Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 13 January 2007

I appreciate many are pushing for changes on IRC, as to my mind that is entirely what this is and the last RFArb was centred on, and it is a great pity both cases did not include IRC in their title rather than just my name, as that would have focused people's attention in a more positive way on the problems causing all this mess.

Of course another problem is consensus, but to prevent these problems occurring time and time again a consensus to clean up the Admin channel has to be reached. The immediate and previous trouble makers Betacommand, Chairboy and Naconkantari need to be desysoped as an example of what happens when pointless and vindictive blocks are executed by inexperienced admins sent by others. The two following links give just a mild flavour of some of the problems such behaviour has caused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=96174238#Block_of_Irpen_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=96174238#Let_us_find_out_what_happened

It seems Kelly Martin and Co. are being "sweetness and light" on the channel at the moment (are they are running scared?) but the very moment this case is closed the problem will just begin again. The arbcom could fix things so I appear to be being left alone, but what about Irpen and the other editors with whom they disagree? Many of them are less vociferous then me. Then of course the great unanswered question is how many unknown editors have they already driven off, that we never even knew about, the good editors who just quietly disappear.

The arbcom have a few of the very many logs circulating. If they fail to address the problems, which they now know full well exist, then future troubles will make the present seem as nothing. This is not said as a threat from me, but as a fact which is blindingly obvious to many many editors. Giano 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How am I feeling? Pretty pissed off! I was talking to another well known and respected editor yesterday - he still is adamant he is not returning in the forseable future - the way he has been treated who can blame him. Others are editing - albeit at a very reduced rate - the enthusiasm is no longer there.

I blame the arbcom completely for this mess (not the new individuals - they have only been there 5 minutes) but the others, and that includes God knows how many others on the arb-list long retired who still have an input. These people have known about all this IRC "rubbishing of other editors" for years, (one leading present arbcom member is one of the chief culprits) - but the arbcom have clubbed together to save their own. This encyclopedia should be run like a university, as it is it is managed like an establishment for mal-adjusted infants.

I have been fortunate to mix with some of the (IMO) best and most qualified people in the world to write on their individual subjects. I don't say this lightly as I know the identities of some of them. That these people (who universities would fight to employ) are treated with such disdain by a pack of semiliterate high school kids is depressing, because it spells the writing on the wall for wikipedia.

It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through. As it is any little fool who has chatted on IRC for ten days can become an admin, and attack long and established editors of the highest calibre, I don't refer to myself as I can throw a punch with the best of them. I refer to those who have written brilliant pages for this project, but disappear when a little twit with an admin badge threatens them. If these tiresome admins don't like testy bad tempered old professors (I am not one) then stay away from centres of academia - which is what wikipedia should be. These people are the soul of the project. They are creating not only the encyclopedia but its reputation for excellence.

I only mix (by my limitations of interests) with an artistic/literary crowd, but I have been informed by no less a person than a European Finance Minister that Misplaced Pages's "economics department" is of the very highest standard and consulted. Professors of economics at one leading university now google whole phrases from student essays to ensure they are not lifted wholesale from Misplaced Pages. I know for certain (a close relation was the culprit) that one professor was handed his own plagiarised work. I also know for certain that pages on International European Law can only have been written by lawyers of the highest standing. Why should these people freely donating their valuable time have to contend with a bunch of kids from IRC? Misplaced Pages is more than fortunate to have these people. If keeping a pack of unruly kids and fools off the backs of leading experts is preferential treatment, then yes they should be given preferential treatment, just as they would be in any other seat of learning. I can tell you categorically that one of Britain's most eminent and respected writers has left Misplaced Pages tired of it all.

Misplaced Pages has been very very fortunate in its editors but it now has a problem! and it needs to address it now! The good editors need to be encouraged and retained. Misplaced Pages is not an ego trip for a few admins and arbs who couldn't write a sensible academic page to save their lives. The arbcom have the IRC logs. They have the proof. Now they need to stand up and be brave enough to do what we voted them into power to do. They need to sort it now, not tomorrow, now! Giano 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You say "It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through." We have no power to do that, and, frankly, are dependent as you are with respect to selection of administrators. There just isn't enough time to attend to it. To vote knowledgeably I would have to spend time investigating the edits and actions of the candidates. I can't do that due to other projects and arbitration duties. I would like to see some changes made, but my opinion in that regard is little more than that of any user. I would simply see more care taken and that arbitrary requirements not be imposed. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure if you want discussion to take place here or somewhere else, or if you would prefer this page to be just the open letter for a while, but I agree with what you say about the need to attract and retain writers on expert matters. The trouble is that just having expert writers was tried with Nupedia, and the wikipedia model seems to suggest that content added anonymously, and an army of wikignomes to organise other content and tidy things up is needed to reach the popularity levels we have. Those who are primarily writers also need to be able to work (directly or indirectly) with those who are janitors (admins) and those who write the code (the developers) and those who undo vandalism (anyone) and block troublemakers (admins). Getting the balance right is difficult, but I agree with the central point you are making, that those who are experts and run into troublemakers should have somewhere to complain to, rather than feeling they have to leave. There is also the flip side of the coin, even those who edit their little corner undisturbed for a long time should not become complacent. The open and public nature of the project means there is always the possibility that a troublemaker will come along. If the editors in question don't want to spend the time persuading cranks and nuts that they are wrong, or educating those who weren't aware of the most recent published work in an area, then they need to be aware that this is actually how Misplaced Pages works. Not ideal, but please suggest how this can be improved to both retain experts and not excessively restrict editing. Carcharoth 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message above

Hi Giano,

Above, you describe me as a "trouble-maker" and insist that I be de-sysopped. User:Rebecca has promised to begin an RFAR against me in response to my block of you, and I hope that you participate. My block was endorsed by Mr. Wales and there was no conspiracy against you, I hope that a formal proceeding will help assuage your concerns. You have, on a number of occasions, referenced logs that you felt were damning. I encourage you to re-read them carefully, you may find some of the things you ascribed to me to be in error. If you feel that I have violated a policy or acted in a manner unbecoming a wikipedian, please let me know so I can address your concerns.

We're all supposed to be working together to improve the project, and some of the vitriol being exchanged is working against those goals. I hope you'll receive this message in the spirit with which it was sent and join me in helping heal the rifts that have formed.

Regards,

CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• For the benefit of anyone who is wondering what on earth this is all about. It seems that the case concerning me re-opened by the arbcom (very foolishly and without any serious thought IMO) has vanished into thin air, now that the arbcom finally realise it concerns more the behaviour of a small cluster of admins on the IRC admin channel than it does me. While I can quite see how embarrassing it must have been for the arbitrators to see one of their number forced to recuse after joyfully voting to ban me and/or parole me (in short get rid of me because I know too much and won't shut up) - I think it would be helpful if not courteous (remember all their talk of incivility) if we were told exactly what is happening. We now know, and indeed the arbitrators now know that Betacommand, Chairboy and Naconkantari were acting under very strange circumstances indeed with their continued blocks of me I still hardly dare edit, for wondering from where the next template will drop. It will be a pity if the arbcom's failure to act now results in further disruptive and damaging RFArb cases. From what I can gather at the moment though that seems to be their wish. I hope this dithering and failure to act, is not a ploy to prevent us ever finding out that one of their leading members has said in IRC that many of us are idiots who need to be got rid of. The arbcom needs to clean up IRC admins and I'm beginning to think their own house too in order that wikipedia can progress in a healthy fashion Giano 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew there might be trouble due to your calls for desyopping. I think the consensus is that we would like to see you come back, but we are also reluctant to continue the drama with respect to the issues you raise. The motions regarding you were removed because we were not getting anywhere. However, we are doing what we can to improve the situation on IRC. The disturbing situation there has been discussed at great length. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Disturbing situation" well at least that is one up on "Giano is paranoid" now go and tell it to those on IRC and do something about it fast - before they gang up on the next victim! God in heaven, it's like bashing one's head on a brick wall. Giano 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Fred, neither have I forgotten you wanted me banned for bringing it to your attention! Giano 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am very seldom on IRC, other than the arbcom channel. Fred Bauder 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did get this response from a new Arbcomma . Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, no-one was forced to recurse, at least, not in the sense that there was any rule that required it. People make mistakes, and sometimes they have the opportunity to correct them. It's not something we should take undue pleasure from. Being sinned against doesn't give one license to sin. Cheers. Ben Aveling 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolox he was forced after a long debate and many emails and much discussion. Glad you too agree I and many others have been "sinned against". Regarding you edit summary "Time for forgivness on all sides please" please don't be impertinent I shall be the one to decide when it is time for "forgiveness" - and it is a long way off yet - beleive me! all the acusations of paranoia etc are still ringing in my ears - so don't you dare come here preaching about "forgiveness". Those people are all still on IRC admins plotting as we speak against the nest target - Oh and you had better beleive it Giano 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He was encouraged to by a number of people, including myself, and he agreed to trust our judgement over his own. Had he not, then maybe he might have been forced to. But good sense prevailed and it didn't come to that.

I don't really care what happens on IRC admins, so long as it stays there. Sticks and stones and all that. It's what happens on wikipedia that matters. There may have been some people motivated by malice, and others that made mistakes. It happens. Life is too short to buy into every battle that offers itself. Forgivness isn't a gift to them, it's a gift to yourself. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, are you really master of the "point of fact" you present? I for my part don't know what happens inside what is, to the ordinary community member, the black hole of internal ArbCom discussion. Do you? I only know that such discussions are liable to carry more weight than the community "encouragement" whereof you speak. I know you mean well, but I'd be honestly surprised if your aphorisms helped a lot on this page and at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Am I doing any good? Maybe not. But I'd rather try and fail than not try. This is what James said to me: I disagree with your disagreement. I am not "heavily involved"; in my opinion, I am not involved at all. ... I have now recused, however, in large part because you (and apparently others) for some reason consider me "involved". I have no proof but I believe he was trying to act honourably and just made a couple of mistakes. When I look back at this sorry mess, it seems to me that Giano had no control over what happened. His reaction to the situation he encountered was to lash out, to try to hurt people, and I think he succeeded in that. And perhaps some of them deserved to be hurt. But he also hurt some people who didn't deserve to be hurt, either because they were just innocent bystanders trying to help or because they were dupes who needed help, not abuse. The result was that Giano was played like a fish on a hook. Everything he did reduced his credibility with almost everyone. Had it not been for yourself and Geogre, Giano would IMHO have been permabanned. Were I Giano, I would not be happy with that. Maybe he is, in which case he doesn't need to change anything. But if he'd like a bit more control over his own destiny, then he is going to have do some things a bit differently in the future. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you being deliberately tiresome, or is it just something you can't help? I'm not sure what you are, other than less than helpful, so run along sonny - don't bother to come back. Giano 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Bishonen - sorry Ben you seem to be rather out of the loop, I rather think the arbcom have abdicated responsibility and given up. So it is up to the individual editor to act as they see fit. The arbcom no longer exists to protect you or the encyclopedia, they have simply disappeared. I seems likely that IRCadmin is running the joint - so beware. Giano 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but I don't have the time to explain why. If you trust me, accept that IRCadmin does not run this community. They have some influence, as do we all. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)