User talk:Rationalobserver

Hello, Rationalobserver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:Hotter than July (album)

Head over there and give your opinion 5.81.225.225 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Dan56 is a party to that dispute, so I'm gonna decline. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far

Hello Rationalobserver,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

E-mail sent, Gabrielm199. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice

I'm not interested in an unblock request. This is the last thing I needed to show me that this place is terribly dysfunctional and not really worth the effort. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless anyone takes a disliking to you then you are treated as a criminal. Good luck and goodbye! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rationalobserver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including Sergecross73, Lightbreather, and Chillum, and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After a discussion with Phil, we were able to resolve a concern that I had. Therefore, I'm unblocking the account. However, I would encourage you to abide by the interaction ban to which you have agreed. Mike V • Talk 00:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been involved in these discussions, so I shouldn't be making any administrative decisions personally, but for what its worth, I believe its worth a second look. I thought the evidence was rather weak, as did several other editors, such as Lightbreather and Chillum. If SPI worked off of consensus, the block would not have happened. That's my 2 cents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I remain of the opinion that the evidence was not conclusive and this is not a block I would have done myself, I also concede that User:Mike V is far more experienced in sock puppetry cases than myself. Chillum 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I asked Lightbreather below if this block can be reviewed at AN/I, or if this unblock request is my only recourse. What advice can you give me? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V:- looking at [1] and [2] they're in the same time zone, but their proportions of article edits, and edit summary usage are very different. Are you entirely confident about this? PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I'm also concerned about this block. I've looked at Rationalobserver's edits and the sockpuppeteer's, and nothing jumps out. If there's an issue between her and Dan56, an IBAN would solve things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. I guess what makes this so frustrating is that everything else here is based on consensus, which I respect, but if it only takes one admin to permanently ban you from Wikipedia, then this is a loosely organized anarchy, which I don't respect. Can this block be reviewed at AN/I, or is the unblock request my only option? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it can be reviewed at AN/I, but Mike may agree to lift it without that, given that several people are expressing concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally an unblock request is taken before the community when the reviewing admin wishes to unblock but cannot find agreement with the blocking admin. I would do just that however I commented in the SPI case and as such am involved.

That being said I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have a more open viewing on this matter. Chillum 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I just got back from the grocery store and only noticed this request recently. I'm currently in the process of composing an email to PhilKnight to discuss a few things regarding the block. Best, Mike V • Talk 21:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Mike V. While I assume this is a minor procedural point, am I correct to assume that you are now both the blocking and reviewing admin, or have I misunderstood something? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume Mike put it on hold so as to give further thought to the block. I have no doubt that he will not decline his own unblock request, if anything he will unblock you are return the request to an open state. Chillum 22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, Chillum. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. I changed the unblock template to the default hold setting, which seems to have auto-filled my name. It was just so that others could see at a glance that the request is being reviewed. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I thought you were very level-headed and rational. I liked what you were trying to accomplish re Wikipedia's civility problem, and I'll miss you.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Lightbreather; it's much appreciated! Is an unblock request my only recourse here, or can I request that this block be reviewed at AN/I? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay

GoodDay, I think it's cruel and unnecessary that you feel the need to tell everyone I am a sock when the jury is still out, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to ping me when I cannot respond. That seems like mean-spirited and uncivil behavior to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I retracted that 'update', as I wasn't aware that your 'case' is being reviewed. I'm very sensative (maybe, too sensative) when socking is in the air. If you're innocent? you've my apologies. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm innocent, but I made the mistake of learning too fast and applying what I learned after several years of on-and-off editing as an IP (I also edited for several weeks under a previous account that I retired for privacy reasons). This place is too quick to assume the worst in people, when they are supposed to AGF. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not perfect. I too, can make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. FWIW, I forgive you, and I sincerely apologize for snapping at you. This has been a disheartening experience all around, but you had always been nice to me, so I shouldn't have taken that tone. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

'Tis alright :) GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN

Thanks, Mike V, for being willing to take another look. Regarding the IB, can I assume that Dan56 is equally banned from interacting with me, because I agreed to a two-way IB, not a one-way, which I think is not right. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to revert this edit. Would that be okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't force him to abide by something he didn't agree to. However, if you're not interacting with him I don't see a reason for him to interact with you. If there's ever something that's troublesome, please let me know and I'd be happy to mediate. Mike V • Talk 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that's too grey for me. What I said above is that, "I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us", which has to be two-ways or nothing, since a one-way would mean that he can revert me and talk about me but I can't do the same, and I do not agree to that. E.g., the edit above, where he removed my oppose. I should be able to revert that right? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock

Hi Rationalobserver, you're welcome, and I'm glad to see you're unblocked. The best thing is to stay away from Dan56 and hope that he will respect an IBAN too. But in your shoes I wouldn't wikilawyer it (or revert anything re: your post above). Just observe it yourself, and if the situation continues at least it won't be because of anything you've done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure that's good advice, but it's not right that he removed my comments under false pretenses. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum has restored your posts. Looking ahead, it really is in your interests not to interact with him and hope that he extends you the same courtesy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your advice; don't worry, I won't let you down! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that altering archives to remove your comments was out of line and have reverted it.

The only way an IBAN is going to be enforceable or anything other than two people choosing to ignore each other is through community consensus. Short of a community imposed IBAN there is no way to enforce it and no penalty is likely if it is broken.

The best way to propose an enforceable IBAN is through the community, from WP:BAN: Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

A ban can be proposed there. If you do expect scrutiny that user and yourself. My suggestion is to try to avoid this user and if that user insists on interacting with you then escalate it. Chillum 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take your advice also, and if anything comes up I'll seek guidance before acting. Thanks again! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Im happy to see you unblocked =) Glad to have ya here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Knowledgekid87! Happy Holidays! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You too, hope yours are good for you and your family =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Winter Solstice

KylieTastic (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, KylieTastic! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well! Thanks again for being so kind regarding my script-assisted errors. It's nice when you can make mistakes without getting your head chewed off! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I've given Dan56 a final warning that even passing mentions about you being a sock are out of line. That being said, please disengage in all of this, so you don't find yourself in more drama. His evidence is terrible, so I don't believe he's going to get anywhere. Its best if you just ignore him and go about your business. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, because if I cannot bring new violations to an admin's attention then nobody will stop him from this ongoing harassment. The only reason I brought this issue to AN/I in the first place and demanded an SPI was so that the accusations would end, which they haven't. Thanks for giving him a final warning though; I'll assume that's the last one he needs, but what should I do if he continues? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't word that right. My advice is to ignore it because his case is weak. If you move on, it may indirectly better show that you're not a sock out to get him like he claims, but rather an editor who is interested in building an encyclopedia. But that's just my advice. I'm not telling you that you can't report him. You can report him to your heart's content. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's generally good advice, but if I go into "ignore the attacks mode", it negates the AN/I consensus, which stated: "At this point the only remaining acceptable location to make accusations of sock puppetry against Rationalobserver is at WP:SPI with evidence." That's all I was ever asking for, that Dan56 stop making accusations at various talk pages and instead take his concerns to the appropriate venue, which is SPI. I've done everything I can to follow proper procedure, and that's the same standard that Dan56 should be held to. FTR, I only opposed him at one article, that's it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)