User talk:Abd

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia-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" [1]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[2] 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 [3] ... 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 [4], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[5], [6]. --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: [7]. 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 [8]. 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 Wikipedia. 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[9])--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. Wikipedia 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, [10], 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.", [11]. For some reason he then responded by deleting the entire conversation from his talk page and complaining on mine, [12]. He is very difficult to please. :)

Geeze, I just finished reading some of the Arbcom evidence at [13]. 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 [14]. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia 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!

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 talk

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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, [15] --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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. --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.[16] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Unclear on the concept, it seems. I don't have to understand the situation thoroughly to remark as I did. The claim was that OR had made "loads of completely baseless accusations." Now, an accusation can be false, without necessarily being baseless. Dean didn't point to specifics, so I looked at the AN/I report and found what was given there first. I saw claims that were reasonable on the face, with responses that missed the point and argued in such a manner as to avoid facing the issue. There are no "underlying facts." There is the discussion in question. And it's repeated here. Dean uses a strange definition of "objectively true." Now, we have a claim above from Dean:

"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)."

I've been "computer conferencing" since the mid-1980s, and there is this strange phenomenon that I saw then, and continue to see. There is a complete record of the communication, yet many people will argue about what was said, and will continue to argue in ways that are, to say the least, not supported by the record. Is that what is happening here? Let's see.

The original edit by Blechnic is here. In it, Blechnic, as an argument for a topic ban for an editor, states: She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

User:Ottava Rima then made this request on Blechnic's Talk:

Please remove "The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately." from your post on Wilhemina Will on AN/I. This is a personal attack, and it undermines your case. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima was correct. It was a personal attack. It's hyperbole, for starters, almost certainly. Dean claims that the statement is "objectively true." For starters, a statement could be objectively true and still be a personal attack; the key would be apparent motive. From WP:NPA: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Blechnic was clearly attacking Wilhelmina Will, it is not just that sentence. Now, nothing in what I'm writing indicates that there was not some underlying necessity for the comments. What is a personal attack in one context might be a necessary exposition of fact in another. However, what I quoted above from Blechnic is not, contrary to Deans's claim, "objectively a true statement," at least not completely, and to judge the degree of subjectivity in it would require much more research than I intend to put into this at this point. Let me ask this question: is it true that "almost every sentence" of Mesodermochelys has had to be rewritten because of Wilhelmina Will's "inability to read scientific articles accurately," and, how do we know the cause? If this is an objective truth, as claimed, what is the proof? Let me put it another way: if we were writing an article on the history of that article, could we make that statement, would it be NPOV?

Dean also claimed "hours and hours of wasted time." Now, there was several very simple possible responses to the request of OR on Blechnic's Talk. (1) Do nothing. Or write back, "Thanks for sharing your view, I don't agree that this was a personal attack." And if tendentious argument follows: "Please do not comment further on my Talk page." (2) Strike the sentence. Neither of these responses takes more than a few minutes. What does WP:NPA recommend as a response to personal attacks? Nothing. If someone makes a report on WP:WQA, there is no obligation to respond, at least not at first. Consider this: if the claim of "personal attack" was baseless, then nothing is likely to happen from it. However, what is more likely is that it was not baseless, there were some edits which, at least in appearance, could be viewed as personal attacks, as with the edit of Blechnic above. And even then, one could avoid wasting lots of time by simply saying, "Oops! Sorry. I really shouldn't have said that," and, if appropriate, striking it. Or, if one can't bring oneself to that, one could still strike it with the comment: "I don't understand how this was a personal attack, but some have so considered it, so I'm striking it."

But for some, such actions are extraordinarily difficult. It's a trap. Knowing how and when to back down is a crucial skill in working with a diverse community. Some will defend and continue to claim that they were right even when almost the whole community is united in a different perspective; we have several ex-administrators who continue to believe that they did nothing wrong when they blocked a user for allegedly "making a personal attack." On them. Thus violating very important conflict-of-interest rules.

Now, Dean wrote above: I'll reiterate: you'd be well-advised not to comment further on the matter. I must say that I worry this is some kind of threat. However, I'll assume that it is connected with the earlier comment, Your above comment shows that you didn't even understand the genesis of the problem. Thus, read this way, Dean is trying to protect me from the embarassment of making an ignorant comment betraying my lack of understanding. However, he apparently doesn't know what I consider to be the fastest way to learn about new situations: open my mouth, say what I see, make all the mistakes, and learn from them. So, now that I'm informed that I might have a lot of misunderstandings to clear up, I may go to AN/I and Wikiquette to expose them.

What I've found is that when I have some misunderstanding, others often have it too, so when I make myself into an idiot in front of many, with my stupid questions and comments, they learn from it as well, without having to go through the embarrassment. (This is actually an ancient teaching technique.) Of course, once in a while I'm right, it has been known to happen. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well that was fairly incomprehensible. Huge blocks of text like that usually are, which is why I gave you the nutshell view. If you really follow through on your statement that you "may go to AN/I and Wikiquette" with it, I don't think you'll be happy with the results. Two additional things: what Blechnic said wasn't a personal attack in any WP sense of the phrase; nothing I said to OR was worthy of a WQA report. That's all I have to say to you on this matter, and I'm unwatching this page. If you wish to communicate with me further, feel free to post to my talk. If your messages are as long as the above, I will most likely not respond. I truly don't have the time for this. S. Dean Jameson 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but wasn't the alleged inability of an editor to comprehend what they were reading what started all this? Huge blocks of text are not, per se, incomprehensible, unless they are truly nonsense. Rather, they take some work. I guarantee that the work of reading what I wrote is less than the work it took to research and write it. Jameson has the time to waste "hours and hours" responding to and dealing with allegedly baseless attacks, but not to examine what might be at the root of the problem. Prediction: he will continue to waste hours and hours defending himself. He dropped nothing but vague hints and allegations on my Talk, and, as a courtesy, I worked it back to the sources, which I then reported -- thus creating "huge blocks of text." Sure, if this were an RfC or a report to AN/I, I'd have boiled it down quite a bit, paragraphed it far more carefully, bolded key sentences, etc. It's work, and I don't normally do that on my Talk page. As to going to AN/I and Wikiquette, whether or not I do that depends on the value to the project, in my judgemnt. I don't do that just to prove I'm right. Above, Jameson claims that what Blechnic had written wasn't a PA in any WP sense. In my "massive block of text," I cited the relevant language from WP:WPA against which Jameson proposes nothing but his personal conclusion as if that were authoritative on its own. The question remains: why did Jameson suggest I investigate this? I think it was because I had dared to say some encouraging words to Ottava Rima, words that did not encourage disruptive behavior, but which also did not simply chastise him and assume that he was wrong. Thus, I must see Jameson's comment here as part of carrying on some kind of harassment of this user, though at a fairly low level. The level of incivility involved is low by Wikipedia "standards," i.e., by the real standards, what actually happens with the community mostly yawning. The guidelines are stronger, as written, indicating that there is a community wish that there was less incivility, but the community hasn't figured out how to realize that wish. It does start, however, with indentifying the problem. It's not going to go away through wishes and magic. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You have gall, I'll give you that. You accuse me of harrasing Rima, after what he did? I'm finished with you. I am removing this page from my watchlist, and any posts made by you to my talkpage will be removed. I have no use for baseless accusations made against me, no matter who they come from, or how many words they use to make them. Good bye, S. Dean Jameson 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Who knows what power is concealed in the ragged sleeve of the beggar? I don't see the harassment charge above, but it's moot. I'm just intrigued by an editor who makes two "final" goodbyes in two days.

That's all I have to say to you on this matter, and I'm unwatching this page. If you wish to communicate with me further, feel free to post to my talk. If your messages are as long as the above, I will most likely not respond. I truly don't have the time for this. S. Dean Jameson 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished with you. I am removing this page from my watchlist, and any posts made by you to my talkpage will be removed. I have no use for baseless accusations made against me, no matter who they come from, or how many words they use to make them. Good bye, S. Dean Jameson 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm the new Tar baby --Abd (talk) 04:10, 3 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 don'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)

This is a cut and paste from the discussion on his page about his indefinate block [[17]]

I was trying to enter the date and issue of a newspaper article in India. Wiki would not accept my post, saying that I was connected with a blocked user and this would affect my efforts to post elsewhere. The only blocked user I know here is Paul Smith-Wfgh66(see link)SuzanneOlsson (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't likely to be connected. More likely, some other blocked user was using your IP or IP range and there was a temporary block. Obviously, you aren't blocked, because you wouldn't be able to edit this page. It's also possible you were not logged in, this could prevent you from editing a semiprotected page. You should always log in when editing, exceptions would be rare. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A storm's a brewin'

See [18]. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

That's the most consoling of all of the messages I have lately received. I don't know where I went wrong.

It was back in March that I decided I needed to do more with my account than I had previously. I decided I would set a goal for myself: strive to have created a total of 10 000 Wikipedia articles in your entire lifetime. I then set to work, trying to make that possible. In May, however, after meeting some users who had created up to forty DYK articles, I got the idea that it would be nice if half of the ones I had created were DYKs. So I set to work impulse-writing articles in which the main body was 1500 characters large or more. When I learned about the five-fold expansion rule, I decided I could give some of the extinct animal articles I had created through AFC a second chance at being DYKs. I successfully got five of them in, and have created, in total, nearly thirty. Then, in the middle of July, this whole mess started up.

I had created an article on the Tierra Redonda Mountain, which I then nominated for DYK. However, User:Blechnic came along and said it was a copyright violation. I didn't understand; I honestly thought I had sufficiently written the article in my own words, and it relied on more than one source, so I tried to fix the problem. But the other user reverted me, and said that I had to have an administrator look it over. I thought that was unfair (and just plain ridiculous), so I looked to User:Antandrus for help. However, as I saw it, he seemed to agree with the other user, and the page was deleted and reborn from another user. I felt as though Antandrus, whom I had considered a friend and a partner in business, had betrayed me, and I was furious at Blechnic, so I decided to cool down with a week-long wikibreak.

When I came back, I decided to start afresh. Nearly all of the other posts I had made at DYK had been accepted, so I felt inspired to keep going with it. However, when I got to working on Mesodermochelys's five-fold expansion, Blechnic returned and removed a lot of the stuff in the article. I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals, which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and then the corrections could be made. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up. But then this whole discussion brought up by Blechnic started, and I thought the users were just being either silly or mean to me, so I decided to ignore them and just continue on my way. Then, I found out from Blechnic that their discussion was to ban me from DYK, and I now feel just shattered. I was crying with rage for over two hours. This hasn't stopped me from my goal of ten thousand articles, but I am mad that I will only ever have 28 DYKs.

I hope you will understand that I am still in my mid-teens, and don't quite get most of the rules here, but am only trying to do the best that I can. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I glad to hear that it was consoling, I'm never quite sure what response people will have to what I do. You said that you did not know where you "went wrong." I might be able to help you understand; given that you are so young, it might be well worth your while to figure it out, because you may run into other situations elsewhere that are analogous. Instead of just explaining my thoughts on it to you, though, I'll wait to see if you feel ready to confront the issues. (It's not some terrible thing, but ... sometimes it can be difficult for people to face even small things that they have done "wrong." And it's not even exactly that you were "wrong," but that you overlooked something, I'd say.) But there are a couple of positive things I can say, right off.

I read your article on Mesodermochelys. Your first version wasn't bad. Sure, there may have been some errors in it, but the article was there. Look, if what had been said was true -- that every sentence had to be revised -- so? There is nothing that stops an editor, encountering a poorly-written article, from simply rewriting the entire thing, and the existence of the article you created if it were utterly useless would not add to the labor of creating a new article. You did a good thing by creating that article, and, I'm sure, it helped create the final article, which may not have existed if you didn't create it. Those accusing you quite simply have a totally incorrect concept of how the project grows. Now, I have not examined the edit history. If you edit warred, that's a problem. Edit warring is a bad idea even if you are right. (There are degrees of edit warring, with increasingly rare situations that justify each degree.)

Secondly, your ban from DYK can be overturned, if you think it worthwhile. It's a little risky, these things can blow up sometimes. But even if it stands, I'm a little puzzled. I haven't paid much attention to DYK, it's a transient thing. However, I've seen editors being notified that an article they had created was used for DYK. So didn't they get a DYK? Without editing the DYK page? AN/I is a bit of a bad page on which to create a topic ban, it should have been an RfC for a remedy like that, and you could, in fact, appeal this (to an RfC or to mediation or to ArbComm.) I'm not necessarily encouraging you to do so, but, rather, just to understand that this ban should be understood as a transient thing. It doesn't get in the way of 10,000 articles at all, and, in fact, the focus on DYK probably made that goal harder to reach. Wilhelmina, in any case, someone else can nominate your articles. Quite simply, it does not have to be you. Was there anyone working with DYK whom you found congenial?

Here is something I've found here on Wikipedia; I've also found it in life in general. When things don't go the way I wanted, it quite often turned out better than what I wanted. And those jerks (the supposed agents of my failure) had nothing to do with it, they were, perhaps, still wrong. Apparently, life is bigger than them ... and me.

For example, I try to save an article from AfD and fail. For technical reasons an AfD was improper, but did conclude Delete. I could have gone to Deletion Review with a reasonable chance of success. But, of course, the article would have again been AfDd eventually, unless it became better sourced. And then I realized that the article can be developed in user space free of the constant nitpicking of certain editors who take out every marginal source; and if an article has an abundance of marginal sources, it might be considered sufficiently sourced to be notable, but if they all get taken out, an AfD becomes a difficult procedure, where one set of editors is judging an article after another set of editors have taken out all the sources.... With the article brought to its best possible condition in user space, it can then be taken back into article space, and if those working on the AfD take out the sources, it becomes pretty transparent what's going on. It is possible, with some time, to create sources (and quite legitimately, and this is part of what encyclopedias traditionally did). In other words, Delete turned out to be a better outcome for the time being. If the article comes back, it will come back stronger and able to survive AfD; the resources, and editorial support, will have been built at a point when this can be done without, for example, violating WP:CANVASS.

By the way, "mid-teens." I would never have guessed, you write very well. That would make me something on the order of four times your age. Pleased to meet you. Let me know if I can help. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I am beginning to understand the issues a little better now. And as a matter of fact, I actually had no participation in George Davenport, Joseph M. Street, and Nathaniel Reed's DYK nominations; someone else did those. But I wonder; are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me? Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Be careful, though. If the person doing the nomination doesn't take responsibility for it, but just automatically passes it on, this could be considered meat puppetry. Exactly what you can and cannot do may depend on the nature of the sanction against you (the topic ban), and why it was implemented. Not being a crisp process like an ArbComm proceeding, which votes on alternative remedies, specifically, the AN/I ban may be a bit unclear, I'm not sure, I haven't reviewed it in enough detail. I'll look and come back. --Abd (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing on behalf of banned User:Wilhelmina Will

If User:Wilhelmina Will asks other users to promote her articles to DYK I will asked that she be blocked for a time. There is a policy on this, it's already been made up, if you're going to advise her please advise her as to this existing policy.

Editing on behalf of banned users[19] clearly states "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." Should Wilhelmina ask other users to post her articles as nominations to DYK I will remove them and ask to have her blocked for doing so.

Again, if you have accusations against me, go ahead and make them in the appropriate venues, otherwise I will assume you have none and are simply making personal attacks and Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks WP:NPA. Which is what I assume now, so cut it out. --Blechnic (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My, my, such befogged wikilawyering, vicious to a level I'm not accustomed to seeing! It inspires me to this: Wilhelmina, if you have any nominations ready for DYK, you may email the wikitext to me. I will put this text, from you or from anyone else, if I think it a reasonable nomination, on User:Abd/DYK. Anyone may take it from there to an actual nomination who agrees that it is worth nominating. Obviously, you won't get the "medal." But if I get one, or I see that the articles you created or expanded have been nominated, you will get something from me that's the equivalent. After the fact. For accepted articles, of course. Ordinarily, I wouldn't do it this indirectly, but Blechnic made a direct threat to harass you if you made any suggestions, and it is legitimate for me to keep the contributions confidential for a time to prevent such harassment.

I'll mention something that a rather pugnacious administrator once wrote to me: "You are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs." Of course, I'm old enough to be his mother, if not his grandmother, so it was a little off in his case.

There is, as I noted, a problem with creating a vague topic ban on AN/I. It's a hot medium, not a particularly deliberative one, and, while there seemed to be a consensus for a topic ban, there was no clear term; various terms were suggested, with some as short as "till she gets it." So what term was adopted? As to what came down to cause this to happen, I'm reviewing the situation, considering a User RfC on involved editors. Really, it is the fact that two of these editors, on one side, have pursued the matter here, on my Talk, by attempting to interfere with my communications with Wilhelmina Will and Ottava Rima, that is making me realize that I may have stumbled across a real problem, or, more accurately, it stumbled across me.

Blechnic, you are walking on thin ice. Worse than a personal attack (and you did personally attack the editor in question, that much I've found so far) is a threat. She is not a "banned user," she is not even a blocked user. I'm astonished at your ignorance on this, and on what a "topic ban" means; on the other hand, you may be a new user, so I should explain. You tried to get her blocked, but failed. Nor was any offer made to post material "at her direction." Rather, even COI editors may ordinarily make suggestions in Talk for an article, and ArbComm topic bans, unless it proves impossible (typically through continued incivility in Talk), often allow the editor to still suggest edits in Talk.

Not at all, let me correct your ignorance on this, I tried to get her banned from nominating articles to DYK until she learns to write to Wikipedia standards and I succeeded.

Yes, that is precisely what you offered. Go ahead and read your own exchange, "But I wonder; are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me?" asks Wilhelmina Will. "Yes you can," replies Abd.

Anyway, the rest of your post and exchange is probably as inaccurate, so I will pass on reading it. As you have apparently passed on reading your own posts, it's not an invitation for anyone else to bother.--Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

However, given the fuss that you created, through your tenacious incivility, I'm taking this one step further: off my Talk page. Do not post here, you are not welcome. I consider this post harassment of Wilhelmina Will, one more to add to the pile at a potential RfC, and if this continues after warning (this is not formal warning, yet), you may be blocked. --Abd (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abd! You are without doubt one of the sweetest users I have ever met! You will always have a place in my heart. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: I don't mean to be a bother, but I don't know your e-mail address. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In the toolbox panel as it shows when you are viewing a user page or user talk page, there is an option "E-mail this user." That will send a mail through the Wikipedia mail system. I'll then have an email from you, showing your email address, and when I respond, you'll have my email address as well. I can't send you an email directly because you have not enabled it for your account. If you have any problem, let me know. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at AN/I

[20] --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

I mentioned on AN/I whether you might like to consider adopting user Wilhelmina Will to help her contribute good content. Just thought I'd mention it here so you don't think I'm discussing it over your head :) Sticky Parkin 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comment, seriously. I'm not convinced she needs mentoring, though she needs friends she can trust and will listen to, and in a true supervisory sense, I probably couldn't take it on full mentoring, but I can and will help her as I can. She's been treated unfairly and uncivilly, and is still being harassed. Take a look at recent posts to my Talk page to see it, plus, of course, the AN/I report today was itself totally unnecessary. AN/I for a marginal offense that hasn't happened but might? That would do little or no harm if it happened? I'm afraid that someone has gotten the idea that AN/I is a handy tool which can be used to punish users who dare to offend him. And that's going to have to stop. We may have lost two significant contributors over this flap, so far, it's too soon to tell how deep it will go.

The idea that articles are supposed to be fully "correct," before being created, is very much contrary to the Wikipedia model. Articles are created and are usually pretty bad, except for a few good writers and editors. What WW was doing was creating articles that were better than average (if I trust User:Ned Scott's opinion, and I think it is reasonable to do so), but was calling attention to them by nominating them for DYK. So? I fail to see how this is a problem. Some of her behavior was improper, but on a level that normally doesn't raise eyebrows. I think that she reverted a change because it lowered the word count, to below what she needed for the article to be DYK eligible, which was obviously improper, and blew some fuses. But I see far worse reverts, based on POV purposes, that don't result in any sanctions at all unless they are part of a major pattern, causing major disruption, or are leading to edit wars, which I didn't see charged against her.

There is an ancient struggle between writers and editors. Notice that we call users here "editors"? It's one of the flaws in the Wikipedia model, because writing and editing are different skills. Writers don't generally give a fig about sourcing, and they may or may not care about NPOV. Editors, on the other hand, tend to be far more rule-bound, and to expect everyone else to follow the rules as well. Wikipedia is murder on writers. From what I've seen, in many areas, article quality is declining, as articles increasingly meet guidelines, and writers are condemned for not following them. (That is, articles, becoming more technically correct by the standards, are becoming less interesting, as well as less informative. Accuracy, in what remains, is probably higher, but a small amount of highly accurate information is not necessarily better than a large amount of mostly correct information, provided that errors can later be corrected. I could give examples from my own learning about a topic from Wikipedia....

The example that the harassers of WW gave, so often, was Mesodermochelys. Looking at the original revision,[21] her creation, and the current, the original article wasn't bad, and it is hard to see how the original article made it harder to come up with the current revision. If she had tendentiously debated each change, sure. But the Talk page shows only the brief discussion of which so much was made later, where WW made what seems like a supercilious comment. It's easy to assume that this was the true reason she reverted, to keep the word count up. But what this points to, really, is some arbitrary rules in DYK. The whole concept of automatic "awards" is problematic in the Wikipedia model. We may need to look closer at the whole DYK process. WW is essentially being accused of being reward-greedy. But then why are rewards offered?

The situation is a can of worms. I just realized that Blechnic is a fairly new editor, blocked May 4, first for disruptive editing, which block was removed for "good faith," then renewed for a week for "personal attacks or harassment, email abuse, talk page abuse, continued harassment despite warnings)." The block log was annotated much later, June 17, by Bishzilla, with a comment that "the blocks of Blechnic on May 4, 2008, have been found by WP:ANI consensus to be bitey and over-hasty." Given that Bishzilla was involved in the Wilhelmina Will affair, I can see I'm going to have to look back at that, but, on the face of it, the annotation doesn't say that the blocks were truly incorrect, that the user hadn't done those things, but simply noted that we readily forgive newcomers, though, in fact, some we don't, and Blechnic seems to be insisting that the courtesy which was extended to him not be shown to Wilhelmina Will, and he's repeating the old offenses, it seems to me. --Abd (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say, and thanks for mentioning the previous block, I hadn't looked. Some things are probably better confined to email or something, unless you want to make a RfC request for comments page. As to DYK- yes, lots of problems with the whole thing, not that I know much about it but if you think about it, it favours someone producing content quickly, rather than taking time over it. The only article I substantially expanded and thought could be a DYK, I realised wouldn't fit the current rules as it had taken me a couple of weeks to expand rather than a few days. Also, I've spend ages adding refs to an article to improve it, but I don't think, for instance adding numerous references to an unreferenced article counts as 'expanding' it for DYK purposes, despite the work it takes. As to WP:ADOPT- it just gives a more structured impression that the editor is trying to improve and there's someone both the editor and other editors can go to for help. A similar situation to that you describe happened to User:Presumptive. Sticky Parkin 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to adopt her if that's what she wants, but it should be clear that in many ways she is a more experienced editor than I am. So I'd see it as more of a partnership, where I can help with certain problems involved in interacting with the community. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WW and DYK

(In response to my post on his Talk:) It doesn't matter whether taking the problem to AN/I was a bad idea or not, the fact is it was taken to AN/I and a bunch of people decided WW should be banned from DYK, though the length of time she should be banned was not resolved. So you can't just decide for yourself the ban no longer applies, otherwise you will be accused of acting in violation of community consensus. I am just trying to sort things out at AN/I so that everyone is on the same page, otherwise Blechnic will be back at AN/I in five minutes accusing you of enabling a banned user. Please just give it a rest for 24 hours while we try to estabish a new consensus to let her submit articles again. That is the safest way to go IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

She hasn't submitted an article, I have. In any case, I'll make that clear. directly. My edit did not challenge the ban, but, in fact, acknowledged it (and my revert was disclosed at AN/I, by me, before, apparently, anyone noticed it). Blechnic is going to rant and rave, but I doubt for long. I respect your request for 24 hours, but only so far. I will nominate the article on my own, because (1) I became aware of the article, (2) It seemed proper to me as an article, (3) it's a legitimate candidate for DYK, and all that the ban involves is a prevention of her making nominations. Blechnic, I've been discovering, has been engaged in a pattern of harassment of WW, and was previously blocked for harassment, and the only reason that previous block was "annotated" in his block log was serious and tendentious argument in AN/I, and the consensus to annotate quite obviously arose simply because it would shut him up. And now it seems that a similar motive is being expressed by you. A proper nomination should not be made because Blechnic will complain. No, I don't think we do things that way, though I appreciate your effort to maintain calm. Just deal with my nomination as you would any other. Thanks. -- Abd (talk 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may, my only concern with your actions is that the problem wasn't that she was posting at DYK, but that her desire to get DYKs was leading to problems with editing. While I don't really have a problem with your actions, and this may be the best way to proceed, (as you can endeavor to make sure that the articles are fine before going to DYK), if she continues to aim for DYK rather than for quality articles the same problems will (potentially) continue. (Noting that I think they've been blown somewhat out of proportion, anyway). Personally, I think the fault is at DYK - it isn't about quality so much as size and growth, which seems a tad dangerous given the neither are necessary for quality articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Blown somewhat out of proportion!" Yes. She got into a tussle with Blechnic, and gave as a reason for an edit that she wanted to keep the size to 1500 bytes. It was foolish, yes, but, then again, so is the DYK requirement if it is seen as a rigid rule rather than a guideline, and that seems to be the trend at DYK. I'd agree, the DYK process is a bit broken. You are correct that the problem wasn't really that she was posting at DYK, but then why did the wrong remedy get put in place? And the answer is that Blechnic discovered that, sometimes, he could essentially bully the community at AN/I, which will make a bad decision in order to shut him up. That is an extrapolation from only two incidents, but the fact is that he has harassed WW, beyond all reason, beyond all necessity. Apparently he took something very, very personally. It's really totally silly: if there was a problem it was in article editing, not in DYK nominations, because, after all, a DYK nomination will cause editors to review the article and find and fix problems.

It seems she really just wants to create articles and get DYK points, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. She knows that if she goes beyond limits, she'll get wikitrouted or worse, and she doesn't want that. Blechnic is now calling all her edits "vandalism," when the worst thing she has done is be a little careless; compared to the average editor, she's actually superb. But he's been going over her contributions with a fine-tooth comb; he just made a big fuss about an alleged copyvio, a sentence copied directly, word for word, from a web site.[22] Turns out she didn't write that article, seven months ago, she found it in the Sandbox and asked an admin about using it, and this was way back and she didn't even think to check for copyvio, since most of what she had done was to write articles herself, apparently. And the worst of it? Well, let's say that Blechnic is doing us a service by looking for copyvios. He found this one but didn't fix it, another editor did. And the net result of it is that we have an article that we would not have had without WW's work. All I'm trying to do is keep WW from blowing a fuse over it, it would be a terrible shame for us to lose such a productive editor. And, yes, she is productive, very much so, compared to the average editor. Her articles read well, they are interesting, they are referenced, the amount of work they need to polish them, to fix her occasional errors, is small. However, the work needed to deal with the disruption created by Blechnic is quite another thing. This does not create content, it wastes editorial time, and it can reduce a sixteen-year-old girl to tears. It's the incivility, the brutal hostility, that is the real problem here. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to create articles. I don't really see anything wrong with wanting DYK points, either, but I do feel that if there is going to be a problem it will be driven by the desire to write articles in order to get the points, rather than to simply write good articles. Which, I guess, is just something that needs to be watched - it certainly doesn't constitute vandalism, and at worst can lead to "good faith" errors. It's also something which I think is reflected (as others have acknowledged) in the nature of DYK. That aside, if I can help in any way let me know - I think the last thing she needs is a whole lot of previously unknown editors stopping by to volunteer to "help" her overcome (minor) editing problems, especially given that she seems to be a good editor already, so I'll stay away unless asked. :) Indeed, she's probably better than many of my first year students. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fightin' words, eh?

You want fightin' words! I'll give you fightin' words! I wasn't trying to implicate anything about you or your posts, but you've self-admitted to being verbose (so have I). I just found it profoundly humorous (I literally belly-laughed) that someone was capable (and willing!) to create a post so long, so convoluted, over-diffified (it's a word in my mind), and over-wrought with decries and "observations" of TRUTH, that even ABD said tldr (in effect). I meant no harm or disrespect towards you, I hope you can see the levity in my post, I only remember that verbosity was a criticism during your RFA (by me and others). Cheers, good editor, Keeper ǀ 76 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, Keeper! I was simply picking up on your humor. I thought the "seriously" after it would make that pretty obvious. Yes, verbosity is a criticism I've heard over and over. I even agree with it, it's a problem. But the solution is less obvious. For me to write less takes far more time; I know an number of others like myself. There is one, a very good writer, who understands the same things, generally, that I understand, and sometimes writes about them. He will say what I would say, in about a third of the words. Problem is, it takes him three times as long. So he doesn't write as often, and he ends up saying less. Hence I do edit, but normally only when I'm trying to make some impact and I expect people to read it who would otherwise not because of length. The long form, so to speak, is still read by quite a few people who appreciate what I write, and I get lots of comments -- lately many by email, from some administrators who, in the past, might have considered me a nuisance -- telling me that what I write is appreciated. Now, imagine this new editor's problem. He's done massive research. Hours and hours and hours, it's really mind-boggling. He doesn't know the environment, doesn't really know how to boil it down. There really ought to be a way that he could pass on what he has found, for review, not by AN/I, but simply by another editor, more experienced, ideally one he trusts, who would then decide what to pass on and what to keep in, say, an evidence file. I do have ideas about how to implement structure that would accomplish this, so that it would happen more reliably, but it will take time to even get to the point that proposing it -- again -- would be more than a waste of time. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth, response from his Talk

Abd, thanks for thinking of me. But in light of the draconian manner in which I was treated, and the lenient manner in which another editor is now being treated, further participation is pointless. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Wikipedia isn't fair, sometimes. Know any place in this world where there is a guarantee? It can be extraordinarily difficult to reform an existing structure, and that is what Wikipedia has become. But it's not impossible, I'd say. I'm looking forward to a Wikipedia where NPOV means that all points of view are fairly represented, in balance and with truly maximized consensus. I think it can be done, but it involves, in part, welcoming editors with unpopular views, however that is defined. It involves setting either clear boundaries, or a clear process by which boundaries are set. It involves making this a safe place to find consensus on content and behavioral issues. It involves developing a whole culture that respects differences and disagreements, that abandons coercion as a means of resolving disputes, and, on this, I'll allow that there might be exceptions, I'm not a purist. It involves, actually, some of the really excellent principles that Wikipedia was founded on, and that have been only imperfectly realized. Used to be that WP:AGF was policy, but that was abandoned and AGF was demoted to a guideline. I'd say that a great deal was potentially lost when this happened, even though the argument was reasonable: it's hard to enforce. But, of course, what would be enforced wouldn't be actual assumption of good faith, but a prevention of the expression of the reverse.

We need to be at the same time firm against incivility and attempts to force articles into a mold required by some POV. "POV pusher" has become confused with having a POV and using to to detect possible imbalance. There is nothing wrong with being informed by a POV. In fact, if nobody has a POV, nobody can see anything. NPOV is a synthesis, something beyond POV, and one of the great errors that has been made by some is to assume that there is some POV called "NPOV." And thus, when someone comes in with a "different POV," they are violating "NPOV." No, they are questioning the POV of the existing consensus, thus making it possible to expand the consensus to be more truly neutral. Maybe. It will never be known unless it is sincerely attempted.

I once attended a class on Islam given by a Christian minister. As a knowledgeable Muslim, I wondered what it would be like. The minister started the class with a comment that it was his hope to teach it such that a Muslim would say, "Yes, that is what we believe." He understood neutrality. He wasn't abandoning his Christianity, just allowing himself to understand how others thought, and to express that. When an article has found NPOV, most editors of most POVs will say, "Yes, this is neutral." Maybe even all, it is reasonable to hope so, because it does happen. Certainly we can think that there are some editors who won't be satisfied with anything less than turning the article into propaganda for their own POV, but I think this is rarer than some might think. AGF. Really. Even assume good faith on the part of the administrator who blocks you and the one who incited it. Not only is there no harm in it, it turns out that one can be more effective, for it is far easier to convince the community that some mistake was made, something was perhaps well-meant but excessive, than to convince the community that there is some monstrous conspiracy. And this is true whether there is a monstrous conspiracy or not.

By all means, sure, speak truth to power, but be careful, it is far too easy to mistake speculation, suspicion, and the rest of that, for "truth." --Abd (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, thank you for your kind comments on my Talk page. I have left my impression of the situation at User talk:HandThatFeeds. Curious bystander (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is against NPOV

Consensus is always in direct conflict with NPOV.[23] If you want NPOV then you are against Wikipedia's consnesus. QuackGuru 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Con-sneezes?

Consensus is how we judge NPOV. If we have 100% agreement, with informed editors, we have found NPOV, or, at least, the best currently possible. So that's the goal. We may not always be able to reach it. But we can, and should, try. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I like your comment [24] and have said so on the RfC talk page. I particularly like this bit: "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately." I would like to put it on my userpage as a quote. Did you write it, or did you get it from somewhere? I see you have quotation marks around it. (Is it from a policy?) Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it. It's my own thinking on the topic. You are looking at a diff, those are italics for emphasis. NPOV is like Truth. It's not something that any of us own; if anything, Truth owns us. All of us. Yes, you can quote it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the goal NPOV or consensus. If the goal is consensus then the text can easily be watered down and even become misleading. There is currently misleading text in an article that has been going on for days and nothing is being done to remove the misleading information. In fact, some editors prefer the misleading text. When there has been agreement, then that is proof that consensus is against NPOV. QuackGuru 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the goal water or drinking? In any case, the argument is specious. "Some editors prefer the misleading text." Sure. But that's "some editors," not a "consensus of editors." The goal, here, though, is NPOV. Consensus is how we measure our success in finding it. By the way, since this is my Talk page, I'll mention that this is a very old topic in Islam. The Sunni position, generally, is that the best guide to truth is the consensus of the knowledgeable. (Sunni is short for ahlu s-sunnah wa l-jamaa', or, roughly, "the people of the tradition and consensus." My gloss on that is that such a consensus is not infallible, it is merely better to treat it, temporarily and for most purposes, as if it is. The error comes when a prior consensus is enforced with a new set of analysts. Thus, the error made classically was in determining that the "door of ijma is closed," on the theory that -- when it came to religious understanding -- the best analysts had already done their work and all that later generations could do was to memorize it.... but the way it was put to me by a scholar: "there is no consensus on consensus." In particular, there was never a consensus that the door of ijma (i.e., the formation of consensus) was closed. To likewise make the religious connection, NPOV is, ultimately, how God sees things. We don't get to do that, at least not directly, and not in such a way as to be able to "own" it. To claim this kind of knowledge (i.e., as personal and direct) is equivalent to claiming to be God, and to attach to a personal view and assert it as ultimate truth is a form of Shirk. Enough for today?

There was a prior consensus but no new consensus but a few editors claimed they have consensus for adding the misleading information. QuackGuru 03:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors claimed they have consensus. So? People claim all kinds of things. Do you agree with them. If not, then they don't have full consensus. If most editors agree with them, though, they have "rough consensus." What's your point? Do you have an example? "Prior consensus" is not consensus, necessarily, though it may enjoy a certain persistence and presumption. --Abd (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See [25][26][27][28]User talk:Levine2112/archive8#Misleading edit Inaccurate insertion of "Simon says" phrases. QuackGuru 03:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamie Howarth, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A new idea

This is being posted simultaneously in two places. You can probably guess the other.

<------------User:Abd______________User:S. Dean Jameson ------------->

Each of you should follow your own arrow. Keeper ǀ 76 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Great idea. Except. You might notice that I have not pursued S. Dean Jameson, rather, he has pursued me, insisting on commenting on my communications with other editors, insisting on attacking my comments on public matters, without any necessity. I became aware of the situation with Ottava Rima when SDJ, quite out of the blue, apparently because I'd posted a consoling comment on OR Talk, attacked OR on my Talk, which can be seen above. And he suggested that I investigate. So, assuming good faith -- perhaps OR was really some kind of terrible monster as implied -- I did investigate, and I was horrified by what I'd found. OR was improperly blocked, for starters, and another editor, with a history of harassment, had been harassing Wilhelmina Will and the community had "bought" it. It's taking days to try to disentangle the mess and prevent damage ("damage" would be the departure of a productive editor for no good reason). I started by creating a path for WW to complete some DYK nominations, and that succeeded, she now has 29 DYKs. And there is another pending. Doesn't anybody find it suspicious that there is this editor with 29 DYKs and another pending nomination by an experienced editor, who supposedly is creating messes all over the place and needs a mentor? I regret not having the time to do more than I've done for OR, but I'll get to that. At least OR now knows that there is at least one friend here, one who won't excuse bad behavior but who also welcomes and attempts to respectfully guide. The idea that WW needs a mentor is actually preposterous. She hasn't repeated improper behavior after warning, I see mandatory mentors when warnings don't suffice and the only alternative is blocking.

When I simply informed OR what I'd found, the results of my "looking deeper" as had been suggested, he complained that it was too long, and then threatened me not to take this to AN/I or WQA. (which I had no intention of doing at the time, but eventually, something might appear.) No, I have not pursued this editor; rather, it's easier to conclude that this editor has been harassing other users and is attempting to prevent anyone else from aiding them, and I find that highly offensive; but there are other, more important issues at this time, so SDJ has little to fear from me, unless he continues to poke and prod me. Last editor who did that isn't around any more, and all I did was do what he'd been demanding: make a formal complaint or shut up. So, hey, since he insisted, I made the complaint and he was immediately history. That one was easy. Sock puppet of blocked user, though there was quite a bit of screaming when I filed the SSP report that there wasn't any basis for it. Lucky guess? Maybe. But I don't make reports like that unless I've got my ducks in a row and consider the probability high. I don't like to waste my time and the time of other editors over premature reports and tendentious debate at AN/I, which has been one of the problems all along, I'm finding. AN/I is a *terrible* place to try to resolve disputes, it should be reserved for cases which already clearly call for administrative action, and not a lot of debate. And, frankly, I'd protect the discussion at AN/I and have a report filing page where other users file reports and make comments, with what's cogent from that being transferred to the actual incidents page, which would then become clean and usable for it's original purpose, as a kind of 911 for administrative action. Can you imagine what a real 911 would be like if the operators had to listen to arguments from callers?

Caller 1: "Send the police! He's killing me!" Operator: "Calm down, maam! We need to get the facts." Caller 2: "Don't pay attention to her, she's hysterical, she gets this way once a month." Operator: "Do you have any proof of that, sir?" Caller 1: "He's got a gun!" Caller 2: "She's lying!" Operator: "Look, both of you, calm down. Maam, assume good faith. Maybe he intends to put the gun away. Sir, please don't accuse anyone of lying, it is uncivil." (confused sounds, call terminates. Disposition: no action needed, parties seem to have resolved dispute on their own, after standard advice to remain calm, assume good faith, and be civil.)

No, real 911: after first comment by Caller 1, police are notified and despatched, and the address determined from Special:Contributions for the caller. There is no argument allowed, the police show up and, indeed, tell everyone to be calm. And if somebody isn't calm, such that violence is feared, they block the offender, pending further investigation. The police are not judges of who is right and wrong, and they do not punish or decide fault. They maintain order and civil process, so that the community can make considered decisions. And 911 is not part of WP:DR. Period.

So, anyway, thanks for trying to keep things calm. Let's hope it works. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This post is also being posted in two places, simultaneously. You've both replied in exactly the same manner, and have only reinforced my belief that my solution is necessary. You've both replied with some version (one much longer than the other, but I read them both in their entirety) of "He STARTED IT!!! I'll stop when he stops!!!" Okay then! We all agree to stop, because if we all simultaneously stop, then it settles it right? Sorry to sound so "go to your room until you can calm down" condescending, it's not my intention. The whole thing is tiring. SDJ, you tried to shorten OR's block with an ANI post. Lesson learnt I hope, that ANI simply invites more bees to the hive. Abd, you tried to object/shorten/nullify/(I think you said "update blocklog to prevent future prejudice" or something) Or's block. You are on the same side, see? Follow your arrows. Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper. I never thought we (SDJ and I) were on opposite sides. I didn't try to address the block through AN/I, but, of course, once the question was there, it was important to express my support for unblock, and, with that, my opinion as to the block in the first place, with a little reference to what actually happened. However, I can't stop doing what I'm not doing. If I'm not upset, I can't calm down. If I'm not pursuing or attacking, I can't stop it. What I've been doing is to examine what happened with Ottava Rima and Wilhelmina Will, not to identify and punish the bad guys, but to protect the good ones, and I assume that every editor is a "good one" until proven otherwise. There is a user whom, if that user continues his or her recent behavior, I might seek a block -- which I've not done before, actually, I've never gone to AN/I or an individual administrator with a block request. It's not SDJ; but his role in the affair might be mentioned from time to time, simply to establish the context and history. The only way, really, that this could hurt him is if he opposes efforts to clarify what happened, and it would not be me seeking to harm him. I'd actually try to prevent that; I can't say more simply because I don't yet know enough of the details. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to fear. And, in fact, if he tried to vandalize a thousand pages, then, but wasn't likely to do it going forward, he'd actually also have nothing to fear as long as he doesn't look like he'd do it again. If he simply stops defending what he did, whether it was good or bad, almost all risk would disappear. (This is because his form of defense has been to assertively claim -- when there was no risk to him -- that all charges against him were "baseless." When it's clear that there was a basis for charges, i.e., a neutral editor could see events, possibly incorrectly, as showing a problem. Not to mention an involved editor.)

If an editor thinks I'm attacking another editor -- and it can sometimes look like I am -- you would never see me complaining that the other editor has made "baseless charges." Rather, I will assume good faith until events take me beyond that possibility -- and even then it takes very little for me to return to AGF. AGF means that I think the editor had a basis for the claim, and that better communication or something else is necessary to resolve the situation, or, perhaps best if direct communication fails, the intervention of a third party who understands the issues on all sides. I will often seek such when a situation remains beyond a few days. (And I should add still another possibility. Perhaps I was, quite simply, wrong. Maybe I was angry or upset and thought what I was doing was justified, and I didn't realize the extent to which my own emotions were affecting what I was saying.) --Abd (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch

I really don't like having bad feelings between myself and others here on the project. It distracts me greatly from the actual work I'm trying to do, and is just generally a bit distressing to me on a personal level. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. I will not reply to anything you write, unless my name is directly mentioned in the text, or so overtly implied as to be obvious.
2. When and if we have occasion to work together on an actual article, the events of the last few days will play no part in my thinking and actions with regard to article editing.
3. If we both have occasion to comment on a thread at ANI, the events of the last few days will play no part in my thinking and actions with regard to the situation upon which we are commenting.

All I would ask in return is that you do me the same courtesy. I don't want to have adversaries on this project, Abd. Clearly we won't agree on the underlying causes of what has transpired over the course of the last several days. That doesn't have to matter in the long run, really, as long as we let bygones be bygones.

Is what I proposed above acceptable to you? Regards, S. Dean Jameson 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'd encourage you to continue with your work on articles, and I have not had the opportunity to review that, but I have seen no reason to believe that you are not a fine editor. I am also not seeking to convince you of anything, nor am I seeking you out to oppose you or harass you in any way. However, events have transpired that have harmed other users. Ottava Rima was blocked, and now has a black mark on the block history, and Wilhelmina Will has a topic ban on an area obviously dear to her. In order to ameliorate that damage -- if that turns out to be appropriate -- it may be necessary to describe what actually happened, and that could involve mentioning your name. However, if you look at what I've been doing an arguing, part of it is that Wikipedia does not punish, period. I don't care what you did, I wouldn't aim for sanctions based on it, but only on what you can reasonably be expected to do going forward. By the time all this comes out, whatever you did last week or yesterday or even today will be, as far as any serious risk to your account, ancient history, probably moot. And that is if you really did something truly nasty. Which I have not seen yet.

There is no reason that I can see for you to worry about this in the least, at this point. It is possible that at some future time, some process will ensue that would require your attention. But, to give you an example of how easy it could be for you to undo your part of any possible damage with Ottava Rima, and if you have not already done so, you could go to the Talk page of the blocking admin and repeat your request for unblock, just so it is clear that protecting you -- which would have been part of the legitimate reason for blocking in the first place, for the most part -- is no longer a reason to keep the block up. You are done, then, provided that you don't act contrary to that in the future. It doesn't matter if he was right or you were right, and it is entirely possible, and preferred, to assume that everyone had good faith and that there were simply misunderstandings and errors.

I don't want adversaries either, and, I think, if you look around, you will see plenty of examples where editors who thought, it might seem, that I was out to destroy the project, have become workingp partners and who even, occasionally, read what I write. I know it because I get emails from them saying, "There must be something wrong with me, you are starting to make sense. Thanks for what you wrote on ... blah, blah." So, my friend, carry on. I'm not gunning for you. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Following up

Re a comment you made about a possible article chairpersonship at the Barack Obama article: I've made a proposal that it -- maybe -- be considered. Is there anywhere you know of where I could read about such a thing/observe it in practice? Thx.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been done on Wikipedia as far as I know. It's a classic solution though. I'd consider having more than one "chair." The need arises if the article is protected, as seems likely. If it is protected, how do changes get made. In order to judge whether there is consensus for a change, an administrator needs to review the discussion, and, if there isn't unanimity, it can become quite a chore, and administrators make mistakes in such judgments if they are unfamiliar, and they make a different kind of mistake when they are familiar, which often means that they have become involved.

Having a single administrator supervise the article, which is how it's done sometimes, causes that admin to become familiar with the issues and quite frequently results in some kind of bias.

So this would use classical organizational techniques to create a means whereby the editors working on the article would go through an intermediary -- or intermediaries -- in requesting changes. The attempt would be made to identify and recognize editors who are trusted by involved editors as being likely to be fair. These would be involved editors, they wouldn't be "neutral", necessarily. What they would do is to judge when sufficient consensus has been attained that a change to the article should be requested. A relationship would be developed between this chair or these chairs and administrators, such that, while the administrator would review the proposed change before making it, it needn't be such a deep review, and it is less likely to err in judging consensus.

This wouldn't take away any existing rights, though it might divert some channels a little. Basically, a requested change from an editor where there has been some formal expression of general trust might be able to be implemented more efficiently.

Existing consensus process on Wikipedia can be murderously inefficient, it's a problem which was solved hundreds of years ago with the development of parliamentary procedure, which is often mistaken for "majority rule." --Abd (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we'll be breaking new ground! :^) Thanks, Abd.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a rule from parli pro that Wikipedia could use. No motion is debated in formal session (i.e., where decisions can actually be made) if it has not been seconded. No debate. Period. How many times are countless hours wasted debating something that has no support? Somebody proposes something, and that's it. It lies there. If you don't support it, you don't debate it until someone *else* has said, "Yes, I think we should do this." I.e., seconds it. This is the one rule that I see most often missing, to great loss, in non-formal process. A chair would, after a decent time, say that the motion fails for lack of a second. One way that I've thought of doing it on Wikipedia would be that, if someone is chosen as a chair, they create a formal deliberation page in their user space, where they ask people to only edit within rules, which they set. In user space, they have what I've called quasi-administrative authority. You can ask someone to stay away from your user space, and you can generally revert without limit there. Again, this is why I suggest that there might be more than one chair, each one is a kind of caucus. There is a lot more thinking behind this than I can express in a few words. I made a comment on the page you mentioned, so it's on my Watchlist. While I certainly have political opinions, I really don't want to get involved in political issues on Wikipedia, preferring -- greatly -- to stay with pure process, with very few exceptions. That's why I've intervened on behalf of users I thought were being treated unfairly, even where I probably disagree with their POVs very much. NPOV, to me, means that all POVs are given due respect, and the only difference from due respect and full respect is that fringe POVs cannot dominate, but that is practically automatic in some areas because of the scarcity of sources for true fringe POV. What I'm trying to do is to ensure that the field is level, and that fringe POV, as it might be seen by the majority, nevertheless is given full opportunity to participate in finding consensus, and that the goal would be for articles that all sides, including fringes, will say, "Yes, this is fair, given the reality in the world." I.e., usually, fringe thinkers want to be treated fairly, but most of them will agree, yes, our POV is rejected by most in the field. They think this is wrong, of course, but that's a POV and, again, most of them can recognize this, when the context is right and they aren't being attacked and shoved out..... ahem.... I can go on. I'll try to restrain myself in your corner. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic about this. But I'll attempt to make it work. Are you going to be the moderator? Curious bystander (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC):I'm not optimistic, either. That is, while I'm pretty confident that it would help if tried, that is, produce more benefit than the effort involved in setting it up and maintaining it, I'm not so optimistic that any editors will try it, and no benefit accrues until at least two participate. Significant benefit accrues with a significant percentage of users give it a chance. if it works, then there is more benefit than from simply the one article, because a technique would have been demonstrated. Given all the factors, it's very important that whatever is set up be extremely simple and easy.

As to moderator, there is a role for someone who simply manages (through suggestion) the overall process, and who stays rigorously out of content issues. Because I do have experience in that role (in real life), I am willing to serve in that way if asked. It may even be a good thing, for this, that I'm not an administrator. I have no big stick, only the power of persuasion, which I lose if I act in a partisan way. We need adminstrative intervention, we -- any one of us -- can ask for it. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:209.86.226.18

Thank you for your opinion. I believe you are clearly wrong. Most people don't contact an attorney to bake cookies. I'd say the user's actions were just short of trolling. seicer (talk · contribs) saw it the same way I did. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor is an attorney (or lying). Yes, indeed. Seicer made the same mistake as you. I have a simple solution. I'll contact Michael Godwin myself. He might have an opinion. To take the posts as legal threats, when there is not one shred of language indicating intent to sue anyone, there is only a request from one attorney to know the address of another attorney, an address which is actually, I believe, public record, is, I must conclude, simple incompetence, it's that blatant.

I'd recommend immediate unblock and an apology for the misunderstanding. If the block is quickly undone, it will be relatively harmless to all concerned. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is likely that the attorney who posted to AN/I -- if that was an attorney -- was wrong. But that is entirely another matter. We don't block people for being wrong, even if they are attorneys. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to make it personal

Like this. Shame on you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban

I have taken your concerns regarding my decision to the Administrator's Noticeboard and requested, in essence, a certification of my close. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work and refreshing objectivity

I owe you a significant debt of gratitude for your taking the time to really look into the details behind my RfC. I know that this must have taken a significant amount of time to compile and the results were very well presented. If there is ever anything I can do for you please let me know and I will be more than happy to be at your service. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready to Mainstream the Page

The page under creation as an American author or a biography isn't perfect or finished, but it's as good as many similar pages already at Wiki. Can we move the page in creation now and make it a mainstream Wiki contribution? I don't have a copy of the original article in the Greater Kashmir Times. I have contacted the editor several times asking for a copy but no response...Perhaps you can ask him for it? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. Last first. No, there is no reason why I'd be more effective in asking than you. Are there any friends there who could go to a library or place where the Greater Kashmir Times is archived and make a copy and get it to you? Any decent digital camera could do it, it just has to be readable, and it can be a series of images that, together, allow reading the whole article. And the whole page should be shown, for the first page, if there is more than one, plus a closeup of page information which would ordinarily show date, etc. That way, anyone looking at the set of images can verify that the article existed. If we cannot find the article, then we are depending only on your report of it, which isn't enough.

Then, as to the article as it is now, remember the plan? The plan was for you to write a decent article, without depending on whether or not sources were available, but then to, probably, stub it down to what can be solidly established by reliable, independent source. That's what would go into mainspace. In order to establish that the article isn't going to get deleted at any time, we'd probably go to Deletion Review to get the deletion overturned with the new article, which really should be impeccable, or as close as we can make it.

You should understand that the quality of "similar pages" isn't relevant. There is a massive cleanup under way at Wikipedia, and, necessarily, it hits some articles before others. There are "similar pages" that are terrible. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, your idea here is a common one, and has been rejected. Now, if we could show that other, similar articles, with the same problems, are passing Articles for Deletion, and your article was improperly rejected, then we'd have some kind of basis. But simply that you can find them in the encyclopedia, no, that merely means that there is other stuff that should be deleted.

So, anyway, I will look at the article and work on the sourcing. You haven't used standard in-line sourcing, I'll fix that, and you should then be able to see how it is done for the future.

I apologize, by the way, for taking so long to get to this. I've been fighting fires, so to speak, plus I traveled for a few days. Am I correct that you live in New York state? Where? (tell me by email if you don't want to state it publicly, and no obligation to tell me, either). --Abd (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

You have been very helpful and insightful during the fluster about Ottava. I would appreciate if you could help drafting the terms we are putting together on his talk.[29] None of us have much expeirence in this area, so are touting for openions;). Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience with mentorship, either, at least not formal, recognized mentorship. However, I do have some ideas about it and I'll participate if both of you accept that. Having a mentor could be a huge help in any area where the mentor has experience, and even without experience, two heads are better than one, and three are even better. This works with even greater numbers, if all share sufficient common goals.... --Abd (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My flippant reply on Ottava's talk was only an attempt to keep things light. You have shown a lot of integrity through out this, and thb I cant see this working without your input. None of us know what we are doing re mentorship, but we all want the same thing, which is a good start. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall: "do something truly courageous, this would be automatic desysop"

Do you realise that you've just painted me (and every single other administrator who is in the recall category) as cowardly? Are you realistically suggesting that (for example) Lar, long-time contributor to Wikipedia Review and semi-constant gadfly, has never done anything courageous?

brenneman 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy answer: No, I don't realise that. And certainly that is not what is implied, how would you derive that from it? There was nothing in my comment that stated that admins were refraining from doing courageous things in order to avoid the recall request. The statement doesn't say anything about these admins, except that, if they were to do something truly courageous, something that challenged the behavior or opinion of a major segment of the Wikipedia community, and that might bring on other supporters who, say, don't understand the issues sufficiently, they could be almost automatically desysopped as a result. Rather obviously, those conditions don't arise very often. Or do they? How would we know? Only a certain percentage of administrators have accepted voluntary recall.

The goal of voluntary recall was to avoid the fuss of RfC and RfAr. However, it's not at all clear that it is working that way. We already have the RfC on Elonka's behavior. I'd say the whole concept needs review. When the idea of "six editors in good standing" was proposed, the intention was that it would be unlikely that six editors would improperly conspire to remove her unless there was good cause. But a number of situations on Wikipedia have now come to my attention where there is substantial tag-teaming in reversions, and the ability of some contentious articles to attract large numbers of participants is creating a situation where an admin who is acting neutrally could easily offend a large number of editors. Problems of scale are causing Wikipedia process to break down in numerous ways, and I'd predict this will continue until it is recognized that procedures that worked with a much smaller community don't necessarily continue to work on a larger scale. AN/I has become a disaster, erratic at best. If AN/I were more reliable, if it were performing its role properly, we wouldn't need Elonka to deal with the articles, a group of experienced editors, including involved editors, could do it. We really need to become more efficient. And that includes the question of who should continue to hold admin bits. I've seen serious abuse result in ... nothing, and minor abuse, if it was abuse at all, result in a huge fuss. It all depends on who notices, whether they have time to do anything about it, etc. There is no regular monitoring going on, no regular review process, no structure for making decisions other than the very simple individualist admin process. ArbComm members, among others, have proposed structural solutions, and generally these have been ignored. Why? Well we don't have the deliberative process that would be possible to make decisions about deliberative process. There are classic solutions to this problem, not tried here by anyone with experience with them, which are rejected immediately because "thats' not the way we do things."

If three experienced editors were to decide to reform the system, so that it could respond to the challenges of scale, and continue to do well what Wikipedia does well, and if they were to work together, coherently, toward that, it would be reformed. Try to find three! it's not easy for something new. With three, it would take time, perhaps years. With thirty, it would be over quickly. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought this had gone away, but...

I've responded to your comments at WP:AN, which is the right forum for scrutinising administrator actions that do not require immediate administrative response. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. However, it's a waste of time for an admin whose actions might be scrutinized to go in advance of the one scrutinizing. Every administrator's actions might be scrutinized. I could go to AN, but the better place to go would be AN/I, because there is immediate and ongoing harm. I need to do it, but it takes time to prepare a report that will cut through the noise at AN/I. Now, it is true, if you are in doubt about your own closure, AN could be a place to go for advice. However, you did not go, raising the important question, which was not whether or not there was consensus at AN/I for the block, but whether or not the closing admin -- you stepped into that role without actually undertaking the duty involved -- had properly considered the evidence, which is an obligation independent from determining a consensus, because a consensus in any process can be warped by participation bias. A closing admin will look at the !votes and determine if the !voters were properly informed, and that would entail looking at the evidence presented; if a closing admin finds that evidence was not properly considered, it's a duty to close contrary to apparent consensus. That's a crucial part of the system, without this, it breaks down, as it has in this case. It's very simple, Fritzpoll. If you have seen evidence that Wilhelmina Will was engaged in any pattern of copyright violation, point to it. A single incident won't suffice, for everyone can make mistakes, and we don't block for mistakes, we block for intentional disregard of warnings, or, sometimes, for incompetent disregard, usually limited to very active editors unable to understand the guidelines.

This comment is long, Fritzpoll, but I assure you, you can read it, even carefully, in less time than it took me to write it. It's important. Your administrative future may depend on it.

It's not necessarily relevant, Fritzpoll, but have you considered the fact that the community was presented a very distorted picture of Wilhelmina's activties, by an editor with a history of being blocked for harassment? That this editor continued to harass Wilhelmina Will? I don't write empty words, so if you need diffs, they can be provided. I was hoping, initially, that a word to the wise would be sufficient, but apparently that didn't work for some reason. This whole affair, essentially created by Blechnic, has resulted in two instances of serious damage: WW may have been driven away from Wikipedia, and Ottava Rima was blocked for what may have been tendentious efforts to protect her. There are disturbing aspects both to the ban you confirmed and to the block of OR. Both WW and OR made mistakes. However, those mistakes were less serious than actions of other editors which haven't been sanctioned, nobody with admin tools has apparently looked at the overall situation, each one focusing on the narrow spotlight cast on Wilhelmina Will -- and OR -- by Blechnic and a supporter of his. I've seen this happen far too many times: abusive user is uncivil to an editor, enough that the editor responds with incivility or complaint. Attention is then focused on the originally abused editor, who is warned or blocked. Wikipedia has lost more than a few very productive editors as a result. AN/I is broken.

I don't blame you -- or even Blechnic -- for this. It's a systemic deficiency, and Blechnic has simply discovered how to take advantage of it. He hasn't been properly warned by a neutral editor. I'm not neutral with respect to him, because he originally revealed to me just how serious the problem was by his attacks on my Talk page, against my advice to Wilhelmina Will, so I'm involved; were I an administrator, I'd be unable to use my tools, I'd be in exactly my present situation, dependent on AN/I -- or I could call on administrative friends, there are many, but my truly fundamental concern is Wikipedia process, and thus I'd rather try to fix AN/I. Otherwise I'm fighting fires, continually. I could still have warned Blechnic, so that he'd be blocked if he repeated the activity, but I've argued, elsewhere, against such warnings, because they are often disregarded because they are considered hostile.

The advice to WW, by the way, later turned out to be correct, and she got another DYK as proof. Your apparent inability to understand what was going on, and your willingness to act to close the AN/I report with a ban without making the evidence clear, call into question, in my opinion, your competence as an administrator. It would not be that you made a mistake, or even that you made several, it would be that you didn't respect and attend carefully to criticism of your actions, and continued to defend them. When you went to AN, you essentially asked a question: "Was there a consensus to ban at AN/I?" And you got an answer to that question: "Yes." But if you'd been following what was going on with WW, and paying attention to what I'd written on your Talk page, you'd have known that this was not the issue. There was a rough consensus. Not a complete one, there was some clear opposition voiced. It is the duty of a closing administrator to examine the evidence, not the numbers. Numbers are merely a support.

And this will come out if there is a review, an RfC on your actions, or ArbComm proceeding. Understand that there are very important principles involved here, you have inadvertently touched a live wire. I seriously urge you to consider carefully the topic ban. You have the power to withdraw your close (you don't have to actually reverse it). This is Wikipedia process, the first step in WP:DR, discussion between involved parties in a dispute. We do not go first to AN or AN/I, normally. You stated clearly the reasons for the block, but you didn't show, at all, that there was actual evidence for the problems. I've reviewed this for you more than once. You gave two reasons:

1. Copyright violations.
2. Padding an article ("reverting an improvement," was the way you put it, as I recall.)

Given that there was only one incident of the latter, barely worthy of a warning, much less a ban, I've focused on copyvio. And when I asked you for evidence of copyvio, you pointed to a prior AN/I report. Which contained no evidence of copyvio except for Blechnic's allegations and his rather paranoid speculations about some plot to vandalize Wikipedia. (Notice that later, Blechnic started calling the contributions of WW "crap," then amended to "vandalism," as if that were better -- and nobody warned him. Do you wonder that Wilhelmina then referred to him, in her naivety and in leetspeak, as "revolting." I'm sure he was, to her.)

I have now seen reference to two possible copyvio problems. One was uncovered by Blechnic when he set out to prove that she was massively vandalizing the project. It was seven months ago, and there were extenuating circumstances, she'd actually asked an admin before putting that article up. The other was mentioned by someone, perhaps you, that a copyvio had been pointed out to her and she had responded weakly. I did not see reference to this in either AN/I report, maybe I missed it. The first problem would be totally irrelevant to a present ban, even if it had been an egregious violation, which it was not. The second would be a minor concern, worthy of some kind of warning, perhaps, perhaps not. Not a ban. We don't ban except when we have reason to believe that warnings will be ignored and ongoing damage will occur.

And there is no reason to believe that. She responded to warnings, apparently. You (and others) have confused a lack of participation at AN/I or specific, explicit, response to warnings, with defiance of them. It is not, and it is a serious error to interpret lack of response as defiant response. There are many reasons why an editor would not respond. Literal absence, embarrassment or other emotional distress, fear of conflict, etc. No, we don't even, properly, care much if an editor responds with "Fuck you!" to a warning. (Plenty of ArbComm cases consider an angry response to a warning, on the user's talk page in particular, to be uncivil but normal and not blockworthy.) We don't even conclude "defiance," but simply block if the warning is ignored by repeating the problem behavior.

Fritzpoll, this is an opportunity for you to learn this, quickly. Other administrators have failed to get this and have been desysopped. Whether or not that will actually happen depends on many factors very difficult to predict. But it's a real possibility. It is not the mistake itself that causes the loss of the admin bit. It is an inability to recognize the problem, and thus continued insistence that a use of tools was correct. (In a current RfC and a "voluntary recall" flap over admin Elonka, a topic ban, even though admin tools were not actually used, seems to be considered as such a use: it is an implied threat of use.)

Please remember something as you consider all this. I was neutral. I'd had no contact with you, with Wilhelmina Will, with Blechnic, with Ottava Rima, until I noticed the block of OR and another editor -- without any need to do so -- attacked OR on my Talk page. Since it was OR who had been blocked, and not this other editor, I saw "vendetta" spelled out before me, and when I investigated, and confirmed that in the original triggering incident, OR had been correct, the plot thickened. And then I saw the topic ban of WW to be an immediate problem. OR, it seemed, could handle the block and even benefit from it. WW was in danger of dropping out. So I wrote some consoling words to WW, and simply noted that it was still possible for her to get DYK nominations even though topic banned. And Blechnic, again, then attacked WW for what I had done, and when I did not surrender to his warnings, and I checked out a WW article eligible for DYK and nominated it, he went to AN/I again. This guy was going to AN/I without following WP:DR and without any emergency, and attacking WW when she had done nothing but ask about what I'd suggested.

And so a new editor (if he's not a sock), previously blocked for harassment -- and given a newbie pass, which assumes that he wouldn't repeat the behavior -- did repeat it and nobody was watching and few, if any, cared, instead focusing on a few errors of this very young and apparently vulnerable editor, with many articles created, with all that I have seen being better than the average new article, -- actually much better -- and 29 successful DYK nominations, is now gone. I hope not for good, I hope that the damage can be undone, and it's a shame that you did not pay attention to this sooner. I will, later today, go to AN/I with a request for a withdrawal of the ban. And if that is not successful -- and unless someone does come up with evidence of massive damage from WW, sufficient to be ban-worthy or warnable/block-worthy -- I'll take it beyond that. This will cause my behavior -- and your behavior -- to come under close scrutiny. So, again, I urge you to carefully consider. As long as you stand as the administrator who personally confirmed that the topic ban was appropriate -- not merely passively "passing on the news," you will be considered responsible for it. If it's right, by all means, stand firm, don't be bullied. But if you are not sure that you got it right, you could and probably should withdraw your support for the ban, which would effectively end it. An editor should not be banned unless an administrator is confident that the ban was proper, based on personal investigation of the evidence, preferably shared with the community. As an administrator, you are trusted by the community to make such a decision with due caution and due diligence, otherwise to abstain from decision, and failure to do this is grounds for a loss of confidence in you.--Abd (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning before block

I have asked another administrator to review your editing. The above screed [30] is a personal attack on User:Fritzpoll and includes major assumptions of bad faith. Such things are not allowed on Wikipedia, and I strongly suggest you remove them. If you continue your campaign to drive off User:Fritzpoll I will support an indefinite block on your account by a suitably uninvolved administrator. Due to past interactions with you, I will not place such a block myself. Your past editing history shows that your account is mainly used for disruption and drama mongering. As such, your account could be blocked indefinitely, per policy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the olive branch I extended to Abd after he treated me similarly, I support this. Fritzpoll's an outstanding editor and a good administrator. This kind of treatment is completely unacceptable. ^S._D.Jameson 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, no response to Keeper76) I will review your objections and respond. I have a pending edit at AN which I will review to be sure that it does not contain personal attacks. However, before reviewing what you have posted, I would note that questioning Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator is not a personal attack, and at no point, insofar as I recall, have I questioned his good faith. It is essential to Wikipedia process that examination and criticism of admin behavior be allowed, unless it rises to the level of harassment, which, in this case, would be preposterous. If you believe that my actions are improper, you are welcome to question them, and the fact is that I act as if I've already been warned and therefore could, possibly, be immediately blocked. I write what I write, imagining that ArbComm is looking over my shoulder, and, while I make mistakes, I try not to repeat them. I'll come back here after review. As to S. Dean Jameson's remarks, try to find some effort on my part to support a pre-block warning for him. I have not only not attacked him, I have avoided mentioning his name. He has, however, I have concluded, been part of the problem in the Ottava Rima and Wilhelmina Will, so I suppose it will, indeed, be necessary to include him in an RfC coming out of that. His confirmation of your warning here was gratuitous, it added nothing to it, he is known to be hostile to my intervention in the affair, even though it was he, above, who suggested that I investigate. He simply did not like the results of that. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I was just coming here to say something very similar to Jehochman, but without the block warning, though I see it as an appropriate warning. In the last week, you have made extended comments, well within your "rights" in an open environment, in several highly contentious discussions. I make no comment at all about your accuracy or inaccuracy in your posts. You have made extended comments regarding your perception of "bad blocks/bad bans" involving several good editors, POV editors, and "charged" topics, purposefully scrambled here: MGodwin, Global Warming, Wilhemina Will, Ottava Rima, Child Sexual abuse/advocacy, GoRight, S. Dean Jameson, Barack Obama, Elonka, Toddst1, Fritzpoll, IP 209-86-226-18, and most visibly, AN and ANI. (Am I missing any?) Lately, it seems that where there is perceived controversy, a lecture of sorts of Abd's is soon to follow. It has become predictable both in your pending appearance at the venue, and which "side" you're going to take. You have not done any main space editing (outside of one or two Instant Runoff Polling edits, an article you presumably watchlist) and one group of edits to an actor's page that you "worked on" for another editor that is topic banned to get around the ban on that editor's behalf. Please consider the effects your editing is having both on the community and on you as an editor and consider restraining your editing in highly charged areas. To agree with Jehochman here, it is beginning to look much more like a "crusade on behalf of the unrepresented" (at least, what you would call the "unrepresented") and its looking less like collaborative editing and good faith opining and more like drama-mongering. Diffs on request, starting with this one. Keeper ǀ 76 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Interesting. Yes, I've been involved in conflict, and I'd be happy to defend that, if necessary. I am unfortunate enough to understand what makes Wikipedia work and what is, as well, destroying the community, causing many long-time editors to leave in disgust, and I consider that when I understand a situation and I have time, it's my duty to comment. As a result, I've been getting comments and emails of support from not just a few administrators, so .... there are divisions in the community, and it is my goal to bridge them and find true consensus on quite a number of issues which have been plaguing Wikipedia. It is expected that, as part of this process, some editors will attempt to interdict my efforts. That's unfortunate, and I will not hold it against them, but the community might. I understand Wikipedia process and how WP:DR works, and exploring this has been part of my training after my last RfA. And that, indeed, involves entering conflict zones. I am short on mainspace edits, indeed, that's not what I'm good at. I'll warn, however, that blocking me because of a paucity of mainspace edits would be disruptive. And I'm not as short as Keeper76 claims, he should be more careful. Generally, the community has supported the interventions and edits named above; for example, the DYK article was approved and used, and, in spite of efforts to complain about it at AN/I, consensus was that there was nothing wrong with it, so what I can see here is that Keeper76 is trying to dredge up reasons for complaint, hence he has pulled in a host of irrelevancies. Jehochman's claim is more specific and will require investigation to be certain that I didn't make a mistake. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't dredging anything, Abd, and I was being careful. I merely looked at one week's posts, going back to August 6th. Not dredging. Dredging would be going back thru your edits past this last week. The edit counter doesn't lie, as Iridescent linked above (or is it below?), and your Special:Contributions includes, this week, several posts involving each issue that I posted above. I specifically said I don't necessarily "dispute your accuracy" in any one particular debate you've thrown your energies into, I asked (not demanded) that you show restraint. It is not "your duty to comment" on anything here, let alone a proliferation of different contentious issues. I am glad you feel that you "understand what makes Wikipedia work". How nice of you to so willingly share your wisdoms. Surely you'd agree that spreading your week's edits over so mainly varied areas with strong opinions and accusations would draw attention to you and your editing? Of course you're getting "emails and comments" of support, that's what happens when you choose a side on something. A "bridge", as I'm sure you understand with your expertise in DR, doesn't necessarily take a side, merely connects the two. I made no threat of block based on "short on mainspace edits". I stated clearly that I feel you should back away, perhaps refocus is a better word, from over-involving yourself in so many "bridge construction projects" at one time. Keeper ǀ 76 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I escalated to a warning is because of the highly damaging effect on User:Fritzpoll, and thus Wikipedia. Fritzpoll has taken a wikibreak to get away from the stress inflicted by User:Abd. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Without referring to any specific examples, I have definitely seen this pattern from Abd. Abd, I would suggest you consider taking a step back and looking objectively at your participation in these areas. –xeno (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here to disagree with Keeper et al – as you're presumably aware from the extended conversations, I support WW on this one – but after doing some digging, I second (third?) the warning. In your time here, less than 18% of your contributions are to the mainspace (and I suspect that, by size, it's closer to 5%). You don't seem to understand what this project is about – the talkpage discussions which comprise 50% of your entire history here should only be to discuss improvements to the encyclopedia, whilst you seem to treat this site as some kind of glorified chatroom. My AGF when it comes to you has gone totally out the window after watching your obvious attempts at unproductive shit-stirring on Elonka's RFC, and if you continue on your apparent quest to inject yourself into every discussion whether or not you have anything to say, I won't hesitate to indefblock¹ you for disruption. – iridescent 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

¹ "Indefinite" in the sense of "undefined" (eg, until you agree to stop trolling), not in the sense of "forever".

Still at it. ^S._D.Jameson 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of that post, there's a reasonable chance it was written before he read this thread, so give him the benefit of the doubt. – iridescent 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Negative. He posted on this thread at 15:21 [31], prior to the latest screed. [32] Will somebody press the block button please. This disruption needs to be stopped. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• And now threatening me with an RFC for supporting J's warning. I've no response to this absurdity. One example of his low light to heat ratio (though not the worst by far) is his contributions to this now-archived thread. Threats of an RfC on me no longer worry me, as I've done nothing to merit accusations of bad faith that have been leveled at me. This mess will result not in sanctions against me, Fritzpoll, or any of the other editors Abd harrasses, I'm quite certain. ^S._D.Jameson 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am unfortunate enough to understand what makes Wikipedia work and what is, as well, destroying the community, causing many long-time editors to leave in disgust..." As it turns out, you have no understanding of this at all. You are part of the problem. Tan ǀ 39 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then you are obligated to block or seek my blocking, and Wikipedia will be fixed, saved from at least part of the problem. However, in fact, this idea that we can fix Wikipedia by blocking and banning editors, and particularly editors who simply speak up, is part of the problem. It doesn't work with seriously disruptive editors, who just come back again, and only the clumsy ones are quickly spotted, leaving stupid vandals, plus, unfortunately, those who may have been improperly blocked or blocked excessively based on marginal evidence. I'm not challenging the block policy, it's actually pretty good. But it often isn't followed. I find it rather odd that my edits to the RfC for Elonka, and my edits to the discussion of her admin recall on her Talk page, are considered some kind of offense. My position, though entirely independent, is supported by about 2/3 of the community commenting at last glance; but that leaves 1/3 who have, apparently, a very different view of Wikipedia and administrative responsibilities, including quite a number of administrators, so.... it would not be surprising if I were blocked, and, indeed, it might cause some good. Among other things, it identifies a lightning rod, I hope the rod is prepared or it might burn out. Of late, I've been advising that editors involved in conflict read WP:DGAF. The legitimate message there is to do what you believe is right and not be attached to the outcome, it's actually an ancient message, worth taking in. What I'd advise any admin considering blocking me is to carefully weigh the evidence, document it, and be clear about the reason for blocking. Beware of "trolling" as a reason, it involves mindreading and AGF failure. Besides the fact that I'm not trolling, not seeking outraged response or disruption. If I were seeking disruption, I'd be the one going to administrative noticeboards with complaints. Today's actions, the cause of this, were discussions on my own Talk page, not started by me, plus, now, posts to AN, in a section not started by me but being somewhat of a complaint about my behavior. And if I respond, civilly, to that, I'm supposedly "trolling"? Beware. Live wire. Touch with proper caution and protective measures. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these were caused by today's actions alone, but by a culmination of your actions over the past little while. –xeno (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Abd, the intentions of my post here were to explicitly tell you that you were wearing yourself thin, by over-opining on too many issues at once. With really really long posts, that don't fit the (online) audience well. I cast no judgments as to the accuracy, I've not participated in anything Global warming related, or Elonka related, only tangentially w/ regards to SDJ and Fritzpoll. It's the proliferation of the posts that is disruptive and brings out the term "trolling". It isn't starting ANI posts that is "trolling", it is commenting on all of them at once with diatribes. In fishing (do you fish? It's great fun, very relaxing), "trolling" means to move around the lake in the boat, not staying in one place for too long. Advantages of trolling in fishing: You get to have your hook and minnow in several areas, perhaps increasing your chances of catching a fish. Less likely to get bored because the scenery changes. Disadvantages of trolling in fishing: You are in too many places, never long enough in one place to be effective, and too spread out, making the chances of catching a fish more "random" in some senses, and less "planned and objective-based", perhaps decreasing your chances of catching a fish. And perhaps, more boring. Again, show restraint. You have no duty to respond to every contentious area of meta-wikipedia and every "publicized conflict". Keeper ǀ 76 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I tend to agree - even though I often agree with your comments, their length and wordiness tends to preclude a favourable reception in many areas. However, on the separate issue addressed here, the sort of behaviour you have exhibited towards Fritzpoll is exactly the sort of conduct which does *not* lead to a productive editing environment. In the particular post in question you have mischaracterised several past ArbCom cases and then made some kind of threat, and are now going around asserting he is a banned user. I think if you want to stick around here, you're going to need to avoid that kind of behaviour - we have a shortage of good users/editors as it is and Fritzpoll is most definitely one of them. Retracting the threats and moving on would be a good start. Orderinchaos 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Received an email from Fritzpoll: rm section as unnec per discussion

[33]

S. Dean Jameson's posts here.

S. Dean Jameson has previously promised (three times, actually, as I recall) not to post to this page. I came to consider his posts here nothing but disruptive, but I did take his "olive branch" seriously, and to my knowledge, did not gratuitously refer to him anywhere after that. Up until his comments here today, I don't think I mentioned him at all, in fact, but I may have made some indirect reference somewhere, so ... why did he intervene here? Certainly not to confirm the "olive branch" offer! I'm now asking him to refrain from posting to this Talk page, unless there is a necessity. In no way have I been harassing him, nor did I harass Fritzpoll, rather, I asked him to decide if he was or was not closing the AN/I discussion on the WW topic ban, I criticized the decision he then made, and requested he reconsider. I also responded to -- did not originate -- AN and AN/I reports where either I was mentioned or the issue I was researching was brought up. None of this required his response, it cannot reasonably be considered harassment. He wasn't pursued. While I can see no reason for the Fritzpoll "resignation" mail to be posted here, other than in an attempt to stir up sentiment for my blocking, that's minor, I can easily let it go unless necessity appears later. SDJ, if you were serious about the olive branch, and I assumed you were, stick with it and you'll stay out of trouble. This is as much warning as you'll get from me. Warning is a preface to blocking, and I'm not seeking to have you blocked.--Abd (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I also asked SDJ (on his talkpage) not to post here, (I also included my talk, Frtzpoll's talk), for similar reasons as you state above, and in regards to the olive branch that was offered after my intervening on both your and his talkpages to the prior issue between you two. He agreed in sentiment to the issue of perception that I brought up with him, and offered apologies on my talkpage (diffs on request if you haven't read any of those posts, they were all today and dated after Jehochman's post here and SDJ's subsequent post(s). I would hope that you would consider the tangential issue of SDJ's opinions here exactly as that, tangential, and would not continue, beyond this well worded post, to post again about it. I would interpret any further posts about it as deflection from the core issue at hand. Keeper ǀ 76 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WW and copyvios

Getting back to the matter at hand. I've been looking at this. I trust Blechnic that those are copyvios. Do you agree with that or not? I *think* your beef is that a better approach could be taken in handling this. The topic ban seemed OK to me. What exactly was your problem with the ban? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also prepared to act as a buffer between you and Fritzpoll. I'm going to post to his talk page now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(sigh of relief) I haven't been attacking Fritzpoll, though he seems to have taken it that way, and I was done with anything I'd be doing with his talk, he'd made his position clear enough that he wasn't going to budge. But see below.

(edit conflict) Thank you very much for looking at this. I'll review what you pointed to. I'm aware directly of one copyvio, from seven months ago. There is another allegation that I recall seeing reference to somewhere, I don't think it was mentioned in the AN/I report. In any case, this is what should have been happening from the beginning, an investigation and confirmation of the evidence, and I'm totally confident that we will quickly find agreement; if not, I'm also sure that we'll find a way to resolve the issue.

The whole thing just may have become moot. On the face of it, there was a post to AN referring to "my talk page" and the current events, written by 87.114, which is IP for the banned User:Fredrick day, who long ago claimed to have other accounts he did not risk. Fredrick day would bail if he thought he was being closely watched, he did it several times. I'm not ready to jump, but if this stands up, it would invalidate the close of the AN/I report resulting in the ban of Wilhelmina Will, and the ban would be invalid, unless someone else decides to take responsibility for it. If you believe the evidence warrants a topic ban, i.e., that this is an appropriate remedy, then you could do this. But after review of the situation, a topic ban is exactly the wrong remedy, and nobody intending to continue copyvio would nominate the articles for DYK, it would, given her history, just about guarantee discovery, and the proper result for continued violation wouldn't be a topic ban, it would be warnings and blocks. "Topic ban" was striking at the heart of this 16-year-old girls's (we're told) joy in participating here, her gaining of DYK awards, and she had 28 before the ban, and another after it, due to my nomination (which has also been asserted to be some kind of offense). As far as I can see, she responded to warnings by not repeating the behavior. So, please consider if the welfare of the project warrants a continue ban. Under the circumstances, that is, an closing administrator who withdraws, even aside from the Fd issue, the status of the ban, and any other administrator, particularly if neutral -- which I assume for you -- could review the original AN/I report and either close it as inconclusive -- perhaps based on lack of evidence -- or to confirm or overturn it. My argument here, that has gotten a lot of editors upset, has been that a closing administrator is responsible for determining, not only the "level of consensus," but the cogency and accuracy of the arguments, and that it is never true that "the community has spoken, I'm just noting that by closing and acting." (Though, maybe, one could assert this if there were a higher level of consensus than was actually shown in the topic ban AN/I report, where some serious doubts were raised, but ignored.) Thanks for taking the time to look at this. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the items in Carcharoth's post are copyvios. My problem with this situation is that these are the only copyvios that have turned up in this whole situation. And this copvio is 7 months old, apparently has not been repeated, and even with this there were apparently some unsuual circumstances. Since the most serious complaint that led to the concensus to topic ban WW, I am concerned that this 7 month old item is the only copyvio that has shown up. Admittedly there were other issues that led to the topic ban - that in rephrasing items to avoid copyvios WW sometimes compromised accuracy, that she reverted (but not to the extent of violating 3RR) an edit solely to keep the article above the DYK minimum of 1500 characters, and one rather uncivil comment in the edit summary of one of the reversions. But these items without the prevalent copyvios would have been unlikely to generate an indefinite topic ban. And the single incident above is not consistent with prevalent copyvios. So, although I originally supported the topic ban I now support Abd's attempts to get it overturned. But this may really be moot. All WW has had to do to satisfy many who supported the topic ban, and to satisfy Fritzpoll enough to reopen the case, is to state that she will do her best to avoid these problems in the future. And to date, WW has chosen not to, apparently content to live with the ban for now and just create articles without worrying about DYK. So this seems to be largely much ado about nothing at this point. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Final final warning"

Any more crap like this and I'm blocking you and letting you argue your case from an unblock template. "Two people posted in the same thread" does not give you the right to assume they're the same person, let alone to start playing supersleuth and demanding checkusers. – iridescent 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been quite careful about this, Iridescent. I didn't do what you just described, so if you do block me, you are going to look like an idiot. However, I'll check the diff, after writing this, and if I'm wrong, I'll strike it. Okay? --Abd (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text from the diff'd edit:

Holy Shit! 87.114 is a User:Fredrick day IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be User:Fritzpoll. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was not logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I made no conclusion from the two editors posting in the same thread and, in fact, I'd expect Fd to pop in if he thought he could make some trouble for me, he's done it many times. This would mean nothing about Fritzpoll. I can see that you are going to need to see, as well, the text of the subject edit:[34]

goes beyond that doesn't it? [35]] more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post]. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)]

87.114 here uses my administrative future to refer to this matter. This is the kind of evidence which is a strong justification for checkuser, it is practically routine for an edit like this to result in checkuser if requested. But I have not requested it, nor do I necessarily plan to. It's possibly moot. If Fritzpoll was Fredrick day, he'd consider the whole cover ruined by the possible attention this would focus on him. Fredrick day has been community banned, he had to really try to gain that status. I really did not suspect this until he slipped with the above, if it was a slip. "Supersleuth"? The only special thing I did here was to pay attention and know and notice the Fd favorite IP range. He practically bonked me in the nose with it.

In retrospect, it makes some sense, but this could also be Fd making a point that he's made before. "I only reveal what I choose to reveal." He would be showing here that he can run an account and gain admin status for it, even though he's a banned editor. On the other hand, it must be considered as a possibility that this is a ruse by Fd, who is pretending to be Fritzpoll. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, and if he returns and claims to not be Fredrick day, then the community would probably want to know, hence my checkuser suggestion. And, in fact, if he returns and say, "Yes, I was Fredrick day, but please unban me and allow me to continue my helpful, nondisruptive work," continued adminship would be out of the question, but unbanning would be a possibility. He can do little harm if we know who he is. I do not believe in punishment, only in protection of the project and the community. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, having reviewed the diff you provided, Iridescent, I don't see what I should strike, if anything. Could you be more specific? Or perhaps did you misjudge what was going on? --Abd (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've been careful at all Abd. The part that was saying "my administrative future" was in a direct quote, bluelinked that the IP likely copy/pasted from a discussion. You have developed a strong aversion to anything related to F-day (likely rightfully), to such a degree that other things start looking like F-day in your mind when they are so obviously not F-day related. Fritzpoll posted a wikibreak template out of exasperation in regards to your incessant, long posts, and therefore, he's F-day? I feel for you, buddy. F-day has seriously affected your ability to reason, and that is completely unfair to you. Go back and reread your posts on AN and honestly state that your attempts to defame an administrator are not just another case of deflection (see above regarding SDJ). I'm courting the idea of a block simply to get you to stop posting anywhere outside of your talkpage to curb the disruption and help you get the story right, on your talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a spectacular demonstration of bad faith, and given my generally high opinion of your "clue" factor, a chronic lapse of judgement on your part. Orderinchaos 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What they said. It looks to me like the only one who's "misjudged what was going on" here is you. – iridescent 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC

Ah, they rush in to grab the Tar baby. I wrote this before I was interrupted by RL, so all what is below came down in the interim. I'm going to look around and see what's been happening, but ... I'll summarize this: so far, there is sufficient evidence to file a checkuser request for Fritzpoll as a sock of Fredrick day. Would you folks prefer that I do this privately, or with a formal, public request? If you think otherwise, that there is no basis, I'd say that you don't understand the situation, which might be remedied if you read what I wrote:

(unindented)(edit conflict) Good point, Keeper76. From the beginning of this latest twist, from the IP edit, I've claimed that this could be Fredrick day (not necessarily Fritzpoll) attempting to make trouble for me. "Obsessed with Fredrick day"? Come on! I wasn't thinking about Fredrick day and I wasn't pursuing Fredrick day and I had no suspicion that Fd was involved here. Until he posted. A million to one, the 87.114 IP is Fredrick day, from the convergence of IP and topic. However, let's look at this. It's not quite what Keeper76 thinks, though the error is understandable, I made some kind of mistake in copying the diff. Here is the wikitext, 87.114 wrote:

::goes beyond that doesn't it? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fritzpoll&diff=231262067&oldid=231258069 more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post]. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.149.224|87.114.149.224]] ([[User talk:87.114.149.224|talk]]) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "my 'administrative future'" comment was manually supplied by 87.114. The original text, which is on my Talk page, not on the page blued -- i.e, I wasn't harassing Fritzpoll with this, he had no obligation to read it, unless he thought it might be cogent -- was this: This comment is long, Fritzpoll, but I assure you, you can read it, even carefully, in less time than it took me to write it. It's important. Your administrative future may depend on it.

No, 87.114 was not quoting "my." He was quoting, as is plain from his correct use of quotation marks, "adminstrative future." He supplied the "my." We still have no proof that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, merely enough suspicion for an SSP report and checkuser. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I have seen no evidence or credible charges -- no charges at all, in fact, -- that Fritzpoll is a disruptive editor, so there is no emergency. Let's let this unravel a bit, everybody calm down, please, okay?

Darn it! I thought I might get a break! I'm utterly unafraid of being blocked, and always assume that what happens to me is for the best. I respond to warnings -- carefully! -- because that's the right thing to do, not out of fear. Sure, I've been warned plenty of times. Look at the outcomes. There is one warning that, had I continued the behavior, I'd have been blocked. I still would argue that what I was doing was correct, but clearly, also, the community did not accept that argument, and I was warned by an administrator -- ArbComm member, actually -- whom I respected greatly, one of the dear departed, Newyorkbrad. In any case, I stopped. Immediately, while I sorted it out. WP:IAR requires that I follow my own lights, moving beyond warnings by editors who may be biased. I follow guidelines, generally, unless I see the spirit or intention of the community beyond the guidelines as requiring something else, that's the meaning of WP:IAR, which also requires, by the way, an administrator who thinks I've erred in a damaging way, and that am likely to continue to err, to block me, which is a reversible action, it's not the end of the world, and all I've been saying is: "Be careful!" Not only with me, but with everyone. I don't mind it, but some editors are driven away by a single block, and, in fact, a long-time administrator bailed from a single improper block. See User:Ta bu shi da yu. I've done my homework, folks. When I write a long post, I'm not just writing for the hell of it, I have something to say. Read it or don't, it's up to you, usually. I'm not an administrator. I can't block you even if I wanted to, which I don't. (As an administrator, I'd have different duties, I might be obligated to block, sometimes, though I doubt I'd be looking to find those situations, and I'd like to help make AN/I more functional, in which case we might even need fewer administrators, though continued growth could erase that benefit fairly quickly.) And now, back to this wikidrama brought here by our eager beavers:--Abd (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. First, what was my "good point"? The last thing I said was I should block you, but I made several points. You are still clearly not understanding your misunderstanding. The IP did a copy paste from Fritzpoll's page, not from your page. Sorry if I wasn't clear. On Fritzpoll's page, he wrote .....my 'administrative privileges'. In fact he wrote the entire sentence that the IP bluelinked and copied at ANI. Here's the diff. You are completely out of bounds Abd. You also, above put "obsessed with Fredrickday" in quotation marks above. I never said that. In fact, I said I felt bad for you, both here, and on other pages. F-day has appeared on my talk page twice today, both times blocked for block evasion (by someone else). You are completely being misled by your own past experiences. You have this one wrong, and you should apologize to Fritzpoll, and retract your comments and unfounded suspicions. Completely. Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I have already asked advice regarding a checkuser, but been advised that insufficient evidence exists for one to be undertaken to prove to you that I am not this other user. Incidentally, the quote where you're picking over the pronoun usage is taken fro my talkpage where I respond to your confusion over my break. If you are to make an accusation, please make one, else retract the implicit accusation you make by insinuation - is that unreasonable? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The accusations of sock puppetry are serious and should not be brought up lightly without solid evidence to affirm them. Without such corrobarating evidence, they should be withdrawn. In addition, these accusations do little to progress any of the core issues to a resolution. Gazimoff 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note. The IP, above and at ANI, has admitted both on Fritzpoll's talkpage, and on my talkpage, to being Fredrick Day, and has agreed not to interfere with this going forward, an assertion I choose to believe to be true. Moving along, Abd - it is strongly advised that you make some sort of atonement on ANI for acting/reacting too quickly to an obvious attempt to bait you by a former (and apparently current) adversary. Keeper ǀ 76 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll and I appear to have received the same information. Checkuser will decline to act if evidence does not exist to link the two, which is the case in this instance. It's not a tool to "answer community questions", and your suggestion above that it should be used that way is quite bizarre considering it is basically a sanctioned invasion of privacy and should not be used frivolously - hence why there are so many limits on checkusers, and a checkuser ombudsman to examine use of the tool, and so on. I tend to work by the "strong allegations require strong evidence" approach, and allegations of this nature are poisonous to the editing environment. Orderinchaos 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One precious half hour to devote to Wikipedia today, and for some stupid bizarre reason, I chose to look into this kerfluffle on WP:AN. Abd, you're confused in your post above. Frederick Day is exactly quoting Fritzpoll; he did not add the "my". Follow Day's blue link to Fritzpoll's post on his own talk page, and look at the 6th paragraph. It says exactly, to the letter, what Fritzpoll said. Day did not add the quotation marks, he did not add the "my". Of course, Fritzpoll could be Frederick Day. So could I. So could Keeper. So could you. All four possibilities have roughly the same likelihood. The only difference is, you've publicly accused Fritzpoll (in particular, look again at your edit summary of your last post at WP:AN, where you start theorizing on how Frederick Day got caught). I think an apology is in order. --barneca (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Since CBW was kind enough to create this for me a little while ago, I'll direct your attention to the following blue link: Wikipedia:When multiple people are saying you did something wrong and nobody is agreeing with you there is a very good chance that you are wrong. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good advice. Thanks. However, that's not the end of it. Sometimes a lone voice, crying in the wilderness, is the only one who sees what is going on. I do not assume that I'm right. Rather, I assume that if I see something, and I describe what I see, my friends will correct my errors. So, friends, thanks for being alert! I assure you all that I am reviewing everything said here, and carefully. Barneca, above, may have identified an error, though it may still be merely an alternate interpretation, and, so far, I'll stick with the interpretation that the edit raises sufficient suspicion for checkuser, and I have been very, very clear that Fritzpoll may not be Fredrick day, I have never made an unconditional "accusation." I do theorize, there at AN, that if Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, then it explains certain things. If I overlooked specifying the circumstances, or, indeed, if I'm requested to strike something there, and I agree that it's marginal, or just plain wrong, I'll fix it or strike it, upon request here. Otherwise, couldn't I be accused of stirring up more shit? I've got, how many administrators, yelling at me here? On the other hand, look at Elonka.... Perhaps we should start the Tar baby club. It will all come out in the end, I'm sure. It doesn't even depend on me, it only depends on time.--Abd (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to block

Having been asked to look at this, owing to a gaping lack of contributions in the article space along with these unbelievably long and time wasting posts which have nothing meaningful to do with writing articles (but do make groundless claims of sockpuppetry), unless I hear otherwise, in a few hours hours I will block this user for disruption indefinitely, mostly to keep him away from user and project spaces other than this page. Please everyone, do let me have your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been having several conversations with and in regard to Abd and the surrounding issues, and right now, I would not support a block. Abd does need to promptly (and if I dare ask, succinctly and without caveats or reservations) offer an apology to Fritzpoll. Keeper ǀ 76 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with the everpresent Keeper) The "please do let me have your thoughts" above was probably directed at Abd, but since I'm here, snooping: I would be inclined, instead, to see how he reacts to the torrent of advice he's received from multiple people today. As far as I know, he's only been made aware in a serious way that he's flirting with disruption starting today (although if I missed something previous, please correct me).--barneca (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant "everyone" and have fixed the text to make that clear. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with Keeper here. I'd like to see what the response is before making any further decision.Gazimoff 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait then. Thanks for commenting so quickly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the response? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(posted before xeno, below, and indenting)No, that's not the response. Abd is very good at responding where most appropriate. He probably started typing that long before you posted here, and is just now getting your (and the subsequent) messages. At least, that's what my AGF-ing tells me. He'll respond here, if precedences is anything. Keeper ǀ 76 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper76, a whiff of fresh air. Yes, I didn't see Gwen Gales' comment here before posting. I now see a number of administrators requesting that I refrain from further action. Since I see no urgency today, I suspect that Wilhelmina Will will be able to survive another day -- and indeed, since she has been gone for a week and may now be creating articles, they will be fresh and ready for DYK nomination, should that be appropriate, she may need some help with that, so I conclude that it's fine for me to take a little break. However, I do notice stuff, and I understand far more about Fredrick day and who might be him and not -- I identified User:Allemandtando as Fredrick day, confirmed by checkuser, when people were screaming that my SSP report was just more tendentious bullshit -- but, let me tell you all, that when an edit appeared from known Fd IP referring to "my" administrative position (i.e, Fritzpoll's), it bowled me over. I not only never suspected it, but didn't see an Fd pattern. Until one more thing happened. If Fd thinks I'm on to him, if he's made an error that will expose him, or thinks he has, he has a tendency to bail. He doesn't fight to the end, once the writing on the wall is clear. Now, there was no writing on the wall, here. But Fredrick day isn't rational, necessarily. He thinks I'm obsessed with him, plotting how to figure out who he is. And so, when I began to negotiate with Fritzpoll -- and that's all I did, really, except some isolated mentions elsewhere, where I thought it might do some good -- Fd may have thought that I was onto him.

But, please note: this is merely a theory. There is an alternate theory: Fredrick day pretended to be Fritzpoll (or, more remotely, the edit was some weird slip, but Fritzpoll still isn't Fd), just to stir the pot. So it's not proven without checkuser or other evidence. The only evidence I have is the IP edit saying "my" referring to Fritzpoll, which is enough for checkuser, should anyone want to go there, and the sudden, unexpected bailout, which is also Fd habit. The latter is merely a small additional ground for suspicion, it would mean nothing by itself. Others bail out as well.

I may continue to discuss this on my Talk page, where I think appropriate, but have no intention of bringing it up elsewhere, and I've probably said enough at the current AN report. I might make a brief comment that if anyone has questions about what I've written, to come to my Talk page. I'll respond directly to Gwen Gale in a later edit, I intend. I need to look around a little. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? Fritzpoll is not Frederick day, F.d. is not pretending to be Fritzpoll; you have made the whole thing up and are still – after at least five warnings – throwing your fabricated accusation about. – iridescent 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone really be expected to read nearly 11,000 characters? The meaning of TL;DR is clearly lost on this user and he's STILL making fairly overt accusations of sockpuppetry. I'll admit my mainspace contributions are fairly thin myself, but for goodness sakes, expend some of this energy building the mainspace. We've got far more effective "champions of the underdog", heck, Gwen, you are one of them from time to time. As far as I'm concerned, Abd is hurting, not helping the people whose causes he takes up. –xeno (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider that not only does this prove Abd hasn't taken any of the criticism on board (a post longer than the average policy page, which reads like a particularly dull Wikipedia Review thread and at no point says "I was wrong"), but that this a clear personal attack on Fritzpoll. Since as far as I can tell this editor has virtually no non-COI mainspace edits, can anyone stalking this page give any good reason not to indefblock? – iridescent 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On general principle, blocking because of too much meta-discussion is not something I like. Feedback about Wikipedia should be welcome (in appropriate namespaces, of course.) So, if a block is to be made, be sure to carefully explain the justification for it. Hopefully, "too much metadiscussion" won't be part of that justification. That said, I've previously found Abd's posts to be longwinded and unhelpful, sometimes even bizarre. But, my solution to this is for me to not pay attention to them, rather than to block. Your mileage may vary. Friday (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Friday about not paying attention (if one can). Took me a minute to read. Seemed like forever because instead of using diffs to rehash, he paraphrases, which makes it almost useless, then he makes the sockpuppet claim again, after he'd been asked to take it back. I'd like input again please, because I'm ready to block again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at ANI to the latest long post. Still waitinig for Abd to formulate a reply here (hopefully a cogent, succinct, and readable reply - consider that a challenge of sorts, abd?) before I decide to follow Gwen's or Friday's advice. Keeper ǀ 76 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly posting false accusations of sockpuppetry against another editor despite having it explained to you at least seven separate times why your "reasoning" had no basis in reality and that you were misreading your "evidence". This is "indefinite" in the sense of "unspecified", not "forever"; if someone sees good reason to unblock or you post a good unblock reason, I won't contest it. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  – iridescent 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)