User talk:Shtrominer/Archive 1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Shtrominer! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome to the pale wiki! Enjoy your stay. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Deceptive"? Why deceptive??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work with the categories. If you go to "preferences" and then "gadgets" you can select to use HotCat, which speeds the process up immensely. ^sshole 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tip. -Shtrominer 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Typos

Nice one on fixing up the typos and spelling errors. Here, have a goat on me. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but now how do I get it to stop gnawing on my sleeve? -Shtrominer 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't, it's just one of the downsides. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if I stare at it long enough... Shtrominer 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sysopery

In light of your valiant efforts here, I have made you a sysop. Here's your big book of how to. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shtrominer 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Big pat on the back

Good job with your copy-edits, man! Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 07:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shtrominer (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See what I did at Huey P. Newton and Paul Ryan, makes it so they're sorted in any cats that get added. ħuman 07:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad person for whatever I reverted at Nuremberg Files. Naughty naughty. ħuman 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to putting the "interesting fact" back in some form? Maybe tone down the snark? It's sourced and gives an indication of just how batpoo the guy is. Shtrominer (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's at really embarrassing cons, I think that's enough. I guess I wouldn't object to a "see also" pointing to that section, though. ħuman 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand not wanting to overdo it. A "see also" link seems like a good solution. Shtrominer (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another big ol' pat on the back.....

Thanks again for doing an outstanding job with the copyediting around here. Cheers, dude! Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 06:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your catting binge

Whilst nice could you consider two things. Stuff in the Fun namespace really doesn't need a cat, also could you avoid broad categories like people. We have discussed this at length and it was agreed the narrower the better. - π 03:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Will remember this in the future. Some stuff is hard to place, so I tried to put it in a nice, safe broad category rather than shoot for something narrower and miss. Shtrominer (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know...

This edit = win. 76.4.240.95 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't really explain my reasons properly in the limited space of the edit summary

Right, I apologize for rude editing behaviour.

The reason I kept removing that bit is because I believe everyone should read that article by Leigh Alexander and judge for themselves instead of one of us telling them what we thought it was. Opinions do differ on what exactly offends about this. For example, this is my take on it: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk%3AWhat_is_going_on_in_the_blogosphere%3F&diff=1367205&oldid=1367200 I do think Alexander has a good point, but lays it out quite poorly. I think we should let readers just see it for themselves and make up their own minds. The sentence I kept removing is not needed to make the case that there was undue harassment of this particular gaming journalists as someone who is opposed to Gamergate. Nullahnung (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written RationalWiki articles will of course try to present opposing arguments/views in the interest of context and exercise a restrained use of snark. But this isn't Wikipedia. We're not bound by NPOV to "show both sides" or "let the readers decide." There's no need to cater to "teach the controversy" types here.

The fact is that Alexander wrote about sexism in the gaming community and was then the target of a co-ordinated campaign of misogynistic harassment. Removing that context isn't doing justice to the bigger picture, because it makes it seem as if Alexander was targeted randomly or "for the lulz."

The worst things Alexander called Gamergater types in her piece were "obtuse shitslingers" and "childish internet-arguers." It's not unusual for opinion pieces to contain snark. And, of course, the Gamergaters only proved her right by responding to her piece with obtuse muck-raking and childish internet-arguing. And suggesting that she was somehow out of line for calling a small digging tool by its accepted name is employing the same kind of tone argument which anti-feminists frequently accuse feminists of using.

I did shave a bit of snarkiness off the description of Alexander's article, though. I also added more information on how she's being deliberately targeted and the types of harassment she's received. I remembered reading an article about it, but it took me a while to find it again.-Shtrominer (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very true that Gamergaters who started harassing her only ended up proving her description of... of who? Of the core male gaming demographic? See, that's the problem. She was using an ill-defined group broadly labeled "gamer" and painting it with a broad, negative brush while making a good point about sexism in the gaming industry. There is no consideration of the fact that the group is made up of unique individuals who are being unfairly othered, there is no calling out to the group to self-reflect and promote civil behaviour (which as a gaming journalist would be the pro-consumer thing to do). This is my opinion of the article, I'm sure the person who wrote it is wonderful and has only the best of intentions and does not by any stretch of the imagination deserve the harassment alotted, but there are faults in the article and I'm not going to have you sit there and tell me that there are not.

Btw, the snark that you removed, I think that makes it okay with me now. I can accept the way you put it now. Nullahnung (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Apparently some idiots were dumb enough to give me sysop again. Naturally, I sought to self-correct this.--Madman (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Pretty sure you could've done that yourself if that was your end game. -Shtrominer (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article deletion

Why did you delete the breastfeeding article without at least giving me a chance to improve it? It was my first posting and I was really trying to do a good job. Your comment that it sounded like a one-sided bashing of formula feeders is helpful because I was actually trying to use snark to defend formula. Can I try again? Is there anything else I can do to improve the post? Thanks! LitteringAnd 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to nuke your article. I admit that I may have acted rashly. We definitely appreciate snark on this wiki. But I believe snark is a thing best used sparingly. Sometimes satire is so convincing that you can't tell a parody of a viewpoint from an actual argument in favour of the same viewpoint.

I've restored your article in your userspace. I don't think it's ready for mainspace in its current form, but you can work on it there. Personally, I'd do away with the "pros" and "cons" lists, as I think they're too subjective, and seem more like they're trying to make a point than provide information. I'd still discuss the benefits and drawbacks of breastfeeding, but I'd aim for a more serious presentation, covering the benefits that scientific research has confirmed (immunological boost) and the claimed benefits that scientific research has debunked (increased IQ). I'd try to avoid subjective stuff like "breastfeeding is cheaper," "breast milk smells nicer than formula," etc., or at least explicitly frame these as opinions/arguments put forward by specific people.

I'd also discuss the discrimination and judgment faced by both bottle-feeding and breast-feeding parents in greater detail. I'd discuss the instances in which nursing mothers being asked to leave restaurants, stores, etc., and how this contributes to the stigmatization of breast-feeding. I'd discuss the way formula companies have employed questionable marketing tactics, especially in the developing world. But I'd also discussing the way formula-feeding parents are subject to judgment and shaming. I'd discuss the ways in which the "baby-friendly" initiatives designed to encourage breast-feeding are doing a disservice to new mothers. The reports of lactation consultants entering hospital rooms uninvited and new parents literally having to beg hospital staff to give them formula or prepare a bottle. I'd discuss the social pressure to breastfeed in Western society and where this intersects with the attachment parenting/natural parenting movement.

I'd also cite everything.

There's definitely room for snark, but I think a more serious, concrete approach would ultimately result in a stronger article. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Something that seems to be escaping your attention

The AfD discussion was already closed, by a moderator no less. We don't keep AfD discussions going when the result is overly clear. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yah, no seriously. That isn't an ongoing AFD discussion, it's a snowball going downhill in one direction. Article is kept. Don't abuse Sysop powers to be pointlessly difficult. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What seems to have escaped both your notices is that I am also sysop have been editing this wiki far longer than either of you. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And now Paravent has taken a bold stand against the alleged abuse of sysop powers...by doing the exact same thing they allege was an abuse of sysop powers. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And i'm a mod, vaguely charged with keeping some semblance of order on said wiki. So if you want to flop your powers dick around, I'm sad to say mine is bigger. If you want to pull the "I've been here longer!" argument, so the fuck what? You could be Trent (pbuh) and I would still slap you down for being so silly. You removed peoples rights for s stupid reason, so you can have a time out without your own rights (which, i'll point out, i appear to have given you back in the first place)--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But no seriously, please stop being silly? The discussion is not going to turn against BLM being missional, and you didn't even say -how- it isn't missional. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(By the by: Paravant is the latest incarnation of Miekal. Also, moderator is a different and higher position than sysop. To avoid unnecessary confusion.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I removed 142's sysop rights because they closed a discussion before it had run its course. There were also accusations on the talk page that they had misused their tools in protecting the page to reflect their preferred version. It seemed prudent to remove said tools to de-escalate the situation. I may have erred in my judgment, but my actions were motivated by a desire to protect the interests of the wiki. You removed my tools out of pure spite, which is unquestionably an abuse of your tools. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Spite? You think that was spite? No, I saw somebody come in and remove somebodies rights because they didn't like that the AFD they made was going the other direction (your accusations of "damn new people!" on the talk page do not help this) and was closed because it was snowballing. My motivations were as much to protect the wikis interests. you have your rights back now, so please take the message and respect the mobs decision instead of bitching about how the newbies are ruining the lawn? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked we had no "snowball clause" (I know Wikipedia does, though). If I wanted to be cynical, I could argue that 142 closed the discussion because it was going in their favour, and thus it was in their interest to shut it down before more editors weighed in and possibly shifted the vote the other way. I'm willing to accept a "keep" outcome, provided this is the outcome of a proper vote that isn't prematurely shut down before it has run its course. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the fossil record, you might notice that I didn't close anything. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

7+ people voting keep on an article in AFD? That's pretty much a guaranteed keeper, wasting time keeping the vote open for no good reason is pointless. . --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Obviously the editors most invested in the article are going to dogpile the vote as soon as it goes up. Leaving the vote up for longer allows less-invested editors time to weigh in. The result may ultimately be the same, but it stands a greater chance of reflecting community consensus, rather than the opinion of the handful of invested editors who responded quickest to the AfD nomination. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good lord whatever, you get your week-long AFD if you want to waste the time so badly.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Heaven forbid someone insist that proper procedure be followed. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case it would be called wikilawyering.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out our guidelines on Deletion include no mention of a time limit we -must- follow all the time--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor does it contain a provision for the kind of premature "snowball" closure that was carried out. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good lord whatever, you have your week of voting, watch as your mysterious support that will overwhelm all the new voters missing the mission never materializes. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Closest thing RW has to a snowball clause is a canned reason in the delete dialog. Even on the other wiki, the Snowball clause is an essay, not policy. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

On that other wiki, the "Speedy Keep" policy effectively functions as a snowball clause. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is keeping an article a thing decided by consensus or majority?

That question needs to be addressed to better understand the merits of this case, imho Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RW voting is basically a "majority wins" thing, although people will comment that it isn't the best outcome if the vote is close or with little community input (major decisions have been made solely on the difference of one vote)--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in this case, actually, since both would result in deletion. I'm personally more supportive of the consensus approach, but the reality is that AfDs are typically decided based on which position has the highest number of votes in favour. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Counting votes to determine a majority may be simpler than trying to divine a consensus, but, in practice, "majority wins" is far too easy to game. All it takes is a persistent and vocal enough group of people. Look at what happened on Wikipedia, with Gamergaters creating hordes of sockpuppet accounts to tip discussions in their favour. As I remember, Wikipedia does not count votes from IP editors and newly-created accounts in an effort to cut down on this type of system-gaming. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And now we have our first vote from an account created for the sole purpose of voting in the AfD discussion. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Because so much ballot stuffing is going on here - "Oh shit another delete vote? With the shittiest possible delete reason!? CHEAT THE RESULTS"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to practice DNFTT, which means I try to ignore obvious trolling, instead of engaging with it and thus giving the troller the reaction they're seeking. You're deflecting the entirely valid concern I raised. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Because i don't see the issue coming up in this AFD (unless you planned to do it yourself)and yet here you are, blindly accusing users of only existing the stuff the ballot (which is itself another problem of the losing side accusing the other of cheating). Is it a problem? Yes. Has it come up on RW already in the past? Yes (supposedly). Is this a place where it will? Unlikely. If you want to solve the issue, go be bold and propose a rule or something.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

An account has been created for the express purpose of voting in the BLM AfD. There's no getting around that fact. It's proof that the system is being gamed. -Shtrominer (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

if you believe said account was created just to influence the vote and has no other purpose, give me some proof, otherwise you're complaining that people disagree with you and woopty doo. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If the first edit an account makes is to vote in an AfD nomination, it's pretty obvious why said account was created. You're engaging in the sort of "wikilawyering" you claim to be against. -Shtrominer (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to trust you, but given you complained that "the newbies just don't understand RW" when you noticed most of the votes against what you wanted were from new accounts, I have a hard time doing so. You have also yet to explain why we would need to fix a vote where only one person has even provided a real vote for deletion (I refuse to accept Kroms "because I don't like how it's not against BLM" vote) and the overwhelming consensus going into the night is "it should be kept"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You've also yet to go do that thing I said you should do if you think this will be or is an issue: Propose a policy to deal with it. Unless you want to be that guy who sits in his chair looking out at the chaos and going "If only somebody had been willing to do something before this happened" and plan to just bitch about it on random pages that won't get the problem dealt with.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And now you're equivocating. "Newbies who don't get RW" aren't the same thing as obvious SPAs (i.e. accounts created for a single purpose, in this gaming a vote). -Shtrominer (talk)

I remember you saying something about ignoring a point earlier, and i'm going to shoot it back at you: If you feel like this is an issue RW needs to deal with, stop complaining about it where nothing will happen. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Which reminds me of Gamergates telling people calling out sexism in video games to stop complaining and make their own games. Ultimately, just a convenient excuse to dismiss criticisms one would rather ignore. I'm not responsible for the gameability of RW's voting system, nor should I be single-handedly responsible for fixing it. -Shtrominer (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That SPA says, "as the author..." so one parsimonious assumption is that having started the article, they have something to say in its AfD. The activities of that newly registered account are consistent with good faith contribution. I haven't yet seen any indication of an impending brigade of "tightly focused" inclusionists. If it does appear, we will see whether a mechanism emerges from the mob to deal with that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't help concluding, as a long-term editor, that this wiki has lost sight of its mission. BLM doesn't have a direct relation to any of our mission statements. ("Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement?" No. "Documenting the full range of crank ideas?" No. "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism?" No.) The existence of an article on the subject seems more a concession to something that's currently gathering headlines than a furtherance of this site's stated mission. And I think that to allow the focus of the wiki to drift in such a manner is ultimately to do it a great disservice. And that's the last I'm going to say on this matter. -Shtrominer (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"And I think that to allow the focus of the wiki to drift in such a manner is ultimately to do it a great disservice" I actually agree with that comment. However, you come far too late. When I joined 3 weeks ago I did not expect to find scads and scads of political articles. But they are here. Lots of them; in abundance. Given that, I do not support deleting the BLM article. If it had been the first one or three political articles beyond the mission to have sprung up here, I probably would agree it should be deleted. But it's not, and so I don't.---Mona- (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've stated that I do not wish to pursue this line of discussion further. But this is more a general comment on RW policy than one on the BLM situation. I don't have an issue with articles on political topics. I think that extremist and retrograde political ideologies can fall under the umbrella of "anti-science," "crank ideas," "authoritarianism," and "fundamentalism." Thus, articles on such topics are often on-mission. But I don't think politics- and activism-related topics deserve coverage just because they're on a lot of people's radars and are gathering a lot of headlines. I think they need a clear relevance to this site's mission to warrant coverage. -Shtrominer (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair

I mod locked it because people were complaining that it was only Sysop locked by one side of the conflict. that it also stopped you from readding the template was an unintended side-effect.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)