FANDOM


http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Theo10011

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Theo_%28WMF%29

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Theo10011

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Staff

Salmaan Haroon, Community Associate

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Administrators


Main Page

2010 User Vapmachado contributions

Mackennal - Tragedy enveloping Comedy

Tragedy enveloping Comedy (Mackennal)

  • 18:05, 2 July 2010 (diff | hist) N Thread:Proposal talk:More multi dialect wikis/How it works/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to How it works)
  • 04:48, 30 June 2010 (diff | hist) Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II/reply (2) ‎ (*txt) (top)
  • 04:46, 30 June 2010 (diff | hist) Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II/reply (2) ‎ (*txt)
  • 04:45, 30 June 2010 (diff | hist) N Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II/reply (2) ‎ (Reply to Ipiranga II)
  • 06:43, 28 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (→Motivation: *txt)
  • 06:35, 28 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (→Motivação: *txt)
  • 06:10, 28 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (→Preface: *txt)
  • 06:10, 28 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (→Preface: *txt)
  • 06:08, 28 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (→Preface: *txt)
  • 06:10, 27 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia ‎ (*txt)
  • 05:18, 27 June 2010 (diff | hist) Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II ‎ (*txt) (top)
  • 05:12, 27 June 2010 (diff | hist) Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II ‎ (*sign)
  • 05:10, 27 June 2010 (diff | hist) N Thread:Proposal talk:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia/Ipiranga II ‎ (New thread: Ipiranga II)
  • 03:46, 27 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:More multi dialect wikis ‎ (→Key Questions: *txt)
  • 18:20, 25 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal:More multi dialect wikis ‎ (→Want to work on this proposal?: *wiki)
  • 18:17, 25 June 2010 (diff | hist) Proposal talk:More multi dialect wikis ‎ (*txt)
  • 18:00, 25 June 2010 (diff | hist) N User:Vapmachado ‎ (*txt) (top)

2011 March 13 to April 21 User Vapmachado contributions

Reynolds-Garrick between tragedy and comedy

Garrick Between Tragedy and Comedy (Reynolds)

  • 23:37, 21 April 2011 (diff | hist) Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Another simple explanation of editing trends/reply (7) ‎ (Correct) (top)
  • 04:36, 18 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/WP:WikiBullying to empower bullying/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to WP:WikiBullying to empower bullying) (top)
  • 04:20, 18 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Schools/colleges banned Wikipedia use in 2007-2008/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Schools/colleges banned Wikipedia use in 2007-2008) (top)
  • 03:34, 18 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/The core of it all/reply ‎ (Reply to The core of it all) (top)
  • 03:26, 18 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Bullying in Wikipedia/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Bullying in Wikipedia) (top)
  • 06:32, 16 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Not a change in Wikimedia, but a change in society/reply (5) ‎ (Reply to Not a change in Wikimedia, but a change in society) (top)
  • 06:14, 16 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Some concrete suggestions/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Some concrete suggestions) (top)
  • 00:42, 13 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Inconsistent or less clear application of rules./reply ‎ (Reply to Inconsistent or less clear application of rules.) (top)
  • 17:30, 8 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/What really damage Wikipedia, what could improve Wikipedia? (2)/reply ‎ (Reply to What really damage Wikipedia, what could improve Wikipedia?) (top)
  • 15:52, 8 April 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Notion of community ban should be rethought/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Notion of community ban should be rethought) (top)
  • 23:57, 25 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Another simple explanation of editing trends/reply (7) ‎ (Reply to Another simple explanation of editing trends)
  • 01:20, 23 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Another simple explanation of editing trends/reply (5) ‎ (Reply to Another simple explanation of editing trends) (top)
  • 01:03, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Essay on WMD/reply ‎ (Reply to Essay on WMD) (top)
  • 00:54, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Valerie Hospedales/reply ‎ (Reply to Valerie Hospedales) (top)
  • 01:40, 20 March 2011 (diff | hist) Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/A request of precision on the women, une demande de précision sur les femmes/reply (4) ‎ (*txt) (top)
  • 01:37, 20 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/A request of precision on the women, une demande de précision sur les femmes/reply (4) ‎ (Reply to A request of precision on the women, une demande de précision sur les femmes)
  • 17:04, 18 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Let contributors receive voluntary donations for their work/reply (7) ‎ (Reply to Let contributors receive voluntary donations for their work) (top)
  • 01:52, 17 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Use article quality as a guide to how it is managed/reply ‎ (Reply to Use article quality as a guide to how it is managed) (top)
  • 01:11, 17 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Less fun unavoidable consequence of greater political importance - Solution: democrazy/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Less fun unavoidable consequence of greater political importance - Solution: democrazy) (top)
  • 15:12, 15 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Registered Users?/reply (2) ‎ (Reply to Registered Users?) (top)
  • 00:46, 15 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Improving the newcomer experience/reply (4) ‎ (Reply to Improving the newcomer experience) (top)
  • 23:46, 14 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Hi!/reply (5) ‎ (Reply to Hi!) (top)
  • 23:05, 14 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/There is practically no feedback for new editors./reply (2) ‎ (Reply to There is practically no feedback for new editors.) (top)
  • 01:06, 14 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Less fun unavoidable consequence of greater political importance - Solution: democrazy/reply ‎ (Reply to Less fun unavoidable consequence of greater political importance - Solution: democrazy) (top)
  • 00:35, 14 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/mechanisms/reply (2) ‎ (Reply to mechanisms) (top)
  • 03:08, 13 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Solutions not connected to Problem?/reply (3) ‎ (Reply to Solutions not connected to Problem?) (top)
  • 02:19, 13 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Thread:Talk:March 2011 Update/Good writing. Easy to read./reply ‎ (Reply to Good writing. Easy to read.) (top)

2011 April 26 to May 30 Talk:March 2011 Update/Reactions

Virgil Mosaic Bardo Museum Tunis 618px

Virgil between History and Tragedy

  • I would like to contribute to this page, but I'm not sure how. By "opening" this discussion page my hope is that information here will work or could be used as a FAQ for myself and other contributors of the page. I hope that I'm not continuing discussion here, and I urge all others to make the same effort. If I unintentionally do that, please accept my apologies and let me know. I'll give it serious consideration and most likely delete my post.
    Sincerely,
    Virgilio A. P. Machado
    Vapmachado 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thread: Feedback from new editors

March 2011 Update/Reactions#Thread: Feedback from new editors

From the Brazilian Wikipedia

Vapmachado 20:50, 27 April 2011

Thread: The first experience for new users to the English Wikipedia

March 2011 Update/Reactions#Thread: The first experience for new users to the English Wikipedia

One detail: What is the source of the statement that doesn't start but ends in quotes?

I would like to make the following observation, but I'm not sure if it should be added to the current text and how.

If that is the case, then special and greater attention (three times more to be more precise) must be given to the three fourths of new editors on the English Wikipedia who DO NOT "start by creating a new stub article on their favorite topic and watch it get deleted via any of the many deletion processes within a small span of time."

Questions: It would help to know how do those editors start. Is it by editing existing articles? Big, small, what size of edits? Or do they "start by creating a new stub article on their favorite topic that DOES NOT get deleted via any of the many deletion processes within a small span of time."?

I apologize if the answers to these questions are readily available in the studies that you have published, but one does not have time to read all the information available. I trust you'll be kind enough to provide the answers so that a better summary of the first experience for new users to the English Wikipedia may be drafted.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:08, 26 April 2011

Thread: Improving the newcomer experience

March 2011 Update/Reactions#Thread: Improving the newcomer experience

  • Helping newcomers is great, but please be aware of impact on experienced editors

There is probably no better way to express the old corporative mentality. Improving education has long been seen as a threat to the already educated, the elite, the ruling class. Most of all, education should not be fun and a great experience. Education must be a hard and painful process that by its very nature, and no additional effort, weeds out those not persistent enough to endure it. That is the best way to ensure that becoming an experience editor is not a right to the many, but a privilege of the few. Sue Gardner wrote about improving the newcomer experience. Nowhere in her message did she mentioned "easier," an implied effect but a word with other connotations that sets all sorts of alarm bells wringing among the gate keepers. Therefore, BarkingFish writes, be warned and be aware of making "things "easier" for newcomers." Make sure you don't make it "harder for experienced, long-in-the-tooth editors to get their job done." Part of that job, of course, being "keep the newcomers away," as so well described by Skinsmoke. It looks like what we have here is a plate of grilled fish.

It would be a great injustice not to give credit to BarkingFish for being the first to show sensitivity to an often overlooked issue on Wikimedia projects, namely, how certain groups of people are treated, in a long tradition of derrogatory nicknames. He also did it kindly, in a friendly, respecteful manner, with a smile. He simply wrote: "Oh, and Sue, try to use "newcomer" instead of Newbie, a lot of people find that word slightly grinding :)" Many thanks and congratulations to BarkingFish. On this one he was a true Blue Marlin.

Ideas

Your selection of a statement by Peter Strempel as ideas for this topic leaves much to be desired and might be another result of 3-4 staff sprinting for an hour. On the help files he was immediatly contradicted by another comment, and that's how the exchange stands. His second comment concerning "politically correct despotism in enforcing consensus over facts and good grammar" is not an idea. It's a well doccumented, recognized and very unfortunate reality, that is addressed in other threads. So this important thread is left with no ideas for one of the major thursts of this year: "Improve the newbie experience." Let's hope that some great ideas were depolyed in the other threads and made it to the front lines.

Vapmachado 01:09, 8 May 2011

Thread: Diminishing retention rates

March 2011 Update/Reactions#Thread: Diminishing retention rates

Explanations
  • Notability

With all due respect, I believe that although the IP's comment was made under this thread it addresses barriers to entry of new editors wishing to contribute with a new article rather than retention problems. It should be recognized, however, that the points raised will also have a negative effect on the retention of new editors as well as editors with all levels of experience albeit at different levels. One could expect that with experience one would acquire better knowledge and strategies to avoid the mentioned obstacles to continue editing.

  • Deletionism

One cannot simply count deletes. Not all deletes are equal. Some are more equal than others. Although equating vandals and deletionists is imperfect, it might be pointing in the right direction. Because there is an arsenal of tools to combat vandals, as Teratornis pointed out, this might be putting more and more vandal fighters out of business. Unable to find the necessary, indispensable, and urgent deletes of vandalism, they look for more extensive, controversial, and complex deletes. That's when vandal fighters become deletionists. Still others were born and raised as deletionists. They are now an army of hammers in search of nails, trying to outdo each other.

  • Combating deletionism

This is not a matter of tools, rules and/or policies. As Sue Gardner recognizes "This is about starting a new chapter in our history, opening our communities up further, while ensuring we create an ever higher quality resource for the world." Some people,[1] including myself, do not believe it is possible to change the existing state of affairs with the human material currently available. After all, they were the ones who brought these communities to the state of disrepair in which they are now, in an environment of free for all, take no prisoners, "ignore all rules", that is, until you break them. The internal dynamics of our communities are not sustainable. Education is the only system that as endured through the ages. A true learning environment is what should prevail in an effort to create an ever higher quality resource for the world. Look around you in the real world and try to say it isn't so. A paramount component of any highly successful learning environment is mentoring. That is the only route to combat deletionism: to have enough qualified mentors as members of the communities. Every journey starts with one step.

Ideas

It is natural that people would get a bit carried away in their commentaries, but to select to quote that "All users should be forced to try and improve submissions [...]" is quite astounding. In case you missed that, we are all volunteers here and even if we were not it's not that easy if not outright impossible to "force" anybody to do anything. It was quite insensitive of you to single out and expose the enthusiasm of an user for no good reason whatsoever. There's fortunately a sensible second statement by the same user, that is also quoted, which somehow makes up for what was quoted in the first place. It as already been recognized above that to delete vandalism is "necessary, indispensable, and urgent" or that in words of the user: "Only outright vandalism should be grounds for fast deletion."

Additional Information

From the Wikimedia staff

These summaries were described as the result of 3-4 staff sprinting for an hour[2] and it shows. To title Redtails opening post[3] on "Diminishing retention rates" as "Maybe Editors that joined pre-2005 are different than the ones that are joining today" is quite short sighted to say the least. What kind of question is that? Of course they are different and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. For starters, they are different people, and no two people are alike. Even if it is a returning editor with a new user name, and the person is essentially the same, there are more than six years of life experiences to account for. Redtails didn't ask if they were different. The question was if they came from different groups (age, gender, and so on), a quite legitimate and reasonable question. Then you quote Redtails' second statement: "If the userbase changes, then changing the editor or the accessibility across different platforms makes no sense." Can you explain what Redtails meant? Please do, but I would still ask Redtails to write it again. You might be right. If you can't explain it or if you're wrong, it would have been preferable to leave that statement out, at lest until it was clarified. Don't we have enough confusion already? Do we need Wikimedia staff contributing with still more confusing quotes?

From the Brazilian Wikipedia

Statements from editors explaining why they were leaving

Vapmachado 00:59, 29 April 2011

Thread: Disputes regarding edits

March 2011 Update/Reactions#Thread: Disputes regarding edits

The connection to the originating thread and post are missing from the page section.

Explanations

The usefulness of these summaries continues to be a disappointment. On a topic opened to express hope for "a (possibly more obvious) dispute resolution system built into MediaWiki," the summary move to the eighth and before last comment as a source for "explanations." Let's hope that by the time other posts are summarized, they will still be remembered to be contributing to everything that's starting to pile up on the "to be looked at later" list. Although it hardly explains the "disputes regarding edits," Teratomis made an extraordinary comment about how the software is behind the needs of the users, namely the new users. No doubt, something that still might be seen in the future has been very well spelled out. That comment deserved to be considered on an appropriate category.

Ideas
  • dispute resolution built into mediawiki
  • newbies feeling alone
  • mentoring in groups
  • more rules won't work

Vapmachado 02:13, 25 May 2011

2011 April 28 to May 31 Open letter to Sue Gardner

Relleu d'una màscara tràgica 374px-

Tragedy

Talk:March 2011 Update#Open letter to Sue Gardner

Open letter to Sue Gardner

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 18:58, 28 April 2011

Open letter to Sue Gardner

Dear Sue,

My name is Virgilio A. P. Machado and I do not run the Wikimedia Foundation for a cool 240 Grand last year (please correct me if I'm wrong). For that amount of dough one would think that you'll be the kind of person that knows never to start with praise, and then criticize. I read about it somewhere else, but you'll find it plain and clearly explained in "The one minute manager." So the order of the topics of your March 2011 Update is a 240 Grand disaster, but you might suspect, and rightly so, that on this page there's only one way to go and that way is up. Well, maybe not so fast.

The suggestion of others checking "the methodology, look at the data from different angles, or examine other projects and languages." sounds like a rough deal, considering that the Wikimedia Foundation (WF) commissioned the research to better understand the internal dynamics of your communities and the result is the Editor Trends Study (Results). How much exactly are you willing to part of those $16 million in donations of last year for a check of the methodology, look at the data from different angles, or examine other projects and languages? I'll give you a freebie concerning other projects. How about one right at your door step? Will the "Wikimedia Outreach" do? Fine. Now, all you have to do is Google "The Outreach debacle", open and read that thrilling narrative by yours truly. You look cute in that picture (certainly better than the P.O. Box where I live).

Allow me to take the liberty of joining your thinking. Your first question is: "Should new editors be encouraged to share more about themselves on their user pages, so that good-faith people can be identified more easily and given support and encouragement?" That question takes me to a subject very dear to my heart, including, of course the matter of anonymity. If I understood you correctly, you put the question only with respect to new editors, because you are aware that this is a hot issue with current editors and the ones in favor of anonymity are winning. I would like to compliment you for asking this question and in such a sensitive manner. Your question is not addressed in the March 2011 Update/Reactions and the few times "user page" is mentioned in the March 2011 Update it is on matters unrelated to your question. There are however some, like me, who are strongly in favor of true identities. I believe Jimmy Wales is one of them. Those that stand behind their real identities need to do something about their beliefs. Where do you think would be the right place to start a project across projects and languages where the question of editors of all "ages" sharing more about themselves on their user pages could be addressed? I believe that would be the ideal place to centralize the advantages and disadvantages of anonymity vs real identity; identity verifiability; user page improvement and protection. If you tell me were to sign, I hope I'll be able to get my signature right after Jimmy's and yours.

Your second question was about building "more automated mechanisms for editors to express appreciation for each other". Although this stood a bit as a rhetorical question, it attracted some attention in the discussion. In "The Year Ahead" you announce that "a series of community and engineering experiments" are already running, which include "tools for expressing appreciation", namely WikiLove. Documented on the sunflower MediaWiki, the choice of a name such as WikiLove makes it sound more and more that Wikimedia projects are becoming dating sites. I guess it is a matter of taste, personal preferences, and what is meant by appreciation. The other side of the coin is called recognition, a lot less ambiguous than WikiLove appreciation both manual and automated. No matter, your awareness that after physical needs are satisfied, the greatest need of a human being is psychological survival, which included the need to be respected, to be accepted and valued by others, to have a sense of contribution, is very commendable. It demonstrates that you are keeping in sight the human nature of each and every Wikimedia project contributor, behind the alphabet soup of user names and never ending IPs.

"Should we build automated tools for connecting new editors with experienced mentors?" Mentoring is a time tested pillar of any highly successful learning environment. It is a deliberate effort that does not always happens spontaneously. It needs to be implemented. A match needs to be made between mentors and other editors. Not only new, but also editors of any level of experience. All means of communication made available to them are most welcome. They will be able to chose the media that best suits their needs from a wider set of alternatives.

The answer to the next question "Do we need better tutorials?" is project and language dependent. On the Brazilian Wikipedia my worst experience was at the Wikipedia Academy that took place in Oporto, Portugal, April 16, 2010. There was a presentation on how to edit Wikipedia step by step, by a self appointed expert on the matter. It was such an embarrassment that the video of that presentation is not even available.[4] One of the low points was when the tutorial that has been available for years was mentioned to the speaker. The "expert" didn't have the foggiest idea of what it was, thought that the observation referred to the Brazilian equivalent of the Adopt-a-user program, and carried on talking about it, completely oblivious to the importance of the tutorial to new users. So, sometimes the problem is not "better tutorials," but making sure both so called "experienced" and new users are aware that they exist. The first to recommend them, the latter to go through them. The same applies to manuals.

The next question "Should there be improved semi-public draft spaces, like on the Russian Wikipedia, to give new articles a chance to incubate rather than being deleted?" does not have a single answer also. There is the mentioned improvement of semi-public draft spaces, like on the Russian Wikipedia. Some of the answers to the previous questions, might also help: encourage users to share more about themselves on their user pages, so that good-faith people can be identified more easily and given support and encouragement; promote criticism before praise, not the other way around; promote the need to respect, to accept and value others, and give them a sense of contribution; implement mentoring at all levels; consider tutorials and manuals as two categories that some users love to read, edit and create and others love to hate. Many other answers might have been provided by users on the talk page of the March 2011 Update among other places.

(To be continued, to give you time: 1) to read that long and overwrought story; 2) to suggest where that new project could be started; 3) to show your appreciation for what has already been accomplished; 4) to match one mentor with one user; 5) to figure out the first steps a new user should take to increase the chances of having a positive experience; 6) make a list of the suggestions made to date to give new articles a chance to improve rather than being deleted.)

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Banned Editor, Meta and Brazilian Wikipedia
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

Talk:Open letter to Sue Gardner

Dangers of giving real identities

There are just so many horrendous dangers when leading people to give their real identities, around a horde of mentally questionable people. There are no "membership restrictions" in this non-country-club mob of join-at-your-own-risk potential victims. It is equivalent to suggesting, "Everyone has the good-faith option to drop their shields in this gunfight, and trust that no one will actually shoot them, just assume all shots will continue to be near-misses". Of course, there will continue to be people, en:WP:Gaming the system, who will use false "real identities" and when seeking an advantage, will escalate their common ad hominem attacks to perhaps insult someone's occupation, neighborhood, corporation, or family (or dog, etc.) to fill an argument with numerous distracting insults to confuse others, and foment a massive cloud of unbearable hostility into the wide-open arena, possibly scaring people's co-workers, company, family members, and "Toto, too" with hideously memorable, vile, disgusting wiki-puke venom gushing from their obviously twisted, demented, warped, psycho selves. Some people are utter, total raving lunatic, nutjob, wackos. Remember, throughout the ages, people have had their tongues cut out, and perhaps for what might seem to be justified reasons. Just visit a mental asylum, for some weeks, and observe the patients' behavior before they are released back among the general public. Please remember, en:Mental illness and en:psychopaths are real and are a real danger.

Wikid77 00:45, 4 May 2011


Many thanks for your comment. You described a situation that I am very familiar with. Many others may also have strong feelings and opinions about this issue. That is why I asked "Where do you think would be the right place to start a project across projects and languages where the question of editors of all "ages" sharing more about themselves on their user pages could be addressed? I believe that would be the ideal place to centralize the advantages and disadvantages of anonymity vs real identity; identity verifiability; user page improvement and protection." Do you know if such a place already exists? If not, do you know where such place might be? Would you like to be informed if that gets started? Would you be willing to lead that effort, contribute or at least would it be OK with you to quote your post there? You have contributed extensively to the talk about the March 2011 Update and seem to know a lot about Wikimedia projects, having edit on Wikipedia for more than six years. If I didn't comment on what you wrote it was, most likely, because I felt I didn't have anything to add. That's actually the case of your two comments, made this past May 4, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 06:11, 5 May 2011

2011 June 1 User Vapmachado "infinite" block

Comedy and tragedy masks 2000px.svg

Tragedy and comedy

Regarding your block of Vapmachado

Hi.

I got an e-mail about your block of Vapmachado for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". I looked very briefly at his contributions and nothing struck me off-hand (and there are no deleted contributions). Given that it was an indefinite block (with no prior blocks on this wiki) and that you didn't leave any kind of note on his talk page explaining your actions, it seemed rather strange. Were there particular edits or parts of edits that you viewed as problematic? What were those (can you link me to them)? Was there any other justification for the block beyond edits to this wiki?

I told him that I'd review the block even though I told him it was likely that I would find it deserved. He also asked for access to some subpage he was working on. I restored the page and moved it to his user space. Nothing on it seemed particularly problematic, though let me know if there's something I'm missing there as well.

Thanks!

MZMcBride 03:49, 8 June 2011


Honestly, There wasn't that much of a thought that went into it. He wrote something creepy and abrasive that might or might not have had private info, but then added it as a subpage to the march update, giving the appearance that it was part of it. I found the references and the tone in the first 2 para before his suggestions - creepy and intimidating. He wasn't as active before that and has indef. blocks on several other wikis including Meta [5] for privacy issues among other concerns. At first, Indefinite Block might have seemed excessive, I agree and I would have re-considered, until he wrote his usual attack email to me. He did not request an unblock from me, until he either does that or apologizes for his tone in the email, I refuse to reconsider. There Is no sense in applying en.wp guidelines here, strategy wiki is not active, it has opted in for for GS under SWMT [6] and his x-wiki history can be a factor.

Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011


As for his 'open letter', I still find it quiet creepy and harassing. He's using references to PO boxes, and is being generally creepy in the second paragraph.

Theo10011 09:08, 8 June 2011


Hmm, okay. Fair enough. I think it's reasonable that he apologize and make assurances to not repeat his problematic behavior, particularly given his cross-wiki issues.

I'll say that the fact that this wiki is not active is all the more reason that what people do here generally doesn't matter, unless it's particularly harmful. That is, there isn't much to disrupt, so the threshold for indefinite blocks should be higher, not lower, in my opinion.

Thanks for the quick reply!

MZMcBride 22:14, 8 June 2011


Not that much of a thought

  • "Honestly, There wasn't that much of a thought that went into it." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

That's how administrator Theo10011 does "infinite" blocks, without "much thought," and this and other users are supposed to put up with it


Creepy and abrasive

  • "He wrote something creepy and abrasive that might or might not have had private info, but then added it as a subpage to the march update, giving the appearance that it was part of it. I found the references and the tone in the first 2 para before his suggestions - creepy and intimidating." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

The "Open letter to Sue Gardner" (transcribed above) is the creepy and abrasive "something" that was written.


Might or might not

  • "He wrote something [...] that might or might not have had private info" Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

It "might or might not," but of course. It is already know that "there wasn't that much of a thought that went into it."


Subpage to the march update

  • "but then added it as a subpage to the march update, giving the appearance that it was part of it." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

Obviously, that was not the problem. After the text was moved to the user subpage it was also deleted.


Creepy and intimidating

  • "I found the references and the tone in the first 2 para before his suggestions - creepy and intimidating." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

"References" and "tone" [...] "creepy" and "intimidating"

"Creepy" has already been covered. Now there's also "intimidating," not to mention "tone" and "references"

These are the first two paragraphs of text:

"My name is Virgilio A. P. Machado and I do not run the Wikimedia Foundation for a cool 240 Grand last year (please correct me if I'm wrong). For that amount of dough one would think that you'll be the kind of person that knows never to start with praise, and then criticize. I read about it somewhere else, but you'll find it plain and clearly explained in "The one minute manager." So the order of the topics of your March 2011 Update is a 240 Grand disaster, but you might suspect, and rightly so, that on this page there's only one way to go and that way is up. Well, maybe not so fast.

The suggestion of others checking "the methodology, look at the data from different angles, or examine other projects and languages." sounds like a rough deal, considering that the Wikimedia Foundation (WF) commissioned the research to better understand the internal dynamics of your communities and the result is the Editor Trends Study (Results). How much exactly are you willing to part of those $16 million in donations of last year for a check of the methodology, look at the data from different angles, or examine other projects and languages? I'll give you a freebie concerning other projects. How about one right at your door step? Will the "Wikimedia Outreach" do? Fine. Now, all you have to do is Google "The Outreach debacle", open and read that thrilling narrative by yours truly. You look cute in that picture (certainly better than the P.O. Box where I live)."

Please, list of all the "references" and "tones" that are "creepy" and "intimidating"


Not active before

  • "He wasn't as active before" Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

Before what? What is the definition of "active" here? Why are the contributions made in 2010 (listed above) being ignored? Because it is convenient? Why is the participation in the talk of the March 2011 Update (also listed above in the third and fourth sections) being dismissed? Because it is also convenient? Not being as active before is definitely a prerequisite for being active "after." Sixty two years ago the user Vapmachado was not active at all, and neither was the administrator Theo10011, who would not become active until many years later.


Other wikis

  • "has indef. blocks on several other wikis including Meta [7] for privacy issues among other concerns." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above) and "his x-wiki history can be a factor."

The above statements are undeserving of any sort of comment.


I would have re-considered

  • "At first, Indefinite Block might have seemed excessive, I agree and I would have re-considered" Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

Administrator Theo10011 "would have re-considered" after giving it some thought, no doubt, and there's also a Santa Claus.


Usual attack email

  • "until he wrote his usual attack email to me." Theo10011 08:05, 8 June 2011 (see above)

This is the "attack" email:

To: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Subject: Copy of your message to Theo10011: Intimidating behaviour/harassment
From: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:50:01

What's the matter with you?

Is this a practical joke? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

Or are you just showing how what is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.

I already knew that.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
--
This e-mail was sent by Vapmachado to Theo10011 by the "E-mail user" function at Strategic Planning.

There is no record of any other e-mail sent by Vapmachado to Theo10011. As far as it can be told, this is the first and last time an e-mail of any kind was sent by Vapmachado to Theo10011. Therefore, there is nothing "usual" about it. As for "attack," the e-mail reproduced above speaks for itself. Theo10011's statement that Vapmachado "wrote his usual attack email to [him]" is FALSE.


Request an unblock

  • "He did not request an unblock from me"

Any particular reason why the unblock should have been requested from Theo10011? The only thing heard from him was:

The stated reason for an "infinite" block was "Intimidating behaviour/harassment." There are no grounds for such an accusation. It is widely known that what is called "community consensus" WILL permit anybody to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective. Therefore, the accusation of "Intimidating behaviour/harassment," besides being FALSE, is superfluous. A request to unblock is also an exercise in futility when some administrator is so determined to block an user, that (s)he will even go as far as to make a FALSE statement to justify the block, in a fruitless effort to give it the appearance of some propriety. That is why the questions where: "What's the matter with you? Is this a practical joke? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado Or are you just showing" off?

The instructions given out by Wikimedia Tragic project are very clear: "You can contact Theo10011 or another administrator to discuss the block." It doesn't say to contact anybody to "request an unblock." Theo10011 had the privilege of being contacted "to discuss the block," but not "that much of a thought that went into it," and he blew it. Now Theo10011 is in this mess from head to toe, and he has only himself to blame. Or not?


Who's the boss here?

  • "until he either does that [request an unblock from me] or apologizes for his tone in the email, I refuse to reconsider."

This is some of the funniest material that can be read on Wikimedia projects. Who does Theo10011 thinks he is to even entertain the thought that this user would ever, under any circumstances, ask him to be unblocked? Not in his wildest dreams. Not after having blocked the user for "infinite," under FALSE pretenses and "Honestly", not "that much of a thought that went into it." That's exactly the problem. Theo10011 was never able to see this coming. Theo10011 never thought that this would happen to him afterwards. That he would get a place in the front of the long lineage of Wikimedia's fools, laughing stock, the object of jokes and humiliating ridicule.

Why not start all over? Right from that "Honestly"? Instead of given all that gobbledygook, why not give a chance for Theo10011 to talk straight, even if it is for the first time in his life? Your parents or your guardians are not here. Nobody is out here to get, hurt or punish you. You have done a good job at that all by yourself. Just write what went on before and after that block. Make sure you give a believable and complete explanation of how "his x-wiki history" become "a factor". You'll be listen to and most likely you will be understood at least as much as it is already understood that you don't put much thought into your actions. We all do that more often than we would like. At the end of the day we are all human beings and need to get some sleep.

That wish of Theo10011 for an apology would, under normal circumstances lead to an essay even longer than the two previous paragraphs, but there's no point in rubbing it in even more. It should be obvious, even to the untrained person, that if there is anyone owing an apology it's Theo10011. No, not to this user. Theo10011 doesn't owe him anything. First he owes it to himself. Then comes the Wikimedia project and community. Theo10011 is supposed to serve it well, not to expose it to the derision of the general public.

Nobody cares about Theo10011 refusal "to reconsider" something that wasn't even asked from him. Any administrator can undo any of Theo10011's blocks without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.


The fog of Wikimedia

  • "There Is no sense in applying en.wp guidelines here, strategy wiki is not active, it has opted in for for GS under SWMT [8]"

That's an intriguing thought: "There Is no sense in applying en.wp guidelines here." What guidelines does Theo10011 think should apply on "strategy wiki"? His own? The wiki is not very active? So what is exactly the problem when stated that this user "wasn't as active before that," whatever the sentence means, if anything? Why are you bringing up an Opt-in that took place in January, when there was Sue Gardner's March 2011 Update, Ting Chen's message, and his own May 2011 Update? Weren't these supposed to make the wiki "active" again? What does that Opt-in has to do with anything written by the user or his "infinite" block? Or is that just a few more bits of Theo10011's nonsense? The only practical conclusion is that any "global sysop" (GS) could undo the block, making Theo10011 even more irrelevant.


Creepy and harassing

  • "As for his 'open letter', I still find it quiet creepy and harassing. He's using references to PO boxes, and is being generally creepy in the second paragraph."

Theo10011 had forgotten the catchall "harassing." After using it in the block summary he almost forgot to mention it again, because "There wasn't that much of a thought that went into it." Well, I'm sorry but you harassed this user by blocking him for "infinite." Now, chew on that for a while, until getting to the specifics. After one hour to reflect and discuss (You did discuss it, didn't you') what you have done and written, you stuck your other foot in your mouth (Bad advice?). You went from bad to worse. For starters, please, list of all the "harassing" statements you can find. You should have done creepy by now. So no one told you about the P.O. Box? You didn't get it and forgot to ask? Shame on you. All you had to do was to take a look at the misadventures of Mono, my companion from Outreach that I carry mostly on my shoulder to learn about the P.O. Box debacle. As you can see, it has nothing to do with those boxes where the "Busters" stored the "Ghosts", but then, not even that was "creepy." It was great fun.

I also regret to have to let you know, given your insistence, that your reading comprehension (among other things that are beyond the scope of these observations) is not up to par. You see, you were able to identify that there were TWO paragraphs "before his suggestions." So you do recognized that in the other FIVE paragraphs there are indeed suggestions. This in a text that you so inappropriately interrupted. It is perfectly alright not to be able to write a coherent text of more than seven paragraphs. You do have other capabilities, but they don't give you the right to interrupt and silence anybody who can put together more than a couple of paragraphs.

What did you miss, then? The first paragraph states that you always start by criticizing, and finish with praise. That should have helped you understand that the first part of the text would be the most negative and from then on you might have suspected, and rightly so, that on that page there was only one way to go and that way was up. That means that it would not be so negative. Then a warning was left: "Well, maybe not so fast." What did that meant? That there was still some not so pleasant stuff to address in the following paragraph. You got it know? You see, all you had to do was to ask. I was sure you would understand.

Tragedy in chronological order. Act I

Melpomene Louvre

The mask of tragedy

Since 10:00, 13 March 2011 the "scope of this wiki" was defined in its Main Page (see above).

On her March 2011 Update, Sue Gardner states: "Please get involved: look at the data and research, join our active projects, help us make our technology and our processes better. Be bold and do the unexpected - everyone is a leader."

Later, on March 27 20:18:39 UTC 2011, Ting Chen, wrote a message encouraging "everyone to review Sue’s March update [9]", that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "thinks this is the most significant challenge currently facing our movement. We would encourage the whole movement - the communities, wikiprojects, Chapters, Board, Foundation staff - to think about ways to meet this challenge. We know many contributors care about this and have worked on outreach and hospitality in past years. We are considering how we can help make such work more effective, and ask for suggestions from the community to this problem now and to invite discussion and suggestions [10]."

Since 02:19, 13 March 2011, this user contributions (listed in section three, and transcribed in sections four and five, above) have been nothing else but his personal, voluntary, unpaid effort to answer both Sue Gardner's and Ting Chen's requests.

"In fact, as stated by Sue Gardner: "you can help us interpret and understand the results we’ve got so far"; "Quality and openness go hand in hand"; "Openness works"; "The Wikimedia Foundation wants your ideas, your expertise and your support"; "Overall, our top priorities are focused on growing the community -- creating an environment that’s diverse and welcoming to everyone who wants to help"; "ultimately our success depends on partnering with you, as well"; "Thanks for reading - we look forward to hearing more from you."

Given the statements above, please explain why subpage March 2011 Update/Open letter to Sue Gardner "was not part of the march update." and how and/or why subpage March 2011 Update/Reactions was part of the March 2011 Update.

Please explain your rationale (if any) to assert that this user's Open letter to Sue Gardner is "Out of scope for this wiki." Why you are ignoring Sue Gardner's March 2011 Update? Why are you dismissing Sue Gardner's statements, Ting Chen's message, and this user's response to them?

This is not Wikipedia or "your" Wikimedia Tragic project. Please produce evidence that will establish beyond a reasonable doubt that my edits are everything you say they are and that they do not respond to Sue Gardner's and/or Ting Chen's requests. You don't need access to this wiki to do that. You may use "your" project where, apparently, you can write whatever you want. You have your own talk page and my own, which you can soil at will, without me being able to do anything about it. If you fail to do so, any reader may see that you blocked, deleted and prevented me to proceed with my work under false pretenses.

Ron White - Stupid is forever

Ron White - Stupid is forever

You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

That is quite unfortunate, since, as far as I know you didn't have to give any justification at all. On Wikipedia, and I believe also on any Wikimedia project you only have two legal rights. There is a problem, however. As none of your fellow project administrators cared to voice any dissenting opinion, and neither did any other member of the community, if you fail, they also will be held accountable for your deception, conniving with you and being your accomplices, sharing with you equal responsibility in your shameful and despicable behavior.

If what I write makes you feel stupid, please don't blame me. I can't fix stupid.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

What you don't know

Brooklyn Museum - Comedy and Tragedy - John Barnard Whittaker - overall

Comedy and Tragedy (Whittaker, ca. 1883)

Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 05:50:16
To: sue
From: "Virgilio A. P. Machado" <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Subject: Banned from Strategic Planning

Sue,

Are you comfortable and do you condone this?

18:49, 1 June 2011 Theo10011 (Talk | contribs) blocked Vapmachado (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)

I regret to have to mention to you that I'm reasonably civilized and live in a civilized society. Whenever someone in power wants me to stop editing somewhere on any or all Wikimedia projects all that has to be done is ask.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

---

This a transcript of the message I just sent to that administrator:

From: Vapmachado
To: Theo10011
Subject: Intimidating behaviour/harassment

What's the matter with you?

Is this a practical joke? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

Or are you just showing how what is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.

I already knew that.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

---

Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam@fct.unl.pt
Engenharia Industrial http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/
DEMI/FCT/UNL Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
Ext.112-32
[96-577-3726]
Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)

(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)


To: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Subject: Copy of your message to Philippe (WMF): Banned from Strategic Planning
From: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:27:20

Philippe,

Are you comfortable and do you condone this?

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AVapmachado

18:49, 1 June 2011 Theo10011 (Talk | contribs) blocked Vapmachado (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)

I regret to have to mention to you that I'm reasonably civilized and live in a civilized society. Whenever someone in power wants me to stop editing somewhere on any or all Wikimedia projects all that has to be done is ask.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

---

This a transcript of the message I sent to that administrator:

From: Vapmachado
To: Theo10011
Subject: Intimidating behaviour/harassment

What's the matter with you?

Is this a practical joke? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

Or are you just showing how what is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.

I already knew that.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
--
This e-mail was sent by Vapmachado to Philippe (WMF) by the "E-mail user" function at Strategic Planning.


To: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Subject: Copy of your message to Eloquence: Strategic Planning e-mail
From: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:21:57

Erik,

Could you please let me know if you're still an administrator on the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page as shown on this page http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrators ?

I would like that someone with both sides of the brain fully functional looks into this joke in very bad taste http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado :

18:49, 1 June 2011 Theo10011 (Talk | contribs) blocked Vapmachado (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)

Last Thursday, I send a message to your boss, Sue Gardner, (did you get it?), but haven't heard anything from her. Please make sure you don't do anything she might not approve. I don't want you to get in trouble in your job because of me, but please drop me a line, so that I'll know what to expect.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
--
This e-mail was sent by Vapmachado to Eloquence by the "E-mail user" function at Strategic Planning.


To: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Subject: Copy of your message to MZMcBride: Strategic Planning e-mail
From: Vapmachado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:12:11

Sorry to disturb you, but you sort of were next on the list. Sue Gardner would not answer and neither would Theo10011. Philippe Beaudette wrote sorry, thank you, goodbye and resign as an administrator, never to be heard again. Erik Moller hasn't answered either. Cbrown1023 didn't look much better. You are next in line. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrators

If you're still an administrator on the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I would like that someone with both sides of the brain fully functional looks into this joke in very bad taste

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado :

18:49, 1 June 2011 Theo10011 (Talk | contribs) blocked Vapmachado (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update/Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner :

18:51, 1 June 2011 Theo10011 (Talk | contribs) deleted "March 2011 Update/Open letter to Sue Gardner" (Out of scope for this wiki: This was not part of the march update.)

1) I would like my block to be reverted if that doesn't cause excruciating pain to anyone.

2) If there is the usual consensus that the action of the blocking administrator was abusive, I would like him to have the opportunity to explain himself on a public page. You would also like that an inquire is made about any possible behind the scenes involvement of administrators Teles and Ruy Pugliesi.

If you don't want to bother with any of this, or are perfectly comfortable with things as they are, I wonder if you would be so kind as to e-mail me the content of the latest and deleted version of http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update/Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner I do not have a copy of the last few paragraphs and I hope you'll have no objection and do me the special favor of returning them to their rightful author. I'll be in great debt to you if you find the time to do that, at the very least. It would be a honorable, decent and humane thing to do.

This is not an urgent matter. It can be done at your leisure, but please drop me a line, so that I'll know what to expect.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
--
This e-mail was sent by Vapmachado to MZMcBride by the "E-mail user" function at Strategic Planning.

Tragedy in chronological order. Act II

Mask from Melpomene statue

The mask of tragedy from the statue above

Your block

Please note that you have been blocked here as you have made edits that are out of scope of the Wikimedia Strategy. Please do not wrongly accuse others about your block like what you have did here.

Hydriz 18:09, 24 June 2011

Nice try, Hydriz. Please note that in Theo10011's own words "Honestly, There wasn't that much of a thought that went into it." lowering him to the dubious honor of becoming one of Wikimedia's butt of jokes. As for your FALSE statement that I "have made edits that are out of scope of the Wikimedia Strategy." you have joined his company, and now find yourself in a worst predicament than Theo10011.

This is not Wikipedia or "your" Wikimedia Tragic project. Please produce evidence that will establish beyond a reasonable doubt that my edits are "are out of scope of the Wikimedia Strategy" and that they do not respond to Sue Gardner's and/or Ting Chen's requests. You don't need access to this wiki to do that. You may use "your" project where, apparently, you can write whatever you want. You have your own talk page and my own, which you have already soiled at will, without me being able to do anything about it. If you fail to do so, any reader may see that you LIED.

There is a problem, however. As you cared to kowtow Theo10011's FALSE attacks to this user, you are also being held accountable for deception, conniving with Theo10011 and being his accomplice, sharing with him equal responsibility, with your shameful and despicable behavior. Please do not wrongly accuse others about a block, like you did here.

By adding a link to this page, on the message "Your block" that you left on my talk page, you only digged yourself deeper. You wrote "Please do not wrongly accuse others about your block like what you have did here." It also happens that you wrote that statement June 24, when this page had the seven lines (six Web addresses and one line of text) and room for a photo, that you can see at the very top of this page today. Please, indulge us with whatever you are able to read on those seven lines and empty space that might be construed as a wrongly accusation of others of my block or anything else that would make any sense, for that matter.

Ron White - Stupid is forever

Ron White - Stupid is forever

You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

As you might be able to check for yourself, significant and readable editing of this page did not start until August 21, almost TWO MONTHS after your statement, which was FALSE then and continues to be FALSE today, as the evidence presented on this page demonstrates.

I would recommend that you read and reflect about Cuddles (at the bottom of this page.)

If you are feeling stupid, please don't blame me. I can't fix stupid.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Tragedy in chronological order. Act III

Tragische Maske Grossgriechenland Slg Ebnöther 575px

Tragedy and ugliness.

  • 21:03, 24 June 2011 Mono (Talk | contribs) deleted "Thread:User talk:Vapmachado/Welcome" (Blocked user)
  • 21:11, 24 June 2011 Mono (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Vapmachado/March 2011 Update/Open letter to Sue Gardner" (harassment)

You might get to know Mono better by watching him act in The Outreach debacle, between February and August, including some extra action that took place exactly on June 24. Briefly, (s)he deleted the Welcome message left on the user talk page by Tempodivalse (Talk | contribs), one year before, on June 25, with the justification that the user was then blocked. According to Mono's action, there is no need for anybody to know that the user had ever been welcome. Still reeling from the humiliation suffered in the page about The Outreach debacle, Mono deletes what had been published of the "Open letter to Sue Gardner" from the user subspace, to where it had been moved by MZMcBride, June 8. For lack of a better idea, the justification is "harassment." Sue Gardner must be proud to have so many preoccupied with her "harassment," although there was never a beep from her about the matter. Others were left to judge (even without cause) and execute on her behalf. Will it ever be known if Sue Gardner felt harassed, by what and why? I would bet on "NO."

Finale

Avicennasis deleted the redirect left behind by MZMcBride, June 8, after moving the page to user space. That page had been deleted by Mono, on June 24, as mentioned above.

Avicennasis, scrubbing bottoms might assure your survival, but you could have done better. By hanging out with old dinosaurs, you may not only escape extinction but end up in the company of men.

Tragic acknowledgments

WM strategic plan cover page image

Wikimedia Strategic Plan, published Feb 2011, was promoted in September on a video, featuring Sue Gardner and other actors. The best thing that can be said about WMF Tragic Plan is that it is better to have a plan than no plan at all. Even at the most basic level of Strategic Planning, WMF would get a plain F on that paper. Select a few professors of that area, send them a copy of the plan, and sit back comfortably. Hopefully, when their evaluations arrive, they will not knock you out of your seat. You can even do it yourself. Search and read some easily accessible materials on Strategic Planning and you'll start to notice, almost from page one, that what the WMF calls Wikimedia Strategic Plan is not the "real thing."

Please note that in WMF and its projects usual confusing flimflam, the very same document is referred to as the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary. If the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan is the "1,470 content pages on the wiki," "in more than 50 languages," that would not pass muster either.

One thing you can't fault WMF is for not being publicly correct, or at least putting their best foot forward. They acknowledged every single user that "worked on the strategy wiki to create this plan," printing their user names on page 20 of the plan. Apparently more than a thousand user names are listed in what is probably the largest disclosure in history of Wikimedia user names in a single page.

Despite his very modest participation, as shown above, under 2010 User Vapmachado contributions, his user name is listed and his work acknowledged. That is nice, but much more and better work has been done within WMF projects without hardly a word of recognition. Much to the contrary, as shown on this page and in many other instances. This has been done and condoned by the WMF itself (its representatives and staff), and in WMF projects (by its representatives, staff, and users from all walks of life), as also transcribed throughout this wiki.

Conspicuously absent

From the "1,470 content pages on the wiki," "in more than 50 languages," including Portuguese of all kinds and orthographies.

Brazilian Wikipedia administrators
  1. Alchimista
  2. Alexg
  3. Belanidia
  4. Braswiki
  5. Castelobranco
  6. Daimore
  7. Davemustaine
  8. Dédi's
  9. Eamaral
  10. Eric Duff
  11. EuTuga
  12. Fabiano Tatsch
  13. Francisco Leandro
  14. FSogumo
  15. Gean
  16. GoEThe
  17. HVL
  18. Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho
  19. Jo Lorib
  20. Kleiner
  21. Leandromartinez
  22. MelM
  23. Nuno Tavares
  24. Opraco
  25. Rjclaudio
  26. Ruy Pugliesi
  27. Salamat
  28. Sturm
  29. Teles
  30. ThiagoRuiz
  31. Vini 175
  32. Yanguas

That is, 32 out of 34 administrators of the Brazilian Wikipedia did NOT contributed to the Wikimedia Tragic Plan.

Other notable and/or notorious Brazilian Wikipedia users that did NOT contributed
  1. 555
  2. André Koehne
  3. Beria
  4. ChristianH
  5. Dantadd
  6. Darwinius
  7. Epinheiro
  8. FilRB
  9. GRS73
  10. Indech
  11. Lijealso
  12. Luan
  13. Manuel Anastácio
  14. Manuel de Sousa
  15. Mateus Hidalgo
  16. Mschlindwein
  17. Nice poa
  18. Rui Silva
  19. Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt
  20. Spoladore
  21. Whooligan

The only way of contributing

  • Contributions don't require editing, Quim Gil, 18:46, 12 April 2011
    • - Editing is not the only way of contributing, therefore it's good to think explicitly of 'contributors' beyond 'editors', and think of contributions that don't require editing.
      Which is parallel to the well known
      - Developing is not the only way of contributing, therefore it's good to think explicitly of 'contributors' beyond 'developers', and think of contributions that don't require coding.
  • get back to the (edit) button?, Ashar Voultoiz, 06:04, 20 April 2011
    • [Vapmachado is] complaining about being considered as an inconvenience since may 2009. What about taking this less personally and get back to the [edit] button?

To each his own

Please see also: