User talk:Tznkai

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

I've responded to your very clever question. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will hold off on making my !vote for a while yet to let the other two candidates submit their answers. (Don't want to give away my own position and make anyone feel pressured one way, or appeared to have been pressured one way)--Tznkai (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that there actually is a hint of what your position is in your "Personal policies" section.. at least with regards to whether or not to block anyway. That was an excellent question I may also add.. one of the best I've seen so far, perfect for judging an applicants ability to problem-solve. I look forward to seeing more in the future. And thank you for the support !vote, I realize I was rather terse with my answer and I will definitely heed your advice regarding correcting bad behavior. Thanks again. Regards, œ^™ 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't touch on the BLP issue is because I didn't even think of it. However, I do understand that the BLP issue is a very touchy issue right now. My views on it aren't shared by many, but if you would like to know them I'd be happy to share. The way I see it, every living person has the right not to appear in Wikipedia. When I create an article on a living person, I always contact them first and present the information I will publish and await their approval before uploading it to Wikipedia, similar to requesting permission for a copyrighted image. I do not expect anyone to follow the same rule I do for (what seem to me) obvious reasons.

I do not believe it is appropriate to include any personal details on a BLP. For example, the state of Obama's grandparents is no one's business, and his daughters (he realizes this as well) need no attention from the media. There is a lot to be said for privacy.

Because BLP is a very gray area (even for me), I avoid such areas of Wikipedia, just as I avoid articles like United States of America or Turkey. I have contributed to Laos, although it was only for the purpose of reverting vandalism. You may notice I edited an article recently on Bishop Gettelfinger of Evansville, IN. (I was very pleased with the privacy given him on that page, btw.) This was only to remove a link which appeared twice on that page, and I had planned to remove any of the false slander which has arisen over the past year or so, but was pleased to find no such slander. I do not have a problem with the facts being stated, it is lies that I have a problem with, so in the case of Sarah Palin that you mentioned, further research would be required on my part before I could make the call whether it was slander or fact.

Thanks for showing your support! Your interrogation wasn't too vague, hard, or insulting; rather, it had a very practical application...I really appreciate that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request re. Arbcom

Would you kindly hold off on this request,[1] at least for now, as being subsumed by ArbCom's considering the matter elsewhere, as commented on here[2]? Also, I would appreciate if you retract your standing threat to sanction me for petitioning ArbCom. I'll save my discussion of this for the ArbCom board where it is taking place, but it is up to ArbCom, not visiting administrators, to decide who they will listen to on a matter and who may speak there. It is hardly an oversight for ArbCom to decide, as the vast majority of adjudicative bodies have throughout the world, that their doors are open to all petitioners with standing, and that the subjects of an order may discuss the order and its violation. You may disagree, and Arbcom could decide otherwise, but as you can see from many of the comments made already it is in no way a logical extension of a no-contact order that parties to the order cannot report its violation. Please note the contradiction between your proposal that I am not free to "reply to reports about the other user", and your invitation for me to participate in the discussion about your proposal. One other thing. I note, in reviewing your recent history and comments you do not seem to be fully acquainted with this case and may be trying to fit us into a preconceived theory you have about the role of Arbcom and the parties there (per your removing the tag from your user space essay), as in your request that I refrain from articles about politics. That has never been suggested, and my article edits and talk page participation are under no dispute here. Quite the contrary, I am a problem solver in some of Wikiepdia's thorniest places - I just yesterday created Nonpartisan (American organizations) to try to break a logjam that has affected dozens of politics-related articles for years now. So please, don't take a position without tracking down the diffs and the editing history. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can handle the request when they get around to it - and I'm merely informing you that I think a reasonable interpretation of your restriction includes reports, which is well within administrator discretion, as described in my request for clarification. You are welcome, and in fact encourage to respond to me, since you and I have no interaction restriction, and you can disagree with my interpretation. That doesn't change that I am exercising reasonable discretion, and ArbCom is free to do with that what they will. You shouldn't read to much into my user contributions, I am not really quite sure what you're getting at besides.--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be more explicit. That request that would bar me from filing ArbCom requests is being dealt with at the new ArbCom case filed by Sandstein, and is also mentioned in the original AE page, so I don't want to deal with a third fork, as a separate request for clarification. Please don't unilaterally block me for good faith participation there. Beyond derailing and stigmatizing a strong productive editor, that would create a fourth fork for the very same question. ArbCom alone decides which cases it will hear and from whom, not administrators minding the ArbCom page. Barring parties from participating in cases about them is an extreme remedy, and violates every principle of how hearing bodies decide cases. I don't think you are up to speed on the Obama articles, the ArbCom case, or what's happened since the decision. That you could say you are "unimpressed" with my displeasure over being compared to Hitler, or suggest that I should stop editing politics articles, is so out there I can't even get a grip on it. My article edits and talk page participation are not under any challenge here.

I note the comment in your responsive essay here:

In the end AE is dispute management instead of dispute resolution. Disputes are handled by attempting to contain the dispute, not resolve it: quarantine the involved users, send them off on blocks for short periods at a time and isolate them from certain pages... A large part of the work of arbitration enforcement is managing the abuse of the Arbitration enforcement board itself....

I don't want to read too much into it, as you say, but this suggests that you don't see ArbCom's role as fixing problems occurring outside of ArbCom, but instead to pen off "problem editors" in an "entrenched dispute" (your terms) over content matters. Do you mean to classify me as a "problem editor" or someone in an "entrenched dispute" who is abusing Arbcom to fight a content dispute and needs a time out? Please don't jump to those kinds of conclusions. Where is the content dispute? I filed the enforcement request in the sole venue afforded me, to deal with a problem that was derailing my attempts to improve an article where I have made more than a hundred edits to date. I'm a problem solver, and I had just made a pretty significant breakthrough that seemed to have the approval of all there. If there were no violations of the sanctions, or if the violations didn't personally affect me, I would have no need to file a request. When it does my sole recourse is ArbCom. Please let ArbCom have its say, that's its job, and see where that takes us. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Because ArbCom serves as the body of last resort in dispute resolution, I never read any restriction short of a full site ban as restricting arbitration directly on point. The mutual interaction restriction is not being addressed by arbcom right now. It is entirely possible that I am not being clear or sensible about it, so you should feel free to ask and argue on the AE thread, where this belongs. As for the discussion on my essay, it is what, a year old now? It, like anything I write about long term trends and general behavior is never meant to apply to specific people.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Answers to test questions, please

I came across RFA and your Palin question. Here are my thoughts, along with questions.

1. No response to an ANI post for 48 hours is highly unusual.
2. IP user (claims to be Palin family member) may be cautioned about 3RR, COI, and to refer to policies and guidelines in discussing edits, not making accusations of another user being a staffer absent proof and proof obtained not by stalking.
3. Accused staffer may be cautioned about 3RR, COI, and the use of RS, especially in high profile articles.
4. QUESTION FOR YOU: What should admin do about COI by people unrelated to this question. Topic ban them? Warn then block them?
5. What would you do about User C, if anything? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer my own thoughts on the hypo after ed17 writes something up.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a lengthy post on WT:RFA, but i'll answer your questions quickly: 1. I believe the bot actually archives before 48 hours, so this part was actually an error on my part. It was supposed to demonstrate that sometimes no new information is forth coming and you're on your own - in addition, many of the issues may have gone stale. 2 and 3 are addressed more in the linked thread 4. Handling COIs is very tricky. OTRS confirmation is a good way to go - generally speaking, I look at COI as a heightened scrutiny issue. These editors need to be watched more carefully than others to make sure they don't make poor judgment calls at the same time, they need to be treated with respect because of how close to home things are, and how much potential damage to their actual lives wikipedia could potentially do. COI is an issue that requires a lot of hands on interactions by the admin. 5. I would publicly note on the thread that such responses are inappropriate and distracting, and are unwelcome on ANI. I would explicitly not threaten/warn user C at the time, but leave such a thing implied. There is a delicate balance in public rebukes between correcting bad behavior and attempts at public humiliation. Thanks for your thoughts!--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It educates everyone, not only admin candidates. About COI, if there is a new user called User:General Motors employee Sam K who starts to write about General Motors, some will say it is a conflict of interest. Is it permissible to topic ban that user from General Motors articles or even block them, unless they disclose their affiliation? In other words, are we supposed to uphold the highest ethical standards in editing? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Handling a COI is a delicate manner, but I would say, that COI should make you suspicious, but not parinoid. For example, some of our best photographs were produced by public affairs officers for the air force. I prefer having reasonable and open COI'd editors and then someone cleaning up after them to maintain tones--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tznkai. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many apologies... —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've answered; apologies once again for the delay. I must say that I was quite impressed with the question! I hope that you continue to ask it or a similar question in future RfAs. Cheers, —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making hypos a regular feature.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on your support !vote: [3] —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You win... your very own trout!

This one is all yours. I toned down the hyperbole. I agreed to disagree. Yet you persist in nitpicking my comments. I mean, really, really nitpicking. The "secret" thing? Honestly. What is your deal? Hiberniantears (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an honest disagreement with what you're saying, the way you're saying it, and the way you're filling up a forum that is best served by restraint and decorum. I want to credit you with toning down the hyperbole, but statements like "You disagree with the reality" still leave much to be desired. I think you have trouble distinguishing between ArbCom and everyone else who is disagreeing with you and other people. I think you've shown yourself remarkably unresponsive to the multitude of people who have called issue to your behavior. I believe administrators need to maintain the highest level of decorum and behavior, especially in learning how to disagree honestly but reasonably, and I believed that irresponsible rhetoric is not only inappropriate in articles but in meta-discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe you actually have difficulty reading nuance because you keep slightly missing the point of what I'm saying. "You disagree with the reality" is significantly different than "You disagree with reality". It appears you think I'm saying "You disagree with reality", which would imply Will had a weak grip on reality in a general sense. "The reality", on the other hand, references the idea that Will disagrees with the situation as it actually is, rather than what I was saying. He and I are in agreement, and were simply coming at it from different directions. You'll note we went on to agree with each other in the thread. As it happens, you're now the one lacking restraint and decorum. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked what my deal is - and I've responded. I will note however, that I may in fact, know what I am talking about.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:personal info

Thanks for the notice. I've User:Roger Davies to take care of it. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, its best if personal information removal requests are handled off wiki via e-mail.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI WMC-Pedro

Not touching the ANI thread, but this was the diff WMC cited on his first reversion of Pedro's close.[4]--Cube lurker (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely, I will regret asking this

Probably, since being careful you no doubt read what I wrote earlier. [5]. Are you happy that Pedro is entirely neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interupting - but that fact that I advised Ottava through diffs that he needs to back off - whilst openly admitting I have no time for you either WMC would seem to put me at the very centre of neutral. Also as I am an admin closing a thread on ANI that was not related to my actions and was not in need of admin input is perfectly fine. Next ? Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you won't entertain any suggestion that you were non-neutral. But T asked *me* why I'd said it, so I've told him. Please allow the conversation to continue without further interruption William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My question was fairly open ended actually, but no, I don't want this argument rehashed here, or ever.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you said, you'll probably regret it. But you did ask. Now I've asked. So you should answer William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I decline, thanks anyway. Its moot, dead, and otherwise silly to continue at this point.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So the original question was just prurient curiosity on your part - you had no real interest in the answer, or indeed the issue at hand. It would be better to keep such idle chit-chat off ANI, which is generally rather busy William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I in fact, did, and do have an interest at the issue at hand, although you and I are likely to disagree about what that is. Upon hearing the answer to my question, and seeing the subsequent events, I was convinced that further pursuit down this line of inquiry is fruitless. I cannot help but think you are aware of the unnecessary and unpleasant combative tone you've taken, although you may not have grasped that it is unnecessary. Kindly desist.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

This action is heroic, and I salute you for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AE result

Hi Tznkai,

I'm not planning to comment on the statements made by A Quest for Knowledge in the result section of the AE request. In my view, this is not the correct place to have such arguments. With regard to my German Wikipedia account (which is also activated on the English Wikipedia), I understand that the AE result is just about activities on the English Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding Quest For Knowledge's comments, or other matters, please leave me a note at my talk page.  Cs32en  18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en (talk · contribs) has already violated the restrictions. Take a look at the contributions. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AE comment

With apologies for posting in (technically) the wrong section, you may wish to see the comment I've added at the foot of the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seen it, and duly noted.--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On my ArbCom comment

That's right, ignore the substance, comment on the style. And by removing my statement with your edit, you did what you were telling me I was doing. If that was on purpose, there's a word for that ... but I don't think it was on purpose. Why don't you take a look at those four diffs I provided that show how bankrupt the admin corps is at handling ongoing POV fighting. -- Noroton (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, What? You screwed up, I undid your edit. I didn't undo or fix your second mistaken edit by the way. That was a while ago, why are we still talking about it?--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at those four diffs I provided that show how bankrupt the admin corps is at handling ongoing POV fighting? The entire admin corps screwed up. Recognize it. The screw up is shown in the four diffs I gave, right under your nose. Now I'm waiting for ArbCom to screw up. I'm still here because you're still ignoring the substance of what I said while going to my page to comment on the style. -- Noroton (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from me (and everyone else) having a very limited obligation to listen to any particular person (in this case you), especially when they are apparently not concerned enough about being careful about what they have to say, you linked 4 diffs, two to a 3RR report you filled, and two to statements you made on Lulu's page. I am one of 1000ish active administrators, and somehow, I'm a hypocrite? You haven't really linked your postulates to your conclusion. You probably have a more convincing argument in your head somewhere, but it hasn't reached me yet. I haven't read anything of significant substance to respond to. You're calling all of "us" hypocrites, whoever us happens to be, based on two tentatively related events, and then throwing the responsibility for the failure, whatever the failure happens to be (its unclear, but it appears you have some frustrations with edit warring, and NPOV) on.... everyone? If what I typed here isn't clear, thats because I'm trying to tell you as best I can, I have no idea what you're trying to say. --Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two different 3RR reports. A discussion on an admins page about LuLu's incivility. A complaint at AN/I that no one was dealing with the second 3RR report. No action (except for the admin's limp suggestion to be civil). No action. And shortly afterward, regarding the same page, a complaint from the other side is handled precipitously. The double standard is clear as day. Now that isn't so complicated, is it? Any admin who acted or commented on one side should consider the complaint of the other side, unless of course, some other admins were dealing with it. Which they weren't. Enforce policies for only one side and you know the result. Participate in any way in that enforcement and you have some obligation to consider the overall picture. Not to do so creates a hypocritical situation -- for which all participants bear some responsibility. Is it so hard to see bias in admin enforcement? -- Noroton (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious retort that you're biased yourself, where do I personally bear any responsibility for this? If you're suggesting that admins, as a whole screw up, we sure do, often. If you're suggesting that many of our articles are not neutral, that sometimes editors get away scott free when they shouldn't, or that admins wimp out of hard problems, yes, all of those things are often true. Let me throw the question back at you, what do you want done about it? Something simple, practical. Give me an action, or even a series of actions that allow me to make this project work like the Utopian promise it implies. Something, preferably, that doesn't require me to take away from the family, friends, and other responsibilities that we should all agree are far and away more important then what I do on Wikipedia. Its easy to rant on about unfairness and to carry on your moral outrage against those in so-called power. It gets a lot harder the moment you realize that these problems are big, they are bad, they are structural, and it takes a lot more brains then moral fiber to fix.--Tznkai (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's largely what I wanted: Your admission of the general failure -- the necessary first step. I don't expect ArbCom or most of the editors commenting on that page to even get there. There is no easy, practical solution for a single admin right now, although if admins on two different noticeboards had responded to a simple case of clear misconduct with some action -- even a warning -- I wouldn't have much of a cause for complaint now. Failure to deal with the simple problem then, simply makes it fester into something more complex and difficult to deal with later. ArbCom could address the problem on the Acorn pages, but I've lost patience and I won't go looking for diffs for some more organized complaint. The Wikipedia-wide problem would need new policy, and it's unrealistic to expect any major new policy to get the necessary consensus, the way policy approval is now. A new policy, if it could ever be implemented, might have elements such as having certain admins at least watching certain articles more closely, and perhaps given some more authority to deal with behavior problems on those pages. Some admins seem to be able to concentrate on the larger POV conflicts, at least for a while. Formalizing that with some direction in terms of clear guidelines on what they can and can't do and investing them formally with some authority would likely make this kind of monitoring easier. A more ambitious change would involve a kind of moderating of discussions, where the moderator decides what consensus is and when it's been reached. There is an interesting comment from someone who's thinking on even more ambitious lines at this WR discussion. [6] I don't know what I think of that, but it's an interesting bunch of ideas. We're far from any new policy. But in general, anything that gets editors concentrating on facts, sourcing, calm logic and the best way to write an article is going to move editors away from POV fights. That's true at any level: editing, enforcement or policymaking.

My outrage stems from lack of recognition of an obvious problem in front of everyone's faces. Thank you for being the first person to tell me you understand there is a problem. -- Noroton (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And basically I'm tired of being screwed over, then screwed over again by admins who can't deal with my polite complaint about it, and told to be polite when I finally lose patience with those who can't or won't deal with it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)