User talk:The Cunctator/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

29 November: Good idea: Have policy pages as part of Wikipedia.

Bad idea: Fear-based, military-analogy policies: "it's possible that the average newbie in this generation of contributors would be of the way-too-clueless variety, and that a significant minority would be downright malicious..." "It could be a major disaster." Save the fear-mongering for the federal government with respect to acts of terrorism, not a openly editable website. We don't need the Wikipedia equivalent of the USA PATRIOT Act. LMS needs to stop watching so much CNN. (Seriously, though, if you're in charge of a collaborative, volunteer project, and you start getting a bunker mentality, a red flag should be going up.)

Really, really bad idea, nay, a breathtakingly idiotic idea: constantly shooting yourself in the foot by constantly using inflammatory language, such as "fear-based," above, instead of trying to engage people with whom you disagree in polite, reasoned dialogue. The Wikipedia Militia notion isn't fear-based. If you think it is, you just don't get it. I'm not engaging in fear-mongering. I'm trying, in what was intended to be a lighthearted way (until you came along and spun it in a way that made me look as bad as possible), to get people turned on to the idea of doing a whole lot of work whenever the time comes to make sure that a huge crop of misguided new people do not ruin Wikipedia--as they could. Most people who arrive "get it." There is always a minority who don't, and they need teaching and dissuading from doing really damaging edits.
The above sort of comment, Cunctator, borders on libel (because not only is it false, it's outrageously false and completely insulting, and seems designed to damage my reputation). This frankly outrages me and wastes me time. I maintain that I am a very reasonable person. If you reasonably raise a point, I will reasonably respond. If you accuse me of "fear mongering" and "a bunker mentality" such that "a red flag should be going up," as you are constantly doing, then you cannot expect me to take you seriously. So stop it, already. Treat me nicely, and I will treat you nicely. --Larry_Sanger

12 November: too bad. I would have very much liked to build the entry on the plane crash. Oh well.

Well build it! You know you're the best we have at that sort of stuff. I don't know why you are having so much trouble coping with the thought that there is a place for the encyclopedia, and a separate place for discussions "about" the encyclopedia, and anything else you want to talk about. I view it more as an exercise in neatness and tidiness, rather than an attempt to inhibit discussion. After all, when you buy Britannica, you don't get all the inter-office memos that obviously went into its creation. In my own view *everything* that is not an encyclopedia article would *not* be in the 'pedia, including all the talk entries. However this is not about restrictions, this is about distinguishing the "encyclopedia" from the "discussion about the encyclopedia".
Anyway, I'm really saddened to see you taking it this way. As someone who has also dealt with the "should I stay or should I go" issue, I do hope you reconsider, because regardless of your disputes with Larry, everyone (including LMS) sees you as a vital and passionate contributor to the project. - MMGB
I agree 100% with the above. - Seb

Oh, I haven't stopped contributing simply because of the "meta" move, even though I basically disagree with all of your arguments; note the use of "when you buy Britannica"--Wikipedia had been built on the exact opposite philosophy of a purchasable, fixed object. Framing what LMS has done to me as "disputes with Larry" is rather misleading, as he is in the paid employ of the project and self-appointed "dictator-for-life" and I'm just someone who decided to volunteer some time and effort. He can make sweeping decisions about the Wikipedia project and censor and punish dissent; I can't. LMS has told me that he doesn't consider me a vital and passionate contributor to the project, but a troll whose input on Wikipedia policy is not welcome.

Well, many people here do consider you a vital and passionate contributor to the project. -AxelBoldt

I genuinely and deeply appreciate your support, but unless substantive changes are made, I will no longer contribute to the project in any significant way. You really should start using the past tense.

I'll continue to point out bugs in the PHP Script, because I respect Magnus's effort, as a contributory way of saying that blindly embracing it is foolhardy. But its nature only reflects the overall nature of Wikipedia; I can't blame the Script for that.

By the way, is anyone storing tarballs?

I have said many times and in many ways that you've done excellent work for us. I dare not say more. I don't want to get into another exchange of characterizations. --Larry_Sanger

Thank you. I do wish you had stuck to that. I assume you just believe that I somehow transformed from someone doing excellent work to someone doing horrible, destructive things, which would mean I must be insane, retarded, delusional, or malicious. I'm simply arguing that I'm not, and that maybe the work that you have found to be destructive would have been as beneficial to Wikipedia as my work on, e.g. 9/11. Oh well.

  • M*****s "I'm not a drop-out - maybe a kick-out ;-P" For the record, M*****s doesn't want to be listed on this Wikipedia drop-outs page.

I'm still active on wikipedia, allthough not as blatantly as in the beginning (I would be trolled by LMS); I just do what I like, within the reality as it is censored by LMS

So, I'm NOT a drop-out! I might have been one, perhaps I should have been one, but I'm not. Got it? -- Mathijs

LMS doesn't take criticism well, does he?

3 december: Support
Cunctator, please do not give up what you are doing for Wikipedia.
It's just too bad that people want to see your arguments as personal aggression and trolling; these people are looking for the easy way out -- Mathijs

I think I take reasonable, polite criticism very well, and I take quite a bit of not-particularly-polite-and-rather-blunt criticism pretty well, too. What I don't take well are unfair attacks, such as the words "LMS doesn't take criticism well, does he?"
You've both been very trollish, upon occasion, in the past. But I do not dismiss either of you as nothing more than trolls. I just think that the overall pattern of some of your behavior has been, well, very much like that of the many trolls we have surely come across in our rambles about the Internet. --LMS
here it goes to show (for the umpteenth time) that YOU YOURSELF are the troll. You are very rude. You are trying to make committed, truthfull people into trolls, abusing them, making everything personal. Please look into the mirror, Larry! I won't take anymore trolling from you, mister Sanger. -- Mathijs

I've deleted the list you've added to your page, C. My considered opinion is that it is a bad idea that we maintain a publicly-viewable list of page titles that have been deleted. There is no good reason to do this--if you think there is one, I would appreciate that you spell it out explicitly--and an excellent reason not to do it, namely, it might very well encourage vandals. The only reason I can imagine for keeping such a list is that you do not trust my fairness in deleting titles--which isn't a very good reason. --Larry_Sanger

At the risk of jumping in on a tedious and lame "discussion", I don't trust my fairness in deleting titles, so instead I wrote a patch to UseModWiki that uses soft security. cf. . The fact that you are being constantly irritated by a user complaining about your so-called abuse of your power is unsurprising, and why there are no administrator functions that actual have any necessary purpose in the UseModWiki software. In the case of deleted pages, see . The idea is that a good admin does no administrating. -- SunirShah

My considered opinion is that it shouldn't be for you to judge whether or not that's a very good reason, even if that were the only reason.

Let's say for argument's sake that I put up such a list just to put a check on potential mistaken deletions. Such mistaken deletions could be because of unfair deletion, but they could also be simple errors of judgment or misunderstanding or confusion. For example, the "Stevie Wonder is God" entry, which was deleted, was not a joke article at all, but a pretty useful example of fallacious reasoning, and was linked to as such from other entries.

There are, however, other reasons for maintaining a list, one of which is just that it's interesting information. A more functional reason is that such a list lets one see immediately what type of pages do merit deletion, which would let everyone know pretty quickly by comparison whether an entry which seems questionable to them would in fact merit deletion.

And on and on.

Well, it is, in fact, for me to judge. And I do so judge! That's enough for now, C. Leave the issue alone. --Larry_Sanger

Can't refute that eloguent counter-argument! That's enough for now, L. Other than deleting such vandal-inciting lists, leave my userpage alone. --The Cunctator

Oh, and wasn't that a brilliant reply. This is all just a game for you, isn't it? It sure seems to be. Isn't it obvious that I'm tired of arguing with you, and that I refuse to be drawn into it?

I'm afraid I do reserve the right to edit your userpage.

And I just noticed the "wow, you are a jerk" comment. Can you not begin to see the irony in that comment? --Larry_Sanger

Look, C., we have an ongoing personality conflict. Let's just reduce our interaction to as little as we possibly can. This will benefit the project as a whole. --Larry_Sanger

LMS: I wish we could all get along. I really think you should try talking about the issues, and trying to work things out, rather than refusing to talk about it.

The first step towards resolving interpersonal disputes is willingness to admit that you are wrong. Very rarely if ever does a dispute happen which is solely the fault of one party. For example, I'm willing to admit that the creation of a vandalism archive was a bit silly, maybe even semi-trollish. The amount of controversy it caused and the time that controversy took up certaintly wasn't worth the thing the controversy was over. So, I am willing to admit I have some responsibility for what conflicts have occured. I would hope that the other players involved are mature enough to do the same.

However, if you really feel that the time and effort of trying is not worth the chance of results, or whatever, may I suggest a way that in the future, you can avoid interaction with TheCunctator such as these? How about if, next time TheCunctator does something that you disagree with, either (a) leave it alone and ignore it, or (b) find someone else to deal with the situation instead of you? That way, maybe you can avoid any further interactions with TheCunctator, like the one you have had here. -- SJK_