User:RyanFreisling/Archive 2

dead links

In straightening out similar messes, I've developed a few strategies which you may find useful.

For some dead links, you might try the internet archive waybackmachine. Template:Waybackref is designed for use with it.

For missing news stories, e.g. the yahoo news ones, often those were copied at least partially by blogs. These can be found by googling the title, e.g. [1]. Given the full text from a blog this way, you can often find current links to the same article from news sites by googling phrases, e.g. [2]. The two-step google process is useful because news sites quite often change the headlines on wire service reports.

Most links to the NY Times expire after a few weeks, so that you will use the fee-based archive system. This can usually be by-passed with this blog-link generator.

You might also want to object to the phrase "supported Kevin Baas" in that finding. It seems to contradict Individual Responsibility. The phrase serves no purpose but to associate the actions of one editor with those of another.

I also like how Fred made a finding as to Kevin's "beliefs", but then he had to put words in Kevin's mouth which caricatured his actual comments. They might just ask Kevin what he believes instead of making a finding as to his internal state of mind. Immediately afterwards, he says you support him, not-so-subtly hinting that you share Kevin's "beliefs".

Fred writes these findings like a really skilled POV-pusher would write an article. Unfortunately, he has first-mover advantage because he's motivated. And the other arbitrators tend never to revise his proposals. Notice how he avoided the Workshop once he started getting some feedback there. I do have some respect for Fred as an arbitrator, but he tends to come in to these things with a very obvious personal opinion. When he gets past his prejudices, he tends to do a good job.

I realize I'm commenting a lot for an univolved party, but I am quite interested in some of the principles involved in this case. I haven't yet read the articles, but I really dislike how this dispute is being handled. Derex 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RfM w/Phil

I have requested mediation w/Phil: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. I imagine you would like to be involved. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

How can I help?

Noticed your comment, so clue me in as to what manner I can be of service. You can always email me if you need at mongomontana@yahoo. and the (com) at the end, if you prefer.--MONGO 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

arb case trolls

won't starve. relax. Kevin Baas^talk 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

electionarbcomcase

Wow, you guys are really taking it up the yazoo over there. Too bad you didn't have a good logician around earlier on. The logic is full of holes. Say, want me to go shoot something up fer ya?

I think its pretty apparent that what we have here is a case of pov warrior admins. And Republican Logic, which is always fallacious logic except for when it isn't which isn't often. The crux of the case, and the point i tried to make and which i would have thought you folks would have picked up on:

The loophole "notable group" renders the sources cited function to be citing those sources which compose the group. The essential push here is to make you unable to use any source that's not republican. You can show that the sources they want you to site are republican, and then you can show that in fact, since it is a factual article about a factual movement what is relevant is that groups factual arguments, not the illogical attempt to ban non republican sources by naming them as not notable.

Alas, too few people paid attention when i made that argument vs merecat, and now you didn't have it handy to make to defend the situation you have now. What we do have tho is the good start of an overall campaign against admin abuse. I have a lengthy report sitting on Jimbos desk, I hope you will take a look at it and think about it.

Wikipedia has become abusive, and it is now infiltrated at even the arbitrator levels with pov warriors who are gaming the system to do whatever they decide to do, neutrality be damned. It's time to make a big noise about this, both to save Wikipedia if that is possible, and to "win" in any way that has meaning. If not, maybe its time some of us wised up and started an encyclopedia not based on innocent utopian rules and thus pov warrior mob and pack psychology. Let me know what's on your mind and if you would like me to shred a page or five worth of bad logic for ya. Prometheuspan 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Q.E.D.

Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine) [3] Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

Prometheuspan 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you reaching out to help - but I think it should play out as it is (without any more attacks on anyone's views, whether Democrats or Republicans)... and let the words and actions of all involved speak for themselves. If this day does not end well, there's always tomorrow. Thanks, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I won't move on this without a green light from those involved,

but the fact is whats really going on here is censorship. The facts do speak plainly for themselves in this case, and the elections were in fact rigged. The only way the republicans can win this debate is by finding ways to limit evidence. There are two primary means they use, the first is to attack a single source as being not notable or dependable. This is usually followed by the apeal to use mainstream sources. Thats appeal ad populum, plus excluded middle, and ad hominem. The sources they request that we use are biased as they are owned and operated by republican interests. This is information control and information warring. The idea here is to invalidate a source itself. Nevermind the facts of the information which the source brings to bear. The second method is to limit the number of cites, or the size of the articles, such that the facts again don't have the space to speak for themselves. Which goes against the policy "not paper". (Where is that?) In both cases the problem is that we have pov warriors on the arbitration committee, and i don't think thats a situation that warrants sitting around over. I think its time to get mad at the injustice and abuse of it all, and to make a big noise. Let me know if you come around to my way of seeing things. Prometheuspan 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Promethuspan's take on the election arbcom case looks like a mirror of what's happening over on the biopsychiatry pseudoscience arbcom case. Perhaps it was just a matter of looking in all the forbidden places, but it always seemed that whenever mention of biopsychiatry cropped up outside the Wiki, it generally had to do with the utter lack of scientific evidence backing up the culturally ingrained practice of prescribing profit generating neurotoxins (e.g., the notorious marketing of drugs using chemical imbalance theory taglines). The argument being put forth by defenders of medical orthodoxy is basically the same as above, based on claims that the Wiki can't afford to tolerate 'undue weight' from sources outside the mainstream of medicine in covering critical perspectives, meaning that the only 'acceptable' content is that which is proffered by the increasinly tainted 'scholarly' medical journals, which of course are largely just marketing vehicles, part and parcel of the medical industry's hegemony. Not surprisingly, due to enormous marketing excesses, big pharma is the main up and coming rival to the defense industry in terms of the onslaught of lobbying, influence peddling and bribery that dominates the Republican party... Ombudsman 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a very interesting case with which i am very familiar. My mother was a victim of the prescription med industry, and its very clear

that the "chemical imbalance" theory of psychiatry is only true in a very small fraction of cases. I have the equiv of a degree in in psychology, let me know if you want help arguing that case or with that article or logic support etc. Prometheuspan 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

whoa, girl

Saw your note on ANI. You know that Kiz and me are just joking around? He did pop up on the phrasing query, but that's because he spent so much time debating Rex. Admins might not get the joke if you leave it on ANI. Derex 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I know things have been real tense for you. Kizzle's first edit, which I remember, was actually calling Rex on some bullshit. So, I thought it was funny he had picked up some of the same lingo as his nemesis. A peculiar style, as he aptly mimicked in his reply. Didn't mean to give you a fright, what with all the bullshit you're going through. Derex 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

-k Derex 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:) Derex 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ryan, i love you. i'm sorry if i made you mad, i was just trying to be funny :) apparently i'm a little too good at mimicing rex. --kizzle 05:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, we really need to both harass User:JamesMLane some...he has been very quiet lately, and I am sure he misses me...well, maybe just a little.--MONGO 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I will, once it gets closer to midterm elections, you hear that James? I'm comin for you! --kizzle 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on after the election arb

Ryan, I'm very sorry you're feeling down, and hope this isn't unwanted advice, but I've been thinking about what you can do in response to the election arbitration. (I guess I'm assuming you're down because of the RFA -- if it's something else, just accept my best wishes). As usual, take my opinions for what they're worth, which is an unknown value.

Wait and see (no. 1): We have yet to hear from the majority of the ArbCom, and Fred's solution is fairly radical, so I wouldn't want to take bets on how many of the current findings and rulings will make it to the end. You're doing a good job arguing for your side.
Wait and see (no. 2): It's possible that even within "article probation," some kind of worthwhile and fair article can be produced. Ultimately, you wanted to get Phil and TBeatty involved, and maybe if you guys start from scratch, you can make an article that satisfies everybody. (I know, that's a little Polly-anna-ish, but it's possible.)
Save your material: If, in the absolute worst case, the ArbCom ends up deciding that some of the data in the current pages doesn't belong on Wikipedia, do what you can on Wikipedia, and start a new page somewhere else. I realize that's second-best, and I certainly don't mean to subvert Wikipedia, but if the ArbCom decides that WP isn't the place to collect all the data points of election irregularities, then logically some place else must be. You can start a set of pages somewhere else that can serve as a resource for interested persons, as well as serving as a resource to help the Wiki editors find verifiable info to discuss in their edits.
(Free from Wikipedia, you could actually make the collection much better in some ways -- If I were doing your project from scratch, and free from WP rules, I would start my own Wiki, then create one page for each incident, then categorize them by "obstacle to voting", "obstacle to registration", "vote fraud", etc. Each page could have a standard template for evidence for and against, legal proceedings, etc. You could have similar pages for each news report, official report, etc., then cross link, and finally do some protected summary pages where the admins write up summaries of Ohio 2004, Washington 2004, electronic voting, etc. The major downside is that unless you were careful, you might not have the input of sceptical editors.)
If the worst does happen and the pages do get put on probation, I'll be glad to help you work on them to make sure that something fair and as complete as possible goes up, subject to whatever limits the ArbCom sets.

Thanks, and I hope you feel better,TheronJ 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

I, Kizzle, hearby award RyanFreisling, the Valkyrie Barnstar, for always being a shining example of respecting Wikipedia policies, for always being kind, civil, and light-hearted with her co-editors, and most of all, for being one bad-ass chick who doesn't take shit from anyone and makes enemies, vandals, trolls, and overzealous admins tremble beneath her skilled logic and intimidating might.

You deserve it :) --kizzle 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think kizzle is spot-on. Guettarda 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are costing me a lot of Kleenex. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, grow up :-).Voice-of-All 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC by TDC

The RFC filed against me concerns many pages and edits you have been a participant in; please add your comments if you have any to make. Thanks!--csloat 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WTC

Is it possible to photographically document the rebuilding efforts at the WTC..I mean, would that be something that would even interest you...it might be interesting to take capture images on a regular basis of the reconstruction effort...just a thought.--MONGO 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry about mentioning it now...I hadn't considered that as a resident of NYC that the devastation of that day would have different emotions that could arise than for those that only watched it on TV. I was there too, you may know, from 9/15/01 and for three months after. I was staged near Wall Street. That is about all I can say on the matter. Let us hope that the reconstruction will be inspirational enough to help us properly memorialize that day.--MONGO 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being here and helping at that time. I hope you're not suffering from some of the health complications others have. Personally, I think the towers should be rebuilt, but one tower being built one inch shorter for each of the people killed in the attack. Shorter enough so that for generations and generations the question will be asked 'why is one tower shorter than the other?' -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Brilliant idea. Guettarda 03:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in favor of Donald Trump's idea, which was to rebuild them as they were, incorporating a different internal structure, but an identical exterior appearance. I believe he wanted them to be one foot taller though, but not sure. I really like your idea even better, Ryan.--MONGO 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't come up with it myself - I think it might've perhaps been Keith Olbermann. In any case, it seems to achieve in a simple gesture what I think should be the ultimate goal - to unite a memorial into the fabric of the new WTC in such a way as to truly honor the dead and stoke our national unity, while celebrating our abiltiy to get on with the business of living. And to stroll about a garden on the roof of the shorter tower, and to look up, and think of what might have been - that's a very powerful honor. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...I'm not a big fan of the partially below grade memorial in the footprints of the original towers...which I believe is the plan.--MONGO 04:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You never know

Ha![4]--MONGO 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling Tag

Hi, I commented on the recent addition of the trolling tag to that talk page and would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you reverted the tag before I had a chance to comment, I doubt your desire to hear my thoughts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hi, I have been floating around reading various peoples opinions about talk pages, and other things. I am in the middle of an RfC (on my behavior)[5] and I noticed some various characteristics about your talk page that I agree with. I would appreciate your comments either formally or in the discussion pages of my RfC. Thanks. Ste4k 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WTC

Are you sure you want to? If you find that taking pictures there is too much, then don't do it. I know that Greenwich Street is going to be rebuilt so the 4 towers along Greenwich Street between Vesey and south for four blocks will the locations of 200, 175, 150 Greenwich street and south of that will be WTC 5. That is east of the old WTC site I believe. Freedom Tower is supposed to be already be started at Vesey and West Washington and or Fulton Streets. Mainly the Freedom Tower, which is northeast of the footprint of Tower 1 of the WTC I believe. It might be interesting from an architectural standpoint, and for your own interest...aka...rebirth...to take pictures of the Freedom Tower a month or two apart and document the progress. An interesting website which documents such things can be found here... [6].--MONGO 13:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't rush home from the beach though...I haven't seen the Ocean since 2001...that's way too long.--MONGO 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So obvious:

[7]. New user, knows how things work, interested in 9/11 and spam policy on the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Message from Morton

Ryan, I am not here to get sideways with anybody, I'm here to edit Wikipedia. Before you get too far into bed with Hipocrite, you should know that rootology has had similar problems with him, in that he accuses people of sockpuppetry if they disagree with him. I assure you that I am experienced enough on Wikipedia to know that that sort of transparent sockpuppetry is totally ineffective -- I am not User:FurnaceOfMonkl -- if you have any doubts, I encourage you to ask for a Checkuser. I hope that you will ask users like Hipocrite to calm down, rather than to support their negative behavior. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Good luck, and happy editing. Cheers. Morton devonshire 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I merely asked Hipocrite for a link and he supplied it. That's all I've got to say on the matter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm....

[8]... --kizzle 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. You're awesome as always. I'm far too stressed (real life and WP), I'm trying to take a break. Hopefully I'll get a chance. Guettarda 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman temple and classical art photos

Ryan, thanks so much for contributing those photos. Have a delicious German doughnut :^) Isn't classical art and antiquity wonderful? I'm expanding many of the articles on Roman temples with detailed delineations of the architecture. I love outer space too. Arbo 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ich würde liebe einen berliner zu essen

It's my pleasure! Glad we share a passion for antiquities (and space). I've got a lot more photos, and I travel to Italy twice a year or so - so if there are any articles you'd like me to shoot for, I'd be more than happy to oblige! And thanks for the lovely berliner. (Yum, yum!)-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! And thanks. Specific shots of ancient monuments (and their ruins, (sniff, sob)) could potentially add a vast new dimension to the corresponding articles. First I need to do more research and make a list of images needed. If you're up for it I can write out instructions for photographing specific parts of buildings, which I would then give accurate nomenclature to and add the pics and text to articles.

The scope of the photography I have in mind—much depends on camera and lenses, plus other equipment, experience, technique et al. For architecture and sculpture the best guarantee of sharpness is a solid tripod, permitting slow shutter speeds (exposure time) required for small lens apertures, ensuring adequate depth of field and sharpness. All lenses are sharpest at their smallest aperture. Moderately bright sunlight helps bring out architectural details. Your two temple pics appear to have been shot on an overcast day, but your skyscraper shots look like bright sunny affairs. Either technique is fine—whatever is possible on the day you're there. I don't mean to sound fussy or demanding. I'm a meticulous person but I'm more than happy to accept whatever you can provide.

I will also look at WP's collection of classical spulpture pics and make a list—whatever you can manage to snap will be worshipped. Probably there will be candidates for pics of statues WP doesn't have yet, and I noticed a few extant with technical or aesthetic faults which could use replacement pics.

Arbo 18:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to take whatever shots you'd like (within reason - I have little meteorological sway with the Winds) and look forward to hunting down whatever unique angles/foci you recommend - I've got the perfect travel tripod and I use it on most detail-oriented or long-exposure shots. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident you know what you're doing. I can tell too from your other photos. I've posted a classical architecture photo assignment desk on my talk page >> with a few candidate buildings mapped out, where you can leave questions and comments.

Feel like a jaunt to Nimes? The best-preserved Roman temple is located there.

Arbo 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC) @

Lightning

Did you check out the lightning shot I took last week...it's on my userpage. I'm getting better...best to download and open it with Windows pic and fax viewer or better...the IE window makes it look splotchy a bit...oh well. There was a lot of wind and I couldn't get the tripod to stay still long.--MONGO 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god! What an incredible shot! Nice chops there, Ansel Adams. You should try the same technique for Fourth of July fireworks next year - my Dad says those 'ultra-short-exposure' shots are great for fireworks. Congrats, you're really doing some nice stuff! (I loved the woodpecker). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The woodpecker and the two at top are the only ones I took...the scenery shots are from the feds...and the rest of the art gallery images lower down are from someone that I don't expect to get better than anytime soon:)--MONGO 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoah Mongo, that picture is crazy! btw, ryan check your email --kizzle 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of you shoot me an email so I can send you a few more I have taken...if you feel so inclined...I think I have Ryan's but not sure...--MONGO 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ease your concerns

Hi. This is a joke. Regards, Karwynn (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't funny. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comment to my talk page because I think moving is better than removing and that's where comments go, but if you'd rather not have it there at all (I always ask this when moving comments), then sorry, you can blank it if you want along with my reply. Cheers! Karwynn (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

re:WP:BITE

Exactly what I meant, finally, someone who understands me :) Regards — The Future 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

debate

Hi - I passed by Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate and I was glad to see at least one reasonable perspective among the bunch - that being yours. I'd give you a "reasonable person" barnstar if there were one. Hmmm, maybe I'll make my own. Outriggr 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the koan! Outriggr 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, Ryan is reasonable but she's ignored me for the last few months, I need attention! where the f have you been all my life? --kizzle 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh kizzle - how have I offended thee? What missives have I missed from your kizzlin' fingertips? :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuthin, just give a shoutout to your homeboy every now and then. --kizzle 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just cast a vote on the "deletion review". This is the most riled up I've been about an issue on WP: I truly don't get how a project that has been said to pride itself on alienating "subject matter experts" is now horribly concerned about alienating an editor who uploads pictures of herself with semen on her face. It's completely absurd - it's as if these users are trying extra hard to prove to themselves that they're completely liberal. Sad, really. Sorry, I just needed a place to vent. Outriggr 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a debate. Amazing how people get so worked up defending the indefensible. Got to go away again for a while now, TBeatty's already managed to make my head explode. Derex 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

whatup derex, hope all is well. --kizzle 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

now that's what i'm talking about!

thanks for the wiki-love, that's a beautiful flower! hope all is well :) --kizzle 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intrigued...

...at how the quotes on you user page don't seem to square with your views on the banning of publicgirluk. And no i didn't see the pics or get involved at the time of the debate.

The following reasons seem have been given on the side of the pro-ban lobby (if there is such a thing) Jimbo says so, which is fair enough, it's his baby and not a democracy. She was troll, could be, but there's a process. Ignore All Rules, which is probably a way of saying good judgement comes first; it really only works with consensus else it's a free-for-all, but that contradicts it not being a democracy.

I also think two issues were confused in this debate; removing the pics (which is a no-brainer and a no-big-deal, they would go) and the indefinite banning. The last two points in my para above are good for removing pics, but not good enough for the banning.

Anyway, curious to know what you think --Mongreilf 15:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious conflict between the viewpoints I put on my user page and my support for the removal of the images. I voted to delete, and neither removed them myself nor banned that user - and if that user was a troll, which means an intentional disruptor, then I would support a ban as well. I must confess that I found your 'Jimbo's baby vs. democracy' sum-up to be inaccurate. I believe that a group of well-intentioned individuals should be able to police themselves and to take care of intenional disruptors or ne'er-do-wells without following autocratic process hurdles. I see such a scenario (using community responsibility and individual accountability alike) as profoundly humanistic. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh fair enough, i thought you were pro the ban.

Oh hang on, you are saying if she's a troll then ban her (no argument there), but then go onto say stuff about policing ourselves and ne'er-do-wells (again no argument there). The point is together these two sentences might imply she is that ne'er-do-well and so banning is a justified part of policing ourselves.

My point about all your quotes is that this technique of stating the possibility of guilt (which is true) together with how the guilty should be punished (which is also true) leads to the false conclusion that those possibly guilty should be punished, rather than those actually guilty, and is a trick of oppressors everywhere.--Mongreilf 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

and another thing (lol) you're against due process?--Mongreilf 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

no, but perhaps we disagree as to the applicability of the word 'due'. If a user is indeed intentionally disrupting, process need be no more than indef blocking. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry to rattle on, but again the "if". the process establishes the truth of that "if". i'm interested in perhaps yours, and certainly others, confusing of possible guilt and definite punishment. i thought process was the only way to move safely from one to the other, rather the the constructs of implication that seem to have gone on with publicgirluk. i'm not trying to spam you so i'll take whatever you say and leave it at that. i'm only going on because i think this seems an exemplary case of how good governance can so easily go bad.

I think part of the problem is attributing godlike power to process. Process does not establish truth, process is used to establish it when necessary. In an online community, where possible behaviors are orders of magnitude simpler than in the Real World, process is correspondingly less necessary. I would not argue for a ban on disruptive citizens in the Real World, but I certainly agree with a ban on disruptive users on WP. I don't see the two views as contradictory - and I don't believe this incident is 'good governance gone bad', I believe it's just 'more trolling'. I can hold that view because, like many, I value my own judgment, the judgment of the community, and the project, and I support our collective judgment (delete/ban) regarding this user's disruption. I firmly hold that this is an encyclopedia first, and a social experiment second. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

However, I must tell you that I find this comment of yours to be an offensive personal attack (on a few levels) and would like to ask you to please remove it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. I guess tyrenius got to it first. Sorry about that.

The ban wasn't "collective judgment" it was by edict. I do wonder if sex and/or deference is at the heart of this being so controversial. My own view is that she was banned because publicgirluk's talk page was beginning to sound like myspace. That is grounds for a ban!--Mongreilf 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It hadn't gone. I assumed it was a generalisation rather than a personal attack, and would have been happy with a statement to confirm that. However, I don't think it's particularly helpful anyway, and, per conversation above, I have deleted it. Tyrenius 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The collective judgement was not to ban this user. There was no consensus for that. It was more like a 50/50 divide. Public comments as well as emails I've received from editors in good standing and admins continue to show disquiet that a grave injustice has been done. Furthermore, there is in her edit history and interaction with other users no evidence of disruption. The only disruption was the discussion on AN/I in which she took a minimal part and even that was to suggest an instant solution, namely to delete her images — a solution which was ignored. Prior to that her behaviour and the reaction to it was free of problems. Tyrenius 06:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to rehash this over and over again, suffice it to say that the view of the admins I most trust and respect was that this user was disruptive. Jimmy's views merely reflected an opinion that was indeed fairly unanimous among these editors. Moreover I do not consider the amount of disingenuousness mounted by those in her defense (everything from claims of censorship to puritanism and back again) to be indicative of particularly good judgment, leaving me with less than a '50/50' view of this conflict . As it stands, the ban has been largely unopposed, her contributions are not missed (except by the regretful ones who never got to see them) and therefore I see little downside to the ban. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chalk me up to the regretful ones who never got to see them. --kizzle 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, Ryan, but that is circular reasoning. The ban is largely unopposed and her contributions are not missed, because you are admittedly counting out the opinions of those editors whose opinions you do not trust and respect. However, it appears you distrust and do not respect editors who oppose her ban and miss her contributions, so you're just begging the question, aren't you? Kasreyn 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all circular reasoning. I'm not 'counting out' opinions, I'm just going with my perception of the incident, which is largely unchanged since my first becoming aware of the possible risk those photos posed. So please just stop attributing motives or attitudes to me that are plainly untrue - I can disagree without 'distrusting' nor 'disrespecting' other editors. And your saying so is both uncivil and an obvious vio of WP:AGF, bordering on a personal attack. If you continue with these attacks, your comments here will be unceremoniously deleted. Consider this a civil, patient, good faith warning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've misunderstood. You mentioned your trust and respect for some editors, whose opinions you seemed to be citing as reason for your belief that PGUK was disruptive. To my thinking, there is no functional difference between noting that one trusts some more than others, and noting that one distrusts others more than some. (Likewise with respect, of course.) Aren't such comments fundamentally reversible in this way? If not, then I have indeed made a mistake.

Your statement is a logical fallacy. You cannot equate a statement of respect for others as a statement of disrespect for others. They are absolutely not interchangeable, as respect is, in my opinion , not a 'zero sum' or even a limited resource. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your remark, it therefore seemed to me to stand to reason that there were some editors you trusted and respected less than others, and that this group might logically include those editors you claimed display "disingenuousness". (I also note that while you mentioned no names, "disingenuous" is not a particularly civil or respectful thing to call another Wikipedia editor, as it speaks to motive rather than action.) The crux of my interpretation was your close to the sentence - "leaving me with less than a '50/50' view of this conflict" - which I interpreted to mean that you had therefore chosen to discount the opinions of those editors whom you trusted and respected less than the ones you claimed specifically to trust and respect. If there is another way to interpret the "50/50" sentence, I must admit I can't see it. It certainly requires some kind of interpretation in order to understand it. If I misinterpreted your remark initially, then obviously my remark is incorrect due to a flawed premise.

Since your initial conclusion is fundamentally flawed, your second sentence is equally so. I pointed out that there were flatly disingenuous comments being made by those attempting to 'save' these images. I did not characterize them as such, I agreed with the characterizations of others. Read the pages and you'll find those comments quite readily. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never intended any of my remarks towards you as attacks of any kind, Ryan. We certainly disagree strongly on the PGUK affair, but that doesn't lessen my respect for you as a colleague any. WP:CIVIL requires us to focus on the comment, not the contributor, and I have attempted to do that. My intention was to point out a comment you made which I felt was erroneous (ie., which I felt displayed the fallacy of circular reasoning). If in my second reformulation of the idea in my last sentence I spoke too bluntly, I apologize; I was attempting to be brief and concise. I didn't want to waste more space than I had to on your page with what I thought was merely a simple logical point. I truly had no wish to give offense, and when I spoke of trust etc., I was only repeating what, it seemed to me, you had already said yourself in so many words. I hope this will show that my remark was directed towards your comment and not yourself. I apologize for the verbosity of this response, but I don't want any further misunderstanding between us. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only suggest that as your reasoning for the above conclusions is incorrect, your view of your comment you made is similarly incorrect:

because you are admittedly counting out the opinions of those editors whose opinions you do not trust and respect. However, it appears you distrust and do not respect editors who oppose her ban and miss her contributions, so you're just begging the question, aren't you?

I do appreciate your apology and would suggest that you simply avoid characterizing my motives and attitudes and focus on specific edits. I think that's part of civility. I would also appreciate it if you stopped responding to this thread with other inquiry, and simply let this thread, and the whole matter, rest. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say that I sincerely regret that our disagreement seems to have caused so much tension. My premise may have been flawed but I assure you my intentions were never to give offense. I can understand that you feel the issue is closed and you want to move on, so I'll try to leave you alone about it as much as possible (I make no promises about who else I might try to talk to, of course ;). If you wish me to refrain from commenting on your user talk in the future, I can do that as well. See you around the wiki, Kasreyn 05:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to comment here, should the need or desire arise. Quite frankly however, my experience of you on my talk page will have to consist of more than me being asked to deconstruct/justify/disprove/defend your interpretations of my comments, like in this exchange - especially if they are posed in as pointed and accusatory of a fashion as I viewed yours to be. In any case, I am grateful for the sentiment you expressed and for your restraint on this topic. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

publicgirluk is the greatest Wikipedia editor that ever lived. eat that, ryan ;) --kizzle 18:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that state-funded education has so sorely failed you, Kiz. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, my educational background is all made-up, I'm just rex's sockpuppet... I guess they don't teach overcoming gullibility at private schools ;) Oh snap. --kizzle 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)