- Email may very occasionally be delayed due to spam filtering.
|Quote of the day:|
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt, on the rotunda of the Panama Canal
Taking my leave for now
It seems likely that I will be site-banned in the next few minutes, for the crime of doing exactly what I had been asked to do. (I'll add a link to the "discussion" once it is archived.) I'm sure those who wish to will still be able to reach out to me, but I will be logging off Wikipedia to avoid seeing the sequelae of this train-wreck.
- Don't be too quick to think things will turn out that way. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Rich: The site-ban discussion looks like it will fail to me, and I hope the train wreck of an ANI thread will be about as minor as an ANI thread can be. There probably will be another editing restriction, but hopefully it will be clearer. Lastly, I know we haven't exactly been friends on-wiki, but I hope you read and find my comments on ANI helpful. Take as long as you want, but I hope to see you around the 'pedia (but hopefully not at WP:HAPPYPLACE). Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also, re your sig: come on. You are neither despised nor rejected, at least by me (and many other wikipedians). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- BRFA requires consensus. I was considering suggesting that I simply ping Beeblebrox in every editing discussion I have. But since disturbing his repose seems to be an unwise choice, perhaps that's not such a great idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
- Glad to see the tide is turning over there. I definitely got influenced by the initial pile-on at one point but upon digging deeper once again it was clear that you were being railroaded for doing the exact thing you were supposed to do. Hopefully that whole drama fest will be in the rear view mirror shortly. CJK09 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Your email about canvassing
Hi Rich, in response to your email asking me to strike my comment about you canvassing: no, I’m not going to do that. If you have any other requests of me, I prefer they be made on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There are three bad things that happen as a result of you refusal:
- The project does not know what is happening.
- An (additional) untruth about me stands on the AN/I page.
- You fall in my estimation.
It's a shame that you made such a comment, the snide tone makes it worse, the refusal to remove it out of courtesy, worse still.
- Just a reminder: if you just followed the community sanctions, you wouldn't be in this mess. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, I obviously don't know the full context here since I haven't read the email, probably one of the reason TonyBallioni opposed your use of it. But I don't understand how any experienced editor does not understand that when there is an active discussion over imposing sanctions which at a minimum still had about 23 hours to go (per the 24 hour minimum), posting this  is going to lead to canvassing concerns. Frankly your follow up is not that much better although by that stage, doing anything about it was pointless, even BMK's actions while I don't object to them didn't necessarily make things better. Which is a key part of the reason why canvassing is such a problem, it can't really be undone. I appreciate if you were site banned you'd have no more opportunity to comment although I think many editors won't object to reposting a single message from after any site ban especially if you avoided faulting everyone else in your message.
And this example seems to demonstrate why canvassing even unintentionally, is very silly. You may have meant no harm by it, you may not have thought it would affect the outcome, even though as I said, the discussion still had ~23 hours to go. Yet at least one editor, and probably more, feel it likely has affected the outcome. Under the circumstances of that discussion, it's not unreasonable to feel that, yet it's also easily possible the discussion would have evolved in a similar way if you hadn't posted your message. It's unlikely we'll ever know or even have a good idea, if the discuss would have evolved that way without your (or anyone) posting about it on some Wikiproject.
I think nearly everyone would accept that's how discussions evolve if it had clearly happened inorganically. Maybe some wouldn't be happy with the outcome, but they'd know that's life on Wikipedia. Yet with your posting you've now pretty much ensured that if you escape a siteban, some editors are going to feel it's not only wrong but inherently unfair as part of the reason is because you canvassed people to support you. Even some who may accept it was unintentional may still feel that way.
I'm going to AGF that canvassing to try an avoid a siteban wasn't your intention. So why then did you, an experienced editor, do something which was fairly obviously going to cause a lot of ill-feeling and consternation? And why when someone pointed out what you did, instead of simply acknowledging, yes I messed up badly with that post; do you instead send an email complaining, and then say an "untruth" about you stands at AN/I and I think less of you, even though I was the one who created the situation by posting about an active sanction discussion against me, when it still had 23 hours to go, in a manner which may encourage others to participate, and in a Wikiproject which may not be considered neutral? For the benefit of talk page watched, I'd note that even if you felt that there was justification to post on that Wikiproject because they'd be interested in the outcome, this doesn't explain your message which was in the form of "oh poor me, I'm screwed, bye bye" rather than "you may be interested in this discussion".
- That's fair comment. Five points:
- I'll mention that I was unaware that there was a 24 hour limit on these discussions, and expected to be site banned or indef blocked imminently.
- It has always been wikiquette not to mention emails on-wiki. I emailed Tony because I thought it would be less combative than asking him on-wiki and allow him time to reflect on whether this was a reasonable thing to say. I still think it looks like deliberate poisoning of the well, and it would be nice for him to remove it.
- Here is the text of my email.
- That's fair comment. Five points:
Tony I would appreciate it if you would strike your comment about canvassing. I think it is fairly obvious that I am resigned to my fate, and it seems courtesy to leave a note to explain why the project will not be completed.
- You say that someone would be glad to post a message on my behalf. Last time i was blocked there was a strong suggestion that such action would be considered proxying and be blockable in itself. (In fact the implication was the blocking constitutes an expulsion from the community, and that no one should respond to user talk page messages.)
- It is always possible to be collegial and AGF. For example Tony could have left me a message here asking me to refactor my comment on the Wikiproject talk page. He could even have said "Rich has left this message which appears to be canvassing." Instead he chose to leave a sarcastic comment, which is uncalled for and uncivil.
- I have, as soon as I was aware of the concern, refactored the comment on the project talk page. It's highly unlikely that anyone saw the text in question who wasn't part of the AN/I discussion.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the despised and rejected) 09:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
June 2020 at Women in Red
|Women in Red|
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Speedy deletion nomination of Captain Tom (disambiguation)
A tag has been placed on Captain Tom (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the . Sceptre (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)