From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have something to say to Bishonen? You're sort of at the right place, place your comments here. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dream of love

Some days
Some nights
Yellow daisies dance by moonlight
While the other flowers sleep
And dream of love.
El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I-are-seem to be reaching out

Let's talk to rather than past each other. Refractoring some select excerpt for targeted discussion. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On "WEA [as] a special [page]"

Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

1. Inviting thoughts from Phil Sandifer:
2. Inviting thoughts from David Gerard:
3. Inviting thoughts from James Forrester:
4. Inviting thoughts from others: Not yet, please. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I-are-seeing evidence?

Reconciling the un-citability of (non-personal-info) irc logs with accountability & community confidence: possible, or forever a source of woe? El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

1. Inviting thoughts from Phil Sandifer:
2. Inviting thoughts from David Gerard:
3. Inviting thoughts from James Forrester:
4. Inviting thoughts from others: Not yet, please. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refractored chipetting

To pet a chipmunk, you need to project the calmness of love.

Love, and peanuts!

If you have anger in your heart, the chipmunks sense it and they will refuse petting.

El_C 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Dramaticontroversialdrama

"[C]ontroversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama" [...] Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Wikipedia) that contradicts 'controversy' [...] Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] To be continued...?

[edit] Comments

[edit] Dream of love

Some days
Some nights
Yellow daisies dance by moonlight
While the other flowers sleep
And dream of love.
El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refractored chipetting

To pet a chipmunk, you need to project the calmness of love.

Love, and peanuts!

If you have anger in your heart, the chipmunks sense it and they will refuse petting.

El_C 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I-are-seem to be reaching out

Let's talk to rather than past each other. Refractoring some select excerpt for targeted discussion. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On "WEA [as] a special [page]"

Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If no prior notice was given of these special rights and status ... how could any Wikipedian be faulted for assuming that a page appearing in Wikipedia was open to editing? Risker (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I just have one: if it's a "special place" that isn't Wikipedia, how can there be a Wikipedia policy about it? Does Wikipedia host policy pages about how SomethingAwful is to be run? By the way, I invited such comments before. There weren't any, so I figured it was fine to edit the page. I guess we were all supposed to read the silences... presumably by hearing a great deal on IRC. Geogre (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I-are-seeing evidence?

Reconciling the un-citability of (non-personal-info) irc logs with accountability & community confidence: possible, or forever a source of woe? El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Geogre "repeatedly": explored

Geogre has repeatedly been [sic] incivil and engaged in personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: it's not enough to say "In this diff Geogre makes a personal attack," because I looked at those diffs and, frankly, didn't see the claimed personal attacks. Nandesuka (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I don't have anything more to add than what I said on the Workshop page: if you're making the serious accusation of a "personal attack," then you have an obligation to state what you think that attack actually is. Phil utterly failed to do this. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I finally get to say something? Ok, here it goes: Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has always had a thing about "personal attacks." He introduced the very concept to Wikipedia, and his original attempt at "semi-policy" failed miserably, thanks to the work of user:Orthogonal and myself. It was an absurdity that has since been used to countenance illogic and misbehavior. There is no way for me to say that Phil's heart wasn't broken by my warning to him, or that Guy didn't weep in bitter tears when I called his comments "horse shit." There is no way for Phil to say that Guy did, either. There is no way to quantify, assess, consider, or even acknowledge a "personal attack." Uncivil behavior can be assessed, however, by its effects. So here is how we can determine whether a person has been uncivil: has that person's comments meant that editing ceased, and all conversation turned to the speech act, rather than the reasoning or issues? Was a single user so deeply affected that she or he left the project or decided not to edit as much?

Well, let's use those two alone and see. After my "repeatedly" "incivil" (why can't people ostensibly getting training in an English department learn to use a dictionary?) remarks, what was the result? Did Phil begin discussing my vicious comments? Did he swear off Wikipedia or swear off editing as much? Did Guy? Has David Gerard said that I'm the reason he stopped adding any content to Wikipedia? Did any of these editors contact me at any point to ask me to tone it down, to clarify, or to apologize? Did any of them tell me that they were insulted? Did any of them attempt dialog or redress in any form? The answer to those is "no" in every single case.

Now, we can look for a different thing, too. We can ask what Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer has done. Has he attempted dialog? Has he attempted mediation of this rampant uncivil behavior? Has he tried to work out differences with me? Oddly, my talk page is, I believe, a virgin to any comment from Phil in four years. What has he done, then? He has tacked me on to an arbitration, and for what purpose? He moves for demotion, punishment, and all sorts of mean, nasty things. What is the effect of this? It is to draw attention to his personal emotions, his personal sadness at taking losing positions or being unable to argue his positions against me. That, friends, is the definition of uncivil, for it is evidence of someone putting the personal far ahead of the communal. Geogre (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought from an irrelevant editor who has to get this out somewhere: Every one of Phil Sandifer's proposals on that arb works hop makes me feel sick. The point of arbcom, even for the non-arbs participating, is (as the order of the elements suggests) to start with the principles, etc, etc, etc. These proposals (principles, findings of fact, remedies) seem to be geared towards specific ends: keeping the channels in a position where they are both official and free of any scrutiny; and driving away users that he perceives to be 'against' him. I for one would rather be rid of any number of those who seem to gather around these WP namespace controversies than any actual content contributer, let alone somebody as generally genial as Bishonen. No more bongos (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Access to arbcom-l: parties and peers

Some have argued that David Gerard's read access to the committee's secret deliberations constitute a pivotal advantage (i.e. being able to adjust his conduct according to expectations gathered therein). Others maintained that there isn't much he could do with that knowledge. What is, however, clear is that he is the only party with such access, which places him in a unique position. El_C 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Community admonished?

The community is admonished for its repeated protection of Giano. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"The community" is Wikipedia. Arbcom exists for our sake, not vice versa. Crotalus 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would want to see evidence of other users being protected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be a long list... Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Phil's acting insane, or he's writing insanely. It's as if he wants people to mention his own misdeeds, as I suspect that he is thinking of getting "even" for being caught short. He, for one, has been well protected, despite horrible acts in the past. Tony Sidaway at en.admins after resigning his admin status under a cloud, and then being offered ops there? Kelly Martin not being an admin and yet given ops over that channel? Kelly "thanked" during an arbitration that resulted in resigning under a cloud? Ed deleting AfD, and Phil doing the same (but claiming "IAR" and being too "clueful" to worry about doing things by the numbers) and not being banned? There are quite a few people who have been arbitrated frequently, but, oddly, the various times that Giano has been mentioned in arbitration, the cases have never, so far, actually been about anything he has done. Before Phil gets away with telling the whole world that he's right and that they all need to be warned that he is, it would be good if he could be precise and say exactly what Giano II is supposed to have done in this case and at this time. Seems like "edit war" is about all there is, and, as Phil should have learned by now, there were a dozen people in that war. Blocking only one of them, and not for the requisite 24 hr but for the outlandish 72 hr, is itself a misuse of admin tools and something that should be arbitrated. However, Phil gets away with abuse. Giano gets blamed for every time people get caught doing something outrageous. Geogre (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Beyond odd"

Hi. I'm trying to facilitate a laid back, on-wiki discussion about Wikipedia and IRC and would appreciate your particpation. Thanks. Regards, El_C 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it would be grossly inappropriate for me to comment whilst a case is in train. I also find it beyond odd that you would seek to carry such a conversation out on a user's talk page, but hey. :-) James F. (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything prohibiting you from commenting; I can ask other members of the committee in case you feel constrained. And I'm sorry you feel Wikipedia users carrying such a discussion on user's talk page is "beyond odd," but IRC was unavailable! ;) El_C 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

To James F's credit, at least he replied to my invitation. The other two editors whom this extended, did not. El_C 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth would a case have to do with anything? JamesF is not named as a party, and I sincerely hope he's not arbitrating it, given the conflict of interest. For that matter, either he has total control, because it's his party, and then there is no Wikipedia link to that channel, or he is ruled by the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, in which case we can finally begin to set forth best practice by consensus and rationalize the thing. There is no "semi-policy" and there is no "semi-adherent." If it's not Wikipedia, then Wikipedia's got no place advertising it. Geogre (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...when *presenting* findings

Carcharoth notes that "balance is important when presenting findings of fact." It is, therefore, noteworthy that three editors from one side of the dispute (Giano, Geogre, Bishonen) are mentioned versus only one from the other (the arbcom-l privy David Gerard). As well, the former are noted in less heated ("provocational") terms than the matter-of-fact description of Gerard, who of course did not shy of such exclamations as "idiocy and trolling."^[1] El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I may release some of my own communication to arbcom-l from last month which may shade light on the nature/source of this unevenness. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's more, the talk page to that idiotic vanity page of David Gerard's is now showing a group of people realizing that... guess what?... the page was inaccurate. It was poorly written (no contest), inaccurate (now community finding), and self-loving (no one has said anything about that, one way or the other, but it would explain the poor writing and inaccuracies). If this is so, then people have a wholly laudable need to edit it. The provocative edits of Giano, the sometimes pointed edits I did, and the edits Bishonen did that brought onto Wikipedia a matter that needed to be addressed and which was being ignored behind the veil of "can't be quoted," are all therefore legitimate. On the other hand, with the community findings of fault with the page, David Gerard and others who moved to his preferences, were fighting for no stated reason. Additionally, he in particular, but they in general, employed insulting language over and over in their edit summaries and in their rare talk page comments. The uneven comments reflect something other than fact, other than assessment, and other than reason. Geogre (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pissing into the wind again for fun Geogre? Giano (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, unfortunately unsurprisingly, more one-sidedness, this time in the realm of remedies. Needless to say, I strongly protest this injustice. El_C 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen, specifically

Moreover, Bishonen only made three edits to the page. Several other editors edited, and reverted, the page more times during the course of the dispute. She, as the victim of the attack, with very few edits (three) to the disputed page, is singled out negatively, whereas her attacker, Tony Sidaway is left unmentioned. Somehow, I am sensing this findings of fact presentation mode is intentional. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

See above comment. Quite a few other users made more than three edits, and furthermore, Bishonen withdrew involvement therein early on. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway, specifically

Thus, bizarrely, some feel that it is fine to have Bishonen, an admin with an exemplary record, labaled as a troublemaker due to these three edits. Not only, they propose that she will be placed on an indefinite civility parole due to these three edits, which were not even uncivil. ^[2]

It all strikes yours truly as an approach that seems rather Orwellian. Bishonen is aggregated in this parole with Tony Sidway (the person behind the IRC insults), whose record of indiscretions was submitted to the now virtually unreadable, hundreds of pages-sized workshop. I will outline this Finding of Fact directly below (thankfuly, it was also submitted on Newyorkbard's talk page,^[3] which makes for much easier copying):

Tony Sidaway is frequently the source of, or very near to, large-scale disruption, mostly over issues that are confined to Wikipedia space and do not directly effect the production of encyclopedic content. Principle amoung these are the "wars" over userboxes, signatures, and spoilers.

As the items below indicate, Tony is involved in disruption of some nature every few months.

[edit] Comments

How can Bishonen and Tony Sidway be equally aggregated when she possesses an exemplary record+3 edits, compared to his record, above? It boggles the mind. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's practically every three months, and what is remarkably similar about all of the cases is that Tony is consistently accused of insulting other users. In the present fracas, I'm accused of being insulting, but not Bishonen. If we want to see what uncivil action really is, it's a person who continually (not once) gets everyone around riled up. That fits with Tony's pattern, not Bishonen's. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Talk:RfAr/IRC

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

No comment. El_C 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dramaticontroversialdrama

"[C]ontroversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama" [...] Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Wikipedia) that contradicts 'controversy' [...] Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Do I dare ask why I'm being quoted here? The comment is unrelated to Bishonen [4]. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Here, I'm interested discussing what defines controversy vs. drama, an issue which I felt the above exchange touched on. El_C 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Drama" is a term heavily used in gay slang, and it always comes across to me as cattiness. I find its use offensive, as it turns legitimate issues into "oooh, that bitch." Such trivial people should not have an audience, and they most emphatically should not have imitators. People who leave in controversial circumstances are those whose ability to voluntarily leave is controversial, because there is a segment of the editing population that believes that such a person should have a finding stripping him or her of position. E.g. several users, and not merely the ones I dislike, have "left" when arbitration began, and that has been used as a reason for stopping the RfAr. In other cases, people have "resigned" their administrative status during an arbitration, and therefore the arbitrators have not been moved to give an official demotion. The "under a cloud" finding has now had a face lift and wording change, but the import is the same: a person who quits/resigns when there is substantial evidence of wrong doing is not truly volunteering, and therefore they have something "on their record," as it were.

I still find that ruling problematic, myself. I do not think ArbCom should be taking cases that are about personalities. Personalities and personal problems should be dealt with either by community actions or by mediation. If it's just, for example, the case of SandyGeorgia and Zeroath, there should be an easier way to deal with it than arbitration. Instead, arbitration should take place when there is an operative principle involved, when there is something deeper than unhappy people or jerks. If there is an issue, then ArbCom should make a finding, even if the people all leave/resign/apologize. The point is to make a finding on how policies should or should not be employed or to recommend places where policies need to be formed. Geogre (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen and Giano Main pageness

Bishonen (in five days) and Giano (tomorrow) are the gift that keeps on giving, even when whilst away. As always, when it comes to claims of having the project's best interests in mind, this editor feel that action speaks louder than loudly-spoken words. Congratulations to them both! El_C 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Belated congrats! El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanctions amended

I have added the following to your proposed sanction and hope that it meets with your approval, as it is designed for the edification of all mankind and arises from my own lucubrations:

"Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it."

I believe, with that eminent scientist, that there is no point in discussing such difficult solutions, when it is simpler to eat the inhabitants -- preferably alive, but by dead reputation alone, if necessary. Geogre (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Times

So strange to turn from the chimneys to the birds. So strange, to have the road–dust on his feet instead of the coal–grit. So strange to have lived to his time of life, and yet to be beginning like a boy this summer morning! With these musings in his mind, and his bundle under his arm, Stephen took his attentive face along the high road. And the trees arched over him, whispering that he left a true and loving heart behind. *** Mister James Harthouse, 'going in' for his adopted party, soon began to score. With the aid of a little more coaching for the political sages, a little more genteel listlessness for the general society, and a tolerable management of the assumed honesty in dishonesty, most effective and most patronized of the polite deadly sins, he speedily came to be considered of much promise. The not being troubled with earnestness was a grand point in his favour, enabling him to take to the hard Fact fellows with as good a grace as if he had been born one of the tribe, and to throw all other tribes overboard, as conscious hypocrites. El_C 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Within every one of us there lives both a Don Quixote and a Sancho Panza to whom we hearken by turns; and though Sancho most persuades us, it is Don Quixote that we find ourselves obliged to admire... El_C 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

[edit] Deletion

That's cruelty to animals monsters! Poor little big 'zilla. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sniff> All the lemmings are free! Come back Bishzilla, Bishapod and, um, a pizzawheel of death. The 'pedia won't be the same without you. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happen?

What happen to little zilla and little pod?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly 'shonen pouty over great justice from great justice court, talk monster climbing 'pedition. Sheesh! No use sulking! Better send Zilla for teach great justice court better clue. Whack! Roarr! Done! Kosebamse (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Like Bishzilla Day

Wienie 'shonen delete her socks. [5] :-( Bishonen hasn't edited much since her evidence section got screwed over in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/the IRC RFAr case. And she complained about humiliating findings and remedies about her getting left in deadlock on the Proposed Decision page. Removed now. Big deal, anyway, you should see the findings posted about me. And why take it out on the socks in any case? Poor dear 'Zilla, grimly climbing Reichstag with Little Stupid and Frutti di Mare in her pocket! A tragic scene! Who is Frutti di Mare, anyway? Mysteries! Proposal for a wiki homage: let's make this day Talk Like Bishzilla Day from now onwards! Swat feel free to propose this beautiful tribute on ANI! Giano (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

Come on Bish...come back to us! This place is not improved by your absence.--MONGO 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO, I'm rarely active now because of schoolwork and such but we can't lose anymore article writers (same message to Giano) Secretalt (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towering heights

Parturiunt montes et nascetur ridiculus mus — Horace, Ars Poetica

[edit] An analysis of the IRC case

I know you may not be around to read this, Bishonen, but I wanted to share with you (and who ever else happens to stumble on this page) that Kosebamse has taken a look at the IRC case and posted a very astute analysis at his/her talk page.[6] You are missed. Risker (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, actually, that two editors have been lost, and a third is all but lost. It was the dumbest arbitration in the history of Wikipedia -- beating out some very stiff competition. At least we know now that there is no more incivility at Wikipedia. That problem has been solved. 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utgard Loki (talk • contribs)

[edit] A Rose By Any Other Name

• Missing you and the 'Zilla... Tex (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I second Tex's motion. Bo-Lingua (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Let the chattering apes of IRC chat to each other about how lovely and odorless they are. Be here. Geogre (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Missing you still. Risker (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wish you and 'Zilla would come back.— Ѕandahl 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

Or rather Bishzilla does (it was the first address to come up in my gmail account). Thatcher 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cuccìa

Hey there, I recently found a grave error that had cuccìa written in an English wikipedia article as cuccià. This is an incorrect spelling of Sicilian, since the accent rarely falls on the last syllable. And this word just doesn't exist as such. So, I've since corrected the page name and title, and have gone to the subsequent pages that are linked to cuccìa and have done the same there. I see that your Sicilian Christmas user page links to cuccià, but I did not want to change your user page. So if you'd like, you can also update your page to the correct spelling of cuccìa. Cheers! --Salvuzzo (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eigth of March

Soviet 1931 poster addressing the emancipation of women in the USSR theme. Caption reads: "Proletarian woman, master the aeronautics! Enroll to the flight schools, technicums and Institutions of Higher Education of the Soviet Civil Air Fleet!"

Best 8th of March greetings to Bishzilla, the freest and the most committed to the best of Wikipedia. Let the world, life, arbonauts and the rest of Wikipedia be kind to you! --Irpen 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mrs Bishonen, I was so sorry to see you have been away, and thought you may need a little cheer. I was clearing out some old fashioned and rather dreary clothes and baubles and was wondering who on earth would wear them, and then I immediately thought of you. Just an old "travelling tiara" but quite a lot of wear left, I'm sure it will be useful, if only for when dining home alone, or entertaining those odd friends of yours, when your salon re-opens. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Emancipation of women! If a woman need emancipating it's her own fault for chosing the wrong husband, never had any problem with any of mine, they were all perfectly well behaved. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An ode to Tee-Tee

[edit] True or false?

Sheer terror

1. A.female.ferret.will.die.if.it.goes.in to.heat.and.cannot.find.a.mate
2. Camels.have.three.eyelids
3. Giraffes.and.rats.can.last.longer.with out.water.than.camels
4. When.a.giraffes.baby.is.born.it.falls.from.a.height.of.six.feet.without.being.hurt
5. Almonds.are.members.of.the.peach.family
6. A.goldfish.has.a.memory.span.of.3.seconds
7. The.ZIP.in.ZIP.code.means.Zoning.Improvement.Plan
8. The.oldest.known.beer.recipe.is.from.4000.BCE.
9. Sake.is.technically.beer
10. The.cigarette.lighter.was.invented.before.the.match
11. Ketchup.was.sold.in.the.1830s.as.medicine
12. You.are.more.likely.to.be.killed.by.a.champagne.cork.than.by.a.poisonous.spider
13. Donkeys.kill.more.people.than.plane.crashes
14. A.crocodile.cannot.stick.its.tongue.out
15. Tigers.have.striped.skin.not.just.striped.fur
16. Cats.have.over.100.vocal.sounds.while. dogs.have.only.about.10
17. Cats.urine.glows.under.a.black.light
18. A.cat.has.32.muscles.in.each.ear
19. The.starfish.is.the.only.creature.that.can.turn.its.stomach.inside.out
20. A.group.of.geese.is.called.a.gaggle
21. A.group.of.whales.is.called.a.pod
22. A.group.of.kangaroos.is.called.a.mob
23. A.group.of.owls.is.called.a.parliament
24. A.group.of.rhinos.is.called.a.crash
25. A.ducks.quack.doesn't.echo.and.no.one.knows.why

(credits: arrrrrr)
El_C 08:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Thor can be easily fooled by weaving a bag with iron thread
2. Thor will gladly try to drink the ocean
3. Loki may be hungry, but fire is hungrier
4. Mules sometimes have babies
5. When they do, the resulting live births are known as anomalous revenent birthings, or ARB's, for short. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the greetings, poems, and artwork, all my lovely friends, I appreciate it more than I can tell you. To Rdsmith4: I hereby confirm that I own the account "Bishonen" on meta. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Re: User talk history

I'm sorry about that ... I accept that I should have informed you, or at least asked about it beforehand. I was on a mission to restore wrongly deleted pages ... your talk page was an extension of that. In other words I was in a strange, policy-obsessed, frame of mind at the time. In hindsight it seems obbvious to inform you ... it was *your* talk page and *you* deleted it. I won't modify the history of userspace pages for established users in future, without their permission first. Graham87 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Bishonen/temp

A bull guards this page

Hey Bishonen. Forgive me, but I noticed you deleted all your userspace. Given the circumstances, I have to ask: are you leaving us? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, your user talk space and User talk:Giano II doesn't qualify for deletion under right to vanish. Please undelete it, or I will request it be undeleted by other means. — Save_Us_229 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly does, and I've seen it happen in the past. Do not undelete this talk page. If she wants to leave in peace, let her. It'll make a nice change from the harassment and nasty comments she's put up with. SirFozzie (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment stops NOW!

Please do not harass anymore the editor routed away from Wikipedia by the IRC coordinated harrassment campaign. The only good thing that can happen is Bishonen deciding to return. Baiting and taunting like above by "Save_Us" is exactly the opposite. Take your lecturing on the RtV and other stuff elsewhere. There are still millions of user talk pages of other editors who wrote the Wikipedia content. They might take it better. --Irpen 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When you delete a user talk page, you delete contributions by other people. A better solution is to blank and protect the talk page with a departure notice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will email this suggestion to Bishonen. Hopefully, she did not abandon her email account. We will see what she decides, but there is no overwhelming need for an additional show of disrespect through reversing her last action wrt to her userspace. --Irpen 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If people are leaving, they're allowed to delete their talk pages. Even people who haven't left are quite regularly deleting theirs. But that really isn't the issue at the moment. The issue is why Bishonen left and what can be done about it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Spot on! --Irpen 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with SlimVirgin on her last point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. If there's even a five percent chance that Bishonen might come back, let's not reduce it to a four percent chance by making Wikipedia seem even less attractive. She has given a huge amount to the project. She's obviously upset. We'd love to have her back. There is no absolute necessity to have her page undeleted unless we value process for the sake of it over and above human beings. It seems in rather bad taste to start insisting on it immediately after she leaves, unless diffs are actually needed as evidence (and even then, it could be done more sensitively). Finally, let's consider this, although the second sentence certainly doesn't apply to Bishonen. ElinorD (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

<<< It is very disturbing to me to see Bishonen leaving. Is anything I can do have her back? I am sure I am not alone on this feeling. If you are reading this Bishonen, please email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

I'm sorry you removed your evidence. I thought it added important insight and context even without the log excerpt, which the Committee has received by email anyway. Thatcher 14:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Bish, hope you are feeling okay. You can delete my messages because they are not important. Stay strong in whatever path you choose to take. And, most importantly...DON'T LET WIKIPEDIA DRAMA RUIN YOUR HOLIDAYS! :-P miranda 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, hope you're well and having fun. WP should be about enjoying contributing. Be well assured that you're valued and your work is greatly appreciated. A semi-detached fan, dave souza, talk 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refractored comment by Geogre

I just have one: if it's a "special place" that isn't Wikipedia, how can there be a Wikipedia policy about it? Does Wikipedia host policy pages about how SomethingAwful is to be run? By the way, I invited such comments before. There weren't any, so I figured it was fine to edit the page. I guess we were all supposed to read the silences... presumably by hearing a great deal on IRC. Geogre (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd start a petition...

but voting is evil. We love Bishonen. For values of "we" that includes just about everybody I give a toss about, as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Bishonen, if you decide to return, you'll make a lot of us very glad. Mike Christie (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent such a narrow limiting of "we"-values. Please refactor recalculate. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of Giano returning, perhaps we can plead with you enough to do the same, Ms. Bish??? We miss you and the 'Zilla --Tex 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Bishonen's absence has less to do with Tony Sidaway's anger management issues and more with the fact that she feels she was abused without receiving any support from her admin colleagues on the channel. While she is appreciative of the support given here, she seems to find it hard to be as forgiving as me of those who wish to attack me for my support of her. This is a very sad state of affairs and I hope too that one day she feels able to return and continue her tremendous work in both main and Wikipedia space. With luck her forthcoming 24 hours of much deserved fame [7] will remind her of how appreciated she is here. Giano (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I sign the petition 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) also, I don't get what you have ever done to be called a b****** b**** from h***, I can think of some people who might fit that definition, but I've never known of you doing anything BBfH -like. Merkinsmum 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I know things got very rough, Bishonen. But remember that many of us "little people" admire and respect you. I hope you reconsider and come back. WBardwin (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

The magisterial Swedish emigration to the United States is going to be on the main page! And the Prince's Palace of Monaco (I can never remember these long titles; I keep my articles to two words, if I can) by Giano is there, too. Geogre (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly ever come to Wikipedia anymore. The amount of vandalism the Swedish article is getting is absolutely unbelievable. Not only is there the general school computer lab BS, but there are all sorts of fantastically stupid people who don't know what encyclopedias look like (cn) and can't imagine (cn) writing that doesn't have little numbers in front of it (10 Goto 20 20 Print cn 30 Goto 20 40 End) (cn). Geogre (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Well, I found what all this (cn) stuff is about[8]. See, this is what happens while editors are busy writing articles. Someone comes along and rewrites the MOS and half the relevant policies (check out WP:V and WP:RS for their shock value) and then our best writers get yelled at for "not following policy." All of these sections/policies/guidelines have changed in the last two years, some quite dramatically. Sigh. Risker (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is wonderful to see it being so vandalised my own humble <no don't contradict me! - sigh> offering was resolutely ignored by vandals last week, in fact I was beginning to wonder if Wikipedia was losing its popularity - it just goes to show the poor and starving (and frankly unattractive) always attract more attention than the "magnificent and educated" pages. Trust dear little Mrs. Bishonen to pick up on that and exploit it - no wonder she is the most famous and popular Wikipedian of all time - I just hope she does not attract resentment because of it - people can be very cruel towards the successful. Giano (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I spent over an hour cleaning up vandalism in the article last night, got a bunch of vandals blocked, and even had my own user and talk pages messed up. I think it is because of the word "Swedish." Two thirds of the folks logging into Wikipedia are young enough to have fond feelings toward the Swedish Chef. And of course, by definition, all Swedes are beautiful - if only all countries had such benefits for their citizens. I agree with Geogre, though, one would have hoped at least the few "real" Wikipedians would read the manual of style before asking for citations(cn). I posted a discussion of it on someone's user page last night, maybe it should be moved to the talk page of the article. Bishonen, lovely article, even if at various points it has had pictures of Al Jolson and discussed Swedes in Cuba and Jamaica. Risker (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also getting lectured that the main page article should have removals and things, because it's part of... get this, because it's now part of the alphabet soup meant for hurling rather than reading... WP:BB. This same person said that protection isn't extended because the main page article is there for target practice for newbies. Harrumph. Geogre (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling bereaved - where is our darling Bishonen? I miss her. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Bereavement describes it well.--Tex 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the real questions are now up at the talk page to talk:Swedish emigration to the United States, and I can't answer them. I can and did slap down the tagger, but there are good questions there and better questions below that. Bish should come back, or the 'Zilla should answer. Zilla knows how to cause emigration. Geogre (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Get your asses back here, Little Stupids!

A school of bishapods hurriedly emigrating.

[edit] Fnord.

huggles – Gurch 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think...

you should put <-- on your page, instead of Alvin and the Chipmunks...:-P miranda 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing you much

Even the flowers are weeping. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lest we forget why we are here

You have had over 70 000 readers of Swedish emigration to the United States in the last week. Isn't that cool? Missing you too. henrik•talk 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow (with or without horns)! That's astonishing. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No wonder it got vandalized so much. The entire population of Smaland (the area in the IKEA) or Minnesota-outside-Minneapolis-St. Paul read it. Geogre (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh that is amazing, how do you work that out? Giano (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, is he saying that the square footage of some IKEA's is as large as certain regions of Sweden? Having been lost for a weekend in our local one, I'd believe it. I imagine there is a particular room in hell fashioned for me as an endless IKEA with no exits and cheap crappy furniture with baffling instruction to be assembled for an eternity.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have written a small tool that allows you to view the traffic statistics on any page on wikipedia. You can find it here. For example, the stats for Queluz National Palace can be found here (23 000 views). henrik•talk 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's brilliant Henrik! Well done. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) henrik•talk 12:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Message for you on the Proposed Decisions talkpage

See also User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin#Re:_Message_for_you_on_the_Proposed_Decisions_talkpage El_C 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied there; please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Kirill 03:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not respond to the one-sided flow, thus, it is not taking enough responsibility. El_C 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume, based on how the question is formulated, that you consider my stances in the two situations in question to be contradictory? I don't really see them as being so; that I noted Tony's problems with civility (which are being dealt with in the present case, albeit not with quite as much urgency as certain others) shouldn't require me to ignore my concerns about the behavior of other editors. My tolerance for certain activities has decreased over the course of my presence on the Committee, of course; but I would think that is not an unacceptable position for me to take. Kirill 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It must have sounded like it. Actually I was only marginally concerned with Tony. I was looking for a more specific—somehow, a fuller—response from you to my original post—for a more direct comment on your own action in supporting Uninvited Company's re-definition of me from admin in good standing into "problem user" here. You signed a FoF about my disruptiveness on January 5th, and I just thought it ... unimaginative of you to merely tell me on January 24th, after I'd described how it felt to be left so long in limbo, that the committee "expected to deal with everyone in due course." Now, my post had been about my personal experience, rather than about the dispute escalation which you discussed in reply. You didn't seem to fully catch on to my meaning, which may likely have been my fault, so I took another shot at it, attempting to ask from a different direction if you—personally—realized how brutal a process it is that involves posting and supporting and leaving up in a public place for weeks such "findings of fact" as for example the one about me. I feel I understand better now how little empathy the committee expends on such things. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, and I won't nag you any more. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

Are mere expressions of empathy—devoid of any associated action—really what you want? I can tell you that, in all honesty, it pains me to have to go down the path the case has taken, and that I entirely understand that having your actions under a critical microscope—and not a particularly friendly or sympathetic one—is a harrowing experience, and that cases that drag on and on with no resolution are a miserable place to be; but if I just do that, and don't actually do anything about it, would that help you at all?

And if what you're really looking for is not words but actions, what is it that you think I should do? Make the case move faster? It would be far easier if we didn't empathize with you; if you were merely another troublemaker that we could ban, the case would have been over in a week. It's precisely because we value your participation here that trying to come up with some resolution takes so long.

Or do you want me not to view you as a "problem user"? I'm sorry, but I simply can't do that at this point; it was ultimately your decision to assist Giano—and I cannot believe you so ignorant of the history that you had no inkling of the potential consequences of doing so. It is my view that Giano's method of interacting with other editors must be stamped out, ruthlessly if need be; and that anyone who aids him in his actions must bear a portion of the responsibility for their effects.

Or is it something else that I haven't thought of? Kirill 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I've no interest in empty professions, and frankly no reason to think of yours as non-empty. You don't know me, and I don't regard arbitrators as some form of higher beings. But there are surely better ways of arbitrating: more convenient, less crudely antgonistic, and simply better. One concrete suggestion for this case: you implied strongly that the case was (at least partly) deliberately and knowingly delayed ("because we continued ... to harbor the (unfortunately naive) hope that certain participants here would step away from the brink" etc).So why preserve the rather randomly collected accusations ("findings of fact") in amber on the page for several weeks while you (plural) wait for the stepping away, or for internal agreement to chrystallize in the committee? What kind of procedure is this, the stocks? "What is it I think you should do?" Nothing now. I think you, singular and plural, should have waited to start posting "findings" and supports until the long period of inaction (as perceived by the onlookers) was over. Or, if it wasn't clear from the start that there would be such a period, I think the premature posts should have been withdrawn—removed—for the duration, and put back much later, if they were still current then. Oh, and I think we, as in you and I, should stop this dialogue now. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me and try to understand where I was coming from; and I wish you'd stop. I have, at long last, all the information I need. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

Hang on. I don't get this. People were supposed to step away from the edge? Well, you went on strike for about a month, I completely ignored the thing and wrote 3 articles, Snowspinner filled in the vaccuum with charge after charge after charge. How the hell could anyone "step away" more? That's just nuts. Giano was running for ArbCom and working on an FA, and his talk page is covered over with sweetness toward all humanity. If anything made him turn acrimonious, it was all this rot.

If people wanted that "edge" to be stepped from, there were two unbelievably obvious ways. One was to get some attention to David Gerard's vanity page and deal honestly with how shabby it is. No, "I agree, but you said it wrong." Even better, though, was to set up processes and procedures for dealing with malefactors on the IRC. That would have been easier, faster, and more harmonious all the way around. Geogre (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Assistance

As far as the page itself is concerned, the conflict was already in full swing by the time you edited; so I write that "you assisted Giano" as a shorthand for "you entered an ongoing dispute started by Giano's edits and took actions that supported Giano's position in said dispute". That Giano's original edits were intended to help you—that you were the victim and he the helpful bystander, in other words—is true but not really relevant unless you mean to say that you were unaware that he had already edited the page when you did so. Otherwise, it was up to you to evaluate the situation and decide whether entering the dispute along with him was the proper thing to do; and it is my position that your decision was the wrong one. Kirill 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And three wrong edits instantaneously metamorphosize one from an exemplary to a problem user. Unless you're David Gerard, of course! El_C 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And then you can use threats and page protection and be ok, because you have secret agreements and concordats! Apparently, everyone was watching to see what the trouble users "did next." Well, I ignored them and wrote articles. Bishonen went away. Giano ignored them for 3 weeks. Then, of course, they kept poking, waiting for someone to say something to them or about them. When Giano did respond to getting stabbed and poked, it was, "Sigh, this is very predictable." Damn right it is. What has David Gerard done next? Still nothing on Wikipedia. Still no dialog. Still no cooperative editing of his private page. It's still in name space. Geogre (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerk?

In future if you decide to email me, please do so in less of an attacking way. A one word "Jerk." email is not what I expected off someone I happened to have a lot of respect for. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I please ask why you feel saying that Postlethwaite is a jerk is a personal insult? I don't think Bishonen would do that unless some people thought that your jerkish behavior in the arbCom case had reached serious levels, and neither would she e-mailed you if this wasn't at least partly true. Bish's e-mail wasn't incivl, it was her opinion and reasoning for her objection of your patronizing Bauder - I honestly see nothing wrong with it, some people just need to open their eyes. When users have to resort to publicizing private communications and start getting defensive (just because they're admins?), I don't really think you've got much rebuttal when someone says something like this. (didn't you say you got a lot of repsect for her? why don't you keep your mouth shut or keep the communication strictly offsite?)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point CG - I didn't deserve to be called a jerk because of a difference in opinion. I don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, “jerk” is not an attack. Postlewaite, if you think “jerk” is an attack (uncivil), then life is going to be very hard for you on ‘pedia. You’re also the one who claimed Bauder’s vicious attacks/prejudice toward several parties in the proposed decision page is not a problem. What about WP:DICK? That ain’t an attack, is it? And maybe it isn’t fair that Sidaway should get away with calling Bish a “bitch” on IRC (offsite), the very reason for this arbCom case. I couldn’t help but notice the double-standard of your argument.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A jerk is not a personal attack? I suggest you take a look at this - "a dull stupid fatuous person". I find it overly ironic that Bishonen is the one complaining about people making personal attakcs (yes, I agree, Tonys comment was out of order) and yet she's the one resorting to them as well. If this had happened on-wiki, she would most probably have been blocked at this point in time. I've made no attacks against her, or anyone - but I suggested a reasoning behind Fred's comments - he said Giano was disruptive, well yeah, many people think he is in project space. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Look my friend, I’m not exactly in the mood of getting into semantics and lawyer talk. But the fact of the matter is that Bauder’s comment in the proposed decision page is partial, disgraceful, and un-arbitrator-like while Bish’s e-mail to you (which I have no access to verify its authenticity) is just something you can laugh it off. Calling it a blockable offense is just laughable. Btw, you are probably the one who needs to open your eyes. If you think Bauder doesn’t hold grudges against certain parties, you’re delusional (or judging by your contributions, maybe you’re not here long enough). This isn’t an arbCom case. This is a chance to seek revenge for certain arbitrators. This is a concerted effort to drive out several mainspace contributors who made ‘pedia at little bit more human and fun.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A jerk is hardly a pesonal attack, and by the standards if this case and #admins it is quite restrained and ladylike. I'm afraid this sort of stuff is going to hapen now, we take our lead from our betters. When a chatroom is set above the content and editors of the encyclpedia it is evident that things have gone seriously wrong. Giano (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Of course a one-word e-mail stating "jerk" is a personal attack = "Slang. A foolish, rude, or contemptible person". Under no stretch of the imagination is it (or many other contributions of many people) a constructive way of handling disputes. Lacking evidence, I refuse to believe people would deliberately stoop to that, and so I assume some sort of mistake. Although we all lash out unjustifiably at times - and perhaps could all learn some of Tony's newly-found introspection and willingness to apologise. But then, we've lately had worse from all sides. Are Fred's asides helpful? No; certainly not. But they are rather the least of the heated rhetoric we've seen latently. But if people can wantonly attack one another by e-mail, it rather makes a nonsense of complaining about iRC (and v.versa). The problem (on all sides) is not the medium, the problem is people fuelling disputes, and nursing grievances without genuine attempts to de-escalate. Righteous indignation is unseemly unless you are genuinely whiter-than-white righteous. At least with IRC there's always the chance of someone trout slapping you for being a moron. Clichéd as it sounds, this whole "incivility and personal attacks" thing brings to my mind too old adages: pots should not call kettles black (and I refuse to be drawn on who are which) and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (and I'm not defining the glass house). Either be think-skinned or be a paragon of civility - or better, be both.--Doc^g 09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you just made the greatest point of this entire fiasco here. "I don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki." This entire thing started with attacks made by Tony Sidaway off-wiki, yet he is "getting away" with it! This entire arbcom started because of that and you "don't think it's fair" that Bishonen should get away with something similar. Do you also think Tony "shouldn't get away with it"? The entire arbcom should stop. SGT Tex (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That post makes no sense to me. This thing started because bishonen (rightly) objected to Tony's incivility. Tony apologised and has indicated a willingness to change. That's a result - he may not, but we can AGF and hope for the best here. We don't punish people - we try to get them to change. This is not about "justice" and punishment it is about getting people to be civil and to calmly try to resolve disputes rather than edit warring, upping the rhetorical temperature and incessantly assuming bad faith. Those who were concerned (as I was) with Tony's remarks to bishonen, and want a more gentle community must surely get that. There's far to much of the childish "they behaved badly, so we are entitle to behave badly too" going on here. We all need to stop it - if we can't, then sanctions will be necessary. If people want the case dropped, then they need to show a capability for calm, measured, discussion that truly aimed at building bridges and creating positive working environments. In the end, those who cannot, or will not, do that will need to leave the project.--Doc^g 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc. If that post doesn't make sense to you, then perhaps it wasn't meant for you. I apologize for the way the indention made it look as if I were replying to you, but my post begins with "Ryan" and goes on to quote Ryan's message so I thought it would be clear that I was talking to him. As for the rest of your post, we'll have to agree to disagree. Since you think the problem started with Bishonen objecting to Tony's incivility, instead of with Tony's incivility itself, I believe we are worlds apart in this. Thanks for your thoughts, though. SGT Tex (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight, because Tony made an attack against Bishonen (yup, he was way way out of line with that), it's ok for her then to start attacking me? You really think that makes it ok? I haven't been rude or incivil to her, or anyone else in this matter, so I don't expect to be send an email in which the only word it contains is "jerk". We all have differences of opinion here, but we should have to resort to attacks to solve them, especially not taking cheap stabs at one another in email where the person who receives the email hasn't really got much defence. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread the word Ryan, or Bishonen made a typo. I have a huge problem believing Bishonen would use such a crude, vile, obscenity as "jerk" when referring to you. I'm sure its all a simple misunderstanding. Its not as though she has called you an emotional cripple, or a weak and ineffectual man is it? Had she done so, Thatcher would have bounced along and joyously banned you for objecting, on his masters' orders. So just relax a peg, by wiki standards I could probably live with being a jerk. Giano (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC, reply to Ryan) Nope. In no way am I condoning the e-mail you were sent (no matter who it may be from). I was just pointing out the fact that Tony made some virtually indefensable comments to Bishonen off-wiki and is not even getting a slap on the wrist. You said above that you "don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki." Why would you think anyone should receive anything for sending you an e-mail that said "jerk". Even if it were Bishonen who sent you that message, how does that e-mail compare to Tony's comments? Tony's "getting away" with much worse in this case, don't you agree? I would much rather be called a "jerk" than a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "arsehole". I just keep getting amazed at the number of double standards in this case. That's all; I've said my peace. I'll go back to lurking now. SGT Tex (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care who "gets away with it", I care that people knock it off. Tony has promised to do so and apologised. We'll take that on face value, for now. Some believe it, some don't, but there's little point in arguing as time will tell. I agree with Giano in finding it hard to believe bishonen would be as rude and as inarticulate as to send an email like that. There may be a simple explanation. However, I'm also fairly confident that if bishonen has slipped up here, she'll be at least as gracious as Tony in putting her hands and apologising. We all make mistakes (even me) and perhaps if we were all a little humbler about our failings (and a little less self-righteous, self-justifying and defensive) we'd all do better at de-escalating disputes.--Doc^g 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well put Tex. What you said echoes my thought exactly.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I thought that it was the height of bannable behavior to reveal the contents of an e-mail. Huh. By the way, for southerners, "jerk" is a verb used as 'corrective,' most frequently heard in, "I'm going to jerk a knot in you." The term, of course, has a confused etymology. There is the "soda jerk," but as an insult it derives from "jerk off": a person who engages in extraordinary degrees of masturbation.

Getting away with it: Tony Sidaway gets to perform the insult, explain the insult, and then have the one he insulted called "problem user" for being insulted. This is amazing. No one knows what the "grudge" is supposed to be that Bishonen is supposed to have, and yet it's supposed to explain everything. If you, the reader, think that the grudge explains her complaint, please tell me what the grudge is. If you don't know, then why do you accept that it's an explanation? Why would you want to see users on Wikipedia blocked for saying, "Asshole" to someone but think that Tony Sidaway, who is not an administrator, should be back at en.admins.irc, and with ops, after trying to run off an esteemed editor and administrator? Why are people who aren't administrators there? Why are administrators required to ask for access?

Ignore "arsehole" for a second and focus on the actually annoying bit, please. Bishonen has heard rude English words before (from me, if no one else, as I cuss like a wounded sailor). What was the conversation that led to that? Tony was dragging someone through the mud. Bishonen protested that you shouldn't do that, that you should have the person present to defend him or herself. Tony told her that "we" don't do that, that we (administrators) at the admins channel don't do that, because it's a channel for administrators (he has the gall to say, as not one). If it were the problem users channel, he said, then they would have the right to represent themselves. That would have been enough patronizing and impossibly hypocritical talk to have me, anyway, calling all sorts of names, but Bishonen was patient about it. Tony then added that she should go be an arsehole somewhere else.

You know what's sickening? Tony was right: the admins channel is built on the idea of being able to drag people through the dirt without hearing from them. It was built on trashing other users freely. It was built on degrading people. It was built on non-administrators coordinating their bile at other users who differed on faction.

There was a promise that it wouldn't be like that.

There was a promise that things would change.

They didn't, and so Bishonen left. The few feeble gestures made to change failed, as Tony was allowed to say that it was just someone being annoying, and they all welcomed back their friend, their non-administrator friend, to go back to maligning whoever pleased them.

I don't like the #wikipedia channel, but I don't care. I think en.admins.irc, on the other hand, has no usefulness except for creating cadres of vicious and viscerally disgusting malignity.

So, Ryan, if you think that Bishonen is being a problem for wanting fair treatment on the closed channel, you are being a jerk. If you think that Tony said "sorry," so all is well, you're being a jerk. If you think this is about one person saying one bad word, you're being ignorant. This stuff matters. If the channel will never be open, then it must be so tightly regulated as to be useless as a playground. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

[edit] Deletion

That's cruelty to animals monsters! Poor little big 'zilla. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sniff> All the lemmings are free! Come back Bishzilla, Bishapod and, um, a pizzawheel of death. The 'pedia won't be the same without you. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)