thought that an in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system didn't belong in the China section, so that was 3 to 1 against, and he kept putting it in." False, you were replacing my text with with unsourced and controversial claims. The only reason why I was adding an "in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system" was because you kept on crying wolf about American bias when it was mentioned that the Chinese docking system is probably only compatible with the US portion of the ISS.--Craigboy (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right and I am wrong, you didn't want to delete it. One point to Craigboy, I apologize. You wanted to remove all instances on English wikipedia of the image being used in article space (it's used on Chinese wikipedia as well I think, other places there is no article)
I did nominate the OPSEK CG for deletion as it in my opinion can be replaced with a free image, you are right.
3 to 1 would be in this section, where U5K0 is quite liking a particular version where it quickly says China uses the Russian designed APAS and the section moves on. He says his initial concerns with statements in the section are resolved, and suggests the detailed discussion might go into the docking section. That would be one, number two is Cs302b, who supports the docking discussion in the main article, but is quite doubtful over both it's inclusion in the China section, and the China section itself. In fact, there is more support I think for deleting the China section itself, it's margins are narrower, but afaik still balancing for it to be in there. But an in depth discussion within that section is quite unpopular. So, U5K0, Cs302b and I all want and support your discussion of the APAS docking system, we all want it, and we want it in the docking section. GIVE US YOUR WORK !!! gimme, gimme, gimme ! we want your work Craigboy.
So everyone wants your work at 3 to 1 and more, but at 3 to 1, we don't feel it belongs in the China section. If it were in the docking section where it belongs, then I wouldn't be 'crying wolf' as you call it, because you'd have the space required to describe it properly and explain everything, and please, when it is explained in depth you can use the word 'clone' and everything else you desire, because it can be properly qualified and expanded on. It's just where all the sources need to be compressed into a single half sentence that a fair summary of all sources, not just one, becomes so very important. Penyulap ☏ 11:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
In the policy you point to, on line number one, it says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created," as I mentioned, it could be created. Look at the two of us, we are both artists who make images of space stations for articles, between the two of us, surely we could create an image. Penyulap ☏ 14:51, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Or for that matter, James is upset about the former FA status of the article he put so much effort into, understandable he feels that way, but if he actually thought for one bleeding second that it was 'ruined' then he has frick'in Rollback, so why doesn't he just roll it back ? If it was possible to find a better version, obviously that would be possible, but the current version is clearly as good as it is ever going to be until people stop moping about and get back to editing. It can't be rolled back because there is no possible way to find anything better than the article that has been built now, so how can we start working together better ? Advice ? Penyulap ☏ 02:29, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I edited the policy, so please take my clarification with a grain of salt, until it has gained a bit more support, or at least until it has been there for some time. Otherwise it is pretty easy to ask about it, or get involved in the discussion on that policy page, because we'll need to do a good job to either explain it to you, or explain it to me, or preferably explain it to everyone. Penyulap ☏ 15:35, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
What you need to do is to take a deep breath, not think - at all - about what other editors have or have not done, and ask yourself this. 'If I was an experienced editor looking at my work, what would I think? How would I react myself if I saw another editor doing what I do?'. If there actually aren't any problems, then the thing to do is not to snipe back; any accusations they levy will be sloughed off like water off a duck's back by the quality of your work when inspected. If there are any problems, then the next thing to do is 'how do I improve as an editor?', and to consider what others have to say about it. That's what I'd suggest. - The BushrangerOne ping only02:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I were an experienced editor looking at the wikiproject being used in a manner consistent with harassing an editor I might take slightly longer to work out who is the problem before weighing in with an opinion. I guess that is what I do at ANI, I take time to read up before I compute. I'd personally take time out of my ongoing editing to find out if the consensus is clear and apparent in that editors favor before suggesting that they are the one who doesn't listen. That way I'd not make the mistake of thinking that it's only three editors are unhappy with one, but rather it's multiple editors, across multiple articles, that are unhappy with two editors here. Who is not listening to who is a very simple question to answer correctly if you took 3 minutes to have a look at the talkpages concerned. Penyulap ☏ 02:55, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, stop accusing me of being at fault here. Find one post in this discussion which backs up your claim. Oh, there isn't one. In fact, that discussion demonstrates consensus to keep it as it is. So shut up, stop harassing me about it, and start doing something more constructive. --W.D.Graham06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this activity should be documented, but I accept consensus is against me until I can change it, I don't continue to add it into the article even months or years after the last discussion because I go on respecting other editors long after they have stopped discussing the subject
You're to blame. You ignore other editors, you've ignored them for years, before I ever started editing wikipedia, you ignore them now, and with God as my witness you'll go on ignoring them forevermore, you ignore them when they say "This is a monument to the failure of the wiki system" and that is in the exact same discussion where you're ignoring them. An editor returns after having left the article just to quote Red Forman ? and you still don't see anything wrong with your behavior. That's year after year after year of not respecting other editors. Me, I'm an idiot, a damfool idiot, thank you James, I go on and on and on about yellow hats in the space station because we have an image and it's photographic evidence and I'd like to describe what is going on, but you don't see me shoving it into the article today, or for months, because I accept that it would take more to convince everyone that it can be documented than I'm willing to put in. I understand consensus. I respect other editors and I do not consider consensus to have changed if the page is archived, I go on respecting their opinions, even if they have left the project. Meh, but that's just me, I have probably forgotten more about consensus than some people will ever know.
James I am certain does not like me, but he has surprised me by putting emotion aside in favor of reason when he really didn't have to, and I respect that. He may think I ruined his favorite article, which to be honest is patently untrue, Brad says it barely got through into FA and he would have voted against it. I would hope that one day he'll stop feeling sorry the article was demoted and look towards improving it. I personally don't see a pressing need to give ownership editors sharper teeth to maul newbies with, so I don't care if it has the technical status or not, I only care that everyone can edit, and that the article has no gaping holes or serious problems. The article would be impossible to bring back to FA without a good portion of the material I inserted remaining. Sure, a lot needs to go, but what remains would be a substantial obstacle on the path to FA for my critics. They would have to face the fact that the article hasn't been 'ruined', and there is a lot of damn brilliant material in it. So the path back to FA continues on the precise timetable which I predicted at the FAR, nobody is willing to rewrite the future there as far as I can see. Penyulap ☏ 11:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
yes I know, it's a bit sparse that Christmas article, but there is always room for improvement, go and delete it/edit it/fix it if it bothers you that much. As for the Hats, take a look at the article, there are NO yellow hats, I would LIKE more yellow hats but there is just not enough support for it, so of course, I don't put it back in. Simple. Penyulap ☏ 13:51, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Instead of making another personal attack, please answer my question. Is there a single post in the most recent discussion which supports your position? --W.D.Graham11:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, if you'd like me to give you beginner's lessons in understanding consensus, then you can start by not telling me to 'shut up', because if you would like someone's help, you shouldn't be telling them to shut up at the same time. (actually I remember someone putting it in the same actual sentence in real life, zomg, that was hilarious) Penyulap ☏ 14:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I know what consensus is, thank you, but actually that's quite an interesting point. Please describe, in your own words, what consensus is. --W.D.Graham14:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that this seems to have tailed off a bit; but guys, please, could you all consider being the recipients of GrannyHugz from Granny Pesky, combined with nice cup of tea/probably the best beer in the world, cakes, muffins, crumpets [stop the wicked sniggering at the idea of "crumpet", guys! Oh, really! Men!] and so on. Good folks often have disagreements on stuff, and good folks can have bad days (it's called "being human"), and good folks can misunderstand each other and/or misremember things. Little spats like this are all part of normal human interactions (what animal behaviourists call "species-normal"), but it's important always not to let ourselves get too entrenched in them, to the point where we lose sight of the bigger picture and start focussing on all the bad bits. So, shake hands all around, or group hug, or whatever works for you. Hugz to all from Granny Pesky. Pesky (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been mostly on Wikibreak recently, and just stumbled into this discussion today; perhaps I'm too late to add much. However, I will say that the summary of the situation by the first several commenters on this topic (Craigboy, PALZ9000, W. D. Graham, Salopian James, and Bushranger), and their analysis of the problem, matches my own observations on a number of space related articles over a number of months. Should the need arise, feel free to invite me to comment more specifically should that ever become necessary. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth having a look at his talk page, some interesting discussions going on there. He's also trying to open the ISS dispute again (including his attempts here and on my user talk page, I think that's the sixth time in the space of a year that he has started exactly the same discussion) - this time by consulting an administrator with his usual biased summary, without notifying anybody else involved in the discussion. He also continues to harass me by making irrelevant claims about my actions in discussions which don't even concern me; I suspect he is just trying to provoke a dispute. I am sure he means well - he has by his own admission a mental health issue which can cause "altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them", and he has made some very useful and valuable contributions so I don't want to lose him from the project - but I believe he is out of control, and we should seriously consider taking this discussion to the next level, either WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. Any thoughts? --W.D.Graham20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am opposed to is wasting any more editor time and resources on a discussion which has achieved nothing but creating a tonne of ill-feeling within this project. Uninvolved help would change nothing, no one editor has the power to overrule the rest of the community. In the other discussion, you said that you wanted to address the feelings of all editors on the talk page. The majority are just weary of the constant discussion of this issue, and just want it to end. I believe the comment about it being a "monument to the failure of the wiki process" was referring to the endless discussion rather than the content issue itself. If you truly want to address the concerns of all editors involved, please listen to those who just want this discussion to die with the little dignity that it still has. --W.D.Graham23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have seen useful contributions to the project by Penyulap; but too often have seen vast amounts of editor time wasted by unconstructive edit battles, point-of-view endless discussion, etc. I don't have the time to put the summary of the situation together, but I would certainly support the discussion at WP:RFC/U that would follow if someone else chooses to do that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penyulap is one of the best editors we have in the project when it comes to his abilities and knowledge regarding a great many things both of spaceflight and WP itself. I've had little interaction with him, but from what I've been able to read in talk pages, something is out of place. It may be what WDGraham suggests (which I was not aware of), that he has a mental issue, which I have no problem with, but whatever it is, it has become very disruptive. Making sense of his comments on talk pages is somewhat difficult; is he trying for humor? sarcasm? something else? These things are rather difficult to comprehend through text. Maybe we just need to ask him to explain himself and his intentions better, but it would seem some have already tried that. At one point I thought maybe he was not fully proficient in English due to some very incoherent comments, which again is something I have no problem with, and he had a hard time explaining himself. Regardless, the amount of time and manpower this project and its editors are spending dealing with him is too much. We should be editing and improving the encyclopedia, not dealing with disruptive editors. While I have no conflicts with with him, I would support taking this to WP:RFC/U. I do not want him banned from the project, but something needs to be done to improve the situation. I would only be OK with taking this to WP:ANI after we tried WP:RFC/U. At some point we may have to decide if the pro's outweigh the con's of having him in the project. --WingtipvorteX(talk)∅16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wingtipvortex how about this, you pick any one issue with any one of these editors and investigate it. I'd be happy with a second opinion. Penyulap ☏ 20:44, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, maybe this is what we mean. Could you explain yourself a little better? (And I say this very kindly) I really would like you to be more specific. You want me to choose an issue I personally have with one of these other editors? Or that we (all the editors here) choose an issue we have with you? Or something else? What kind of a second opinion are you looking for? And what do you mean when you say you'd be happy with it? --WingtipvorteX(talk)∅23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is this, you pick any one editor and find out exactly what it is they are bitching and whining pointlessly complaining about and see if they are not bitching and whining pointlessly complaining, see if they have any actual point, or if they simply do not like consensus going against them. Pick an issue, any issue, make yourself the judge and then tell us who is correct and who is incorrect. Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to help me in any way, I stand on the solid ground of policy. You are the one I am trying to help. You seem upset whenever I mention the poll which you tied up back to front, stealing all the status quo votes. You seem to think I should also sweep it under the carpet along with the editors who, even today, are still upset over something that you did 3 years ago and STILL will not admit was wrong. Penyulap ☏ 23:59, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Maybe because it wasn't? You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything that doesn't fit because you can't accept that you are wrong. And I don't get "upset whenever [you] mention" it, I just can't be bothered to waste any more of my life arguing with a brick wall. --W.D.Graham00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Maybe because it wasn't? " hold on, are you changing your position further now, to say tying up the poll back to front was defensible ? Penyulap ☏ 02:25, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
No. What I'm saying is that you can't accept facts that don't fit with your version of events. The RfC was not "back to front", the article was started in British English, and was never fully in American. Now if you can find the consensus to change it to American before the previous RfC, then I would be willing to discuss this, but right now all I can see is a Tendentious editor who is blind to anything that doesn't help his case. --W.D.Graham07:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New section titled "British English versus American English for this Article"
There are those of you out there that have changed this article's English format which originally was written in American English to British English without soliciting the opinions of the Wikipedia community at large. Changing this article from American English to British English because other space flight articles are written that way is not a reason. Secondly, some think that because the space station is "international" it should be written in British English. Sorry, folks that's not a reason either. The ISS started life as an American program and the US has been the largest contributor of funding for this program. Use of American English versus British English in an article such as this should respect the country that has had the most profound impact upon it. Special Contributions 70.170.125.247 00:02, 11 March 2009
So you say there was a conversion, or are you saying you never said that there was a conversion ? Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
It was so long ago that I can't remember exactly what I meant by that, maybe I meant that it was converted from mixed to standardised, or maybe I just made a mistake. In any case, ad hominemtu quoque arguments aside, you have proven my point. If you actually took the time to look at the page history then it would very quickly become clear that your position is very silly since the answer is quite obvious. Here is a revision a couple of weeks before it was standardised; it is not written in American English, there is no standardisation. But you're just going to ignore that so you can go on waging your little war against everyone who disagrees with you. I mean here is the article written entirely in British English in 2001. Hypothetically, if the article were, as you claim, converted into American English, why do you feel that change would be appropriate, and the change back wouldn't be? This is not the first time I have asked you this, but you have never replied. I'm assuming that's because you know your position is indefensible and hypocritical, and you're hoping others won't notice? --W.D.Graham15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has too much humor, which is not a problem, but uses it on humour-barred pages(PALZ9000 also does) which is the problem. Yes and i just asked if it was wise to put santions on him. If he disobeyes the santions, he'd have to face a block for 90 days.Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with his humour as long as it doesn't affect the encyclopaedic tone of articles (as it did with the hats issue), or prevent us discussing serious issues with him. As for sanctions, and I hope they aren't needed, it would be for an administrator to decide, not us. --W.D.Graham11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Investigation'
As requested of me by Penyulap, here is my investigation.
I won't focus on a specific editor as I have no desire to create further conflict rather, I will focus on the International Space Station article, which appears to be the most debated article and, more specifically, on the issue of whether or not the article should be in British or American English, which seems to be where the biggest and most heated problems are.
The debates have been going on for a lengthy amount of time, longer than I have been editing Wikipedia. Given that I have never edited the ISS article, I believe I qualify as a neutral third party when it comes to this dispute.
The last discussion had regarding the correct spelling format for the article focused on Penyulap's disagreement with the British English template, which according to him implied a consensus that was never reached. Users Navy Blue 84, WD Graham and Ckatz participated in the discussion, all claiming said consensus had already been attained.
The earliest talk page discussion regarding the type of English occurred in 2009, where a straw poll was held to decide if the article, which at the time was written in British English, should be changed to American English. The result was no consensus, and no changes were made as per WP:ENGVAR.
Looking through the archived discussions, there are no indications of when a consensus for the British English standard was established. All my research indicates the article was at one point standardized from a mix of Englishes into British, and while some people asked why it was in British, no consensus was ever reached for changing it.
Often reviving the discussion was Penyulap, who many times requested for officially establishing consensus for a language variant. The archives show most times he was pointed towards prior discussions regarding the subject and little action took place.
Penyulap has brought up the issue of a language consensus repeatedly. This has not been taken kindly by several editors, most notably WD Graham. It is likely WD's aggravation is also due to other issues with Penyulap.
Penyulap asked me to see if other editors “have any actual point, or if they simply do not like consensus going against them.” As far as I can tell, no consensus was ever reached against them. While I have no indication of WD having a conflict of interest when it comes to preventing the article from using American English, his user page does contain a user box with the following text: “This user does not understand American English and doesn't bloody well want to.” While this is likely to be sarcasm and a little tongue-in-cheek humor, I'd like him to clarify that the fact he appears to not like American English is not the reason he has so greatly opposed Penyulap's requests.
In summary
In the original discussion I'm focusing on, which sparked a lot of heated debate, Penyulap asked to remove the British English template from the talk page. His concern was that consensus had not been reached to have it present and the views of many other editors were being ignored.
Navy Blue claimed Penyulap was the only user who complained about the templates being there. As far as this investigation has been able to determine, that statement was correct. Navy Blue, WD and Ckatz claimed there was a consensus reached to put those templates there. As far as my investigation has determined, that is incorrect.
The only consensus my investigation has found was to not change an article that somehow managed to become British English into American English. No other consensus regarding the matter were found in the archived discussions.
Penyulap's claims that there are other editors' views being ignored are partially true. While there have been editors who have expressed a desire to have the article converted into American English, none have complained about the British English templates.
Penyulap's attempts at repeatedly bringing up the issue have been treated as forum shopping, a consensus-building pitfall. An ignored policy in the discussion was that consensus can change, most especially when there wasn't one.
In this discussion, Penyulap's original request was a valid one. The discussion itself however, strayed from civility by all parties involved and invoked consensus and WP policies that did not exist.
This is a case in which multiple editors did not provide sources to back up their statements, many of which statements were false. While it is not the original reason for this page's discussion started by Craigboy and there may be many other grievances against User:Penyulap, in the instance investigated by me, Penyulap was not the only problem.
I would recommend that in future discussions, we all remember to assume good faith and stay cool. Lets turn a new page in the project and look ahead instead of dwelling on our past disagreements.
I must say I am outstandingly impressed by the amount of reading you have done. Thank you for giving an informed opinion. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
While I think this does glance over a few points, on the whole I think it shows all sides need to back off. I think it is clear that the constant repetition of discussion on this issue is the cause of any incivility which may have occurred in the discussion. While it is true that consensus can change, and for that reason the original discussion had merit, to quote WP:CCC "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again", and I believe that is the real issue here. We don't object to or want to stop discussion, we just don't want that discussion to be constant and unending.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to "turn a new page in the project and look ahead", and I would like to propose a significant cooling-off period from all sides before this issue is discussed again in any form, as I do not believe there is any way that further discussion could be kept civil at this time. --W.D.Graham22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I too wish to turn a new page in the project and look ahead, and I can't agree more with that, I do not agree that this should be done by ignoring other editors and their valid opinions. Ignoring other editors is how this mess began, and ignoring their opinions for 3 years has not fixed the problem, so I do not believe that ignoring their opinions is the best approach to dealing with the problem. In fact, I'd say that approach has been tried for three years and for three years it has failed, so I suggest it is time to try some other approach to the problem. Penyulap ☏ 01:21, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
My own take at this issue
Hi all. I think I know what is going on here.
Please read my response : it is very important in resolving the issue.
This article may also be of use here. I know what I am talking about, because I personally have very similar issues (although not as serious) with communication and interaction with other people, so I am offering an alternative perspective on this issue.
This essay may be of more use in this kind of instance than that article :o) I think it's very important for neurotypical editors not to fall into the trap of thinking of such things as being "mental health issues" or "disabilities" or other such names. Do, please, read the essay. And don't, please, ever seek to marginalise, disempower, or dismiss someone on the grounds of what someone else might see as as "mental health issue". Autism-spectrum disorders are no more a "mental health issue" than colour-blindness is. I've done a heap (OK, several heaps) of reading-up here, and I'm afraid that my over-arching impression is one of joint ownership :o( And ganging-up with some really misleading phrases ("consensus has been reached", for example) against a dissenting voice. The major differences between A-spectrum and neurotypical processing functions are on a parallel with the major differences between two identically-powered Intel chip computers, one of which is running Windoze and the other running Mac OS. One of the best and biggest uses we, as a community, can make of our A-spectrum editors is their ability to perceive and store vast amounts of detail. Sometimes the details behind disagreements can become fuddled, glossed-over, or simply forgotten. The A-spectrum editor is unlikely to do any of these things. They are usually simply better at data-storage and fast-access than neurotypicals are. So, when it comes to a case of details, inconsistencies in other people's approaches and statements with respect to those factual details, the balance of probabilities is that the A-spectrum editor is likely to have a better grip on the entire situation than the neurotypicals. Summing up: A-spectrum people can find it harder to get on well with other people than neurotypicals do, but when it comes to factual accuracy they (we!) are generally far, far better. And, sometimes, that immense degree of factual accuracy, data-storage, data-processing and fast recall that we have makes it very hard for us to understand why neurotypicals don;t have the same thing. So, when they're misremembering stuff, because it's so incredibly hard for us to believe that someone else's data-processing and storage abilities are just not in the same league as ours are, it seems that the others are being deliberately disingenuous, or actively distorting history, or (worst!) just plain lying about what happened. You'd all be well-advised to read up on Savant syndrome, too. Surprisingly common in High functioning autism.Pesky (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you seem to be inferring that he may be a Savant. If someone is severely autistic enough it can have an affect on their ability to contribute. Penyulap himself has stated he is suffering from "mental health issues" but he may have only been joking even though he has been reminded that humor doesn't always carry over well onto wikipedia. "Summing up: A-spectrum people can find it harder to get on well with other people than neurotypicals do, but when it comes to factual accuracy they (we!) are generally far, far better." My biggest issue with Penyulap is that he actual has a very hard time interpreting what is factual information and what is not.--Craigboy (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples would assist here, pick anything.Penyulap ☏ 08:21, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)
That does explain a lot to me, it is a plausible explanation for about 95% of what seems to go on. I must admit it does frustrate me incredibly that things are written in black and white and regardless of 'diffing them to death' people still don't accept what has been written down. In front of them. In black and white. Maybe it is just me. But as for me being a lone voice, it simply is not so, I did not invent the phrase 'Monument to the failure of the wiki process' and the continual efforts to twist such simple phrases when an explanation of the authors position is also given is quite frustrating. Also, when someone turns up and says 'you two jackasses are still here at it after two years' or whatever it was he said, and it's like supposedly possible to twist it around onto me, when I wasn't even here two years ago, it's like, well, I'm looking for other logical explanations beyond poor memory for some of this. Especially when the speakers who 'cannot be seen' are in the same conversation.
But otherwise, I think that does have a resounding truth to it, that it can all be held processed and indexed at once. That does explain a lot. I was knocked over and astonished by Wingtipvortex's grip on the situation he read and comprehended a huge amount I can tell. (I didn't mention the parts that were missed, because Wingtipvortex's insight and efforts to understand the situation have been the best so far. I do expect however that Pesky has come to the correct conclusion about the situation as well, although maybe she cheated by reading my mind. She's been known to do that. also Ched may grip it if he gets off his butt, but I've yet to see as much)
The solution to the whole mess is probably going to shock a few people, because the logical course for me in the end is to 'vote' British or abstain, despite the ongoing unfounded accusations by WD that I want the article American, that's not it at all. I don't care for the variant. I care for the solution to the monument and the jackass emotions. Sometimes a benevolent government which takes office by coup does not please the people as much as a democratically elected tyranny. It's how you reach the decision that matters, not what the decision is. There is no consensus on the ISS talkpage, and there is a template which claims otherwise. It's an offence to many editors. Penyulap ☏ 09:26, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I read the articles you link to, one of them is resoundingly significant to me, this part "been suggested that savants operate by directly accessing low-level, less-processed information that exists in all human brains but is normally not available to conscious awareness" sums me up in a BIG way. I mean BIG. I do have access to a lot of things that people aren't really meant to, as well as the common stuff like manipulating blood pressure and pulse, but it's more one way the other way, to be aware rather than to manipulate. Treffert says interesting things as well. It's interesting what wikipedia has, I'm often taken aback by how many ways the diversity of subject matter applies to the diversity of real life, the scope of crossover, like a pervasiveness of points without pattern. I want to study this some more, and maybe try to find a way to test further. The professionals who did test me long ago never had the right tests on hand at the time to see how far offscale I was going. It would be interesting to find out. Penyulap ☏ 11:07, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
"Normal people" (neurotypicals) just cannot get a grip on how auties do data-processing. It's way beyond their comprehension. Like we autie-spectrum people find it incredibly hard to get a grip on how they just can't. It can 'really feel as though they're just being dishonest ... when all they're being is bog-standard neurotypical. We have to learn patience and tolerance for their dysfunctionality (compared to us) in that area, in just the same way that they need to learn patience and tolerance for our dysfunctionality (compared to them) in other areas. It's a matter of give and take, and each type of person respecting the other for what they have got, and not dissing or mistrusting them for what they haven't got. That's all there is too it. Give and take. Low-level access? yup, fer sure. We have an incredible processor, but a f**king lousy user-interface! Pesky (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Hey everyone! I haven't been around Wikipedia much lately, so I thought I'd drop by this WikiProject to see what was happening.. and I see this talk page is 90% full of a discussion around Penyulap which has devolved into a debate about the english variant used on the ISS page.. just like the good old days!!! hahahaha! :-) Ahh... but seriously though, the English variant discussion is a big waste of time.. as Wingtipvortex states (after kindly investigating the matter at length) "The only consensus my investigation has found was to not change an article that somehow managed to become British English into American English." I think that sentence sums it all up.. there may not have been consensus in the first place, but now there's consensus not to change it.
Also, I'll comment on Penyulap's behaviour more generally, since that is what started this thread. His personality and behaviour clearly clashes with essentially everybody in this project, and I also am getting a fairly strong vibe that many people want him to leave (I assume Penyulap is a "him", but I'm not sure). Indeed, I think there aren't many things that annoy editors more than somebody else "forcing" you to spend time on things you don't want to spend time doing (e.g. taking part in needlessly long discussions). On the other hand 1) Nobody's forcing you to do anything, and 2) Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project. A necessary part of such a project is working with other people, including people you don't necessarily like. In the long run, Wikipedia will improve no matter what any one editor does.
well these days I am a lot harder to wind up. Penyulap ☏ 11:36, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Moving on
Well folks, I think we've learned a lot here. My special thanks to Pesky and Galactic Penguin SST for some excellent insights. We need to accommodate all editors, and we all need to use each other for the tasks we each do best.
As I said earlier, we need to turn a new page and move on. Blank our 'relationships' with each other and start anew. This will be more difficult for some of us. If you've offended someone, please apologize.
We've got a strong case of not assuming good faith, and that needs to change, that needs to be the first thing to change. If we need to create project-specific policy, then lets do it. As Mlm42 said, WP will improve no matter what any one editor does, but lets not be the ones that slow that improvement.
Personally, I'm done discussing the past here. I'll be more than happy to help move forward, but please do not ask me to keep discussing past mistakes. I've got enough RL stress as it is. I am taking a semi-wikibreak of undetermined length from this project.
Wingtipvortex has stated "I'll go my way, you go on yours" in a long discussion on my talkpage. I've accepted an apology, and I've accepted a Barnstar, and I look forward to MlM42 having a single vote in future polls, the same as we all have. I look forward to a resolution that will satisfy all the editors on the ISS talkpage including Jason and Ohms Law and I think we have moved a step closer to that resolution. Penyulap ☏ 20:31, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aftermath
Penyulap has been blocked indefinitely, and is unlikely to be allowed to return until he can demonstrate an improved ability to work with others. It's unfortunate that it came to this, but once he started making personal attacks it was only going to end one way. I hope that he is able to come back one day and go back to editing constructively, and either way I hope we can now put all of this behind us.
That said, there are a few decisions that it might be worth revisiting, as I think there were a few times in the past year where he took actions against the wishes of the rest of the project, or where he was allowed to act unilaterally because people didn't want a dispute with him. For example I did not nominate his Christmas on the International Space Station article for deletion at the time, as I was already sick of arguing with him in the dialect dispute - I PRODded that article this morning. The issues I have noticed that I think we should consider reviewing are:
It may be helpful to archive the endless debates, not for the sake of forgetting all of this, but to make all these issues inviting for new comers to join and discuss. I would suggest all issues be brought up in their appropriate talk page; as far as getting ISS back to FA, I think this was the article when it was promoted to FA (though someone should double check). If we revert to that version and update what needs to be updated we could have it up in no time really. It can be expanded later. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅19:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of International Space Station spacewalks
I have nominated List of International Space Station spacewalks to go up on the main page and some concerns have been raised here. I would greatly appreciate any help you might provide in addressing these concerns, particularly those regarding getting the article back up-to-date and finding replacement sources for the broken links. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article some time ago called Deep Space Habitat. Essentially, this is a proposed idea for NASA's currently under development architecture for longer duration space missions outside of LEO based on ISS architecture. For lack of any real expertise on my end, I've essentially created a glorified stub, and I'm not entirely certain the topic of the article is correctly defined. That is to say, is this part of a larger design concept that belongs in a larger, combined article, or is it worthy of dedicated article such as the current state? Anyhow, I figured I'd drop a note here to see if I could spark some interest from better informed editors. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hiberniantears. Designs such as these are created periodically by NASA and others. If you look at Template:Space stations, the 'Proposed' section, you'll see there are quite a few. I cannot say if the Deep Space Habitat is part of a larger design or not. It seems like it would be a precursor to the Nautilus-X. Some of these stations and vehicles have a lot of info on them and some don't. We could have an article that is essentially a list of proposed space stations if you don't think the DSH merits its own article. I'm of the opinion that it is best to leave the stub (it has more information than most stubs anyway) and wait for it to grow. It is notable enough as it is now, and more info is likely to show up at some point. I say create the talk page, make it part of WikiProject Spaceflight, and we can all help it grow as we can. --WingtipvorteX(talk)∅22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful to have a category for Satellite series?
There is a discussion over at Talk:Anik_(satellite)#How_to_categorize_an_article_that_is_really_about_three_different_things that seems to identify a matter about which other interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors may have an opinion, but which is only an example of a larger problem. That specific article is about a series of satellites with the same designator, but which are not all necessarily built on the same satellite bus. Should we have a category for a named series of Sats, or just leave in the broader Category:Satellites as the article is at present? (and if so, what would be the project "standard" for the name of that category?) The other Satellite subcategories don't seem to work, as no one category applies to the entire series (e.g., while many were at one time geostationary, many are no longer so). Would appreciate input from others. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Jssteil (talk·contribs) is working with NASA to get some of their research papers uploaded onto Wikipedia. Unfortunately, thats pretty much exactly what has happened: the papers have been cut and pasted into Wikipedia without converting the contents from research paper to encyclopedia article.
If there in anyone with the project who would be interested in stepping in as a coach or mentor, this could potentially be a valuable resource for Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
