Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:57, 1 August 2008

Archive 1 Archive 2

Grand Panjandrum inaugurates my freshly cleaned Talk page

you moved quickly to remove any suggest that you are pulling OMs strings - sadly, from the recent posts on this page, the cat is out of the bag. Section31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am gratified to see that the first post in my fresh, clean Talk page is from a Grand Panjandrum sock. I must be doing something right. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day#User:Fredrick day. I wish I were pulling OMs strings. He'd not have been blocked.--Abd (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am *not* filing a report on AN/I, even though this IP should be immediately blocked. Too much trouble. Not worth my time.--Abd (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you not so busy being smugly self-righteous, Abd, you might have noticed that

• The matter was already being discussed on AN/I;
• Both User:Fredrick day and User:87.114.141.40 were already blocked.

You are far too fond of your fantasy of being persecuted for your ideas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just looking at those pages and missed it. The active IP account wasn't blocked a few minutes ago. Fantasy? Well, let's say that I'm old enough to know what's real and what is not. I'm not being persecuted. Have you seen any place where I claimed that I was? The diff you gave doesn't show it. This error on your part is an example of what happens here. People, like you, project what they imagine on what other people write. I have not been persecuted here. It was tried and the person attempting it (James Salsman, through some socks, starting with User:BenB4) was blocked, quickly. Don't confuse me with Jordan. He's being persecuted, and that is one very complicated question. Now, "Smugly self-righteous" is a personal attack. If you don't respond appropriately here, I will place the appropriate warning on your Talk page. Your choice. The next steps won't really be up to me.--Abd (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you wrote above, I see that you did the block of Fd, even though you didn't get the active IP, at least not yet. . Congratulations. You get some points for that. I still expect an apology for the personal attack, but ... we are judged by the balance of our deeds, may the good outweigh the bad for you.--Abd (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see the AN/I report you mention above. The discussion on AN/I was mine, did I miss another one? Your comment is strange, regarding that. But AN/I is really far too active to follow, like the Village Pump. Part of the problem. DYK that the founder of AN later concluded it was a mistake? (I think he is incorrect, but that attention needs to be paid to how it is done so that scale does not continue to make it even more cumbersome)--Abd (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much Abd for your intervention against my block! Users who manage to stand up against the level of accusations I have been subjected to are rare, and I truely appreciate your support in this respect. I did not know you before I think, but I am very grateful that you have been around! Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abd for your advice. PHG (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern

(in response to your comment at Akhilleus' talkpage) Correct, you had not been on the VAV talkpage. You have, however, since showing up at the MfD, suddenly appeared at many other places in the PHG dispute, often with unhelpful language. Then, you followed the disputants into unrelated places, such as the DreamGuy WP:AE thread, and then to the talkpage of the admin that closed the thread. Looking at your contribs: Abd (talk · contribs) it seems that you spend a lot of time doing this, jumping from dispute to dispute on Misplaced Pages. May I suggest that you might want to spend some time actually working on articles? --Elonka 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him, and now against DG. Why is this your concern? You said elsewhere that you were tired of following PHG around cleaning up his messes. Why have you taken on this task? Has it occurred to you that maybe you would not be the best person for that job? From reviewing your behavior around this, it seems to me that you think that Misplaced Pages will fall apart if you do not stop the likes of PHG and DG. Personally. Absolutely, there is a severe problem with incivility, but additional incivility is not going to solve it.

Your description of the events is warped. For example, I did make that comment on the DG AE thread; I came across it because of looking at PHGs AE thread, where you were pushing, as I recall, for him to be blocked. From history, I saw that PHG had commented there, that is why I took a look at it. I wrote something for it, put it up, and then saw that the report had been closed. I read the closure notice and was impressed, so I congratulated the closing administrator. And then *you* responded with "less than helpful comment." I wasn't following you around at all.

As to working on articles, if I feel like it. We each do what we can, when we can. Lately, I've been working on process, it is my major interest outside. I do notice disputes, though I haven't been seeking them out, getting involved in process seems to lead to those places. And something I have noticed: you are there a lot, pushing for sanctions. To return the favor of your suggestion about working on articles, have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned? --Abd (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd, as with pretty much everything else that you've posted on these topics, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You see a situation, you make a snap judgment, usually wrong, and then you start chastising people as though you have some authority to correct their behavior, even though you have completely misjudged the behavior in the first place. Some of the comments that you have been making about me have been borderline personal attacks. I am telling you now, stop it. If you persist with negative (and false) statements about my character, I will be forced to escalate this matter. --Elonka 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I would invite you to look a bit closer at the editor you are defending, Abd. Many editors and admins have spent days at a time trying to counsel him, with no lasting effect. In order to be counseled, the person being subjected to such has to actually want the counseling. If they don't, al the good intentions in the world aren't going to affect matters. I would also like to point out that I am the one who filed the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, and Elonka said very little on the page, compared to those who have since awarded each other barnstars for protecting the underdog without knowing that that particular dog has a history of biting. I would welcome any comment you may have, but I would ask that you take some time to read some of the lengthy notes surrounding DreamGuy's actions within Misplaced Pages; I realize they are rather extensive, but I feel that it would provide you with a fuller picture of whom you are protecting. I am aware of the ideals you are pursuing; I am just not convinced that the current subject of your passion is deserving of the effort. - - Arcayne () 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. I would urge you to re-examine what I've done. It is not to defend DG or PHG. It is to defend the Misplaced Pages community, against rampant AGF failure. I don't believe I attacked any user, and certainly not Arcayne. (Elonka is more complicated, because she is more, shall we say, active in confrontation.) Let me repeat this: DG is not the subject of my passion. He could be a total jerk for all I know, or he could be an embattled editor with human failings, like most of us, responding to a bad situation with bad actions. I am suggesting that, in response to provocations, we not fall into incivility ourselves. We can deal with disruption without becoming uncivil. It's pretty simple. Someone who is disrupting Misplaced Pages should be blocked. It does not matter whose fault it is. However, when we make blocks into punitive actions, when we condemn those we believe we need to block, we do enter a very dangerous territory. A block should never be a punishment. And if it is a protection, anyone can be blocked for the welfare of the project. We are both too reluctant to block and too block-happy when faced with a "bad" user. And to address this will require patient work, to clean up block policy and practice to avoid the abuses -- and I see plenty of them -- and make it easier to protect the project and prevent collateral damage. I must remind readers that WP:AGF is a basic policy, it is fundamental. I know little about DG, I know more about PHG. ArbComm specifically found that it could continue to assume PHG's good faith. I'd suggest that this be considered binding on the community just as the other aspects of the decision are considered binding with PHG. There are means that do not involve any incivility for dealing with the hazards and problems presented by DG and PHG, and all of us -- including them -- will benefit if we find and follow them. Adversarial debates are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We actually have an excellent system, if the community is awake and concerned, and one vulnerable to terrible abuse if it is not. --Abd (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2008

Removal of IP and probable block evasion edits from my Talk Page

First of all, my thanks to the editors who have reverted these edits. I will, however, restore some of them here, to respond specifically to them as I choose. TenOfAllTrades, you may continue, should you so desire, to revert any vandalism or abusive edits to my pages. Equazcion, please refrain from removing any material at all from my User pages, no matter who placed it. Elsewhere, you can certainly do that.

Generally, though, any editor, unless specifically asked not to, may remove blatant vandalism here. However, merely abusive or insulting posts, however, such as those by the IP editor or the probable sock evaders, should not be removed. I'll handle that. This is intended to cause minimum wikifuss for others. An exception: posts here which clearly violate NPA, involving editors other than me, as with any such offensive material anywhere, may be removed. I'll mediate any disputes which arise in my Talk pages.

Meanwhile, the time to clean up is not while the shit is still hitting the fan. It is slowing down, to be sure, but I've also got Other Stuff To Do.--Abd (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

edit by User:Fredrick day sock (probable)

I have restored this here because I believe it raises important issues.

He's too busy, using meatpuppets trying to push his agenda to allow sockpuppets to have multiple votes, to get involved in anything as mundane as editing. Section31--87.114.10.155 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This was a continuing remark after an edit by Arcayne () 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC). This was a typical User:Fredrick day IP sock post, the kind I've been referring to. It attempts to stir up opposition and assumptions of bad faith by making charges that might have some basis on the surface. This user was able to do this very effectively in the process involving User:Larry E. Jordan, where what were actually lies were probably accepted as true by many of those commenting. The ABF and incivility were blatant on the surface, however, as with the above (removed by TenOfAllTrades properly). What I'm pointing out with this example is that a relatively minor offense arguably blockable, and arguably defensible as minor, was exaggerated into something shockingly awful by the implications being cast upon it, first of all, and the community was so busy piling on with reaction like that that it failed to notice who had started the flap (or certainly poured gasoline on it immediately). Blatantly uncivil posts were being made by this user, as an IP editor, with no response, it was only when User:Kmweber figured out what was going on that attention went to this abusive editor. I've seen this pattern more than a few times. The community seems to have a tendency to scapegoat, to ritually stone an alleged offender (and often the offenses are very real), while overlooking worse behavior in the crowd throwing the stones.

There are three charges in this block-evader's edit.

(1) "He's too busy." Basically, yes, while I'm dealing with policy and community process, I'm not editing articles, are at least not much. I happen to think that, at this point, process has become more important than article editing, at least for me. The Misplaced Pages community is slowly but surely being destroyed by an accumulation of ill will, piling up from failure to recognize the serious systemic problems. Misplaced Pages is chewing up and spitting out excellent editors who also happen to be human beings who have faults. We need to address this, and that is probably a major part of my work over the next months. I do not work disruptively, but I do, by the nature of this work, sometimes respond to disruption, for it is a manifestation of my concerns and it can, sometimes, demonstrate what I see. This sock wants to lay charges against me, with this comment, of not being a real editor, only concerned with making trouble for real editors, for he knows that this charge is one which is often applied in justifying blocks.

(2) "using meat puppets." This probably refers to the single user who had a series of accounts, the latest being, now, some of what currently seem to me to be block-evading socks of User:Larry E. Jordan, which just appeared today. (He seems to have stayed away from editing for a remarkable time, knowing him. I highly encouraged him to do that, for it is a waste of admin time to have to be blocking him constantly. Essentially, it's rude. If he wants to come back, he knows how to do it. This time, though, he is pretty much in despair. To put it blankly, he thinks the forces of darkness have won, he was out-maneuvered by Fredrick day, who inserted lies at a critical point which were accepted even by Jordan's friends. (There is, of course, another side. Not to put too fine a point on it, Jordan screwed up, entirely aside from the vicious lies of Fd.) Jordan's Talk page is protected, so he can't even defend himself normally. (This situation is an open invitation to edit through socks. Prevent legitimate communication, people will communicate illegitimately. That natural law should be written on the forehead of every administrator....)

Is Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy/Obuibo Mbstpo/Larry E. Jordan my "meat puppet"? As I wrote before, I wish. That is, I wish he would do as I advise him. When he doesn't, he gets into trouble. I have *never* advised him to do anything contrary to policy, and when he writes something, it is his opinion, whether or not it coincides with mine. He just happens to have taken the time to understand what I write, more than others. There are others like this, and they are certainly not my meat puppets. Believe me, all I'd have to do is say the word, and you would see quite a few. I may appear isolated here, sometimes, but that is quite simply because it would be a violation of policy for me to solicit biased support outside (and even, sometimes, inside, depending on how it is done). And I don't violate policy unless it is accidental.

(3) "his agenda to allow sock puppets to have multiple votes." This is a reference to WP:PRX, which was written by my friend after a partial study of my work with Delegable proxy, article deleted courtesy of Misplaced Pages notability standards (correctly, according to those standards). It will be back, because we have found reliable source, peer-reviewed publication, apparently. One day at a time. The proposal was not about voting, at all. It was about setting up a system whereby WP users could designate, in a central fashion, but through proxy files in their own user space transcluded to a proxy table, a user whom they identify as "trusted." Due to Misplaced Pages policy, which I fully support, this does *not* mean that they can vote on behalf of another user. It gives them no rights that are not assigned to them by consensus, and WP:PRX did not suggest any such rights. The tables were for voluntary, experimental use. Some *possible* applications were mentioned, and some of those involved voting, which is the grain of truth in Fd's salt shaker. Among these applications, for example, would be the creation of a kind of editor assembly, as was discussed on Jimbo Wales talk pages. But none of this was actually proposed by WP:PRX, which only dealt with the file formats, really. Ironically, the process demonstrated (through attention to Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy and me) how using the system to assign sock puppets proxies would be sock-suicide. The *last* thing a puppet master wants to do is to call attention to the connection between the sock and the master by explicitly stating it, nor to connections between socks. I and the others above were checkusered, promptly, even though the system was only still a test. But even without that, no use of the proxy tables was to be permitted, or even suggested, that would be contrary to policy, guidelines, and consensus.

Fd's comment was, as were many before, dense with lies, i.e., statements made to lead astray. Typical of the Master of Deception. Why bother responding? Because this liar is repeating stuff that many users think, when they have seen what they have seen, or that they can easily think with faced with what they do not understand. He knows exactly how to feed them what will most effectively lead them into hatred and contempt, which is his goal. He knows how to destroy Misplaced Pages, and he will do it if we let him. He has been doing it for years. (He is the archetype, not necessarily the specific user.) The Fredrick day/User:Larry E. Jordan incident shows this clearly, and I will be working slowly, fully within policy and guidelines and the spirit of Misplaced Pages, to raise our consciousness about this in a non-disruptive way. That's the trick. I am not claiming it will be easy. But if anyone is interested in helping, please respond on my Talk, or by e-mail. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit by probable sock of User:Larry E. Jordan

This was in response to comments above from Elonka and Arcayne. I have reviewed this and find nothing here offensive or abusive, and, in addition, I find it worthy of discussion here on my Talk page.

Abd, you probably would have been a good candidate for WP:AMA. In the criminal justice system, it is considered acceptable for one's attorneys to represent him and present his side in a biased way, helping him navigate a system that pits him adversarially against the prosecution. Here, you are simply volunteering to help defend someone, essentially being a pro bono lawyer. Yet you are criticized for it. Would a court-appointed attorney be subject to such criticism, no matter what low-life he defends? Did we fault Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran for defending O.J., despite his guilt? Would they be subject to being prosecuted themselves for their cross-examination and impeachment of the state's witnesses, because they were on the wrong side?

Yes. However, I have not been acting as an advocate for the users in question, I am functioning, actually, more like a court officer. We *all* should be functioning in that way. That is, we should all intervene to interrupt abusive behavior, to protect all present, not just the alleged innocent or the alleged guilty. The difference between me and a defendant's lawyer would be that I have no duty toward these "defendants" other than the same duties we all have, to assume good faith, to use Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process -- which begins with civil discussion -- to resolve problems, and to act promptly, as we can, against disruption, and AGF failure is about as disruptive as possible. When you (I'm assuming it's you, the level of writing matches) were being pilloried for creating a non-notable article, when lies were being promoted that it referred to an obscene hotline (when it was actually a parody which could be broadcast on the radio in the U.S. where fines can be enormous for obscenity, I have heard worse on the radio, in fact), there were users who were simply perplexed and frustrated and essentially burnt-out from what they quite reasonably, given the BS they were being fed, thought was a poke in the eye from someone they had tried to help. However, there were others, a few, who went far beyond that, and the most prominent was the bad hand IP edits of User:Fredrick day. I tried to act against that, and there was almost no attention paid at first. This is the problem. The court was being disrupted, and it was not being disrupted by you. The *first* thing we attend to is disruption of the processes by which we make decisions. The priorities were wrong. There was no emergency with you, whether you were blocked or not, and there are simple ways that you could be allowed to contribute to the project, and efficiently that do not involve, even, exposing the project to you japes.

Now, about those japes.... you know! Quit it! Grow up! However, I also know, very well, what you face, and I know that people don't grow up by being shouted at. So, in the meantime, you may need to be contained in some ways. My strong opinion is that your contributions far, far outweigh what it will take to contain you, to prevent your impulsiveness from doing harm, and, if we do this, you too will benefit. But you must accept that you have shown that you require some containment, some special attention to prevent disruption. Anticipating what others may claim, those who really want to see you banned completely, the labor involved in such efforts would be voluntary, by users who take responsibility for anything allowed to remain of yours. This is actually a generic solution, it can be applied to editors similar to you, who presently often end up being banned, as the sanctions escalate and are ineffective. Punishment does not work with people like you, we need to learn that. It simply does damage. But action to protect the project and the community is not punishment, and, done properly, it is purely cooperation toward mutual goals.

You have recently made a number of edits, block-evading, with the above account and I believe another, and maybe more than that. As you know, I am asking you to reveal to me all such edits, so that they can be reviewed, by me or by others. We will work out how to do this. None of this should be construed as condoning block evasion. You know and I know that I repeatedly advised you to not evade the block, in any way. We can do this without block evasion, but, if we can find proper consent, it will be easier if you have an account you can use that *is* blocked, but that is not considered banned. I intend to be negotiating this with administrators, so that whatever we do either has consensus directly, or is, by consensus, at least, not prohibited by policy. I am working, strictly, within policy and guidelines, because, as you know, I consider them to be, already, excellently formed. Not perfect, there may be some improvements, to be sure, but quite good enough. What we need is structure and procedures that are more effective in realizing the policy goals.

But Misplaced Pages has a different philosophy, that we're against "wikilawyering" and that, as Judge Danforth said in The Crucible, "The pure in heart need no lawyers." Well, so be it. But let me say that this system tends to disfavor the unpopular defendants, because no one wants to stick their neck out for them, even in the interests of giving them a fair defense. If we would look at it more impersonally, that these proceedings are simply a means of each side presenting its case as strongly as possible, and not as undesirable wikidrama, there might be better justice done here. But you can see from what happened to WP:AMA where the community stands. Best to pack it up and get gone, before you get lynched yourself. It's only a matter of time if you continue playing Atticus Finch. Abuv the law (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This analysis is correct, but I don't accept the conclusions. I see something else. There are indeed, lynch mobs. But only a very tiny percentage of even the most active users participate in them. Most users are occupied elsewhere, as they should be. There is, after all, a project to build and maintain. How do we address this? My claim is that it is actually easy.

Wait a minute! If it were easy, why aren't we already doing it?

Because it conflicts with certain unexamined ideas that we have about Misplaced Pages and what is possible. So, even though it is very simple, it seems wrong, wrong, wrong when it is first mentioned, countless objections will be raised. Each one of these objections can be answered or itself has a simple solution, but the sudden appearance of all the objections at once in the mind of a reader makes it almost impossible to understand the idea. It will take time to move beyond this. It always does. I do know how to do it, I think. We'll see. Knowing does not make it happen, time is still a very necessary ingredient.

"And the reward of patience is patience."

--Abd (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

There's an AN/I thread regarding you here. You may wish to comment. Sheffield Steel_stalk 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded there. This was an interesting little demonstration. User:Fredrick day discovered that he could say what he'd always been thinking by using bad-hand IP edits, only he screwed up and got caught, but not before he managed to troll outraged response to a minor transgression by User:Larry E. Jordan, resulting in a police riot. Nobody seemed to notice that this whole disruption started out with an IP editor attacking a user. Instead many piled in, for some time, focusing on the targeted user's transgression. Shocking Article on Obscene Easter Bunny Hotline! Think of the Children! Misplaced Pages Reputation in Tatters! And so Jordan was, once again blocked, with his reputation completely destroyed, and many administrators and at least one arbitrator believing that he had bitten the hands that fed him. And the disruption continues, all because the community didn't notice who was trying to rile them up. Was the article improper? Sure. Non-notable. Happens every day. Speedy it out, done in a flash, and Jordan certainly would not have made a fuss. The article was not a hoax, I verified the hotline. The hotline was not obscene, the content could have been broadcast on the radio here. Bad taste, for sure. But obscene, no. I hear worse, in fact, every day, on a certain Air America program that is truly funny. Warning! The word "vagina" was used! And there is one beep and it is reasonably easy to guess what was beeped out. Any any parent who lets his or her kids read Misplaced Pages and doesn't want the kid to be exposed to stuff like this.... is crazy. Misplaced Pages is not censored. There are certain words I don't want to search for because I don't want to look at that stuff.

Definitely a bad move on Jordan's part, given the extraordinary attention focused on his every move. However, not a blockable offense, ordinarily. And now several administrators are putting in far too much labor having to deal with the repercussions. User:Equazcion is covering some of it, to be sure, and that waste of time might actually be useful, it diverts him from doing damage elsewhere. But, no, it's a mess.

In any case, Jtrainor did immediately recognize that the complainant was, shall we say, COI. Not surprising, Fd had caught a fish like this on AN/I before, so he's trying it again. Black Kite, however, took the bait. The ironies multiply. Supposedly my file User:Abd/Open was, as claimed by Fd, "adverting meat-puppet service." Obviously Fd was suggesting an administrative response. So Black Kite deletes my file, in my user space, and doesn't notify me. Thus doing what was suggested by a blocked user, which certainly looks like proxying to me. I don't think he was correct, the licensing issue did not exist, but, as I wrote on the AN/I report, it's not important. I don't need that file at this point and, if I need to, I can get it back. I'd prefer Black Kite continue to do what most administrators do, deal with the flood of crap that inundates this place. Useful.--Abd (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware who the original complainant was. However, that doesn't make any difference to the fact that we have removed such pages before, mainly because of GFDL issues, and no doubt will do again in the future. It's nothing personal. Black Kite 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't agree about the GFDL issue, the existence of that page does not create any GFDL issue at all. There are things that I could possibly do with content placed on that page which might create a problem, but I have no intention of creating GFDL problems, so, quite simply, I would refrain from such. Now, given this, what problem did that page create that was not present simply from having a Talk page? Because people could place content on my Talk page and I could do with it whatever I could do with material from Open. Likewise, anyone could place a file in my user space and I could do similar. So, now that you mention it, please undelete the file. There is no GFDL issue.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your comment above about User:Equazcion, suggesting that the editor's normal editing is damaging to Misplaced Pages, constitutes a personal attack. Doug. 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, it is important that we begin to clean up our discussions. My comment may have been misunderstood. I see no evidence that User:Equazcion's "normal editing" is damaging, and I have not followed him to even make a comment about his general editing activities. However, he has been very, very active in deletion discussions, certain policy debates, and in commenting on other editors and their behavior, and I do consider much of this to be damaging. I don't think that this constitutes a personal attack.

For sure, I have no intention of personally attacking any editor, and if I have done so, and I am so fortunate as to recognize it, I would immediately apologize and rectify it, as I've done in the past when I made such mistakes. For me to claim that the behavior of an editor, though, is damaging is some way or other is not a personal attack. Note that such claims have been made many times about me, and I have not complained about "personal attacks." However, recently, I warned an administrator for a comment above, who had written:

Were you not so busy being smugly self-righteous, Abd, you might have noticed that You are far too fond of your fantasy of being persecuted for your ideas.

That is a personal attack. Now that it has been brought to your attention, please tell me, was I correct to warn him about it? --Abd (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both comments are uncivil and I consider both personal attacks - I don't patrol for them, I just happened to notice your comment. I have not researched the background to the comments you reference but there is no excuse for such uncivil comments. To the extent that your comments about User:Equazcion relate to philosophical differences or a lack of understanding between you, you still have no grounds to call the editor's comments damaging. If you believe that editor has made harmful comments about other users you should bring it up on that editor's talk page rather than making comments like that here. --Doug. 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment was made by an administrator, I'll note your opinion, which matches mine. As to my own comment, it is common that we assert that this or that behavior of an editor is damaging the project, and it is not considered a "personal attack." Is it uncivil? Perhaps. Frankly, I'd prefer that we be held to a higher standard than we have been in the past, not with sanctions, but with mutual encouragement and notice made of incivility, as with your action. So in that, I agree with your warning. But as to balance, well, if you stay away from XfDs, AN/I, and the like, you might not see so much to warn. User pages, well, you are welcome to peruse mine, but I'd hope you would not only warn me! Would you be so kind as to warn User:TenOfAllTrades about his comment that I quoted above? Here is the diff for your convenience:

--Abd (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You already did that on 2008-03-26, I believe, so any warning from me would be superfluous. Warning a user is not an administrative function and a warning from an admin has no greater significance. Certainly a warning from an otherwise uninvolved editor is of more significance than a warning from the subject of the alleged personal attack, but then the moment I allow myself to be directed to particular comments I am no longer uninvolved. I warned you because of a comment I saw. I will not warn anyone else unless I happen across something inappropriate. I am always available to discuss civility with any user. Beyond that, I am merely watching. Cheers.--Doug. 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case

Please note that I filed a request to amend my case at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior cases: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I'm a named party, I have made a statement. I highly recommend that you be as reserved as possible when defending yourself. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored your statement to bring it closer to the 500-word limit. I made efforts to make certain I did not alter its substance, but you might want to verify that I have not inadvertently changed your meaning. Please do not increase your statement's length as it already is beyond the limit. — Coren  for the Abritration Committee 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it.--Abd (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks again. I didn't see anything essential that you took out. (There were reasons for what I wrote, but all those reasons can be satisfied in other ways, if it comes to that.)--Abd (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your defense!

Hi! ^^ Thank you very much for your defense of my userbox. I didn't know that my userbox was under attack for the umpteenth time until I saw a closed MfD. :D So, thank you very much. ~ Feureau E.S.P. (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Misplaced Pages a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry for harsh reply on userbox nomination

Abd, sorry for being harsh in excess on my reply to your comments on the userbox nomination debate, but I had to make clear some concepts. Also, I wrote my reply while being pissed off, and I had to tone down my comment a pair of times before posting because I wanted to make clear that I was against your arguments and not against you. I fear that some incivility might have slipped on my comment. I hope you can excuse me for that. I assure you that it's nothing personal against you or against Muslim faith, it's just an argument about compliance with wikipedia policies of a part of the wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. It's easy to get obsessed with these things. Frankly, I don't think you understand my arguments, so I don't take your reaction to them personally. (This is about Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah.) The problem here is that to decide that the userbox is contrary to policy requires a judgment that a simple statement of the foundation credo of Islam is offensive and disruptive. There have been many efforts to delete most userboxes that express possibly controversial opinions (and as it has been pointed out, if it is an "opinion" it is likely controversial), and Jimbo Wales wrote to me, on this issue, that he would delete this userbox and everything like it. In his view, it doesn't help the project. However, there is a very substantial segment of editors (even considering just the active core) that see userboxes as part of the social glue that makes the community function well -- which may seem paradoxical, but it is actually quite understandable, for groups where people are open and honest about where they stand function more smoothly, in the long run, than those where important topics are taboo. All attempts to find consensus on this have, so far, resulted in more heat than light. Essentially, there is no consensus, generally, to delete opinionated userboxes, and thus, the default being "Keep," deletion usually fails if there is some community interested and willing to act to defend a particular userbox. My sense is that most of the core would prefer to leave userspace alone, allowing practically anything there, within certain necessary limits. And that most *editors*, if we were to somehow ask them, would *greatly* favor this. So how is the decision made? Too often, it is made by the group that shouts the loudest. Which is a technique that sometimes works, it is actually a form of Range voting, practiced in Sparta. However, it also sometimes fails, spectacularly. We might notice that Sparta failed, eventually, and the reason would be, I'd suggest, that societies that depend on shouting down unpopular ideas become rigid and unable to adapt. Exactly what has happened to Misplaced Pages. There are better ways that have been invented, used in peer organizations and in democratic governments.

The whole thing is extraordinarily inefficient. It is clear that what is needed is *policy*. If there were clear policy, where the application did not depend on a very subjective judgment like "disruptive" or "attacks other religions" -- when there is no language of attack involved -- and it indicated this userbox should go, it could be speedy deleted and that would be the end of it. But without a policy, every single deletion can be contested, and often will be. And where that depends on some subjective judgment, it becomes quite dangerous. In this case, a deletion, based on the arguments presented in the MfD, could be truly disastrous, outside, because, if it becomes known, it will be seen as "Misplaced Pages is hostile to Islam." True or not. Unfortunately, as a Muslim, I'd have to conclude that it *was* hostile, that it depends, if done in this way, on a hostile intepretation of the credo as attacking other religions and their views of God. Or not-god, as the case may be.

Whereas if the userbox is deleted by clear application of policy, it will hardly attract notice, most likely, and if it is, there would be plenty of Muslims who would defend Misplaced Pages. I'm not the first to propose this, there was a recent RfC on it which I think you may have pointed to. I have read the RfC and much related to it, as well as the guideline on userboxes.

My conclusion is that we should strongly discourage these piecemeal deletions -- by speedy closing them as keep pending clear policy -- and instead encourage some process to develop actual consensus on that policy. (Where there are clear reasons for deletion, speedy deletion remains, and will avoid most debate.) Unfortunately, there are those who have some idea how to do this, and if they propose it, they are harassed and even hounded off the site. And others leave even if they can handle the harassment and incivility, simply because they realize that breathing the poisonous atmosphere isn't good for their health. Increasingly, I'm finding I need a gas mask to look at my Watchlist. What happens is that one conflict leads to a comment from me, perhaps on a user page, and that automatically puts it on my Watchlist. And then I see whatever conflicts cause posts there. Same thing happens with policy pages, etc. So, gradually, my Watchlist fills up with conflicts, leading me to become more involved in conflict. I do remove AN/I and the Village Pump rapidly from my watchlist because the traffic is so voluminous. I'm going to have to start doing the same with editor Talk pages, etc. And I've concluded that the situation on Misplaced Pages is essentially hopeless as to fixing it from the inside, it is going to take outside intervention, so ... you will probably see my edits cut back drastically, with what remains being ordinary article work, with a few exceptions, carefully chosen. And I will be working off-wiki on the principles and techniques which have become apparent to me as the solution. Remarkably, these are simply a more efficient application of existing policy and practice, with few tweaks. What is so frustrating for so many (the situation has burned out many of the old editors) is that Misplaced Pages is *almost* what it needs to be, much of what is policy and practice is brilliant, but certain errors were made early on, and it has become impossible to correct them. (They actually weren't errors to start, they were appropriate for the scale.) It's quite natural, it's quite understandable, it does not involve defining this or that set of editors as the bad guys, for it is *structure* (the reality of how Misplaced Pages makes decisions and implements them) that creates the various camps. More about this will be written off-wiki. Anyone interested, please e-mail me. This is an open invitation, it does not depend on your position or POV.--Abd (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I remembered of WP:USERBOX, and the discussion got more focused from that point on, with the userbox getting reworded according to a wikipedia guideline without losing its original intent. I'm confident that the closing decision will be irreprochable. Unfortunately, we can't have a policy applied to it because there are too many policies applying to it. A guideline had to be stablished precisely because so many policies covered the topic and they could be interpreted in so many different ways that some sort of summary (a guideline) had to be done and consensuated to avoid disputes.

You are right that too many disputes are not being based currently on policies or guidelines, but on "shouting", or more rather, being insistent.

If you make better rules for wikipedia, remember to add this: make clearer block rules. Currently, the only way to block a user is if he makes some gross misdeed violating WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL. If an editor is making other editors waste a lot of time, but he hasn't violated those guidelines, it's next to imposible to get him to stop or even slow. Dunno what error at the start got perpetuated and caused this present situation, but I want to meet the guy that made the original error and whack him on the head with some guideline.

I can't help you write stuff, because of lack of time and not being good at writing, but I'll happy to hear about what progress you make. Just post on your talk page when you have some material done --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the environment is too toxic for change to come "inside." That is, it will take an outside force to cause reform (or collapse). It's actually a classic organizational problem that comes up with organizations like Misplaced Pages. A core of members forms that is hostile to change, and this is *quite naturally* those who have the most power with the status quo. They correctly see change as threatening their privileged position. If anyone claims that they have a privileged position, they will say -- and I've heard this many times in many organizations, public and private -- "all you have to do is get involved, you will have the same power as anyone else." It's true. However, "getting involved" frequently involves more investment than most people can spare, and, if one gets involved in change, especially change that would threaten the oligarchy, it can take insane amounts of time. Most sane people won't do it, or if they do it for a time, they will not keep it up.

As to clear rules, you've been around for quite a while. I'd think you'd know that there is some reluctance to make rules too clear. It is a complicated question, and it can be approached from several quite different points of view. The early formation of Misplaced Pages happened with few hard and fast rules, and great flexibility is maintained. Unfortunately, flexibility in rules cuts both ways. For example, flexibility in notability guidelines makes it difficult for an author, sometimes, to know if the work they put into an article might be wasted or not. And it leads to lengthy debate, which is frequently repeated, it is highly inefficient, compared to developing clear guidelines in the first place. And this leads to the growth of hard feelings. Because clearer rules were not developed early on, it has become quite difficult to create clear rules, because now there are many entrenched interests. I see the solution as abandoning more than a very, very simple definition of notability, and using layering (see WP:FLAGGED) to essentially create the project in access layers, with the top layer being unquestionably notable and unquestionably verified. And the bottom layer is what actually exists now if we include the deleted articles that only administrators can currently see, excepting only material deleted for legal reasons or other reason that clearly enjoys not only a consensus from the active core, but also from the broad community of all editors. If this happens, admins and other users will no longer have so much work to do cleaning up non-notable articles ("fancruft," etc.); and the work can turn to the real task: categorizing knowledge. Not deleting it. What I see as an early error around notability may be the number one cause of the growth of incivility, both directly and indirectly. Notability is not a quality of a topic, it is a relationship between a person and a topic, and what is notable for one is not for another. There is, to be sure, some degree of broad agreement about major notability, but Misplaced Pages aspires to go deeper than that, and this sets up conflicts. Articles on non-notable subjects, if they meet WP:V cause no harm at all, nobody sees them, for the most part, if they don't want to know about the topic, which, by definition, means it is notable for them. What causes harm is unverified information in articles and POV imbalance, and the solution to that problem has nothing to do with deletion, which merely distracts from the real task, which should be verification and categorization (aside from writing articles in the first place).

Misplaced Pages badly needs solutions to problems that do not increase the necessary labor. The problem with userboxes is that there are two ways to go: prohibit userboxes that are not directly about the project or used for the project, or let users do what they will in user space as long as it is not clearly disruptive. Nobody is obligated to read what a user has on their user page, and users, indeed, may express controversial opinions in user space. There are arguments for the former solution, but one killer argument, in my view, against it. Enforcing it is a nightmare, diverting energy from far more useful tasks. Users are going to expect to be able to express themselves in their own space. It can, of course, be argued that it isn't their space, it is Misplaced Pages's space, and this is one more example of imagining that rules we make are going to be effective if people don't get them instinctively and intuitively. (or, at least, don't recognize them as reasonable and legitimate once they see an explanation). To be efficient, the rules must enjoy consensus. Consensus is efficient. It is just not necessarily easy to find; in small groups it is fairly easy, but Misplaced Pages has grown beyond the scale where it is easy without some kind of concentrating structure, and structure is just about uniformly rejected. Hence my conclusion that something has to break, or at least break through.--Abd (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer tomorrow, hadn't time to read it--Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid that change will have to come from inside. The only change that can come from outside are reasoning that resonate with editors already inside, or making a competint encyclopedia that is successful that threatens the success of wikipedia, forcing it to change in order maintain its relevance

Hum, I dunno. The reason for deleting non-notable articles is that, if we didn't delete them, nobody would ever review then because a) being not-notable, there is not much coverage of secondary sources b)nobody would care about those articles because they cover unimportant stuff c) there would be a *lot* more articles, increasing the load to reviewers, who already let lots of stuff slip throught the cracks d) increase the load to anti-vandals, because of more articles to vandalize. Even if they have verifiable sources, we are talking of stuff like a local paper verifying that a company once collaborated on charity. I'm sure that covering all notable companies is a worthy goal for wikipedia, but I'm not sure if it's worthy covering all companies that have never made anything that really distinguishes them from the others. Misplaced Pages would look like a bussiness directory, and really enciclopaedic content would be lost among unimportant stuff.

There is already a lot of laissez-faire with things done on user-space. There is already a constant low-level war going on about certain iniciatives on userspace, like Ventei's shop and similar stuff and causing a lot of discomfort from users who like organizing complex stuff with other users, but the consensus system has managed to survive the disaffecting of many of those users (see below).

This causes editors with similar ideas to the consensus to stay, and users with different ones to get offended to collaborate less or stop editing (a feedback system).

The consensus structure is already creaking under the increased load from wikipedia's growth, but for now there is enough editors willing make efforts to keep it running that it's still working well. Let's paraphrase that: the number of editors willing to keep consensus running correctly at all costs has grown on the same proportion than the number of editors trying to game the system and misuse consensus. (notice that the users trying to make "shops" are technically misusing userspace because the consensus say that they are misusing it).

The system is still "fresh" because new editors enter continuosly, and old editors leave or move to different tasks all the time. I have to say that Jimbo has managed to build a quite resilient system, that manages to heal the wounds it causes to itself very easily using the same tools it uses for its everyday running --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LIFO: I do understand very well how the system works, but I also understand how it is breaking down. In some ways it was broken from the start, but the existence of a large pool of editors willing to take the place of those who burn out has allowed these problems to remain unaddressed even as Misplaced Pages grew. That pool will dry up, I predict. Not entirely, to be sure, but it will no longer be able to keep pace with the growth in the project. Misplaced Pages is advertised as "the sum of all human knowledge," and "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and one can explain this to death, people will read it and assume they know what it means and act accordingly. The fact is that it could be, without great difficulty, exactly what the advertising implies.

I would not say that Misplaced Pages is working well. If it was working well, it would not be burning out editors, with old-timers leaving, often having felt that the project has failed. I've spent a fair amount of time reading parting statements, or parting shots as is often the case. I've been seeing article quality decline in certain important areas; what is left isn't reliable, because it goes back and forth under pressure from POV editors, and it is far less interesting. And interest is important. It's pretty hard to define with guidelines!

The key is an understanding that the encyclopedic project is more about the categorization of knowledge, and never about exclusion. Our nervous systems don't exclude, they filter. Big difference. The filters aren't hard-wired, rather they are active, intelligent. So when we want to we can pay attention to that voice from the next room, or what our big toe is doing. Most of the time, we don't note it, and the record does not go into more than short-term memory. But we never actually erase any of it. (It's pathological, generally, when we do.)

So consider that the encyclopedia is in layers. This is a very rough concept, not intended to be considered rigidly. There is a top layer, and this might be the first thing that readers see, by default. Everything there meets tight and clear standards for notability, and everything there has been verified by consensus. And I mean consensus, there is no reasonable level of controversy, or it isn't there.

The bottom layer is what might be called a "submission" layer. New articles are created here, and there are no notability standards. There are standards, necessary for legal purposes, and I won't attempt to describe all the standards that would apply, but, again, these would be a matter for true consensus. Again, at this end, the rules would be very, very clear and such that someone who violates them would know that they were doing so, or would very easily understand why the rules are the way they are. Basically, these articles would be outside what is reasonably called "human knowledge."

There are layers in between the top and the bottom. These layers are populated by articles which have been promoted from submissions, by established processes. In order to maintain this structure, there must be layers, again, of privilege assigned to editors. It can be relatively automatic for promotion of editors, with process for demotion if the privileges granted are abused. Examples of privileges:

• Writer -- any user is a writer, this is actually the base level, and IP edits might be continued to function here. Writers may create base level articles and edit other articles in the base. Writers may also edit working versions of articles at any layer, including the top layer working versions -- if it works.

• Editor -- really the same as a writer, but people actually tend to be better at writing or at editing, and we have lost a great deal by confusing the two. Good writers are often lousy editors, in fact. Current deletion practice really crimps the style of writers, who often write without sourcing. Sourcing is something that is done later. Academic writers will do their sourcing themselves, in the publishing world, writers may provide their notes to editors, who also deal with questions of style, etc. So perhaps an editor is someone who is simply honored for being able to follow style and to create proper sourcing.

Note that lower layers would follow WP:V more broadly than is interpreted by WP:RS. Misplaced Pages currently prohibits sourcing from materials that would be admissible in a court of law. That's actually crazy. There are alternate verification processes that are just as reliable, or even more reliable, than what is in WP:RS, and traditional encyclopedias used them, as do peer-reviewed publications. Some of what I'm writing might seem impractical, but, in fact, just as we need structure and hierarchy in the encyclopedia, we need it with the editorial team. And there are ways to do it that are actually *very* compatible with Misplaced Pages traditions.

• Fact-checkers -- says it all. These users are recognized as reliable for fact-checking, and they tag facts as checked. There may be source subpages for articles where sources are reviewed, there might actually be two: one is protected against edits by users without the factchecking privilege, the other is a working version that anyone can edit.

Managing editors -- can promote articles, using version tagging, or something like that.

Executive editors -- may promote articles to the top layer.

Community consensus is maintained on all these. In particular, nobody should be an executive editor who is not broadly trusted to represent community consensus on promotion to the top layer, which must be very well-protected. The lower layers are much more open, with the bottom layer being almost totally open. However, the bottom layer might be transient, it is possible that articles there would have a fixed lifetime if nobody other than the original author takes an interest in them and, at least, promotes them, validating sufficient notability to justify further work on the article.

This might seem like a complex bureaucracy. In fact, it need not be. How this part would be done is really a separate question, but efficiency is essential or the structure will not be maintained. Work done on articles is currently being wasted, over and over. I've seen articles go, deleted, that were clearly notable within a community, with dozens of editors involved over a long time, and obviously hundreds of hours of work involved, and even though everything in the article was verifiable, because of technical problems with WP:RS. Not only is this inefficient, it creates bad feelings, and I've seen this happen with experts in their fields, who often will write an article from their personal knowledge.... and then it is deleted for whatever reason. Instead of becoming a stub or a working draft, to then be improved with proper sourcing by editors.--Abd (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to answer tomorrow --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Hum, I still don't see anything on your system that can't be acomplished already here by throwing more manpower to the articles, but you already know that, of course ;)

Well, don't be sure that the pool will dry up, my friend. This is like the massive charges of foot soldiers on the First World War, with the infinite soldier cheat activated. Hundred of thousands of soldiers are thrown out to die, only to get a few hundreds meters of terrain advanced.

Take myself, for example. I got burned, and then returned here with renewed strength. The pool will keep full until something more interesing attracts the editors, wheter a better encyclopedia or a new World of Warcraft or MySpace. Eventually, it will dry up, of course, but it will take so much time that there is a high chance that something external will undo the wikipedia by sucking editors into it before the pool has time to dry up.

And if you make actions that could be considered by retired editors as a menace to "the underlayng spirit of wikipedia" (whatever that means), they will come back just to fight against iyour ideas. Without the support of at least quite a few insiders you won't be able to make changes.

You see, this guy, Jimbo, he made a few short principles that were easy to remember, the WP:PILLARS. Anyone can identify easily with them and remember them easily. The interpretation is also very wide, and a passable article can be written even with little knowledge of the exact details of the rules. You need to make up something similar. Some catch-phrases that sum up what you want to do, so people can remember them easily and repeat them to other editors. Your ideas can then propagated by other people instead of having to do all the evangelization yourself. You can later write more detailed explanations of the rule, and post them for the people interesed to read them, make them theirs, and enforce them. That's what I think, and I remember that most leaders on the world have done that. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your basis...

...for saying those edits were Fred Day? I had a look at the IP's contribs, and didn't see it as a giveaway. If you see any edits that are clearly him, I'd say revert 'em and, if you want, let me know the IP so I can issue a block. We obviously disagree on the excusability of some of Sarsaparilla's behaviour, but I think we agree on that bozo. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the SSP report for Fredrick day? Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. He's got his own variable IP access, plus he has some wireless networks in his neighborhood. That's his IP, 99.99%. And the text is pure Fd. Look, you see IP from a certain range editing parlipro articles, you draw a certain conclusion, and you are pretty likely to be correct. The level of necessary coincidence for this to not be Fd would be astronomical. The particular interest in Sarsaparilla's edits, the mention of me, plus the first two IP fields, this is Fd. The vast majority of Fd IPs have not seen any edits before he started using them, they could probably be safely blocked ... but I'm not terribly exercised about it. I'd revert them if I thought them damaging. I hadn't looked at the other edits. I will. Anyway, thanks. And my apologies for any possible insult in what I wrote, but this whole affair has been about very selective attention. I'm seeing it happen with other editors. Once there is a pall over an editor, especially an active one, every move is scrutinized by anyone who ever had a conflict with him; one editor now, 25,000 edit level, is clearly being harassed, yet it looks like ArbComm will sanction him, not those who are harassing him. (For what? For complaining, it looks like.) We'll see.

In Sarsaparilla's case, Fd was there with one vicious personal attack after another, on AN/I, and where was the attention being put? On Sarsaparilla, for having put up an article on the Easter Bunny hotline. We don't normally indef block users for putting up a non-notable article! "Last straw," is what is said, of course. Problem is, there was not much more than three straws. Not three tons of offenses, plus a straw. Do I "excuse" Sarsaparilla's behavior. No. But neither would I excuse Mozart for making fart jokes at the court of the ruler. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see Mozart executed for it.

I've already written too much here. I'll write to you off-wiki.--Abd (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've blocked the IP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day is back, now edit warring. Please block, I'm getting tired of hitting undo and some dizzy admin might block me. If so, my first block! I'm so excited! What do I wear to a block party? An IP AD- Dress. Seriously, gotta take care of the kids. I reported this to AN/I. And now he comes back:

I played you like a fiddle once again, you never seem to get this - you see this IP when I want you to see the edits. Now think about it, why would I you to see the edits? because I knew, that like Pavlov's dogs, you'd revert all of my edits once you saw them. This then provides a wonderful example of how on the one hand, you'll revert my good faith contributions but on the other work with the sock of a banned user to get an ammendment added to a wikiproject saying his sock-based edits should be accepted as a matter of course. I knew you'd head to ANI, which means that more people would check out my edits and thus check out your history and watch this page, thus see what you were attempting with your meatpuppet at the WP project. what's more serious folks? my good faith edits or someone trying to subvert a wikiproject, so banned users edits are accepted as a matter of course. --87.115.12.23 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)]]

I like fiddle music. I've got a four-year old and a six-year old who play. Better than Fredrick day, and certainly nicer. He has lied repeatedly, so, while some of what he says will be true. that is also the case with the cleverest liars, who will feed an unsuspecting audience whatever he thinks they might fall for, with just enough truth to make it seem verifiable. Salting the mine. It's an old trick.

No, I did not say that Sarsaparilla's edits should be accepted as a matter of course. I said the opposite, in fact. I suggested that any editor could look at them, and, if the editor thinks them useful, bring them back in. They were not being removed because they were bad edits, but because they were from a blocked editor. The same is true for Fredrick day's edits. He's made what are probably a few good edits, hoping to trap me into reverting them. I knew that. But policy is that a blocked editor's edits may be reverted without regard to the content, and there is very good reason for this. Then, if someone thinks the content worthwhile, being aware that it might contain some trap, that editor may bring it back, taking responsibility for it. There is no *necessity* that edits by a blocked editor be removed, so it is not offensive to bring them back, in itself, provided that the editor takes responsibility. I'm generally willing to assume good faith for Sarsaparilla in his parliamentary procedure edits; everything he has done that was questionable in the past was actually blatantly suspicious; indeed, they were *jokes*, which is one reason he was blocked so quickly. He had people like Fredrick day following him around, waiting for him to make a mistake so they could pounce.

What I did in the Wikiproject for parliamentary procedure was done openly, announcing it in advance, so any editor could protest, and there was at least one administrator following it, the one active reverting Sarsaparilla. He concurred, by the way, with my reverts of Fredrick day's IP edits, and he did not object to my plan. Plus, of course, another editor picked up on it and did most of the work, which is appreciated.

There are plenty of disputes on Misplaced Pages that are based on differences of opinion, with two sides, at least, taking positions because they believe them, these are good faith disputes, even though they sometimes get very ugly. Fredrick day was a whole new level of viciousness. He started out editing reasonably civilly with his good hand account, User:Fredrick day. But at the same time he was using IP edits to vandalize editors he hated, and to stir up as much trouble as he could. Sarsaparilla made plenty of mistakes, but his offenses, when we look at them closely, were actually quite minor *even in sum*. A hoax article, quickly speedy deleted without fuss, a joke that was an obvious joke, immediately reverted. A moment of incivility with an administrator (and he wanted to be blocked, so he was truly trolling for it). And, last straw, an article on a real hotline, the Easter Bunny hotline. Not notable. So the offense was creating a not-notable article because he thought it was funny. He's young. These are not arguments that he should be unblocked. That's properly a community decision, and Sarsaparilla was disruptive, there is no question about it. Children should not be allowed to say that the emperor has no clothes, because it can start a riot. People get roiled up. When adults say that, they may be imprisoned or worse, though healthy societies typically find ways to avoid actual punishment, relying on social isolation. Disruption is disruption, and the normal functioning of working society cannot allow it. Change happens in special ways, outside this, and is brought in gradually, normally. Too fast is too fast.

Fredrick day, on the other hand, was mostly active deleting articles, or at least that is where I saw him. (That could present a distorted picture.) There are editors I respect who are active enforcing notability standards, but there are others who seem to take some special glee in erasing the work of others; nominations are filled with assumptions of bad faith, uncivil terms like "self-promotion, vanity, crackpot theories, fancruft," etc. Again, there may be a place for these terms; but almost every article that goes to AfD has at least one editor who thought the topic worthy of work, and I've seen articles where dozens of editors had clearly put in hundreds of hours. It's a set-up for conflict, it starts with conflict, with one editor telling another that their contributions are not useful here.

There are much better solutions, which will give us clear notability standards *and* the depth of an inclusionist project, but, if we implement them, people like Fredrick day will simply find some other way in which to act out their hatred for anyone who crosses them. And we will need to face this. It's killing the project, with long-time editors bailing out because of what they have seen as an increasingly poisonous atmosphere.

Fredrick day will keep trying, but he has been seriously neutralized until the point that he is merely a nuisance. It is clear that some IP range is convenient for him. Any editor can drive around, go to a library, go to an internet cafe, etc., and block evade. But his favorite topics, he must avoid, or his session gets canned. Further, it's possible to watch IP blocks, so it does become more inconvenient for him. Sarsaparilla edits from a university library, which is convenient in some ways, and he can prepare edits at home. I've encouraged him to take a total wikibreak, to honor the block, but he is not, as Fd contends, my meat puppet, nor I his. He's a very bright and impulsive young man, of great good will and a certain abrasiveness common with genius, and I hope we can find a way to harness his energy. "We" means humanity, not just Misplaced Pages. In industry, he'd be given a secretary, who would make sure that he stays on track, and the company that employed him would be fortunate indeed. He is, in fact, a writer rather than an editor. My vision of where Misplaced Pages should go involves making those tasks more distinct, involves allowing -- in a contained way -- some level of "original research," when it is verifiable. And the writer isn't necessarily charged with the task of verification, it falls to fact-checkers and editors. Publishing houses don't refuse to publish books by writers who make unsubstantiated claims or sometimes write about matters not of interest, as long as the writers do produce usable work. And then editors" fix it. Writers and editors often can be at loggerheads, but both are necessary.

As to Fd's IP, most of his editing could be curtailed with a range block. I have looked at contributions for many of his IP addresses, and it is quite rare that any of it has been used before, ever, by an editor. An innocent user caught in that will receive a message telling the user how to get around it. But Fd will use other access points, as can any editor. It appears that he thinks he has invented this great way to edit WP that allows him to say what he really wants to say. He said as much when he slipped and linked Fd with Section 31, his IP signature. He knew he had totally blown it, so, it is typical for someone like him, "it doesn't matter, I didn't need the Fd account anyway." That's one place I can really agree with him. We didn't need it either. --Abd (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting banned users' contributions

Are you reverting Fd's (apparently good faith) mainspace contributions because you really believe it's good policy to revert banned users' contributions? Or is this more a case of "let's see how you like it?" I agree his behavior elsewhere is obnoxious but I'm not sure how I like the precedent this sets. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any user, including yourself, can look at these edits and bring them in, in a flash. Here is the problem. Blocked users generally can't be trusted to reliably make good edits, the normal assumption of good faith breaks down and often has been found to be absent. Now, if we notice a contribution by a blocked user, one whom we suspect may be up to no good, what should we do? I'm suggesting that what Sarcasticidealist was doing with Sarsaparilla edits is quite appropriate. However, anyone else noticing the original edit or its revert may examine the edit, possibly looking up sources, and revert it back in. I specifically consent to that with any of these semi-automatic reverts. (And I may install a bot to do this, could be a good application.)

What might be a good idea would be some clear place where notices that reverts like this are being done is posted. So, for example, someone who thinks that Fredrick day's contributions might be good for the project could quickly find them and take responsibility for them, by undoing my reversion. There are now a number of editors doing reversions like this, and there has been little negative comment except from Fredrick day, plus he seems to have sucked an admin into lifting a block, actually wheel-warring over this. I'm sure that Fd was laughing about that. Why didn't the admin just revert the edits back in, if he wanted to claim that they were legitimate. I am sure that some, maybe even most, of the Fd edits are legitimate, the problem is that he is making so many of them, using ISPs all over the world, that just finding them is quite enough work for me, thank you very much. You want to put his edits back in, fine. I have no objection to a registered user taking responsibility for these edits. It is not meat puppetry per se and is indeed much less objectionable than truer meat puppetry, which would be making edits for a blocked user. Here is it open what is happening.

Now, SLN, there is a checkuser request filed for you, so by the time you read this you might be blocked. If you are Sarsaparilla as suspected, I'm not following you around to revert your work, because you know I basically trust it. If someone else does, and I become aware of it, I will look at it and bring it back in if I find it useful and appropriate. Anyone can do that for Fredrick day. I'm not, because I think that the block is properly enforced with him. As to you (if you are Sarsaparilla), then I think that the block is erroneous, but nevertheless stands until an administrator can be convinced to unblock you. One size fits all. Sarcasticidealist promised to support you (at least to a degree) if you appealed to ArbComm. You know I would do what I could as well, and there are others. But you have declined, and, given what I know about your reasons, your move -- or lack of a move -- is reasonable. Remember, all registered users on this project, in theory, have the same privileges, just not the same buttons, if they are not blocked. I'm acting as a quasi-administrator, for reasons you should know well, since you nominated me for the mop. When there is a tussle, the cop tells everyone involved to shut up. First. Before trying to disentangle who was right and wrong and, in fact, that is not actually a job for the cop, it is for the sovereign. The cop just keeps order.

This solution actually works for the contributions of Sarsaparilla, it allows real work to be done and then, if reverted, to be restored easily by anyone who thinks it legitimate. There seems to be no sentiment for considering this meat puppetry. Fd claimed that it would be, but when it started, and it seemed to be working, he wanted one for himself too, like a typical spoiled brat. Well, he can have one. All he has to do is find an editor willing to help out, for the benefit of the project. How about you?

Fredrick day seems to be finding copyvio and BLP violations, my guess is that his plan is to trap me into reverting them, so he can then call down the retribution of the gods on me. However, I also have a plan, should he succeed. And, to quote the Qur'an, God is the best of planners. Just in case it isn't clear, I'm not God, I just work here.

If you are not Sarsaparilla, thanks for visiting my Talk page, hope I can get to know you better. Obviously, if someone thinks you are Sarsaparilla, you must be interesting. So I am hoping that checkuser exonerates you, or at least is inconclusive and you are left free to edit.--Abd (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, one size does not fit all. See m:Bans_and_blocks#The_hole_in_the_policy. It's a well-recognized issue. But I think in Fd's case, he probably could start a new account and evade detection since he probably doesn't have any stalkers watching for him on his particular article sets. It's just that he chooses to blow his cover by acting like a dick. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure he could. And he probably has. He has claimed to have other accounts. But ... every time he does one of the IP edits, he reveals more information about what is accessible to him, he tightens the net, even if only a little. --Abd (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, actually. On the other hand, he knows that enforcement measures against IPs have to be less stringent than those against logged-in accounts, and that people may be less cavalier about reverting the former, due to the potential for mistaken identity. So when he goes on the attack, he uses IPs. Nonetheless, he almost certainly is also using a logged-in account, if only to check his watchlist and find socks to tattle on. What's the point of all this? Heck if I know. Maybe he's just trying to amuse himself. If that's the case, Fd, may I recommend buying a Nintendo or something? Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain what he is doing. By IP editing making what may be quite legitimate edits, fixing copyvio and BLP problems, he is trying to trap me into screwing up, so that the wrath of the admins will come down on me. However, I think he doesn't know his ... from his .... I decided that discretion is the better part of valor. I don't think I'm much at risk here, at all. If the community wants this to stop, it can easily accomplish that. But, remember, sauce for the goose. I don't think the good guys can lose on this one, it works whichever way it turns out, unless it is decided that one policy applies to one blocked user and another to another. Anyone who doesn't like this is quite welcome to follow my contributions, see the blatant notices, and bring back in anything good, quite quickly, thus having turned Fd's shit into fertilizer. Quite simply, merely watching the contributions of Fd is not enough. First of all, they are hard to find, and, second, if nothing is done with them, how do we know that they have been checked? This is actually brilliant, and, as usual, we stumbled on it. Revert them all, when found, then bring them back if *anyone* finds them useful. Quick and easy. He's done most of the work, finding the violations, I or someone else has done a little to generally protect the project from him, and someone else does more work to verify them, but not as much as to find them in the first place. Net gain for the project. Win, win, I'd say. Except that this actually leaves Fd the loser, since what he is trying to do is get me canned.--Abd (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, can't we all just get along? What's with this petty squabbling? Enough with the blocks, the bans, the taunting, the tattling, and the removal of good-faith edits. Let's just all move on and forget the past. When we pass each other in the wiki-hallway, let's just keep walking. There is too much work to attend to, and this really is all a distraction. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about collaborative editing, but we're letting the personal interactions become a force for bad, rather than good. Let's all beat our wiki-swords into wiki-plowshares and get back to work on the mainspace, please. Enough! Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Friendlier sockpuppet template

By the way, I recommend using this cuter, more friendly template in place of the standard sockpuppet template when you run across suspicious IPs in the 87 range. Perhaps we can kill him with kindness. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I'm not placing sock puppet notices on user talk pages, I'm leaving that to others. But if I start, I'll consider it. Cute. Right now, she is offering to clean up copyvio and BLP violations. Any other services she is offering? --Abd (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

note

I'm not sure if you've already made the decision to do so, but please stop blanket reverting the IP that you claim to be FD's edits. In doing so, you've reverted in some blatantly inappropriate edits, including potentially libellous claims that an actress was infected with AIDS, that another woman prefers double penetration, speculation about a man's penis size etc. I don't really care what the IP's motivations for removing the content is: the fact is that the content was inappropriate, and you absolutely should not have reinserted it. ⇒SWATJester 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. ⇒SWATJester 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the difference between blocked and banned accounts. Blocked accounts do not have their edits reverted on site, that is for community bans only, and even then with the consideration that you never EVER reinsert libel or BLP edits. ⇒SWATJester 23:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yessiree. Including the non-words of the immortal User:Absidy, when last warned:

Too late. I'm done. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretend that "troll" is the taboo word

I recommend against using the word "trolling," as in this post. It would be better to use a more verbose, yet more meaningful description of what he's doing. I actually hate the word "troll" as used in online forums, because people just throw it around whenever they don't like what someone's saying. I would prefer to say:

• Revert personal attack by...
• Removed bad-faith, clearly unjustified nomination by...
• Removed provocative taunt by...

It takes a little more thought to explain it in these terms but I think it's worth it. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the word was accurate where used. Thanks anyway.--Abd (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It was accurate, but... in my opinion, it's kinda like calling someone a shithead. What's to differentiate you from all the other people who throw the word around? I would rather say, "I find your arguments to be fallacious and your facts of questionable veracity," which they can respond to with "What's so fallacious and what's so questionable" and then you actually have the prospect of getting an intelligent dialog started. Take the high road and let them be the ones to lower the bar, to use a mixed metaphor.

(insertion by Abd (talk)) It's not like calling someone a shithead. Ever see a shithead? I presume it would even be recognizable in photos, I mean, heads and shit don't really look much like each other. I've never seen one. I suppose some conceptual artist might be inspired to do it... Fredrick day has been trolling for response, it is the original meaning of the word. Now, it is very tempting to call him a shithead, but that would be uncivil. "Troll" could also be uncivil, and often is, I see the word used to mean "I don't like what you are doing, and I'm angry about it, therefore you are trolling." But "trolling" can also be accurate, calling a spade a SPADE. To determine the difference would take investigation; I'd say that for someone to use the word, as I used it, they should be prepared to justify it, else it could be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. One of the big problems with Misplaced Pages is that such violations are routine, they have been accepted, and action is only taken when someone has enough of a grudge to pursue it, and is able to convince the mob that the uncivil person is the true enemy of all that is good and beautiful about the project. The mob then ignores all other present incivility; someone, when the scapegoat has been identified and is being beaten, everything becomes acceptable. And that is how Fredrick day worked. When the mob was stoning Larry E. Jordan, nobody noticed the barrage of IP edits, full of incivility and accusations of bad faith, aimed at Jordan; instead the accusations of Fd were swallowed. And we saw that happen just the other day with the flap over BLP violations. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day will probably keep doing what he's doing, which accounts for why I haven't bothered to get involved in any major constructive mainspace work for the past several hours (he will just engineer to have it removed). So in that sense he's won. Yeah, I'm just going to leave the guy alone. I get the sense he's kinda immature or something and is both easily peeved and also the kinda guy who gets a kick out of f'ing people over. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People who have been referred to as trolls so often before will of course be extra-sensitive to its use. Pedophiles probably think of the term "pervert" in a similar manner. Not that I'm equating anyone here with a pedophile, but you get the point. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:42, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can probably count on my fingers the number of times I have been referred to as a troll (and indeed, you have probably been the source of most of those accusations), but as WP:NOSPADE and other essays note, it is not always advisable to use such terms even when one is convinced that another user is trolling. And of course, there is always the possibility of being mistaken when making the accusation. For instance, your recent edit summary in your reversion of my edit to your talk page, which was not really trolling by any sense I'm used to thinking of the word being used (usually I think of trolling as something intended to vex, annoy, etc., as opposed to just making an observation, comment, or other conversation opener based on one noticing the existence of a subject of mutual interest.)

Notice, I could have called you a troll, due to my perception upon reading your comments that you were attempting to cause some reaction of indignation/anger/etc. on my part, but as always, I decided that it wouldn't really raise the quality of our ongoing discourse here. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Be nice, kids. Sarah Lynne Nashif, no big surprise, was Sarsaparilla. Continued to make useful contributions, but also got into tussles with Fredrick day, two socks duking it out, reverting each other back and forth, for the enjoyment of all. This section started because I called Fd a troll. Without getting into the philosophical difference between "being" a troll and "acting like one," Fd was trolling and continues to troll. He may be engaged in useful edits (and some of his troll edits are also useful, it is part of his game, so he picked some low-lying fruit in articles on porn stars, removing apparent BLP violations, knowing that I might find and revert these edits (he made that likely by trolling, i.e., making a provocative statement in a place he knew I was watching, after having made other edits from the same IP); some of what I reverted back in was actually good text, and merely *looked* like BLP violation, other instances were actual BLP, so, of course, when I routinely reverted without checking the content -- which takes time, sometimes a lot of time -- he then went to the BLP Noticeboard and squawked loudly, knowing that eventually he would find support there, which he did. And then he has attempted to press the point, long after I stopped doing what some found objectionable (certainly enough that I should stop, and I stopped immediately when this became apparent).

I'm sure he thought that he was really smart with this. But I was, in fact, warned about the trolling and knew that he was trying to trap me. So I did a little IAR, knowing enough that no actual harm to the project would come of it. (Those reverts back in lasted a matter of minutes; the allegedly bad material (some of which was really bad) had been there for months or more.) Why did he pick porn star articles? Well, for one reason, it is difficult to tell what is legitimate and what is not. For a normal biography, descriptions of sexual organs would be thoroughly improper. For a porn star, it might be what makes that person notable.... To really know would take research, you can't just look at the edit and know, necessarily. For sure, some of what was taken out was actually valid and legitimate and not controversial. And, with one particular article where I actually did some research, Fd's edit turned out to be taking out well-known, sourced, and not controversial material. And the admin most strongly supporting Fd seems to have not noticed that, last sighting by me he was still ranting about the hazard to the project of my reverting in information about a porn star having AIDS. The event in question was actually so notable that I think I recall reading about it in the media, and I don't follow porn stars....

So, as usual, I learned something about Misplaced Pages structure and process, in ways that I'd never be able to accomplish by studying the policies and guidelines. (Along the way, of course, I also got to study those!). Policies and guidelines are one thing, but how they are interpreted by the community -- which is often in conflict about them or, more accurately, about the edges -- is another. I knew that if I was wrong, I'd be told; I was merely unwilling to take the advice of an abusive sock puppet, known for lying and for misrepresenting policy for his own benefit, utterly untrustworthy.

I still believe that the technique I started applying, with the proper safeguards, would be better than what stands. What stands essentially gives an abusive sock editor like Fd free rein in certain areas, that came out.

Think about it. If we could effectively block a user who has shown himself to be disruptive and seriously uncivil, deliberately fomenting conflict between users and administrators, we would, I presume, requiring such to go through proper process to regain any editing privileges. So the fixes to the porn star articles would not have happened. What I did was not to make it as if it did not happen, that is not only impossible, but is actually unwise. What is needed is a review of all contributions of blocked editors, as editors can be found willing to do it. And by reverting all these contributions out, without exception, preferably using a bot, they have been flagged, and can be brought back in as they are found to be legitimate. Consider an automatically reverted contribution as a suggestion. If a blocked user makes a suggestion that there is a BLP violation in such and such a place, surely we should investigate it and deal with it promptly. But does this mean that we should allow such to be made directly by the blocked user? I don't think so. The big problem is that to distinguish between legitimate edits and vandalism requires immediate attention to each edit. And without bot assistance -- and the concommitant irrelevancy of content, for a rapid review of content can easily be insufficient -- continuously monitoring the edits of someone like Fd is essentially impossible. BLP policy is being allowed to rather mindlessly trump block policy, the ultimate result would be more risk of BLP violation, not less, for a blocked sock who can change his mask at will, as Fd can (and practically anyone can who really cares to do it), would simply wear out anyone watching him as the BLP enforcers would have it, and then he has a free hand again. No, what is needed is organized monitoring of the *reverts* of a blocked editor.

What I had discovered in dealing with sock edits of Sarsaparilla was that it was quite possible to identify these edits (by looking at the contributions of the administrator making it his business to find them and automatically revert them, obviously without regard to content, since they were almost entirely good edits (when in Article and Misplaced Pages space), review them, check the sources, and, presto! Good edits with a legitimate editor taking responsibility for them, but with the record showing that they came from the blocked user. And so a blocked user could start to accumulate a record of good edits even while blocked, provided that his other behavior was acceptable. (Violating blocks shouldn't be, in fact, punishable *in itself*, if the violations do not harm the project. A grey area is the damage done by taking up the time of an administrator, where damage can indeed be asserted.) So I applied what I'd learned with Sarsaparilla to Fd, who was continuing to vandalize and to be uncivil, at least in the edits he made visible. He may well have other accounts -- he claims to -- where he maintains usefulness, or, at least, the appearance of it. It's the classic good-hand, bad-hand story. But policy would be that if a good-hand account is found to be the same user as a blocked bad-hand one, the block is extended to the good hand. Contrary to what SWATjester seems to think.... The good behavior of the good-hand account may be taken into consideration, and an admin could unblock, thus converting the blocked user to a legitimate one. That's different. But the accounts being openly connected would be important. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Do not restore libellous material or blatant BLP violations into articles, regardless of any other policy or procedure that you believe might otherwise apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have some time? Have some tea....

Here is what happened. Our friend Sarsaparilla was making edits to parlipro articles, sometimes with a sock, I think, and sometimes as an IP editor. His edits were being reverted by Sarcasticidealist, without regard to content, solely on the basis that he is blocked. Sarsaparilla asked, in on the wikiproject page, if it was possible that, since these edits were hepful, that SI might back off, given that it is not "automatic" that blocked editor edits be reverted. Fredrick day, who has attacking Sarsaparilla or me and another user as a major project, for which he has been blocked and effectively banned, jumped in as an IP editor. It became obvious, I forget how, that SI was not going to stop, which is certainly his prerogative, but it also became apparent that I or others could find these reverted contributions, and, if we approved them, bring them back in. I did a couple, another editor did the rest. This appears to have irritated Fredrick day no end, particular since I began tracking his contributions and reverting them. He would show up with a clear Fredrick day edit, usually from a distinct IP block, 87.112.x.x - 87.115 I think it is. There is an extensive list at Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. So I would look at the contributions for that block, and revert them.

So, I'm sure he thought, I'll trap Abd. He started doing BLP and copyvio edits.

Now, here is the problem. He has claimed copyvio and BLP violations and has been reverted by other users. Some of his edits are doubtless good, and others may not be. To separate the wheat from the chaff takes time, and reviewing his edits becomes tedious and not so efficient. For starters, these were articles on porn stars. For me to know what would be a BLP violation for these would take some research, and, in fact, unless an editor is familiar with those articles, I'd think that would be true for anyone. The simple fact that, say, there is description of sexual characteristics, may not be enough; perhaps those descriptions are found in reliable sources and aren't BLP violations. This is the trap he set.

However, this was my thinking: If he could be effectively blocked, instead of merely hindered, he would not be able to find and fix these alleged problems, at least not directly through edits. What if there was a robot that could quickly detect a true Fredrick day sock, and prevent edits? The situation would be that these copyvios and BLP violations would be there. Reverting them takes us almost back to the situation that existed before his edits. However, there has been a possible improvement. Attention has been called to the possible violations. All that it takes is someone willing to look through them who is familiar with policy, reverting back my reversion; much quicker than trying to find the problems in the first place.

This is a solution that worked with Sarsaparilla. And my point has been that it could work with Fredrick day, too. I rather doubt that he is doing this to benefit the project; however, suppose he is. Fine. Anyone who trusts his edits enough to just automatically revert them back in is welcome to take the risk. I don't. And when I see them, I see them as edits of a blocked user. I would not deliberately revert in copyvio or BLP violations; the problem is that, in the set of articles involved, this could be difficult, and my conclusion was that it would be better to just automatically revert and let others knowledgeable about the articles, perhaps watching them or watching me or my reports of this blocked editor's activities, find and bring back what is good. I'm pretty sure that most of the edits aren't good, but I'm also sure that some are. Especially the ones he set up so that he could then scream to the BLP noticeboard, where an admin wheel-warred over it. Fredrick day, you might or might not be aware, is the anonymous editor who raised the fuss that got Sarsaparilla (as Larry E. Jordan) blocked, on trumped-up charges, for a minor violation that would not ordinarily raise an eyebrow beyond placing a speedy delete tag for non-notability. Everyone rushed to dump Jordan and didn't notice who was egging them on.

What I'd like to see come out of this is a better way of dealing with the problem. We have block policy, editors can be blocked, which, if we could accomplish it, would ensure that the editors can't edit at all, except within restrictions, such as on a Talk page. But we can't accomplish it. So editors can edit. What do we do with their evading contributions? Some elect to delete them without regard to content. Others then can review them and bring them back if they seem good, taking responsibility for them. It works. It benefits the project, and it is not meat puppetry, particularly because it is open.

The only problem I see is with copyvio and BLP -- and also with edits to administrative noticeboards, you will notice that I was warned above about reverting Fd sock Talk edits, probably to the BLP noticeboard.

I'm suggesting that it should be allowed to revert on sight all edits from blocked editors, period. However, the summaries should note that content has not been reviewed. Anyone looking at history would see that Fd, for example, had claimed copyvio, could see the revert that was purely for block evasion, and know that something could be investigated. The hard work of finding the violations -- if they are real -- would have been done by the blocked editor, and history would show that, if he ever needs to show some good work, the revert by the monitoring editor would be quick and easy and all that he or she has to do is be sure that this is really the evader (which has been easy with Fd), and then there is minor work to be done by the final editor who restores the removal if it was proper.

The alternative has not been suggested. That is, what I have been doing has, as planned by Fredrick day, raised objections, partly based on misinformation -- this is a very active block evader, taunting everyone involved, claiming that he can't be blocked, he can do whatever he pleases, and I think he's continuing to vandalize and harass -- and partly on the real copyvio and BLP problems. But those objecting did not suggest a solution. I think there is one, and I think it is reasonably obvious.

The problem is that reviewing his edits to determine suitability is too much work for one editor when it is on top of identifying these edits, which is hard enough, he's so active. The process needs to be broken down. If there was some way of marking edits as being approved, that could be done. But, effectively, this is exactly what happens if, say, I revert Fd and anyone else brings the edits back in. That person is then responsible for them. So far, there has been no problem with a person bringing an edit back in who was himself an IP editor not Fd. It has always been Fd again with new IP.

Personally, I could just leave all this alone. What interests me here, though, is the concept of a reverted edit as a kind of "submission" by a blocked user. It solved the problem with Sarsaparilla. We can benefit from his work with parlipro articles, without unblocking him. (I've advised him, again and again, not to evade the block, but .... he's pretty stubborn.) And we could benefit from the work of Fredrick day in finding copyvio and BLP violations. In both cases, someone should review the edits. And the problem with just looking at them and not reverting them is that there is no way to tell if they have been reviewed. If they are reverted and then brought back quickly, if merited, it is then known and clear that they are considered legitimate.

Consider the work that I was doing as if it were a bot. Very good at identifying that an edit is from a blocked user, unable to examine content, removing the blocked edit, but thereby (and as directed) reporting such removals for review, as if they were "submissions." Those making a fuss on the BLP noticeboard, if they are familiar with BLP policy and its application, could have brought back in all the proper edits of this user in any one of several ways. They could simply review my contributions. They could review the SSP report, looking at the contributions of the IP addresses shown on the Talk page there. Or, if some page exists specifically for it, any doubtful reverts could be reported for rapid action. BLP noticeboard might be the place.

I worked as I worked until I was warned by a legitimate user. Until then, it was only Fredrick day screaming, and, at first, his current IP was blocked. Then came another administrator who unblocked the IP. That was not a great idea, and should receive some attention. The IP was very clearly Fredrick day, not doubtful. It was therefore block-evading. Reverting is a separate question.

Now, since we are having tea, I'd really like to discuss some other things, but it's late. Another time, perhaps? Thanks for dropping by. Do you actually live in New York? Where? --Abd (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable to restore material that violates BLP, not ever, period, not even if it was Hitler that did it. Never. So please at least do a cursory check of the material before you revert it. Thanks. -- Naerii 13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I'm pretty sure you're aware that he is playing you. The best response is to fix those BLP issues and ignore anything else he might have to say, and then move on. -- Naerii 13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotta go, but take a look at history for Jessica Dee article. It's not enough to "take a cursory look." It's not enough to go out and find a source. He will edit war and if any aspect of a reversion can be picked at, he will. He complains about "allegedly." Sure. Weasel word, thought about taking it out. But irrelevant. I've left his revert in place. Even though it seems he is now actually banned, it's entirely unclear, some admins seem to think that banned editors can do what they please.... and are to be reverted only if the contribution has been checked and found to be not okay. But wait a minute, isn't that true for any editor? --Abd (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's not enough to take a "cursory look", then take a good look. Leave it if you don't have time. Seriously, do not revert one of his mainspace edits unless it is vandalism. -- Naerii 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be reasonably common practice to revert mainspace edits of socks of blocked editors. Now, didn't I just say it wasn't enough to take a cursory look? I find the comment quite odd. I can revert the mainspace edit of any editor if I think it inappropriate. When I wrote about "cursory look," it was in response to your comment about that, and about a *proposal* that all evading edits by blocked editors be reverted promptly. This would then require rapid attention to any such reverts that recreate BLP issues. This is a *proposal*, not worked out in detail, that could make blocking more effective, while *at the same time* allowing blocked editors to make good contributions. They'd be reverted, but on examination -- and priority would be given to possible BLP issues -- they can be brought back in by any editor. There are quite a few reasons why this might be an improvement, and only BLP issues could it. (Copyvio is not generally an emergency, I think.) --18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't revert BLP removals and then check them later, we check them and then revert if need be (and if it's removing BLP violating content, then it doesn't need to be reverted). I don't know how to impress this more clearly upon you. This isn't about banned users, this is about living people who's careers can be affected by what shows up on Google for them. What if you restore the content and Google's crawlers grab the content in the time it takes for it to be removed again? -- Naerii 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get a bruised forehead from banging it against the wall..... You are trying to tell me something that (1) you already told me, (2) several others already told me, (3) I acknowledged and said I wouldn't do it. Unless the community approves. I'm now talking about a propsal, so saying that "we don't revert BLP removals and then check them later," is merely saying that this is not existing practice. And I've acknowledged existing practice.

Now, about those crawlers. The content has been there, in some cases, for months. It has already been crawled and copied and is all over the place. Nothing I saw was going to ruin anyone's career, that's preposterous (for what I saw). What was happening, generally -- not necessarily without exception -- was that statements about porn stars were unsourced. In one or two cases, I researched the matter and found that the text was correct. (This was about AIDS infections.)

My concern is efficiency. And you are looking at it from one side only. I.e., the situation that there is BLP violation on WP, a blocked editor sees it and removes it as IP. So automatically restoring the content as it was would be restoring BLP violation. However, this is a blocked editor, and one specifically blocked for vandalism, character attack, etc. Now that he has defeated, it would seem, one means by which he could be interdicted, he is now more free to accomplish his real purpose, which has been vandalism and personal attacks. And why do you seem to assume that he'd be *removing* personal attacks and never *inserting* them? I'm suggesting that for editors where there is a risk of insertion of violating material, that semiautomatic deletion be used, with review for possible BLP problems. There is another path possible that does not involve immediate reversion but rather immediate tagging. But, from what I've seen, the arguments against simply reverting are weak, based on an argument that reverting, if it restores harmful content, even for a short time, is somehow legally risky. Don't think I'm right? Well, rest easy. I'm not going to revert edits of Fd that take out possibly violating material unless I verify it, and I'm not likely to do that with porn star articles. But I might put a notice in Talk.--Abd (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the usebox, again

I changed back to Ashleys' version, plus the addition of muslim wikipedians category, which looked adequate at that moment , see its edit summary and my comment on deletion debate . I think it's time to leave the poor userbox back to its original state before it wanders ever farther from its original meaning and let the debate close. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP case

Hiya mate, i noticed that you wanted to reopen the SSP case which i understand but i wanted to know how you explain the anomalies over the last week which im sure i could show throughout the edit history of fred. What evidence would you want me to provide? Seddon69 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to reopen the case until and unless someone else looks at the evidence and confirms my finding. Because AGK closed the case so quickly, I never got an explanation of what I found. User:Durova used secret methods to detect sock puppets, and she lost her sysop bit because she blocked a user as a sock puppet based on what she found. It is still unclear to me whether or not the user she blocked was a sock puppet or not, but the community was outraged by the use of secret evidence. I assume that the case looked very good to her, but she failed to adequately consult, which was a serious error. Not being an administrator, I couldn't block you, but I would not have done so in any case. Had Durova filed an SSP report instead of blocking, leaving the block decision to another administrator, she would still be an administrator.

There is essentially nothing I can think of that you could provide alone. Proof that you were separate individuals, by both individuals being real-world identified and the proof verified, would, of course, do it. But that would require *both* of you to real-world identify, which I would not even advise. Might not be a problem with you, but would almost certainly be a problem with Fredrick day.

As to how the anomalies are explained, it's really very simple for a user to pretend to be two different users, using different IP and with interleaved edits, so if someone is taking the precautions, anomalies you described would be found. The existence of those anomalies in modest quantities does not prove that the accounts are unrelated, so what would matter would be the preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence correlating the accounts can be so overwhelming that the existence of anomalies proves evasion of detection, not innocence. We already know that Fredrick day is prepared to undertake this cloaking action, he's shown it and demonstrated it. So, basically, if you are not Fredrick day, my advice is to ignore this case. Carry on with your excellent work.

And, in fact, if you are Fredrick day, I'd suggest the same. Fredrick day is basically dead meat at this point, as will be what looks at this point to be two more socks discovered. You are absolutely the smallest fish caught in this net.

(By the way, the identification of Phil McCavity as a sock of Fredrick day was not made by me, and I'm not at all sure that this was accurate. But there are other anomalies, if you look for them.)

What is going to count for Fredrick day is that he, through his various socks, has been a heavy, major contributor to the project. As to the identify of these other socks, I'm not disclosing that until my evidence has been independently examined. Maybe I'm totally wrong! I would then have the pleasure of apologizing deeply to you, for the trouble this has unnecessarily caused you. I'm certain, but I've been certain about a thing before and was wrong.

I'm also not providing the full evidence to anyone unless (1) I've run their contributions through this same process, and (2) I have other reasons to consider the user absolutely trustworthy. This additional work is ongoing, but I also have children to take care of and work to do. So in due time.--Abd (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages

Please don't remove content from user talk pages that are not your own, unless the user is banned (which in this case, he is not). Your following of Frederick Day is becoming something of a WP:POINT violation. I'd suggest it would be a good idea to stop. ⇒SWATJester 01:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. This is with reference to . If you look at my contributions, you will see that I hadn't removed any material by Fredrick day since April 8. In this case, he responded to a comment of mine about an independent matter, having nothing to do with him, and, since others, including administrators, have been removing Fd material, and there it was in front of me, I removed it, knowing that Mangojuice and anyone else interested could read it anyway. I wasn't following him, he was following me, rather obviously. So, sorry, I can't stop what I'm not doing, but, since you have asked, I won't remove any Fredrick day material. I never much liked deleting stuff anyway. I really only started to remove sock material following Fredrick day's practice. I guess I was following a bad example. Have a nice day. Oh. By the way, several administrators and users have removed the "indef blocked, nobody will unblock, but not banned, nosiree," Fredrick day contributions from my Talk pages. Do you think they should also be warned? Thanks, and I will be very careful not to jaywalk or chew gum on the subway, because I'm quite aware that I'm being watched closely. Since you brought that material back, I'll go and respond to it.--Abd (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (that you haven't removed his material after the 8th), but in general removing user talk page posts is frowned upon. In the case of admins removing Frederick Day's posts on yours, well you've made it quite obvious that you don't want to see him talking; thus its not an issue (even if technically it's a little bit on shady side). ⇒SWATJester 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've brought his material back in on occasion. I think it's useful for people to see just who he is. I'm surprised, though, that you considered that comment useful, or that there was a violation on my part worthy of what is effectively edit warring on a Talk page. The post was trolling, in fact, with no substance of value for the project. It's really up to Mangojuice. If he wants that on his Talk page, with my response or not, he's welcome to it. It's up to him, but users do perform these services for each other, with the final decision being that of the user whose page it is. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough.

I don't know where your obsession with Frederick Day comes from, but making threats against another editor that you will harass them is absolutely unacceptable. You do NOT taunt the trolls (see WP:DNFTT). You are now disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point as evidenced by your threat against the IP. I'm going to warn you one last time: leave him alone, and go about your way with editing, or you will be blocked. It's that simple. Threatening another user that they should "quietly disappear" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances. ⇒SWATJester 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand that this isn't about Fredrick day. And what I wrote did not suggest that the editor "quietly disappear." Rather, what I wrote was this: if my theory is correct, an SSP case could be presented that would be very, very serious. If my theory is incorrect, my theory is going to disappear and you will see no further posts regarding it, unless I'm asked. (I would, of course, apologize directly to anyone who may have been implicated, which would start with Seddon69, currently considered cleared, but I still have not apologized because the evidence was not actually addressed.

Rather, I simply wrote about the situation. I will develop the evidence, off-wiki. If it confirms the preliminary results, I would then, possibly (I will be consulting with others, as I already am, off-wiki), offer the suspected sock master, who is not Fredrick day, an opportunity to quietly disappear. If outside examination shows my evidence to be faulty, then you will see an apology. If it is inconclusive, it will simply disappear, because I won't be able to apologize, but neither would I be able to pursue it. It would be like Mantanmoreland.

I'm not obsessed wirh Fredrick day. I'm working on something far, far more significant. And for very obvious reasons, I cannot give details at this time; for if my technique is defective, I would be needlessly involving and accusing the innocent.

If there is a "threat" there, it is not to Fredrick day, but to the puppet master. Someone who is not a deeply involved puppet master behind Fredrick day and other accounts has nothing to fear from this, so, if there is no such master, the "threat" is not against any individual but only against a figment of my imagination. And not a threat, actually, but an offer, because, by the time I'm done, there will be other editors including administrators, who will know. There are already such, so if something mysteriously happens to my account.... well, that is definitely not a way to make this go away. The master's biggest mistake was to vigorously pursue Sarsaparilla, he went way beyond necessity. Without that, he'd still be undiscovered. He thought he was invulnerable. After all, checkuser would show him totally unconnected.

Is this a threat? Well, SWATjester, if you want to see some disruption, try to sanction me for revealing this on my own Talk page, in response to an unnecessary and provocative warning from you. If I'm blocked, I will not evade the block. I'm considering myself a quasi-administrator -- as anyone is who cares to follow the rules -- and so I am bound to not block-evade, and I would not violate this unless IAR *required* it. No, I'm not going to be disruptive. But the truth may be. The truth is not my property and the world does not depend on me.

One more point, for the record. Fredrick day bragged that he had other accounts and that he was only allowing us to see what he wanted us to see. He indicated that these accounts were where most of his work was being done. If he was telling the truth, and I think he was, then there are other *major* accounts involved. He also said that he was using multiple monitors. An obvious implication is that he is using multiple accounts, simultaneously, and he knows quite well enough -- and has proven -- that he can handle multiple ISPs and, in addition, open proxies. Currently, my "obsession" with Fredrick day is simply that I'm following up on what he stated. He wasn't lying. Now, if that doesn't concern you, fine. All things conspire toward the revelation of the truth. I don't need to call a spade a spade, because the spade reveals its own nature, and this is *not* calling you a spade. It is a general truth, if the shoe fits, wear it, and if it does not, it isn't about you. The only user named here is Fredrick day, and Seddon69 as a suspected sock puppet. You will note that AGK confirmed that the report was reasonable. Seddon69 himself acknowledged that the work I was doing was essential. So ... no disruption involved, except for your intervention here. Indeed, I should be warning *you*. But I don't normally do that, unless I plan to follow up, which I don't. I have much bigger fish to fry. Say whatever you like on my Talk pages, subject only to what restrictions others would place on it.--Abd (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Testing multiple logins

I really wonder how many of these could easily be done.... --Abd sock (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More than one, for sure

Not difficult. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I see you've been testing a second account. As far as I'm aware, there's no technical reason why you can't have as many as you like, though I think there's a limit to how many can be produced by the same IP address in one day, to prevent automatic spam programs, etc. However, I would strongly advise you to read WP:SOCK about the correct usage of alternative accounts, and if you are going to use them for the correct purpose, you should preferable declare them. See my alternative account, User:Pek the Penguin, for an example. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well ... this account, User:Abd sock was openly declared with creation, just through the name, and the first edit to the user Talk page was an acknowledgement, since I'd seen such socks blocked immediately when not explicitly acknowledged with a signed comment. The edits to the Talk pages (this one and User talk:Abd sock) were, well, rather obvious, don't you think? I'm well aware of sock policy. I created another sock, User:The Community, subject to special restrictions. It's been blocked, which is fine for the moment, even though that account had done *nothing* outside being created and self-restricted, since the restrictions meant that the account couldn't be used, anyway, outside the Talk page and for that to change would take a consensus of the community, in which case getting unblocked ought to be fairly easy! User:The Community doesn't speak for the community unless the community asks him to! This sock, User:Abd sock, will probably be used mostly for browsing with a shortened watchlist, but the immediate purpose was merely to make a demonstration of rapid editing, since that is relevant to some suspected sock puppet cases I'm investigating. Those edits were made from the same IP, but they could easily have had different IP. And how, I'm not going to explain! But rocket science, it isn't.

As to "declaring" the account, I see no harm in putting the same template as you use on the user page for Pek the Penguin. So I will. Isn't consensus nice? I will, of course, try to remember to change the fields or names.... --Abd (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, while you are at it, would you mind protecting the user page for User:Abd sock as you have protected your own? Good idea.... --Abd (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected - if you need it unlocked any time let me know, or any other administrator. There's no problem with you having the account, and I hope it didn't come across that I was accusing you of anything. This wasn't my intention. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in - Drug Policy

Mr. Monotheist, thanks for your comments on the Drug Policy project recently deleted. I look forward to working with you, especially given the comments about Free Associations you've listed on your user page. The Gnostic Study Group we've begun holds along the same lines you speak of, and I look forward to showing you some of our documentation and mandate once we publish them. Regards - Shamanchill (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In potential, the editor community here would be a Free Association, and rules and policies are often written as if it is. However, the classic hazard that FAs face is that they become inefficient in decision-making when the scale is large, and, in response to this, mechanisms arise, by default or by design, that leave the FA principles behind and the organizations become traditional oligarchies. Even when the theory is that they are perfectly open. In relatively anarchist or direct democratic organizations, participation bias takes over; those who have the energy to maintain the intense activity required for control of the project when the scale is large or the time period involved is long, become powerful. It's not just Misplaced Pages; this phenomenon commonly results in extremists taking over organizations that rely on direct participation for control. By "extremists" I mean that the opinions and positions of those participating so intensely will be different from that of the whole community, it will be toward, typically, some extreme. I don't mean "extremist" polemically. Theoretically, rule number one on Misplaced Pages is WP:IAR. But when I was asked, in my RfA, what was the most important rule that would guide my work, and I answered Rule Number One, I was practically shouted down. Rule Number One can easily be misunderstood, but it represented an early intuition of the project, and it is actually the foundation of common law, as distinct from statutory law. The insiders can become familiar with statutory law, those who feel comfortable being rule-bound, and so we see increasing proliferation of rules. In a positive direction, the accumulation of precedent makes it easier to understand the requirements of Rule Number One, but in the negative direction, increasing reliance on rules that are specifically stated causes a loss of freedom, and rule people tend to respond to violation of rules with punishment. So blocking, intended for protection of the project, is used increasingly for punishment. And, of course, one of the major characteristics of Free Associations is that they never punish. They may protect, as necessary, but punishment is inherently divisive and, in the end, becomes a tool of abuse. Our friend, who created the Drug Policy project, is ostensibly indef blocked for a trivial violation, one that I've never before seen used as an excuse for a block, the creation of an article on a non-notable subject. A verifiable article. But the real reason for the block (and the two prior indef blocks) was that he proposed experimenting with a solution to the problem of participation bias, WP:PRX. Currently, attention was drawn to his "sock" (a block-evading account) because he once again made the proposal, because an obvious opportunity arose in Misplaced Pages:Governance reform. The Misplaced Pages community has become quite hostile to new ideas. Actually, I should correct myself. A significant segment of the active, core community, the ones whose names we see again and again in policy discussions, arbitrations, etc., has become quite hostile. WP:AGF has broken down. --Abd (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that your First Rule WP:IAR is what I'd call a META-rule, or even an axiom in a mathematical sense, in that it's a measure implemented to skip up a level within a system when that system ceases to function as per its mandate, so as to get it back on course. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has lots to say about the failings of formal systems... and shows us the need to build such extra-systemic devices into our creations. The "Golden Rule" of the Christians is another of these. When asked what commandment in the law was greatest, Yeshua stated that his rewording of the First Commandment was greatest (he, too was a monotheist, and I think stated this to both show common ground with the questioners by giving the expected answer, as well as establishing the mandate for the system he was being questioned on and for which he gave the meta-rule), adding that second, and similarly, to Love your neighbour as yourself was what ALL law and prophets hung on. He described the meta-system for all laws, and by which all could be violated in their stricter sense.

Thanks for your analysis and filling me in. Let's wait to see if we can get the pages reinstated, and I'm open to recreating them from scratch if necessary (and have requested notice of any other objections to their existence apart from their original means of creation). Regards Shamanchill (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We're up and running again, Abd. Please go in and have a look. WikiProject Drug Policy - Shamanchill (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicommons picture of the year voting

Hi Abd,

I thought you might be interested that the Wikicommons POTY is a two round vote, approval voting in first round, plurality in the second:

At a theoretical level, the first round is meaningless, if you assume ALL voters evaluated ALL CHOICES with full attention. The winner of the second round be unchanged had the first round simply been plurality to pick the winner. At a practical level, it makes a difference between too many choices is overwhelming and so the filtering process helps focus attention.

At a strategy level, there's yet GREAT power for manipulation, at least given the "top 28" rule. If the threshold was like 50% approval, there'd be no problem, but fixing the round 1 winner count means my TOP-STRATEGY is to vote for my REAL TOP SET plus ALL PICTURES I judge won't win. This strategy offers a chance than some stronger competitors will "get lost" in the vast choice set and fail the top-28. Not to say any sigificant number of voters there will vote strategically like this, only that it is possible.

I'm sure you agree that "forced elimination" is the weakness of any method. The only way I know an approval approval filter can work slightly fairly is NOT to eliminate, but simply SORT choices in the second round by votes in the first round, so that still gives an "unfair advantage" to first round manipulation, but at least earnest voters in the second round have a chance to judge all the choices if they like.

Myself I have nothing against the one vote rule of plurality, only against picking a winner too soon. I would promote the POTY voting to have a ranking round and a Condorcet method AFTER an approval ballot order sorting round which helps lazy voters identify the strongest competition.

Always fun - I'll have to watch for the next vote and propose something! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at user_talk:Lar

I responded to your comments on User_talk:Lar there, per my policy. If you have further to say, you may wish to do so there. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I expected. Thanks. I'll check again, I may have seen it. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've answered again, making the conversation rather a slow motion one, as is my wont when I'm especially puzzled. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers RfC

Thank you ► RATEL ◄ 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just asking

What I've done that requires an apology? I asked him to cutout the potshots per policy, he demanded to know why I was the only one who brought it up with him, I pointed out that several others had, and that since he had cut out the attacks, that nothing more needed to happen. That's when he signed the recall thing. Just curious. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any undue distress. I became aware of Kmweber's request for your voluntary relinquishment of the mop from a questioning of it on his Talk page. I had previously seen the interchange and had been concerned about it as having a bullying tone, with apparent threat of block for what may have been a legitimate exercise of editor rights. I suggest that you carefully review what occurred, and, if you can find nothing to apologize about, sincerely, let me know and I will review the whole history in detail, which I don't have time to do at the moment. If there is nothing, in fact, first of all, it's likely nobody else will sign it and it will become moot. I admire you for putting up such a promise to relinquish, so you have one strike in your favor to start. Kmweber can be crotchety, and Misplaced Pages can make that worse. But he's also usually got a point. Try to understand it from his point of view, and, as well, why I might think your behavior inappropriate. The whole thing might easily be dispelled. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over, the only line that I can consider even CLOSE to the line is If you have suggestions to improve the ArbitraTION Committee, I suggest that you bring it forward. if all you have is potshots and attacks, I think that it'd be best if you didn't say any thing at all.

What I meant to say there is that taking potshots like he was in multiple ANI threads (telling others to ignore ArbCom, saying that they had no ability to take the decisions they had (when it's pretty obvious that yes, they do have that ability), as well as referring to it as using the derogatory term the "Arbitary Committee" at every opportunity) was not adding anything of value to the conversation. After others had removed these attacks, he began edit-warring to keep them in. While my choice of worsds may not have been the best, I truly do not think that I have anything to apologize for. Thanks for the opportunity to give my side of the story. SirFozzie (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you found was not a problem. It was your opinion, and it was not a threat. I really don't think it should be that difficult for you to figure it out; but -- sometimes it is truly hard to "see ourselves as others see us." By the way, warning him for edit warring, if that is what he was doing, would be appropriate, but "pot shots" is a term which can cover legitimate criticism. Calling ArbComm the "Arbitrary Committee" may be crusty, but it's not an offense of any kind. Nor is your suggesting that he stop it. But I think you mentioned "steel." Is that enough of a hint? I'll explain tomorrow if there is still a need. And to close with another old quote, "a stitch in time saves nine." --Abd (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to restore

The editor is, now, deservingly banned, and has been for three months. There's no obligation on the part of Misplaced Pages to maintain his pages indefinitely. The last addition to User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress was made on March 14, 2008, linking to a discussion that closed on March 20.

It strikes me as odd that you would be so concerned about this page's fate right this instant, given that you've failed to show any interest in it whatsoever for the last three months. It's a noticeboard created by a banned user, with ten edits in its history, with no current users. Let it go.

You've already signed up at User:Basketball110/WikiProject Deletion Patrol, and are capable of following the links on that page to other centralized discussions. Perhaps you might be interested in participating in an active project, rather than preserving the pages of banned, disruptive editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I'll ask for the page from someone else, since you don't seem to be willing to provide it. I was just wondering why you found the deletion of that page so important when you've hardly been editing anything lately. It's just another factoid to toss in the soup. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I was pruning my watchlist. I noticed that there was a page on it that we didn't need any more, so I deleted it. I'll undelete it for you if you can give me a sound reason why it would improve Misplaced Pages for me to do so.

I'm flattered that you're so interested in my editing, and touched by your interest in my development as a Misplaced Pages administrator. Can't see why you would say I've "hardly been editing anything lately"; near as I can tell I've made at least twice as many edits in May as you have. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been quite inactive, I have other stuff to do. But that page of Obuibo Mbstpo's was on my Watchlist, so I saw your deletion. You called Obuibo Mbstpo "disruptive." He was a prolific editor, making many many contributions to the project. Well, was he disruptive? By removing files showing his actions, you obscure the record, leaving nothing but allegations and stink. I, in turn, find it interesting that you chose to watch his discussions page.... but so what? Lots of stuff is interesting, and only some of it turns out to matter. We'll all see in the end, I'm sure. G'night. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, in answer to my question, you don't propose any reason for undeletion that would benefit Misplaced Pages. Let me know if you think of one; until then, quit busting my chops. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I asked first for undeletion, but then, if not that, for a copy of the file, so I can judge for myself if there is reason to keep it. That would include the file history. Since you don't want to provide it, apparently, I saw no reason to "bust your chops" by arguing with you about it, I can get it from someone else. So go away, please. --Abd (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)

Just to let you know I have refactored long comments on this AFD to its talk page as it was getting rather long, in order to aid readability of the day's AFD page. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out and put back anything I consider essential. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

payment

I still haven't been paid for those edits I made for you. Please sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.96.109 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the purchase order, Fredrick, assuming it's you. Please remind me what account you used and what edits you made, and I'll check it out right away, and you'll get what you earned by your actions. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to you! (well, sort of)

Looking over the "IRV Controversies" article and its associated AfD (2nd), I am struck by how much effort you have put into it. Even though it appears (to me, at least) that you oppose IRV, I think that it is highly commendable of you to work so hard on this. I would normally be contributing to efforts such as yours, but I am not in the best of health and so am not up to the task of debating others. I hope that you prevail in this dispute.
--NBahn (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come to oppose IRV, and I'm familiar with the arguments, but that doesn't prevent me from trying to make the article NPOV. Given that you have been exercised to make this comment here, you might consider making a comment in the AfD. That's not debating, but every comment helps. Right now, it looks like the AfD may go for merge and redirect, which means that the article would ultimately be blanked, and the content merged with the main article, where notability issues become more of a problem. To be in the controversies article, arguments and facts should be notable. But to be in the main article, they should be sufficiently notable not to create an imbalance. The Controversies article was started through a consensus of editors, and the plan was to bring content back into the main article using summary style. That's difficult, but easier than trying to get consensus on summaries of arguments when we don't have an underlying consensus on the facts. The Controversies article provided room to explore that, and much was written there that is common knowledge among experts. Definitely, sources should be provided, but it used to be that articles would be written and then cleaned up. Writers and editors, what a concept! But now some editors expect everything to be written at the very beginning with full reliable sourcing. It's a wide problem. People write from their own knowledge and, indeed, are led to believe that they can do that, and it is only when they look at the fine print that they realize, no, you must write with immediate reference to reliable sources, and your own knowledge, the knowledge of your friends, and the knowledge of your entire community means nothing if you don't provide a published source. That drastically interferes with the writing process.

What should be happening is that if someone thinks that a piece of text isn't properly sourced, they should (1) source it, or (2) put a citation-needed tag on it, or (3) if they think it incorrect or improper, take it out. Increasingly, though, we are seeing not only the taking out of text by default, but the taking out of entire articles, even if there is sufficient reliable source for some of it already given. AfD is being used as an editorial bludgeon. Merge and redirect isn't a terrible outcome, but it is going to be quite difficult to accomplish, and, for sure, those voting for it either (a) aren't going to do the work or (b) will do it with a meat cleaver and without discussion. Probably. The people actually working on the article have all voted to keep or were at least neutral. Good question: what if an AfD comes up with Merge/Redirect and nobody does it, or it is opposed by multiple editors? We could go to Deletion Review, perhaps; the guideline says that it might be proposed for Deletion again.... But it would be simpler, a lot simpler, if we just have Keep or No consensus. The reality right now is no consensus.... but you never know, a lot depends on what admin picks this AfD to close. --Abd (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You might make a good Citizendium author

Hi Abd, there is a lot more history to the IRV article and related articles, and yourself that I was aware of. Please don’t look deep into my comments, I intended to only make passing comments on the existing version of the article and recent talk page activity. I do think that you (and/or others) have pushed to the limit of WP:SYN, possibly over it. I am impressed by your passion, knowledge and analytical skills. Have you considered contributing to http://en.citizendium.org/. I believe that there, you’d be allowed much more freedom to do a reasonable amount of analysis. I note that there is very little mention of IRV, and that it is a red-linked topic waiting for the writing (see http://en.citizendium.org/Single_transferable_vote). If you could write a superior article at citizendium, then it could be good for wikipedia because we could cite your borderline-analysis at that site. I have not seen much citing of citizendium in wikipedia, but I see no real problem, as it is easy to argue that it is more reliable, for what it contains, that wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have considered creating a mechanism for rapid peer-review off-wiki that could then be used to reliably source material. It's a bit frustrating for voting systems experts, because most work in recent years has taken place in mailing lists, particularly the Election Methods mailing list, and the community does in fact come to consensus, but that is never measured or marked by some definitive action. Misplaced Pages sidestepped a major way in which classical encyclopedias were written, which was through consulting experts. When some point was in doubt, editors would ask an expert, or several experts. We can't do that, even though peer-reviewed journals routinely accept, from authors, a reference to "private correspondence with So-and-So." So I created the Election Methods Interest Group, and solicited the participation of experts and anyone interested, and, in fact, a number of experts joined and so did some of the pro-IRV editors working on the article in Misplaced Pages. The plan has been that articles would be submitted to this group for review. EMIG would not make a decision; rather, polls would measure the degree of consensus in committee existing with respect to details of an article, until some member considers the article ready to present in toto to the whole "assembly." Then, again, a poll would estimate consensus on actual publication. EMIG would not publish, though it would keep the records of its process and deliberations and polls available. A publisher would then actually publish the article, based on the peer review. The actual publisher could be a journal like Voting Matters, or anyone could set up a web publisher for the purpose. The point would be that there would be genuine peer review, of a quality probably exceeding that which takes place with standard publications.

However, it had never occurred to me that Citizendium could serve for that. I'll check it out.

What was frustrating about the AfD, which just closed with a rather brain-dead "Merge and Redirect," was actually a typical problem with AfDs. Editors with no knowledge of the subject and not taking the time to become informed make snap decisions. That the first responses were Delete is actually quite common. That the charge was made that the Controversies article was a POV fork is a very easy assumption to make, see the prior AfD. However, if we look at WP:FORK and then carefully at the article and its history, it isn't a POV fork, period. This was discussed in the AfD and was never actually contradicted by anyone looking at the argument and refuting it. Rather, it simply was repeated without evidence, as if it was clear. There were various arguments that had more substance, such as the article being a convenient place to hang original research. However, that a topic attracts original research has nothing to do with its notability and with the availability of reliable source. The solution to original research is not to remove the article, but to delete the OR, or source it to reliable source. What looks like OR to one person may be simply an unsourced report of what has been researched.

The comment I provided that explained the unsourced character of some of the article was taken for a blanket justification for keeping unsourced material. My impression is that what I wrote would, at one time, have been easily understood: Misplaced Pages was built on unsourced articles, written by editors who simply wrote what they knew. Then, instead of simply deleting these articles (as now happens routinely within minutes, using speedy deletion), someone would improve them, and this was done in various ways, one of which was by stubbing them. My own practice has been to leave alone what is unsourced, but which I know to be true, and which I believe can be sourced with effort. When I wrote about what was "well-known," I was not claiming that material should be left in, indefinitely, merely because it is allegedly well-known. I mean, instead, that what is truly well-known needs no source unless someone challenges it. If every statement in articles were sourced, we'd have a forest of notes. Instead, we only expect sourcing for what is not well-known. The problem arises when experts write articles. What they consider well-known and not controversial may be obscure or even questionable to others. An example with this article was the monotonicity failure of IRV. "You can hurt your favorite by voting for him? How could that be?" Now, we have an article on monotonicity criterion, but, of course, that wasn't enough. I put the reference into the article, not as a source, but as a reference to a specific article on the subject. In fact, the debate, were there any, over whether or not this is true of IRV should take place there! What casual AfD commentors do is, in fact, wikilawyering. Instead of considering the overall function of the encyclopedia, they look for rules to follow, and, if it seems a rule applies, aha! There is the answer!

Now, the closer has simply blanked and redirected the article. I.e., a group of people with no real interest in improving the articles has made an editorial decision deleting content (though only normal editorial deletion, it's all there), but will not take any responsibility for the hard part: taking content from the article back into the IRV article. In that article, there is an additional constraint that does not apply to the controversies article: relative notability. Thus material that is clearly notable, has reliable source, may still be considered inappropriate for the main article because of WP:UNDUE. So the result is that notable, RS'd material is deleted. The process, in a word, sucks. Editorial decisions should not be made in AfDs, period, beyond determining notability and potential availability of source. Merge and Redirect is certainly better than Delete, but, like any editorial decision, it should be reversible readily. And it is. However, I'm not going to do it alone. We could go to DRV, but that would simply repeat the error: submitting editorial decisions, not to an RfC or other DR process, but to a process designed only to deal with deletion, merge and redirect being a kind of "keep." Notice that it is not Redirect and Merge. There is a process hinted at in the name. Merge first, and then Redirect. But the closing admin simply deleted the content and redirected. That's "delete and redirect, in fact, though not "delete" in the administrative sense but only in the ordinary editorial sense.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review the history. It's actually a fantastical one; I've been approached by media for an account of it, and there may be publication of it. I think most editors, reading what I say about it, assume that I'm just pushing some POV, but I try to be accurate. There really were sock puppets and IP editors sitting on the IRV article. And there really was an SPA created to delete article relating to IRV, selectively eliminating anything that could be used to criticize IRV. That SPA really did start the first AfD for the article, and really did come out of retirement to vote "Strong delete." Yet, ironically, one of the editors who is actually officially affiliated with FairVote voted to Keep. The article wasn't a POV fork, and the question that was asked by one editor "If it is, what POV?" was never answered. BlackKite's closing was a reasonable one as to majority opinion, but not as to argument. He simply repeated the POV fork argument. That can be overturned, in my opinion, by a consensus of editors, and, so, that's what I'll be seeking. Given that there was already editorial consensus for the article -- among those actually working on the topic, which includes pro and con editors plus a few neutrals -- I don't think it will be difficult. --Abd (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One more comment, about WP:SYN. Sure. That's what writers do. Then editors follow up and clean it up. Misplaced Pages has become an editor's paradise, at the expense of writers. A good encyclopedia needs both. I have seen overall article quality decline in a number of areas that I'm familiar with, what was once interesting, challenging me to do further research, has been clipped and pruned and prodded and poked until it is ... boring and much of what was most useful has been removed. For example, I needed to learn about low-carb diets. In the article on the Atkins Nutritional Approach was a link to an external site, This site is a public forum where many ordinary people and quite a few experts discuss and debate and link to research. It was extraordinarily useful. And it has changed my life. Is the link still there? No. What happened? Well, some editor had a web site and kept putting the web site into external links. And other editors kept taking it out; it was probably a commercial site, purely. Eventually administrative attention was attracted, and an admin looked at the links and essentially took about everything out, including lowcarber.org. Why? Well, there is advertising on that site, and some policy was arguably violated. However, we routinely link to sites with advertising, such as newspapers! Could I put it back in? Sure. But how many battles can one person fight?

I write what I believe will be established by reliable sources. It takes probably ten times as long to actually source everything. If someone removes what I write, sure, I can't just put it back without sources. That's the proper response to OR: delete it or source it, or, more politely, cn tag it. But I'm not going to delete what is not yet sourced, if I believe it can be. Otherwise, in response to the AfD, I'd have clipped the article back. Quite possibly starting an edit war, doing so much clipping at once. One piece at a time is how consensus is found. --Abd (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You also ought to consider publishing a manuscript in a peer reviewed journal. Acknowledge material from mailing lists, etc, as required. The experience, the professional feedback, and the concrete accomplishment would easily make the effort worthwhile, especially if you consider that near-obvious synthesis remains unstated (explicitly) in reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Voting Matters is a peer-reviewed journal, I believe. However, the plan I mentioned above, to create peer review using broader resources, may have deeper effects. In any case, I need to get moving on the actual writing. I tend to work best in a back-and-forth exchange environment, I'm not good at getting going on solitary writing. It has something to do with my ADHD. Meanwhile, the IRV article is coming unglued as a result of the AfD, as I thought would occur. --Abd (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the ADHD controversy talk page again

I have left what will probably be my final message on the talk page. Could you take a look at it? Undoubtedly, it breaks some kind of rule but it had to be said. I assume you have given up trying to reason with Scuro, or fix the situation there, but if you haven't is there any way his power can be broken? He makes a mockery of what Wikepedia has the potential to be

My regards,

Simon Sobo MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it. Wikpedia has potential, and it's already done a great deal, but my opinion is that it is devolving. One thing for sure. Scuro won't be prevented from damaging articles by you getting yourself blocked. So don't violate policy, it won't accomplish anything but some transient catharsis. Hmmm.... come to think ..... My friend committed wiki-suicide by (1) dropping a solicitation for an action (actually a good one, but he knew the response he would get) on the Talk page of every member of the Arbitration Committee, and then, when he was warned by an admin for WP:CANVASS violation, which it actually wasn't, he wrote "too late, I'm done" and placed an image of an upraised finger with his reply. Indef block. Inappropriate, violation of block policy, but, indeed, he knew that was likely from that particular administrator. (Admins aren't supposed to block people for insulting them. An admin can block someone who insults someone else.... it's a Conflict of Interest thing.)--Abd (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

reversion of your reversion no longer possible

There have been other edits to that section, so your edit cannot be simply undone. As I am one of those editors, I tried to make a compromise version that both you and Richie might accept. (see the talk on the IRV article). Tbouricius (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. The only edit in the way of the reversion was actually yours, I think, in which case it was made after I made the request that someone accept my edit -- at least temporarily -- by reverting my removal of it.

I did it myself. When there is more than one edit to a section, after a version that you want to go back to, you just revert them in reverse order. This is generally considered one reversion for purposes of the 3RR limit. (Some people have a Rollback button that does this in one step, but that isn't supposed to be used with any content disputes, and others have assisted editing tools that will make multiple reverts quickly. But it's easy to do manually. Look at what I did to my self-revert and you'll see it.

If I'd wanted to keep your edit, though, I'd have made the change without reversion, but manually with copy and paste. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for rule 0

It's "Don't be a dick". I've always suspected that when someone is block/banned for what seems like a bunch of petty reasons, this is what they are really being blocked for. You just can't say it because the essay itself says that calling someone a dick is in itself a "dick move". It would definitely be inappropriate as a block reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that someone has read User:Abd/Rule 0. The most common Rule 0 violation asserted is probably WP:TROLL. Trolling, by definition, involves an imputation of motive. The alleged motive is to irritate, anger, offend, disrupt. Sometimes this really is a user's motive, but quite often the user is just trying to express what they think, to do what they think they should be allowed to do, etc.

As an example, User:Absidy was blocked with the summary:

• 16:27, 24 February 2008 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) blocked "Absidy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Trolling

Was he trolling? Yes, I believe he was. He wanted to be blocked, he was thoroughly frustrated by the response to his proposals, he was under attack (filing SSP reports for a continuation account that openly acknowledges its history?), and he'd tried to leave Misplaced Pages before, and, obviously, found it difficult to stop contributing. (This user goes back, I understand, to 2004, though I've only seen history to 2005.)

So under IAR, Jehochman's action could be seen as legitimate. Block policy would have prohibited the block, for the "trolling" was incivility to Jehochman, not to anyone else. Previously to that, Absidy had dropped a message to every member of ArbComm suggesting that they name proxies. He wasn't soliciting a proxy for himself, he was calling attention to the idea, through a limited number of Talk page posts. Jehochman warned him for canvassing, though WP:CANVASS doesn't cover an action like this. There was no RfC or other process happening at the time. Again, Absidy was an experienced user. He knew that, though his action was legitimate, it would trigger response, it would be considered disruptive. He also knew that Jehocham was likely not to laugh at his incivility. Other admins would have taken it as a joke, and would simply have laughed. It was not a personal insult. ("Incivility" is really a relationship, there is no intrinsic incivility. If I give a friend unwanted advice, and he says, "Thanks. Fuck you too!" It's not uncivil, it is how friends sometimes talk to each other. Tell someone else in a different context, "Fuck you!" and it is highly uncivil.

(Jehochman later unblocked him, after I pointed out that his block was improper as being COI, pointing, then, to the Physchim62 ArbComm case, which was just confirmed again, as I'd predicted, by the Tango desysopping. Jehochman had cooled down and we were able to have "a bit of tea" together and he relented.)

Once there was attention on Absidy, though, with the idea that he was disruptive, every action was seen through that lens. He did not again troll for offended response. He had done it once, and he apologized. Still, because Absidy's interest had become Misplaced Pages process, and because WP process is stuck in a loop, unable to change for reasons easily understood by those with group process experience, everything he did aroused outraged response. And when he did what he would have been able to do without a problem as an ordinary user, he was indef blocked. We don't normally block people for creating improper articles or making improper edits, even when they are vandalism (which his edits were not). And especially we don't do it unless they repeat the offense after being warned. He never repeated any offense except one: Rule 0 violation.

The most blatant sign of this occurred when User:Obuibo Mbstpo, his next account, was blocked and his return (ultimately as User:Larry E. Jordan) was being negotiated. He had been indef blocked for creating a hoax article and placing a piece of humor in an article, both in mainspace. (This user never received any block that wasn't indef, itself a block policy violation for a productive editor, which he certainly was.) By this time, he was cooperating closely with Newyorkbrad on parliamentary procedure articles, he had built the Wikiproject and was prolific in setting up articles. So there were users, including a member of ArbComm, who really wanted him back. A deal was offered: he could come back if he promised to stay out of Misplaced Pages space. I.e., out of working on policy.

Wait a minute! He's indef blocked for mainspace violations, and he can come back, and edit mainspace, if he doesn't touch guidelines and policy? This was about as blatant an admission as possible that the real offense was touching policy livewires, but his actions in WP space were, in themselves, legitimate. And he refused to accept the deal, as, he stated, it was his right as a user to participate in policy. (He had also started adding canned AfD comments, which was considered blockable by some, but the same sort of thing had been, by consensus, found acceptable for User:Kmweber with RfAs.)

All this would come out were this to go to ArbComm, I'm sure. ArbComm is the one place where there is some orderly process, trial before verdict, deliberation before decision. Elsewhere much that takes place is right out of Alice in Wonderland. In AfDs, for example, a "charge" is brought and the "jury" immediately starts to vote with conclusions, very often before the "defense" has any opportunity to present evidence and argument. It is, quite literally, insane. (In standard deliberative process, there is only one "vote" allowed on a proposal before argument, and, in fact, all voting other than that one is prohibited, argumen

Absidy, or whatever we might call him, usually it's, now, Sarsaparilla, saw much of this, and his real offense was pointing it out. Then, being in his mid-twenties, and quite impulsive, he jaywalked. Indef block. I've stood with him on quite a few issues, and, I'm quite sure, I'd be blocked at the drop of a hat if I give the cabal an excuse. (The "cabal" is mostly informal, it's a kind of group-think.) Absidy, for personal, off-wiki reasons, doesn't want to pursue formal DR process, it actually risks harm for him for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policy, if I assume he's telling me the truth, and I've no reason to doubt it; in fact, his actions, otherwise seemingly erratic, become explainable if this is true. Otherwise this would all have been resolved long ago.

Absidy's last block was for creating an article on non-notable subject. The article text was jocular, but true. By this time, the user had some serious enemies, really out to get him, and charges were made through IP edits that were, directly, lies. The "crowd," essentially, didn't notice that they were being led by the nose into a riot. Instead of looking at, "Why is this IP editor so interested in this, who is he?," they took the suggestions and ran with them. "Yeah! He's awful! How could he do such a thing! Obscene hotline! Think about the children!" But the hotline Absidy described wasn't legally obscene, I hear worse on the radio every day. It was, quite arguably, in poor taste, not my idea of nice humor, but how many users actually called it to find out for themselves? If they did, they did not bother to contradict the lies. And when I did, it was interpreted, as mobs will do, as simply biased. WP:AGF? You know, that's policy, not a guideline. But Rule 0 trumps it. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asset Voting

I have nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asset Voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. rootology (T) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rootology, for the notice. And thanks for the withdrawal of the nomination, as well. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Text from User talk:Yellowbeard:) WARNING: Meat puppetry, double voting in an AfD, and edit warring

This edit was meat puppetry for a blocked user:

was meat puppetry, and is a double vote by you. Your contributions to an AfD should be signed by you. If they come from another user, under some circumstances, that may be justifiable, but you still must sign then, not make it appear that they were added by the other user. (That the user's contribution was previously removed doesn't change this. It was legitimately removed, blocked editors are not allowed to vote in AfDs, and blocked editor contributions may be removed on sight. Fredrick day even acknowledged this in the AN/I report.)

Either of these could result in a block if continued, both together even more so. Remember, I can't block you, only your actions can result in that. (And I wouldn't have touched a block button with a ten-foot-pole over you, which is why your canvassing in my RfA, that got you blocked, was really not very bright, unless you don't care about your account, which, I suppose, might be the case.) --Abd (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, of course, your defense for the banned user Sarsaparilla is also "meat puppetry" and "double voting". Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To explain this to the puzzled reader: The first part of this is a warning that I dropped on Yellowbeard's Talk page, and then he responds.

No, I take responsibility for any edits of Sarsaparilla that I have restored, and you gave no examples. I doubt that you could find any. I've never restored controversial edits of his, as far as I recall, that I could not and would not have made on my own. If you think I'm guilty of meat puppetry, then make a claim of it. But you *did* restore the illegitimate vote of a blocked user, without signing it or taking responsibility for it. You've been warned. Next step wouldn't be up to me. But if you continue, I predict, you will be blocked. Go ahead, make my day. I wouldn't say that to most users, even when I disagree strongly with them. But your Misplaced Pages activities have been purely destructive, even if some actions have been legitimate, looked at singly. You are POV pushing by selective deletion. Interesting idea. And poison.--Abd (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the status or repeated voting of editors in AFD, please place a comment to that effect after their opinion, or strike out the vote using <s> tags. The closing admin will then review the matter. Please don't delete or change other people's votes in other ways. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, please follow Stifle's advice. Actually, you don't even need to strike out the votes, you can just add a comment saying "This Ip is most probably a sockpuppet of user User:Fredrick day" so that other !voters and the closing admin are aware of this. You can see that removing votes just don't work, since many editors are against doing that and prefer that the !vote stays even if it's going to be discounted. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't generally ignore advice from any user until and unless I determine that the advice is truly wrong. So, even though I haven't done that yet, or the reverse, I'm not going to barge ahead like a bull elephant, don't worry. But here is the issue. Fredric day is expert at making suggestions that a fair number of editors will jump on. "Yeah! That's outrageous! Lynch him! -- or, in this case, lynch the article." Allowing him the right to edit the AfD is giving him exactly what he wants, and it's harmful. Any substantive arguments in what he posts can be made by any other editor, as I noted in the AN/I report (I think it was the second, filed by Yellowbeard.) I would have left something in place myself if I thought there was any argument there not already made by Yellowbeard. But the editor putting the argument and comment in needs to take responsibility for it.

He actually said, when he made the mistake that caused him to be outed as the vandal he was, "I don't need this account anyway, I can do what I want more freely without an account." And, given the attitude of some users, he may be right. As an IP editor he can say whatever he likes without having any responsibility at all, he has discovered that most are not willing to do what it takes to actually block him. So.... this is the situation. Block policy means nothing. I could do exactly what he is doing, it's trivial. Is this the direction we want this project to go? I'm not going to do it in the middle of an AfD, I don't want to prejudice it more than it already was by what need to be said, but when the AfD is over, these issues will be going through process for extended community comment. At least that's my intention.--Abd (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be differing opinion on this. I have not deleted "repeat votes." There is no question about the status of the blocked user, the only question is who is going to deal with it and exactly how. I *did* strike out as my first action. The editor reverted it. The editor in question has no right to vote in AfDs. Period. I'm not willing to edit war with any legitimate editor, including yourself, Stifle, so if you see me doing something improper, fix it. Again, let me repeat this: there is no question about the status of the editor involved. When a "legitimate" editor -- he still is, he's not blocked -- restored the edit improperly, no strikeout, no note, no signature -- I did not revert it. Someone else did. So, got any kites to fly, Stifle? You might find it more fun. I have been very open and direct about what I was doing. The removal of material was announced on AN/I before it was done. Nobody objected then. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mailing list posts

I've just been reading en-wiki-l (the English Misplaced Pages mailing list) for May, and I just wanted to say I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you wrote. Have you thought of, or already, written any more permanent essays on the subjects? Stuff like sourcing subpages (some articles do have something similar set up manually as a talk page subpage), new editors and the rates of attrition or increase, and so on? I particularly liked the "ladder that built the project being chopped away" and the "the tide comes in and washes out, over and over, leaving only a little behind" bits. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This post for example, about talk page approaches. I have seen several talk page archives by topic, and they work quite well. WP:CONTEXT was the most recent one I saw. Alternatively, people can produce digests of talk page discussions. Summaries of past positions and answers to frequently asked questions. You can end up with a fairly good guideline at the end of such a process, and if it is well managed, you can point people to it. WP:PEREN is a good example, as is Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. I've also seen some talk page archives labelled with a summary of what was discussed in each archive. Something like this, but with descriptions of the content of each archive (as well as the date). Some people do this with their own personal user page talk archives. I'm desperately trying to remember the example - but can't remember if it was an article or project talk page. I think it was actually an article. The point is, though, that with enough people managing a talk page, really good systems can be set up. Talk:Evolution/FAQ is another example. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We have tended to focus on Articles as "building the project." But, in fact, the encyclopedic project is much larger than that. We need structure behind the visible iceberg of articles, and "knowledge" exists in hierarchies of notability, not as black and white notable/not-notable. While it is possible to create "objective" standards for notability, they are subjectively created; in the real world, what is notable to an individual varies from moment to moment; what is notable to societies varies from society to society. My own conclusion is that we should toss notability as being relevant to inclusion, for verifiability includes a minimal level of notability; more accurately, for something to be more than a mere suggested contribution to the project, there should be independent verification, agreement if you will, of the notability of the thing. Because of frivolous verification, which will occur, we then need to restrict the class of those who can verify, and this is part of what flagged revisions allows, though it could be done without that software facility.

We will soon have two visible layers: ordinary articles, editable by anyone, but which may take an extra step to see, and flagged revisions, as a top layer. With this, it becomes possible to relax notability requirements, thus maerliorating one of the most contentious areas of Misplaced Pages process. Ultimately, I'd see more layers than this, all the way from a top layer consisting of rigorously reviewed and validated and consensus-notable (positive consensus, not lack of consensus that it isn't notable) material, down to a "submissions" layer from which all that would be deleted would be copyvio and BLP violations, speedy stuff, generally.

Debate would be over what *level* of notability is appropriate. These are normal editorial decisions, and the results are not drastic, and easily adjustable later.

Underneath the article layer should be a whole layer that reports, in an NPOV fashion, the debate over the article, which includes listing every proposed source, with commentary on the source. If, for example, a source was proposed but rejected for some reason, that reason should be detailed. Now, this meta-encyclopedia takes work. Lots of work. However, the alternative to it is that work is repeated over and over, without building anything. Talk is there, for sure, but not organized, typically. As you have pointed out, sometimes aspects of this work have been done. But there is no organized effort to do it.

This brings us to what is often my central point: we need structure, we need something more than the ad-hoc formation of virtual committees (the editors working on each article). This ad-hoc committee worked well enough at the beginning, and something like it will be, always, the basic way we function. However, this is ultimately inadequate as the scale increases, and, if we consider the drastic inefficiency of the tidal formation of articles, it never really was very good at the beginning, but a seemingly inexhaustible supply of editors made it seem to function well. We simply didn't count as important all the editors who went away in disgust. The classic solution is some variation of top-down organization, and we have seen efforts in that direction. Esperanza, with its elected "board," AMA, which, as I recall, had a coordinator of some kind, and now WP:Governance with a proposal for an elected assembly.

There is another proposed solution, which was never detailed; rather, the basic tool for creating the structure, a proxy system, was proposed for experiment; this was very hastily rejected, with attempts to actually delete all record of it. As to my essays, you might read User:Abd/Rule 0. The proposer of WP:PRX was practically immolated, indef blocked, three times, currently considered banned, for the Misplaced Pages equivalent of jaywalking, while clear vandals get three warnings. Currently, there is an AfD for Asset voting which, regardless of its notability according to current standards, suggests a method of electing an assembly which, in fact, avoids ordinary elections. (You won't see this in the article, because there is no source for it other than my own writings here and off-wiki.) Asset Voting was historically proposed (without that name) by Lewis Carroll as a method of improving the results of Single transferable vote, where he suggests that voters who didn't have the knowledge to rank all the candidates could, instead, simply vote for one, and that candidate could manage the vote transfers from there on. Carroll was looking at the problems of purely using a Preferential voting ballot, and he confronted the voter ignorance issue directly: instead of blaming the voter, he cut through the gordian knot that had entangled so many writing on the subject and looked instead at the basic issue of representation. In an Asset Voting system, everyone is represented by a candidate chosen by the person, and it is possible to make this a "standing election." That is, voters can change their votes at any time, and the composition of the assembly could shift. (In my off-wiki proposals, I'd handle this with the creation of additional seats; the seats losing their quota would be able to participate in deliberation for some latency period, or by general consent of the assembly, but they would lose their votes immediately.)

It is possible to retain the direct democracy aspect of Misplaced Pages *and* have a "concentrated" representative system to carry on focused deliberation and even decision based on estimation of general consensus, and to retain the advisory aspect of consensus; all this has been done before, the only really new idea is Delegable proxy, which is quite similar to Asset voting (and the proxy assignments organized as in WP:PRX could be the standing election "ballot"). (Delegable proxy was an article moved from Liquid democracy, an article created way back and at some point deleted, recreated by me as a new editor with no clue about the prior history, and then worked on by others, not by me, eventually expanded, in spite of some protest by me, way beyond normal reliable sourcing standards -- way beyond. I avoided editing the article once I'd realized the COI problem, and did not vote in the AfD which deleted it, though I commented extensively. That article, by the way, was quite informative, it's an example of how a useful article is deleted by the application of notability standards. Similarly, Michael Nordfors was deleted; however, his project that used delegable proxy, Demoex still exists. (Delegable proxy was deleted, what links from that is, I think, Proxy voting which is really a far broader concept.) It is as if the world were tossing Misplaced Pages a rope which could be used to rescue it from the pickle it's in, and Misplaced Pages looks at the rope with suspicion. "Fringe." "POV-pushing." "We don't vote." "Sock puppet heaven!" (Which was preposterous: I was named as a proxy by the proposer, and, immediately, he and I were checkusered. Puppet masters don't explicitly connect themselves with their socks! And in an advisory structure, which is what most voting is about on Misplaced Pages, votes literally don't count, and socks can't invent new arguments. The only reason we have a problem with canvassing and sock votes is that we *do* consider votes more than we should, and we don't have systems for measuring consensus on a broad scale, so a relatively small number of false votes and a relatively small error in sample size or bias due to self-selection can loom large.)

But how to we get from here to there? The fuss over WP:PRX shows how the existing structures don't encourage deliberation; rather, they encourage knee-jerk responses. If someone actually writes in detail, as I tend to do, it is widely decried as "bloviation" or "too much, why don't you boil it down?" Now, when I have a POV to push, when I'm not reflecting and participating in shared deliberation, I have a conclusion and I think it important to convince others of it, I do write far more concisely. It takes much longer than simply reflecting on the topic. I tend to be more of a writer than an editor, though I've been an editor professionally, I can do it.

We need to build structures that build consensus over the process rather than just merely a default "rough" consensus over the results. We have policy and guidelines pages that supposedly reflect consensus but which sometimes do not reflect the actual practice of editors, for most editors don't participate in editing the guidelines pages. (This same kind of deviation is seen, sometimes, in Town Meeting government, where Town Meeting may vote one way over an issue that law requires to be submitted to secret ballot as a general election, and then the voters vote quite differently. It is not, as some might think, that voters are afraid to express themselves at Town Meeting, but that participation in Town Meeting is inconvenient and requires relatively high motivation; in my small town, it was common that a lot of phone calls were made to scare up a quorum of 5% of the registered voters; Town Meeting is self-selected and a biased sample of those very interested in Town business and projects, whereas the general election is a much larger sample, with the larger sample including many voters who haven't considered the issue in depth. No conclusion can be drawn from this about which "side" is right; what's clear is that the communication and trust were not adequate for the Town Meeting and the voters to be in close agreement with each other.)

We don't have deliberative structures. However, we could create those structures, and it takes no central policy to do so. WP:PRX, in spite of its rejection, doesn't require central approval, until and unless we are prepared to forbid the individual expressions of trust that proxy files represent. Indeed, there will be such efforts. The rejection of Esperanza was strange. Esperanza had no power over users who did not choose to participate, and it did not consume resources except from those who voluntarily chose to contribute them. What became clear to me from the common argument against WP:PRX that it was like Esperanza was that, indeed, the similarity was seen: both involved voluntary coordination and organization of coordination among editors. Yet without this organization, Misplaced Pages will be increasingly vulnerable to covert coordination and what might be called "affinity coordination," that is, the bringing of focused attention on some issue by editors who watch each other's Talk pages, follow similar articles, and who will pick out the same issues from the Articles for Deletion lists.

In any case, what attracted your attention, Cacharoth, was some specific examples of the introduction (or the wider use) of examples of the elements of deliberation. What I see as most important, though, is that editors who can see the problems and possible solutions start to formally recognize each other. It happens informally, and that is not enough. WP:PRX is a technique for doing that. If we take Carroll's implementation, and use a preferential "ballot," participants would have more control over proxy recognition on any particular issue. There was a previous Wikimedia proposal that referred to Candidate Proxy, a prior name for Asset Voting, with users naming proxies in various areas. My preference, though, is for the very simplest form, which is a single proxy assignment that may then be varied with special proxy lists set up, say, for Wikiprojects. The special proxy assignment trumps the general proxy assignment for that specific area, but if there is no special proxy assignment, the general proxy stands. This, then is maximally simple from the point of view of the individual user; it complicates the analysis, but not much. And proxy analysis isn't necessary for most purposes; what is really important is the expression of trust involved in assigning a proxy. It has one simple meaning to me: "If I don't participate in some issue, for whatever reason, I trust that the participation of this user will be reasonably trustworthy to represent what I'd conclude, if I did participate." It is not a specific ratification of whatever the proxy does, it is not an implication that the user and proxy would "vote" the same way, but we may assume that "on average," they would, if the assignment is sincere. But there is an additional effect, which is a probable concentration of trustworthiness in proxies which are widely trusted, especially if they are widely trusted by those who are themselves widely trusted.

The actual behavior of delegable proxy we won't know until it has been tried, for some substantial time; hence, the initial proposal was merely to set up the mechanism and see what happens. If nobody uses it, no harm done. No change in policy was proposed. Proxies could not vote in the name of their clients. But those who want to understand the votes in, say, an RfA, might take a look at proxies, particularly if the balance was marginal. Was it truly marginal, or was there major participation bias? How do do this wasn't specified, nor should it be. It would be up to the one who wants to be advised. Which could be WMF, it could be a closing admin, it could be Jimbo, it could be any user who simply wants to understand a result, and possibly, to anticipate what would happen if the user appeals the decision. A decision that got weaker, seen through proxy analysis, would, in theory, have more chance of being reversed on appeal, whereas one that got stronger under such analysis, forget about it. Tools for proxy analysis would be developed that would allow, for example, weighting by number of edits or, perhaps, the disregard of new accounts. Or by any standard that people wanted to use. The basic elements of a delegable proxy system are two: a proxy table, showing proxy assignments for all "members," and a list of participants in some debate or vote. Analysis from that can be done by anyone, and I've advised against it being a central tool: central tools can be corrupted or even openly controlled. --Abd (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your hierarchy of notabilities reminds of the hierarchy of science at WP:PSCI --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice that your hierachy will partially overlap on the lowest stage with specialized wikies like Wookiepedia that currently handles all the fancruft and on the highest stage with Scholarpedia that is handling certain scientific stuff (read the details on its article) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Puppet masters don't explicitly connect themselves with their socks!" LOL, no. There are some stupid sockpupeteers that will out their socks on stupid ways (I have seen it myself, but I'm not going to give names) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it happen by mistake. User:Fredrick day would log out and make outrageous IP edits, signing them "Section 31." One day, he made such an edit and apparently forgot to log out, so there was his edit shown in History, signed "Section 31." He immediately commented, "I don't need this account anyway." And he went on to say he had others. There is another account which made an IP edit acknowledging his user name; it happened to be the same IP that had been used a few times by Fredrick day. I filed an SSP report, and checkuser, and it came back inconclusive. I don't want to mention the user name because, at this point, the presumption is that he's innocent and it was merely a rare coincidence. However, I've been continuing research on it using more advanced analytical techniques. We'll see. It's on the back burner at the moment. In any case, sock puppetry becomes less of a problem with delegable proxy, not more. For starters, it would take some serious sock puppetry to affect proxy expansions much, because I expect analysts to consider things like edit counts. An account that registers and assigns a proxy and doesn't come back is probably going to add no weight at all, but risk detection. I'm sure some will try it. But if it gets to the scale where it could affect things, it could be detected. One fairly simple standard would be to discount proxies from accounts that haven't edited in the last thirty days. Why thirty days? Checkuser evidence expiration. If discounting such proxies shifts results, I'd suspect something was up and would want to look closer at these accounts.--Abd (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see a real mess of a votation, with sockpuppets abounding, go to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3. I'm interested on knowing how delegation proxies would prevent this from happening. Also, please, don't try to remove or strike votes there even if they are obvious socks, since it has already been attempted and it was rebuffed on the talk page on the basis that it's supposed to be done by arbitrators only. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delegable proxy would not, in itself, stop anything from happening. But it makes structure possible that could stop it. Several things need to be done to deal with the problem. Our present RfC process (and an RfA is an RfC) is essentially backwards. As I've been writing later, verdict first, trial later. We need to separate evidence from opinion and conclusions. Evidence is NPOV, we really should know about that! So, first of all, deliberative process: informal discussion can go on with no rules at all, but formal decision making is different. First, there is a motion, and no formal discussion until it is seconded. Then we could have arguments, to be sure, but if we want consensus, we should put argument off, at least argument about the final result. Instead we collect evidence. So an evidence page is built and sourced. Testimony is evidence, but it should be attributed and relevant. *Then* arguments are presented. *Then* when all this has been complete, and there is consensus that it is complete (RRONR requires a 2/3 vote, so much for the myth that Robert's Rules is purely majoritarian), voting takes place. Voting is just a support. Sock puppetry is pretty much irrelevant to the first and second parts. And the third is advisory only.

Now, imagine we do have a proxy system in place, and people are leaning on it. I'd expect to see *fewer* comments, not more. Why bother commenting if it (1) doesn't add anything new and (2) someone you trust is already voting and your proxy will be counted? So while there may be few comments and few votes, they will represent many users. A few odd votes coming in from sock puppets, a drop in the bucket, I'd expect. To have a serious affect, the socking must be serious, and, I predict, pretty visible. Edit count. Word count. Stuff that's hard to fake. Remember, the method of analysis of a proxy expansion is up to the analyst, the one who wishes to be advised (or who is trusted by the one who wishes to be advised). Edit count can be considered, age of accounts, etc. I predict that some fairly sophisticated tools will be built.

But underneath this is a hidden power, that would only become openly manifest if truly needed. A delegable proxy network is like a phone tree. If resources are needed, they'd be available. If an organization has, associated with it, a DP network of most of the users, it can, if somehow it's hijacked or corrupted, be reproduced anew in a flash. Key point: proxies and clients would, I'd expect, have direct contact information. I can say that I wouldn't accept a proxy from someone who wouldn't tell me who he or she was, and I similarly would not give one to such a person. (Some think that people who want power will take proxies from anyone, but you're going to look pretty bad if you have a bunch of illegitimate users who have named you. We might, even, eventually *require* that proxies validate the identity (confidentially, I'd assume) of clients. But that's not crucial in a Free Association context, where votes don't control, they only advise. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all discussions will just be outsourced to the evidence gathering phase, where disruptive editors will try to discard any evidence that they don't like in order to shortcircuit the process before it reaches the phase where it can't be tricked. Which means that you will need a lot of punitive control in order to keep the evidence gathering from running out of control. This shouldn't be much of a problem, mind you, the rules for what is allowed during the evidence gathering phase can probably be refined along the way.

So many technical terms. I suppose that you refer to Robert's Rules of Order. No idea about DP network or phone tree. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. DP = Delegable Proxy. A version of the article which was on Misplaced Pages is at . Yes. RRONR, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. Phone tree. I was shocked to find that Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on this. Google "phone tree" ... anyway, a phone tree is a device commonly used in organizations for contacting everyone quickly. Each member has a list of people to call with some emergency notification, say. The structure is a pyramid. See .

Now, "punitive control." Every person and every meeting of people has the right to protect itself from disruption. Every meeting. We tend to think of Misplaced Pages as one huge organization, but, in fact, what we have is a very large number of small meetings. Protection is not punishment. One of the problems I've seen is that too many administrators lose sight of this; block policy is clear: punishment as a motive for a block is improper. To me, the model Free Association (FA) is Alcoholics Anonymous. There is no blacklist, no list of people who can't attend AA meetings. Individual meetings can decide to expel someone, but they can still go to another meeting. If someone is disruptive, again and again and again, they could eventually get to the point where they can't walk in, but a person would really have to try hard to get to that point.

So every virtual committee should be able to protect itself from disruption. What's disruption? I've seen disagreement be considered disruption, however, this is a wiki, and if someone writes long diatribes, there is no requirement than anyone even read them. Personal attacks are disruptive. Edit warring is disruptive. So how to protect the "virtual committee"? Well, discussions can take place anywhere. One example is that a page can be set up in a user's space: in a user's space, the user is effectively a defacto administrator. 3RR restrictions do not ordinarily apply to a user editing his own pages, and anyone who tries to edit war with a user in their own space will normally get blocked very quickly, and properly so. So editors can meet where they choose. It doesn't have to be in the Talk page for the article they are working on, if there is a problem there. True disruption can be dealt with through blocks, but this requires admin action, and admins are few and far between, in the real article world. So, around administrators, I'd see a penumbra of trusted users (trusted by the administrator) who feed the administrator, and if this is documented, there comes to be a larger group to contact, and it's easier to find someone congenial, someone who will take the time to undertand the problem. When I first encountered a serious sock puppet article ownership situation, and I tried to get admin help, with a 3RR report (blatant 3RR violation by an IP editor who turned out to be about as COI as possible on the topic), I was told "AGF" and other platitudes, thoroughly useless for dealing with a very serious and very experienced sock master. Essentially, the administrator didn't have time to investigate. (We had an exchange about this in my RfAs.)

Delegable proxy builds, spontaneously, networks. It's really the way a nervous system works. The communications load is distributed so that no individual need handle too much information, that's how it's like a phone tree. --Abd (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Soooo, ok, I can see several ways in which the system can be gamed or disrupted. However, it's a waste of time to discuss them unless the test of fire has been done. That's it, the DP system, as far as I know, has not been actually tested on any online participative community where anonimity of accounts is allowed. Part of the reason because the DP proposal was rejected was simply the fact that the proposal has not been executed on any smaller community where the rough parts of the system could be worked out and then designed out of the system.

You see, for online communities, I think that everybody uses the very usual combination of powerless editors + omnipotent administrators appointed by the owner + owner, with the bigger systems having a few community moderators thrown in the mix to facilitate communication between the unwashed mass of users and the upper echelons.

That combination has worked out successfully on many fora, small and big. So, to get it replaced by a new system, you need to be able to showcase a few communities where the DP system has worked successfully. Basically, you are right now trying to start the house by the roof. Nobody online will believe that a RL system works online until they see it working a few times. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that DP hasn't been tested, at least not formally. (DP is what many communities do informally.) But I think you have not thought this all the way through. Not to worry, it's a very new idea and few could manage "thinking it all the way through" at first pass. Where to begin?

WP:PRX was rejected for a whole series of reasons and, I must say, excuses. The most common reason given was "We don't vote." Given that WP:PRX didn't propose voting *at all*, this was a tad frustrating..... It proposed, only, setting up a system whereby users could name another trusted user, which we called a "proxy" because that is what proxies are, trusted. But no powers were assigned to the proxy. None. Later, maybe, the community could decide to do something with this, but that would be highly speculative. WP:PRX merely allowed experimentation with the structure, not with any assignment of powers. The rejection of DP because of power considerations is pretty common. I agree absolutely, I would not hand the car keys to a DP system without seeing some demonstrations, without having some reason to be confident that something unanticipated, and serious, would not happen.

You are again correct about the usual, default power structure. That's what Wikipeida *actually* is, though the "omnipotent" administrators mostly keep their hands off. If it were, in fact, required to believe that DP would help on Misplaced Pages before trying it out, it would, indeed, be as you describe. Now, there still is the belief problem. People -- not just Wikipedians -- appear to be very reluctant to try DP out, even though the cost is about zero, and, in my experience, naming a proxy, developing that relationship (which is really bidirectional), is quite useful. No cost, and I claim it is useful. If people were rational, there would be some trying it! But we are not "rational," or, more accurately, there are other considerations. We have filters protecting us from new ideas, for good reason. And this is the real "bootstrap" problem. However, there is a way around it. Small groups. There is nothing about WP:PRX that requires mass adoption, and it could become useful even if a very small number of users start to play with it. Most people will not, from a casual contact with the idea, even come close to anticipating the ways that it would be useful. Look, it took me several years of writing about this before one person actually paid enough attention to "get it." And get it he did. He sometimes writes about it now, and what he writes is pretty much exactly what I'd write, except he is far more succinct. (This is Jan Kok, co-founder of the Center for Range Voting.) Warren D. Smith, the more famous co-founder, still doesn't get it. Maybe that's because he is a mathematician, whereas Jan is a political activist with a lot of people skills.) There are now a few others. And one of them was a very experienced Wikipedian, very smart, and he got very excited. You know what happened to him. I'd say he still has a tendency to think in terms of control structures.

But my proposals, outside, are almost entirely "FA/DP." Free Association with Delegable Proxy. Free Association is a term I use for a rigorously libertarian structure. Small-l libertarian, not capital-L. No central decision-making to speak of. Voting is advisory only, power remains entirely with the members. Excepting minimal amounts that might be collected for deliberately minimized group expenses -- easily covered by a few members tossing in very small amounts (just like Alcoholics Anonymous, and AA was the inspiration for the FA concept) -- there is no amassing of assets which then requires central decision. Delegable Proxy in such a situation has one basic purpose: to facilitate the voluntary communication, cooperation, and coordination of members who use it.

Now, in fact, FA/DP could be seen as dangerous, and I think that intuitions about this are part of the reason for rejection. What's the danger? It is the classic danger of democracy. What if the people actually do start acting coherently? Imagine you are a long-time Wikipedian. You have helped craft policies and guidelines to protect your vision of the project. What if the great mass of editors, most of whom haven't read the guidelines, suddenly had power? Would they support the existing policies and procedures? Or would they wreck the place? (And if someone is thinking like this, they probably don't think of a third possibility.) But, let me say, simply, it won't happen. FA/DP, if implemented in anything like what I'd propose, would be extremely safe. It would be highly unlikely to undertake destructive change. The DP structure, I believe, will tend to concentrate wisdom, not ignorance. Inexperienced Wikipedians, once they realize that they might name a proxy, won't pick some other newbie, usually, they will pick an experienced Wikipedian whose work they have seen and admire, and who is willing to help them integrate with the community. The fear of the great unwashed taking over is a very common one in volunteer organizations once they have reached a certain size. But, in fact, we can look at, say, Town Meeting government. The people aren't nearly as ignorant and self-serving as we sometimes fear, I've seen these "ordinary citizens" in action.

So there are at least two safeguards: first of all, my claim that the structure would concentrate wisdom or "trustworthiness," and, secondly, it is all advisory. WMF can watch what is going on and could pull the plug on anything. This kind of voluntary relationship between players is typical of FAs. In AA, there is a board which holds copyrights and the like, and publishes literature. That's Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. It's a standard board structure. Legally, the board, I think, is self-appointed, but, just like WMF (with at least some board seats), the AAWS board traditionally respects the election of board members by the AA World Service Conference, which is a delegate body. (Itself interesting, how the delegates are election -- by supermajority, ordinarily -- I'm pretty sure Bill W. would have been quite interested in DP.)

And we have to consider the alternative. Nonprofit volunteer organizations tend, in the long run, to go in a number of directions, if they meet with reasonable success. Very commonly, they become professional. Staff is hired. And staff preserve their own interests. Positions that were volunteer initially become paid positions, which is connected with grants being obtained. The public they serve, initially very involved, initially thinking of the project as "theirs," increasingly views the project as "theirs." And then there is increasing difficulty attracting voluntary public support, and increasing dependence on grants. However, if they continue to perform a valuable service, they may be able to keep things in balance. Many long-time nonprofits are like this. But they are no longer innovative, and they tend to become highly conservative. (Please don't think of this as any kind of condemnation of traditional structures. They work. But not for certain things.)

If it's correct that the mass of editors would change things, if they could (i.e., if they were organized such that they could act coherently), then Misplaced Pages is swimming upstream. Because of the excitement of the project and its possibilities, we have been able to attract new editors as the old ones burn out. But why did we burn out editors in the first place? It's all that swimming upstream!

People thinking of DP for the first time often think of power flowing upward, of "voting." But one of the major effects of DP that I'd expect is movement of information and advice in the opposite direction. Consider a mature DP structure: there are a relatively small number of members who are highly trusted, and, because this is a relatively small group, traditional techniques for finding consensus in small groups should function well. (Misplaced Pages uses some of these, not others, and, because the understanding of the process tends to be not explicit, it often fails to be effective at finding genuine consensus but only a "rough consensus," which can indeed be rough on a minority of participants! And, sooner or later, everyone is in the group that gets roughed up. So to speak.) The small group negotiates, on behalf of the whole group, and with constant feedback and validation from the whole group, efficiently, consensus. This consensus is then communicated out to the members, through their proxies.' Someone they trust explains to them why, no, they can't use the story their Uncle Fred told them as a source for the article. They have a real person to talk to about an issue they might have with policies and guidelines, someone who will listen to them, and, indeed, if the client comes up with some cogent argument that hasn't already been well-considered, they will take it up the structure.

That's a mature system. But it will function something like this even when it it is really small. A few hundred editors using delegable proxy, especially if a few of them were quite active, would be a major force for the improvement of the project.

"Improvement? Why improvement? Maybe they'd wreck the project!"

Well, I doubt it. Why bother? If this is what a few hundred editors wanted to do, they could do it already, and it would be quite difficult to stop them. We proposed WP:PRX for on-wiki formalization of the network of trust. It could be done off-wiki (with or without harmful intent; indeed, it seems quite possible that the first structures like this will be off-wiki, which certainly isn't how I'd have preferred it, but, in FA/DP theory, the independence of the communication structures between members from any central control is a crucial concept. AA doesn't control, at all, the individual meetings, which is where the large bulk of communication happens in AA.)

Misplaced Pages is highly suspicious of voluntary organizations of editors. That's what is behind the rejection of Esperanze and of the Association of Mediation Advocates. The fear is that these would push some POV. But the POV pushing is happening anyway, in two ways: through external organizations that are sometimes quite sophisticated as to how they manipulate Misplaced Pages. How do I know that they exist? Well, it's an inference from this: there have been clumsy efforts, that were easily detected. The value of the manipulation of information on Misplaced Pages is high, enough to fund serious consultants and people who aren't going to make those stupid mistakes. So, I infer, it's happening. I'd expect a serious organization to dedicate time to develop users who do nothing but stellar work, gain admin status, and more. Just think: what could you do to Misplaced Pages with patience and a few million dollars?

The other way it happens is through the relatively unconscious cultural biases of the body of active editors. Because we have no way of measuring broad consensus (a few hundred votes on something is unusual, with, what, six million registered editors?) we really don't know whether the core group is serving the larger group or serving itself. Don't get me wrong. The way that Misplaced Pages works is, in some ways, brilliant. And FA/DP is actually a way to preserve that against pressures that would naturally -- and by precedent -- lead in a quite different direction.

Remember Rule Number One? Increasingly, it is becoming obsolete. In my RfA, I was asked what the most important rule or policy was that would guide my work. I answered, "Rule Number One, Ignore all rules. I was practically pilloried. Well, not really, I still had about 50% which was pretty good for, I think it was,"[[Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." But it does mean that what is best for the project can never be captured in a fixed set of rules. Increasingly, though, we see dependence on the guidelines as if they were controlling and to even suggest something different is disruptive. Instead of guidelines being expressions of actual practice, not controlling practice but enabling people to predict, reasonably well, how the community will decide in a situation, they become true rules, laws, statutes to be interpreted literally with attention to the exact letter.

A common example is the issue of reliable sourcing for things that are, in fact, well-known. Absolutely, we should have reliable source for everything that people might possibly question. But what I've seen is the use of WP:RS to remove material that is not at all controversial. The material is verifiable, say, for example, by mention in hundreds of independent posts on mailing lists and wikis and blogs and web pages, none of which are RS. The text in the article attributes the material, so that in the event that the material, say, turns out to be a false rumor that simply spread all over the place (I've seen some of those start with the insertion of some propaganda on Misplaced Pages!), what the text said was still true. "According to So-and-so,"... The basic policy is verifiability. Then the proper question would be article balance, and the really basic question: does this text serve the purpose of making the project, intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge," more complete and more useful, in addition to being more interesting. This question is, in actual practice, decided normally by editorial consensus. The problem arises when somebody not familiar with the topic of the article pops in and, without consensus, removes material considered to be unsourced, citing sourcing policies. Or impeaches a source that the editors had concluded was adequate for the specific situation. (For example, for some purposes and under some conditions, blogs and web pages and mailing list posts can be considered verification for text in an article. I personally insist upon attribution in those cases, and I don't use those locations for "fact," other than the fact of some expression by the author.)

In order to have the original concept of the project survive the problems of scale, we need means of finding consensus on a large scale. If we can accomplish this, we can meet the challenge of scale, stop burning out editors, and recruit, in fact, all of humanity for the project to collect the "sum of all human knowledge." Right now, people put what they know in the encyclopedia, having been told that it is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and they get their fingers burnt, all too often. Delegable Proxy, proposed simply as an experiment by setting up the proxy assignment mechanisms and proxy reporting (Proxy Tables), without any specification of how it is to be used, is a step toward the possibility of this vision.

By the way, it took Jan Kok, one of the smartest people I've communicated with, about a year to get it, though when he got it, he got is all the way. Our Wikipedian friend is likewise very bright, but it took him a few months, and he still doesn't see the whole thing, I think. Of course, Jan is about twice his age. I'm in no hurry in the sense that I know that it will take time, it seems to take most people about a year of exposure to the idea before it starts to sink in. That will change when there are functioning demonstration projects, probably within the next year. Most people need to see concrete examples.

Misplaced Pages, when it works, is efficient. That is, to decide on content for the article on widgets, we don't need to hold a vote of six million editors. Or even a vote of an editorial board with twelve members, or ArbComm. Normally, it's one editor, or two or three. If they agree, fine. Done. If not, a few more people get involved.

But there are too many places and ways in which the efficiency breaks down. Flagged revisions, I predict, is going to ease this, but FA/DP was designed for efficiency. And explaining that I won't do today, except to say that FA/DP process naturally involves only the minimum effort necessary to find a functioning consensus; it expands participation, again efficiently, only when needed. It is almost as if it was designed for Misplaced Pages. But it wasn't. --Abd (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

re: vandal voting schemes

I checked the contribution histories of the major players in the recent debate. They're all newer accounts than the last time. Of course, it could be a sockpuppet account - there's never any way to be sure. But the editing styles appear different from what I remember. I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the vandal from last time. I want to say that the username started with an l or 1 but I'm not sure of that. It was several years back. If I find it in the history, I'll drop you a note. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IP check

Regarding this diff (and the request for an explanation), you may be interested to know Lucasbfr is regularly involved in clerking the many checkuser subpages. The content in question was moved to the IP check archive per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#IP check. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll check to make sure, but I assume that I've already been reverted. Let me suggest to Lucasbr that a more descriptive edit summary would be useful, like "Clerk clearing page," but no big deal. I just happened to be watching Recent Changes and saw that massive removal of material, and the fastest way to question it was to revert it, something that, if it was legitimate, I'd expect to be rapidly undone and do no harm in the meanwhile, and less trouble, in fact, than answering an inquiry.... My apologies for any inconvenience. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No trouble at all (well, at least not for me). :) Grateful to have people watching the checkuser subpages, and having put in a good bit of time on RC patrol myself, I can certainly see why that got your attention! Thanks for that. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks =)

Thanks for your words of humor (I chuckled) and advice on my RFA analysis. I'll definitely keep all that in mind. and I probably won't even touch these new buttons for a few days! (especially not while I have this bucket on my head) ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know, policy and guidelines play second fiddle to actual practice. Therefore you should make sure to keep the bucket firmly in place while pressing the buttons or swinging the mop. Otherwise you might have a point of view, and you would then be POV-pushing. If, by any accident, you should see anything with one eye, make sure to keep the other eye firmly closed, or else you might fall into depth perception, seeing things from more than one point of view simultaneously, and we all know how confused this can make us. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re recent comments to my comments on WP:CANVASS

Thanks again for your comments. They were very useful. Now that the current AFD is over, I've added a notice to our project page as a general method of notifying potentially interested editors of current and closed deletion debates. Here. I would appreciate your feedback as this section in-light of the Canvassing guidelines. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

French presidential election 2007

I have replyied to you: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Help_me.2C_French_presidential_election.2C_2007 ]] Before accusing me of edit warring, why did you delete my edit with no explication Blanchisserie 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(this editor was mistaken, I didn't delete any edits of his. I've also informed the editor how to sign comments, most of my discussion of this is on the editor's Talk page or on the Talk page for the admin who previously blocked him. There, he claimed that another editor had told him to "fuck off." I asked for the exact French. He responded here: --Abd (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Point. Va voir ailleurs." can be translated by "fuck off" Blanchisserie 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can be." It also appears to mean: "No. See you around." Which is quite arguably dismissive, i.e., could "mean" the same as "fuck off," but is far more polite. In English. Now, I'd defer on this to a neutral editor who could judge the colloquial French. Nevertheless, the edit in question, appears to be mildly uncivil, of a kind of incivility that is far too common. Translated, part of it is, "Misplaced Pages is not here so you can have your publicity." Which was just plain unnecessary and, indeed, insulting. However, Blanchisserie, this is Misplaced Pages. Many editors are uncivil to this level. Yet we still must find ways to cooperate. You are a COI editor. If you edit war on the article -- and it seems you are -- you will be blocked. Calm down and work patiently, seek consensus, and you might get your link, or not, I can't predict. My impression, though, is that yes, the link may be appropriate. Though as a site in French, it might not be appropriate for en.wiki, a separate question. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, You have written in the Talk page "Blanchisserie here asserts that he is an academic. (1) Blanchisserie, please provide documentation of this, it will help" I am an academic of Université Paris 8, but I do not want my real identity revealed in Misplaced Pages or Internet, so what can I provide for my assertion ? -Blanchisserie 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)-

Probably you can't. However, the issue is the web site. I don't personally doubt you, but what is the source of information for the web site? Why should it be trusted? I think you might realize that if authorship or editorship of the web site is anonymous, it cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Part of being an academic is that one's personal reputation is on the line if one is deceptive or simply wrong. What solution do you see to this problem? --Abd (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not think about this, I am going to amend the web site so as to clearly identify the source of information and the purpose. -Blanchisserie 06:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talk • contribs)

AfD nomination of Donna Upson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donna Upson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GreenJoe 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:GreenJoe retired, comments

This comment was placed on User talk:GreenJoe, however, GreenJoe reverted it,, with the edit summary, "violated rules," thus continuing the pattern. GreenJoe has a perfect right to remove whatever he likes from his Talk page, though the right declines when edit summaries become abusive. This summary wasn't quite abusive, though I do wonder what rule was violated. So little time, so many unanswered questions.... --Abd (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

GreenJoe has announced his retirement, here and in various places, apparently over disputes regarding his repeated nomination of Donna Upson for deletion. GreenJoe was a long-time, very active user, and I found it puzzling that he would bail over what, on the surface, would seem a mild disagreement by Misplaced Pages standards. GreenJoe was never blocked. However, reviewing his Talk page history, I found some troubling edits. He'd been warned many times, and reverted some of the warnings with an abusive edit summary. Most recent first:

00:45, 22 June 2008 warning from Shereth "disruption"(stands)

21:48, 21 June 2008 warning from DoubleBlue "personal attack" (stands)

The above warnings have not been reverted, and are part of the incident over which GreenJoe has abruptly retired. However, further back, there are these:

00:05, 6 June 2008 GJ reverts warning over behavior similar to his behavior in the current AfD flap, as "rm stupidity." (Similar to his reply to me in Talk:Donna Upson of "reply to moron.)

• Green Joe responds, however, to the user, with , "I offer my apologies. I've had a long, crappy day and it's no excuse for my not assume good faith myself. GreenJoe 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"

23:57, 5 June 2008 (similar to above, I think it's related. Same user)

• Green Joe dropped a vandalism tag on the user's Talk page for an edit (next day he apologizes).

02:33, 2 June 2008 GJ clears Talk page. Included were these comments:

• I'd also ask you to consider that you have a bit of a habit of simply ignoring established consensus if it conflicts with how you personally think things should be. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's actual policies and precedents, because you appear to approach a lot of situations with an attitude of pure tendentiousness. For example, calling somebody petty just because they don't agree with you, even if they're being as polite and civil about it as User:Nat was, is inappropriate Misplaced Pages behaviour. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• For starters, non-admins are allowed to close XfD discussions that don't require deletion. Admins hold no more authority over any other editor. I'm not sure what you think you'll accomplish with a TFD nomination of Template:WPCanada Navigation. There is about a snowballs chance in hell of it being deleted. Would you mind at least explaining why on earth it should be deleted? Even your nomination text doesn't make any sense. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, I removed your prod of the Student Christian Movement of Canada, and then you accused me of COI, saying that I was the one who wrote the article. Thanks, but wrong. User:Paul foord created it, not me. Your actions here may appear to some as terse and rude, so it might behoove you to be aware of who you are accusing of what. Peace out. --Eclipse98 (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Your recent comments are becoming uncivil. Please stop. Several editors have brought up valid concerns about your votes, and responding with "get a life" and posting templated messages telling people to AGF doesn't help the situation. Please stop. Thanks. Al Tally 13:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is more, quite a bit more, but GreenJoe's habit of responding to comments on his Talk page with replies on the commenting user's Talk page makes it tedious to research. I'm not preparing an ArbComm case here! I'm simply interested in what causes a user to get so upset that they retire over what might seem to be a fairly small disagreement. What I see is a pattern of incivility, with hints that it is related to off-wiki stress. I'd suggest one thing: if we are too stressed to explain edits and AfD nominations in proper detail, perhaps we are too stressed to edit Misplaced Pages, and taking a break would be a good idea. Getting attached to results in the Misplaced Pages environment is just about guaranteed to make anyone uncivil! GreenJoe made quite a mess with the incorrect naming of his AfDs for Donna Upson, and it's only partly been undone. That's a sign of someone in a hurry, he was not a stranger to AfDs. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD comments

I have replied to you on my user-talk page, and would welcome your reply. - Arcayne () 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

I've removed your personal attack on another editor. I think it's better if you don't restore it. Please be careful about making comments that appear to be intended only to attack the good faith of well established editors. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, AOANLAT. I edited out what was less relevant to the AfD and put it back, leaving a diff to the full material. As to "attack" on the "good faith of well-established editors," what in the world are you talking about? Good faith was not attacked, for one. Behavior was described, and, I'd submit, accurately. Killerofcruft asked a question, and, from review of his history, it had an obvious answer. He is practically an SPA, as implied by his name, which has been noted by many. He's all over AN/I the last two days. He can be an SPA, but just as we might discount !votes from, say, Kmweber under some circumstances, it's relevant, in fact, that an editor has a strong deletionist agenda, just as it would be relevant if an editor clearly votes Keep on everything without any consideration of the particulars of the article. 'Nuff said, for now; if you care to discuss this further, you are welcome to do so.--Abd (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: about User:Killerofcruft

(comment left on User talk:Arcayne)

Since you seem to have befriended this user and are working with him, you might warn him about his behavior, it looks like he's trying to get himself sanctioned. You are welcome to look at my contributions and his, of course. I hadn't looked at his contributions for days, though he seems to think I'm wikistalking him, but I did just look, and it seems he is preparing evidence for an RfC or AN/I report over me. He narrowly escaped blocking yesterday, and, as I pointed out in today's AN/I report over his behavior, the AN/I report yesterday closed with a mention that it was adequate as a warning; yet he, as I point out today, dismissed it as a "lot of crap." If he keeps this up, he's not long for editing here. (I could document, solidly, every "accusation" I've made regarding him, but haven't considered it necessary, since I was *not* arguing that he should be blocked, quite the contrary, in the first AN/I report. That might change if he continues on this suicidal course.) So.... a word to the wise? A stitch in time?--Abd (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I will let him know. It bears pointing out that you and I haven't had the best of interactions, either, and I know from personal experience that when you don't agree with someone, you do tend to snipe at the other guy and poison the well of editorial discussion. As well, the unsubstantiated accusation of sock-puppetry that Killerofcruft notes was never withdrawn or apologized for, and you doing so might have gone a long way to avoiding the situation. Lastly, if keeping a sandbox/sidepage of unfortunate interactions was against the rules, I can name at least three editors who would be blockety-block-blocked 'til the cows came home. It isn't, on its face, uncivil or telling of bad faith; on the other hand, watching his edits (how else would you know of the sandbox additon?) opens yourself to claims of wikistalking and harassment.

As previously noted, I will let him know that I believe he is stepping over the line (I happen to agree with you there). Maybe the both of you could step away from each other for a bit. - Arcayne () 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about poisoning the well. No complaint was made or intended about that sandbox, I was simply pointing to it to show you his probable intentions, which are, in my opinion, next to wiki-suicidal. If he files the complaint, I'd be forced to document all of what I've stated, and I am not trying to get him blocked, but that could. He has a perfect right to use his sandbox as he is, I saw nothing there that crossed any boundary, and he has a conditional right to use RfC or AN/I, provided that he understands that it will focus even more attention on him. I pinged you because you have probably the best chance of stopping him; if I wanted him blocked, I certainly would not have warned you.

As to prior interactions, I have a short memory. I suspected what you just stated, but, in fact, I assume good faith except when the reverse is staring me in the face. I'm not bothering to look back at the prior interactions. I'm a little troubled about your encouragement of Koc's "attack," "nuke" mode of dealing with non-notable material, it tends to increase the battlefield aspect of Misplaced Pages, the opposite of what we need, but we can leave that aside.

As to the sock puppetry, I didn't make the original "accusations." Koc still looks like a sock to me, very much like a sock of a banned user. The question, really, is which one. If he behaved with his prior account as he is behaving now, almost certainly he was either blocked or on his way to it. I realize that this is far less than conclusive, but recent interactions have started to raise suspicion on my part to the point where I am increasingly motivated to file an SSP report. The first AN/I report on him actually suggested it. He's been treading on thin ice, and *most* of it has nothing to do with me. The difference with me is that I've been telling him what he's doing, suggesting again and again that he back off. He seems to take that as a challenge.

I'm not seeking him out. But I do see stuff, and I comment on it. He edit-warred on the AfD being discussed in AN/I today. I didn't take it there. Because he may have been technically correct as to the AfD itself, as to the article itself, he's found some support there. But the edit warring is the problem. And in that AfD, he is arguing tendentiously, responding to nearly every comment he disagrees with, with it often getting personal. He's attracting other users questioning whether or not he is a sock. If he is actually going to dive into AfD process, he'd have to have a thick skin, and simply not respond when people make irrelevant comments about his person. I could say more, but it enters more speculative realms, I'll just say that it is entirely possible he knows exactly what he is doing.

Are you aware, Arcayne, of how he came to my attention? It was over an AfD for the article on Donna Upson, and I noticed that because User:Durova, whose Talk I watch, had been solicited, effectively, to comment (she didn't put enough time into it and totally missed the evidence, as did many -- I'd say all -- of the Delete voters.) The article isn't marginal. Killerofcruft registered in the middle of that AfD and immediately voted in it. Now, Arcayne, you've been around. What does that look like? Within a few days, Killerofcruft was featured on AN/I for entirely other reasons. I intervened there, mentioned two obvious puppet masters, and then stated that I didn't think the evidence warranted SSP at the time. I was more concerned about the incivility, which was continuing in a pattern quite similar to that of User:GreenJoe, who had "retired" as a result of running into a stone wall of community consensus (and who was likewise becoming uncivil, in similar ways).

It's not necessary for you to become familiar with all the history; I commented on your Talk just because I thought you could help. He's obviously not going to respond to my suggestions and advice, hence you. If he files that complaint, it's all going to come out in fully-documented form; every edit that he complains about had evidence behind it, it was not merely speculation, nor was it personal attack; I already write too much, if I'd documented everything it would have taken twice as long. Let's put it this way. I occasionally predict that if an editor continues as they are, they will be blocked. I've not been wrong yet, it typically hasn't taken more than a few days. If I recall correctly, two editors have filed AN reports on me. One is community banned (and was blocked immediately upon filing the report) and the other is indef blocked. And is a reasonable possibility for the puppet master here, if there is one. That particular block evader vandalized my web page in the midst of an incident with Koc involved. Could be a coincidence. Or not. He's tricky, uses multiple ISPs to avoid checkuser, has shown himself utterly unconcerned by being blocked, laughs at it. Viciously uncivil. Killerofcruft is not responsible -- yet -- for what User:Fredrick day was like. But, to add on little straw to the load on the camel's back, Fd was a cruft-killer, crusader against non-notability, taking losses, apparently, personally. So, Arcayne, one caveat: be careful. Help him, give him every opportunity to show that he is sincere in wanting to improve the encyclopedia, but don't go so far in that mud tossed at him ends up splattered on you. --Abd (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, and agree that his entry into the AfD right after registering smells like Fisherman's Wharf, but without an rfcu or SSP result, it's just bad faith to even suggest socking. I am not saying he isn't a sock - if he is, he will screw up at some point and be found out. Wackiness will ensue, amidst a great gnashing of teeth and likely bitter recriminations. Until then, it's best to accentuate the positive. I am not defending his combative attitude, and had even gone so far as to counsel him on how to dial it back.

And it looks like he's turned the corner on this. While it's a bit cynical to believe its a Christmas Miracle, I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for the best. It sounds like you are ready to do that as well. My fingers are crossed as well. - Arcayne () 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Human beings are, in case you haven't noticed, complicated. I have had no vendetta or crusade going against KoC -- who has now changed his name, which we could hope is a good sign, though roses and leopards, etc., I have merely commented when I considered that it served the purposes of the project. I'm not personally involved with *any* of the articles which have been touched. I'm an inclusionist, yes, but, frankly, don't care that much to risk my account over fighting for it, I have more important work to do than to struggle over the details of fancruft or other obscurities, or, for that matter, over the details of Misplaced Pages guidelines. I'm seeking systemic solutions, i.e., solutions to how we make decisions, not pushing for some particular decision. And incivility is a big thing for me, I've seen it do major damage, contributing to user burnout and flameout. There is a difference between describing behavior -- without pushing for some specific conclusion, such as Block the Bastard! Sock Puppet! Troll!, and incivility. If the description is gratuitous, yes, it can be a problem. Sometimes I have, with an article, a POV. You don't see me running to AN/I because someone calls me a "POV-pusher," because it can be relevant. If "POV-pusher" becomes all the person says, then, maybe I would. When I was accused of being a sock puppet (rather preposterously, but never mind), I didn't attack the persons, I just calmly responded, if needed, and ignored it, if nothing was needed. If one is going to get involved with contentious matters on Misplaced Pages, there is going to be incivility, but we can try to keep it down. When it comes to editor behavior, if an editor is behaving in a manner known to be common among banned users returning as socks, it is quite appropriate to notice it with comment. It is not appropriate to treat the user like shit, nor, I believe, to block the user if the user is not being disruptive. But in this case, there was behavior that was disruptive (that's part of the pattern!). Discussion of this is legitimate, but it should be civil. Most of it was. The charges of bad faith made by the user, against many, not just against me, quite simply, were not warranted, even if the comments were incorrect. I don't see any evidence of some agenda involved in pursuing or harassing this user. Rather, his behavior was distressing many, and that is (with some caveats) the very definition of disruptive. The caveats are important. What this user intends to do is going to distress some. But the basic intention, properly done, isn't disruptive in itself. It is *how* that it is done that becomes very important. If he -- or you -- are going to be seriously pursuing "cruft" and "non-notable" articles, I highly recommend becoming the very soul of politeness and caution and willingness to see the other side, indeed, to help the other side when you can. You will be more effective, and you will be a worthy adversary for the dedicated inclusionists. Misplaced Pages benefits from healthy debate, but civility is crucial to this, for when incivility arises, the whole discussion can be derailed and can be made for reasons other than the welfare of the project.

mKR Sources page

I put some references you probably don't have in User:Rhmccullough/Sandbox/Sources.html Rhmccullough (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have a completely new aspect of mKR for you. If you give me your email address, I'll forward the exchange I just had with Clint Jeffery. Rhmccullough (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I had another inspiration. see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Grey_Knight#mKR_sources Rhmccullough (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance regarding Star Trek article block

First, I thank you for your receptiveness and opennesss.

Second, I was most definitely not engaged in a war of any kind. My understanding of the three-revert rule was not it does not apply to obvious vandalism. To me, arbitrary removal of sourced content (this is what I perceived, let's be clear; obviously the blocking admin did not agree) is vandalism and not subject to protection from reverts. The blocking admin's condescending tone suggests that he really didn't care about the facts. A look at his talk page appears to show at least one other user who had issues with him. So be it.

I have told him politely that I will submit an admin abuse notice. At the same time, if you look at the Star Trek discussion page, you'll see that I posted a question regarding just what is a "fan film" -- perhaps clarifying that will lead to better discussion and better pages. I want to be helpful.

17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel ()

I understand that you thought you were doing right. Because that possibility existed, and you did not disregard a warning, a 24-hour block was inappropriate. Sometimes a very short block is used, and that *might* have been justified here. For me to conclude more than this would require more research than I can handle right now.

I don't see that you told the admin -- except maybe on your Talk page, which he might not be watching (or might) -- that you planned to file an "admin abuse notice." On your Talk page, I recommend, immediately, you strike that out. You can change your mind later. It does *no* good to threaten it. Strike out by placing <s> before the text you are striking and </s> after it. Add a note that you are going to try to work it out with the administrator.

Then go to the administrator's Talk page and make the polite request I mentioned. Very important: Assume good faith is a major guideline. Used to be called a policy, but it's hard to enforce. Assume that the administrator made an innocent error, that it was not abuse, but a simple mistake. That's probably the case, you know. Be extra careful to avoid blame. It is *much* easier -- and safer -- to try to resolve something at this level than to go through formal process. Don't even *think* about formal process unless all else has failed. It can seriously backfire, for starters. One step at a time. Try it. More than half the time, it will work, possibly more than that, it depends on the administrator, there are a few (fortunately relatively few) who seem to have an attitude of "whatever I did was right, and I ain't about to change my mind." Don't expect that and you probably won't see it!

Now, about your signature. Sign with this: ~~~~. That's all, four tildes, and it will put the time and Talk page stuff in automatically, you do *not* add it manually. One possible glitch: your preferences shouldn't be set to any signature at all. Sometimes users think they should put their name in there. Don't, until and unless you know what you are doing. If something is there, take it out and everything should work fine. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rhmccullough user space and External References

I'm sorry that I have irritated you with my "obstinate" behavior. Because of my inexperience, I did not understand the policy re: user space until yesterday. When you deleted my edits from mKR space, and told me not to put anything in mKR space, I thought that meant that I was supposed to "hide" everything in my user space. I never understood that it was acceptable to talk to others about my user space, and to "point" them to my user space for clarification.

For me, exactly the same reasoning applies to my External References. I previously thought I had to "hide" all my External References. If I have finally understood you, I am free to mention External References on any talk page, and to "point" others to specific areas of http://mKRmKE.org/ for clarification.

That is why I got mad, and rebelled against the "censorship". It was my understanding, at that time, that I was forbidden to talk about my user space, and forbidden to show any one my user space. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It's important to understand this. You did not understand what was being said to you, and you made assumptions about it instead of asking for clarification. Then you responded as if something was happening that wasn't. Misplaced Pages is a very large community, which has developed it's own relatively unique process. It is very easy to misunderstand it. The core of active users, the ones who really run the place, is probably about 500 people. Most of them will bend over backwards to help you. If you ask. Some will help you just because they notice that you need help. If you accept it. And others will see you only through the tinted lenses of their point of view. These would just as soon watch you step on thorns as to remove them from your path. When you make a clueless comment, they will jump on it and try to use it against you or for whatever their agenda is. In short, this is a human community. Big surprise!

I advised you to not comment in the AfD. You went ahead and did, so, voluminously. I'm probably going to move that to Talk. You, theoretically, have the right to move it back, once, but I don't advise it. Someone else will move it back if they think it useful there, and then that person will be responsible for the irritation of the administrator has he or she has to read through something not relevant to the matter being considered. If mKR isn't notable -- by Misplaced Pages standards, which may have nothing to do, directly, with absolute importance -- then all your comments about why you think it important and others should think so too, and the history of the ideas, and all that, are irrelevant.

Misplaced Pages depends for vetting subject on the vast network of outside publicatinos, publications which have something to lose if they waste space on non-notable stuff.

Suppose you have just discovered the answer to, say, global warming. You have found a micro-organism that magically fixes it, and all people need to do is put a pot of this stuff in their yard and feed it. So you go to Misplaced Pages and announce it. What is wrong with this picture?

Misplaced Pages isn't the place to announce it. It isn't a community bulletin board. There are other wikis which would welcome the announcement. That's not what Misplaced Pages is for. It is not a place to publish original research, period. Go to any traditional encyclopedia, and look for articles on the latest discoveries, found just before publication. Unless they received wide notice in print before the encyclopedia publication, there won't be any mention of them. Misplaced Pages isn't simply a wiki, it is a wiki used to create an encyclopedia, which is a "compendium of all human knowledge," and you have to gloss "knowledge" to understand this properly. It doesn't mean anything that anyone knows. It means knowledge which is shared more than minimally. I'd disagree, I'd say that the standard for notability should be far lower, but I won't go there now, because that idea is currently irrelevant. Misplaced Pages must as constituted, restrict what it has articles on to what can be "reliably sourced." That is not crisply defined, so we do have a little wiggle room, but not much. Look around for information on mKR. Most of it has been written by you. Your mailing list on yahoogroups, that is really almost an announcement list, not an active user community. Notability of mKR is marginal, unless there is more of an interested community than we see. There are signs that this larger community exists -- if there were not, I'd have given up -- but unless that larger community has left some usable traces somewhere, the article will go.

That isn't going to hurt mKR, Mr. McCullough. People who want to find it will still be able to find it. But if you want mKR to survive as more than a footnote, there is going to have to be a user community that is far more active. And encouraging that community should be, I'd suggest, your number one priority. And this has very little to do with Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages will not stand or fall based on whether it keeps or deletes the article, now or in the future. Nor will you.

You find that micro-organism? What do you do? Try to interest *one* person. If you can't get one person to be interested enough to do something about it, you aren't going to find a community and you aren't going to convince the world, even if you are right as rain. Once you have one person, the two of you will find it twice as easy to find a third, and so forth. One of the problems with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it seems to tend to be radically individualist, overlooking the fact that human beings evolved to be social animals. If we didn't function as coherent communities, we'd be individuals, sure, and we might even survive, but how? You are an engineer. Imagine engineering with no standardization of components. If everyone makes screws according to their own concept of what the "best screw" would be, well, we might have some better screws, maybe, but we wouldn't have mass production and then the low cost of screws and then all the sophisticated engineering that doesn't even have to consider, much, what the ideal screw is. It uses what is available, and because of the mass production, plenty is available. mKR will not survive you if that community does not develop, and the best time for it to develop is before you are gone. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and I accept it intellectually. But my emotions still say that "things are notable because they are valuable." My intellect has to remind me that "notability is not caused by value." Rhmccullough (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. "Notability" is Misplaced Pages speak for "Noticed." It means actual notice, to the extent that reliable source is created. Misplaced Pages is about what has been noticed in that way. Now, the edges of that are not crisp. I have argued that, in fact, if two people agree that something is notable, and those people are trustworthy -- which requires a definition of that -- then it is noticed. This is a radical inclusionist standard, and it requires, to be usable, something that we don't currently have, an article hierarchy. There is a tool that has been developed and implemented in the MediaWiki software called Flagged Revisions, which allows certain revisions to be flagged. And then the default display for readers might be only revisions with a certain flag, and only a certain class of users can add that flag. It is under debate now. The intention is to create at least two layers of articles: the "validated" or "verified" versions of articles and the "working versions" that anyone can edit. To see the working versions, one may have to be logged in, in order to be able to set a preference. As an example, it is all being debated. But this leads to an obvious possibility, what I'd call a "Submitted layer." A deeper layer, and no deletion except for hoaxes, obvious nonsense, or illegal content. This is Pure Wiki Deletion, actually. Simply blanking an article does it, in effect. The submission layer would not be googleable, probably, to answer the concerns about spam. However, anyone could read the content. We'd get rid of AfD entirely, and thus of the most contentious area of Misplaced Pages space. AfD is an editor-killer, in my observation. And *nobody* likes seeing the content that they spent hours on simply deleted, and even to see it you have to go begging to an adminstrator. *They* can see it, and this gives them one more editorial advantage, which they are not supposed to have (there are about 1600 administrators, but only a few hundred are substantially active, I think.) ..... --Abd (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attack page

You may wish to comment at An/I about your attack page. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

relations and hierarchies

Diligent Terrier is back, and with one stroke of his editor's pen, he has virtually destroyed the mKR article.

(See same topic at bottom of mKR talk page.)

With that section deleted, I'm no longer proud of the article.

It is unbelievable how little understanding he has.

Rhmccullough (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. You wrote a piece of an article in your Sandbox. That was pretty good, I thought. It's not for Misplaced Pages, probably. Get it published somewhere else!!!

Misplaced Pages isn't for writers, it's for plagiarists, as long as they keep it fuzzy enough, and editors. You cannot be the author of that article.

Get something published somewhere else, somebody other than you can put it in an article here.

I've said a number of times that the MKR article might have to be stubbed. That means cut back to the minimum that can be established with reliable source. Take a look at some related languages, you'll see that some of the articles are very short, even if they may be more notable (not "more important," that's something different) than mKR.

If we can get a stubbed article out of danger of deletion, it's possible to expand it carefully. I think I explained this before. Many articles have "marginal" sources. Look at sourcing for Resource Description Framework! That article could run into trouble, but, in fact, there is lots of source for it, so it would escape. My point is that if notability is established, then each individual fact in the article can be sourced less stringently, if it is not controversial and isn't just made up here. As I've mentioned, it is even possible, sometimes, to use mailing list sources for certain things. Meanwhile, mKR isn't going to live in the real world if you don't manage to get more published about it. Think about that. Misplaced Pages is not crucial to the future of mKR, Misplaced Pages has articles about dead languages, it doesn't do them any good. What is crucial is that a healthy user community develop. Think about how to encourage that. --Abd (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Any way you'd just let it go?

On the MKR deletion discussion.. your incessant ruleslawyering is a large part of what got us into this mess. I really wish you'd stop it, now. I can see that you're "enjoying the fireworks" as you say, but Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be about causing fireworks for your own personal amusement. It's been quite disruptive. Friday (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not cause the fireworks. Period. If I had, that would be disruption. So if you are serious, act. Either back it up -- and risk your own reputation and buttons -- or back off. Warning noted.

What is going on now, with the closure and reversion, is wikidrama. I didn't expect it and I didn't cause it, but there is *nothing* that says I can't enjoy the show, and nothing that says I can't note that, for example, Rubin shouldn't have touched the closure. Perhaps you might try enjoying it yourself. A little enjoyment, some sense of humor, wouldn't hurt. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with some of what you write. But, if this truly is your style and you don't intend to change it, please consider not participating in AFD. Your comments tend to be painfully longwinded and full of attempts to sidetrack useful discussion into irrelevancies. I can't make you stop, but I can ask, so this is what I've done. Friday (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask. Thank you. Understand that I've been writing on-line since the mid 1980s, and I've encountered the "long-winded" comment before, more than a few times. Some people like what I write, very much, and some detest it. I can say that none of it is truly irrelevant. The very disagreement on that page was over what was relevant: was it notability or process? So when I wrote about process, naturally you considered it irrelevant. So I have to discount your comment. Rather, you might notice how many times others pick up what I say, long time Wikipedians, and confirm and reinforce it. I'm certainly not always right, but I'm not stupid and my time is precious to me. I wouldn't waste it writing what I didn't think was important, and that some people don't see the importance simply goes with the territory. I can see what many others can't, often. It's a blessing and a curse, called Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, not a marginal case. It means that on intelligence tests, I mostly blew out the tests, they are not designed to measure beyond 99.9. But with certain other skills, easy for others, I'm a total boob. My brain works differently than "normal." Well, I've learned, shall we say, workarounds, for some of it. Do not think of me as some kind of enemy. I'm not your enemy, I rarely take any of this personally. Watch. Sometimes people, after they've known me for a while, come to appreciate what I can do. --Abd (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remotely believe you're an enemy. I believe your good faith efforts have a disruptive effect that you don't intend or appreciate. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say, thanks for listening. Friday (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly want to know if that is true, so, perhaps I'll provide you with an opportunity to document that. Did my participation in the AfD disrupt it? It's not going to be an easy question to answer, but I'll probably do most of the work. The real problem, though, was at AN/I, not in the AfD itself. I've started putting together a record (first) and analysis (later) of that. It's been mentioned at AN/I, itself, in another report about it made by another user. You want to talk about disruption, by the way, you might start looking there. In any case, the beginning of the report is at User:Abd/MKR incident, if you watch it, you'd see more as it develops. (Or not, as you like). I'm taking the opportunity to study this incident closely, because, too often, we simply move on and forget and then it is deja vu all over again. The goal of this is not to pin the blame on anyone, and, in fact, my opinion is that, while certainly individual actors made mistakes, with or without good faith, the problem is almost never the people, it is the system. I.e., people always make mistakes, and a good system self-corrects efficiently, without chewing people up in the process. Except for those who cling tenaciously to their mistakes, like User:Physchim62 or User:Tango. The original error was recoverable, the clinging caused loss of the buttons.--Abd (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I take an afternoon nap, and look at what happens. I believe Fran was wrong in ignoring procedural issues, and the article was notable, if borderline, but as you pointed out, the article can be worked on in peace now. Now to consider DRV, RFC/U, ArbCom, and policy/guideline revision issues. I'm not doing anything yet, since we all need a breather. And I will study and analyze this whole mess also. — Becksguy (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't trust 'em for a minute, can you? There were always two issues here. This is my take on it. We already had eight administrators who had !voted. If they are a random sample, then we can roughly predict the odds as to which consideration a new, uninvolved administrator will consider most important. Thus we were facing a 5/8 chance that it would close Delete, based on primacy of the notability issue, and 3/8 based on the primacy of procedure and precedent. I was fascinated to see the age-of-account sort of the !votes. We got three votes from the first three years of Misplaced Pages, all Keep. In any case, the article is here now. This is the reason why I think this better than a No Consensus outcome (Keep was obviously highly unlikely). With NC, the article would have continued in article space, under conditions where every source that is weak in any way would be torn to shreds. It would be extremely difficult to build up a set of collectively acceptable sources. They already did this: removed all sources that were weak in any way, didn't put in sourcs that were found and discussed in Talk, and when a strong source, Griswold's publication of McCullough's article, was asserted in the AfD, they dismissed it with spurious arguments ("Griswold had retired" was the most amusing one.) With enough of them tag teaming, and some of these people do that, it would have been quite a struggle, and quite likely the article wouldn't have been ready for the inevitable, under those conditions, AfD. Good chance it would have closed with a more conclusive Delete, rather than the interpretive one here. In user space, the article can be developed, as you noticed, in peace, and it looks we may have some expert cooperation, we'll see. As I hinted elsewhere, it's possible to create source, if there are cooperating experts, as one possibility. (New territory? I don't know. But it is a way of satisfying WP:V, actually a very old way. Ask an expert! That's how the original encyclopedias were written, more or less.) Then, we can decide when the article is ready, and take it back. It's much cleaner, much more efficient.

Did you see my response on my user page. Interesting that you have ADD, as I do also (I much prefer that term to ADHD, since I'm not hyperactive). I remember that there was a connection with being rather bright and ADD. One of my good Wiki friends (that I met in real life) also has it. The real victim in this mess is the community and process (really due process). And also the author who just wanted to write an article about this nifty software. I came to WP to write articles and yet I feel like I'm spending more time over the last year fighting barbarians at the gates. As to your comment on influencing others, I think people need to speak up about what we see as procedural problems if WP is to grow. The processes that worked when it was a small project haven't scaled up to the massive size WP is now in my view. Too many like it the way it is now, and are extremely resistant to change, which is also partly human nature. — Becksguy (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources

Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it's been userfied. That's fine. Helpful. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask

Might I trouble you to avoid the comparison of me to a dog that might turn all Cujo on a dime? Honestly, post to AN/I contained some mischaracterizations that would take a lot more time to address than I really want to spend. I remember you from the Ibiza discussion, and you weren't the most polite fellow in that discussion or even the second most polite. I would ask that you try to avoid commenting about me, as you cannot seem to address my actions either correctly or with good faith. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne () 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you read it that way. I certainly did not intend any personal offense, and I think that you might do well to try to understand the analogy. The point was that a dog that is not dangerous alone can become dangerous in a pack. That's not Cujo and that's not "on a dime," it is about what happens to any of us when we become too involved with a group of people egging each other on in the "battle for all truth and reliable sourcing." It can happen in the other direction with inclusionists. It is an us vs. them approach to the project, and it is doomed; to some extent, this is the number one problem on Misplaced Pages at this time. I have people, off the project, cheering me for some of the work I've done here and, believe me, it is quite dangerous, if it were to lead me to start thinking of editors who disagree with me or oppose my actions as "the enemy."

Please try to look at the overall balance of what I write and do. Actually, I don't remember the Ibiza discussion. I will say, however, that I can sometimes be almost brutally honest, but I'm also pretty careful about what I say and I don't gratuitously insult. I am very concerned about what I could only call a deletionist cabal that is connected with User:Allemandtando, and I think you may have been sucked into that, whereas, on your own, you'd have been more restrained.

You were improperly blocked, definitely, that was blatantly clear, and, had you not been promptly unblocked, I'd have been on AN/I immediately, working to get you unblocked ASAP. (I was putting my girls to bed, and saw the block on my Palm, at about the time it was done, because your Talk page is on my watchlist, but I don't edit from the Palm, so it was some time later that I got to a computer that I edit from, and it was over. The block was totally improper and that was the worst thing happening, so that took priority. But below that, why was Edokter, who should have known better, sucked into blocking you, a totally bone-headed move that could still cost him his bit and which is certainly going to attract attention to his possible edit warring with you? He was sucked in because he was, I'm suspecting, outraged by your behavior, and that kind of outrage is common when an editor comes in and starts hacking up an article without discussion and finding consensus. It takes hours to write a section of an article, for some people, and then in a minute someone comes in and deletes it. Process, Arcayne. There were two issues in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination): notability and process. The notability of an individual article is normally a very minor issue, but the process by which we determine notability is a big issue, Misplaced Pages can fall apart of the community doesn't function cooperatively. The same is true for every piece of text in the project. There are guidelines, and there is the process by which the guidelines are interpreted. If you focus only on the guidelines, and ignore the process, and then act vigorously, you will likely be disruptive and, almost certainly, you will be blocked, it is just a matter of time. And you will be scratching your head, wondering why it all happened, must be those evil inclusionists, you were just enforcing the rules.... But you are not the "enforcer of the rules," and, indeed, there really aren't any rules that bind the community, the community is the ultimate arbiter, not any individual or cabal. We determine the application of the RS guidelines to each and every article through a rough consensus of editors, and when a collection of editors develop, perhaps, some bias, sitting on an article, we bring in a broader community. Not the Lone Ranger to shoot up the bad guys. I will do one revert with considerable thought. Two takes a major reason, and probably, already, some support shown, and three ... I rarely do three reverts, period. It's happened when I've encountered tag-teaming and, last time it happened, I realized that the result of what the other side was doing was actually what I wanted, so I stopped opposing it. (Essentially, a group of POV editors outsmarted themselves, demanding notability for a fact that they were misrepresenting, it was a critical piece of their standard propaganda. They were demanding that this fact be in the lead, but, of course, as they would represent it, which was not true to source. I eventually "gave up" and let it be in the lead, and then simply added the missing quoted material -- not interpreted -- that made the real meaning clear, which was the exact opposite of what they wanted. And then, of course, the same editors tried to take it out as not being important. "Wait a minute! You just edit warred to keep this in because of how important this source is, and now you want it out? Nope. It stays in.

I don't do even one revert, except for vandalism, without discussion. I don't take out major text without discussion. If I want to take out a lot of text, I'll do it with a series of edits, so that editors can pick and choose which edits to accept and which to revert. I'll always give a reason in Talk for any edit likely to be controversial, and won't contentiously edit a reversion without attempting to find consensus by, for example, incorporating what I can of the other editor's ideas or purpose. The goal really is to find agreement, not to "enforce standards." Enforcing standards is contrary to the very foundation of Misplaced Pages, and, no, this does not mean that we should ignore the guidelines. It means we work together in understanding how to apply them to the situation, and where we can't find consensus in a small group, we pull in and involve a larger group. And it takes time. Someone coming in with a samurai sword cutting of the Hydra Heads of Fancruft is highly disruptive. Clean up articles, but this is a massive project and it is massive because of the participation of many, many people, and when one person tries to be the big Hero and fix it all, it does more damage than good, and it can be serious, long-term damage. --Abd (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive reply. I agree with virtually everything you say, and can see where I have been fallible in how I have edited in some situations. While I I don't see myself as the Big Hero come to kill the fancruft, I have seen myself as a protector of the wiki when it comes to vastly skewed interpretations of our policy. I don't want to have to run to an admin every time I run into an intractable edit-warrior or pov-pusher. I consider myself fairly nimble on my editorial feet, and able to deal with some situations.

As well, I don't think I have been sucked into any pack/deletionist cabal. If you will note the first (and pretty much only) article that we worked on was the one on lightsaber combat. I had appraised folk on the discussion page of that of the need to significant clean-up for over two months, without reply. I had done precisely the same thing with the article Clone Wars, a A Visual Dictionary. When no results were forthcoming on the latter, I nominated it for deletion after a month of awaiting clean-up, and it was eventually deleted. In the lightsaber combat article, I think i was actually the one to nominate it for deletion as well (its 6th nomination), after waiting two months for any significant clean-up. After the nom, I decided to see if anything could be salvaged, and I am fairly certain that the only reason it was not deleted was due to my efforts to clean up the article and notifying the AfD discussion.

I am not a deletionist, and I have warned Allemantando to lighten up on the aggressive mood he is setting in his interaction with others. When he didn't appear to take heed of that advice, I went back to my other articles and left him to do what he wanted without my involvement. I do see that sort of behavior as corrosive to the environment - far more so than an admin abusing their own tools. It's like the police, responding to a hostage situation in a bank, blow up the entire town the bank is located in.

If it is amenable to you, I would like to consult with you further on issues I might encounter in articles and with editors. I will try to implement some of the philosophies you have expressed here, so the questions I eventually ask will usually be clarifying in nature. - Arcayne () 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is gratifying to me to see your response, it means to me that you read what I wrote, and the attitude you show will, I'm sure, protect you from any serious harm from any mistakes you might make. The block you just went through did not harm your reputation, in itself. I've often said that if a user has a lot of edits and hasn't been blocked, he or she is not trying hard enough. When we try hard to improve something we love, we will run into people who will take offense, even if we bend over backwards to avoid it (but not at the cost of our integrity.) Misplaced Pages actually has policies which help with this. WP:AGF used to be a policy, it was demoted purely because of the difficulty in enforcing it. But it remains, in fact, a foundation policy, and failure to follow it is actually a form of incivility. AGF doesn't mean that one never voices suspicions, but it does mean that suspicions, if voiced, are stated as such, are reasonable inferences, but are not stated as proven facts, or even as allegations unless there is a prima facie case to establish the matter. (There are lots of parallels with common law: basic principle of common law is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted.) Anyway, consult me any time you like, and you may also email me, should you decide that better.

I'll give an example of AGF and the voicing of suspicions. I've been checkusered with respect to alleged sock puppetry with another user, because of certain coincidences of opinions. As it happened, that user is forty years younger than I, first contact me as, more or less, a political opponent, but ... actually read what I wrote back and decided that what I was doing was more important than anything else he had seen. And he started to work for it, in his own way, which was that of an enthusiastic young man in his mid-twenties. Anyway, it wasn't an unreasonable suspicion, though, in fact, the one who filed the report could have rather easily verified that the accusation was preposterous; had he followed up on the evidence he had, he'd not have needed the checkuser, he'd have seen two independent accounts going back to 2005 with coincidence of interests only in the last eight or nine months. But I made no fuss about it (beyond issues that did not reflect badly on the filer). I assume that he had a legitimate concern and had no trouble with AGF. The same principles could be applied to the situation with Allemandtando. Is he a blocked user? Anyone who understands Misplaced Pages and how blocked users operate when they return after checkuser expiration would suspect it. It is reasonable to state the suspicion. It would not be reasonable to block him or to attempt to block him without proof. The suspicion being voiced merely allows the community to consider the question; perhaps someone notices something as a result that everyone else overlooks. And if someone is sufficiently exercises, they can file an SSP report and perhaps checkuser. And none of that need be uncivil. Anway, thanks again. And, really, I was quite pleased by your response regarding Edokter. Very, very good work. You come out smelling like a rose. And you got a block in your record, withdrawn, which is better in my book than a barnstar, it is a real certification of effort -- even if you did make a mistake, which is by no means clear to me at this point. Anyone trying hard enough will make mistakes. The question is what we do afterwards. Mistakes are, in fact, the absolutely fastest way to learn. It's much better than doing things right all the time, if that is based on timidity rather than clear knowledge. What kills people (sometimes literally) is clinging to the idea that they were right. Being "right" is almost useless, it can make it impossible to learn. Now, I really will Save Page this time.... --Abd (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a sub-page for my talk pages

I feel that articles should be deleted if they don't meet the criteria of WP:N and WP:V/RS. I'm part of a big cabal. We all get together on friday nights and talk about how we are going to follow wikipedia policy. Spread the word. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call, for myself, that a "belief," but I agree that, under present policy, they should. I don't think of policy as something to "follow," exactly. It is something we create, collectively, as a clear expression of community consensus at one time, and it can change, and, in fact, it does change. There are edits to policy pages all the time, including some that stick. So what I discuss on Friday night, so to speak, is how we can set and maintain policy in the best interests of the project, and of the community without which the project cannot exist. As to your talk pages, if you would like me to review them, for some reason, I'd be happy to. What would you have me be looking for?

I could guess as to what you are referring with apparent sarcasm (there are a couple of possibilities), but I'd rather not. If you have something specific to say, and you say it civilly, you are welcome to say it here on my Talk. As sarcasm, though, the above is marginal. It's still okay, as an introduction, if you are willing to seriously discuss your real issue. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure why you are being coy. I came here because you appear to be monitoring and archiving discussions on Allemandatondo's talk page to some end. Presumably you feel that he has either organized or is organizing some concerted effort to delete pages without regard to merit. The diffs displayed on his warning show at least an interest in connecting his possible breaches of policy with users who cheered him on or (seemingly) exhorted him to those breeches. I feel that such a monitoring effort is superfluous and coercive. It is superfluous because no information beyond what is provided by the software will be maintained. It is coercive because the existence of the page and declaration of intent to use said page in future disciplinary hearings would dissuade editors from talking with Allemantando (or cause them to move conversations off-wiki). All conversations are designed to be transparent to all users. You are free, of course, to record whatever conversations you wish for whatever purpose. Neither I nor anyone else can constrain you. But security from review does not imply security from comment. If you choose to pursue an extra-legal course of action against allemantando and those who would comment on his talk page, your actions will (and should) be described as they are: intrusive, unwanted, uncivil and McCarthyite. since happening upon his talk page I have been called a cancer, an asshole, an elitist and a prick. I am disinclined to be tarred a conspirator as well. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to go, but, first of all, I have not "archived" discussions on that Talk page. Where? Allemandtando's recent hysteria has been about a page set up to neutrally examine, in one place, the behavior, absent accusations, of a user who has been seen as disruptive by more than I, many more. It's not a "kangaroo court," for starters, as he has called it, because (1) there are no charges, and (2) there is no judgement process. Charges might be made, but not in that file, and not necessarily by me. Judgment, if any, would be rendered by the community through existing process, if it ever comes before the community, and to predict that in advance of looking at the evidence would be, indeed, abusive, wouldn't it?

I am not being coy. I'm being very, very direct and straight.--Abd (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But as I've said above, such a page is practically superfluous, as nothing on there would be introduced into a proceeding. all that is neccessary would be the diffs of comments or edits made by alle and others. You are (as I say...or more precisely, as it is unnecessary for me to say) free to record whatever you like for whatever reason. If you want to save diffs so you don't have to dig through them later, it isn't my business to stop you. But to say this: "That may be happening. In any possible ArbComm case over this user's behavior, if it comes to that, others who have actively encouraged and cheered it (and to some extent enabled it) will, quite likely, be included. (As well as those who have severely criticized it and who are asserted to have been uncivil to the user.)" and then begin to record future conversations is coercive on face. How do I communicate with allemantando? Do I presume that agreement will be confused for collusion and say nothing? What if I'm innocent of the workings of arbcomm or ANI or RFC? What if I want to collaborate on cleaning up 40K articles? Inherently, selection and sequestration implies judgment. I'm not implying that you wield some power of censure over anyone who comments there. I'm implying that selection and display of comments for future disciplinary review presents itself as coercive power: announcing that you seek to bring collaborators to the arbcomm and then recording the record of collaboration is not inconsequential. whether or not you file charges personally is immaterial. Your comments and the subsequent monitoring page represent a de facto declaration that communication with allemantando is inherently suspect. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page, Protonk? What do you think would be there? The plan is that it would be diffs, organized with brief summary, (sometimes just the edit summary.) So, yes, if I "want to save diffs so you don't have to dig through them later, it isn't" your "business to" stop me. You are now referring to something other than what is on the page itself, comment on it elsewhere. And that comment is a simple truth. Communicate with Allemandtando normally, and that comment has nothing to do with you. Communicate with him with cheers when he is disruptive, should you do that, you might find it being evidence of your own behavior. The risk is not from me, personally, but from the community's reaction to disruption. I don't know you and I'm not at all familiar with your contributions or position. What I'm writing is totally general, and it is not a new situation that I created. It's just a reminder of the real, present situation. By all means, cooperate on the cleanup of articles. But be careful that, when you do this, you follow Misplaced Pages procedure, and that you respect the consensus of editors (which does not mean that you can't challenge it, it means that you don't challenge it with edit warring or tag-team edit warring, which can be considered the same thing. I.e., under those conditions, you could be held responsible for edit warring from a single revert. Be very, very careful about edit warring, about repetitive changes back and forth to an article. It's the most common cause of a block, that and incivility, so be sure to communicate about the articles with other editors in a civil manner. Assume good faith and a common goal about the overall welfare of the project, even if you may disagree about particular application of guidelines and policy. Do that and you will be safe. I did not declare that "communication with Allemandtando is inherently suspect." Period. It isn't. That was his interpretation. Take a look at the section just above this. Arcayne has been a supporter of Allemandtando, though he appears to have pulled himself back a bit. I'm suggesting that editors be careful about what they cheer. That could backfire, that's what I'm saying, and also be careful about teaming up to force some position on an article; that, likewise, has historically resulted in sanctions. Cooperate with other editors toward improving articles, respecting consensus process, not just notability and verifiability guidelines, which depend for interpretation on consensus process, they do not replace it. Do that, and there is no threat to you from what I or others might do. --Abd (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, much of what you wrote is directly contrary to what I've said. I said that I had no plans to bring "collaborators" to ArbComm. I don't have plans to go to ArbComm at all. It is a possibility. I, personally, prefer to review evidence before making charges! --Abd (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We can go back and forth as to whether or not you personally intend to bring cases to arbcomm or whether or not you personally are bringing a threat to bear. My interpretation of the diff in question (above) and the page creation itself are probably skewed by where I saw them first (on alle's talk page). We are not going to reach agreement as to the implicit purpose of gathering information or the impact it may have on future collaboration.

I don't personally fear sanction for my actions, nor do I plan to undertake any action that might draw such sanction independently. Most editors who would have occasion to comment on alle's talk page feel the same way (I presume). However, I am uninterested in the appearance of heightened scrutiny, however dispassionate you may feel it is. Private collection of evidence (in other words, that apart from a bureaucratic process) appears, on face, to be an assumption of bad faith and an unwelcome intrusion into normal conversation. You do not need to hold a kangaroo court in order for this to be unseemly. The simple matter of selection and display (as I said above) represents judgment on your part (here I mean judgment in the sense that you choose among pieces of evidence rather than dispense a ruling).

I firmly dispute the assertion that I or any other editor need be concerned about "what I cheer on". I agree with you 100% that all editors should refrain from using collusion to game the system. If I am collaborating with Allemantando to avoid 3RR or overturn consensus on issues, let the hammer fall. But if I "cheer him on" or provide moral support for actions he undertakes on his own to ends that I feel are good (e.g. if he decides to go on a crusade against a class of articles and I defend him from an IP barrage or tell him he should stay the course, which I did, check his talk page before he moved most of it and archived the rest), I think that a record of that on a page designed to build evidence for (or against, as you assert) a disciplinary review is wholly unacceptable. WP is not a democracy, moot court, etc., but I'm uninterested in being held under suspicion for my opinions on an editor.

As a minor point of fact, assembly of evidence is rarely a neutral activity. It is inherently prosecutorial, as lack of evidence of misconduct is not considered evidence for lack of misconduct. It seeks an end state--that of sufficient evidence to judge guilt or innocence--and as such is not process oriented. It presents (inherently) no method of rebuttal, as the evidence gathered is from you and only you (presumably). It is also (should we model this after a grand jury process) unfair to conduct in the open, as the accumulation of evidence may connote guilt where no guilt is formally asserted (see your claim that you will only bring charges or ask them to be brought should the evidence you compile demand it). This is not a morally neutral course of action. It is not without consequence. Please consider those consequences (and the ones above about the coercive impact this may have on potential collboration with allemantando) before continuing this project. You don't need to submit to my review. You don't need my permission to do any of this. Nor do you need the permission of the subject. But please don't interpret that lack of constraint as license to investigate. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is so much wrong-headedness in the above that I'm at a loss where to begin, so I'll, for the moment, stick with the end. I have a license to investigate. All Misplaced Pages editors do. I do not have a license to harass. But, should I so choose, I do have a license to prosecute, and, again, we all do. While the decision to prosecute or not requires judgment (and we can be held responsible for that judgment, frivolous prosecution is sanctionable), we do not, individually, have a right to ultimately judge and convict, beyond administrators having the right to make ad-hoc judgments and act upon them prior to consultation. I have warned editors that if they conspire, collude, or encourage disruptive behavior, they could be held responsible for the behavior, as much as the actor. If Protonk doesn't do that, he's safe from that. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, and no such thing as an absolute guarantee of safety. "Associating" with a problem editor, even if actually blameless, can bring some risks, but I would not encourage editors to guide themselves by this, for association under those circumstances, while keeping away from "aiding and abetting" improper behavior, is actually laudable, not legitimately sanctionable. Clear? --Abd (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I'm afraid I'll have to refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. I sincerely hope this will be the end of our conversations. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an uncivil interchange, capped with a sophisticated "Fuck off!" from Protonk, see Private Eye (magazine)#Litigation. There is, however, a major difference between the present situation and the one Private Eye faced. The interchange here was initiated by Protonk, whereas the interchange in the case cited was initiated by a possible plaintiff. Private Eye managed to make a thoroughly funny response that accomplished, quite effectively, their legal and professional purposes. (The joke would be particularly funny to lawyers, I'm sure, who would recognize immediately that the possible plaintiff had totally set up the situation by asking that question, and that Private Eye's response was absolutely on point, not merely a simple joke.) What Protonk has done, on the other hand, is to drop a sarcastic note on my Talk page, to which I replied with serious and civil discussion. And then it is precisely as if he then responded "Fuck off!" On my Talk page, in an exchange he initiated. That's uncivil, and gratuitously so. I did not personally warn Protonk, and my last comment here, to which he responded this way, confirmed (1) that association, per se was not properly risk, though it does entail risks because of human nature, and (2) that encouraging disruptive behavior was disruptive. I do not file civility complaints against users who simply are rude on my Talk page. In fact, I don't recall initiating any civility complaints at all, nor, ever, a complaint (RfC or AN/I report) for "aiding and abetting" disruption. However, this interchange can, as a result, stand as a warning, should someone else file such a complaint.

Writing this, and with some other things I've written in the past few days, I conclude that I should, in fact, formally warn Protonk, if someone else hasn't already (and because of the indirection of it, it might easily be overlooked). He may then answer, on his own Talk page, "Fuck off!" if he chooses. An angry -- or possibly contemptuous -- answer, like that, is fairly normal when being warned, and, though I don't issue many formal warnings, I've followed quite a few cases based on such a response. So, an additional warning: the community will not normally approve of a block for an angry response in one's own user space; however, some administrators do it anyway. If they are involved, they've lost their bits for it, but I've never seen such a consequence when they were neutral and merely interpreted the situation, possibly, incorrectly. Or correctly. Personally, I find the risk from serious rudeness in response to a warning to not be worth any possible emotional satisfaction from the gain, and many, many times, I have responded politely to warnings and rudeness, as I attempted here, and the editor turns into a friend. So, entirely aside from the moral issues, it's smarter to be polite, even though it may have not accomplished any great good here, as to increased harmony. Caveat emptor. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology to Allemandtando

Contrary to what is emblazoned on his Talk page, I'm not "constantly monitoring" his contributions and missed that, in an edit summary on his Talk page, he asked me not to edit there. Thus I mistakenly stated that he had not asked me to not edit his page. I apologize for that. My edit, however, was a warning, and, while I will respect Allemandtando's request in general, should I find it appropriate to issue formal warnings for behavior -- something I have mostly chosen not to do, so far -- I reserve the right to warn this user, as with any other, (and any other with me), in the place set up for that: the User Talk page. I ask that no other user remove such warnings, but Allemandtando is totally free to remove them on sight. --Abd (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How much patience?

A new definition of a minor edit: deleting work of several editors with a flick of Twinkle. How much patience needs the community to demonstrate to this user? And that kind of "edit" in an article under probation. So as you expressed the need for uninvolved admins to intervene, I leave this in your hands. Note that SA has been blocked for edit warring for 48 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm not an administrator, so I can't directly help. When I suggested that you not be the one to deal with SA, I did not mean, at all, that you could not act as an ordinary user to take reports of his behavior to AN/I. I merely meant that the use of your tools would be improper. It is absolutely essential that administrators refrain from using their tools when they are a party to a dispute, or have a history of conflict with a user. Ignoring this is the fastest way to be desysopped. It happened to User:Physchim62, to User:Tango, and I'm seeing a possible seed of such a result with User:Cryptic. Because you have asked, I will take a look at that edit. It is a different matter that it may beneficial for you, personally, to simply keep away from SA issues; but by asking me, you have essentially done the same thing as taking it to AN/I, except that I can't directly respond, I could only, myself, take it to AN/I, which I'll do if I see sufficient cause. I'll respond again here after I've looked. --Abd (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's not escaping notice, Jossi. A massive Twinkle revert marked "minor." While that could happen by accident, it certainly looks bad. An edit summary of "remove lies" doesn't help either.... I don't think SA is long for the project, if he doesn't massively change his ways. --Abd (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please move my RFC to Approved since it has been certified.

See my comments on WP:ANI and the talk page on my RFC. --GoRight (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone else doesn't do it, I will. Never did it before, though. Maybe I can figure it out, but not tonight. I, unfortunately, looked at the arguments in the RfC and got sucked in. So I'm writing a comment. I don't know yet if you'll like it or not. Why not? I haven't reviewed the evidence yet. Yes, I know some like to give opinions without reviewing the evidence, it's much easier, isn't it? I do it as much as I can get away with, in fact..... but when a user's reputation and possibly the user's account is at stake, no. --Abd (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that on your views you wrote AfD and I think you meant RfC? Bye, Brusegadi (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moi? Miss Spell? I must have been thinking about myself and wrote AfD instead of DAft. Fixed that and moved the AfD to Approved. GoRight, you missed another opportunity, you could have moved it yourself. Just before you, Dorftrottel filed an RfC on himself. I haven't looked at it, but that is a great idea. Based on what I've seen so far, which isn't a great deal, some quick advice. (1) Lighten up. (2) Have fun. (3) Do what is legit to do but isn't expected (example would have been certifying the RfC). (4) Do *not* attack those who criticize you. Best: listen to them and try to get it, usually there is something to learn. Agree to whatever is possible. (5) If others are crazy don't be crazy back. (6) Trust the community. Yes, sometimes the community is daft. But if you don't trust the community, it will drive you nuts. (7) When it seems that the community is wrong, look again. Sometimes the "wrong" thing is the best thing to do, even if nobody understands why. I just "lost" an AfD, strongly argued (with a little less than half of the community agreeing with me, there was actually no consensus), and I was "right," and the Delete outcome was better than my "right," easier, more efficient, and, in fact, best for the long-term survival of the article. So what if it moves to user space for a while? It makes it easier. (8) Don't swim upstream unless you must. (9) Keep it simple. Your long response to the RfC may have cost you some endorse votes. Yes, I know, an abusive charge can be made in a sentence and answering it thoroughly can take a tome. But, remember, the sentence read is more powerful than the tome not read.

Now, as to tomes, I write plenty of them, but that is because I'm not writing for everybody and I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to lay out what I see; some will read it and some won't. If something I write is truly cogent, somebody else will pick up on it and repeat it. From my memory of Lao Tzu: "When the great man has finished his work, they will say, "We did this ourselves." I'm not a "great man," but I'm trying to imitate one. Or am I one? I forget. Am I an ordinary man dreaming he is imitating a great man, or am I a great man dreaming he is imitating an ordinary man? Shit! I need to take my meds. I know I said it, but it's worth repeating: have fun!--Abd (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Banned from editing this page"

Erm, the edit summary here is rather a lapse in judgement. Allemandtando could have been more accommodating (and indeed I've found him to be), but continuing this low-level feud you two have by issuing empty threats really isn't helping. Userspace isn't a cocoon where mainspace rules don't apply. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not an "empty threat," a warning. He is not banned. Yet. I disagree about user space, mainspace rules don't apply in user space. There are rules for userspace, it is not a lawless place, but users have a special position with respect to their own user space, they are defacto administrators of it (but without delete, block, or protect buttons.) If it comes to that, my opinion will be confirmed or rejected by the community and/or ArbComm, but I know precedent for it, and I can also present, I believe, very strong arguments for it. So if, indeed, it isn't clear, perhaps we should make it so. This is not a feud with Allemandtando. It is applying my standards in my user space. He's prohibited me from editing his Talk page, and he has every right to do so, in my opinion, except with regard to warnings (but even with regard to them, he can revert me at will, and everyone else, without 3RR restriction, and if I were to insist on talking, aside from proper warnings and the like, in his user space, after being requested not to, I'd be guilty of harassment and properly could be blocked, and I'd predict that.

(Some wiki software can make users administrators of their own user space, it's a setup option.)

Allemandtando had a legitimate issue with the article as it was, with the unrestrained category tags. That part was right. If I assume good faith, as I must, he simply didn't know about adding the colons. But his own incivility led him to ABF with respect to me, apparently, which explains the edit summary that another user thought referred to McCullough and therefore gave him a WP:BITE warning. No, he was referring to me, as shown on that other user's Talk page. And he was (1) wrong and (2) clearly uncivil. And I'm not going to tolerate sustained incivility in my own user space, nor am I going to debate or argue about it. If Misplaced Pages decides that I'm not competent to manage my own user space, I'll cheerfully abandon it. But I don't think the community would agree with that. So I warned him that continuing this behavior would lead to a page ban. Graduated response, Chris. Maybe I'm practicing to be an administrator, though I really don't want that, still it's fun to play with it. The way I would see Misplaced Pages going, the functions of ArbComm would be decentralized into a hierarchy of "lesser courts." RfC is, pretty much, that already, and it simply needs a little bit better process. (Same with AN/I, which usually, it seems, gets distracted from its function; these are all problems for which standard organizational solutions exist, including solutions fully compatible with basic Misplaced Pages traditions. And being a part of that wider ArbComm system would interest me, far more than being an administrator. Thanks for your interest.--Abd (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You really need to have a thorough read over Misplaced Pages's guidelines on the use of userspace. You can't move just cocoon things in there and then ban people you disagree with from editing them. "Banning" people from editing one's user talk is usually pretty silly, but at least it's rooted in a direct desire to avoid direct personal confrontation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not "own" this user space, and I've not claimed that I do. Rather, the community grants me certain privileges here that don't exist elsewhere, and those privileges are not confined to my Talk page. My user space is where I can work on Misplaced Pages-related projects without having to satisfy other editors, and I'm given great freedom in that. If I consider that any other editor is interfering with my right to manage this space, as described, I can ask the user not to edit here, and, in fact, the only page where that would be prohibited as an absolute would be, in fact, my Talk page, plus deletion tags added as part of standard process. In other words, I have less freedom with my Talk page than with other User working pages. If I ask a user to refrain, and they insist, I can then report this, either to AN/I or to an administrator personally, asking for support. I can RfC a user for harassment, etc. I don't think that your interpretation would be sustained. If I can't do it, and if it is improper, why, then, surely someone will stop me. Right? --Abd (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points at the RfC (GoRight)

I've been following your contributions at the RfC and at WMC's talk page. Were you aware of User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing#Another case study? Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen it, thanks. This is not a simple case, but one thing is pretty clear to me: an RfC on the user (like AN/I reports on the user), isn't the place to start to resolve it, and the first methods take time. What we have is a set of editors, including a former ArbComm member, who believe they have a consensus, who are trying to figure out how to enforce that consensus, which, on its face, makes some sense. But there is a problem. A true consensus has little need for enforcement, beyond "ordinary" means.

We have, with Raul654, an ArbComm member, who is, himself, now trying to enforce a decision he participated in. ArbComm not only doesn't always get it right, though they often do quite well, it does not replace our basic decision-making process of rough consensus, and we have "rough" consensus because we don't have a structure that works well for determining better than that, which is possible. For rough consensus to work, it has to remain open, at least to some degree. Newcomers should be brought into the consensus, become a part of it, and not be considered as interlopers and POV pushers.

But there may be much more to this than I've been able to see so far. What became clear is that Raul654 and WMC screwed up. It's quite suprising to me that a former arbitrator would write such a drastically poor RfC. If I look at who signed onto it, I see *mostly* editors who have edit warred with GoRight, and I do not see attempts to resolve the controversy, which would include negotiation, demonstrations of thoughtful consideration and inclusiveness, involving neutral editors personally (sometimes this happens at AN/I, but AN/I tends to be more of a mob scene, easily distracted, diving into content issues that are not at all well resolved there. I've begun looking at how AN/I comes to be distracted from its purpose; whether or not this was the original intent, one clear purpose to AN/I is for an administrator with some COI to seek support when he or she sees some problem behavior and can't, because of the COI, resolve it directly with, say, a block. So if there is edit warring, and the admin has been editing the article, the admin can neither protect nor block. Any editor may warn, but when an admin warns, there is an appearance of, at best, "speaking softly and holding a big stick." And at worst, it can look like bullying, particularly if the admin has been edit warring or supporting an edit war himself, and that is what WMC did, and, making it worse, it wasn't civil. And then the warning is cited as an effort to resolve the issue? No, what would look like a real effort to me would have been to find an editor who would be likely to be congenial with GoRight, say with respect to opinions about global warming, but who also understands and accepts the alleged consensus. This is the editor who should warn, and assist at the same time. Consider the difference between these warnings:

Please show some restraint. Your edits are now being reverted as "vandalism" . This isn't good, even if you perhaps disagree. Wiki isn't here for playing games and tweaking people - that will get you blocked.

(The "vandalism" revert was utterly inappropriate, the edit wasn't vandalism, not even close.) WMC was correct that it "isn't good," for it showed that there was uncivil resistance to GoRight's work (the bulk of which, on that article, stuck, and it's not clear to me that the part that didn't, the part reverted as "vandalism," didn't stick simply because GoRight was not tendentious, he backed off.)

Hi! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I've taken some interest in issues related to global warming and I expect we would agree on a lot. I'm concerned, however, that some of your editing is having a disruptive effect. The global warming issue and how it is presented on Misplaced Pages is a complex matter, and there has been ArbComm consideration of it in the past. There have, for example, been decisions made about special requirements for sourcing in this series of articles. I'd be happy to assist you in integrating into the articles, your POV and your research into sources. It's important for Misplaced Pages that all points of view be fairly represented, where they can be supported by reliable source. In addition, there are special requirements for Biographies of Living Persons. I would suggest that, for a time, you suggest changes likely to be controversial in Talk before asserting them in edits, that you carefully consider and attempt to meet the objections, compromising as appropriate on text, and that you identify support from other editors, especially neutral ones, before proceeding with a contentious edit. You have a right to edit boldly and directly, but sometimes exercising this right can have a disruptive effect, and damage is done, including being blocked, properly or otherwise. There is a process for resolving disputes, but it starts with editors working hard on cooperating with those of differing POVs. We are required to assume good faith, which can sometimes be difficult, but if we actually do, the whole project proceeds far more smoothly, efficiently, and true NPOV can be found. If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.

My primary concern, as you may know, is how Misplaced Pages works. There are certain articles that I work on from time to time, but development of and education about social structure is my focus, almost entirely, off-wiki. Misplaced Pages structure is fascinating, but not nearly as new as some might think. We have the traditional problems, and there are solutions to those problems, but the community has become, in effect, highly conservative, which is also a traditional problem. (It's also a good thing, in a way, or else change would come erratically and highly destructive changes could happen quickly without sufficient consideration.) --Abd (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd: I greatly admire the work you're doing, and you are 100% correct in your analysis. But please don't poke the hornet's nest too hard or you may find yourself getting stung. Misplaced Pages has a very complex power structure, and the editors you are criticising have a lot of friends and supporters. Trying to fight these editors head on is usually an exercise in frustration and futility, and even if you have the patience to see it through, you might find yourself under some sort of probation for "harassing" them. I think it's best if you back off and become part of the passive resistance - those of us who non-aggressively push civility and open debate without getting too involved in criticising one or a few specific long-term editors too hard. ATren (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I've spent the last nine months studying WP power structure. I'm not fighting those editors head on, nor do I consider them the problem, and, you might notice, I'm trying to advise WMC how to prevent his being desysopped. If he relies on that circle of "friends and supporters," very good chance his days as an admin will be over. Or not. It's always possible that the oligarchy will win, temporarily. However, there are limits, and he has crossed some boundaries. It's not just this case, in fact this is not the strongest one, he is currently the subject of an Arbitration and, unless his attitude changes, he's toast, I'd predict. I don't consider this a good outcome. I can understand why you write as you do, but, if we actually do want to change the increasingly toxic atmosphere, we will need more than "passive resistance." I am not advocating aggressive challenge of the oligarchy; rather, I'm doing what we all should have done in the first place: stand up to incivility, not with returned incivility, but with clear and careful and cautious honesty, with recognition of the tremendous good work that almost any administrator performs, but also with a recognition that the editor community is far larger and, collectively, more important. And with insistence that administrators are servants, not masters.

As is almost always the case, the problem is not the players, but the system. If we focus on the system, and how to improve it, problems with players won't totally disappear, but they will fade from importance and be easier to resolve. This is as true on Misplaced Pages as it is everywhere in the world.

As to risk to me, personally, there is always that risk when people attempt to be open and honest. The risk here is trivial, what is the worst thing that could happen? Let me say it: I would, from fear of consequences, fail to be honest, I would proceed with timidity (instead of caution and care, which are very different), and I would waste my time here. I would far, far prefer being banned. Yet, in fact, I have never been blocked, and I'm only rarely warned. When I'm warned I tend to do one of two things: immediately heed the warning, or confront it, with civility but also firmness. (True warnings, though, for behavior that, if repeated, could get me blocked, have been rare, and resulted from a conflict in guidelines and procedures, combined with my own ignorance, which is vast but which continually diminishes, as it does when one is honest and open and careful.) Read my Talk archives. I've made friends with some who have warned me, indeed some of my best friends here, precisely because I was civil, clear, and honest. Even if I do write too much. --Abd (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. I get frustrated sometimes, but I always try to remain civil even in disagreement. I've had a few debates with the anti-civility crowd, and I've watched a lot of the back-and-forth between them and GTBacchus. I was briefly involved in WP:NOTSPADE and also wrote my own little civility essay, but most editors here believe that civility equals weakness and concession (when, in fact, it's quite the opposite - civility is actually a very good strategy in debates).

By the way, of the admins involved in the GoRight case, I have far less of a problem with WMC. WMC is a hothead and I don't like his style at all, but if you're patient and you earn his respect, he will listen to argument (not to mention, I agree with a lot of his viewpoints). I can't say that about the other admin involved, who is brazenly partisan in many of his interactions and is not afraid to use his status to enforce his views.

In any case, you've certainly earned my respect with your thoughtful analysis, and I admire your gumption in not backing down. I hope you can help improve things around here. :-) ATren (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is what is a bit amusing. I'm not backing down because I haven't stood up. I'm simply saying what I see, which is what I've always done. Yes, it drives some people crazy, always has. (I've been involved with on-line debate since the mid 1980s.) WMC is asserting, now, that it is difficult for someone not familiar with the issues to accurately judge the situation, which is certainly possible; indeed, it happens frequently. However, it's also possible to not be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm approaching from outside, so what I see first is the forest, and then a few trees. And so I describe what I see, making no claim that what I see is the whole story. GoRight might be a very clever troll, sucking WMC and Raul into demolishing themselves, while playing innocent with his civility, actually politically and scientifically sophisticated, and making edits knowing all the defects in advance, thus gratuitously causing disruption. Problem is, how do we distinguish this possibility from what would be more common: someone with a POV, like most people, arriving on the scene, finding what looks to him like a different POV, maintained by an apparent cabal? We are working to educate GoRight that the cabal is in appearance only, or is a natural one caused by history of association, and that such cabals aren't invulnerable; that if one is correct in making NPOV edits ("correct" means that the community, the real, wider community will sustain it), a true cabal will reveal itself and, in fact, usually self-destruct. GoRight's assumptions about the cabal are the flip side of WMC and friends assuming that GoRight's disruption is rooted in bad faith. I have seen nothing from GoRight, so far, that forces me to abandon the default assumption that he's been acting in good faith. In fact, he's been more restrained than many. I likewise see no reason to abandon AGF on the WMC side. He is, in my view, more responsible because of his more advanced Misplaced Pages experience, but, rather obviously, he's having a bad time. If he doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, I predict, his admin bit is toast. He touched a live wire, crossed a bright red line, he increased a block period for an editor because he perceived that the editor was uncivil to him. N. O. No. If he had apologized, immediately, and clearly, without weasel words and self-justification, he'd probably be okay. Problem is, he hasn't. He still has time, probably. With both User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, the admins refused to apologize and defended their actions, the community was practically begging Physchim62 to apologize, it obviously did not want to de-sysop him. In both cases, there was a cheering section approving their actions (more with Tango than with Physchim62, who had compounded his error, politically, by so blocking an admin. It might not theoretically make a difference, but "some animals are more equal than others." Having a cheering section who will approve what you did is extraordinarily dangerous if what you did was cross a bright line. You are right, WMC isn't like some admins I've seen. Absolutely, I'm not out to "get him," and I would be distressed if this GoRight RfC contributes to his desysopping, which is why I've strongly urged him to back out of it, to say, essentially, "I screwed up, I was only thinking about the article and the hosts of vandals and the problems of continual POV pushers," etc., "and I lost sight of the reality of GoRight, failing to welcome him and to assume good faith" etc., "Please, everyone, let's stop this and welcome GoRight into our community, treating him with respect," etc. If he did that, and someone tries to bring it up, it would become "kicking a man while he's down," punishing for behavior where the individual has recognized it was an error, etc. And punishment of editors (and administrators) is contrary to policy. We may "protect" the project and editors, punishment is no part of that (in theory, in practice it's easy for admins to fall into the error; it's a common hazard for police.)

Karma. GoRight has quickly backed down from certain errors. Those accusing him in the RfC, however, bring these up, not mentioning his rapid apologies or restraint. By the way, GoRight was, as far as I've seen, improperly blocked. He was 3RR warned, and he did make an edit after the warning, but it was not a simple revert, it was a rewording, viewable as an attempt to find compromise language. That's not a revert in the meaning of 3RR. --Abd (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and community

Good post at User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reading it, and thank you for the kind comment. --Abd (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To make you aware of

this - please take care in the length of your views in the future. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a work in progress. As you might note, I had already moved the bulk of the evidence to a user page, and, in fact, had been planning to do the same with the commentary on the evidence. Understand that it has taken days of research into this issue to develop the picture I was presenting, and that summarizing this in 500 words or less is probably impossible. But using individual pages, I have discovered, is a good way to accomplish the goal of both thoroughness and brevity, so thank you for your consideration and I will place summary comment in the RfC with reference to specific sections of the extended comment in my user space. I originally intended to not even comment in the RfC, when I dealt with it as to the original process issue, but, in an idle moment, I started looking at the claims, and was, quite simply, horrified at the can of worms opened, which I then began to describe. I really would urge neutral editors, and particularly administrators, who notice the RfC and check out what I've written, or otherwise recognize the risk, to start counselling the users involved as to how to proceed with this with minimal disruption, and particularly the involved administrators; it will be much better that they get this advice from friends or respected neutral parties than from, of course, objections by GoRight or previously involved users, and I fear that, while I was not involved, the natural tendency of editors to defend themselves against what they can easily perceive as hostile comment will prevent them from seeing the forest for the trees. User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, I am sure, blocked in good faith, that was not challenged, but they also blocked with a COI from personal involvement and prior dispute, were unable to recognize and acknowledge that, and were thus necessarily desysopped. So far, what I've seen is admin abuse of tools by User:R. Baley (sysop bit at risk), incivility by and edit warring User:William M. Connolley, and incivility and edit warring by User:Raul654, which, in themselves, wouldn't risk the bit as clearly, but Connolley is facing an RfAr for an alleged COI block, and I'd have to agree that it was COI, and thus it is urgent that he clean up the mess with the RfC or else, I predict, it will be added to the pile of straw on the camel's back. I have not yet reviewed Raul654's role sufficiently to come to a clear conclusion about it, but the RfC itself was written by him, was abusively presented and falsely certified (by both Raul654 and Connolley) as to attempts to resolve. WP:DR was not followed. And I'd call that harassment. Again, thanks for your excellent suggestion, i.e., that's how I take it. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(My opinion is that if either certifier withdraws the certification, the RfC would be delisted (from the Approved list), and if not recertified within two days, would then be archived, minimizing further wikifuss.) I do not believe that there is any editor who could appropriately certify that sufficient efforts were made to resolve the issue. However, if GoRight objects, it would be murkier. In that case, however, I'd suggest, it might be refactored into an RfC on the other involved editors as well, i.e., a more general group behavior RfC. I would do my best to dissuade him from that, and it would probably be premature, i.e., there would not be enough time for anyone to properly certify that lesser attempts had been made to resolve the issue. (Hmmm... I might be able to so certify, with respect to Connolly, I've urged him to defuse this, and have not been hostile to him, indeed, I conclude that his behavior in this has been mild compared to that of some others.) RfCs are disruptive and can be viewed as harassment if not necessary, and that this RfC is unnecessary sems to be a rough consensus among those not involved. There is one endorsement from a user who might be expected, possibly, to endorse merely to oppose me, at least that is a possible suspicion. (A list of users commenting, indicating prior involvement, is on my evidence page at User:Abd/GoRight). --Abd (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I most sincerely appreciate the effort you have been putting into this task. I assure you that I will take your criticism of my own behavior to be constructive criticism and shall seek to take it to heart moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you will be able to succeed in that, it is not necessarily easy. If you can pull it off, you can take all criticism to be constructive with a bit of reframing. The lesson you take for it may or may not be what others intend, but it's almost always possible to learn. Notice my response to Ncmvocalist above. I could have read his comment with a jaundiced eye, it is, in fact, a common criticism I face, that I write too much. I'm human, and anger flashed across my mind. But it's kind of a stupid place to live, and one thing I've been noticing lately is that when things don't happen just the way I'd like, they turn out to be better than what I'd like. My first thought from the removal of all that comment off of the RfC page was to revert it. Fortunately, I didn't go there. Instead I thought, "How can I meet and respond to the issue he raises?" And, I think, what I came up with is actually how I should do this kind of thing in the future. It's kind of like having my cake and eating it too. I can say, fully, what I've come to see and make it succinct. I can't write like that all the time, it takes way too much time. But for this, since I've put so much time into researching the history, it's only a little extra, and may make what I've done more effective. Is this what Ncmvocalist intended? Why not assume so? It allows me to be grateful instead of resentful.

I have put in this time, not because your individual, personal participation is necessarily that important (except in the sense that every individual is important), but because it has not just been you who has been driven off, shut out, and insulted, it has probably been user after user. And it's not just the global warming articles, this kind of thing happens, unfortunately, too commonly. There are forces in the community working to clean this up, and there are forces which would make it worse. Your refusal to be driven off, to go away quietly, has done us all a service, I'd say. Just don't do it like that again! I think you now know that you can confront what's wrong patiently and civilly. It's an ancient struggle, really, and it is a struggle that takes place inside each of us. It's not easy to assume good faith, to trust in the community (especially when we can see so much going wrong), but, in the end, it's the only way other than insanity. I never know when results will come from what I do; sometimes I've seen them years later, someone tells me how their life changed because of something I said. But it wasn't me who changed them, they changed themselves by letting it in.

I don't know how the RfC will turn out, in detail, though it looks highly unlikely that there will be any sanctions applied to you, unless they are applied to a whole series of users. (That's possible, you know, particularly if this ends up at ArbComm, an outcome I'm trying to avoid.) There has been some advice given for you that you voluntarily restrict yourself to 1RR. I'd recommend that as well, and that is how I routinely operate unless I have very good reason. Confrontational edit wars waste a lot of time and just get people fired up. Usually an article reform can wait, at least a bit, and usually there is a way to work out compromise language. You were faced with a set of users who were pretty reluctant to compromise, that was part of the problem. Learn from that, i.e., don't imitate it! --Abd (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What?

This is now the second time that i find strange claims by you about my editing. Without commenting at all on the content issues - where i of course disagree. What exactly is this referring to:

It's pretty bad, actually. I just examined the edit history behind this. Petersen is using Twinkle, marking all reverts as minor edits, which is abusive, see WP:Minor edit. ...

I've just looked through the history for minor edits around that time - and i can't seem to find any. So where is that? The other issue - was this ... which anon editor did i revert? Frankly i can't find any reverts of such an article anywhere, that i should've done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh! You are right about the minor edits. Twinkle apparently plays games with us, and marks reverts as minor. Chalk that one up as a mistake. Frankly i had no idea it did so - and it seems to be a bug. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Its btw. the first time i've seen that complain, noone has remarked upon this "feature" to my knowledge, that i've seen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh well - i'm just going to continue on with my vacation. I'm still not having access more than sporadic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a single note: Solomon did know how to use talk pages - since he contacted me on my talk-page the 27th , where i did explain that WP:V was the trouble. Verifiability not truth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Never said he didn't know. But there was equal responsibility to use talk pages, and I'd tend to place more responsibility on experienced users to ensure that possible consensus is discovered in Talk. Anyway, thanks for asking here. I was realizing that I was going to have to ping you about it, if somebody else didn't. It's a problem because many editors set their preferences to not see minor edits, but editors should know when they have been reverted. Twinkle wasn't intended for use with ordinary reverts, but for dealing with vandalism. So, let's say, when I saw you were using Twinkle, marking reverts of non-vandalism edits as minor, and, in one case, calling such an edit "vandalism" in the edit summary, it did not look good. Anyway, hopefully, it's water under the bridge. Though you really should apologize to GoRight for that vandalism summary, it did make some trouble for him. Enjoy your vacation.

As to the issue with Solomon, yes, of course you were correct, but, it seems, not seeing the forest for the trees. When a primary source, the subject himself, says he didn't say something, then we should surely look closely at the source. I have not seen verification that the source was a true letter from the subject, Peiser, but, setting that problem aside, it didn't say what the article claimed it said, that was a synthetic (and, in fact, unwarranted) interpretation. So your revert was restoring POV synthesis. Not good. I agree, we couldn't use that comment as a source, in itself, but, if confirmed, and it could easily be confirmed, it could be grounds to take out something contradicted by it, unless the reliable source was truly strong, which it wasn't. Anyway, enjoy your vacation. --Abd (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the edit diff'd above, I couldn't find it quickly, though I don't have time to search thoroughly. That was just an off-hand comment, no particular judgment was implied that the revert was improper -- except for that minor edit thingie, which really doesn't have much effect on IP editors, who don't have watchlists as such. I'm pretty sure I saw that, but I'm not certain what article it was and I might have gotten the date wrong, or perhaps the identity of the reverting editor wrong. Beats me. It was the edit that showed me the new link to the CBS recent article.--Abd (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Abd! While we seem to very much disagree, and I quite object to your implied threads ("topic ban", "de-sysoped", ...), can we at least try to maintain basic civility? I'm Stephan, also Stephan Schulz, or, if you want to be formal, Dr. Schulz. I'm neither Citizen 23192 not "Schulz". Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I normally don't presume to use first names with people unless they have accepted it, so, normally -- outside Misplaced Pages with, say, a mailing list, which is where the bulk of my writing has been done -- I would use "Mr. Schulz" or, once the doctorate has been established, Dr. Schulz, maybe, but in descriptive style, use of last names or user names, i.e, "Schulz," sometimes abbreviated, is common. I will try to remember to use "Stephan," in the hope that some implied familiarity and mutual respect will become a reality. When I mention "topic ban," "de-sysopping," and the like, it is because we have a pending user conduct RfC and possible sanctions exists as an outcome, and users -- all users -- should be aware of that, WP:RfC warns about it in general, that RfCs will call into question the behavior of all involved. I'm very serious about this: User:R. Baley blocked a user when he was involved in a conflict with that user, and William M. Connolley used his admin tools to edit a protected article to a preferred version. Both were uncivil; I've examined the former in detail and am quite confident about it; the latter, I have not tracked all the details down; for example, if WMC had community consensus to make that edit, or was acting for, say, an essential of BLP policy, it may be less serious or even proper. Probably, though, even then, he shouldn't have been the one to make the edit, because of an appearance of conflict of interest.

By the way, my user name is an extraordinarily familiar one. Call me "Abd." It means "servant, worshipper, lover." The term has been used by some of my wives. (Been married too many times, though not so many that I wouldn't do it again!) The rest of the name, ul-Rahman, says whom it is that I am, nominally, serving. "The Merciful." Help me live up to that ideal by reminding me of it, as my wives were not shy of doing, nor are my seven children and five grandchildren, and, indeed, many of the rest of you.--Abd (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best. And sorry if my use of "Abd" was unexpected familiarity - I just went with the full username. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we know how you got so good at dispute resolution. :-) ATren (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see if I'm good at it. Yes, I've had some training. Whether it's enough or not for this environment, we'll see. Stephan, no offense was taken, in the least. If I didn't like people calling me Abd, I'd change my user name. And it can remind me of my proper role. Watch me. I have the impression that if they were having trouble tying the knot for my hanging, I'd say, "Here, let me show you." --Abd (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2008

One more comment: Stephan you wrote "we seem to very much disagree." If you could find it possible to get very, very specific about that apparent disagreement, it's not impossible it could be resolved. As to my side of this, I consider it forbidden for myself to hold fixed opinions, they get in the way of seeing beyond personal limitations. When I write, I write what I see and infer at that time, it is not necessarily what I would see if I re-examine the issue, particularly if informed by someone with better knowledge or insight. Not exactly related, I've had two RfAs, one ridiculously early, the second still too early, but I was astonished to get about 50% support even with some canvassing against it. (Almost all the opposition was based on edit count, still too low.) And you can tell from the RfA that I was not at all eager for it to succeed. Most of what I want to do with and for Misplaced Pages is not only not helped by having privileged tools, it can be a distraction and a hindrance. And a temptation.--Abd (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've made my position sufficiently clear, and described it in a sufficient level of detail. If you do no follow me, I think going into "very very specific" detail would be a waste of both your and my time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding consensus is frequently impossible when parties refuse to communicate completely. One of the classic problems with consensus communities is that it can take a lot of time to discover the underlying unities, and some don't have the patience for it (or, simply, the time). A few people, in addition, really don't want to find agreement. It, or the process, might whack their agenda upside the head. --Abd (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

, . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's where we agree. But above, you mentioned disagreement.--Abd (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Intimidation

Please stop with the intimidation efforts. As Stephan Shulz noted above: your implied threads ("topic ban", "de-sysoped", ...) are simply incivil. You have used such threats on several occaisions - most recently as "trash your admin bit" here: . Consider this a warning, future use of such comments will be viewed as harassment. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Stephan didn't call those uncivil, he said he disagreed with them. He considered my referring to him as "Schulz" uncivil, for which I apologized and amended my behavior. --Abd (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning noted. That was a warning to an administrator that his actions risk his bit. It isn't intimation, period. However, if you disagree, take it to AN/I or file an RfC, or, first, see if you can get a neutral party to warn me. You are not neutral. Take a look at WP:Requests for comment/GoRight for just how far this "harassment" argument can go when a larger community looks at it. Be careful. Intemperate and inappropriate defense of User:William M. Connolley can backfire, i.e., it could harm him. Take a look at User talk:Tango and at Tango's RfAr, which was also referenced at the pending RfAr for Connolley. My summary: "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" --Abd (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like clockwork. As soon as someone points out the obvious, they're accused of harassment, no matter how politely or civilly they go about it. Let the witch hunt begin. Abd, perhaps you now understand why things are the way they are, and why you should just drop it. If you continue, you will be banned. That's not a warning, that's reality. See also . You have been identified as an undesireable and are scheduled for termination. :-/ ATren (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ATren. Do you realize how much trouble it would save me if I'm blocked? I've said many times, as consolation to other users who've been blocked (that is, to some of them, such as User:DGG and others), if you've never been blocked, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project. Well, I've never been blocked. I must not be trying hard enough. Be careful though, admins who read this. I'm not a newcomer, and biting me could be hazardous, like biting a poison frog. If I do something blockable, be careful with me, as you should with anyone, avoid incivility, don't block with a conflict of interest, make sure that the block follows blocking policy, and go ahead, you'll be safe as long as the block appears reasonable enough, even if it is incorrect. If not, though, expect to see proper process ensue. I will *not* be disruptive, and if blocked, I won't evade a block, I expect -- unless unforseen circumstances arise, not likely. And I respect the right of a community to control its own process through consensus. It is that consensus that I serve, as to my intentions.

Consider this: there is, in major media, allegation that there is an edit cabal around William M. Connolley. I do not know if there is a literal cabal, but there is what I'd call a caucus of editors who tend to work with some common purpose, and it can present, sometimes, the appearance of a cabal. That appearance is damaging to Misplaced Pages. If a member of that cabal blocks me, it will call attention to it. There is already plenty of grist for an RfAr over this, though I'd consider the time for that premature, and I've been trying to head it off, it would be much better if some friends of those administrators would help restrain them. I've been trying to deal with this at the level of friendly warnings and talk between editors, not even at the RfC level. But a block would open it all up. So I don't know if it would be a good thing or a bad thing, I merely know that, almost certainly, it would be disruptive, and it is not where I'd recommend going.

I tend to write a lot, except under emergency conditions. Take a look at what happened at WP:Requests for comment/GoRight. I originally wrote too much. What do you think an unblock template message from me would look like? Do you think it would be a tome? No. It might be a few words, with reference to an evidence file for detail. And I'd take whatever time it would take to compose that, I don't consider being blocked an emergency, because no individual editor is crucial to the project. Good chance, unless block policy is blatantly violated, the block would be over before I was ready to respond. I'm restrained in my editing by my understanding of the community and of ArbComm and how it would look at my edits. I make mistakes, for sure. As do all editors who seriously work on the project. By the way, I haven't followed the link you gave yet, ATren. If it changes my mind, I'll note it here. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strunk and White 4th ed. II.17 (but except for the numbering it seem to be unchanged from the 1918 edition)--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Stephan. From that source, "13. Omit needless words," a principle, applied tightly and rigorously, which I've used in my editorial career which began roughly forty years ago. I'm an editor as well as a writer, and that advice refers to final drafts, not necessarily to first ones, where writers are properly encouraged to say what they have to say, freely, without restraint. A final work can involve far more labor than a first draft. Consider that I'm writing for a community of editors. Some truly understand that job, and the proper position of editors and writers, some don't, and the latter situation leads to the famous enmity between editors and writers (and there is a similar misunderstanding on the part of some writers). I have a friend who is far more succinct than I, and it's quite a problem for him, because for him to cut down what he has to say, with similar effective content to what I write, takes him three times as long, so he is able to write far less, overall. So, let me put it this way, Stephan. I did not write what was above for you or for your benefit, I wrote it in response to ATren. You're welcome to read it, and if you have questions and need it abstracted, it can be done. But I don't ordinarily put in that effort unless it's requested. And I write, naturally, for those who are interested in what I have to say, not for those who are not. And I welcome the editing of others, which, in this case, would mean restating what I say more succinctly. Care to volunteer for that task? If not, well, this is my Talk page. It's up to me to decide how I respond here, isn't it? As to my comments elsewhere, if they offend you due to length or anything else, nobody is requiring you to read them. They won't cause any damage unless someone else takes up what is said there, so if it every became important, you could go back and read it. If I were to write a warning for your Talk page, you can be sure it would not, centrally and in what is "legally effective," be a tome, it would be very short and, I hope, sweet. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"And I welcome the editing of others, which, in this case, would mean restating what I say more succinctly.:" I can't be bothered to write concise prose. I have a friend who can. I don't write for you anyways. HTH ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Schulz. Thank you for trying out for the position of editor. Unfortunately, we won't be needing your services. And a word of advice: if you are going to successfully edit the work of a writer, you will need to develop the skill of reading sympathetically. Best wishes, Managing Editor, Marjan Publications.--Abd (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite, Abd. ATren (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, ATren, appreciated. In any case, the "editor" position referred to would be for Marjan Publications, which publishes what I write (all of which was pretty much pre-web). And an editor who edited like that, for a publishing company, would be fired. Or not hired in the first place. Misplaced Pages is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Notice that it doesn't say "write." Anyone can edit, writing is a rarer skill, and publishers who focus only on editing soon go out of business. Can you spell "boring?" Good editors enhance what writers write, sometimes being able to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Bad editors take the silk purse, albeit burdened with some extra content or missing sources, and turn it into a piece of useless garbage that may meet all the grammatical rules and formal guidelines, and if the publisher is so foolish as to publish it, they lose their money because nobody will buy it. And the author, outraged, finds another publisher. This is my Talk page, this is my party, and I'll cry if I want to.--Abd (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley once accused my prose of being prolix, , to which I responded "I apologize if you find my text too prolix. I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future.", . For some reason he then responded by deleting the entire conversation from his talk page and complaining on mine, . He is very difficult to please. :)

Geeze, I just finished reading some of the Arbcom evidence at . That's quite a list of edit warring and admin power tripping. I wonder why people can't see this for what it is ... --GoRight (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's common for factions to form, and evidence multiplies like cockroaches. To review all this takes a lot of time. I've been considering for days whether or not I should contribute evidence in that arbitration. I've decided not to do so. This time. That arbitration had, initially, limited scope. I think the Committee may be reluctant to expand it. I.e., "Subject was accused of picking his nose in public." "Okay, we will consider the case." "Subject also robbed the bank, jaywalked last December, is famous for inciting riots, and, and...." It can take a lot of work to pick through all that. To prepare a comment so that it penetrates the fog is also a lot of work. And how much is gained? One less admin? That's not necessarily a gain. If ATren is right, there may be more cause for action in the future. If he's wrong, then there really isn't a problem, there was a problem. Connolley has been rude. The way he deals with his Talk page is an aspect of it. I see that you have, in the past, attempted to negotiate consensus. Be patient. But also keep on keepin' on. You were blocked, improperly. If that concerns you, as it concerns me, follow up on it. But be careful. Let go of the animosity and focus on the clear offenses, and on undoing the damage (an uncorrected block log, or, at least, some record showing community consensus that the block was improper, and RfC may be adequate for that). You will note that I have attempted to resolve this short of RfC and ArbComm, and continue to do that. See if that effort has been completed sufficiently, and, if not, see what else can be done to try. Carcharoth has been attempting to talk some sense into Connolley, without much success. But at some point Connolley may start to see it, may become more careful. Or, if ArbComm leaves his admin bit alone (which is how it was looking last time I checked), he may become more arrogant, feeling vindicated. I can't predict which will happen.

I have also been building my reputation. There are now more than a few administrators who will take my comments seriously. I'm known for taking on difficult disputes, sometimes to the chagrin of one side or another (sometimes both sides get pissed off, they like their little edit wars). However, where I've continued working with a particular article, things tend to quiet down. Mostly, though, my concern is process, not content. Take a look at my last RfA . That was fun. I didn't have nearly enough edits, and still almost made it. Open secret: I don't want to be an administrator. I have seen one situation where I'd have blocked a user, happened yesterday. User:Fredrick day, when he knew he was nailed, said that he could be more effective running block-evading socks. I can be more effective without an admin bit. I couldn't use it when I'd want to, i.e., when I have an opinion. That's what abusive admins don't understand. --Abd (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly want to be an admin either, not that I would even be considered in my current radioactive state.  :) As you say, it doesn't provide anything in terms of resolving a content dispute and on that front either your position and arguments have merit or they do not ... regardless of whether you are an admin or not ... and that is the way it should be. On the issue of addressing my existing block log, what would you do if you were in my position in that regards? --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If the block reason was legitimate, even if the admin improperly blocked (i.e., someone else could have blocked, but that admin chose to do so even with a COI), then I'd let it lie. If however, the reason was improper. I would put together some documentation showing that, and a brief request, referring to the documentation, to the blocking administrator, politely requesting that the admin annotate the block log to correct the record. Or at least apologize for the block in a statement which you could later refer to, if needed. There was, by the way, a possibly bad block way back for you, and you might want to look at that as well.

If the admin agrees, you are done. However, from what I've seen, it may not be that easy. So, then, you will have an attempt to resolve a dispute. Try again through a neutral administrator. If you can't find any neutral administrator to agree that the block was improper, again, you might as well let it go. But there are 1600 administrators, and quite a few have their heads screwed on straight. The neutral administrator (or possibly an experienced user) would attempt to negotiate the apology. If that again fails, you have a basis for an RfC on the topic. Remember, they will try to turn it into a general RfC on your behavior. You can resist that, because the question here will be whether or not a particular block was justified, and if you later turned out to be the Loch Ness monster, that's not relevant. For you, its a tactical question, whether or not the effort to clear you name is worth the possible disruption. I'm interested in the case, so I might help you with it. In a sense, I've already tried to resolve the issue to some degree, but not with an eye to preparing for an RfC if it fails. Just trying to resolve it. If you try, politely and properly, and fail, I might take it from there, I can't predict. It's risky, but so is getting up in the morning. If it were me, with my record, I'd definitely do this, but you were intemperate in places, more than I'd be comfortable with. On the other hand, as far as I can see, you were provoked, as some may be trying to provoke me. So .... hard to call.--Abd (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The goal is not to punish the administrator, and let go of any thoughts of that, they will poison how you proceed. The goal is (1) to clear your record, so that an improper block isn't held against you in the future, though, hopefully, you won't get that close, and (2) to help prevent this from happening to others in the future. An RfC is the last stop before ArbComm, and ArbComm will want to see an RfC, usually, before taking a case. ArbComm is not likely to reverse an RfC unless it was marginal or was vote-stacked or otherwise distorted. ArbComm is far from perfect, but it is a deliberative body and isn't so easy to influence improperly. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Abd/Allemandtando

User:Abd/Allemandtando, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Abd/Allemandtando during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. _{This notice added at 21:12, 15 July 2008, by Ryan Postlethwaite note added by Abd (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)}

Ah, the irony. Evidence page is created, Nobody is told about it. Apparently watching my conributions (ironic given that he claims I'm wikistalking him, which I'm not), Allemandtando blows a gasket, on his user page puts a blinking warning that he's being watched and be careful what you say, and goes to AN/I claiming, what, I don't recall exactly, harassment? Now there is a MfD, which again calls attention to the file, which is mostly empty. And now it's emblazoned on my Talk page, right there in History, and lots of people watch this page. I'd say, if you are interested, watchlist the evidence page. You'd then see if it comes back into existence, assuming it's not salted, which I doubt. (This is *not* a threat to recreate a deleted page. What comes back would be an actual evidence page, a draft for an RfC, probably, which is clearly legitimate, and if it were really needed, I'd then go to DRV). Right now, it's snowing Delete, with about half the voters being involved in the RfC for GoRight (which Allemandtando also commented in, in spite of having no prior involvement, I suspect because he checks my contributions.) I have a copy of the file, so I don't really care if it's deleted or not, don't these guys have something better to do with their time? I suppose I'm now a little more motivated to put together the actual evidence. Not a lot more. I actually don't find it pleasurable to try to "get" the supposed "bad guys." I'm usually pushed into it be ongoing harm to the innocent and wrongfully accused.--Abd (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was emailed about it. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked before, with no response. Somebody wanted to stir up trouble, for sure. I have a fair guess of who that might be, an old shit-stirrer, but that could be wrong, easily. You've heard his name, that much I know. Anyway, calling attention to the file in AN/I, on your user page, and now with an MfD -- though you didn't file it -- wouldn't seem to be very, uh, smart? (Let's put it this way. If I'd seen a similar MfD from Ryan about a file about me, I'd ask that the MfD be quashed, and I don't mind a lot of attention at all, and I do everything keeping in mind that ArbComm is looking over my shoulder. -- they aren't. Yet. But all the History remains.) You started just such a file on me, a laundry list, and I didn't go to AN/I and I didn't try to get it deleted. Instead, as you will recall, I suggested to someone I thought would be likely to be your sincere friend that it would be suicidal for you to pursue that, and apparently it worked. The principles still apply. Once I actually get fired up and moving, I don't screw around. You've seen the RfC for GoRight, you commented in it. And that wasn't really a central issue for me.--Abd (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me make one final comment and then hopefully we will not have to communicate again - the bottom line is - I'm not worried about you doing anything because it's clearly not in your nature.

• Yes you will imply, slander, and make lots of inferences

• Yes you will make vague threads about admins losing their bits or having to watch out, or people being checked for being sockpuppets or having to be careful

• Yes, you will collect lengthy files about people

• yes you will poison the well by going from talk page to talk page and telling people "watch out, don't associate with this editor"

• yes you suggest to other editors that maybe *they* should warn editor X,Y and Z so that you don't have to do it

but the bottom line is - the bottom line is, from all I've seen here, you are the sort of person who doesn't really do anything but bluster and talk and talk and talk and talk. The reason for this is simple - you can only pull the trigger the once and once you've done that your attempts to imply, slander and make lots of inferences and try and bully and scare people with those tactics are over - you know it, I know it, we all know it.

So don't threat me with phrases like "when I get fired up" because I simply don't believe you and you are wasting my time and wasting other people's time with those empty threats.

So don't threaten - do. File that RFuC, go to Arbcom, otherwise put down your dossiers and your evidence files and do something useful. Your empty threats seems to be drawing increasing attention to your activities and your ways of harassment. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Allemandtando, you are deep in a fantasy. For example, what "lengthy files about people"? There is a lengthy file for GoRight, because of the RfC, and GoRight, if you'll notice, has been quite grateful that somebody paid that much attention. It worked. There was *no* evidence in the Allemandtando file, just a place made to put it. Yes, I'm drawing increasing attention. I know it from the email and comments I get from administrators, but as to negative attention, no more than I've ever drawn; I've pointed out some problems, and there is a small coterie of administrators who seem upset about that, but I rather doubt that they will do more than bluster a bit, it would be far too dangerous, risk far too much. But there is no accounting for how foolish some can be, so, I guess, we will see. As to you:

I don't have a trigger to pull. Just eyes and ears and hands that write. You want an RfC? Really? Fine. Watch. It's probably time. Of course, maybe it won't appear, and, even if I do start to write it, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, nothing whatever. My detailed examination of the edit history will turn up what a fine, upstanding editor you are, savior of the wiki from fancruft and POV pushers and unsourced text. It will show how you defused conflicts, encouraging the sides to find consensus, and refrained scrupulously from gratuitous incivility and disruption. Right? I wouldn't file an RfC that was unnecessary, or that would fall flat. What a waste of time that would be!

Now, I'm trying to figure out. Why would you want me to file an RfC? You like the drama? Maybe, it would explain some things. Why did you revert my AN Talk today? Edit war over it, even? Over a silly pedantic adherence to what seems to be an unclearly worded Talk page notice or discussion close notice? Was it really that important? There is another possibility, and it involves testosterone. I've seen a grown man come totally unglued when the word "testosterone" was mentioned, as in "testosterone-crazed." And what did he prove? He proved that, indeed, he had a horrific temper, and that he couldn't stand anything that smelled like criticism, and, since what I'd been doing was try to arrange a marriage, at the request of the woman, she, witnessing it all, learned exactly what she didn't want: to marry him, it saved her a lot of heartache and abuse, and she had already had more than her share of that in her life. From his point of view, of course, I'd done a terrible thing, ruining this poor woman's chances of marriage by being such a jerk. There is always more than one way to look at things. All I know is that she was profusely grateful to me. As she should have been, it would have been a terrible marriage, even though it had looked amazingly good up to that point, she was ready to go for it.

So, Allemandtando, I'll allow one more post from you to my talk page, you can have the last word, you've already banned me from yours; beyond that, skedaddle,vamanos, go away. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got offa my duffa and did it. Now I know why I sit on the duff. It's a pain to do something. Compiled some evidence, saw what was going on -- I'm convinced -- and filed the SSP report and now an RFCU, and, boy, did he scream! Geez, I thought he was asking me to do it! Isn't that what he said? you are the sort of person who doesn't really do anything but bluster and talk and talk and talk and talk. The reason for this is simple - you can only pull the trigger the once and once you've done that your attempts to imply, slander and make lots of inferences and try and bully and scare people with those tactics are over - you know it, I know it, we all know it. I mean, if I say something like that to someone, certainly it wouldn't be surprising if they ... did something. What did he expect? That I would go cower in the corner? "Oh! Oh! He really made me ashamed!" Complain to my mommy? (God bless her, she died last year at 96, but I can't remember complaining to her about anything, ever.)

However, I filed an SSP report because I'm lazy. It was quite enough work for a morning, thank you very much. Because Fredrick day is pretty good with using other people's open wireless routers, multiple ISPs (I believe he has two that he regularly uses at home, he definitely has two monitors and probably runs more than one simultaneous login with independent computers and IPs), and proxies, the RFCU may come up inconclusive (most likely), but since it's much easier to file an RFCU than an RfC/U, and the former could make the latter moot, that's the way I went. So we'll see what happens. Allemandtando is still welcome to one more comment here, but he noted in the SSP report that "I have a further problem in that I have been advised off site not to communicate with Abd in any form (which this does) for reasons I cannot explain here because they might constitute WP:LEGAL but I will be willing to discuss via email with an admin. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)" I don't know if I should be ROTFL, wondering if the knock on the door is a process server, or simply scratching my head. Ah, scratching my head! Feels good. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pushed, there was nothing there, good thing I didn't push too hard, I'd have fallen on my face

Allemandtando has "retired," blanked his user page and talk page with some parting shots. My conclusion: even if he had made no mistakes that would reveal his identity to checkuser, he would be increasingly hampered by being watched. Since he only had a month of history invested in the account, much easier to just let it go and start over again. Whether or not it is ever proven that Allemandtando was Fredrick day, Allemandtando proved that it would e possible for a block evader to come back, be quite aggressive, and still evade discovery for a month, putting in over 2000 edits. Fredrick day was a deletionist, and had announced, immediately, when he slipped and revealed that he was a certain IP editor with a distinctive signature, by apparently forgetting that he was logged in and adding the signature to one of his disruptive posts (actually a fairly mild one, as they went), that he didn't need the account, that he could do the work without it. And so he did, for a while. But then those posts stopped. And Killerofcruft appeared, doing similar work. Not same articles, same fields, same tactics, and the same incivility. He was nearly blocked, immediately, but nobody had enough evidence, after all, he'd only been editing for about two days! He showed how much you could do before somebody would finally go for RFCU. Now, what if he was not Fredrick day? We might find that out, as this is written. The significance would still be about the same. A returned user can behave outrageously, but can get away with it if there are enough other users running interference for him, which is part of what happened. What got my attention was the incivility, the intense willingness to disregard the Misplaced Pages principles of consensus and cooperation, in favor of "enforcing rules." Very, very dangerous. I'd rather have a few articles of fancruft, sourced or not, than have hundreds of small-time editors believing that Misplaced Pages hates them. Those "unsourced" articles will get fixed, if they are truly *wrong*, even without "reliable source." This was the original wiki vision, actually. But, don't get me wrong. We should have reliably sourced articles; my solution would recognize hierarchies of knowledge, with unsourced articles living in a kind of "draft" or "submission" state, like a piece of writing submitted to a publisher that needs editing. And then anyone can edit it. And if it isn't "notable," it is in a "non-notable" layer. Not deleted, unless it's hoax or copyvio or libel, the usual. There are ways to work all this out, but it is going to take cooperation, and that's essential, and Killerofcruft, was, unfortunately, too often, Killerofcooperation.

What did he complain about the most? That I was "watching" him. And it is absolutely necessary that we watch each other, not abusively, but to keep this a safe place. The user page that was nominated for MfD was simply a box labelled "Allemandtando." It had nothing in it except a warning not to put anything in it except pure evidence, no conclusions. And it wasn't announced. Rather, it was taken to AN/I by Allemandtando very quickly after creation, claiming it was an "attack file," and he claimed that I was "recording his every move." But it wasn't me recording his eveyr move, it was Misplaced Pages. If I do something offensive, someone should wee it and warn me, and take steps to make sure that it doesn't happen again, and they may need to write it down. In this case, I actually needed to collect some evidence, which I did this morning, before I really could see what had happened. And Allemandtando really didn't want anyone watching. Everyone is watching us, Misplaced Pages is watching us, whatever we do here, it's all in History. But if nobody ever looks at it, sorts it, analyzes it, it's useless, the mountain of data is far too large.--Abd (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

I've smiled at you because even though we've disagreed in the past, over the last couple of days, some of the stuff you've been saying has made a surprising amount of sense. Cheers! MBisanz

Thanks. Nice. Look, MBisanz, one thing you may start to notice about me. I do not hold grudges, period. Maybe it's the onset of senility, but it simply doesn't come up quickly in my mind, past disagreements. I say what I think, and, besides being simply wrong sometimes, what I have to say often sails over the heads of others, I'm quite used to it and don't take it hard. But if they were to read it a year later, they might think differently. That's happened to me many times, people have come to me years later and said, you know, you were right, I couldn't see it at the time... Or, as I said, I might just be wrong.... Most people won't know until it ferments for a while.

Not everybody has the time to read what I write, but, if you think I said something good, pass it on. Hopefully more succinctly than I can. That's how it works.

It's been quite a day, so far. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

As I know that you are very helpful, maybe you can help me for the RfC I have started... http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monaco#RfC:_Tax_haven Blanchisserie 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I took the article back to its state before the IP editor intervened, but, please, discuss changes with that editor if the editor returns. Please be brief. I know, some reading this will be quite amused to see me giving this advice, but, Blanchisserie, your English can be difficult to read, and when it is long, it is going to cause most people -- even more than my tomes! -- to simply turn away. Try to make one brief point at a time and wait for response. Rome was not built in a day. Tomorrow will usually come.

Do not edit war. Unless you have a good reason, and, in your case, get help (!!!), don't make more than one undiscussed or unsupported revert on a particular change (the IP editor was just plain wrong, but don't let that drive you crazy, lots of people are wrong, often, and if we get upset about it, we will then get upset whenever we look around! Just be patient and work steadily.). Let others edit war if they want to, it is not difficult to deal with, with patience and mutual consultation. If needed, the article can be protected. There is a very strict rule against making more than three reverts to an article in one day, for details see WP:3RR. If I reverted that article more than three times in a day, and it wasn't blatant vandalism, and even if I was "right," I'd be blocked, almost certainly. And then I'd have to justify it. Maybe the admin would look at the details and not block, or quickly unblock, but that takes a lot of time, and we need to respect admin time. Besides, I like having a clean block log. Eventually, it will get some ink spilled on it, because I work hard sometimes, and everyone makes mistakes, including me and about every administrator. We then fix them and try not to make them again.

Edit warring, though, is also against guidelines, and even a single revert can sometimes be edit warring. (But I've not seen anyone blocked for a single revert unless it was part of a larger pattern.) The initial revert you made was not edit warring. The way Misplaced Pages works is that, in effect, anyone may propose and edit, and if nobody objects, it stands. A single revert means "I object." And then both parties know it is controversial, and should be discussed before proceeding. If the original author reverts, he's saying YES IT IS! (okay). and if you then revert, you are saying, NO IT ISN'T! And, obviously, this adds nothing and only postpones the discovery of consensus. It looks like the editor is defending Monaco. Good. Every POV needs defense. That's useful. This editor will notice nuances in the article, language which could be improved, that others will miss. But we won't let that editor control the article. We will welcome the editor. Consider how you were treated with the article on French elections. Don't treat the new editor the way you didn't like being treated. Okay? Be welcomingly civil, even as you stand firmly for Misplaced Pages quality standards. The article is missing sources for lots of statements. Cooperate with a critical editor in adding citation needed tags. If an editor puts something in that isn't sourced, you can remove it, but .... consider, is it possible that this is true, or with a little tweaking it's true? If it can be tweaked, tweak it. And if it isn't sourced, put in a citation-needed tag. Or find the source yourself. I.e., help the editor, don't unreasonably obstruct. And if you think it's false, and it's unsourced, and you can't fix it, then take it out, politely, and raise the issue in Talk, explaining why you took it out.

Please sign all your Talk contributions. You are using a manual signature that doesn't stand out as much as an automatically generated one (which has links). At the end of your Talk posts, put -> ~~~~ <-, (four tildes) which will fill in several linked fields for you and your Talk plus the timestamp. If you have already tried that, and it doesn't work, then you have possibly set your preferences to a custom signature, then didn't fill in a custom signature. Go to "my preferences" (at the top of every page in the skin I use, and I think that's normal), and empty the contents of User profile/Signature and uncheck "Raw signature." I expect that it will then work. Try it when you respond here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Routemaster

The following was posted to User talk:Oxyman42, --Abd (talk)

I reverted your edit removing my new text. I don't like to make a revert restoring text, but your revert was so obviously incorrect that I've allowed myself one such revert. I thought, first, of asking you to revert yourself, because I think you really were making a simple mistake. You challenged text with a cn tag, then I changed the text to something new that I thought would not need a cn tag, and then you restored the very text that you had objected to. This starts to look like a WP:POINT violation, I hope that's not the case, that it was simply an oversight. Please do not remove my edit except to replace it with something better. If you think the new text needs a cn tag, then the proper thing to do would have been to add it, not revert. That would not have been edit warring, it would have been adding a new tag to new text, allegedly unsourced and allegedly needing a source. Be careful. Once blocked, your actions will be subjected, typically, to higher scrutiny. It's actually not fair, but that's the way it is. Word to the wise.... --Abd (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that changeing the challenged text and putting weisel words up wasn't really the way forward on this occasion, especially as you had previously said you wouldn't remove the tag. should you not have waited a little longer after making this statement before removing it? youre text"Red and Green RT Type buses, to be distinguished from Routemasters." didn't really seek to help the situation you could put a JumboJet picture there and state "to be distinguished from Routemasters." couldn't you have waited a little longer for someone to get a citation? Also I can't see how "Hypocritical" is a personal attack when faced with users insisting I follow certain rules yet blatently breaking those rules themselves. It seems a fair discription of the treatment I have recieved to me Oxyman42 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, why did I be so bold as to actually try to work on articles? It's so nice and safe working on Misplaced Pages structural issues, where people tear each other to bits over stuff that has, at least, a tiny bit of relevance (because editor behavior is often the issue there), so it can be expected, whereas in article space, people tear each other to bits over true trivia, like, should we use 20 July, 2008, or July 20, 2008. Or should we have one more image in an Image gallery that some consider useful and some don't (at least one)? Let's not get issues mixed up here, that is part of what makes edit wars and general incivility escalate.

(1) If text is challenged, a standard, civil response, is to change the text in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to meet the challenge, assuming good faith. In this case, there was text, a photo caption, and Oxyman had challenged (1) the whole picture, and (2) the caption. Those are two separate questions. Right now, the majority seem to prefer to leave the picture in, and this is an editorial judgement, there is no guideline sufficiently specific to refer to, but this remains quite open for discussion, and this issue may have been resolved -- though not in detail -- by a suggestion to expand the article to cover the issue of misindentification, for there is reliable source. And then the image becomes a simple illustration of the text. It would still be an open question of whether or not the photo remains there ad interim. I have an opinion on that, a strong one. In any case, the caption is now reliably sourced, so does Oxyman want to debate an issue which has become moot?

If there were any reason to believe people could confuse Routemasters and Jumbo Jets, yes, a photo might be appropriate. This is an example where editorial judgment is the only standard, unless there is reliable source, which there is, in this case, but which wasn't known when I made the edit in question. This is a "differential diagnosis" kind of issue, and is common encyclopedic practice, particularly in comprehensive manuals. An editor of a birding book doesn't have to go out and find a reliable source to put in a photo of a different bird, in the article on some particular species; the photo itself shows both the similarity and the difference, if it is well-chosen. It's self-verifying, on the face.

I said I wouldn't remove the tag when I wasn't contemplating changing the text. Then I realized that I could change the text so that it made no factual claim at all. That wasn't weasel words, and, frankly, I start to get a bad feeling when I see this argument. That's my problem, but this is my Talk page and I notice and note how I feel here sometimes.

Nothing I did prevented anyone from finding a source and that is, in fact, what happened, quite a while before this comment was posted (I think, unless I overlooked a message waiting notice, I haven't checked). And so now we have a stronger statement in the caption, pretty much back to what it was, with a source.

Now, to the more serious issue. There are some editors who, if we assume good faith, appear to be incapable of distinguishing what is a simple comment or statement of truth from what is a personal attack. It's unfortunately, but these editors will often be blocked, out of necessity to protect the community. Misplaced Pages doesn't punish, or at least it shouldn't. But we also must protect, both articles and the community which creates, edits, and maintains them. "Hypocrite" is a term descriptive of a person, and is, in fact, a very serious claim about the person. I'm a Muslim, and the Prophet said -- or is this in the Qur'an? -- the lowest pit of hell is reserved for the hypocrites. The term attacks the person, it does not merely criticize the appearance of the behavior.

But to deal with a question which was not asked: what if Oxyman had said, "That argument is hypocritical." Frequently we see such statements excused; after all, the argument goes, it's about the statement, not the person. That's not true, any more than it would not be a personal attack to say "That statement was a lie," because "lie" refers to intention not to the statement itself. A statement can be wrong without being a lie.

Oxyman, drop this. Do not attack other editors. If you find it necessary to comment on editorial behavior, be careful how you do it, you are violating guidelines and policies, quite a few of them. And that someone else allegedly does the same will not protect you from consequences. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I assume and hope that you have a great deal to contribute. It would be a shame to lose you. But lose you we will if you drive over this cliff. I'll answer Minky later, below. Short of it, though, Oxyman, please openly connect and acknowledge any legitimate socks ("alternate accounts") you are operating, see WP:SOCK, and be careful how you use them. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I really can't see how your religious views are appropriate here or helpfulOxyman42 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. There is a lot you can't see, at least not yet. Stick around, keep your eyes open, you might come to see more. I didn't mention my religious "views," I just mentioned a series of facts, mostly relevant, one not. (That I'm a Muslim wasn't relevant, directly, but I'm usually carrying on a number of conversations at once, I'm writing to a particular occasion and I'm writing to the future.) The most important fact was that "hypocrite" is, for some people, about the worst thing you could call them. Not helpful to know that? Too bad. Don't say you weren't informed. This is becoming tendentious. You want the privilege of posting on my Talk page (aside from what Misplaced Pages requires me to allow)? Start listening more. Try to figure what is right with what I'm writing instead of what is wrong. Trying to find what is wrong with what other people write is part of what keeps us from the benefit of it. Trying to find out what is right can disclose to us new vistas, things we'd overlooked or could not previously see. And this is true even if the writer is an arrogant idiot.

I happen to know a few obscure things about a few obscure subjects. And one day someone interested in one of these subjects and who fancied himself quite knowledgeable was discussing it with me by email, and I mentioned a fact, not commonly known, and, indeed, the conventional "wisdom" on that is incorrect. His response was, "I have no patience for fools." I wrote back that if there was any difference between him and me, that was it.

How did he respond? How would most people respond? I don't know, really, I just know what he did. He laughed. And then proceeded to treat me with a great deal more respect, to the extent of paying all my expenses to two conferences that he had set up about his work, because I was probably the only person in the world who understood it sufficiently to criticize it. Oxyman, would you have laughed? Be honest with yourself, that is far more important than what you disclose to me. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes User:Oxyman is the same as me I can't see how it can be called a serious attempt to sock as the names are so similar (wouldn't I choose a different name if I wanted to deceive?), I haven't used both accounts to vote on stuff or anything like that, I opened a separate account following a naming concern with the previous name of an account. latter the name was changed to something similar to the one I had just opened. actually I would prefer to shut one of these accounts, but I do not know how and having read advice on accounts it said just open a new account and that doppelgangers were acceptable Oxyman42 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact If you can show me how I can shut the User:Oxyman account dowm I mill do so, but please make the instructions simple to understand as I couldn't last time I tried, I really haven't used that account recently anyway Oxyman42 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't do it by yourself. But first question: is there a security issue? (i.e., something about one account that could compromise your off-wiki security, disclosing identity.) You might answer this question by email if you like. Second question: which name do you prefer? --Abd (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Can you please take an independent look at the contributions of User:Oxyman and User:Oxyman42. Having noticed ther contents of some posts deleted from a talk page, I've noticed both accounts seem to have identical names and overlapping interests - namely images on buses for one. I'm not going to open a sockpuppet case as I know it would kick off a sandstorm. Can you take a look and file a case if needed? Minkythecat (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this is more a case of sour grapes than anything else I have not used the User:Oxyman account recently, the images of buses are uploaded to commons. Oxyman42 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one. Oxyman. It could be argued that Minky was out of line here, or, alternatively, that he didn't understand the rules. WP:AGF requires me and you to assume the latter. I was going to respond to him with just about the same, i.e., stop it, but you beat me to it. Let others defend you. Don't assume that the sky will fall if you stay silent. I see that you have now acknowledged the connection. It can be useful to have two accounts, you could have two different watchlists, for example, and it is fine as long as the accounts don't double vote or something like that. And to avoid problems, you do what you have now done, put pointers in to connect the accounts. If you have a problem with security, for some reason, you can get accounts deleted, or specific confidential information deleted, if that's an issue, ask again and I'll find it and point you to it.

Minky. Your request here did not look friendly. Opening a sock puppet case would have gotten you slapped by a wikitrout, so it's a good thing that you asked here. If you read WP:SOCK you will find that socks are okay, if they are not used abusively or in some way as to avoid, for example, taking responsibility for disruption. If that had been intended, I'd suggest, it would have been colossally stupid to use names. I have two sock accounts, one is User:Abd sock. I've used it for fun and games, i.e.,to test how quickly could I make two edits (I was experimenting to see how sock puppets might work, since I've had to deal with a lot of them. Would two edits in the same minute be proof that the accounts were independent? Answer: No. I made two edits within five seconds or so. You can see it above.)

And both of you. Be nice. Both of you crossed Wikpedia boundaries in the last few days, for which you have the honor of a block record. If you want Misplaced Pages to forgive you, forgive other users who have crossed boundaries. Otherwise, you are likely to be judged as you judge others. Somebody famous said that, didn't he? Well, he was right. That's how it works. Assume good faith, treat others well, and usually they will treat you well. Not always, but nobody said the world was fair -- or Misplaced Pages. --20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... Because of something else I saw, I put a friendly warning -- not a formal warning with "warning!" in the edit summary -- on Minky's Talk page. He removed it with Please respect my wishes and leave my talk page alone. I'm starting to get one of those bad feelings. Minky has the right to ask me to leave his talk page alone, except for formal warnings. This editor, however, is driving down the same road as User:Allemandtando was speeding along. Deletionist editors who watch my Talk, please take a look at Minky, and help him to remain civil. It is essential that article deletion be handled in a civil and helpful manner. Minky does a lot of speedies and a quick look seems to justify most of what he does. But it is easy to make mistakes with speedies, and users will get pissed, so a "speedy deletionist" should be well armored against incivility, and should never be uncivil, and should be helpful to editors who are upset. Below is a cookie from a user whose article Minky speedied. The speedy deletion notice was proper and told how to recover the file. But the user, as is common, was upset. Minky's response wasn't -- in this case -- particularly uncivil, but neither was it helpful. I responded to that user, reminding him or her of what the speedy notice had stated about recovering a deleted article, and also suggesting to the user a bit more calm. The cookie below was the result. One less pissed-off user, who can now develop the article at leisure. Please, help editors who take on the dirty work that Minky has taken on to keep from getting damaged by it. --Abd (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right

I appreciate what you are saying Abd but I just went to WP:DGAF and it reads:

"Contributors who don't care about Misplaced Pages help it (and themselves) in many ways:

-Not giving a fuck also lends itself to ignoring all rules and being bold"

Forgive me for being frustrated (glad to know it's recoverable, it needs a lot of editing but I was laying a foundation for quite a while) but I think the Ignoring Rules and Being Bold applies more to people who use tags incorrectly more than it does to me. You are right though that I should be calmer. (You didn't write this but it was understood.) Yours, GabeCorbin (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GabeCorbin (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the cookie! Yum! I'm on a low-carb diet, but this kind, I can eat all I want!

WP:IAR is Rule Number One for Misplaced Pages. We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. It seems you misunderstood those, so it's good you questioned this. They are positive values, not negative ones! (They are easily misunderstood: IAR does not mean "Do you what you will shall be the whole of the law," and BOLD doesn't mean "disregard courtesy." I've looked a little a Minky's work, and it seems generally legitimate, though he could possibly benefit from some work on his attitude. He's doing speedy deletions, and that is bound to get people upset, so, of all people, he really ought to be specially polite and helpful, and he wasn't exactly helpful to you, he could have reminded you of the way to get your article back even more easily than me.

Some people who do work like that get pretty cynical, it's like those who do vandalism patrol, they can get an idea that most editors are out to destroy Misplaced Pages, and then they start to treat anyone who disagrees with them as one more vandal. So I consider these kinds of tasks, necessary as they are, dangerous. Maybe Minky should get a cookie, too!

Good luck! --Abd (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right again!

I will send him a cookie also. Be my mentor, I like you. I want to someday be an administrator but I have lots to learn myself. First thing I am tossing out, today, is my temper. GabeCorbin (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Ask any time. I cannot predict his response, but you do it because it's the right thing to do. If he's civil in response, great. If not, well, you now know about WP:DGAF which is actually a modern restatement of a very old practice, Karma yoga. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A Question About Sandboxes

Hi Abd...I thanked you on F.G.'s page but pranced over here to ask you a question (or three). I bookmarked the link to my Sandbox but it wont link up. Only way to get to Sandbox is through the link on F.G. page. I am uncertain what a Sandbox is supposed to be that is different from a user page or a Wiki page. Also, as I add links to sources, at what point and who decides when we can move the page back to mainstream Wiki? I am hoping within the week. Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox is just another user file, but usually used for testing edits. I'd move the file away from there, to a specific working file in your user space. If you like, I'll do it for you. To go to your file in the Go box, you would enter:

User:SuzanneOlsson/Sandbox (or follow this link) Now: User:SuzanneOlsson/Draft article

That should bookmark properly, don't know what problem you were having.

No, don't expect a week. You've got sources to find. You know the old story? The man was eager to revenge the death of his father, and went to a samurai master for instruction. The master accepted him, but he asked the master how long it would take. "Five years," the master said. "But," the man replied, it's urgent I avenge my father's death." "In that case," the master replied, "Ten years."

But, hey, maybe it could all happen. I'm just saying that it we hurry and don't do it right, it could fall flat and make it substantially more difficult to succeed later.

I'm beginning to develop a kind of standard approach to this. If it were in my user space, there would be a little more freedom to do this, probably. You would edit it to, quite simply, the article that would be the most informative and interesting you could put together, without worrying about sources. It's a draft, and writers should have great freedom with a first draft. Then an editor looks at that first draft and tries to figure out what could be published from it. For publication, sources will be needed, and anything that can't be sourced that is of any substance, not mere filler words and obvious stuff, will have to be removed or cut way back. There are ways that we could arrange for source for some things based on your own writing, but that can't be the backbone of the article, just some of the flesh. All this will take time.

Why my user space? Because there could still be trouble from people who are looking at the fact that you are writing an article about you. Even though, in theory, you can do this, in political reality, it pushes some buttons for people. If it's in my user space, I'm responsible for it, and I can protect it through my reputation, see the comment from DGG in the MfD on the article. There may still be some flack, but I've got a magic sword, like one of those Chinese martial arts movies, that can whack the arrows in mid-flight. Seriously, I don't have a magic sword, but I do have some confidence in how to allow writers to do good work without enraging their natural enemies, editors, and, I expect, sufficient support among Misplaced Pages administrators to get away with it. (Besides just being basically right....)

Then, when we have an article that would be acceptable in an ongoing way, we might set a copy of that draft aside and then reduce the article to bare bones, where everything is reliably sourced and not questionable, as bulletproof as possible. Might be boring, short on interest, but ... verifiably sourced without question, showing notability. That's the article that would be moved back. Once that's over with, and it survives a new AfD or Deletion Review, the article can be fleshed out again with weaker sources, but still within what is routinely accepted. Describing this is a bit complicated, but we are dealing with a complicated political situation. So, one step at a time. Edit the article the way you want, try to be neutral, as you would be writing a newspaper article, something you should have quite a bit of experience with (not an editorial or opinion piece, a news article or factual piece in a magazine). At the same time, try to find any reliable sources, such as copies of newspaper articles -- actual photocopies, faxes, or scans -- or, lucky us, web page URLs, that show that you are more than a bug in a rug. I.e., the sources you find, or part of it, should be about you, personally, rather than simply mentioning in passing that you wrote a book about a subject. Perhaps it's a story of your travels, etc. If it was written by you, but published in the New York times, about your travels, that would be great! For example. Or any newspaper. A review of your book or books would help. If it's in Kashmiri, or any written language, fine.

Got the idea.? If you don't, try dyeing your hair, or at least tie it back and cover it with a scarf. :-) --Abd (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You said Sandbox is just another user file, but usually used for testing edits. I'd move the file away from there, to a specific working file in your user space. If you like, I'll do it for you. I get so few offers from men these days that I'll take your offer to move the page but promise me you'll provide the link. I'm lousy at guessing such things. I know of a dozen places where this name and research have been a topic of conversation but I don't know where to begin looking. Until now most of those have been related to Ahmaddi special interest artciles. One Ahmaddi magazine called Sunrise as I recall did mention me and this work in at least two articles but they may not have been entirely about me.

I understand the editor dilema....when I was writing feature articles for the centerfold of the Herald every Sunday, one woman contacted me asking if I would write about her. Her greatest claim to fame? At age 11 she won a school singing contest. What did she sing? I'm forever blowing bubbles. I kid you not. It was darn hard to find the outstanding or even the moderately interesting things to write about. But then it was a small rural County back then. Cows and the pumpkin crops had very limited appeal. Made the early days back in New York positively heady by comparison! Let me explain that I feel a slight sense of urgency about getting this done quickly because some news and publicity will be breaking soon and I hoped to have at least a minimal page up before then..I don't know what Powerset is but the Wiki article there has already gone 'round the world and generated quite a response, especially from Roma, Srinagar (Kashmir), Delhi and New York. Based on those responses from only a few days I know a proper article on a proper Wiki page is a worthy goal at this time..I'll even settle for the whittled down version to start...Darn I wished I had saved more...no one can accuse me of vanity! Dumb, yes. Vanity, no. I'll buy that scarf first thing in the morning. As I said in the opening of my book, it is easier to face Kalashnikovs than to face critics. Have a pleasant evening and thank you for moving the page for me, Kindest best wishesSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The file is now at: User:SuzanneOlsson/Draft article. I'll take your userboxes and other user page stuff out of it. You can, if you like, copy text from the draft article to your user page. Your userpage, by the way, is at User:SuzanneOlsson...

As to articles being about you, doesn't have to be "entirely." "Substantially" would do. Ahmadi, some might not be thrilled, but, it's better than nothing. Major circulation, decent editorial standards?

Remember, libraries often have newspaper archives, sometimes on microfilm or microfiche. --Abd (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One more point. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as publicity for your book. It's that simple. One of the reasons for the response you saw when your article was proposed for deletion was a sense that you were trying to accomplish this. Makes the natives restless. I can easily understand that you might want this, and so could they! But because they see this all the time, and consider it a threat to the project .... it explains some of the critical edge. We will just have to see what shows up as to sources, what you can find, perhaps in libraries or someone in Kashmir may find a newspaper article in a newspaper archive there, or the like, and then accept that it's enough or not enough. I highly recommend against putting the article back until there is reasonable satisfaction that at least a minimal article will be sufficiently sourced. Right now, it's harder to get an article on you than it would have been if we were starting from scratch. Essential mistake you made: putting up the article yourself. Asking someone else to put it together, particularly someone Misplaced Pages experienced, would have been much better. (Lots of people make this mistake, autobiographies are constantly being deleted, often through speedy deletion process.) If we put the article back again in a weak state, and it gets deleted again, very very difficult to return it. It can be done, it's simply going to see much closer scrutiny each time. --Abd (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

Please note that it is a user's right to blank their talk page. They have withdrawn their request. Please leave it be. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But then he could put the request back later. Protect his user page, fine. But don't allow him to dictate the terms. His response to what could be read as criticism there shows that, indeed, he is not ready for unblock. That's too bad, actually. Now, go do something useful. He can blank again if he wants. I really wanted to give him one more chance.

Normally, I'd not revert a user on their own user page, see the followup (which may be gone by now). But WP:IAR. This was motivated by a desire to help the user and the project, and was easily undone. Unfortunately, if this user is not ready to acknowledge what he actually did, to hear criticism of it, so that we can know that he's not likely to do it again, he is an ongoing danger. --Abd (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

civility and deletion etc

I agree, and think I said similar here on DGG's page User_talk:DGG#pop_culture-free_wiki. It's the way KoC went about it that was the problem, rather than what he did. But also, I've said in the past on ANI that I disagree on principle with people who evade their block being quickly 'rewarded' by an unblock. Sticky Parkin 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice to agree, isn't it? I've worked with consensus process for about forty years, and it takes work, but the results can be worth it. Especially if people don't just give up in disgust, but persist in attempting to find common ground and don't hold grudges. Being a dialectical thinker, however, I will now treat the synthesis as a new thesis and develop an antithesis. How "Koc went about it" and "what he did" were the same thing. The general goal of cleaning up the project isn't what he did, it is a presumed motive and I'd guess you share it. I also share that motive, though I think we often go about it in a way that misunderstands the nature of a truly comprehensive encyclopedia -- but that is a long-term discussion, we have to deal with the project we have today, not with what it could become.

Blocks and unblocks exist neither to reward or to punish, they exist to protect. Common blocking errors arise when there is a punitive motive, and common unblocking errors arise when there is failure to consider protection, but only "He's been punished enough." Or, "He's not been punished enough." If a return were negotiated, quickly, for Fredrick day, that established reasonable security that, if he acts out disruptively again -- or if simply a reasonable confidence that he won't disrupt vanishes for some cause --, he could quickly be blocked without a huge brou-ha-ha, he could be unblocked tomorrow, as far as I'm concerned. He wasn't just an asshole, we've got plenty of those, some with admin bits, rather he was positively vicious sometimes (I think there is one IP edit where I'd made a friendly comment to a very young Misplaced Pages editor, and he -- almost certainly him -- alleged that I was "fond of rent-boyz" or something like that, it's harder to get more nasty and disruptive, and it seems to have confused the hell out of the kid; I couldn't find the edit, so I think it -- and my edit, the occasion, there was nothing wrong with it --, were deleted and the only reason I can think of that I'd want an admin bit would be to be able to see deleted edits....)

But I could easily imagine a fairly simple agreement that would suffice. Problem is, I suspect, he wouldn't agree to it, even though, if the same agreement were offered to me (if I'd made some really big mistake, as he did), I'd accept it in a flash, I'd have nothing to lose -- except, of course, I'd have to admit, fully, what I'd done. Fred, in his response to my warning to a possible unblocking admin, said, "What's the use, he'd still be watching me." Right. And the problem with that? I'm being watched. There are, or at least used to be, admins who would have taken any excuse to block me. It would have been messy, I'm sure. But it didn't happen and, now, sometimes, those admins are starting to suspect that I'm not a total idiot blowhard crank. I'm getting emails and notes from some surprising sources. If I'd been allergic to being watched, I'd have been out of here. Like Fred. Instead, I try to remember that I am always being watched. The future is watching, I'm watching from there, not to mention others. I have to live, tomorrow, with what I'm doing today. (And today with what I did yesterday, which isn't always easy, but it gets easier, the more I remember that the future is watching.)

Anyway, thanks for the note. I really appreciate it. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As you said above- precisely, we all have people who don't 100% love us on wiki, in a way it's good because it means we have to watch how we act even more closely, so anyone who might dislike us doesn't have an excuse to get us in trouble. I suspect from the Killerofcruft account/username and the edit summaries that he didn't exactly improve much as Allemantando, that this was a throwaway account in a way, for his own amusement, that he didn't expect to keep for long. If he really wanted to be unbanned/blocked he would've behaved in a lovely fashion with his new account for a few months, then asked to be unblocked. Or even, not have acted with his new account in such a way as his previous account having been blocked would even have mattered or been known. Sticky Parkin 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, even though I strongly suspected that Koc was User:Fredrick day, and mentioned this on AN/I when other users were speculating as to who the puppet master was -- quite a few admins seemed to think it blatantly obvious this was a block-evading sock, and I'd agree -- I did not pursue Koc/Allemandtando beyond occasionally countering actual damage, and maintaining some level of awareness of his activities. I created the evidence file that he made such a flap over, and didn't put any content in, for almost a month, and it was only his persistent insistence that he was being harassed, coupled with my awareness of the disruption being caused (by massive, confrontational AfDs), his insistence that, simply by showing that I was aware, and continuing to be aware, I was "attacking" or "harassing" him, finally pushed me into actually examining the evidence in detail. Contrary to what some might think, it wasn't about him being a deletionist; he fomented and encouraged that misunderstanding, because he then had ready defenders. It was about the incivility, the non-cooperative, warring style (which wasn't universal, apparently, he's been said to have been cooperative, apparently, in some cases; but those may have simply been battles he thought he could not win). And, of course, the trolling, which can be seen above. I'm human. He attacked, so to speak, my courage, my "manhood." Not smart. It was, in fact, bullying; he may have gotten away with it in some schoolyard, but general rule in adult society: don't attempt to humiliate someone: once in a while they pull out a gun and start shooting. You can't tell by how they look. You'll be lucky if you just get a bloody nose. The response is instinctive and even cowards will sometimes rise, so to speak, to the occasion, make the humiliation intense enough. And when they don't do it directly, later, mysteriously, your favorite (fill in the blank) is broken. Fd may, in fact, think that I've been trying to humiliate him, which would explain the intensity of his response. It's an error, an unfortunate one. I've held up a mirror, and he complains about what it shows. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes. I don't generally hold grudges, but ... Fd had very actively, as an IP vandal, harassed, fomented, and helped rigorously enforce a block against probably my best wiki friend, who had really done practically nothing and had only interacted with Fd because my friend was an inclusionist. Similarly, Fd had harassed User:Kmweber, another inclusionist editor. Weber can handle himself, to be sure (he filed the SSP report on Fredrick day, having come independently to the conclusion that the IP vandal was Fd, and he was right). What goes around comes around. Be nice to people, in the long run they will be nice to you. Be nasty ... some people forget, some don't. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ANi

I have a slight issue with you. Firstly, it was a joke. Secondly, blaming my joke for all of Misplaced Pages's bad rep is stupid. Thirdly, lighten up! :D Anyway, we helped him in the end, so all is well. End issue with you. Beam 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Joke was in bad taste, and AN/I isn't the place for jokes. This was someone who might simply have taken your statement as serious, and gone away mad. And never looked again. Lighten up? I laughed. And then wrote what I wrote. I did not blame you for all of W. bad rep. But your comment could have added a piece to it. You lighten up! In any case, I've created the category. Thanks for ending the issue. --Abd (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)'

No... YOU lighten up!!! Seriously though, humor is needed throughout this 'pedia. It would truly make everyone's life better. I am happy that you laughed. However, instead of publicly reprimanding me you could have answered the misguided chap's question and brought it to my talk page. Would have let me keep the 3 pieces of dignity I have saved, and would have answered his question quickly. Beam 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If I add a comment here, does that mean I'm not letting Beam have the last word? --Abd (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because I get the last word! Muahahah!  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, my Talk page, I'm the big frog in this small pond. Ribbet.

Humor, great, I agree we need more of it. However, humor requires rapport, and incivility destroys rapport. Civility thus precedes humor, almost always. It's long been known to be a special hazard of on-line communication that attempts at humor can fall flat because the countless in-person cues (body language, tone of voice) that tell us to laugh instead of punching the person in the nose (or running out the door or ducking under the tables) are missing. Look, Beam's joke was funny. Problem is, the user might not have seen it that way. Sure, once through the shock of it, he might see that Beam was pulling his leg, and, I certainly hope, he could laugh. But, serious risk, he could have gone away mad. Come to think of it, haven't seen any response yet. Might have actually gone away mad. Or maybe didn't see the response yet. I assume that Beam meant well. But ... there is, in fact, a very serious issue here, and it is how we treat unsophisticated editors. I'm not assuming that the problem is simple. There is a huge tide of vandalism, and it burns people out. *However*, if we address possible vandalism uncivilly, and especially if we treat what may be a good-faith edit, as these were, in fact (I'd say that's pretty much proven at this point), as if it were vandalism, we contribute to the atmosphere that causes vandalism. Some of it. Some of it we can't do anything about, it will happen simply because we are here.--Abd (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess an unblock request would have been more obvious? I emailed him earlier, so if he wants to answer that, he can, otherwise I won't send feeler out. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The sitaution you commented about

I'd encourage you to look a bit deeper into the User:Ottava Rima matter. The way he treated me (loads of completely baseless accusations, hours and hours of wasted time) was despicable. The links can be found scattered in the ANI thread. S. Dean Jameson 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Investigating the details of extended confrontations on Misplaced Pages can be extraordinarily complex. Since this user suggested I look into it, I did so briefly. No diffs or other references were given except for the AN/I report,a version from today so I followed a reference to a Wikiquetta alert.(permanent link to a version today.) (Don't you hate it when people give you a link to a page that is frequently archived?)

I must say that Ottava Rima had a point. I am not agreeing or condoning the manner in which he pursued that point, but the "accusations" were not "baseless." If Mr. Jameson wants me to explain why I think so, I will, but only if invited, and I'd ask him to first consider if he's willing to listen, to try to understand another point of view on this; it will involve stepping outside himself, dropping self-defense, and just reflecting neutrally. I'm not claiming this is easy, but it's an important skill if one can pull it off. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go there. I did nothing wrong. Nothing. Less than nothing. I called him on his baseless accusations against Blechnic, and that was all. He then accused me of lying, following him around (when he was posting about me to talkpages I had watchlisted), and all other manner of non-existent incivility. I'm not certain where you feel I erred (other than perhaps even gracing his accusations with a reply), but I didn't. S. Dean Jameson 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if you're going to defend the baseless attacks that Rima leveled at me (which were agreed as such by WQA and ANI), then no, I don't want to hear it, thanks. S. Dean Jameson 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone claims that something you wrote wasn't civil, is that a "personal attack"? Does it matter if it was civil or not? There are degrees of incivility, and some level of incivility is, unfortunately, far too common on Misplaced Pages. OR originally pointed to what he considered incivility on your part toward another editor. I have not reviewed all the ensuing fuss, I only looked at the original incident. And OR was correct, what you had written was, to a degree, uncivil, and a great deal could have been prevented if you had been able to see that. But you were not, and the rest is history. You have called the comments "baseless." I was not involved, never had contact with you or the other editor before. They were not baseless. Take it or leave it. Obviously, you are not obligated to read my Talk page. But now that I know, I may comment elsewhere. You asked me to look into it, remember. None of this is an approval of the general behavior of OR, which I have not reviewed. He definitely seems to take things a bit too seriously. He may need a good dose of WP:DGAF. And some others involved, as well.--Abd (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've clearly barely even glanced at the underlying facts. Here's the nutshell: 1) Rima accuses Blechnic of making personal attacks for questioning WW's ability to understand technical scientific texts (which is objectively a true statement, and not a PA at all); 2) I defended Blechnic from these accusations; 3) Rima drug me to WQA with no grounds whatsoever; 4) Rima rejected all opinions at that WQA that told him he had no grounds to accuse me of anything; 5) Rima accused everyone who tried to reason with him of either being my friend, or being involved in some way; 6) Rima made accusations against the editor who closed the WQA complaint; 6) Rima was blocked. Your above comment shows that you didn't even understand the genesis of the problem. I'll reiterate: you'd be well-advised not to comment further on the matter. S. Dean Jameson 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unable to Post

HI Abd; I seem to be locked out. I could not edit my user page...it seems to tied to the Paul Smith blocks.....wuz up? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you were able to edit my Talk page. Your user pages doesn't seem to be protected, either. Try again! What exactly do you see? "Locked out" would imply you could not log in. Perhaps you could not log in from some particular service provider/IP address? But you could from another? --Abd (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Paul Smith"? -Abd (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)