User talk:PouponOnToast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ground rules

1. I assume the assumption of good faith. Unless you specifically say that your intent is to harm the encyclopedia, I will assume your actions that harm the encyclopedia are due to misunderstandings.
2. I ignore incivility. If it comes to the point that I feel you are being incivil to me, I will just stop responding to you.
3. I am not contactable. You cannot email me. You cannot chat with me on IRC unless it is in a public channel, and I am granted (and will) publish logs. Sunlight is the best disenfectant.
4. The first stop in dispute resolution is here. Do not mention me on other websites. Do not mention me on adminstrative boards. If you have a concern with an action I have taken, ask me to retract it here, and I will do so and/or I will seek broad community input as to the appropriatness of my action.
5. I have minor dislexia. Correct my spelling, I don't care. I use a spell-checker in article space, but it takes substantial time to do so and is very taxing on me.

Contents 1 Re: The omnibus RFC. 2 Omnibus RfC 3 RfC 4 Re: Codewords 5 User:PouponOnToast/LWR 5.1 Argh, why delete? 6 Email 7 Proxy on WR 8 RfC 9 MfD nomination of User:PouponOnToast/LWR 10 Sockpuppetry et al 11 RFC 11.1 On WR posting 12 You stated it would be nice for us to ask first 13 Oversight

[edit] Re: The omnibus RFC.

I note that you disgaree with my conclusion. Do you believe that Sceptre's promotion of his RFAr on Wikipedia Review was in line with the functioning of a free encyclopedia? That was my direct concern. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it to be blanket request for non-participation over there, and I don't support that. (I don't post there, or even read it, unless stuff is linked like in this rfc). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omnibus RfC

Quick note: I appreciate the moderate tone and thoughtful approach you've taken on that RfC. I haven't gotten involved in it myself at this point, largely because nobody has seemed willing to listen to each other's concerns. What you are doing is helpful; keep it up! alanyst ^/talk/ 16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you feel that I lose my tone or approach please don't hesitate to give me a heads up. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with analyst. Though I'm pretty sure the RfC will have no effect on anyones behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if both sides put down the sticks and slowly backed away from the carcas, it would be obvious who is bathing in the blood. I have no idea who that is, but I'm certain they're in there somewhere. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While I sort of agree that disengagement would be helpful, very few of the folks involved in this seem to be good at it. It is one of the reasons that so many of them are 'valued contributors' to the project, they keep at stuff long after reasonable people would have left it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Because I believe it is true. I'd be a liar if I said anything else, wouldn't I? Black Kite 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• How is that RfC helping to build the encyclopedia? Black Kite 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Codewords

*HEADDESK* How many times does it have to be stated? We are not the ones that brought it here. SWATjester misread a diff and posted an irrelevant and hateful comment that served no useful purpose whatsoever to an RFAR calling an admin a white supremacist with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up... only what he thought was evidence. He stated it as a fact and as a reason to desysop the admin. When a few people brought it to his attention that it was inappropriate, rather than retract or apologize, he added another inappropriate statement to it. I took it to AN/I and that is where he brought my beliefs into it. I explained my beliefs because of the racist label that was inaccurately placed upon me. Orangemarlin and Guettarda joined in on that discussion to back SWAT in his unsupported claims. They also celebrated on their talk pages about how they got a white supremacist desysopped, no mind that he resigned and it had nothing to do with the race issue which, again, was completely irrelevant to anything.

I don't get what is so difficult to process about this. Orangemarlin is playing the victim in a matter where nothing has been said to him. The term means something else to him and, apparently (from his words), makes him cry. But I've already apologized for any misunderstandings and explained my previous ignorance to the term, and I sent him an email explaining all this as well. However, in that email, I also told him that I was done biting my tongue. That he either let it go, or I was going to start fighting back. So what did he do? It appears he read the email and immediately when back to making the same inappropriate comments. So I'm fighting back until he either returns the apology for the inaccurate hate he spewed to discredit me, or the community or ArbCom step in to rectify the situation. Lara❤Love 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PouponOnToast/LWR

I am wondering what the purpose of this page is... Could you please explain it? (you might want to read or re-read [1] )

I noticed this particular diff in which you characterise a contribution of mine as "socializing". That seems a bit of a reach, I was rebutting a user who seems to think that all CU data should be public, which is not a view I think is very workable, and who was asking inappropriate questions about specific CU actions. If you want to find "socialising" posts by me, they're out there but that wasn't one of them. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My reason for that page is located here. My working hypothesis is that there's something wikipedia can do better that causes you to want to engage in that other site, but that without data we will be unable to determine what that thing is. I have read your blog post, and do not feel that it provides a full explanation of motive.

With regards to clasification, since you didn't impart any knowledge to him (you are engaging in what I'd call 'pointless arguing' in that reply), I felt that it was community or reputation building activity by you, as opposed to the transmission of information. If you disagree, please feel free to comment on the specific comment via ref tags. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that blog post doesn't explain my motive? It states the things I'm trying to achieve ... since they are good things for the projects, in my view, that's motive enough, I think. In fact, it answers your working hypothesis question quite well... As for classifying, I think I'll reserve judgement on the accuracy of your classification scheme (I know what I was trying to achieve with that particular post and it wasn't just arguing for the sake of arguing) until after I see a larger sample set than just one. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Goals are not motives. PouponOnToast (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Matter of interpretation, goals and motives often are closely aligned. My motive for participation at WR, as well as at WP, is to make Wikipedia, and WMF projects in general, more successful. Why? Because I believe in the goal of the WMF projects and because I WANT them to be successful. Unless you are wanting to get into the philosophy of motivation, that's as good a motive as you are going to get from just about anyone you might ask. But if you insist on rejecting it, then I think it's appropriate to subject your stated motive for carrying out this little enterprise to the same level of scrutiny, because your stated motive fails the same test you apply to mine. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've stated a motive. I don't think I've rejected anything anyone has said. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"My reason for that page is located here" == "motive", does it not? If not, why not? BTW, I advocated a keep at the MfD. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a goal. Goals are "Whats," motives are "Whys." If you can think of another collaborative, public, privacy sensitive location where I could host my catalog, I'd do it there such that I could get input from interested parties. Otherwise, I'll just report back on my conclusions when I feel I have an adequate dataset. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, you faulted me for not explaining my motive for participating. Then you sparred with me about goals vs. motives. I'll put it to you baldly, what was YOUR motive for starting the page? Not your goal, your motive. If you're not willing to say, perhaps you should stop giving the appearance that you are faulting others or engaging in semantic quibbling. As for a place to work, I'm sure you would be welcome to edit your list on WR. (you can edit posts there as many times as you need to) ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My motive is simple - I emphasize with the individuals who were harmed by Wikipedia Review due to past, similar experiences I have had, and would like to defend them. I will not make an account on Wikipedia Review, as I am well aware that they fail the "privacy sensitive," criteria I lay out above. Many users cannot make accounts there and feel secure, and as such, I do not consider it an acceptable hosting location. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I was not faulting you for not describing your motive, rather, I was explaining that the intent of my catalog was to provide a data set that would shed light on motive. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This veers into philosophy. it's never possible to judge motive with certainty (or even high accuracy). All you can do is decide if you believe stated motive or not... all you can do is judge outcomes. That is why I defended your list, because I think there is some value in evaluating interactions by the metric of what tangible things they accomplished, if any, positive or negative. But to infer motive would have been a mug's game I fear. Further, even if someone at WR posts something about WP with the motive of doing WP harm, if someone else takes it in and uses it to improve WP, that's a good outcome. The Y2 thread is a perfect example, if somewhat smallscale... if I were guessing, I'd guess (not assert, guess) that Emperor raised the issues with the article to discredit the project. But Neal (and I to a far lesser extent) took it as a chance to improve the project instead, and did so (I think anyone would agree the project is better off with the current Y2 article than with the former one... at least at first order. Second order effects are harder to judge of course). I gave you my reasons, my motives, my goals, whatever you want to call them for being at WR. It's for you and anyone else to judge outcomes and decide if there was a net benefit or not. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's going to ask - so I will, as I'm curious. How does the referenced page not violate the user-page restriction about "(m)aterial that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" [2]? Will this be used in a future dispute resolution? Thanks. -- Robster2001 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If any editor feels attacked by my cataloging, I'll happily take it offline. PouponOnToast (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's nice of you, but that doesn't answer the question. I'm still curious as to how that page doesn't violate Wikipedia policy regarding user pages, specifically the "recording of perceived flaws" part. There's nothing stopping you from keeping the same list on your own computer -- so why put it in a public place where you had to know it would be found by those editors mentioned, and where it violates policy (which, it appears, concerns you when other editors do so)? -- Robster2001 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If any user feels that my cataloging is attacking them, I'm certainly willing to take my cataloging offline. There's no intent for the cataloge to attack. I find sunlight is the best disinfectant. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argh, why delete?

I see, well, one reason I thought this was a good idea is to find out why well-meaning editors turn to WR to post criticism. I personally think we are doing something wrong here, if people need to go to listen to criticism on an external site. I have read Lar's statement and it is a perfectly good explanation for why being there is useful, most importantly, to listen to valid points that critics make there. Now, why can't those point be made here on-wiki??

Well, the fact that this user-page analysis was deleted kind of answers the question. It seems here on the Wiki, we see all analysis and criticism as attacks, unless they are formatted as an RfCs. Well then, PouponOnToast, you want a place to host it, here it is: User:Merzul/RfArb drafts/Wikipedia Review/Evidence. Merzul (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative is a non WMF wiki. There are a lot of free solutions out there... (the Comparison of wiki farms list may be helpful)... The downside is the critical mass issue, if you want input from others, they have to go there and register, which is harder than just posting something here. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Drop me an email me, if you would. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy on WR

I believe my real name is known by my quotes on the The Register and in the Associated Press. So, what do you mean by saying that I contribute to Wikipedia Review "by proxy?" Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You suggested others do things, as opposed to doing them yourself. PouponOnToast (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I have both the RfC and associated talk page for the recently deleted RfC stored away. If you want either, set up a pages where you would like me to place it. I can also email a cut and paste copy of the wiki-code. Your choice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User:PouponOnToast/LWR

User:PouponOnToast/LWR, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PouponOnToast/LWR and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:PouponOnToast/LWR during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kirill ^(prof) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry et al

Hey. When I clicked through to check up on that user, I didn't see this, so had no indication of your concern. Didn't mean to come off as snarky as I apparently did, and apologize if it came off badly. Since the sock is indef'd, it looks like a crisis averted, but I wanted to leave a note anyway. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I've removed your support statement from my outside view as it appeared to be intended to rebut it rather than endorse it (as your "caveat" was basically stating that you disagreed with the core claim I was making). You're welcome to repost it in your own section or on the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, when their issue with it is where I'm posting it rather than what I'm saying (If they have any issue with what I'm saying on any site, let's address that, by all means), that is a BADSITES issue. Commenting aboute the dispute, here or anywhere else, does not make me involved. --Random832 (contribs) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do a cost benefit analysis with the assumption that they are being totally irrational. Line up the benefits of your continued engagement on this particular issue at the other site with the costs. Justify that you are providing either a net neutral to the encyclopedia or a net positive. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they were (and I'm not saying they are) being totally irrational, wouldn't that make them the net negative? But in all seriousness, I am open to limiting my participation on WR on some issues - but it's not clear to me exactly what areas are the problem - would you like to work with me to delineate precisely what areas I will agree not to comment on? If you could point out specific posts that are problematic, as examples, that'd be great. --Random832 (contribs) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if they are totally irrational in their (our?) dislike of WR, then that is the net negative. However they (we?) are going to be irrational, so you're either going to have to throw them (us) off the island or find a solution that mitigates damages. I think the key thing to avoid taking to Wikipedia Review, or at least the part that I think I find the most risable (but I need to spend more time evaluating), is taking disputes that are being dealt with here over there. It strikes me as trying to increase, rather than decrease, the drama. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with not taking disputes over there that are being dealt with here. I think that's a key insight... I cringe when I see it and I try to limit my comments there to only clarifying, never opining. But discussing possible policy over there isn't necessarily taking disputes over there. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I find discussing policy and discussing articles (a la yer tobacco thing) to be perfectly harmless. It's when individual editors are "examined," or the dispute-of-the-week is "commented on," that I find wikipedian participation is actively harmful. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the Mantanmoreland case? Whether or not you think he's a certain journalist that some people on WR think he is, the fact remains that he's now been caught (a third time, IIRC) sockpuppeting, and it's clear that his game all along was POV-pushing on various financial articles. Without ongoing discussions at WR, he may never have been caught, and six months ago it would have been that case rather than this one that I imagine you would have argued against Wikipedians discussing there. --Random832 (contribs) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that the ongoing discussions at WR had anything to do with it. I contend that those ongoing discussions inflamed passions and hardened sides, making it hard to deal with the situation. As a final note, I am an expert in that field of content and our articles on finance are a disgrace, universally, across the board. I cannot find one article related to finance or economics that is accurate, much less useful. I had previously attempted to fix those articles. Those attempts were spectacular failures. Editors with professional pedigrees that I would kill to have (I had to leave academic for the street) have been driven off by goldbugs and other assorted nutters. Naked Short Selling? who cares! overstock.com? Fortis (finance). PouponOnToast (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for WR, I probably never would have found out about the problems surrounding the Gary Weiss and Naked Short Selling articles. WR publicized what was going on there, directly contributing to the issue finally being addressed. I agree with you that the financial articles could be better, and I appreciate your attempts to improve them. Cla68 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I contend that your actions with respect to GW and NSS were not integral to solving the problem. Wikipedia Review also had little or nothing to do with resolving the issue - in fact, because of their polarization of the debate, the issue went unresolved for far longer than it would if they had just left their noses out of it.

I no longer attempt to contribute to articles on things in which I am aware that I know more than any other reasonably likley contributor, but in which totaly uninformed laypeople are likley to get in stupid disputes with me. I am well aware of what Stirling Newberry went through here, and have no intention of following in his footsteps. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I completely agree with that assessment. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment on the Mantanmoreland case - without an external site to keep attention focused without being suppressed, nobody would even have gotten in the door - we'd just see a repetition of - someone accuses him of sockpuppetry, is told off by one of his socks or other allies, and then blocked - without any real progress towards anything. --Random832 (contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On WR posting

These are the links Odd Nature brought up as "evidence" that I'm involved because I post to WR (signing each individual one to allow for responses)

• [3] This is me commenting on Arbcom's general tendency recently to fail to deal with things, and is only incidentally related to this specific incident. I don't think that merely using this dispute as an example of something is significant.--Random832 (contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• [4][5] just clarifying what someone seems to mean in their evidence posting for someone who isn't sure what was said. --Random832 (contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• [6] Since it is nonsensical to promise that something that was allegedly unintentional will never happen again, it follows that it's intentional. Since he hasn't admitted to it, it is more likely than not that he intends to continue. I stand by this interpretation both on- and off-wiki. --Random832 (contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'm just an onlooker, but I don't think it follows from "it won't happen again" that the original action was intentional. It could have been carelessness or a moment of forgetfulness, that will not be repeated due to a new awareness gained from having been chastised for the mistake. Just wanted to offer a good-faith alternative interpretation for your consideration. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• [7] Simply clarifying what Sceptre was saying in an earlier post to someone who had misinterpreted it. I can't understand how anyone could possibly see this post as problematic. --Random832 (contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• [8] I stand by this - even if your bizarre accusation of "proxy editing" is true, it's not relevant because suggesting edits for others to make is not something that people who are not banned are not allowed to do (was Cla68's talk page your "first stop" in making that accusation? If not, then I don't see any problem in discussing it there first rather than here). --Random832 (contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You stated it would be nice for us to ask first

So, let me ask.. does this User:PouponOnToast/pernicious serve any use, or can it be blown away? SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've posted a lengthy reply to you on my talk page, if you want to read it :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oversight

Replied on my talk. Neıl 龱 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)