User talk:Noroton

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Well, at least as soon as that can be arranged. Don't worry, it won't be long.

Hmm

Noroton, you and I have edited cordially together in the past - although its been some time. Even so, it may be presuming too much to offer my opinion, but... Just in case, here it is. I think that you may have misread the general thrust of the arbitrators conclusion on the Sandstein/CoM/Law incident. The connection between the statements made by non-arbitrators on the requests page and the comments from arbitrators is usually quite tenuous, if there is any at all. In this case, I think the core issue they've been addressing has been the propriety of unblocking someone who had been blocked pursuant to an arbitration remedy -- particularly without prior discussion. We can debate the merits of Sandstein's block, and I think there are some real questions about what the best course of action there might have been, but the situation is far more clear (to me, and to most) when it comes to Law's unblock. I hope frustration from this incident, and the atmosphere on political articles in general, doesn't push you away from Wikipedia for good. Nathan^T 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that clear. There was plenty of support for the unblock, even on the AC page. Most? Not even. It's so taboo to undo another user's block that you'd rather see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out. Fail. Law_{type! snype?} 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with your opinion on the subject, not least because you actually performed the unblock. I'm not sure I see leaving someone blocked long enough to have a discussion as the sort of injustice you apparently believe it to be. The ensuing drama and comments from others should at least suggest to you that perhaps your decision may not have been flawless. Nathan^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Nathan. Sorry it took so long to reply. My point at the ArbCom page is that Sandstein's block looks worse when you look at the overall situation on that page. That's worth ArbCom's attention, and it's a more important problem than whether one admin should be reverting another admin (I don't know or really care about the niceties of that, although I like Law's point about see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out.). The solution is for admins and ArbCom to monitor both sides of ongoing POV conflicts. No one was doing that. Hypocritical enforcement resulted. Epic fail. You're focusing too narrowly, and it's part of the problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've argued that they (in this case) are both focusing too narrowly on the wheel war problem and supporting the uneven enforcement of policy. In this situation, I think those positions are mutually exclusive - they aren't dealing with the substantive enforcement issue at all, because a discussion of the merits of the block was basically preempted by Law's unilateral decision. Nathan^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how what I'm saying is mutually exclusive. They can refocus the scope of a case at will. Everybody on that page can recognize the massive failure I'm pointing out, and you should acknowledge it, too. -- Noroton (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitching

The arbcom page is not the best place to post "bitching". In fact Wikipedia is really not a good place to post bitching. Productive commentary is always welcome but a 2 page rant about how much you think people are hypocrites is not really productive. Chillum 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. If they repost that rant again, I will block them for edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More hypocrites engaging in more hypocracy. You can't defend the fact that you and the rest of the admins completely ignored clear violations from one side as admins came down full force on the other. Your answer is typical Wikipedia censorship. Neither of you have lifted a finger to enforce blatant policy violations occurring right under your nose -- so long as it involves one side in the conflict.

These are facts. They're not contestable. Your own absence of conduct indicts you when you then act only against one side.

And you have no answer for it other than to remove the comment.

I'll return the facts to the page.

Because you need to be confronted with your collective hypocrisy and your utter failure to even look like you're being fair. You really need to be called out on that on Wikipedia's pages.

You are the problem here.

-- Noroton (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to look into any complaints you have, but I can't do that until you start using civil discourse to express your concerns. Take stock, gather your thoughts, and then give me a precise, cool, and concise explanation on my talk page. Please include a few diffs to highlight your concerns. I will check them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review my censored ArbCom comments, which contain diffs. I'm reworking them and restoring my important points to the page. Let the clerks clerk the page. And why don't you ask yourself where you were when my complaints grew old at AN/I and 3RR/N. You can interfere now, but you couldn't do it then? Funny how admins get busy at the oddest moments. -- Noroton (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By calling me a hypocrite you have confirmed to me that your accusations are fairly random. I have absolutely no involvement in whatever the dispute is about I was just commenting on your style of communication. By lumping me into the conspiracy you are imagining you have confirmed to me that your impressions are not based on evidence. Chillum 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could see I was mad, but you persist. So let me refine my criticism of you. You aren't a hypocrite. Any fair-minded admin who waded in on this by commenting in any way would look through the four diffs I provided to see whether there's some outrage that caused me to make my comments. Well? Or are you content merely to leave comments on my page to goad me? -- Noroton (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Be more careful. --Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a former clerk, I would not be surprised if they found your comments still overlong and of an unacceptable tone.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I don't know how that happens. I edited, I hit the button and didn't get an edit-conflict page. Oh well. Thanks for fixing it. Noroton (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

These are my comments at the ArbCom requests page:

Revised bitching from Noroton

My original comment was censored, not by clerks but first by someone involved as a commenter in this case, Protonk, some of whose points I was criticizing. (I thought that clerks were the only ones authorized to police these pages, and the comment was up long enough for clerks to note it.) But that doesn't remove the fact that administrators on this site have still created a complete mess, and you all need to be confronted with the facts.

We have admins quite happy to pounce on editors on one side of this (Child of Midnight) while strangely unable to act when repeated complaints are made at 3RR/N and AN/I. You all need to be confronted with that.

We have a policy, NPOV, that arbitrators commonly throw up their hands and say they can't possibly enforce because it's a content policy and they only deal with behavior. At AN/I, admins regularly say the same thing. Fair enough. But then when complaints are made on one side in a dispute and are ignored when, shortly afterward, complaints from the other side result in quick blocks, we have admins -- in effect -- conducting POV pushing by proxy. Do they mean to do this? Intention is nearly impossible to prove, but in other cases we do have cases of admins with quite pronounced points of view blocking editors with opposing views, and doing so at the behest of POV pushing edit warriors. On this matter we have LuLu of the Lotus Eaters and Xenophrenic both edit warring at Acorn, both going over the 3RR limit in a days-long (now weeks-long? I haven't bothered to check) POV fight. And we have a complete, total breakdown in admin enforcement at both AN/I and 3RR/N. Not only did my second 3RR/N complaint get absolutely no action, but it sat there as every other single fucking complaint on that page was dealt with. So now we don't just have admins unable to enfroce NPOV, but they can't even enforce clear, black and white, obvious, cut and dried repeated violations of behavioral policy -- but only if those complaints are made against one side. There is no possible way that LuLu's violation of WP:3RR can be interpreted as not a violation, although that was done. I guess no admin dared to even comment on the second violation at 3RR/N because the embarassing hypocrisy of not acting was too much to handle. And when I brought it to AN/I, not one of these editors or admins commenting here had the decency to comment when the shoe was on the other foot. You need to be confronted with that.

Stomp in (commenting or acting) when it's one side getting the complaints and then ignore the blatant violations on the other side. What sterling behavior we have on the part of our admin corps here. You need to be confronted with that.

But when you do it, don't expect not to be called hypocrites. You are all, each one of you, hypocrites. Got it? Hypocrites. You make yourselves look like you're enforcing various behavioral policies, but when you enforce them only selectively against one side, what you're enforcing is something entirely different.

And you need to be confronted with that.

And here's the proof showing that you are Hypocrites. [1] Hypocrites. [2] Hypocrites. [3] Hypocrites. [4] There's just never enough time to address the crap that one side pushes out, but always the time to suit up for the S.W.A.T team when the other side is spitting on the sidewalk. What possible explanation can there be for this other than that you are complete and utter hypocrites.

And that's true whether or not you meant to POV push by hobbling one side and coddling the other. The fact is, you did it, no matter what you meant to do, and selective enforcement is still selective enforcement whenever you dip a toe in as an admin either by commenting or blocking one side and then walk away. Because you can be expected to know what will happen.

Look at the discussions the diffs point to and you can't come to any other conclusion: You all failed. Massively. If you have any integrity at all, any of you, editors, admins, arbs, you'll recognize that. Whether you have the guts to actually admit this is fucked up is not something that I even hope for. Therefore the resignation. -- Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]