Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 6 February 2022

Older archive: page 1 page 2 page 3 is the history of page 4. page 4 page 5, more

"Consortium for the Bar Code of Life:" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Consortium for the Bar Code of Life:. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#Consortium for the Bar Code of Life: until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking for your comment about 2018 Trypophobia article RfC

Hi, Pengo. I saw that in the RfC on Trypophobia that you were the only user who argued in favor of removing the image which induces Trypophobia. I'm now trying to explore why users otherwise unanimously decided to keep the image. I was wondering if you had any opinions on your gauge of the situation when the RfC occurred in 2018. I'm not sure if your opinion on the issue has changed, but users in the talk page for that article are emphasizing the near-unanimity of that decision. I'm wondering what makes you different in your conclusion from the other 32 users. Thank you for any information. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: I know someone with serious trypophobia. I can tell you they and similar users were not commenting because they were not going to a page with a heap of images that make them throw up in their mouth. Why 32 other users think that's fine, you'll have to ask them. —Pengo 02:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: i.e. there's a huge selection bias as the page is inaccessible and actually hostile to people with more serious forms of the condition. It's like running a survey on a page that claims epilepsy doesn't exist, and asking whether we should "censor" flashing images, and the entire survey page flashes rapidly. What do you think will be the result? How much input do you expect from people with photosensitive seizures? I don't know what I said on the RfC—you didn't link it—and I don't know why you're asking, but I don't imagine my views have changed, no. —Pengo 02:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pengo: Thanks for the replies, they were helpful. I'll probably call a new RfC in a week or so, perhaps depending on how the project I asked for assistance/review replies. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: Best of luck. —Pengo 22:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask you both why you think all except for one of the users (you, Pengo) who participated were corrupt participants? Half voted to collapse the photo out of concern for sufferers, and some of them went up against those who didn't seem to care for sufferers or thought of the condition as probably false, but you describe everyone except for one as cruel and biased. What gives? I think it's a shame that so many wouldn't even vote to hide the photo, but I don't think most of them were intentionally being cruel. I don't think a new poll will change anything either, but it's okay to try. Acidsetback (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Acidsetback: I personally never questioned the other participants' motives, did not call them corrupt, nor assumed bad faith. I was unaware of any connection to 4chan trolling or brigading of votes.

All I said was the participants were necessarily a biased sample due to the design of the page. Both the discussion and the wikipedia pages leading to it were (and still are) inaccessible and literally hostile to those with the condition being discussed, especially those with more severe reactions, and no attempt was made to seek the opinions of those with the condition, so of course people with the condition, whose opinion should be valued in the decision, are going to be unable or unwilling to participate. I haven't looked back but I believe there were no voices of anyone with the condition, let alone anyone with a severe symptoms, nor any attempt to include their voices.

There's also a pile-on effect where once a view is established in a forum, dissenters mostly don't bother to respond, which would further discourage anyone from responding if they had got that far.

I did not call anyone intentionally cruel, although it's not difficult to see how such a conclusion could be reached. Honestly, it's such a stupidly obvious thing to not to show big spiders on Arachnophobia and not to make the background of the Photosensitive epilepsy page strobe different colours. So if someone repeatedly supports vomit-enducing images on Trypophobia, then I can absolutely see why that would could be seen as a deliberately cruel act, but that is not something I actually said. —Pengo 00:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll raise this concern sometime, unless you'd like to come to Talk:Trypophobia. I'm now of the opinion that you'll find cooperative users there. One thing I'd wonder is how to get in touch with people who have Trypophobia who might have varied opinions to share. No doubt taking just a few people's opinions would not represent everyone who suffers from the condition. I'm also unaware of Misplaced Pages's standards on polling a demographic for representation, especially considering this is a conversation dealing with style rather than content. Otherwise, I'm thinking of reaching out to researchers and psychologists who have studied the condition to get their take on the article as a whole, the location of the picture, and if some more appropriate and less shocking picture might be found. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pengo, here's a link to the poll: here. There were a few people who participated in the poll who have trypophobia and who were very sympathetic toward sufferers. Some who don't have the condition were sympathetic toward sufferers. But IronMaidenRocks says most users voted to keep the photo in the lead "mostly because of concerns about censorship", that you "believe that the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty", and that they (IronMaidenRocks) agree with that. IronMaidenRocks says the argument that the photo should remain for its educational value is "downright barbaric." With the way they put it, it was a white male conspiracy theory to keep the photo. IronMaidenRocks also says an ableist bias occurred. That may be so, but it appears there was no such bias for most of the participants. Most didn't argue censorship, and most didn't come from 4chan. These were years-old users voting and the voting discussion appears to have been advertised on Misplaced Pages, and so that's why it had a large participation. IronMaidenRocks put words in your mouth. Thank you for illuminating your feelings. Acidsetback (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Acidsetback: Why did you break your quote, Acidsetback? Is that something I actually said? Did I say that Pengo "seems to believe" or did I say that Pengo "believes" as you quoted me? Because, if you read Pengo's first reply, they used what I see as rather strong language which I interpreted, and I distinctly clarified that the way I said it was my own interpretation. Furthermore, why are you on a user's talk page discussing the subject of Talk:Trypophobia about discussion taking place there? I came here to ask Pengo questions about the discussion and whether they'd like to participate again. There's little that you've said or asked here which couldn't have been posted in that discussion. Nor were you even part of the discussion in either thread before you came here, as far as I can tell. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There, you said, "I reached out to the one user who disagreed with the RfC decision to keep the image, User:Pengo, and they seem to believe that the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty. I agree with that." Why do you think saying "seem to believe" absolves you from giving a certain impression of Pengo's feelings? If you said I seem to believe something I don't, it would still be a mischaracterization. Similarly, is this not why GoneIn60 objected to your characterization of him? Here and here, on two different users' talk pages, you even accuse me of mocking you, others being against you, and then you changed the headings of your reports to say "Users engaging in disruptive/unbecoming behavior in Talk:Trypophobia discussion." I count one user (you) engaging in disruptive/unbecoming behavior at Talk:Trypophobia. I didn't quote everything because I didn't think "seem to believe" was important and communication usually includes summarizing what someone has said, lest you go into TLDR territory. I came to Pengo's talk page because you advertised coming here and gave a certain impression of Pengo's feelings. You also mischaracterized the polling. I wanted to know Pengo's feelings from Pengo's own mouth and I didn't want Pengo left with your inaccurate summary of things. I'm not discussing the topic of trypophobia here on this user's talk page. I'm discussing exactly what you discussed here on this user's talk page. And now it's time to end that and leave this user in peace. Acidsetback (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I won't discuss with you further than to say that there's no way that I could relay someone else's opinions without making my own impression of it. Pengo has not said whether my interpretation was accurate enough, so you are accusing me of something that hasn't happened yet. It looks like you asked Pengo questions in such a way as to paint me in a bad light, a very literal twist on WP:Lawyering. And, before you say it, you and other users have repeatedly implied that my calling attention to your behavior and possible biases is a violation of good faith. These rules exist, in part, for us to compare the behavior of others to the rules, just as much as it is for us to compare it to ourselves. Being in the majority in the discussion doesn't give you the right to police behavior completely at the minority's expense. Or is it that I'm the only one in that discussion capable of bad faith; those self-interpreted rules only apply to people who disagree with you? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Acidsetback:I said on the Trypophobia talk page that I have stopped discussing this subject until further notice. Don't come find me on other pages. Any further attempt to contact from you outside that page will be considered unwanted contact. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You've made numerous bad-faith accusations, and you've done it again. Pengo clarified their position by saying they "personally never questioned the other participants' motives, did not call them corrupt, nor assumed bad faith" and that what they "said was the participants were necessarily a biased sample due to the design of the page." That's different than what you said. They also talked about hostility and how the participants were "a biased sample" partly because of that. There does exist hostility in the polling discussion, but it was only among a few. And what Pengo said is still different than your characterization of their feelings. If anyone "lawyered" something, you did by insisting that prefacing some things you've said wasn't characterizing things in the way you characterized them.

You've also shown that you half-read and half-analyze situations. At two different users' talk pages, you described me as "a user who was previously uninvolved". And now you've said, "Being in the majority in the discussion doesn't give you the right to police behavior completely at the minority's expense." But I was involved before you, and I said, "Removing the image altogether is preferable, but the discussion shows voting was split. About 50/50. There was less agreement to collapse the image or tuck it away at the bottom of the article." Did you miss where I said "removing the image altogether is preferable"? And now you want to talk about self-interpreted rules only being followed by a user when the user agrees with them? That's you, is it not? I didn't express "indignance several times", as you claimed on two different users' talk pages. I expressed bafflement that you'd characterize all voters except one as cruel when half of them voted to collapse the image so that sufferers wouldn't see it unless they chose to see it, and when some who didn't vote to collapse it expressed sympathy and empathy.

I don't want to come find you anywhere. I said at Talk:Trypophobia that I'm not going to follow you to these pages you dinged me at with an alert. But you don't get to say that I can't respond on another user's talk page or on an article's talk page, especially when you've dinged me in an alert to the talk page and have mischaracterized and insulted my character. You seem to have a problem that includes trying to police who participates and what they can say. Leave Pengo in peace. I'm not going to clutter this user's talk page anymore. Acidsetback (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you and other users are unable to help I'll probably just stop pursuing the subject until I hear back from expert opinions, and maybe that can inform some new user consensus. I'm spending hours replying to new complaints against my inquiry from the same users, and I don't think they're willing to discuss the subject with an open mind. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Biological data" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biological data. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 10#Biological data until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Status circles.svg

The file File:Status circles.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by c:File:Status iucn3.1.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax 04:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)