Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Privatemusings

I thought I'd kick off the talk page, because I'm not really quite sure how best to respond yet - I think I probably need to start work on a short statement outlining my thoughts and understandings so folk can see if they're a good basis for moving forward - there's some stuff I think I need to clarify, and I'm also concerned at FUD creeping in (along with the dreaded passive voice) in places, but don't really want to fall into a rebuttal / escalation trap, which would seem to be a bad thing. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PM - I think you are overall a good editor, and most of the people in this RFC/U seem to respect that you have made an effort to be a good editor. No one wants to discourage you from participating in wikipedia, because everyone has seen evidence that you are a capable contributor. The concern is that you seem to have a record to latching on to divisive issues that take you away from doing good, and come close to doing harm. I am a novice wikipedian myself, but I look at your edit count, and the fact that you have improved articles to GA class - something I have never done, personally - with a lot of admiration. However, I look at your involvement in, for example, the Steve Crossin unblock and I say to myself, "I would never want to be involved with that." It's one thing to stand up for an unpopular point of view, but that whole thing just seems to be completely unproductive. I think the people who started this RFC/U want to try and make a point about how you should focus your wikipedia attention, and from reading, I think they have a good point. I hope that everything works out for the best. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking time out to comment, Non :-) ....the unanimity of respected wikipedians' voices is certainly very important for me to respect, and to make sure I listen and understand what they're saying to me is the least I can do. I'm sure everything will work out ok, and appreciate that you do too :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping this RfC will simply serve as one huge trout slap and force P.M. to stop acting silly and contribute in the constructive and helpful fashion we know he is capable of. I also hope he understands that those who act as a pain the community's backside are liable to be removed. A bit of prudence when editing, Privatemusings—and, by that, I mean not 'banging the drum' on Steve Crossin, when nil attention is precisely what was needed and wanted—goes a long way. Not endorsing, but I do agree that it would be a poor use of our time to make a big deal out of this RfC: we've said what's needed to be said, and PM is well aware of what he is doing to annoy the community; now—as Bstone has succinctly advised—we should get on with writing an encyclopedia. AGK 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 7 November vote by How do you turn this on

1. With respect, why then are you endorsing other views? AGK 16:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect, I only endorsed the views suggesting that this was so. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thinking now, yes. I simply found it odd that you were endorsing a view in an RfC that you had evaluated as (per your endorsement) a waste of time. :) Juxtaposition can be a curious thing! AGK 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am happy to amend my previous endorsement after re-reading what PM wrote, I would point out that I can only refer to the Steve Crossin situation since this is what the RfC is based on. If there are many other matters that could have been brought up then they should have, and the community then allowed to comment on them all. Since these other matters, of which "Steve Crossin" may be a sample, are not part of these proceedings then I think they should not be mentioned in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is based on the Crossin incident, yes, but it is rather an expression of serious concerns over Privatemusings' judgement. We're aiming to look at the bigger picture here, rather than pick at and analyse something that is largely now in the history books. AGK 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to endorse, but I have several caveats that left me undecided.

My main caveat is that simply authoring a good article should not be enough to put someone in good standing. It should be the entire history of their participation here that determines someone's standing, with changes in attitude along the way (i.e. explicitly acknowledging previous conduct and repudiating it if needed) that reduces the impact previous behaviour can have on current standing.

Also, I don't fully endorse the "article" verus "Wikipedia" namespace metric. It is possible (through experience gained with an undisclosed account, for example, or work on another project) to purely or mainly participate in a 'project' space and make good, valid and helpful points. When 'project' space contributions are considered unhelpful, they should be criticised on their own failings, not weighed against article space contributions. Having said that, I have a very low bar for what constitutes 'unhelpful' project space contributions - it is important not to stifle criticism. Others may have a higher bar for what they consider 'disruptive' or 'stirring the pot'.

I think one thing that is missed here is experience in 'project' space. It is quite possible for a dedicated 'article' content contributor to wade into 'project' (or indeed 'article talk') space all guns blazing and disrupt things through lack of experience (or diplomacy) there. It is also possible for someone with little article contributions to lurk and contribute extensively in 'project' space and have a better handle on how things work and what the history is of certain long-running and contentious debates. So regardless of the specific case here (and I do think Privatemusings does need to reconsider the judgments and decisions he personally makes to get involved in certain areas), I don't think generalising metrics like this is helpful.

A more general comment: did the mentors consider discussing in detail (or discuss in detail) with Privatemusings what would be good, non-drama-inducing, contributions to the 'Wikipedia' namespace, rather than trying to focus his attention on content? A good starting point would be the WP:NTWW contributions. Why not build on that, instead of trying to refocus him on content editing that he may not have much interest in? There are also plenty of other areas of the 'Wikipedia' namespace that Privatemusings could contribute in without 'stirring the pot' on touchy issues. Also, mentoring is good, and I'm sure the mentors in this case did not intend to 'mould' Privatemusings in their own image, but in some cases of mentoring it feels that way. The best mentoring allows people to develop in their own way. Is there any page on Wikipedia documenting hihg-profile mentoring cases and what methods have worked best?

Looking forward, it is unclear now exactly what Privatemusings has to do to regain good standing (previously he had an open-ended path provided by ArbCom, and then a clearer path mapped out by a set of mentors). Monthly reviews are good, but at some point there has to be a way to have the record wiped clean and for Privatemusings to fully participate, otherwise he will be forever a second-class citizen. The same "stigma" effect has been observed in other editors who get off to a poor start, or get caught up in some controversy that everyone remembers. If people see that it is virtually impossible to remove the stain of such stigmas (i.e. people will always bring up Privatemusings' past history) then that will not encourage people to reform, but instead they will bridle under semi-permanent (almost impossible to lift) restrictions until they get banned. Equally, some past actions are so serious that they will be part of a 'permanent' record. It is a delicate balancing act. I know the mentors have resigned, but would they consider setting out new goals for Privatemusings so that he is not left completely without guidance? Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are very good and thoughtful comments. You have a point--it is possible to write good articles without becoming a model Wikipedian. That approach isn't guaranteed to work; none is. Yet most of the time it does succeed and this instance was one of the clearest candidates. It puts a new perspective on vandalism, POV-pushing, and disruption to deal with those problems on an article one has built up from nothing. The mentors were three very experienced Wikipedians who touched bases frequently, reported to the Committee, remained open to new ideas, and finally resigned with a comment that if stones remained unturned none of us knew what they were.

There's an important distinction to be made between remaining open to alternative viewpoints that are arguably valid, and recognizing when empirical evidence proves a hypothesis wrong. Privatemusings has yet to acknowledge that his attempts to help CS, Moulton, and Steve Crossin left them worse off then he found them. See also the talk page to 'threats of violence' and this where Privatemusings continues to insist that he has consensus to raise the page to policy, despite all signs to the contrary--discussions have been either split or leaning the other way and the problem that page was intended to resolve actually worsened during the time when it was nominally active (see WP:BEANS).

The question is not so much whether the mentors or the Committee have been open to alternative viewpoints, but how open Privatemusings is to viewpoints other than his own. PM's reply to MBisanz's opening request has been along the lines of If you don't like what you see, don't look, which would be a perfectly fine thing for a woman at a French seashore to tell a prudish American; less acceptable from a fellow who's actively snatching away an unwilling man's loincloth.

As mentors we found Privatemusings sought and accepted advice only on trivial matters. On substantive issues he responded on a very high social register and then continued unchanged on his own chosen path. Afterward, reviewing his statements, we found that he hadn't actually contradicted himself--just used such mild terms that it was easy to suppose we had reached clear agreement until his actions later demonstrated otherwise. He did not recognize the scope of the problems we articulated; he did not acknowledge that his actions had caused actual harm; he was unmoved by our concerns that he was on a trajectory which may ultimately end in a longer repeat of his previous siteban. The mentors exerted tremendous effort to be clear and reasonable and responsive. Ultimately, we resigned for two reasons: the attempt to mentor was draining too much of our energies away from productive endeavors, and real mentorship was not occurring--without active and functional engagement on both sides mentorship is impossible. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on one point, I guess what I was actually asking was whether the attempt by the mentors to help has left Privatemusings worse off than before the mentors tried to mentor him? Which is why I asked if the ex-mentors could suggest a way forward. I don't think the "don't get involved with the Steve Crossin situation" aim of this RfC even begins to address the wider issues. Even if you accept that the CS, Moulton and Steve Crossin situations were worsened by the involvement of Privatemusings, that puts CS and Moulton and Steve Crossin in the position of victim with respect to Privatemusings. With respect, I don't think that is the right attitude to take - those judging the situation should be able to assess Privatemusing's comments on their own, without public commentary from mentors (that's not the role of a mentor, or even ex-mentor - some mentors, I would hazard a guess, would disengage and not reveal things that might have been said in confidence). And there are plenty of situations where people right here commenting on this page and the RfC have got involved in and worsened situations (many more people than just Privatemusings were involved in the TOV situation, and I echo LHvU's comment that it is worrying that the scope of things is widening here, even though I said above that someone's whole history should be taken into account). If I may say so, I'm also uncomfortable with the finish to your comment, with the link to a Frost poem. Analogies and comparisons only go so far. There comes a point when direct, clear language works better than literary references, but that's your style and your choice. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only echo Carcharoth's concern over the focus of this RfC, and as I also said here; I skimmed through the statement and intended purpose of the RfC and, even more so and to my detriment, PM's response and on the conclusions I came to made my initial endorsement. I find it ironic that this RfC appears to have been conflated to include aspects of PM's conduct that were not part of the "agreed" area of concern, which is more or less the concerns that this RfC has now been directed when such activity is from PM. This is not to say that, upon review of Lar's comments and the particulars provided by Durova, there are not matters which appear need to be dealt with, but perhaps this RfC needs to be closed and a new one submitted or the statement and purpose be necessarily amended to include all of the relevant concerns expressed. It cannot be both. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-22: the RFC opens on a narrow scope, and gets derided on the basis of a narrow scope despite former mentors' discreet agreement that concerns are indeed substantive. So we speak up, you draw us out, and now scold us for responding? Yes, of course we discussed the available options at great length. Shall we describe what those were, or will that be construed in even worse faith than silent capitulation to this series of prejudicial and thinly founded speculations? The real danger here is of creating a chilling effect in which seasoned editors fear to attempt mentoring, and shy away rather than risk minefields of blame if their best efforts do not achieve the desired results. All three of us like Privatemusings; all three of us wanted and still want him to succeed. Everyone's a critic; if you think you can get better results then by all means step forward and try. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is a critic, might that be an indication that there is something wrong? Nevermind, I understand the thrust of your argument and I have a solution; close this RfC as too narrow in scope and open a new one with a remit to review PM's conduct since the expiry of the 90 day block, with an emphasis on how mentoring may or may not have been successfully applied, and with a stated purpose of having PM redirecting his energies to content creation (outside of topic bans). This way proposers, certifiers, reviewers/commentators will be working from the same page from the very start. Unless there are major objections I will propose this very thing in the next 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this arguing over mentors and who is prepared to do that sort of thing, goes any further, I suggest some lessons be learnt from this. Does having three mentors work? Should there be a code of conduct for mentors? Is it acceptable for mentors to resign and then comment extensively at and endorse an RfC on the former mentoree? How much influence should a mentor have? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what people might answer to these questions, but I think the whole process of mentorship needs to be looked at, including the advantages and disadvantages of informal and formal mentorships. In this case, the mentorship arose from a RfArb - two of the mentors explicitly stated here that they had been appointed by ArbCom - whether that was intended to add weight to their comments or make the history clearer, I don't know, but it may have the effect of adding weight to the comments of the mentors. My point is that at times the mentors may have appeared to be acting as proxies for ArbCom (monitoring and reviewing Privatemusings), rather than as mentors. Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth: I think you raise some interesting questions about mentorship in general which should be addressed in more detail, somewhere. Because they strike me as important ones! To the specifics... in this case I would think that we 3 mentors were more likely to succeed than any one of us individually would have been... As Durova said, no stone was left unturned. But that's a specific thing. I do think the general questions should be discussed somewhere. But where? ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic would suggest WT:MENTOR (the talk page of Wikipedia:Mentorship). I'll copy my comments over there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to get into the details of why it didnt work, but this mentorship failed spectacularly. It is a shame as I thought this would be an interesting way for people in Privatemusings situation to escape from under the cloud of arbcom remedies. Everyone hounded the mentors when we reset the clock the first time, and are doing so again now. These unblock requests by privatemusings were in no way discussed during our mentorship ("if only they had been, we wouldnt be here!"), except that we would find out about them at the same time as everyone else did, and we would collectively sigh. Why? The ex-mentors are acutely aware of the blocked/banned subjects which Privatemusings has been playing with, and that is why we are here, trying to put an end to it. I dont particularly want this to go on and on. I do want Privatemusings to stop publicly requesting unblock any time he doesnt understand the situation - especially when the real life identity of these people is linked to the accounts he is advocating for, and he does such a shoddy job of background investigation into the history. First and foremost, here and now, I want him to drop this Steven Crossin matter. Either FloNight is telling the truth, or she is not. If she is telling the truth, then the matter is sufficiently well handled that it should be put to bed. If Steven Crossin would "like to have a formal arb case, essentially to allow him to make a statement, and for others to comment as per our norms in dispute resolution", this would very likely result in a very public stain on a very real living person. If SC and PM cant see that, they are blinded by some other, overpowering, motivation which is very likely to be not healthy. Please do not derail this RFC - let us get this matter addressed before tackling the wider issues. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I withdraw my proposal to request this RfC is closed and a new one opened; in trying to come to a conclusion in this one matter I would, however, suggest that other concerns are only mentioned as background to "communication difficulties" with PM. The substance may be the basis of another process at some future date. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Privatemusings should drop the Steve Crossin stuff, but may I point out that the single thing on-wiki at the moment that is continuing to highlight the Steve Crossin case is... this RfC. Ironic really. You may chose to lay the blame for that at Privatemusings' door, and not the people who are participating in this RfC, but I suggest that if Privatemusings makes a clear and unequivocal statement that he will not raise any issue to do with Steve Crossin in the future, that this RfC be closed to avoid stirring the pot any further, and that a new RfC be opened to focus on Privatemusings' general track record, though discussing the scope of such an RfC (here or on a draft talk page) might be an idea before actually opening it. As far as I see it, the ball is in Privatemusings' court. The clearly stated aim of this RfC is That Privatemusings no longer involves himself in or refers to anything associated with the user known as Steve Crossin. If Privatemusings makes a statement to that effect, this RfC can be closed and the other issues that Durova (and others) have mentioned can be raised elsewhere (in a new RfC if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this RfC, there was a slowly brewing discussion about the SC matter on PM's talk page; I felt uneasy going AFK for two days with him still holding his back up as if he was "doing the right thing" in continuing to pursue this SC matter. I would like to see it put to bed, so SC is neither misled nor dragged back into the kangaroo court of public opinion.

It is a shame that an RfC has been seen as necessary to shut this down; other approaches were attempted.

I will be more than happy to hear Privatemusings clearly state that he has dropped the matter, without all the usual musings thrown in to muddy the water. I am tired of him continuing to suggest that there is a problem with process or outcome of this SC matter, and indicating that he feels a saintly calling to rectify the problem that only he can see. If we obtain a clear statement from PM, this RfC can be closed as having obtained the desired outcome. Once this is resolved, if the underlying problem comes up again, I'd prefer to cross that bridge when we are looking at it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said privately to PM, he is more then happy to pursue this issue to his heart's content on IRC, the mailing lists and Skype, etc. Those are things parts the community use to discuss stuff, RFCs (and by virtue any community process), can only impact on-wiki behavior. Also, I agree with Carc and Jay that is PM were to clearly state such a thing, this RFC could be speedily closed. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - I get the impression that part of this is (or was) fuelled by off-wiki communications between Steve and Privatemusings (e-mail? IRC?). Surely the RfC aim should restrict itself to on-wiki stuff? I wouldn't want to see people point to this RfC and then complain that Privatemusings is agitating in IRC or on other wikis or on mailing lists about this. It would be remarkably stupid of Privatemusings to do that, but equally the remit of an en-wikipedia RfC does not (as far as I'm aware) extend off-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've chatted about this with Steve on 4 brief-ish occasions, to my recall (2 private IRC chats prior to this all kicking off, once openly, with others, in the IRC channel, and once on a brief Skype call - could well be more, but not substantially so) - I'm happy for all actions to at least be discussed, because, as I mentioned above, I am a bit concerned at bits of FUD creeping in in not so cool ways.... more anon.. Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here before you is an example of exactly what John, and Durova, and I, have been talking about. PM has been directly asked to make an explicit commitment to drop the SC matter (which is the, I suspect deliberately, narrow scope of this RfC). PM has declined to make that explicit commitment. He has instead, very politely, spoken about other things while not actually addressing the direct question. If he addressed it with a direct answer, this RfC would be over. But he has not, and so it is not. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm prepared to wait and see what Privatemusings will say (the "more anon" bit). But if he continues to evade giving a clear answer, I'll have to agree with what you are saying, that he is deliberately avoiding giving a clear answer. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit bummed for a number of reasons that my responses are being interpreted as evasive, and (as I mentioned at the top), I'd like to take a bit of time to read everything, and post a short statement, so everyone can be dead clear where I stand, and folk can offer their thoughts about the basis for moving forward... it'd be appreciated :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< on the Steve C matter (the stated focus of this RfC), I just flicked FT2 a response to an email which I'm happy to make the 'end of the line' on this one. For the tl:dr folk - here's the bit that matters;

I believe the arbcom has fallen short of best practice here. You (the committee) have discussed a case privately, and voted internally to issue a 6 month ban to a user. You (as a committee) consider it impossible to certify this on-wiki with any sort of public motion, though individual arbs have communicated the existance(sic) of the ban on wiki. I sincerely believe there are significant weaknesses and dangers in this approach.

as I went on to say... I'm happy to agree to disagree on this with anyone, and let it lie.. put in simple terms, I'll no longer involve myself in or refer to anything associated with the user known as Steve Crossin for the forseeable! I'm still working on a bit of a statement on some of the other stuff, but felt this was worth an update.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)I should probably say that I'll interpret the statement I've issued according to my own common sense - for example feeling free to edit away on '24' articles should the mood take me, which is unlikely anywhoo... my talk page remains open to folk feeling I've stepped over any lines anywhere on the wiki, including this new one :-)[reply]

Again, this seems to highlight a misunderstanding of what the crux is here. We are focussing on the wider issue here—that you have demonstrated, over a substantial period of time, acutely poor judgement—rather than on this individual incident—your handling of the Crossin matter. This RfC is essentially a dialogue to discuss where we go from here. (Where is "here"? The expression by a number of very sensible community members, that they have serious concerns regarding your personal judgement, and, by extension, regarding the effect you are having on the wider project through your presence on Wikipedia.)

What I want to know, P.M., is how you intend to remedy this long-term pattern of poor judgement—which in itself seems to be on-going; and a lot of convincing will need to be done. You've used up a lot of chances.

Sorry to speak so candidly here, but I am afraid you'll shoot yourself in the foot through not tackling the real issue.

AGK 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that some would welcome a pretty unequivocal statement, AGK - folk seem to be saying as much above. Maybe one good way forward would be for this to move into a sort of Q & A format? - that way I can be sure to be addressing specific concerns, and maybe offer a few questions of my own if stakeholders might permit it etc.? - I dunno really, but remain open to pretty much anything :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two paths here, Privatemusings. And I'd be inclined to defer to your preference as long as the choice is clear: would you rather define this RFC by a narrow scope, and close it as resolved with that? Or would you rather treat that as one instance of a larger pattern, which some people consider it to be? Short term, the former is obviously easier. Long term, the latter may serve you better. Durova^Charge! 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think this started out narrow. There is advantage in getting a narrow RfC cleanly and clearly closed. But it seems that there are those who want to widen it. I can see why they want that. I'm with D in deferring to PM's preference on this. At least for this RfC. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< My preference (I think!) is for all aspects of my behaviour which people see as disruptive, troublesome, or demonstrative of poor judgment to be openly discussed. I think that's the fundamental purpose of an RfC (although this one also had the purpose of a rather specific short term behavioural change, I guess...). In fact - those two aims may be in a degree of tension with each other, I dunno (it's good to unpack, and talk through the problems with my approach / judgment / behaviour, but the problem is that I disrupt by talking / unpacking matters which consensus would seem to suggest are resolved). I remain keen to discuss my judgment (and would have liked to do so three months ago, of course!) - but maybe the absolute best thing would be for someone else to lead - me 'n my two left feet will follow in good spirits, and fundamentally it's great that the folk participating at this RfC are interested and keen to make things better. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I need to return to work on my statement thing? - d'ya think that would be helpful at this time? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, a statement would be helpful. Actions alone, and not words, will ultimately convince me individually, however. AGK 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tis said they speak louder :-) - as I mentioned above, I'm happy to follow too, ag - should we start a section about some specific actions (maybe not this one per all advice!) - but maybe my editing in biographies? disruption on talk pages etc. etc.? Otherwise, I'm not sure I'll finish anything until after the arbcom elections - and I'm still a bit unsure about what I'll say anywhoo...... please do feel free to start a discussion on anything... I'm very keen to 'plug in' :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this request for comments be linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings to provide a full history of the ongoing dispute resolution process? Also, the mentorship agreement noted here needs updating, seeing that the mentors have resigned. The (nearly) unequivocal statement made above by Privatemusings should be noted as well. And a listing of ArbCom mentorships should be updated, where-ever that listing ends up (a start is at WT:MENTOR#Previous mentorships and consistent use of this page). Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we requested in our resignation message that an arbitrator or a clerk note the change for the community's benefit. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this ever happened? - anywhoo, I've attached a small statement there, and am happy to chat about here, there and everywhere (/me sings along!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any evidence that PM followed this advice. I see this as another example where PM discards very good advice which would have required significant effort to follow. He has been vocal in suggesting that this case was badly handled, and that it isnt an example of "best practise" - but "best practise" is not some ideal .. it is a documentation of past successes and failures, with the intention of promoting the methods used in the successes, in order to generally raise the bar. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem in rolling up my sleeves and doing some leg work. I would evidence that statement, and follow up, but feel it would run the risk of undermining a previous commitment to keep schtum. See above section for how we may untie the knot :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always find something meaningful in these things from wordle.net;

is it me, or are the generally 'nice' words (edit, endorse, summary, good etc.) a bit bigger than the not-so-nice ones (drama, disruption, banned etc.) - my main concern at this point is how small 'accurate' is! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How unusual. :)
I suppose the output depends on the input; if you only give the utility positive language, it's going to spit out a positive image of you!
AGK 00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why it says "Carcharoth get Lar"! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ours is not to question the wordle, carch :-) go get 'im! @ag - I'd never thought of trying to bias the wordle! - I think the gods who come up with these clouds would be wise to that - and suffice to say this one's the entire content of the RfC at the timestamp of my edit - and look out! Outside things case AGK.....! Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rather inactive in the last month or so, I guess I missed all the fun. Jebus, PM got into trouble about raising questions about the horribly shitty way that arbcom handled the Steve Crossin situation? Thinking about that absurd ban still pisses me off, and I applaud PM for everything that he's done in this situation. As I tried to explain to Steve once, this is about more than just him and his specific situation. But PM keeps reminding people about something they want to forget! Oh heavens no, we can't have that. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]