User talk:Leucosticte

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Leucosticte. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Building a better Global Bans RfC

Only a few users have the rights and interests of banned users in mind, and you appear to be one of them. I'm attempting to build a better Global Bans RfC:

• Talk:Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Preparing_a_better_RfC
• User:Michaeldsuarez/Global_bans_RfC_2

Do you have ay ideas or suggestions? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are global bans a big issue? I thought those were generally only used on cross-wiki spammers and such. I am mostly ignorant of this subject, though, because it's never personally affected me or anyone I know. Leucosticte (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a big issue. Ask Abd about how Poetlister was globally banned. No, it isn't for cross-wiki spammers. Cross-wiki spammers can be blocked without the policy. Global_bans#Criteria_for_global_bans says:

"The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse (that is not merely vandalism or spam). No global ban is required for uncontroversial cases of cross-wiki vandalism or spam; refer these directly to the Stewards’ global requests noticeboard."

This is about controversial and unpopular users that lynch mobs are after. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This may sound defeatist (and in fact it is defeatist), but I don't have much faith in the potential to fix the policy or culture by taking part in these RfCs. I've been around awhile trying to change the system and have mostly failed. It's a broken process and I'm pretty burnt out on it. But in any event, isn't this limited to users who are banned on multiple projects? Why are they getting banned from multiple projects? I've only been banned from enwiki, and I think the reason I remain banned is because the ArbCom tends not to rescind any bans. But I have done just fine on meta, MediaWiki.org, Wikiquote, etc. Leucosticte (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Abd – Abd is banned from three wikis (en.wikipedia.org, en.wikiversity.org, and meta.wikimedia.org). There's probably more, but I don't have a list of good persons blocked on two or more wikis. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's the only one I've ever heard of that happening to. It's probably mostly because of his style. Whenever he has sysop powers, he seems to err on the side of not showing restraint, and when he debates subjects, he creates walls of text on discussion pages rather than just writing an essay as a separate page and linking to it. People get tired of that after awhile.

I suppose I could also blame myself, but at this point I think I've already been punished enough. Additional punishment is excessive and pointless, in my opinion. But I suppose there are those who believe that the punishment can never be enough, and that it's better to err on the side of a certain kind of "safety". Of course, if we were to carry that way of thinking to its logical conclusion, we would end up with Nupedia. Leucosticte (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: enwiki ban

User_talk:SilkTork#Leucosticte – SilkTork is being uncooperative. SilkTork has failed to refute your claims or to defend the position that you claim that she has. I find the idea of "SilkTork [being] behind this" farfetched. This comment does mention "the protection of Wikipedia's reputation," but it also mentioned "the protection of our younger users." Securing Wikipedia's reputation isn't SilkTork's sole reason, and perhaps it isn't his or her main reason. In addition, SilkTork wasn't behind my ban. SilkTork was "unable to make a decision": [1], [2].

What was the point of cooperating? I'm not sure, and SilkTork failed to supply me with an answer. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats tend not to respond if they can get away with remaining silent. If they don't provide any arguments justifying their position, then that means no one can refute their arguments. So it's a safer and more convenient course of action for them. SilkTork probably feels that what he's said already is explanation enough. It's just a policy disagreement. And ultimately, we have to find fault with the voters who elected the ArbCom, with Jimbo for setting up that flawed system, and many other parties who played a role in the chain of events that made such outcomes happen. Leucosticte (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Fae – Yes, bureaucrats do tend to be silent. I don't wish to abandon democracy. I feel that an improvement in democracy is needed. In my opinion, ArbCom's main problem is its narrowness. It doesn't represent minorities. In both December 2010 ArbCom election and the December 2011 ArbCom election, the successful candidates each obtained the support of over 56% of their voters (not counting "no votes"). This means that every single member of the current ArbCom represents the majority (i.e. what's popular). There isn't anyone on ArbCom representing a minority. People such as you or me aren't represented. There isn't any balance. There isn't a minority / "other side" that keeps the majority in check and forces ArbCom to compromise / be moderate. Without a minority providing balance, ArbCom will always take the extreme views and actions, which is perhaps why they ban people so often. A proportional representation system should replace the "majority take all" system currently in use. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Even under PR, the minority remains the minority and can get outvoted. E.g., suppose some minority factions elects 3 of the 12 ArbCom members. Then the ArbCom votes on something and it splits 9-3. We lose just as badly as if it had been 12-0. Leucosticte (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Poetlister RfC

Actually, I was referring to Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Poetlister. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Inclupedia

I still have faith in Wikimedia. There are still things that I can do here. I don't believe that Inclupedia will have much impact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me know when you get burnt out and are ready to turn to the dark side. I confidently predict that Inclupedia will revolutionize the wikisphere, if it is not strangled in the cradle. Leucosticte (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedians in Exile

I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Spread Wikikultur

Hello, you added your signature into the Wikikultur interested people list, thank you very much for showing your support. To give the project even more credit, you could help spread the word to other wikimedia contributors you know, on other project wikimedia projets you are contibuting, asking interested people to to add their signature. --Psychoslave (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)