User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy
I may drop out of the conservation for up to 4 weeks if my borrowed PC is reclaimed by its owner.
| Tricks for consensus in a heated environment |
|---|
| Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying nothing about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself.
Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is writing for your opponent. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary. |
|
Civility Award | |
| For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)
When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler:
- The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back.
- “No data speaks for itself,” McCoy said, forceful. “Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…”
- From the novel Spock's World, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
An unfair request
My section heading is intended to give you an out; please feel no obligation to follow through on this request; I was struck by a timing coincidence.
I read the notes at the top of the page, about your "Tricks for consensus in a heated environment". I noted above my concurrence with the "repeat back approach", but even as I was typing that, I had in mind an attempt that failed. Seconds after the post, I clicked on a link at my talk page, suggesting I take a look at an item on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. That item included a collapsed discussion (titled " Discussion on Ghostofnemo's talkpage") which is the exact incident I had in mind.
If the incident were dead, I'd be interested in your comments on my attempt, and whether there was something I could do better. Because the incident isn't dead, it is of more than academic interest, so I would really be interested in how to improve my approach, because I may try again. However, mindful of the classic definition of insanity, I don't want to try again if I'm going to do the exact same thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- 25-50-25;
- 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
- 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
- Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.
- My sense of the discussion was "too many words", and "it's probably easier to just repair the articles he edits". If it were me, I'd just spell out that Fringe treatment requires the mainstream position to be objectively assertively stated first, and then the later sections can present minority views along the lines of "Despite these findings, some say that.....)" And then stop trying. If he can't present his fringe views that way, I suppose ANI and a warning that he has to present the info via WP:ENEMY and if that fails he will have shown he's in that first 25% and unable to do consensus and NPOV. So he'd merit a topic block. But the evidence would be somewhat theoretical (failure to produce).
- However, I'd prefer another approach. Instead of either blanket deletion of his edits or pounding your head on the educational wall, maybe other editors (those who spend time arguing) ought to just spend that time reworking the same material to bring it into compliance with wiki and thus improve the article both in quality and in scope. Maybe some do, I did not wade thru all the diffs. The idea is to present the strength of the mainstream and then present the fringe view as a minority viewpoint. Some fringe-advocates will go along, in the face of determined NPOV revisions. Others (those in that first 25%) will compulsively try to restore their own dismissive spin on the mainstream view. That's edit warring. Maybe he needs a special version of 3RR if he spreads the edits out over time. But this approach keeps others doing proactive improvements (as opposed to fighting) and gives him a chance to hang himself with a much more tangible paper trail.
- It's nice you want to try to reach out to him. But some just don't get it and don't realize they don't get it. See the lemon juice bandit; NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- PS, Another reason to favor the 2nd approach is that my wild-donkey-guess is that it will be more likely to garner administrator interest. If I were an ANI admin, and was involved under a complaint with the first approach, my tendency would be to ignore the accused and tell the complaining people, "Don't bitch..... fix. And let 3RR do the work" RESOLVED in under 10 words! Too many combatants, and not enough editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to the lemon juice bandit. I knew some of the issues discussed, but not all of them, and it is a fascinating read.
- On the original subject, I understand the first category, but hope, perhaps naively, that it is smaller than 25%. More to the point, whatever the percentage is, I'm wondering if GON is part of that group, or if I just approached it badly. On a different level, I suspect that GON is part of that group, but thought the attempt was worth the effort if only to confirm my suspicions. However, (with a nod to the lemon juice) my test isn't conclusive if I don't know how to do it correctly, i.e. if I don't know that I don't know how to do it right. All this said, I may just adopt the second approach, although to be fair, I'm not all that interested in 911 conspiracies, but I am interested in when the technique of playback can be effective.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you ask someone in dispute resolution to WP:ENEMY and they refuse to try, then they are either inherently or by choice part of the first group. It's an instant test.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- PS, Another reason to favor the 2nd approach is that my wild-donkey-guess is that it will be more likely to garner administrator interest. If I were an ANI admin, and was involved under a complaint with the first approach, my tendency would be to ignore the accused and tell the complaining people, "Don't bitch..... fix. And let 3RR do the work" RESOLVED in under 10 words! Too many combatants, and not enough editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Michigan global warming external link spamming IP
Click show to review the saga
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
First dialogue with the IP about this behaviorFirst this conversation began on the IP's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Second dialogue with the IPWhile the first dialogue was evolving, this exchange also took place NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) N&Eguy, I am at a loss as to why you would hat on a Talk page regarding one news item? Even more strange is your comment, in the hat no less, of wiki is not a link repository; Posting links w/o intent of improving articles is spam. You don't know my intent. I'll assume this was just a temporary impulse, for whatever reason. If you don't get a response from me soon, don't assume some subtext, as I have other things to do too. Happy editing, 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Dear IP, Your WP:SPAMMER intent to not edit article content is easily discernible from your edit history. Here is a list of your last 50 article edits, showing only the latest revisions. If the wiki-programmed filters worked correctly, this list goes all the way back to May of last year. In other words, editor(s) at your IP address have edited only 50 articles in nearly a year. In comparsion, in the last two days you made 50 link spammings, by which I mean you started a new talk page discussion with nothing more than a link to some news item. What do you do, read the paper and post to wiki as you go along? And here are your last 50 talk page entries, more than 45 of which are link spam. Your link spam appears on talk pages for articles you have never edited, at least, not since May 2011 (if ever). It is readily apparent, therefore, that you have no intent to actually edit any of this batch of articles you recently link-spammed. Since you have been asked in the past to stop doing that, it is also evident you have no intention of changing your behavior.
Clearly, you have no plans to edit the articles you spam with new links. However, wiki is not a WP:LINKFARM, and your posts are WP:SPAM. On that last page, see especially the section "how not to be a WP:SPAMMER In case the links above don't work, or reset or something, here is what I looked at. There were truncated and alpha sorted for comparison. To save space I removed the linebreaks.
Accordingly, I am about to request a soft block against your IP address, for persistent link spamming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) The behavior is a pre-defined form of vandalismFor posterity and organization, I am reposting the following comment I left on the blocking admin's talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC) FYI, pursuant to WP:VANDALISM, "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. "A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially". (Italics added) For any possible violation, this means we have to get into the poster's mind a bit in order to tell if their posts are (A) legitimate external link(s) or (B) external link spam vandalism. How do we gain such insight? That's simple.... you look at their track record. In this case,
Clearly, these posts were "mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially". Therefore, they are not just external links but external link spam, which is defined as a form of WP:VANDALISM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Third dialogue with the IPEarly in the IP's one-month soft block sanction, I posted this "a better way to contribute" message on their talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Someone else's attempt to talk with the IP (was "IP overlinking")The IP you mention in your VP proposal is the "Kalamazoo kid", a prolific sock master who goes successively through endless dynamic IPs, all with the same MO. I also tried to reason with him here and here, but without effect. He's makes some useful minor edits, usually just wikilinking. I think he is trying to contribute helpfully and on balance I don't think overall he does a lot of real harm. But I don't see any way to change his behaviour and he certainly is irritating. He doesn't hear feedback and he can't really be blocked because he uses government or dynamic IPs. You might want to discuss the issue with this editor who has a lot of experience with this IP. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Reference links
- Raw data, IP sock's editing sessions - Thanks Arthur!
- Quickie analysis of raw data for Jan - June 2012
- My first ANI (August 2, 2012)
- Resulted in 1-month range block
- Resulted in the following blocks:
- 97.87.29.188 1 year Exp Aug 24, 2013
- 99.181.128.0/19 3 months Exp Nov 23, 2012 (yes the 23rd, others are the 24th of the month)
- 108.73.112.0/22 2 months Exp Oct 24, 2012
- 108.195.136.0/22 1 month Exp Sept 24, 2012
- Resulted in the following blocks:
Current misc and Closing to IP
- Thanks for your message to me about this. I have put a note about it at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list#August 2012. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
WP/AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done been closed :) Vsmith (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Global warming controversy
Am I to understand that the case is closed, and no mention of the controversy is permitted on the subject?