This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
About your closure at Talk:1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections#Requested move 19 November 2022, hope you will consider reopening and relisting that one, because a) all those page moves may have been ill-advised, and b) I would like a say in the matter and I don't think there was consensus for the page moves. In the first place, you brought up CONSISTENCY, which was not mentioned by any of the participants in the RM discussion and does not apply. Even if we were to go by the MOS:DATERANGE community consensus (which also does not apply), the only exception to the preferred state of non-abbreviated years (1881–1882, not 1881–82) requires us to ask what the convention is in reliable sources. Since that convention might be one thing for, say, sports articles, it could be something different for, say, political articles, because the sources for each kind of article would give a different convention. That is why CONSISTENCY was not raised in the RM discussion.
Most importantly, an editor raised the main red flag: editor Carter (Tcr25) stressed that these articles were not cases of election cycles that span the two years, they were cases of the elections for seats in the House and Senate, some of which were held in one year and others held in the next year. That would be two groups of things that just happen to have taken place in sequential years and absolutely not a DATERANGE situation. So the original titles in the date format XXXX and YYYY..., which does not and should not indicate a date range, is the only correct way to express the content of those articles. Again, it would be most appreciated if you would reopen and relist this move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there19:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
In the first place, you brought up CONSISTENCY, which was not mentioned by any of the participants in the RM discussionCONSISTENCY says: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. Zzyx said: we should at least use the standard MOS:DATERANGE two-digit ending years format. Amakaru said: I definitely prefer a two-digit second year XXXX–XX where it's a pair of consecutive years. Zzyx also compared the use case to NBA seasons.SUPERVOTE is when someone references an argument in the closing that was not made by any participants. That isn't the case here. Just because no one explicitly used the all caps shortlink doesn't mean that consistency wasn't a major argument in this discussion. It was.Re: Carter's comments, no other discussion participants seemed to have found them particularly convincing. And as Zzyx says, these were elections that overall spanned two years, even if some seats were run in one year and the other in the next year. They were overall one "set" of elections. It was, as they say, " one series of elections that spanned two sequential years to elect a specific meeting of Congress" And that is what swayed subsequent commenters to support the move.It appears to me, overall, that your request to relist is just dissatisfaction with how the consensus went down, not a procedural issue with the close. I don't think anything you bring up here was inadequately addressed in that original discussion, and I don't think a reopen is appropriate. An appropriate amount of time passed, eight editors participated in the discussion (more than most RMs), etc. Five explicitly in favor of the move and one supporting it while also supporting XXX-XXXX. Only a single editor was opposed, and their arguments didn't convince anyone else who participated. I don't think a relist is appropriate. I would urge you to take this to move review if you think it's a reasonable case, but I disagree and will say something similar over there. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, put your mind at ease, Shibbolethink, as I highly respect your judgement. While I have taken a few RMs to MRV before, I doubt that I could build a case for this as an unreasonable closure. I would think that with editors like Amakuru in support, that most editors would agree that yours was a reasonable close. It's just that I think that more weight should have been given to Carter's argument, which effectively nullified both CONSISTENCY and DATERANGE. So had I closed this one, I would have called it "no consensus" for now, but that's just me. Just as one of the supporters indicated, it's just not that big a deal. Thank you for you consideration, and Happy Holidays!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there15:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
And you as well :) I will definitely take that under advisement in future closures, I think you're right and I definitely have been drifting towards more contentious closes, as a personal challenge. But I will definitely consider more relists moving forwards! — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
of sandbice and men
Of course, a man's sandbox is his castle, and far be it from me to pass judgment on someone else's castle -- I don't even know if it's a serious proposal or what -- but I think an RfC to deprecate ProPublica (based on stuff from 2016, no less) would be an absolute travesty, regardless of whether it went through or not. jp×g04:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean probably not going to happen. I thought perhaps a "reliable except for reporting on scientific/data topics" would be the optimal middle ground that allows them to still be used for their extremely rigorous stories, but I have also seen quite a few examples of good science/health reporting, so I am not sure even that is a fair call. My overall perspective is "they screwed up in these two instances" and we should just accept that as a reality, and that RSP is not really gospel. But that overall, ProPublica has an excellent reputation they completely fumbled in this instance, which will make me skeptically eye everything else, but not call it "unreliable". Not yet anyway. Ball's completely in their court if they end up screwing up worse after this. They already lost major grants... [1] (is that because SBF is bankrupt? Or because of their concerns over the reporting? Unclear. I would want them to be independent of funding, but I also personally would not fund an effort to investigate the origins where that was their first use of the money).I absolutely adored ProPublica, have donated to them, read their newsletters, etc. Which was why this was such a shock. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)06:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I read your user page, about waste of words, and there's a matching story involving Max Reger, for a smile (but it's better in German): He wrote to a critic: "I'm sitting in the smallest room of my house and have your review before me. I'll soon have it behind me." - Seriously: during the infoboxes case of 2013, I invented the 2 comments per discussion restriction, which the arbs then used against me, and I found: it's no restriction, it's a blessing. For the infobox discussion for the composer, however, it took a few more comments than 2 (but by then I was free of restrictions). - 10 out of 12 arbitration candidates don't see infobox battles and one didn't answer - interesting. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Please fix the description of my questions to the arb candidates (not the current arbs, but those seeking election). I didn't ask them to weigh in (arbs can't weigh in), I asked them for ideas to end this perennial conflict. So far: no idea. They don't even see a conflict. - When the first RfC for Olivier was closed, I asked them to look at it. Just now, I asked them to look again. I wonder if they'll still see no conflict. I stand by my one and only comment: the common belief has been that the principal editors decide, repeated in 2015, and I rested the Reger discussion on that premise: I was the principal editor, and I decided. Has anything changed? Should that be the premise? No answer from the candidates to this comment (which they should have seen if the looked carefully). I also stand by the last part of my comment: always a waste of time. Unless someone has a good idea for peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes will do! Thank you thank you. I love that story, it reminds me of Gell-Mann amnesia. The idea that we read reviews and treatises of stuff from our own area of expertise, and think "wow this is total BS" and then we flip to the politics section or economy pages, and think "now this is what I like". lol. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
IP User
I would just ignore that IP user. I'm not sure what drama is behind the retired editor, but for whatever reason they have been super hostile. It's not even worth responding. From the very beginning from when I was introduced to that RfC I have been met with nothing but hostility. It's rather silly, but you can tell from the responses it's someone who isn't prepared to argue in good faith. Nemov (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeaaaaaaah. I did actually look into their background of their old account and they got blocked like 5 times (and another time as an IP) for edit warring and for being so confrontational.But I always need advice on how to not sweat those things, lol. Thank you. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking about going to the noticeboard about it, but it's probably a waste of time if the user has already walked away. The editor isn't going to convince anyone with that type of behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeaaaaah, I usually find it's better to reserve that for the most egregious cases. Those noticeboards can be so contentious, it only helps to go if it's a situation where it's reallyreally necessary. Otherwise, better let people talk up a storm of sound and fury signifying nothing, as they say. Glad someone else sees it for what it is, though. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I try to keep an eye on the infobox wars and came here to see if you have had the DS alert. It appears that you have not. I saw the notice up the top which doesn't cover infoboxes but I'll avoid an alert for now. Please stop mucking about with the IP's comments. I don't want to know the history but it's obvious there is an underlying feud which means you are not an impartial observer trying to help out with the talk page. The topic is under discretionary sanctions which means poking anyone, even IPs or returned users, is not on. If it really bothers you, try ANI, although you must know that is not appropriate for such silliness. What does it matter if you don't have the last word? Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I absolutely do not want the last word! I don’t want it to appear I’ve replied to something I have intentionally ‘’not’’ replied to. I’m happy with the current state of things and have no interest in interacting with the ip user. I’m also not going to check each and every page to see if that IP range or user have ‘’ever’’ edited it! But I’m going to avoid it as much as is reasonably possible. Promise! I respect your opinion as an admin Johnuniq and I think you are right, it’s not worth it. Thanks for the note — Shibbolethink(♔♕)02:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I see strange things. When I look at the bottom of this page Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 22, I see the last bit of our 999 discussion, under the heading "Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022" and a little more text. However, if I look at the wikitext [2] and scroll to the bottom, our entire 999 thread is there, afaict looking like it should, per archiving [3]. Is this local to me, or do you see the same? If so, why? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Fixed! Somehow one of the ref names got screwed up, and was collapsing 1.5 sections into a citation field! I just removed the ref. Glad you caught that though :) And hopefully we don't see any more spooky action at a distance. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Shibbolethink, do you think perhaps that, from the edits on the talk page, 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DD88:3C8D:2FF1:1800 and 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 might be the same person? Just wondering if you had any thoughts? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeeeaaaah. So that /64 range is the subject of an ongoing WP:AN discussion. They say they’re SchroCat. They also act as a filter on basically any page that user ever brought to FA, preventing any and all changes from their preferred style and citing WP:FAOWN. It’s a real quagmire of frustrations to interact with them, honestly. After I and another user posted some basic notices on their talk page and they noticed I had also participated in a few infobox discussions, they started saying I was “stalking” and “harassing” them and they felt “chilled” and “threatened”. Not even kidding. Really, truly, they have chased away any user who tries to edit “their” articles even in extremely minor ways. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the user SchroCat had been blocked like 5 or 6 times on both that user and other IPs for exactly this behavior. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't see all of that extremely long conversation with that IP range arguing with @DesertPipeline: on the Mooregate tube crash article from August 2021. Now I see why you asked if it was the same person, lol. Just more of the same from the same obstinate person, jumping around that /64 range. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Cannot thank you enough for the dedication with which you have looked through swathes of edits from innumerable IPs today. I know you're currently writing up a block proposal so I hope this will go some way to being some form of motivation (although I'm fully aware this could very much distract your train of thought!) Enormous thanks once again! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!! :) I'm just happy there appears to be a gathering consensus that this side show is a distraction from the project and should be put in a drawer somewhere. Now I need to go back to my IRL work, lol. And thank you for your help on all this! — Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Firefangledfeathers}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
