Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR/0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page work > American warning

[edit]
(NOTE: Change of initial topic name to one descriptive of issue in dispute.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(NOTE: Matching title change on User_talk:Proofreader77#Talk_page_work_.3E_American_warning)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This compiles and presumably continues a dialogue (which Jerzy initiated in a single section at under "Talk page work" on Proofreader77's talk), and which includes an EMail and several subsections of the former section "[[American]] talk page archiving" on this talk page. (That section and each of those subsections headings have been converted to headingless pseudo-sections, so they remain addressable as originally, and their titles are shown here.) Where a contrib appears identically but for accurate timestamp on both pages, both timestamps are shown, with the imported one italicized.

I'm in the midst of cleaning up the mess on the talk page, which will be more feasible before archiving than after. Could you please defer your archiving work, which we have survived without for a long time?
--Jerzy•t 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Former section heading "American talk page archiving"]
The undue burden of wading through years-old comments is inappropriate to place on new editors. Let us see what can be stored away, so that focusing on reaching consensus on the cleaned version can be more easily attained. (Excuse terse response) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving a very good impression of WP:OWNERship. It's time for you to slow down and give colleagues a chance to be heard. I am in the process of making the previous discussion more accessible so that colleagial discussion how to refactor will be feasible, rather than just hide it.
--Jerzy•t 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Former section heading "copy of my response to your comment(s) on my talk"]], where the pronouns are written with P in the 1st person and J in the 2nd.]
  • My editing there is a collegial balancing of what is perhaps alleged. My eyes are new eyes. Not my page. Perhaps "belongs" to others. Proofreader77 (talk) Contrib was undated; actual times added by J: 23:06, 23:08, 4 March 2009
  • My impression is that there was a lively discussion, on the talk page, and cautious collegial editing of the Dab page recently, then a blizzard of talk contribs from you accompanied by a blitz of unilateral edits, presumably explained in on talk but implemented without the opportunity for others to affect them.
    This impression can be examined in the right atmosphere, and it may be mistaken, but at this point i am warning you that you that you need to overcome the impression you are creating of disruptive editing, starting by addressing what i have already said rather than dismissing it, or face a block.
    --Jerzy•t 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE:
  • The warning of block has been respectfully noted.
  • The assertions of disruptive editing are noted with exception.
  • The use of administrative authority in this matter while editing is also noted with exception.
Finally, let it be noted that the collegial contention between more than one perspective on the disambiguation page is producing good results. Respectfully, Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29 & :30, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMail
(Timestamp) Wednesday, March 5, 2009 01:27 UTC (apparently)
(From) Proofreader77
(To) Jerzy
(Subject) Shall we agree to set aside (and erase) the exchange on our talk pages?

If so, let me know. If not, then read on. Or not. :)

Kindest regards

I understand my editing style is unusual in this instance, but perhaps so is the situation which inspires an unusual approach.

The concerns of other editors past and present are facing dismissive responses (from two administrators) from the perspective of strict adherence to guidelines.

My "way" in this matter ... is to lighten, rather than make more heavy, the situation ... as the key points of contention are evaluated -- not from a perspective of whether they can be dismissed, but whether they can be acknowledged in the design of the page.

I.E., in a way that allows a true consensus of the present moment (rather than a consensus defined by a past agreement embodied in guidelines). To repeat myself, that is the spirit of ignore all rules, without which, Wikipedia ceases to "breathe."

Part of the heavy "weight" here is the "burden" of (1) to my eyes, an unprecedented, expanse of embedded comments and (2) "expectation" of reading every comment past and present, and (3) an immediate deflection of concerns if they do not seem to be addressable within a strict adherence to the guidelines.

Finally, I respectfully assert that the use of administrative authority as you have done with the warning of block in this situation, is inappropriate. See subject line of this message.

This e-mail was sent by user "Proofreader77" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jerzy". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

[Former subsection heading "informally", on J's talk page

Shall we agree to the suggestion in the email and be gracefully done with this matter for the sake of the beauty of simple elegant solutions and the always pleasant saving of time, M'lud? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The subsection heading "process" (undisturbed by J) appeared on P's talk in the same edit that placed the first timestamp]
In the following, the bold was by P (in the 1st of their edits); the striking thru and the text in italics was added later by P, but at the time indicated by J's italicized supplemental substitute-timestamp.
  1. Informally - email + User_talk:Jerzy#informally (status; awaiting response) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:04 & 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    1. Is there a problem with my posting the EMail i received from you on one of our talk pages?
    2. Can we agree to consolidate the discussion from the two talk pages to one of them?
    --Jerzy•t 18:44, 5 & [invisible unbreaking of num-list fmt] 12:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following refactoring of P's msg
    1. Is primarily for demonstration purposes
    2. Hopefully nevertheless does no violence to what P intended to express
    3. In any case, if P sees fit to revert this edit, the refac will disappear completely and painless in an Undo (tho a rollback would hit too much), and will be treated by J as a friendly reversion.
    --Jerzy•t 13:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Agreed (no problem with posting email)
    2. Agreed (assume here is fine, consolidate at your discretion)
      --Proofreader77 (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before trying to respond to your many comments and questions:
        1. I think it's worth checking whether i've neglected anything in my efforts to create a clear record here that we can work from. Please read thru, in part to provide a second pair of eyes, and see whether i've missed anything or misplaced the context of anything.
        2. I turned down your invitation to consolidate on your talk page, or here in a new section: i find that
          it is quite practical to consolidate into one partial copy, without obliterating the ability to infer (if for some reason that is perceived as useful) the state of that partial copy just preceding consolidation even without consulting the history,
          neither of the two half-discussions is as useful as the consolidated one, and
          keeping one half-discussion at hand adjacent to the "synoptic" one is more distracting and confusing than the alternative
        3. That's partly about my feeling less inhibited about reformatting on my pg without consulting you first, even tho i want to be sure to meet your concerns about the style i did it in, and urge you to comment on anything abt my approach that you find even odd about, even if there is nothing you're upset about.
        4. I noted your summary "revert to last by Jerzy - (still correcting numbering error)", and it drew my attention to the nascent structure you created under "1 Informally" above, and the fact that i broke it. While i applaud your decision, after self-reversion, not respond to me "inside my signature", i am taking the liberty, immediately after finishing this edit, of showing you how i would have solved the problem my two questions left you with, and how that can be made consistent with the "subject 2" that was implicit in your "1 Informally". I do it as a separate edit to ensure you can easily revert it with no muss, fuss, or bother if it doesn't suit you, but at least have the chance to see the markup.
    --Jerzy•t 12:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (This list entry intentionally left blank for future use)

(consolidate User talk:Proofreader77#Talk page work)

[edit]

(at your discretion) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment on consolidation (by Jerzy)

[edit]
  • Superb. (i.e., well done, and fine with me)
  • HOWEVER, UPON REFLECTION: Since my email proposal/suggestion (let's call it, erasure/bygones) appears to be implicitly declined — the full discussion/resolution will be inappropriately large/long for a user talk page.
  • THEREFORE, I:
(a) Propose move to a subpage of somekind somewhere.
OR
(b) Informally request reconsideration/withdrawal of "warning of block," warning of block, (within the context of clarified perceptions alluded to in the warning, and for the previously mentioned "savings of time," savings of time, etc.).
--Proofreader77 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The editor admits that the seeming quote, which i have struck thru and replaced with the q-marks removed, is not a quotation of my words; the manner of the admission suggests similar caution toward the other apparent quote.[reply]
--Jerzy•t 09:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to try to keep this as direct as possible. If i used the phrase including the word "warning", that you just placed in quotes, please say so more clearly and mention where and when (since that will otherwise surprise me). I'll instead proceed, if you confirm that you mean, by the quotes, something more similar to placing the same words after the phrase "what might be called a ...".
    --Jerzy•t 21:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: "warning of block" — Yes, same meaning as if bolded: a handle for referencing [emphasis added by Proofreader77 ] "Warning for disruptive editing", which concludes [emphasis added by Proofreader77]"or face a block". A required administrative procedural step preceding a block, issued by an editor with administrator authority acting in that capacity.
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Material clearly intended as direct quotations twice failed to indicate that emphasis other than the quoted person's had been added where such emphasis did not exist (nor was marked up with apostrophes to attempt emphasis, which does not render in edit-summaries), and i have, in italics, added the needed disclaimers. --Jerzy•t 09:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you're paying attention, bcz you're trying to convince me you're a responsible editor, but at least at the moment (i haven't looked back at what i merely skimmed when i was too busy), every time you point your keyboard toward me you say something that convinces me you have no idea how to responsibly express yourself in describing the sort of things editors have to consider and to make clear to each other.
  1. I suppose it could be said i made things hard for you by not actually asking you a question, but instead asking you to do something, if something was true, and then by following it with what i'd do, if something roughly opposite to it is true. Well, that lack of a question didn't phase you!
    1. You started out by repeating the same three words. In quotes again.
    2. Then you answered "Yes". Without indicating what question you thot you were answering. Referring back, i see i asked that if i really used those three words as a phrase, you would tell me where i did so, strongly thinking you yes was on whether i used it. And you'd kept the quotes on it, and it would be logical to take that to mean "What i said before that you'd said, i now repeat, and still assert you said." And you did in fact provide a lk, as i asked you to do if i used your phrase that includes the word "warning".
    3. You didn't follow up with "... but i'm sorry i misled you into thinking ..." or "...it was a mistake to confuse you about what i thot you said...", nor any statement that clearly implied there was no basis for saying i used the phrase "warning of block".
    4. In fact, you followed the bald "Yes" instead with essentially a defense of your choice to use quotation marks (and to do so not, based on the best evidence, to quote me, but to draw attention to your favorite shorthand for what i had said, but -- from all i can still tell for certain -- perhaps for what you misconstrued me as saying, or what you misremembered having read).
    5. Whether that is your current assertion or not, you in effect belittled me as, i dunno, some cranky fart who wants you to jump thru stupid hoops, but should instead care why your misleading means of expression seems right to you.
    6. But wait, you piped that lk with my edit summary, which doesn't include the phrase, and which i remembered as not including it, and where i had already looked (but still was not certain it was the only place where i might have said it) before being so bold as to suggest you might have misquoted me, and which i remember confirming my memory of on that occasion, and which i've checked again today -- and it still doesn't include the phrase.
    Well, i admit to being familiar with that use of q-marks in lieu of, say, bolding -- from retailers who either fantasize that anyone can design an effective ad, or who want to convey the impression that they are are no better educated than their customers. But in prose, it is an irresponsible practice, not acceptable anywhere on WP where the context is, no matter how flimsily, consistent with quoting anyone other than oneself, and too bad a habit to justify using it even where it can be guaranteed to be harmless.
  2. You also may not change the emphasis in quoting anyone else, without making that change clear.
  3. An accurate and acceptable answer to my request would include both "You're right, i can find no reason to believe you ever addressed that phrase to me" and "I can see that my making it seem so puts me under an obligation to stop using that misleading phrase in any sense, and i'll make a point of trying to stop."
We're not running a junk shop here, nor an "i can top your caption for that photo!" site -- in fact, Eric Schmidt told Charlie Rose tonite that WP "is one of the great achievements of humanity" (or words to that effect). The project deserves more care, and more respect for accurate statements, than should leave possible the reckless and thus disruptive editing i've seen you doing.
Scheisse! I've been laboring over this off and on all evening, and i've finally solved the puzzle you apparently regarded as clear communication: i summarized
Warning for disruptive editing
for an edit where i'd written
... or face a block.
and you defend yourself by presuming -- i assume post hoc -- to cut and paste them together. When someone cuts and pastes like that, and formats it even as the shoddy-looking
"Warning [of] ... block."
that's still called misrepresenting a paraphrase as a quotation, and they're considered a common fraud or a religious leader.
In this case, the error that bollixed your attempt to quote me is a (no doubt good-faith) routine breakdown of WP standards; your dogged defense of it in those terms is grossly unacceptable, but perhaps there are extenuating circumstances (which i actually prefer not knowing of) that keep it within the bounds of good faith.
I counsel you to consult some of your RCP colleagues, drawing their attention to this discussion, with a goal of finding some kind of a mentor willing especially to help you toward editing more widely and deeply.
BTW, while i was putting off discussing such softer issues in this matter, i can't in good conscience skip telling you that i consider "administrator authority" a misunderstanding of adminship, and i also don't consider myself as having "act[ed] in th[e] capacity" of admin twd you. (I won't bother you for a ref, but i'll look up the basis of your "required administrative procedural step"; things change, besides my not always getting them right from the start.)
--Jerzy•t 09:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal requests by Proofreader77

[edit]

1) Please confirm: Do you, Jerzy, affirm or withdraw the Warning for disruptive editing?

  • If the warning is withdrawn, this issue is resolved.

--Proofreader77 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proofreader77 to provide overview of his perspective to concerned parties by day 7.
  • (Interim status advisory re warning of block)
  • (NOTE: Ironically, I am grateful for Jerzy's choice of allegations, since they are the right allegations, but aimed in the wrong direction—which made me smile a wicked-pot/innocent-kettle smile when they were asserted. KEY ISSUE: dab-cleaning and presumed special license ... inflicting undue burden ... and dismissive, consensus-owning interaction styles, especially inappropriate when performed by administrators.)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To whom it may concern:
    I've gotten thru 5? 6? years as an admin without needing to learn just what to expect in a DR process, and i expect not to have to change that situation. I nearly had occasion to lose that blissful ignorance when i found i had a beef against another user, who had carelessly blamed me for something they should have realized was done by someone else. (Lest any diligent researcher later think i am concealing relevant circumstances, i go on record now that i find it irrelevant that that user was almost certainly an admin at the time, and almost certainly much more visible at the time than i will ever be.) That ignorance was preserved by the good offices of (i'm pretty sure i recall correctly) a more experienced editor (presumably, but again irrelevantly, an admin) whom i consulted. This colleague advised me to just let it go, rather than going (my retrospective assessment) for blood, even if (as i still think) i was right in thinking myself wronged, and the offender wrong in ignoring my intimation that they had erred. I took that advice, and tho taking it entailed some emotional cost, it was very good advice. (It didn't take long for me to know that, and the announced departure from WP of the offender, much later, is another irrelevancy.)
    I say i expect to retain that ignorance bcz the warning i gave at 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) to Proofreader77
_ _ was a reasonable one in the circumstances that preceding it, and besides its not needing to be disavowed, pernicious misinterpretation of such disavowal would be tedious to avoid -- perhaps impossible in the case of Proofreader77 -- and
_ _ was also not a particularly important one, e.g. it does not need to be reaffirmed.
Proofreader77's level of concern is not something i pretend to understand, nor feel obliged to understand, tho it may be someone else can get thru with advice like what i received.
Nevertheless, their short contrib above at 23:20, 6 March 2009, may (and of course may not) be relevant. It addressed my assertion that they had misquoted me with an earlier phrase, which they now alluded to three times: in the edit summary reading
clarification "warning of block" (as requested)
with the initial text
re: "warning of block" —
and an allusion that was cryptic for stupid me, in the only sentence in the contrib, expressing their belief that the three-word phase did describe my action (never mind the details of that). The sentence fragment immediately following it is the remainder of the contrib (box provided by me):
A required administrative procedural step preceding a block, issued by an editor with administrator authority acting in that capacity.
In that context, i construe the final phrase to stand as an appositive to the three-word phrase, i.e., to assert that what the three-word phrase is intended to describe is a case of the long appositive. It was in that light that, after addressing several other aspects, i closed my last 'graph in my response with the following portion of my 09:14, 7 March contrib:
(I won't bother you for a ref, but i'll look up the basis of your "required administrative procedural step"; things change, besides my not always getting them right from the start.)
Forty hours later (just before boosting my lifetime block count by 18% base on my investigation in response to concerns of a Dab-cleanup colleague) i checked WP:block#Education and warnings, which is found by lk'g to the page and searching with search key "warning". Trying to locate it again, i got instead to WP:Warning first; either one would alone have been sufficient to satisfy me of the value of relying on my experience of WP practice over the analytical skills of relative newcomers.
But my tolerance for dialog with Proofreader77 is exhausted, and my sense is that, in turn, their capacity for in practice understanding what i say was exhausted earlier, perhaps even by the time (guess i've gotta look that up) on March 1 when i explained (IIRC to another colleague) that IAR doesn't mean, or say, "ignore all rules". I mention that specifically, since they have reiterated that it means, if i grasp their meaning (NOT a quotation),
ignore any rule that stands in the way of what you want to do, as long as you're convinced you're the x-est one in the room
where x is the handiest adjective for the situation.
I would hope some colleagues who have occasion to consult this section will undertake what i have failed at.
--Jerzy•t 05:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOUSEKEEPING: Scheduling archive-bracketing (top/bottom templates) for ~6:00 3/15/09

[edit]
  • Having concluded two-party discussion without resolution, noting intent to bracket topic of dispute with {{archive top}} {{archive bottom}} in preparation for next stage of dispute resolution.
  • (NOTE: Save to subpage as previously suggested to clear up user talk page(s) for normal use.)

--Proofreader77 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

[edit]

re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

RHETORICAL INTERACTION

ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS

TO:  User:Jerzy
 FYI:  Your username is mentioned in the preliminary overview:

User:Proofreader77/American warning#001 (sonnetized)

Looking forward to a convivial examination and resolution
within the context of policy re disambiguation cleaning
(dab-cleaner responsibilities—especially administrators).

Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

CC:

--Proofreader77 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(housekeeping note: both talk page American warning discussions archived to User talk:Proofreader77/American warning Archive)

[edit]
  • have cleared the version on User_talk:Proofreader77
  • added archive brackets to User_talk:Jerzy as step in saving a copy.
  • if you wish, you may clear archived discussion from your talk page (or however you wish to handle it).

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(notice of messages addressing current status of process on User_talk:Proofreader77)

[edit]

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further pages concerning this matter

[edit]

--Jerzy•t 09:03 & 09:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77_DR/0&oldid=287218615"