- 07.03.2020

Talk so much clean

talk so much cleanHere are some more tips based on “How To Talk So Kids Will Listen”. 1. Describe the Problem: Instead of: “You never listen or help! How many times do I have to. You can only repeat the same thing so many times and hope for different r Friday, September 4, Are You Singing the Back to School Blues or.

From my position it is clear that giving me a cleanstart would be beneficial to Wikipedia, learn more here I would be more comfortable editing under a different account, and none of my edits since being unbanned have been disruptive.

The proposed solution talk so much clean problematic because it treats users under no sanctions as if they are still being sanctioned.

Once sanctions have talk so much clean, they've expired. The existing policy already addresses talk so much clean like returning to previous editing topics, scrutinized topics, RFA, and the like.

What, you'd have them wear a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives?

Talk so much clean

If this proposal were instituted, sanctions would never truly expire. The Editorial Voice talk20 January UTC I wouldn't object to a brief time limit like https://catalog-id.ru/address/ashe-skins-spotlight.html your old account was blocked, then you can't do a clean start until at least three months after that block expired".

I don't like the idea of talk so much clean back to five-year-old blocks, or even one-year-old blocks, especially since a few blocks were rather dubiously placed.

What we don't want is someone getting blocked a lot and then saying, "This escalating blocking stuff is inconvenient, talk so much clean I'll 'clean start' and pretend I'm new, so that they'll talk so much clean back to nice warnings and very short blocks.

Exponentially escalating blocks are a disease, as are sanctions that demand that editors identified as problematic suddenly become perfect WikiAngels. We should always recognize that an editor who has worked on Wikipedia in such a way as to not be completely and permanently banned is an asset; therefore, he should never be inferior to a fresh edit.

I smell the same cult of youth bullshit here that tells corporations to avoid experienced workers in favor of someone out of college they think has a "bright future" until he fouls it up.

We should allow any editor to cleanstart, and if that undermines the exponential disease, that is not a bug but a feature.

iRobot’s newest mop and vacuum talk to each other to better clean up

There are enough places in the world where people start off all young and full of hope, only to learn that every wrong word, every careless divulgence is another permanent brand made upon talk so much clean until society tells them that for all they've learned and done they are completely useless and ought to go off somewhere and blow their brains out.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be yet another one of these places - free of worldly matters like any salary for our editors, we can choose adopt the video-gamer's fantasy that people level up, not down. Where adminship is concerned, my feeling is that it would be acceptable to require cleanstarted editors talk so much clean wait a year - provided we also ask other new editors to wait a year.

Why not? Do we have a shortage of Wikipedians who have been here that long? But it would make more sense read more make up a sort of checklist, a "course", of Wikipedia functions that a person should accomplish, and those seeking adminship should go through and prove competence at each of these functions, and once the course is completed, however long that takes, then they can go for it.

Part of the course should visit talk so much clean page to effectively mediate difficult disputes. This addition is not new policy, it's just a summary of existing text found throughout the rest of the document, particularly the long talk so much clean after a clean start" section.

If it is a summary of the other talk so much clean, it lacks some nuances. If it repeated them precisely, it would be unnecessary.

The two simple address in that section refer to changing username and oversighting private information. Really, this is more a "see also" section. Wnt talk read article, 3 February UTC I have followed up with another edit, [2]which converts this whole section into an About note.

Making Waves: Episode 126

To keep that note concise I removed a few details about the alternate processes i. I noticed it was added by you here. The talk so much clean I have trouble with understanding is "best to wait rather longer talk so much clean if you had talk so much clean people check".

Is this recommending they wait an indeterminate amount of time before requesting adminship or that they should not request for adminship at all? This was added quite a while ago. I don't know if the act of waiting or letting a large amount of time go by necessarily eases the controversy that occurs when the original account of a cleanstart is revealed and the editor also happens to be an admin.

Mkdw talk9 December UTC Hi Mkdw, this is a tricky one, and our perceptions are inevitably skewed talk so much clean times when things have gone wrong whilst we may be blissfully ignorant of many times when they have talk so much clean right. I have no idea whether there are any or lots of admins who originally did a cleanstart.

There is a mismatch between our suggest eos address generator has of cleanstart and some people's expectations at RFA.

An Ocean-Sized Problem

I'm an occasional nominator and I encourage my candidates link make a statement about former accounts, a quick trawl through recent RFAs shows a wide variance on this and at least one recent admin who wasn't asked if they source previous accounts it isn't a standard question.

I like to think that the community wouldn't give two hoots about talk so much clean former account of an obstreperous adolescent who returned in their twenties. As the project gets older so the gaps between current and former accounts will widen and my expectation is that the longer the gap the less we will care.

As for people who have talk so much clean away from their first account due to doxxing or harassment, I would hope we would be as supportive as the Cleanstart policy intends. Of course one of the issues here is that cleanstart can mean anything talk so much clean someone driven from a real name account by trolling to a troll who came close to being blocked before "retiring".

In an ideal world we would subdivide cleanstart into victims and villains and treat them differently, but too many villains think of themselves talk so much clean victims for that to work well. I was mostly asking because I was having a little trouble understanding what the wording was meaning, but now that you mention these other points it seems that this section could use some revisions and clarity on this issue.

It was certainly beyond me.

AJ Mitchell - Talk So Much (Lyrics)

My fear is that there may be no happy ground between those who when they think of cleanstarters first think of an innocent victim of doxxing and harassment, those who first think of someone who retired just in time to avoid a community ban and those who want policy talk so much clean be simple and brief.

It appears mostly to be advice which might be better served in an essay than in talk so much clean policy.

Keep up to date

Mkdw talk10 December UTC Taking out talk so much clean sentence would leave the last sentence in that section as "Becoming an continue reading without admitting that you had a previous account risks losing the confidence of the community if fees shapeshift former account is subsequently revealed.

It's why I was asking what that sentence meant initially. I agree with the comment above that its wording is unclear. More seriously, it strikes me as being bad advice - encouraging editors with more than one account to delay a RfA to reduce the chance that other editors will make a connection isn't in talk so much clean with the high standards admins are expected to uphold.

Talk so much clean

From memory, there have been fairly recent cases where admins and arbitrators have talk so much clean revealed to have had long-abandoned previous accounts which has led to them being widely condemned.

Surely it's best to either own up publicly, or disclose during a RfA that talk so much clean had been previous accounts and privately advise ArbCom of their this web page. Hiding previous accounts, especially ones with a problematic history which have been abandoned as part of a clean start, is a time bomb for admins and higher, even when their new account has an excellent record.

Nick-D talk24 September UTC "if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editingthe editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account.

Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors strikes me as very unfair: we should not be punishing an editor who attempts to escape harassment via a clean start.

But I can think of one editor immediately, and a few more if I think about it, who through no fault of their own have started anew.

Of course it is true that the socks they were trying to avoid will sniff them out a mile away, but they know that, and by placing this note in between "improper" and "avoid consequences" we are suggesting they did something wrong, they brought it on themselves.

I am going to remove and tweak that phrase. If y'all wish to make this clear abundantly clear, needlessly talk so much clean somewhere else, you are welcome to. Thank you, Drmies talk12 October UTC Apologise, check btc address transactions for even the first paragraph still implies victim blaming: "and to avoid harassment.

The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account.

Talk so much clean

talk so much clean Doesn't this suggest they were asking for it? Drmies talk12 October UTC This could be talk so much clean as a warning of likely consequences - yes, if you resume what caused other users to harrass you, they are likely to figure out tht it's you again and start.

Eggishorn talk contrib14 Talk so much clean UTC The policy talks about "avoiding harassment" in the second sentence, so I think Drmies' interpretation is probably right. If someone was being harassed, they shouldn't be treated as if they did something disruptive. But, check this out, going right back to the same old articles and same arguments kind of defeats the purpose of a clean start.

Maybe we should give them advice, not rules. It's true that "advice" in article source policy page sort of unavoidably carries the implication of a rule, but I'm actually surprised at how often this advice seems to be necessary to spell out.

Talk so much clean

A lot talk so much clean people who want to clean-start really underestimate how difficult it is to avoid being identified.

Opabinia externa talk16 October UTC We could remove the words about reasons for leaving "recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment"and retain the rest.

Podcast experts talk about clean energy stories and success in podcasting

The point is that, whatever the reason for changing names, the new account shouldn't return to old haunts. Talk so much clean Mies, vestal virgin, ocarina of time, I am diligently attempting to employ Wp: Cleanstart but admins keep sniffing through my dirty laundry without probable cause and blocking me for sock puppetry!!!!!!!!??!!!

Talk so much clean

Since I did not edit any articles I had previously edited, this was a clear cleanstart situation, and any evidence which may or may have talk so much clean been obtained about my prior account was fruit of the poisoned tree and must be excluded!

Burn him! Wikipedia now resembles a totalitarian police state, more than an open-source project. Bring back Wp: Cleanstart! Help, Arbs!

Talk so much clean

Or is he or she technically a talk so much clean, and, if he or she talk so much clean to confess leater on, must be indefinitly blocked? Is it possible for someone to turn over a new leaf and by approval not let other editors trace him or her back to his or her old accounts, and edit Wikipedia out of a deaire to talk so much clean an encyclopedia and never again engage in bad behavior?

You don't qualify for cleanstart if talk so much clean are currently blocked.

Talk so much clean

For example. When he was 13 years old, he spent his time on Wikipedia vandlaizing and talk so much clean created tons of socks to disrupt Wikipedia and has had all of them indefinately blocked. Now he is 24 and more mature.

Talk so much clean

And if he has at least one globally locked account, can he not edit other wikimedia projects? There have talk so much clean several votes at the most recent RFA that could be viewed as by "fresh-start" accounts, if those editors want to avoid dealing with potential blocks for sock-puppetry it's best to avoid the area altogether.

Multiple clean starts from active users aren't necessarily for trying to evade scrutiny.

Talk so much clean

Maybe they're overly paranoid about privacy or have some other personal reason. What is problematic is creating clean start accounts to try to leave behind the trouble you're already in.

The Talk: It’s Time to Come Clean With Your Family

Perhaps there should be some kind of restriction https://catalog-id.ru/address/how-to-get-my-bitcoin-wallet-address.html clean start accounts when you've been warned about behavior at a community noticeboard.

I was thinking language such as administrators may take into account talk so much clean clean starts when determining if a user was trying to evade scrutiny or something of the sort.

Talk so much clean talk15 April UTC I'm not sure that the kind of person that this situation would apply to would be able talk so much clean understand anything other than a solid yes or no.

TonyBallioni talk15 April Continue reading The more worthwhile change here would be to stipulate that user rights removed on an old account for cause may not be requested on a clean start account without disclosing the old account.

That is the largest issue with the clean starts in this case, talk so much clean my opinion.

This is my opinion as an individual, talk so much clean on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

Dirty Talk: “Clean vs. Dirty” and the Psychology of Bad Words

But are user rights generally removed from users who appear to have retired under a talk so much clean Merely having been warned about behaviour can also talk so much clean through sheer vindictiveness, attempts to redirect attention, and misunderstanding, so who gave the warning and the circumstances would matter too.

No one should need multiple clean starts. Not typically anyway.

20 мысли “Talk so much clean

  1. I think, that you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.


Your e-mail will not be published. Required fields are marked *