User:Geogre/Talk archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. 18: Lotsa heat


Contents

[edit] Going Away

For the next week, I won't look at Wikipedia. I simply can't imagine the amount of disrespect, unilateralism, and pettiness that has been par in the last week or two being tolerated. I have no other way, since I believe in achieving consensus, respecting the minority voices, and never trying to force my will on others, to show my displeasure aside from this. It isn't a storming away. It is a strike. Geogre 17:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to prolong my strike beyond the week, but when I saw that today's featured article is Mariah Carey, I knew that all was well and that the seriousness and scholarship of the project were a perfect home for my talents. Geogre 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack by Bishonen

Oh. :-( And here I was just going to ask you to check out the latest civility war here and ask you to throw your hat in the ring. I'm about to post there myself. I do understand that you'll probably come down on the opposite side from me, as in "please accept this arbitration", which would be fine, that's not the point. The point is the punitive attitude to putative "personal attacks"—to "disrespect" ( User:Askolnick's pet peeve), and, yes, the point is the punishment of defiance! Bishonen | talk 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dr John Arbuthnot

You wrote on John Arbuthnots discussion page in December 2005. I am responding there very late in the day. - Kittybrewster 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everything falls apart when you're not here

Even your law is about to be deleted [1]. (Even if it's only the redirect from the main article space). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"I wrote an essay saying that cross-namespace redirects are bad, and now I'm going to say that it's a policy and delete them all without fixing the red links they leave." At least this one is up for debate. I'm not sure it will matter, of course, as consensus is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Geogre 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirla

I disagree with Ghirla, and find that many of Ghirla's comments are unnecessarily abrupt, but I completely agree with you on the RFAR. In my view the best thing here is just to close the discussions - all of them, because nobody is going to back down and few if any are going to change their minds at this stage - and then to watch Carnildo like a hawk. In other words, go and get on with building that encyclopaedia; wait until there is a problem to fix. Guy 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but Fred and SimonP want to accept. I'm sure that they're incorruptible, though, so no worries, and their past actions are above reproof. The fact is that I said, long ago, that trying to sanction for "personal attacks" would mean a race to the bottom, as every disputant began claiming greater and greater psychic wounds and longer and longer blocks for his opponent. Sure enough, we're seeing the non-admins doing just that. As for the admins, they're just imposing the blocks, demanding apologies, and demanding humble supplication from those blocked. It's insane. I've grown weary of explaining this, of going into great detail on why the "policy" is bankrupt and its application misguided. That's why I left for a week.
Once, it seemed like people listened to me and at least let my arguments slow them down. Now, I think they see what I have to say and do whatever the hell they wanted to in the first place. I'm glad that I'm respected, but apparently that respect doesn't entitle me to actual answers from people or mean that they will actually consider what I say. In that, though, I'm not special, as I don't think they're considering what anyone says. Geogre 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove link

I am unable to remove the link [2]

- Kittybrewster 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genius

Geogre,

You put this phrase in the end of your article on 'genius', or I think you did"

"and more particularly the view that skill is inferior to imagination, has been in decline."

I find this statement interesting because I thought I was the only one who noticed this. I find this clearly shown in music and painting. Are able to provide any source of discussion on this?

Cellorando

  • I've answered on your page. Geogre 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello?

Is the militant worker returning to the factory? Would you like to join the Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club? I'm sure User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) would be happy to waive the usual entrance fee in your case. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm at least admitting that I'm looking now, though I must say that I don't have much stomach for any real involvement. I've tried to rethink some bits of why I might or might not contribute, but now is not the time to explain them. Geogre 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it is nice to see your words on the page. The User:Ghirlandajo situation is shocking; the bureaucrats seem to have ceased communicating with the community in any meaningful sense, and certain editors are rampaging around trynig to impose their views on everyone else. Perhaps you are better out of it, but I would be much happier with you around. You are deeply respected and valued, you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The question is about how deep the divide is between the content and everything else. The people acting childish and egoistic are unaware of content and concentrate instead of ornament (boxes and borders) and each other. One could write and revise for months and never see them, and they have demonstrated that they can go years without seeing content or creating any. So, why look at their antics? If the voices of the sane will always be ignored in policy debates, because there will never be another policy debate ("I wrote an essay, and now I'm going to enforce my policy"), then what point is there for anyone to ever look at AN/I? What point is there in doing anything on xfD? Again, if people will simply wheel war and have no penalty over their views, while others will get blocked for revert warring, what on earth is the use? If the answer is "none," then that doesn't mean "leave Wikipedia" or even "go get de-adminned." Both of those are allowing these antics to become determinant on oneself, both elevate and empower the clubbing nasties. No, the answer is to do whatever the hell you want: delete what you want, undelete what you want, and ignore whatever anyone of a different opinion says. Since this community of people has a form of collective autism, the answer is to simply use Wikipedia for doing what you want, since you (or I) is probably going to want what's right more inerrantly than the rest. Dark, I know. Geogre 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignore all rules, writ large? That sounds a trifle Hobbesian. (No, not Calvin and ...)
I thought Wikipedia was not anarchy; but then it is not a democracy either. I used to think it didn't matter what is was, because we would decide together by consensus . Now I am not sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If we write articles, we probably should IAA (Ignore All Assholes) and do as we please, as communicating with them brings no good in any form. Geogre 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Geogre you are of course quite right, as usual. I was going to respond to this piece of civil eloquence [3] - but is there truly any point. He now does exactly as he likes, supported by the Arbcom doing exactly as they like, the only time our paths need cross is when one of them accuse one of us of incivility to them. So if we don't do policy and they don't do content, there is no reason why we can't all exist in perfect harmony Giano | talk 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wonderful. Tony Sidaway is demonstrating that personal attacks and vulgar language simply will not be tolerated. You see: the more he doesn't do what he proscribes for others, the more he proves that he's right. You think he was out of bounds, don't you? Well, that proves that he should block you for offensive language. Geogre 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it time do you think to throw in the towel, and return to gainful employment, is there a future here for us or is it just one great waste of time? I've rather come to believe this theory I've expanded on here [4] which is very dark indeed. Will we ever have a huge laugh here again do you think, unless Tony Sidaway posts a foto of himself drunk and naked, I somehow doubt it, and even that is probably not terribly amusing. Giano | talk 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing so conscious. On the other hand, there is an American idea that one should keep in mind. The thing is, that power is always consented. If the herd didn't obey, there would be no power. Geogre 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  :-) Reminds me. When's the last time I wrote an article? Oh dear. Am I at least keeping people out of the content folks' hair enough? Kim Bruning 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, and if I'm not welcome, I'll understand. I see a great divide now more than ever between those whose major focus is article enhancement and writing and those engaged in policy and procedure. I just wanted to say that when I see excellent writers such as Geogre, ALoan, Giano, Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes as well as Ghirlandajo all seriously questioning why they should continue editing this project, I am very disappointed. I would encourage all of you to make the best choice for yourselves, and I'll hope that this means you'll continue to help write excellent articles.--MONGO 08:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The funny thing, MONGO, is that I was formerly known as "a good person to come up with policy ideas" and "a person to ask about your policy ideas." What I see happening is that Wikister (the Friendster part of Wikipedia), which has always been there, has generated people who feign understanding and proclaim implementation of policy or not policy. What I said above holds, I really think: they're more interested in boxes (both ornamental boxes and which box to put each article into) and each other than what is being said. I said that it's collective autism, but that was unfair. It is, instead, the acting out of late adolescent anxieties ("how's my hair?" "I hear that she hates you" "we don't hang out with your kind of people") and the rage of a beaurocrat ("I said that all TPS cover sheets are blue! why are these red? I must incinerate them!" "I cannot hear a word you say if your toes are beyond the white line on the floor, so go back and start again") that has combined. The claque of frustrated worshippers of forms are now agreeing with each other to the point that they can begin to act chummy and high schoolish with one another ("Ordinarily, the blue cover sheet must go on page two, but my fellow paper decorator has said that we should have two cover sheets, so I'll go along with him and incinerate all other reports, because I want him to like me"). That's a feedback loop, where the tiny amounts of power and influence each has is multiplied and where aspiring Important People see their behavior as the way forward. Geogre 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that your policy ideas weren't still excellent or that they were no longer well recieved. The thing about groups is that when you have a small group, they tend to work more cooperatively. When the numbers go up, the anarchy seems to also increase, as the once cohesive group splinters into cliques and subgroups. I wonder as Wikipedia grows, if there will end up being more fighting or less...
Solutions? I have none, so I am probably just sticking my nose in places it doesn't belong. I made a few comments at AN and Ghirlandajo informed me of the comments made here. Several options present themselves, all of which are fine. Resign, indignant that what once was is now lost. Go to war and fight things out at arbcom. Or, (and this one is the hardest, and my even suggesting it is probably adolescent), create space. I did a lot of law enforcement for the park service and always we were told that the best way to bring calm was to create distance or space. I guess I needed to type all that as a reminder to myself as well anyone here thinking about leaving or going to war. Your frustration and disenchantment is certainly understood.--MONGO 10:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Please do not accuse me of sockpuppetry again unless you have substantiating evidence such as IPs or hostmasks. Ameise -- chat 05:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Random comment of the day. If you have a link to a time that I have accused you (which name?) of sockppuppetry, it would certainly help. Otherwise, I will devote all the time to considering your comments that you have in composing them. Geogre 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Aha. Well, I offered the proof. If you'd rather have an RFCU that's nice, but you're wrong on every count: the first sentence is a full independent clause, the third sentence establishes the reasons for the assurance, and the normal conclusion of that would have been an indefinite block. Instead, I said that you wouldn't need to be blocked if you threw away your false fronts. Do not disrupt discussions, and I doubt you will have problems with accusations. Geogre 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Block on what grounds? Those were all independent people, whom I told to stop posting on Wikipedia. I even posted the link to the thread in which I told them to stop in the AFD/whatever it was. They were not false fronts, I was not them, and if you actually took the time to look at the page history, I put up just as many 'one time user' tags as anyone else. I also banned several people from the forums where they were coming from for disrupting it. So, I still fail to see where the proof is that they were me. The IPs won't match, the hostmasks won't match, the styles of writing won't match, and I would like you to apologize for claiming that they were false accounts by me -- you have no evidence thereof. So, yes, I would like you to start an RFCU immediately. Oh, just because your paragraph structure may function, the last sentence simply makes no sense -- "Otherwise, I will devote all the time to considering your comments that you have in composing them". Ameise -- chat 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I would remind you that your proof was that one of the one-time users and myself both mentioned proof -- my stating 'I have already offered proof' was that I had already posted around 10 lines of proof earlier. Ameise -- chat 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Never Mind, I have already started my own RFCU. Ameise -- chat 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you're redressing your own wounds, I hope you're done here. However, "I will devote all the time to considering your comments that you have in composing them" is just one of those English sentences that requires a little thinking. You came here after weeks and demanded that, in the future, I not accuse you of sock puppetting, but you took no time to offer references or explain your point: you spent no time in communicating. Therefore, I felt no obligation to spend any time considering your comments. Now that you have answered yourself, honored yourself, and gone to prove that you are the one and only, I don't suppose you need me for anything. So, unless there is anything else, I'd appreciate it if you go elsewhere. Geogre 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ahh, I see, I was reading the sentence wrong. Thank you. Ameise -- chat 03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I sense this page needs a new topic

Hi Geogre, I don't think I've said hello since your return, or if I have, my early-stage dementia is kicking up. I just thought for some reason this page needed a new bottommost section, don't ask me why. Thought point: the GFDL is the only important Wikipedia policy, really: knowing that even if this incarnation collapses under it's own asshattery, our contributions will certainly live on and probably remain editable one way or another gives one hope enough to continue editing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you got the backups? -- ALoan (Talk) 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother me with details. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, and that's my conclusion as well. It's why I say that IAA is the only way to go, as they will never notice what is being said in any area (except their favorite figurines, perhaps, or web flash sprite comix by friends of theirs on blogs). They won't look at content, won't contend with content, and will grow ever more concerned with the fuck-cunt-piss vandal and each others' perfectly justified use of the same language and the obvious need to block anyone they war with. Whatever else, I know that our FA's are now in the top 10 of Google searches on these topics, and information on these subjects is now available, when it was not before, as the print world has given up on the sorts of things we do in FA's and the web world never began. Geogre 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (don't go on strike again because of this, ok?)

Today's moment where I just had to read the thread with my jaw drooped onto my lap because I couldn't decide if it was a good-faith dispute or performance art is here. Nandesuka 12:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read it. I need to get some Grand Marnier, 2-3 shots, before I dare read anything with that name in the heading, or I'll start being "incivil." On the AN discussion with Tony, I didn't look until it was over, which is good, because I would otherwise have said, "Ok, I will" and gone and blocked all the people sarcastically saying, "You should block this person, too! And block me!" Look, if the others block with rude summaries, for illegitimate reasons, then it would be entirely reasonable to block when someone explicitly asks to be blocked. Geogre 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it was just a case of Phil again valuing himself a bit too highly and having too much faith in electrons. I certainly wish Phil were forced to take a class in Greggian bibliography in graduate school. It was a requirement for me, even before I began doing textual criticism, and it helped me considerably when I was drafted to be one of the editors of a journal (which I'm doing a terrible job at, IMO). Geogre 12:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling for a grammarian

I'm in a grammar argument at Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo and I don't know the technicalities. Guess who I thought of first? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it and thought, "That's bullshit." Buffalo (will) buffalo (the person named) Buffalo, but that's as far as I can make it go without a preposition. "People pleasing people pleasing people like you" is valid ((those who are) people pleasing people (are) pleasing (persons) people (similar) like you." "That that that that is is that that that that is" is valid. However, this "didja know" sure looks like buffalo flop to me. Geogre 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's parsable, you just have to work at it. It has the same basic grammar as "People dogs bite hate children." Swap in "Buffalo buffalo" for people, "Buffalo Buffalo" for dogs, "buffalo" for bite, "buffalo" for hate, and "Buffalo buffalo" for children, and you're there.
Now, if that made any sense, I'm saying "people dogs bite hate children" is grammatical, but "people, dogs bite, hate children" isn't -- though "people, who dogs bite, hate children" is (although with a different meaning!) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for this (and the conversation above); it puts into words what has been bugging me over the last year, but it also offers at least a partial solution: keep contributing, and Ignore All Assholes (IAA). Are you going to put something like this up at WP:IAA? — mark ✎ 06:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I just figured that none of them will ever actually edit an article or write one (unless it's about something like flash sprite comix on blogs that employ XML with Adobe, or whatever the hell the private mania is), so where on earth do you encounter them except when they're blocking people they think are nasty and putting boxes on articles and articles in boxes? They are, in fact, largely irrelevant. Geogre 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you back, Mr G, although still mourning the passing of the other Mr G. Would WP:IAA be a corollary of WP:IAR and WP:DICK, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ho ho - have you seen User:Phil Sandifer? Can we copy that? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen it, but it's not news to me. Snowspinner says that it's "now" going to be his policy. It was always his policy. He had had the buttons no more than a week before he found that rules were depressing him and decided that they didn't apply. He drafted and then began to enforce "RPA." For him to then say that some magical point had arrived where he would never again bother with the rules is disengenious, and I note that he can't even do that without referring to his real world credentials. Phil has wanted to be honored for a long, long, long time, and that's what I meant when I said, somewhere, that people who aspire to be Important are the ones to ignore. It's not a coincidence, even though I hadn't seen that, that Phil and Tony have seemingly decided that "IAR" means "do what you please, even when a dozen peers tell you not to, because You are Important and they Are Not You" and I, who believe in keeping my real life real by keeping it private and who believe that the rules need to have the force of agreement or that they will collapse, am suggesting that we Ignore All People-who-ignore-rules. If any of us does something other than write and edit, he or she should do so without regard to what those people say. If they will never listen, then the only logical thing is to never speak to them. If they will never accede to the rulings of the majority, they must learn what outlawry is. Geogre 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul August has left the building

Hi Geogre, I've decided to follow your lead! If you have any thoughts please share them on my talk page. Thanks Paul August ☎ 17:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "again"? - query re post on WP:AN

You wrote on WP:AN, "Giano never went back to become an administrator again, never sought to have power." Did I miss something or should "again" be deleted? Newyorkbrad 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't know that he had been an administrator? He was. He was an admin for about a year when the Carnildo bullshit occurred. He and Carnildo were both demoted, and others had temporary demotions. Carnildo began applying for RFA as soon as he was allowed (a month). The first failed. The second failed. The third failed, and yet he got promoted anyway. Giano, who had never tried for reappointment, was furious. He made intemperate comments, and Sidaway began taunting Giano in return. Crash. Those of us around the demolition of the standards have felt, as surely as Giano, that a group of buddies were rewarding themselves and punishing those they didn't like, but, so long as they took as well as they gave, it was just unfortunate. Tony blocked when he started to get anything. I wouldn't be surprised if others of our rulers...er...dispute resolvers (not all, of course, but some folks who I suspected of cliquishness from the start) wouldn't do the same if they felt cramped. Geogre 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I should also say that I'm usually a very mellow fellow. However, the one thing I've been reliable about is arguing vociferously for uniform application of our existing rules. I also think we need to reform the way we create rules, and I've been saying that for over two years now, but, aside from this, I don't generally go after people or unleash the full cannonade. It's just that the sheer smugness of James F's comment was beyond the patience of this sinner, if not of the very saints. Geogre 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I knew all of this, including the "hate speech" block etc., except that I didn't have in mind that Giano had actually been an admin and was one of the de-sysopees. I must have known that once too, because I did read the ArbCom decision closely at the time of the Carmildo RfA#3, but it seems to have slipped my mind. Perhaps because another user said recently that Giano was a great editor but shouldn't be a sysop, without adding the "again."
I haven't contributed much to the current thread started by James F. on WP:AN. (Perhaps I've been coopted by the thread's opening two sentences. :) ) I'm sitting here cringing, however, at Kelly Martin's most recent addition of gasoline to the flames and worrying what your response might look like. I don't suppose you'd consider letting it go ... no, I didn't suppose you would. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would...as I did like Doc Glasgow get the last word at least once...but he simply perfectly phrased what the problem was. "Is being examined" was simply too much. That is precisely the problem. There is this invisible body, with private correspondence, that does not mingle with the lower-downs, and it shall consider the behaviour of those that apply themselves meekly unto it. That's the kind of crap that I've campaigned against since I first got here. It is precisely the stuff that I have worked against with every single proposal I've made. I don't behave that way, and I cannot humbly submit to it, either. Geogre 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano an admin? I didn't think he ever was, and why can't I find any records of it? — mark ✎ 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


On a point of fact, I believe that Giano was never an admin. Part of the outrage at Carnildo's actions was that Giano could not unblock himself (ignoring whether that was within policy or not). Certainly, Giano is not recorded as an admin in the list of former admins, or the userbox RFARB, or in the contemporaneous Signpost article, nor is there a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giano (unless he was an admin by acclamation, like Geogre was ... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geogre being notably red, unlike, say, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ALoan or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bishonen).
The row seems to be engulfing User talk:Jimbo Wales now (where Tony has replied, twice, somewhat ironically signing off the first one with "I'm on a brief wikibreak at present"). There is also a choice reply there from Phil Boswell, who does not seem to realise that one or more primary authors are necessary to push an article to FA standard and keep it there, but that does not imply "ownership". (Please, someone, anyone, improve my FAs! Go on! Anyone can edit!) Perhaps he would like to write one and find out? Anyway, I have better things to do with my time that argue the toss with ... others. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course it would go to Jimbo...the drinking buddy of everyone who has ever assured us that she has complete authority to do anything desired without any proof...for yet another vague but reasonable statement that they can then present as an endorsement. (I'm saying that Jimbo says something like, "Well, Tony did fine in case X" or "has written good clerical summaries" and follows it with "but this situation seems out of hand," and then that will get reported to everyone as "Jimbo says that Tony is a valuable person and you're all out of hand": the fault is not with Jimbo, but with the priests.) Then again, I'm being closely examined, or my behavior is, so my behavior (adding to Aurelian Townshend today and Margaret Cavendish) had better be great, because WE WILL NEVER KNOW who is examining. Maybe it's the NSA. Geogre 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've quickly skimmed the ArbCom decision again. There's no indication that Giano was ever a Sysop, and there are no remedies against him, though he did post a statement in the case. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. I've known the guy all this time, and I was wrong about that? I guess this is the ultimate in "I thought he was one already." How very odd. Maybe I'm the victim of implanted memories. Geogre 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demotion

Here's how I see it: editors who engage in problematic behaviour, have the editing privilege withdrawn for a period. Some take this in good part, some fly off the handle. Some see the flying off the handle as a problem, I see little evidence that a decently calm Wikipedian is truly unable to accept a righteous block when they know in their heart that they are wrong - a block might be a catalyst towards eventual ejection of a problem editor but no more.

So: if we agree that temporary withdrawal of editing privileges is a reasonable and proportionate response to abuse of those privileges, a view from which I see little genuine dissent, so it is obviously appropriate to respond to abuse of administrative privileges in the same way. There is a minor technical problme in that edit blocks auto expire but no such process exists for administrative blocks; that would be easily fixed if need be but actually it's not going to be that big a deal because it probably won't happen often. Do we need ArbCom involved? Sometimes, undoubtedly, but actually if a posse of admins heads over to the 'crats and presents a credible case, there is no real reason why that should not be enough. Or indeed a pose of editors in good standing, just as we as admins respond to reports on WP:3RR and WP:PAIN. Investigate, judge the merits, enact a block if it will prevent some problem for the project, move on.

William Pietri has also made some proposals on my Talk about temporary restrictions to number of edits. Great idea: a repeat reverter could be limited to ten mainspace edits every 24h, and if they don't use them wisely then more fool them. William's proposal is a lot more detailed than just that, of course.

I also feel we should have the ability to block users only from the part of the project where they cause problems. Someone with good ideas but consistently bad phrasing could be blocked from Main but allowed to post on Talk; someone who has a history of frivolous disputes could be blocked from Project space. Someone who is up in fornt of ArbCom could be blocked from Main, Talk and User, and allowed only to post in Project space.

Restricting admins to a subset of admin tools would probably be excessive creep, although there's no reason why it could not be employed as a community sanction.

We are getting too desensitised, I think, to using the blunt instrument of blocks, because it can be very hard to tell a troll from a productive but frustrated editor - and because we are now a sufficiently attractive target that every zealot in the world head shere first to promote their point of view. We need more granularity, and we need not to be above sanction ourselves. Adminship is supposed to be No Big Deal, and your proposal of suspension of adminship shold be No Big Deal either, just as there are very few editors with a coimpletely empty block log, because every now and then someone has to say "whoa there!" - and an apology should usually be sufficient to unblock.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I agree with you, but that maybe we should be more ambitious about the granularity of sanctions available to us? And that is probably to conflate two separate subjects anyway. Guy 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Believe it or not, Guy, I was trying to be modest with it. The biggest impediment to a change in the practice (not policy) on demotion is not going to be the general body of Wikipedia nor of administrators, though both will hiss any proposal, but ArbCom itself. This is not part of some campaign against ArbCom I have. My feeling that this current ArbCom's actions (since it was constituted this year, in fact) is ripe for civil disobedience is just a feeling I have, but I also have observed that each ArbCom has been extremely reluctant to see any change in the "once admin, always an admin, unless we get told otherwise by Jimbo" practice. Essentially, policy already states that abuse of administrative tools leads to the loss of those, at ArbCom's discretion, and it is ArbCom's discretion that has made things the way they are. Again, I'm not blaming this particular one, even if I think this particular one is hideously chummy.
  • So, I wanted to propose the most palatable change. I wanted to suggest a mere timed demotion, as you put it. I wanted to make it easier for ArbCom to act so that our disappointed and disgruntled users can be more assured and so that there is an accumulation of evidence that will make the truly disruptive administrators indisputable. Were there such a case, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer, for example, might have a fairly inarguably shady record (or might not).
  • However, if I were not aiming for modest changes, if I were aiming for optimal changes, I would indeed say that we ought to distinguish the buttons in the administrator's tool kit. The block button is not necessarily the most powerful. The delete and undelete buttons are pretty hefty, and the protect button can be a sharp object in the wrong hands, too. We really ought to be able to have differentiated demotions, although I would like for them to be still recorded.
  • As for having an alternative to arbitration, I'm all for it. We have amply demonstrated that what is really not scaling at Wikipedia is not xfD, but ArbCom. Five arbitrators are on every case, because the others are on no cases at all. It can take three months to see an ArbCom case through, and, by that time, the matter has resolved or exploded. However, to do this properly, we would need a graduated structure that doesn't currently exist: we would need an administrator's notice board that is usable by administrators only and which is confined to virtually no argument. Imagine a page where "Motion: User:Geogre is committing hate crimes against user:Tony Sidaway" is the topic and nothing but "support" and "oppose" with no argument on it, and the talk page having any explanation/expiation/refutation. Now imagine that only accessible/permissible to admins. That would conceivably shelter the process from the anonymous IP psychic complaining that his article on Bigfoot's space ship was deleted. Even then, it's fraught with difficulty. Geogre 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The "once a sysop, always a sysop" attitude in ArbCom used to be true, but is not nearly so longer. I believe ArbCom has desysoped nine admins this year. I freely admit that I was a "hanging judge" in my time on the Committee and frequently argued for (often unsuccessfully) for desysoping of admins who went over the line, probably more aggressively than anyone else on the Committee. (I was, however, effectively voted off the Committee.)
Part of this is due to the extremely vindictive nature of the RfA "cabal". Even a slight smudge on a candidate's record is enough to sink an RfA; there is therefore very little hope that someone, desysoped by ArbCom, will ever regain administrative rights. (There are two exceptions: Guanaco, who was permanently desysoped for misconduct only a few weeks after being repromoted, and Carnildo, whose repromotion remains a hotly contentious issue.) The Committee is understandably reluctant to desysop people who it views as redeemable or rehabilitatable.
The Committee is presently discussing using temporary desysopings more readily as a remedy in appropriate cases. Of course, whether this will actually happen or not will have to wait until an appropriate case presents itself; none of the cases currently under discussion, as far as I am aware, involve credible claims of administrative misconduct which would merit such a penalty.
I'm opposed to having "voting boards" where we decide who gets desysoped and who doesn't. But I agree that we need a wider body of remedies. The problem the Committee has had in the past with temporary desysoping as a remedy is that the length is arbitrary, and arbitrary seems capricious and punitive. Such remedies are not consistent with the philosophy which has underlied the Arbitration process. However, it is evident (at least to me) that the current philosophy has problems. And I think that is also becoming more evident to the Committee as well.
So I do not support your suggestion, but I am sympathetic to your concerns. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you here and in such tone. My design was to have a graduated and clearly marked term for the temporary demotion with no RFA for most cases, but with an RFA for sufficient recidivism. My idea is not really simply to see temporary demotion used more often as to see it regularized so that it loses some of its horror. If we keep reserving it for only the most horrid of cases, we will be unable to effectively sanction users who need injunctive remedies, for they (and the RFA folks) will see it as proof that the behavior had been of the most horrid nature. Carnildo's case is one where I feel pretty unambiguously that he did not meet the barrier that all other RFA's needed to reach. I also did not feel that he demonstrated a need for the tools. Nor had he apologized in any form for his behavior, so we were left with someone who didn't need to be an admin to contribute and who had given no public indication that he would not behave inappropriately in the future. That was an obvious "no consensus" to me, and the fact that he didn't achieve 70%, much less 75%, support sealed it tightly. This is without my believing that Carnildo will do the same again. No one wanted to see public abasement, but the behavior that had gotten the powers stripped were pretty darned clear. It wasn't a morally ambiguous situation and had gotten to the "most horrid" state of affairs. What is objectionable is that the re-promotion was, essentially, through a clubbing of ArbCom. Had there been a limit on his demotion in the first place, then the (in my opinion obvious) irregularities on repromotion wouldn't have mattered. Geogre 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, the idea of an admin discussion area usable by admins only for debate of community sanctions is easily arranged using tools we have already. The format of Arbcom - proposal, evidence, findings of fact, decision, enforcement - is fundamentally sound, but as you say not scalable. There is nothing stopping those of us who are interested from trying a similar approach - or one based on any of the other processes, or none at all. I am very keen to start using community bans instead of blocks - banning a user from directly editing an article, while allowing them to debate on Talk, is entirely in the spirit of a collaborative project. I am right behind you if you want to try something like this. Oh - and demotion is a harsh word; enforced wikibreak? suspension? Rupert? (in-joke, sorry). Guy 20:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How utterly bizarre that you're bringing that up, as that was an idea that I had some time ago. I'm not a good one for rupturing users, but I thought, some time ago, and then got winded while trying to write it, "What we ought to do is have a page hanging off of AN/I that simply has a user present the name of a user who has been exhausting community patience, along with a very brief list of diffs or discussion, and then require no action until four days or so had elapsed and there had not been a single dissenting administrator." This was my thought about the freely hurled "community patience ban" that had been mounted for a while, where silence was taken as assent. Silence is never consent, and if folks are too lazy to click on the links or investigate, they're probably doing something else. That would be solely for "community patience bans," though. Since those are taking place without AC now (and controversially, for me), some ameliorated or attenuated form of it would need at least something to stay the bloody hand. (I think I lost the head of that metaphor in the tail.) Geogre 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Guy, the things I think will be most important are
      1. Quorum: If it's a community patience block, there should be some community saying "ay."
      2. Delay: If we're talking about exhausted patience, we can summon the patience for a couple of days.
    • If we do these, I don't think we can go very far wrong. I also think, though, that these really should be limited and not indefinite except in really spectacular cases. Geogre 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would take issue with your claim that Carnildo's promotion was a "clubbing of ArbCom". It was a decision made by three bureaucrats (Danny, Taxman, and Rdsmith4) with input from, as I recall, one member of the ArbCom. (I was present only for the end of the discussion, by which point the decision had already been made.) Also, your claim that "nobody wanted to see public abasement" is demonstrably false; a significant number of the votes opposing his candidacy (and also, as I recall, some of the opposition within the ArbCom) were founded on his lack of public abasement for the blocks which got him desysoped. However, these comments are made here only for the sake of clearing the record, and not for reopening discussion of this affair more generally. I think we are best here agreeing to disagree.
In my opinion, the ArbCom should have used a temporary remedy in Carnildo's case. I would have to review the workshop and the mailing list discussion to see if this was in fact discussed, as I don't recall. However, as I noted above the ArbCom has, or at least has had, a philosophical objection to desysoping someone for a time certain, and so the remedies in the case of sysop misconduct have been limited to censure, probationary restrictions (used only once as far as I know, in the case of Tony Sidaway), desysoping with leave to reapply, and desysoping without leave to reapply. The first is largely meaningless. The effectiveness of the second is not well-established, and has enforcement problems. The third is, for almost all intents and purposes, a permanent desysoping. The fourth is an invitation to disappear (and in fact Guanaco has disappeared, although I strongly suspect he is editing under another name). Clearly some intermediate remedies would be beneficial.
I would not be adverse to a process that permitted a "sysop suspension" for 24 to 72 hours under certain circumstances, but I don't see any clear process for implementation without software changes. The main sticking block is that stewards will not desysop without a statement from either ArbCom or Jimmy, and even when that is provided desysoping often takes 24 hours or longer. A 24 hour penalty that takes several days to implement is of questionable merit. We could appoint a small number of people to act as "on call desysopers", I suppose, but finding people to do that that are generally acceptable to the community, and developing a process for appealing to them that is also generally acceptable to the community, will both be difficult. I would prefer, at this time, to continue to work (in my case, from the inside) to make the Committee more amenable to short-term desysoping and emergency desysopings in appropriate cases, as I think that is more likely to be effective in the long run (and further requires less complex politicking, as there are fewer people to influence).
In the more specific instance, I think a short-term desysoping of Tony Sidaway might not be a bad thing. I have been trying to convince him to take a proper Wikibreak (that is, to not only stop editing, but also to stop reading). He has refused. I am not happy about this, because I've had success in the past getting him to step away when I've felt he needs it. So perhaps a bit tougher form of "wikilove" is required. I do not think I would object to a one week desysoping. Note that Tony did volunteer to be desysoped, to James, who apparently told him that that was premature, or something like that. I may need to have a conversation with James on this issue.
On the issue of "community article bans": I believe I've seen people doing this already, although I may be mistaken. In any case, as a former Arbitrator, let me be quite clear: anything you can do to resolve conflicts within the community and without involving the Arbitration Committee is a good thing. If you think you can get community support for this, do it, with my blessing. In this matter, I believe I can safely speak for the Committee, although I do not do so generally. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But of course

But of course. This is a collaboration. I regret that the most I have to contribute is a cap in one place, and a lowly hyphen in another. On the other hand, you would probably be in the same boat if you tried to help out with one of mine (well, not "mine" -- I wouldn't want to claim to own it or anything).
As for decomposition, no further comment at this time. Frankly I'm glad things didn't explode to a greater extent this morning than they did. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we never own, do we? We may be the sole authors, the sole watchlisters, the sole maintainers, but we do not own it (much sniggering in the chorus). It's a problematic situation that I'm in no rush to address, until some feeb (and feebs exist, I aver) wants to clobber Oroonoko with a box or change Flann O'Brien to use his secret Irish name (that he never signed). This is why I have long cherished the advice given to me by a dialectologist: specialize in something everyone else finds boring. Then, no one will bother you. Unfortunately, even that won't work all of the time. As for the other bit, I have a bad, bad feeling that this particular stick of Alfred Nobel's Surprize has an extremely long fuse. Geogre 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another improvement idea

George, I think your desysopping idea, if implemented, would be a step in a right direction. It may be the first step towards coming up with a straightforward and transparent desysopping of former Wikipedia editors who became just admins (or mailing list/IRC chatterboxes) that view Wikipedia as the field for the silly power games. No less addicted to Wikipedia than us, writers of its content, those users loose their abilities to write and exercise their addiction to Wikipedia through perceiving it as a kind of social place where they are empowered to "maintain order". Not all people who come to WP only to socialize are admins. Some are not admins and some are higher than admins (this may or may not include ArbComers and 'crats). But such users are united by the common way they exercise their addiction to Wikipedia: instead of writing, like us, they play games (as if this matters) or discuss how to "save" wikipedia from its editors, conducting this discussion both in Wikispace and, even more perhaps, privately.

At the same time, Wikipedia needs more rather than less admins and lack of the transparent and implementable desysopping mechanisms makes many Wikipedians wary of supporting a, perhaps, reasonable candidate at RfA making the RfAs torturous, which in turn, discourages people from running for adminships (which is bad, because more admins is better rather than worse).

If desysopping ever develops into some procedure perceived by the editors as clear and transparent, we will eventually get more admins as RfA will seize being so gruesome.

Let me propose a new approach I have not seen proposed by anyone yet but let's first recall what is adminship. The task of any admin is two-fold. The first part is the mop: closing AfDs and WP:RMs. Deleting PRODs, marked copyvio images, etc. These are routine tasks that we need more admins to do. However, in most cases they do not involve any controversies (exceptions exist). The more difficult task of any admin is to deal with other editors: blocking those who harm the project, calling to order those who also harm the project but blocking may do even more harm, etc. And here we come to the question: what is the main purpose of adminship, aside from the mop. This purpose, I believe, is providing to the editors the best possible environment to develop an encyclopedia. Those who disrupt this process, need to be sent home. Those who help, but might help better by backing off their emotions need to be helped to do just that, while Tony's favorite "cool-off blocks" do just the opposite. For admins to be able to effectively create the best working environment for editing, it is necessary to not forget what an editing is. Giano's proposal (2 FAs required to run for Adminship and 1 FA per year to keep it) seems an overkill. Many very good contributors haven't written a single FA. Some of them are non-native speakers, some just have too wide interests to be able to concentrate on one single article and pull it to a FA level. They still know very well what writing content is and what is needed for the writing environment.

Hence, my proposal. Each admin has to spend a fixed amount of time every year without exercising adminship at all, that is writing. Every year on the anniversary of the promotion every admin is required (or encouraged, if requiring is impossible) to seize using any admin tools for a month and concentrate on the Main name space. Additionally, every two months an additional one week of fasting and content writing is required. That would make one month-long break and five week-long breaks per year. This would effectively reduce an amount of admins that are able to do the mopping but it would be compensated by more users becoming admins as with the de-adminsip mechanism in place, the promotion would return to what it originally was: "No big deal".

How does this sound? --Irpen 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Very religious. :-)
One thing your proposal reminds me of is something Aaron Brenneman had thought of, and a very good idea, that we split the current administrator rank into greater specialization. This wouldn't mean fewer buttons, and it could mean more, but it would place less expectation on each admin to be all things and take some weight off comments made, too. Thus, the counsellors, for example, would be different from the rights checkers, and they might be different from the wording resolvers. Then, for example, we could say quite clearly that Carnildo, for example, not be a counsellor and not get the block button, but be a highly weighted rights protector and be given some further strength there.
Another thing it reminds me of is something that I proposed long ago, when the site was much smaller: that we simply require each administrator to get a pro forma review and re-admission and that each person submit evidence of accomplishments on the site. This could be writing, or mediation, or rights negotiations, but never, under any circumstances, roll backs or blocks. I.e. blocking, deleting, and undeleting would have to be disallowed as evidence of administration, as these things would be regarded as necessary but not creditable.
I also think that every single administrator should have to write or rewrite something. Maybe not an FA, and maybe not a brand new article (it's getting really, really hard to find worthy topics we don't cover at least twice already), but something dammit.
A step up from my old idea would be simply an administrator's portfolio. If we all kept a "brag list" of what we've done well (again, no blocks, no delete/undeletes allowed) and have it reviewed by any and all at any time, we could at least have that when folks are assessing our credibility.
The rest.... I share some of your dark feelings, I confess, about some of the people, and I think Wiki-ster (the Friendster part of Wikipedia) has been its chief rival since inception. When Wikipedia was made, Wikister was there, and the two have been fighting with each other ever since. When Wikister is ascendant, Wikipedia falls. I'm afraid that I agree that there is a knot of Wikister swinging a mace these days. You can tell who they are, because they never go long without telling you how important they are. Geogre 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! perfomance reviews was something I thought of myself. Say, at every anniversary, the admin is reviewed. If no one is interested in reviewing him, he is probably OK. If, say, 5 editors with more than 5k edits in MAINSPACE feel that the reevaluation is needed, the admin has to stand up for reconfirmation where only 5k editors are allowed to opine. If he can't get a simple majority of those, he has to stand up for a full renomination or resign. Such strict requirements (5k) would bring sockpuppetry and trolling to zero and leave this only to editors whose work environment should be admin's top priority to begin with. However, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make such things into a policy. Splitting admins in ranks and diversifying tools may be difficult both technically and politically, while I would agree with this.

OTOH, Adminbreaks I propose would require nothing to implement. If the idea gets rolling, it can be just started to be done. That's it. --Irpen 23:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't lead on something like that because I'm pretty obviously already going to benefit from it. I doubt you could, either. We could put out a shaming call for edit breaks, but shame would be the only weapon. James Forrester just said that I shouldn't confuse edits to name space with "contributions." He really sincerely believes that writing is at best of equal importance with ... whatever it is that he does. I'm sure that the others also believe that blocking, reverting, hanging out on IRC all day, writing -bots, or doing developer stuff is at least equal to writing an encyclopedia. I suspect that they believe that what they're doing is far, far, far superior. I don't want to denigrate the constructive things that developers do, although I will happily devalue the routine and unfortunate part of being an admin (deletions, blocks, rollbacks), but they're fundamentally not things that build the encyclopedia. They are things that build the software and build the site. The site is the host of the content, and being an expert at building the host does not translate into any skill, much less expertise, at the content and its users. This is why, at least in name, the developers are not superior or inferior to the administrators -- they're just different and not to translate. The difference is that I rarely tell the developers which of them stays and which goes, rarely tell them that they're fools, rarely tell them that they should bow to me, while at least a few of the people whose sole expertise is in software have no hesitation in claiming to be masters of those who work inside. Geogre 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA is broken: It's about to be FUBAR

Hi, Geogre, I just want to thank you for your efforts to improve the climate in this project, especially now that Citizendium was announced and many prolific editors think about migrating once the project takes flight. Tony Sidaway announced on his talk page that a coup d'etat is taking place in WP. I don't know whether he is right, but the current situation illustrates Lenin's famous definition of the revolutionary situation: "verkhi ne mogut, nizy ne khotyat". The ridiculous ideas like WP:100K demonstrate how deep the divide between editors and powers is.
Over the previous days, I received some e-mails from people involved in RfA. I was told that currently many people do lots of cheap edits and then stop after they "win" RfA in order to turn into political chatterboxes. Why don't they write at the top of their talk pages: "We are here to write an encyclopaedia; my motto is NN main space edits each day!" Being on IRC gives you up to 100% RfA popularity boost (depending on sociability) unrelated to any usefulness rendered to the encyclopedia - but do we really need IRC which gradually replaces editing?
In short, the main flaw of the existing project is a stratum of non-editing nomenklatura presiding over masses of hard working editors. They spend some 10+ hours a day on IRC, with 15 piddly edits per day in main space (mainly vandalism reversions), while there are numerous backlogs waiting for admin action. There are too many admins who think that they are some kind of supermen defending WP from trolls and seem to think that it will collapse unless they go berserk and sink their teeth into some people like me or Giano on a random basis. I'm not sure they will ever understand that it's not they who have made Wikipedia in the top 13. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That particular set of complaints mirrors something I have been saying for a while: IRC has a lensing effect on debate. It can be good, can be bad, but it is always distorting. I have seen good and bad people get huge RFA's because they were chummy chums on IRC. Much more frequently, though, I have seen RFA conversions. Like Faust, they will serve the devil for months and then, in the week before RFA, convert to piety, speak only in happy words and act only strictly by the procedures. This is in addition to the edit count folks who push up their totals with massive numbers of nil content edits. The last of these is the least of the worries, in my opinion.
The idea that RFA is broken is being used to justify greater bureaucrat discretion. This is absolutely the opposite direction of where we need to go. If RFA is broken, then the answer is to reform the consent process, not to push toward a greater concentration of power in the hands of unaccountable and unknown bureaocrats. It is true that the Carnildo affair (and I like the fact that people are calling it the "Carnildo affair," because there was definitely some illicit screwing going on) is being used as a template for how RFA can be fixed: stop having users consent, and leave it to the bureaocrats working on "discretion" based on private mailing list contents.
Tony, I suspect, believes it's a "coup" because he believes that there was a government. That's the problem. There isn't supposed to be a government. The first step to tyranny is when the consul begins to believe he's the emperor. When the elected dispute resolution folks believe their own press and become convinced that they're the governing body, it is a very, very bad thing. Tony implies that he was part of this government. No one consented to his being a member of that government, if there is one, and all that is happening now is that the lumpen masses have had their eyes poked enough times that they are reminding the senators that power is loaned, not given.
I should point out, by the way, that when I'm for transparency, that doesn't mean "dump the arbitrator's mailing list." It doesn't mean "disallow private communications." It doesn't even mean "dump IRC" (although that's tempting). What it means is that I think having an index of the mailing lists made public would be worthwhile. Having a summary of the discussions made public would be worthwhile. Regulating IRC would be logical.
If we really need to fix RFA, lest it be used to advocate a greater concentration of power and less transparency, then I will offer up some solutions. Geogre 10:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going postal?

You have mail; since I do not trust the reliability of Wikipedia e-mail I thought I might warn you some should be expected... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it and replied. If there are typo's, do notice the time stamps. :-) Geogre 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I need an official cabal ruling: How does one pronounce "Geogre"? Newyorkbrad 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"It's spelled Geogre, but it's pronounced 'throatwarblermangrove.'" Actually, I tend to say "gee-ogre." It's a tough one, though. Geogre 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Gee-o-grey. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What!? No. Gee-ogre. Like it's spelled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Foolss! It iss "Ze Ogre!" Bischånen | talk 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC).
In a pastourelle, ze girlz, zey flee ze geogre! (Being accused of "trolling" has inspired me to write more articles, which are not to be confused with "contributions," as James Forrester tells us. Contributions come from talk pages and policy pages and being rude, so this is my actual "contribution" for the day.) Geogre 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAA

good approach, my sympathy, I agree with practically everything you say on Giano's page. I do think WP is in the process of entering a new stage, and hopefully one of mucking out the crusts of crap that have accumulated, involving much rolling up of sleeves and similar manly things so that people can focus on adding content again, in peace. Maybe WP will also just topple over and crash on its face, like Usenet, in which cases we'll just have to fork and start over. The great thing is that nobody can take from us that googling "A Tale of a Tub" turns information now! my regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I fell down on my vows. It only took "You're all idiots" from someone I already had an unpleasant view of to get me into full fury. So much for ignoring all of them. So much for quietism. Geogre 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, I would also like to offer my help in any way I can to resolve the problems we're all experiencing. I find you a voice of calm reason and agree with your recent arguments on WP:AN. I know Giano is currently attempting to affect what change he can and I fully support him in this, but whilst I'm very fond of his wit, charm and intellect; the doors on his career as a diplomat seem to have closed some time ago. He is justifiably livid about his treatment, but what we need now is a calm, measured persuader. The danger is that Giano's quite justified outrage will be held up to neutral parties as personal spite and the real problems will be obscured in endless argumenta ad hominem. We need someone else to champion the debate and bring change and consensus.
I know you're pretty busy at the moment; but I wonder if you would spare the time to look at this Policy idea for me. It's my first, probably extremely nieve attempt at a policy idea and I know you have experience in this area (and a much longer wikihistory than I - It's probably been suggested before in some form). --Mcginnly | Natter 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Well Wishers and Concerned Citizens, the "Carnildo Affair"

I know right now everyone is being entertained by the suits of flames everyone is wearing, but the "Carnildo affair" is surely one of the most embarrassing and shameful cases in Wikipedia history, and it has been behind a great deal of what has transpired lately. For those wishing to help avoid its repetition, as it looks very much like it will repeat, please see User:Geogre/RFA-Derby. I explain it there, but, basically, I'm saying that if we grant the premise that "RFA is broken," we have many alternatives besides having beaurocrats use "discretion" to override the voting margins. (If you were on the pro-Carnildo side, just remember that this precedent can be against your side the next time.) We're clever people. We have been able to create over a million articles. We can surely come up with some solution. Geogre 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to a response.

Because Kelly said you had it coming, here's your community band.
Because Kelly said you had it coming, here's your community band.

Hi. I wanted to respond to your Response on Kelly Martin's page [5]. It's in relation to what we had been discussing about personal attacks on AN, in the Giano section (I responded to that bit, too, but I don't know if you noticed since the whole thing was moved to that Giano subpage right afterwards).

When I said "bordering on personal attacks", this is the sort of thing I'm referring to. I don't consider it a personal attack, but I consider it fairly close. To explain why, I have to deconstruct it, so please bear with me.

  • I believe that she claims to speak for herself even as she claims to speak for the ArbCom that she is not a member of.
I don't believe she's ever claimed to speak for ArbCom since leaving her position. It is possible, but if so, it's probably the most serious allegation here.
    • Well, I avoided responding to you on AN because it's a side track. However, I have to ask: how can you offer up such a sensitive tripwire for personal attacks when reading my comments and then say that Kelly didn't claim to speak for ArbCom? In this particular case, she did not quite say it in so many words. In the past, she has. Since I was never on a witch hunt, I did not store up diffs in anticipation of a prosecution, and there was no prosecution on AN. To demand that it rise to the level of an RFAR case is absurd and missing the point. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I honestly don't see it. She does speak with a confidence and many don't, and doesn't hardly use any qualifying words. But unless she says, "on behalf of the ArbCom..." I don't feel she's speaking for them, even when she says things like, "you can be sure they're discussing this." I interpret that was a very well informed guess.--InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you feel that way, then why assume that I would be overstepping my bounds? It isn't confidence, nor a guess, when you know that the person (or suspect) has access to the arbitrator's mailing list. It was a calculated threat and effort at intimidation. It works very well, too. Those who don't know her and her history will just get the forcefulness and run in terror, and those who do know know that she has spoken ex cathedra repeatedly in the past and she speaks very often of knowing what is on the list. The highly informed could guess that those were lies or distortions or not, but she confirmed it. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (The dire predictions of my fate, for example, are delivered from great, great, official height, and yet they are combined with astonishment that anyone could think that it is meant.)
This is a matter of opinion, and many might not see it this way. I would be one, except that I don't feel anyone speaks with such height or authority except Jimbo, Danny, or someone who actually says they're representing the Foundation. Everyone else, admins and bureacrats alike, I judge by the merits of what they say.
    • Excuse me? She managed even the "Jimmy" ploy, where she managed to work in how close a personal relationship she has with the People Who Count! If you think there is anything to Doc Glasgow misinterpreting my speaking for my absent friends as speaking for The Project, then surely you have to see how unambiguously she was claiming that I AM part of THE problem. (By writing those articles I'm part of the problem, or by asking that administrators be allowed to block abusive users like Tony Sidaway without a visit in the night I am? There is no specification of what it is that's problematic.) Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Doc misinterpreted you because initially you didn't disclose how much information you really had. You're still being cryptic, you feel you have to be, but it's making it difficult for others to take you seriously. Sound familiar?
      • I can't even begin to address the "Jimmy Ploy" comment...that is a personal attack, and I suspect you know it too. --InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not! Look at my user page. In "Geogre's Laws," #7 has been there for months. It is not a personal attack: it is an attack on a particular form of rhetorical misdirection that is commonly used, but commonly used by those who are at their wit's end. There was no personal attack at all. She manages to get in "my friend Jimmy" language frequently, and it is a rhetorical ploy. As for how much information I am not disclosing, my hands are tied, in fact, by the very secrecy that I am railing against. I don't even speed on rural highways, so I'm not about to go breaking the rules here. I do not agree with the arbitrator's mailing list being totally secret (my ideas on this have not been aired, because it would be a distraction at this point), but Kelly betrayed them. When a list is SooperSecret and part of a club, then it's going to leak because the members of the club will use leaks tactically. Kelly was doing it for what I regard as a dirty trick. This "we are the superusers, and we may not be examined" is not a popular view. I will allow you to believe me or not on what I know. I would love to be able to speak openly, because I disagree with the gags, but, as I said, I'm not going to break the rules to complain about them. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, she assures Bishonen that she has no great power or position, and yet she is so valuable to the Foundation its very self that she cannot fulfill her promises.
Power and position aren't the only ways she can lend value to the project. Likewise, her knowledge and wisdom, while they might stand alone perfectly well, are enhanced by any powers or position she does have. The same is true for you.
    • That doesn't even make sense. No one was asking her to leave the project. She offered to give up the administrative powers if Bishonen and I and two others asked. We did. She won't, because, she says, she's far too important and needed by the Foundation to do that. I asked simply that she not be lobbying arbcom on the mailing list, nothing else, because she was not trusted with that position and had been betraying the trust of that list. That's not very ambiguous or vindictive. Most people who have been corresponding with me think I was a fool for not asking for a complete demotion. Further, this is not "do it now or do it later." This is at least the fourth major breach of rules or ethics by Kelly since I've been paying attention, so this is "we didn't fight it out before, or before that, or before that, and we cannot ignore it forever." Not when she shows up to silence debate and interfere with normal admin functions by telling us that we're being watched and discussed. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've just read the newest updates on her talk page. The message I'm getting isn't, "I didn't really mean this, and I don't plan to give you anything." I read it as, "make up your minds what each of you want" with equaly parts "some of the things you asking for probably aren't going to give you really seem to want." You're paying more attention to what you think her motives are than what she's actually saying.--InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is as you say, then I will agree with whatever others do in this case, even though I believe that the source of grief has been arbitrating without having the title. You can merely look above, on this very page, to see Kelly indicating that she was "shown the door" on ArbCom. She was. That she is still an arbitrator without portfolio or approval is not a good thing, so I was being modest and seeking redress of something that had never been the case. However, if the more draconian measures are the ones that she'll agree to, so be it. I was offering a way out. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus, I see nothing on her talk page where she's directly broken her promise. She did ask Bishonen if you all proceed with events, to allow her to complete an outstanding task.
    • You don't see that as "I won't?" She says she won't and then, in a lachrymose tone, adds that in. There are a dozen statments of hers that contradict one another. This is merely another. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • So she must be trying to weasel out? She can't possibly be trying to reconcile everyone's different requests while trying to figure out a solution to satisfy everyone as much as she can without needless sacrifice?--InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Everyone" isn't the issue, though. She didn't promise to honor everyone. She promised to adhere to the verdict of Geogre and Bishonen and any two administrators and offered to give up all priviledges. Well, Bishonen asked what she was offering, because she and I both felt that there were specific sources of trouble and were trying so save her from such a dramatic performance. Her answer was horrendously melodramatic and tried to push things to a corner. Fine. If the choice is "all or nothing," then I must answer "all." Remember, though: Kelly is not "the" problem. Kelly's behavior has been a longstanding problem, but it's not what the AN thread was about. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have asked very precisely for the giving up of the one thing that causes the problems, a minor thing that should be easily spared in one so valuable, and yet Kelly would gladly give up administrative powers, but not access to the ArbCom mailing list. If, indeed, her "power" comes from her personality and wisdom, then the mailing list should have been a tiny sacrifice. Apparently, some of us were wrong in what we thought.
As in my last point, it's not a question of her sacrifice, it's the value that ArbCom might lose from it. I don't find your request unreasonable, I just don't see why anyone outside of the ArbCom should have any choice in it. A matter of, do they want to listen to her, or let her listen to them? I trust their ability to decide this.
    • I do not. I do not believe it is their choice, either. If we did have an elected ArbCom, then wouldn't it make sense that a person who had been fired from ArbCom not be part of it any more? Kelly, by her own words, was fired from ArbCom, and yet she is still effectively on it, but only in the discursive side, where no one can know what she is saying or hearing, unless she makes another mistake like this again. If, by the way, you do not know that she was betraying a partial thread on the list, then I will not prove it to you. Again: this was not an RFAR, and I was not prosecuting. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Elected or appointed (and the process as I see it, it's splitting hairs), there's nothing in their job description which gives us input into their decision making process. If they want her as a special consultant, or you, or anyone else, that's their decision. Her "effectiveness" has nothing to do with what mailing lists she's on, and if you feel she's balking at your request, that's why.--InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • She was neither elected nor appointed. We do not cede all things when we agree to a dispute resolution position. That you see nothing saying that there is redress to the users, then I see nothing that stipulates that a mailing list even must exist nor that gives the arbitrators control over its membership. You see no prohibition, and I see no license. The point is that her position on ArbCom was rather spectacularly and violently opposed. Should such a magnet for controversy, such a widely disliked (and liked) person be speaking for ArbCom? Should such a person be, despite the users' overwhelming dissent, advising and arranging verdicts on disputants? Finally, can someone who goes from thinking I'm highly respected to a "troll," a "diva," and "part of the problem" be viewed as dispassionate and wise? All that changed between "respected" and "troll" was my request that Kelly Martin cease to be on the arbitrator's mailing list. That request fundamentally changed my value to the project? You can agree that this is a person who should be passing judgment on user behavior? I can't. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I think this sort of thing approachs a personal attack because it's a combination of opinion and personal interpretation that cast Kelly and her actions in a very negative light...and I don't feel it's entirely supportable by the (known) facts. I don't think it's in bad faith, and I don't know without doubt that your not wrong. It's my opinion that you're overreacting and looking at things too negatively, and on the scale of things in Wikipedia I'm well aware how little value my opinions inherantly carry. Which is why I'm trying so hard to explain myself, even if I'm just being annoying.

    • I can understand, and I certainly bear you no malice. I don't want to pull that "I'm an old timer" nonsense, as that's part of what I'm objecting to with Kelly, but I am an old timer...a very old timer. More to the point, I've been involved in the policy side for a long time, and I've seen permutations of Kelly/Tony/Snowspinner ("Sir Not Appearing in this Film") come up eight or nine times. The cast is remarkably consistent. Also, by having all this archiving, people are missing the history of Tony's block, which is a very important history. It is Tony's blocking that is tied into the Carnildo RFA, and it's very hard to keep all of the threads straight. It's one reason why I haven't wanted to follow the side tracks. It's not that they're not worth answering, but rather than the narrative arc of this thing is a tangle to begin with. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I certainly understand the difficulties in following the many twisting turns this whole discussion has taken. --InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, much has been said in the entire discussion, on both sides of the fence, that come near or exceed the personal attack borders in my opinion. I'm afraid I think Giano has gone too far, but I don't think a community ban will be forthcoming. I don't think you've crossed that line. But I do think you're still looking for something to come out of this...some way things, or people, will be better. It might be for Kelly or Tony to change their opinions or behaviors. If so, respectfully, I'm not sure you understand either of them (or their opinions) well enough to convince them to change.

I hope you find this a constructive discussion. I didn't come here to reprimand you, or lecture you. Just to share my opinions and thoughts on things because I think it could be of benefit. Thanks for reading. --InkSplotch 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Trust me: I know Kelly and Tony's opinions and behaviors. Had I thought conversation would work with either, things would never have gotten to such a pitch. Neither of them will respond to conversation or persuasion, except in the very nearest short term. Both have consistently announced (not thought, not implied, but announced) that they know better than the procedures and policies and will do what is right, regardless of what anyone else things. That's not tolerable, at least to me. If we do not all behave according to the rules, then this is just another web forum where high school cliques shoot spitballs at each other and rarely notice that there is an encyclopedia beneath their seats. Geogre 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're not the first person to feel this way about them, but I must tell you, to a relative outsider you seem equally entrenched in your views of what's going on, what their motvies are, and what's right. You didn't seem this way at the beginning of this, which is why I came here to continue our side discussion. But I think your anger and frustration at the situation is getting the better of you. I'm not suggesting they're right, or perfectly correct, but I do think Kelly is making every effort she can to resolve this amicably and I think you're being overly critical about it. --InkSplotch 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • At the beginning of this, Kelly wasn't trying to get everyone to shut up for fear of being discussed on the arbitrator's mailing list. At the beginning, James F wasn't coming along to explain that all who acted to prevent Tony's further blocking of people for 24 hours was an "idiot." If you are concerned with personal attacks, I hope you are taking him to task severely. If you are concerned with anger coloring one's views of others, I hope you're taking Kelly to task for calling me a "troll" and a "diva" and "part of the problem," when I have focused always on specific actions, which I spell out, of Kelly's and have sought to refrain from a public tarring. If you are concerned with unreasoning discourse, I really do hope that you are against the silencing of debate that comes from shunting everything off to a hidden spot. I do not accuse you of hypocrisy, but I do feel that it's important that we see my forceful and sometimes stinging comments as fairly narrow. Kelly is only a portion of a portion of what has drawn all this fire, and I think allowing this to become the focus is unintentional or intentional misdirection. Geogre 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you for having this discussion with me, you didn't need to take the time and there's many things I've said which might have seemed like attacks, as hard as I've tried not to. I think it's best if we withdraw at this point. I certainly understand you views better, but I'm not sure I'm capable of explaining to you mine. I fundamentally disagree with some of the issues driving you right now, particularly:

  • I don't think Kelly uses her position to intimidate or terrorize users with her perceived status.
  • I don't think she's effectively an arbcom member, or exerting any inappropriate influence on their decisions.
  • I don't think ArbCom needs license from anyone but the Foundation for their actions.

Now that last one is a practially a political ideology around, I suppose (does it make me the Republican or Democrat? I'm not sure). But I think the first two are quite serious, and if you and others feel strongly about it that it ought to go to ArbCom. It's just, to me, strong allegations of misconduct like this must either be actionable, or seen as personal attacks.

By the by, I never came here to single you out, in fact there's been quite a lot of scary behavior around AN on this issue. I have been thinking about JamesF's comments, and I do feel he needs to apologize, clarify or probably both. Whatever he truly intended, I don't thinks his comments came out the right way. --InkSplotch 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to the responses -- the Kelly mess

  • It is phenomenally rare that I allow anything wiki to alter my real mood, but tonight I had to crack a bottle of cream sherry. See below for my view of things and why I would have reacted so powerfully. I may have a lot of faults, but inconsistency isn't generally one of them. I don't use dirty words, generally. I don't use short sentences, either, I'm afraid. My positions, since arriving back when we struggled to get to 50,000 articles, have always been transparency, flat hierarchy, and accountability for all (including Jimbo). My concerns have been on wiki, as well. If those off in a private IRC channel wish to compliment each other and call me names, I wish them all the joys that arise from that, but, on wiki, I expect people to behave openly, to speak plainly, and not to attempt rhetorical dirty tricks to coerce others. I think Kelly has violated these several times, but she is, generally, a side light. My concern has been and remains openness and clarity, with all users, and arbcom members above all others, obeying the rules that the least of the common editors has to obey.
  • I get digusted with "democracy" too. I think "polls are evil" sometimes, too. The answer to these, though, is in the instruction sets, the suffrage, the quorum, and the policy proposals. The answer is never, never, never, never, never to get cadres of unspeakable, invisible power. Kelly and Tony Sidaway have both been quite vocal proponents of these invisible power centers (with themselves at the center of such centers, in my experience), and Phil Sandifer has been, too. Further, some new administrators are cut from the same cloth. I have no interest in arbitrating, or even hurting, these people. So long as they do not seek to limit discussion or the on-wiki action of the site, what care I if they believe themselves superior? (If any of them wishes to compare real life credentials, as Phil Sandifer consistently does, to some of those they consider lower users, they'll be shocked.)
  • I have never wavered from these few issues. The Kelly situation at present is minor beyond comapare. I'd be mystified, too, if I had not seen the previous four or five Kelly crises. I'd be shocked, too, if I did not know about other abuses she has committed. Why are these not presented as arbitration? She has indicated that she is immune, and previous arbitrations have revealed that that's not entirely incorrect. She has gotten slaps when others would have gotten bans (not blocks).
  • As I have said before, I am not one to save up diffs for prosecution. I hate prosecuting people. I hate arguing with people. Therefore, if I don't throw diffs up, it's not because they don't exist. Others can, if it's needed or if there is any hope of success, but there is a pretty dispirited project going on right now, for the sake of three or four amazingly dismissive and contemptuous people. That's no way to build an encyclopedia. Geogre 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Geogre suddenly a troll? An attempt at a narrative

Obviously, I'm not a troll, have never been a troll, and have only been accused of being one for the very first time in over two years by people who feel that they are being picked on by me. (I'm not exaggerating: to my knowledge, I had never, ever been accused of being a troll until this week, which has to be some kind of record.) I will attempt to summarize, if not the objective events of Wikipedia, at least the events that entered the transem of my perception.

  1. The Carnildo RFA was launched. This was the fourth RFA, third since Carnildo lost his administrative status. My own feeling is that Carnildo, before he lost his status, had been emulating Tony Sidaway and others by issuing personality-based blocks and blocks based on a presumed better knowledge of Wikipedia than the rest of the site possessed. That is combined with Carnildo's plainly attrocious behavior in the "pedophile wheel war" and the fact that user:Giano has never been exonerated, never received an apology, and never had any form of address from the offensive party (Carnildo). During this RFA, as with the previous two, Carnildo pointedly refused to acknowledge that he had made any errors nor to promise that he would be more careful with the block button. I, and many others (please take my word for it, Docs of the world, that I am not making this up), believed that this failure to see any mistakes was a sure stopper. I did not seek abasement, but I felt that the user in question had shown profoundly bad judgment prior to the wheel war and during the wheel war, and that this failure was precisely along the lines of "I know better than all of you." I.e. Carnildo had shown a love of the unilateral block.
  2. The Carnildo RFA failed by any objective measure. Some of the "no" voters were petulant and suspect users, but some of the abstaining voters were abstaining because they did not wish to inflict further pain on Carnildo. Hell, I didn't! I never wanted to say that the guy had shown, in my opinion, awful judgment before the wheel war, because I didn't want to go into one of those endless "Do you have diffs? If not, fuck you" (to quote Tony Sidaway (and yes, Tony, that is a quote and not an attribution)) escalations. Besides, why alienate someone doing good work? I didn't want to. Many other folks didn't want to vote "oppose" because they knew it would fail.
  3. Surprise! Carnildo's RFA #4 didn't fail! The Beuarocrats decided that, since "RFA is broken," they never really needed the community's input, so they promoted him anyway.
  4. Giano very understandably went ape shit. If I had been the aggrieved party in the Carnildo "affair," I'd have gone ape shit, too. So would you.
  5. Tony Sidaway blocked Giano. He didn't do this because of disruption. He didn't do this because Giano had vandalized. He did this to get Giano to "cool it." No one can find anything at WP:BLOCK where "cool it" is part of the rationale. Further, he wanted, he said, "to get Giano's attention." And this is how we get attention? Blocks? Not discussion, but blocks?
  6. Five separate administrators in good standing not only unblocked Giano (the only action commensurate with policy) but noted that Tony Sidaway, in conjunction with other recent actions (a frivolous RFAR against someone whose crime was disagreeing with Tony, another block of someone for "NPA" for using "fuck" in an edit summary, when Tony used "fuck" in an on-wiki post in follow up) had been acting disruptively, and one of them blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours.
  7. Immediately after that, James Forrester came to intervene in the regular operation of Wikipedia by informing everyone who was complaining (of Tony? of Carnildo? of Giano? of what we can never know) that they were "all idiots."
  8. Hard on that, Kelly Martin came to inform all that their actions "were noted" and "were being examined." Her implication was unmistakeable, and my most dyslexic student could tell you what she was saying: ArbCom is watching you!

The message from all of this was: Tony is honored among Them, and They are watching you.

Now, coincident to this, I have since learned that,

  1. Indeed, the lofty mount Parnassus that is arbcom had been unaware of anything, but, once the block of Tony Sidaway occurred, Tony made sure that they were alerted
  2. Indeed, the arbitrator-l list did begin discussion, but not to watch us peons complaining. The list was heavily divided between those that this was another embarassment from Tony and those who felt that there were Super Users who knew better than the stupid editors.
  3. Indeed, some of the arbers were being shamed for their total lack of contributions to the encyclopedia itself (as opposed to the hosting software or the secretarial functions), and they were grossly unhappy about that and were ready to take it out on the first editor they met.
  4. Indeed, Kelly was operating in several "back channel" arenas and spinning her own martyrdom.

Please note where Kelly occurs in this narrative. Please note how tangential she is to the story. Please note that this is not "all about arbcom." This is not "all about" Tony, either. It is about Tony and Kelly -- neither of whom have any status above any other administrator -- being unindictable, unimpeachable, and the existence of any cadre of unimpeachable and unaccountable users, wether they be the 5 FA club or the 5K edit club or the Arbcomlistluvers club. Geogre 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think you're a troll, and I think you have conducted yourself appropriately throughout this discussion. And I'm willing to say that on AN/I, in front of Arbcom, or wherever. Nandesuka 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Moi aussi, although I think that when people are passionate and persistent about something, they inevitably annoy people who want the subject dropped. Don't get discouraged. AnnH ♫ 03:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too (added after the "both" comment below). I've been following these discussions, and the thing that annoys me most is the way that an actual perspective on what is happening is difficult because the discussions are so disparate and spread over so many different locations. It really helps when someone writes a narrative like this (though I am sure people will disagree with the way you present some of the things here - and I haven't read enough to be sure you are presenting it accurately). But thanks anyway for summarising things from your point-of-view. Carcharoth 10:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Ann, I would not object to those who wished for the subject to be dropped and would not have objected to someone saying something articulate, along the lines of, "This discussion is keeping us from getting things done." We know that that wasn't the approach taken, and the problem with the approach that was taken is that it implied power. In other words, the way that James Forrester and Kelly Martin dealt with their demurral was to aggravate the situation by saying, "We cannot be questioned or debated, for we are above you." Now me, I don't believe it. I don't believe either of them are "above," because I know they're just administrators like us. However, since what we were complaining about and what had gotten everyone angry was the idea that there were secret, invisible loci of 'power', having those two essentially say, "We command you" was as dreadful a demonstration that the complaints were valid as anything could have been. Now, it could be that James is simply inarticulate and such a poor writer that he was accidentally doing this, but not Kelly, and I don't believe that his lack of fluency caused an accidental statement as much as it laid bare the assumptions he lives with. Geogre 09:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

well done Geogre, I find things begin looking more reassuring now, and feel my disgruntlement receding. Now, Tony and Kelly and friends aside, what is the evolving storyline on Carnildo and the promoting bureaucrats? It appears that this was the actual issue before Tony turned it into a major storming of the bastille / defenestration. Have the involved bureaucrats given satisfactory explanations? Will there be a repetition of this obviously fundamentally buggered RFA#4? If not, shouldn't something like this be demanded? Maybe even Carnildo will get the hint that he will not get around a due apology, and once he does, his chances of re-appointment will be intact, and everybody will be happy. Also, it seems most advisable that Tony offered a voluntary re-submission to RFA for confirmation of his block button (CAT:AOR should be a matter of course if there are legitimate concerns, and I couldn't think of a case where concerns would be more legitimate than at present) dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Dab. You bring up several issues, though, and I'm not sure I can address them as much as offer that we coordinate to investigate. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a satisfactory explanation of the ReRFAmation. The 'crats who acted are not stupid or bad people: I respect them greatly. However, that doesn't mean that they didn't do a very bad, and, yes, stupid, thing, but they did so, I'm entirely convinced, because they could hear only one half of the conversation. The point of private mailings and private channels is not only that bad things happen there, but also that the full range of voices is not heard. Were I on a secret listserv to all the archangels of WikiMedia, it would still be wrong. However sane or wise I might be, I am not the site. Whatever the intentions of the present and former arbers who persuaded the 'crats to take that action, they were not representative of the best, the most trusted, etc. They were few voices and carried with them implied power. The privately segmented channels allow kitty cats to cast tiger shadows. It's no wonder that the kitties are believing themselves lions.
Will it happen again? Based solely on experience, yes. Yes, absolutely. The precedent implied in the action was WP:DRV, where, because of the mess of voting on deletion, we have (without my knowledge or input, I assure you) come to the conclusion that deletion decisions are "at closing administrator's discretion." 90% of the time that discretion is bang on the spot, at least. However, it is that precedent that was implicit in the 'crats saying that it was always their discretion to ignore consensus and appoint whom they chose. At DRV, "discretion" went from a rare event to a common event. It has invited admin wars. Fortunately, these wars haven't happened yet, and I hope they never do, but once you get into "within an admin's discretion," you get "my discretion says delete, and yours says keep, and we will keep deleting and undeleting until an RFAR starts." These crats, this time, acted against the community because they got an earful from a minority.
Has there been an apology or a promise not to do it again? If he wouldn't when passing depended on it three times in a row, then he won't now. Or at least I see no evidence that he will. So, is this pride? Is pride that causes disruption something we want in administrators? Isn't that ultimately what has gotten Tony and Kelly into trouble?
I'm not going to villify the 'crats. There's no profit in it, and I don't think it's deserved. There are a lot of villains in this story, but the theme they are all variations upon is "pride," and the plot each exercises is "private audiences and private communications," and the common hamartia is "shut out the dissent, and then you're right all the time."
At least that's what I know so far. I don't think there is progress on the Carnildo front. If there is, I just don't know about it. I'm doing the RFA-derby idea so that we can try to rob the minority voices of their rationale for calling for "discretion." I don't know if it'll work, but it's the only logical thing I can think to do. Geogre 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've spent the last few hours reading thru the whole heated exchange, & find that your analysis is both accurate & insightful, Geogre. (FWIW, having followed your contributions to WP:AN/I, I would hardly consider you part of the ill-assorted & ill-defined "Troll" group on Wikipedia.) I see this blow-up as the convergence of 2 factors:
  • There are some people who cannot help but attract controversy & emotions on Wikipedia -- like Tony Sideway & Kelly Martin; &
  • There are a lot of Wikipedians who feel marginalized in the project.
I have no solution for how to deal with the first, but I do have some thoughts on the second. Too many Wikipedians dismiss the need of "community" when events like this time & again show its need. If an editor works hard on improving a couple of stubs into usable articles, unless they become FAs the chance for positive feedback is slim to none; this can only reinforce the inevitable feeling of being ignored on Wikipedia. Elian (one of the leaders of de.wikipedia) has commented on this difference between the more successful German Wikipedia & the English-language one. I know this lack of community was one of the original motivations in founding Esperanza -- but appears to have somehow been quickly forgotten.
Jimbo himself (if I may be permitted this appeal to authority) once pointed out that it is hard to get into a vicious flamewar with someone whom you've shared a beer. Until we find a way to provide more community to Wikipedia (Wikimeetups, mentoring, what have you), I fear that this won't be the last vicious fight on Wikipedia. (PS, my apologies if this reads like the off-topic ramblings of a crank that inevitably lead to his predictably banal & bizarre obsession, but I watch Wikipedia, think this, & wonder if anyone else shares my bizarre obsession.) -- llywrch 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Coming from a nation of boozers, it's my experience that beer is the last thing you would want to add to a pre-existing acrimony.--Mcginnly | Natter 10:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point -- even though those were Jimbo's actual words -- especially as some of our contributors who are under drinking age have proven themselves more thoughtful & mature than those over that age. How about "someone you've shared an enjoyable beverage of your choice?" -- llywrch 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, another problem is that ever-present "scale issue." As I was just saying on Mcginnley's talk page, no matter what you do, most people have never heard of you. This is true no matter what you do or who you are, because Wikipedia has a huge turnover and a huge daily influx. Part of the problem, as I see it, is almost the opposite of what you say. I think some of the people are always sharing a beer, or e-mail, or a virtual chat or something, and, when they go out into the deep water of project space, are being told, "Who are you? You have no right to tell me anything." Those who spend too much time in a private mini-Wikister will be shocked by not being as loved outside of that world as inside. If one or two members of a virtual group gain judicial rights on the project, then, well, we can end up with what I've seen in Tony Sidaway and Kate's general commentary: an imputation that a group of like minded people will make decisions and not hear the rest.
That said, the germ of your point is completely correct. If we share a beer, we're much less likely to attack one another. If we were aware of the hard work each other does, we would be less likely, as well.
I have toyed with the idea of folks having a "Brag bag": just a list of things they've done that they're proud of, whether they're admins or not. At least that way we could see the effort on the part of each other, whether we valued that work most highly or not. Another idea (and this one I think is problematic except as an idea) is something like a "Featured Wikipedian," where someone is assigned another wikipedian to write in praise of. This would force an introduction and introduce each user to the wider site. The down sides are kind of high on that, but the up side would be knowing each other.
My problem is that some of the people who magnetize the community have set up a private garden, with a high fence, and have assumed unto themselves rights never granted. Their friendship has gotten in the way of scrutiny, as they protect each other no matter. Finally, I think they're united by an ideology that those who are "clueful" must decide for the rest. That's a fine idea for web forums, but Wikipedia wasn't set up that way. Geogre 20:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Such a lot of what you say here resonates with me. It sounds incredibly plausible. It is human nature to form groups like this. I especially liked the bit here, where you say: "no matter what you do, most people have never heard of you. This is true no matter what you do or who you are, because Wikipedia has a huge turnover and a huge daily influx. [...] I think some of the people are always sharing a beer, or e-mail, or a virtual chat or something..." The two contrasting scenes there are what I was trying to depict (though not nearly so poetically) when I said the following at WP:AN: "Regarding Kelly Martin's comments about chosing between friends and Wikipedia, it is worth remembering that many Wikipedians are not as good friends with other Wikipedians as she seems to be. For many of them, this "choice" is not even an option. Empathising with other Wikipedians in this way (ie. realising that not all Wikipedians are like you - having close friends you chat to on IRC, etc) is worth keeping in mind..." - if there are any good ideas to foster a greater sense of community, I will willingly support and help this. Carcharoth 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, I agree that the failure of the Wikipedia community to scale is a problem -- & probably encourages the "walled garden" effect. I watched the ArbCom panel at Wikimania back in August, where there were a number of people that could be perceived as belonging to the "clique" & thinking back I'd say that most are unaware that they are building a wall between them & the rest of the editors: a Wikipedian gets caught up in the activities of her or his own corner of the project, develops a working relationship with some members, deals with troublemakers, & loses touch with the rest of Wikipedia. While for most Wikipedia business this provincialism is not harmful (& in some cases is necessary to accomplish anything), when it involves the ArbCom it is harmful. I have always felt that Jimbo made a bad call when he suspended elections for the ArbCom last year & decided he would keep final say on its members, & one of the results is that it has started shrinking the pool of participants -- & the experience & knowledge that they bring to it. (BTW, I think your suggestions for community-building are worthy of serious consideration.) -- llywrch 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what a shame you're bothered about the above load of scrollocks. I'd give up being an admin and maybe follow the QP3A rule (OK, I made it up): three argues and stop (it saves a lot of bovva and reminds you that, unlike arguing with the boss or the wife, this is all virtual). Wikipedia is so huge, you can work down its mines forever without hearing of the above people or committees ever again.qp10qp 13:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, if those people are setting policy without going through process, as the policies will sooner or later collapse your mine. Also, if it were solely personality, I wouldn't give a fig. I'm pretty motivated by policy, policy, policy in these regards. Besides, unlike national politics, there is a chance I might actually affect a change on Wikipedia. Geogre 13:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We must with this case, to borrow a phrase "lance the boil". I hope that we will all emerge from it with our heads held high and for myself I don't care if that involves my desysopping or declerking or anything, as long as Wikipedia improves. I'm not the ogre you may think I am. Let's talk. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home, honey, I'm high

I'm here. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Comment left on subpage

I case you miss it, I've just left a comment here. I've enjoyed reading the essays you have around here. Having essays like this is something I want to do eventually! :-) Carcharoth 02:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins and such

Hello. Please read my comments on WP:ANI and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Pewlosels 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grecian information

Hi Geogre. Regarding the image Grecian Coffee House [6], do you know at which date it appeared as depicted in the engraving? I think it was done in the early 19th century; but the Grecian Coffee Housed existed since the second half of the 17th century. So is this the 17th C. elevation? By the way, there is another engraving and when you compare the two, you realise that some restauration had been carried out. Thanks. Politis 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a magnificent question. My source was vague, and that didn't do anything for my mood when I was writing. I used a 1910 "Sights of Old London" book. The work turned out to be quite useful, but it was antiquarian in its motivation and full of Beefeater nostalgia. The author had fantastic information but didn't deign to source it, and the same was true of his illustrations. The caption simply said that it was the Grecian. If there is a work past 1910 that discusses the coffee houses, I would love to know about it, as I think it's the Great Missing Doctoral Thesis, both in History and English Literature: the effect of the clubs and houses on the development of Augustan era culture. We know they're vital, as every author goes on and on about it (just hit Pepys talking about his clubs today), but no one that I know of has really traced White's or Grecian or Will's or any of the other very important places. Can you provide a link to the other sketch of it? Geogre 16:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you compare these two prints, [7] at the Guildhall Art Museum, in London. Looking at the two prints, I am not sure if the originals were black and white engravings. Also, I am puzzled by the dates of the two prints because the 1809 print shows a building that is more sophisticated in terms of windows and street level access to the cellar, than that of the c.1820 print. Could it be that the 1820 print was a copy of an older print? But I think we can safely assume that the overall facade dates back to the 17th century developments that took place after the great London fire. All that is left today of the building, I think, is the bust of Devreux hismelf which you can see above the doorway. The best, if not the only descent books on London (or English) coffee houses were printed before the 20th century and are have not been reprinted. Indeed, there is a PhD to be done, especially since, for my money, they were the hub of original, if not revolutionary thinking (as well as endless, 'speed-induced' blaberings). They were also ferquented by London's stable and transit/cosmopolitan society and fertile ground for the first newsgatherers to pick up informations from all the talk (see the broadsheets). A related article will be coming out soon and I will try and post you the link. By the way, it is named after George Constantine, a Greek who probably disembarked in London in the 1650s and eventually set up this, his second coffee shop (unless there were two George Constantines). Towards the end of his life, c.1725, he was known as the oldest coffee-shop landlord in London. Politis 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Not only were they the origin of revolutionary talk, they were a feared hub. For example, the Rota Club, the various Hellfire Clubs, were all targeted by the ministries. We know the Kit Kats were instrumental in the Whig rise of 1714. Additionally, as you say, they were news hubs, in that the news sheets would be purchased there and pasted up there (literally). Things like Anne Dodd's shop were in operation, and some of the print shops became hubs like our modern day news kiosks, but it was the coffee house where ideas were battered, where introductions were made, and where people cross-pollenated. The various club organizations would keep important through the 19th century, but the idea that the space created the club was a 17th-18th c. phenomenon. It's not such a big deal if Johnson's Literary Club digs are examined, but it's a big deal if Lloyd's or Button's or Will's is. Geogre 18:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is something new. A forthcoming book: 'Eighteenth-Century Coffee-House Culture' 4 Volume Set - Edited by Markman Ellis Publication details: Pickering & Chatto, 4 Volume Set: £350/$595, 234x156: c.1600pp: expected in October 2006. Politis 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Eeep! Ok, time to go lean on my librarian. (They've been getting money and wanting to get books. We don't have a doctoral program, so I can't say, "Oh, yes, I need this for training people specializing in periodical literature. We'll make the next Richmond Bond," but, then again, I can claim that it's important and hope they ask few questions.) Geogre 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining one's cool

FGS! [8] Giano 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kappa

Regarding your claim that "this is a bit worse than vote stacking, as this is a long, long, long time problem with articles pertaining to only one subject. It's a ridiculous monomania. It's not Kappa's first foray into the darker side of astroturf for a high school." Do you have any difs or other evidence for this claim? JoshuaZ 02:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the ways I'm most useless is that I read, I watch, and I remember, but I virtually never compile lists of diffs. Part of this is a naive belief that others will remember, too, and part of it is a basic hatred of prosecuting people. It's not that I expect to be believed above others. My reference, though, was to Schoolwatch and to some very unaccountable AfD's where he admitted to having never looked at the article he voted "keep" on (it had "school" in the title) and a case where he voted to "keep" a school article after it had been shown that the article was a hoax. I.e. for a thing with "school" in the title, he'll go beyond the rules, or has before. I don't understand that kind of idee fixe. Geogre 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the issue really. It wasn't that I didn't believe you but that I felt a need for more specifics- also I'm considering filing an RfC over Kappa's behavior. JoshuaZ 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I quite agree with you. My only useful advice would be to look at his RFA. While I'm awful, terrible, useless at diffs, some of the oppose voters after me were not. Their rationales might well have included more specific evidence. I'm personally against any voter busing on Wikipedia, but especially organized voter busing like X-watch. (If we consider talk page spamming an offense on an ArbCom case, why do we think that Schoolwatch or comics watch or any other -watch is licit? It makes no sense, as the point to both is the same: to draft voters.) Geogre 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. (Especially because regardless of the claim that anyone can have an X-watch on their watchlist people who care about the subject (and hence want it kept) are much more likely to have in on their watchlists). Incidentally, going through the RfAs I found some concerns but not the more troubling concerns that you raised (the hoax case in particular). If you have any idea where else I should go to look for it/find it let me know. JoshuaZ 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It was a school AfD. There were a ton of votes, and a bit later someone like Dunc Harris investigated and found that there was no such school. Kappa showed up after that saying, "Keep notable." I interlined and said, "You did see that it's a hoax?" He said that schools are notable. That either meant that he didn't understand what I was asking him and didn't read the comment above, or just didn't care. I don't know which, but it did nothing for my feelings toward him or his companions in that vote. Geogre 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator Review

Howdy! I've created Wikipedia:Administrator Review as a process proposal, and I would like your thoughts on the subject. I know that you have some... strong views on the subject, and I've attempted to create a process proposal that, while not demotion based, might help get quick community feedback when admin mistakes are suspected. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's redundant per WP:AN and is process creep. But what do I know? Guy 09:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to comment on the talk page to the proposal, but I think that, although, yes, it is a replication of the function of AN and even AN/I, it's not without some advantages over the present system. What's really being proposed, it seems to me, is a reorganization of AN's functions rather than a system with any real power behind it. I.e. if you get named on this page and proclaim defiance or simply that you don't need to justify yourself to anyone, there isn't any actual result except more finger wagging. For whatever it's worth, my proposal also lacked particular power and was intended to be an ArbCom matter. Would it be better to segregate complaints over admin behaviors from the rest of AN and set up a form for the discussion so that it doesn't wander off the point (as usually happens)? Maybe so. So, I agree with Guy that it's really not substantive, but I also think that it's not quite instruction creep, and it has some real merit. Geogre 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
it's also problematic because there'a already the rejected Wikipedia:Administrator review. -- nae'blis 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We're all reacting to legitimate problems, and, for a good while now, we've let the imperfection of each proposal stall us. That's why, even if I think there are problems with one solution or another, I'm not keen to be harsh. (Besides, the "AOR" thing seems to me to be too capricious.) Geogre 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm impotent

No matter how much I scream, when I'm right no one remembers. "Notably Geogre" indeed. *sniff* At least I'll always have Paris.
brenneman {L} 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tee hee. You yelled as loudly as I, but I yelled more memorably? It's the pitch and the volume that does it, I guess. :-) Also, I keep reminding people of what a Cassandra I am. If you can succeed in getting a policy, or even a guide, that gets rid of the porn bimbo bios, we'd have gotten somewhere. (The infobox for them had a space for the girl's blood type.) Geogre 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just had to intervene here, blood-type might make sense because in certain Asian countries(especially South Korea) there is an obsession about blood type somehow affecting personality. JoshuaZ 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok, it makes sense for some porno fans to care, but it's scientifically irrelevant and not really something we need to address to counter "systemic bias" and all. (Jenna Jameson and Seka need articles. Inflatable Doll #44 of this year's triple penetration anal extravaganza, maybe not.) (They have careers as long as a may fly's, but with the prolixity of a bunny, and so "stars" that lasted 3 months are getting loving "biographies" on Wikipedia.) (I feel a new Geogre's Law coming on: "Geogre's Law #8: If you don't know the person's real name, you can't write a biography of him or her." That ought to knock out screen name "biographies" and most of the may fly porno actresses.) Geogre 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This has been an education (I'm talking about the ArbCom Clerks, not the porn bios). When I started looking at arbitration pages, I just took it for granted that of course someone volunteered to do the ministerial work of cleaning up the formatting, opening pages when cases were accepted, notifying affected parties of cases and decisions, etc. I was quite surprised to learn that the ArbClerk was, in his other life, a highly controversial user and I'm even more surprised to learn that the very institution of Clerkdom has such a history to it. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm highly annoyed at Tony's resignation as clerk. He was being problematic as an admin- no one has brought up any issues with his clerking. So he is forced to lose the one he is doing well? If there was a problem with him using his admin tools he should have had those taken away and kept as a clerk. JoshuaZ 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, I agree with you that he was doing a good job as clerk (see my comments in the workshop). But we can't really gainsay the arbs' right to select their own clerks. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, I thought Tony did a good job as a clerk, too. I said that I was glad to be wrong about my fears of partiality. That doesn't alter my feelings on the position, but to reply to your specific point, I felt that the resignation from the clerkship might be a bit... theatrical or at least spiteful. I'll be happy to be wrong about that, too, but I had sensed a "you don't like my bad admin. use, so I'll stop being a clerk, and you'll be sorry." That's why I haven't spoken of it. Passive aggression is fed by active protest. Further, his resignation of that position answers absolutely nothing with regard to the case, and I doubt he's unaware of that. Geogre 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the workshop in the Giano et al. case, Tony was asked to resign by the ArbCom, which felt his actions/comments (not as clerk) were reflecting badly on it. Tony reports that he received an e-mail Charles Matthews asking for the resignation. Fred Bauder describes it as the committee's cutting off his nose to spite its face, so I gather he dissented from the decision to ask for the resignation. Newyorkbrad 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm wrong again and happy again, I guess. (Gee, I'm easy to please. All it costs is my reputation as omniscient.) ArbCom is reluctant to demote, but it danged sure won't demote an admin without an Rfar on him. There has been no Tony Sidaway Rfar on this action. It is possible that the resignation request was preliminary to an anticipated action (in the "Giano" case) or a sop or just a reaction. However, I know of only one person who has complained of Tony's actions as a clerk. Keep in mind, though, that the summaries, if they exist, are not public, so no one knows. (That's my theme, and an important one.) The person who complained of Tony's clerking actions did not, in my own opinion, meet a burden of proof. Other than that one instance, no one has complained. I still feel that Tony, Phil Sandifer, and Jtkfier were the wrong folks for the position. Geogre 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You know I'm a latecomer: I've never dealt with Phil Sandifer, and my first encounter with Jtkiefer were in the context of his most recent RfA that exploded. I thought Kelly Martin was in the first clerks' class. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I think she's far too impótent to be a clerk. Phil has been reducing his profile for a while now, but he has also shifted identities. By itself, that's nothing to even comment upon, except that it can be confusing if I speak of Snowspinner one moment and Phil Sandifer the next (same person), and I even suspect he's yet another person now. Unfortunately, Wikipedia allows sockpuppets and alternate accounts, so long as they are not used to vote stack or elude blocks. Eventually, in a particularly deep wallow in the slough of despond, I even set one up, although it was merely supposed to do more morose edits than my usual account and ended up doing maybe 10 edits, total. Anyway, these folks have been controversial beforehand, and, as I state below, I don't think "all powers not denied ArbCom belong to ArbCom," so I don't think putting wax in their ears was wise. Even if all of that had been kosher, those selections should have been iffy. <shrug> I remain Cassandra to Troy. Geogre 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
NYB, what you're running across is a debate that was never solved. Aaron and I, among many others, voiced strenuous objections to the position of the clerk because it included summarizing evidence. That put the clerk in the position of, essentially, creating a brief. Now, we were assured that this would be entirely neutral, but you know as well as I do that such a thing is impossible. However, it was also controversial and objected to because it was a group that was self-selected. When those volunteers included in their number people who had been highly controversial, it was only worse. My feeling was that the position should not exist per se. Indeed, I had no problem with someone doing the tidying, but I felt that such a person could be drafted from a pool of candidates for a specific case and then released from that duty. However, I felt and feel that summarizing is inappropriate for any user. Only if we simply could find no other way but self-selected clerks did I then say that such persons would have to be very, very critically examined. It only took one person with a slightly credible appearance of bias to fuel the trolls and create a rally point.
In other words, I wanted no clerks. If we had to have them, make them drafted. If we couldn't take a pool of volunteers to draft from, then I wanted them selected/agreed to by the disputants. If we had to have clerks, had to have them volunteer, and had to have them few and constant, then I wanted no one who had been arbitrated or RFC'd. The best solution would have been, always, to have disputants choose advocates.
What made this more than academic, and what ties it in with what I'm about to lodge on the Giano portmanteau ArbCom case, is that the way this was resolved was...secret discussion away from input by any but (guess who?) the clerks and the ArbCom. There was an assertion that this was ArbCom's business, and ArbCom could do what it wanted. It worked on the principle that any power not expressly forbidden was granted. Therefore, no one heard that the matter was decided or who decided it. It just was a fait d'accompli.
I am fed up with opacity. Even as I type this, I have reason to believe that the administrator IRC (by invitation only!) channel is full of people rumbling out hatred of "process wonks." From "Ignore All Rules" (a policy cited by people who apparently cannot read or will not read it), we have gone to "Rules are the enemy of our power; we must be unfettered to do what is best, because we know best." That kind of arrogance and myopia draws very sharp reactions, and yet it's somewhat epidemic. Geogre 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, from what I have seen so far, I've never seen anything other than impartiality in the functioning of the clerks as clerks. I'll have to give some thought to the rest of your comments. Newyorkbrad 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sidaway resigned? Where? When? I extend my best regards, as always. Hamster Sandwich 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Am I the "one person who complained" as described above? By the way, Geogre you have one of the most informative and engageing talk pages I know of. Even if I only engage with it once in a blue moon. Don'y go changin' babe... Hamster Sandwich 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The quarks of clarks

No. If you complained about his behavior as a clerk, I didn't know about it. No, someone else complained about his acting against a party in a case that he clerked. The action was an automatic one, though, so I didn't think it rose to "improper bias." The question that remains, of course, is whether summaries exist. I don't think they do, but we would never know, and that is something I object to. Thanks for the compliment.
I'm a policy oriented person. As folks have figured out, I'm not one to pay much attention to people, but a good policy debate will draw me out in a second. That means that my talk page can have some sometimes hefty policy talk (and sometimes not). Thanks for the good words, and it's good to see you about the place again. Geogre 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your question: go to the RFAR page. Click on the "Giano" case (which isn't about Giano). Then go to the Workshop page, and you'll see that Tony was told to resign as a clerk and did so. Geogre 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My beef was here [9] and not with M. Sidaway per se but with the seemingly regular practice of having "recused" parties (read: clerks, arbitrators) offer opinions and advise on active arbitrations. Seems hinkey to me somehow... I dunno? What's your take, I'd be interested to know. I think I was having some kind of meltdown during the whole Naming of the Clerks back in the winter of last year or something. It all seems so hazy right now...cough...hack... Regards> Hamster Sandwich 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a great point. I can't believe I missed it, myself. I thought I had thought of all the major illogics of the position, but you're right. That's utterly glaring. I believe those who tell me that the arbitrator-l listserv has no more life on it than "we need more people to go to this case" and "so, is that really a sockpuppet," but the fact that it could be misused is a sure enough sign that it will be. Geogre 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure you can say "it will be", but the point is that this needs to be a process that's trusted. Assuming good faith is good enough (indeed, essential) for working in a community, but for processes and positions which carry some sort of power, the standard should be higher, both trust- and competence-wise. Zocky | picture popups 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some relative correspondence can be found here [10] Hamster Sandwich 02:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly corresponding with one of the most fair minded and even handed folks in Morven. He's wrong some of the time, like everyone is, but he always seems fair, in my dealings, and concerned with doing things properly. Geogre 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
My contributions in article-space (not many this week) include law-related topics, and the RfAr talkpage discussion on this issue a couple of weeks ago led me to start polishing up recusal, so no one can say this brouhaha has done nothing for the encyclopedia. I need to get back to that article once I'm done workshopping. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Without the recent, ah, developments, I would not have created Peter and Jane, nor, I suspect, would Janet and John exist. A lesson for us all, no doubt, although pretty much a side wind. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Dang! Y'all put me to shame! All I've done since this crud began to fall from the ceiling is pastourelle and Martin Grabmann. I regard both as inferior in the extreme. I have wanted to do more, but I've been really depressed as well as depressed about this stuff. My Tiresias sense (hey, if I overuse "Cassandra" one more time, the Georgia Junior Classical League will revoke my 11th grade Mythology Championship medal) tells me it's all going to be turned into the sacrifice of two people and then plastered over as taken care of. I'm gloomy that way. Geogre 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
My view is the case is getting nowhere and should be shut down, but my suggestion to that effect on the talk page has received underwhelming support. Newyorkbrad 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Going nowhere? It's going exactly where it was destined to go: everywhere, and therefore nowhere. It's a misbegotten case, because it was started by someone who was not a plaintiff. It was begun by someone who was, in fact, an ally (some say personality) of a defendant, and therefore it was predetermined to be a mess. The actual issues of contention weren't outlined. Since it began as "The natives are restless," the result will be all the restlessness all at once. No action can be possible in such a circumstance. Nevertheless, we have a lot of infection, and people need to yell, so they should be allowed to. I promise, I'll get my view in today, if I can only get a little more energy. Geogre 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Of which "defendant" do you think InkSplotch is an ally?
Didn't I answer this? Huh. I'm not sure. We're allowed to have multiple accounts, and, if the secondary accounts don't do anything illegal, there's no justification for a checkuser request, but I do believe that InkSplotch is another long-time friend of Kelly and Tony's, someone who has already changed his account name. I may be wrong, as ever. (Did my reply get removed in the interests of not throwing allegations? If so, remove the question, too.) Geogre 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: ALoan, that Jane is hot! Our Jane was infantile, but that one looks like a shrunken teenager. Geogre 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Good god, man, she is a minor. Put her down. (Would your Jane be Dick and Jane?) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, she says she's 18! I think that Jane is our Jane, but what I remember is Dick and Sally and their cat Mittens who liked to play with a ball, a red ball and a blue ball. See Mittens? See Dick? See Sally? Maybe ours was different. After all, I recall Dick and Sally having to hide their silverware when Sherman burned down their house. Geogre 19:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps as a gesture of conciliation, we should nominate falling for collaboration of the week. I'm sure we can have it up to featured article status before too long, no? Newyorkbrad 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Even on my own talk page, I won't make the joke that irony dictates about someone's favorite article being illustrated by one's history. Geogre 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blug

I'm not sure what "blug" means, but I read through User:Geogre/Blug anyhow. I agree with a great deal of it. I will note just a couple of factual items that I think you have slightly incorrect.

  • First, in point 1, paragraph 2, you state that "[i]n all three RFA's, Carnildo refused to publically concede any mistakes in his actions nor to promise to avoid such actions in the future." However, in the recent RfA, Carnildo did belatedly state that "[b]locking Giano and El C was a mistake, which I've said several times in emails to people" (answer to question #4) and promised that "I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand" (answers to questions #4 and 5). These answers were posted very late in the RfA, but they did eventually show up. (I also have a recollection that at some point he agreed not to block anyone except for obvious vandalism for a year, but I can't find that, so maybe I am misremembering it).
  • Second, I don't think you make it clear that JoshuaZ's block of Tony Sidaway didn't come shortly after Tony's block of Giano, but several days later, after Tony unaccountably rekindled the flames with his "boil" remark.

I hope this is helpful; your presentation is well-thought-out and I didn't want it to become sidetracked by disputes about factual aspects. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    • The promise not to block anybody for a year was in Carnildo2, actually, Brad—here. You see how there wasn't even any exception for vandalism, it was a straight promise not to block at all for a year. But I think it significant that that wasn't repeated or referred to in Carnildo 3; surely that meant it wasn't good any more. (I believe "Blug" means Geogre is about to throw up.) Bishonen | talk 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
Ah. I didn't remember having looked at the prior RfA, but it seems I must have. In retrospect, someone probably should have asked him if the promise was still applicable. I haven't seen him throw any blocks in the past month so I suspect the good news is he is concentrating on the image work he said he would specialize in. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The "that was a mistake" is still relatively a non-answer. I was unaware of any public concession, but that "I have answered in e-mails" was telling. I believe that it was the private, off-wiki work that lead to the campaigning for reinstatement, and that's not acceptable, if the public's trust. An administrator who doesn't have the trust of the site is not an administrator, and the concession (grudging, made with the appearance of fingers crossed) had to have come very late. I checked on the RFA the first time on day 2, then 3, 4, and 5, so it had to come on days 6 or 7. That's a hell of a thing, and certainly enough for people to doubt its sincerity. Nevertheless, it's more of a side light to the argument than a main point. My main point is going to be, as I'm sure you know, that private discussions are good for private concerns, but they cannot be the license for public actions, and we have had a rash of both private discussion and idiosyncratic decision making here. I plan not to quote any of the material that has come to hand lately wherein Tony, Kelly, Phil Bosworth and others decry "process" as being their enemy, but it exists copiously. Geogre 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section on Carnildo's public attitudes and on the timing of the Tony block. I do need to be precise, and I welcome any corrections. The last thing I want to do is leave a loop of yarn hanging out of my sweater, as I'm going to get picked at anyway. Geogre 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please send vibes

I'm in need of calming music, lest I type something I'll regret. - brenneman {L} 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, "♩♪ Happy talk, keep talking happy talk; ♩♪ Talk about things you like to do"...
Perhaps not, um "♩♪ Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens; ♩♪ Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens"...
This is not working, is it... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dum dum dum dum de dum dum dum dum -- that's Pachabel's Canon in D minor, in case you don't know classical music. That ought to work. (Truly, you had better not bite, because that's not food; that's bait. Be serene and lofty and let him look the fool. If you get into an "are too/are not" argument, you're empowering the argumentum ad hominem. Take a look at my Blug page and give me some feedback on it. It's at user:Geogre/Blug I think. So far, some of the comments have been, "Not harsh enough" and "You can't mention that!" Yet, somehow, I am mentioning it.) Geogre 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, and on the Blug, I'm not quite done, but I am substantially done. I'm going to shorten, focus, and tighten the "Summary" section, as it is presently a first draft blurting. The sections above that are going to generally remain the same, including the sensitive matter of alluding to things that cannot be submitted in evidence without violating policy. Geogre 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Take care not to cut someone with the power of your words. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's hilarious! A valuable editor? A valuable editor? What the hell has Kelly edited in the last year?! Everything she has been doing she can continue to do without admin powers...except for blocking people and threatening them. If I have power, other than with persuasion, it's news to me. Unlike Kelly, I'm not aware of anyone coming to me for "opinions," much less thousands, and the power I've gotten has generally come from Kelly's words, and Tony's, as they indicted, tried, and hanged themselves. Geogre 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well sir, I for one do come here for your opnion, even if I might not agree with you on every issue. Here's an opinion that I might share with you... Some people can do good work and still be hard to work with. But a good manager knows it's bad to promote such people to management positions because it poisons the morale of the staff. I think your well got poisoned somewhere in your thirst for the uh, cooling waters of accountability. Speaking in terms of the direction, the management if you will, of this estimable project. I suggest an Arrowroot and a nice cup of tea to cleanse your palate. Hamster Sandwich 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See, I rather hope that people don't entirely agree with me, as that's how I can learn things. And, if I'm wrong, it's just as much as I expect from myself. (Umberto Eco's Preface to Travels in Hyper Reality is one of my favorite statements. He's sincere, I think, when he says that he's sure that the next person who speaks knows more than he does, that he's always afraid that he's wrong.) Kelly and Tony are overt examples, but the attitude that they enacted is, I'm afraid, more widespread. Then again, what do any of us care if X or Y thinks he's better than everyone else? So long as he doesn't start trying to override everyone, he can believe what he wishes. What drew all these smitings is that Kelly and Tony have put their beliefs into action, have blocked because they think it's right, even if there is no policy that allows it, and have sought to destroy people who insist on what they call "process" but I call "policy." Instead of realizing that, if "democracy is evil," the problem is in how you've defined your democracy, these people (in general) decided that it means that autocracy is authorized. Instead of realizing that "wikilawyers" are annoying because of the number of reviewers and their reading skills, they have decided that anyone who retards any unilateral action is an enemy. The seeds of destruction were sown at the start.
As for the valuable work, I don't know what to say. Maybe so. However, I've said before that administrators can perform three or four areas of action, and we're not equally gifted at each. Of all the things we can do, conflict resolution is the rarest skill, and someone who works her way "up" the system through tags and copyright isn't necessarily going to be any good at conflict. Geogre 03:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Page Protection

May you please protect the page German language? Myself and User:Rex Germanus are in an edit dispute, and apparently neither of us is willing to give ground, although I have already offered a compromise. Ameise -- chat 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, what's with the Inksplotch stuff?

Over at that RfArb, you've twice [11] [12] used the phrasing "Kel(l)...er...Inksplotch". Sp what is going on there? I thought I'd ask you here, before bringing this up at the RfArb page (though I am sure someone else will pick up on it). If you have any concrete evidence that Inksplotch is a sock puppet of someone called Kel(l)..., I think you should share it, rather than make insinuations. I've read the debate about sockpuppets at the RfArb, and I'm not entirely convinced and prefer to assume good faith. Carcharoth 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You're entitled to assume good faith, but the history of InkSplotch is curious to the point of incredibility. Evidence? Why, no, I am not a checkuser. Someone who did have checkuser status might know how it works, and, of course, no one has filed a checkuser request on the user anyway. Who might have checkuser status? I'm willing to go along with the pretense until credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point, and then it's time to ask for unmasking. Geogre 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. That has helped me understand where you are coming from. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you're free to bring up as evidence that I am failing to believe InkSplotch's statements that she is a new account. If that is a crime, then there are a whole lot of criminals about. AGF is not "Be a fool." Geogre 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly. I'm not going to do that. Can't speak for others though. Carcharoth 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

May I add three cents? Not for Geogre but for Carcharoth, whom I both respect a great deal. Just continuing at this talk to preserve the context. I made it clear at ArbCom's subpage that I consider InkSplotch to be not a new account. She is fiercely loyal to Tony but I don't think she is Tony. She may or may not be Kelly but she is not a new account for sure. How would you describe an account which upon creation goes directly to WP:AN and dives for the rest of her edits exclusively into the Policy discussions? Sock or reincarnation, Kelly or not, this is someone who wants to do work sneakily in the most sensitive pages of Wikipedia. --Irpen 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • My opinion is solely my own, but I think it's Kelly Martin. It talks like Kelly Martin, and Kelly Martin definitely knows how checkuser works -- not that, at this point, such knowledge would even be necessary. Thematically and rhetorically, the user is like Kelly. Further, the article edits (there actually have been a couple, before going straight back to AN/I) are to KM's interests. I may be wrong. I'm wrong a lot. I shouldn't matter. It's just that some of the comments on the workshop page were such that I felt it was almost as if directly in KM's voice. Geogre 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, it is trivial for a sock to be not checkuser detectable and one does not even need to use open proxies for that. It would be worse to use open proxies, actually, because checkuser would show the open proxy. Any stable remote account to which a user can SSH and start a Firefox remotely would do the trick. With fast connection on both ends editing would be seemless. If InkSplotch is indeed Kelly (which is likely), the fraud won't be detectable via checkuser anyway. The evidence, however circumstantial, that InkSplotch is a sock is overwhelming and undeniable. It also pretty strongly suggests that InkSplotch is indeed Kelly. In the latter case, checkuser would be simply of no use (as it would be for any network literate person with an account at the remote computer) and circumstantial evidence is all that we would get. Throughout this arbitration I assumed that InkSplotch is a sock, likely, but not 100% of Kelly. Geogre knows Kelly's editing habits better than myself (3 weeks ago you would not have found me outside the mainspace, before the debacle took place). If Geogre arrived to the same conclusion, I just think more so. --Irpen 01:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter, except that it gives the lie to "I've handed in my bit" bit and "I'm gone" gestures. Kelly is more addicted than anyone on the site, probably, although not necessarily to the articles. It's just aggravating when someone's pretended persona gets so obviously like the previous (also renamed) identity as to be impossible to pretend any longer. Oh, and I added some stuff to the OOP talk page, if it's helpful. Geogre 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. The third Inksplotch edit, pointed out by Irpen, was to replace an IP address with Inksplotch's signature. If you look at the contributions by that IP, the first edit was this one. I do see where you two are coming from, but I'll just say that the whole subject of sockpuppets makes me queasy if I think about it too much! Thanks anyway for explaining. Carcharoth 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If Kelly comes back under another name, but does not resume the same rude and disruptive behavior we've become accustomed to, where's the problem? I don't want to know whether it's her or not - I just want everyone to behave like a reasonable adult. If Kelly is able to do so, I care little what she calls herself. Maybe Inksplotch will slide into poor behavior, but so far he's been way less rude than Kelly, unless I've missed something. Friday (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes a hundred times over. All I have wanted, all I want now, is no unilateral blocks, no attempts at intimidation, no implying that one is a super good friend and drinking buddy with Jimbo and therefore unaccountable. As far as it goes, I agree with you entirely. Where I don't agree, though, is in the RFAR. It's not licit to vote twice on FAC, for example, or to generate artificial consent by multiplying your voice on AfD, DRV, or anywhere else. The question is whether Kelly is agreeing with herself. If she is submitting a justification for herself, but under another name, that's misleading. If she is saying, "I agree with Kelly Martin," she is multiplying her voice. I think the InkSplotch account has very, very narrowly missed these things, which is more, I feel, evidence that they are the same person. However, one of the big issues for me has been the existence, manipulation, and exploitation of cabalistic star chambers. If Kelly is "gone" but not, then we will not know (as no one other than her supporters did know) if she is saying fantastically improper things and urging contra politic motions. The on-wiki face of Kelly Martin was so small as to be missed without a telescope, except when she began stomping on userboxes and the like. I submit that, with this particular user, we won't necessarily know if the leaf has turned over. Geogre 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, as for the back channels, there's nothing much to be done, right? We can't stop people from spewing poisonous garbage in some IRC room. The minute it spills over onto the wiki we can try to nip it in the bud, though. We could perhaps, on a particularly lucky day, encourage a culture where such back room criticisms are discouraged, and those who participate in them are exposed and lose whatever credibility they may have had. For now, we can look extremely harshly on any editor who continues the spooky "Oh, you're being watched, trust me" kind of intimidation that sadly has become too commonplace. I personally intend to denounce such statements loudly and publically, if I see them being made again. Friday (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I said something to the effect of "We can be sure that he will be closely watched" concerning Carnildo during his RfA. I don't think that was innappropriate in the context of things. Thoughts? Ideas? Hamster Sandwich 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Bah. Would somebody hand me a narrower brush? I guess I used the wrong one. Implying that a given situation will get many on-wiki eyeballs pointed at it is perfectly good, IMO. Implying that a secret roomfull of watchers has put one on their "enemies list" is a whole different story. Friday (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable this might be as evidence but here's a diff from Kelly Martin [13] answering a question of mine at precisely the same minute as Inksplotch was commenting elsewhere [14] - I'm sure it's possible to do both - but it wouldn't be easy and that's a hell of deception, just to conceal a sock. Ink is clearly a sock or a resurrected user of someone - I'm not convinced it's kelly though. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not just "possible" but absolutely trivial for anyone. Pls understand, that the network literate person, epsecially the one who knows the Checkuser operation, would certainly not login to two different accounts from the same IP. As such, one has a browser open under one account at his physical IP and a remote SSH connection from that very same computer to a remote IP. In the remote IP a separate browser is also open under a different account name. It would take no effort to post simultaneously (well within a second anyway).
But that's not the issue, really. I agree with Geogre and Friday here. If InkSplotch is an account that would behave reasonably, there is nothing wrong with it being Kelly's. When it lodges a pro-Kelly ArbCom it is a different story.
As for Kelly remaining "secretly" onwiki, I am sure she is looking but that, again, does not bother me. What does bother me is the access of Kelly to confidential or semi-confidential info to which she is not supposed to have access anymore. Raul made it clear that she is not in the Arbcom-L anymore. Did she loose the access to the admin IRC? I assume her admin or arbcom friends are able to forward her whatever IRC/Mailing-list content they see fit and I see nothing wrong with that. She can also have a separate IRC chat room with her fans/supporters, but not being able to participate in the normal channels would still undermine Kelly's authority to sneakily impose her influence on Wikipedia. I don't object to influencing Wikipedia in the normal way as we all do. People look up to certain admins, arbitrators and prolific editors. Nothing wrong with that. Sorry Geogre for overloading your talk. --Irpen 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

See last entry on Tony Sidaway's talkpage. See also Dmcdevit's comments on the /Workshop talkpage. See also Fred Bauder's draft of the first part of a /Proposed Decision. (Sorry, I'm typing on a handheld and can't do diffs on here.) Newyorkbrad 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the first one and the second one, but I've never had my mood improved by looking at Fred's first draft's. I don't mean this as disrespect to Fred, but he and I are very far apart in our philosophies, and the last time I read a first draft, he was advocating no punishment for Eternal Equinox and a month's block of Giano. That was the sort of mistake I would like to assume came from haste. I do not wish to believe he was thinking it through, as I'm not cut out for campaigning. Geogre 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly I remember the EE episode; that's when I first "met" you, Giano, Bishonen, et al. Newyorkbrad 02:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's phenomenally tiring to go into all of this stuff. I support Tony's demotion, voluntary or not, because he is expressing still the idea that he was only interested in doing things that are outside of the proscribed roles of administrators. He never did anything questionable as a clerk, so far as I am aware, but, since I still do not believe that the clerk position was properly defined or circumscribed, I can't exactly say that I think his withdrawal (forced, I suppose) was a thing to protest. He did the job uncontroversially, but I don't think the job was properly defined. Geogre 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a reason I gave you this heads-up: I saw you plugging away at the workshop and didn't think you should feel obliged to continue editing items re Tony Sidaway that seem about to become moot. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose that was just the outrage of bad rhetoric requiring an answer. I know I shouldn't, but it's one of those things where one keeps believing that the right argument will turn the key in someone's mind or at least shame someone into not acting on inappropriate impulses. Mainly, I've been arguing with Fred, and I reckon no good can come of that, either. If this thing ever ends even somewhat placidly, I can finally archive this damned talk page, which must be over 100K by now. Geogre 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know I've said it before, but this time I really mean it...

Have my babies. - brenneman {L} 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I wouldn't want to troll by disagreeing. Geogre 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful brenneman, he's just hungry... Hamster Sandwich 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redflag

See the /Proposed Decision page and my comments on talk. I suggest that you not respond today but you should know what's there. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't even make sense as a case of petty vindictiveness. It's incomparably stupid. Let's suppose that I have been a long time problem "battle"r. Let's suppose that this "battle" has been not about policy, but just because of personal grudges (which is what the page cited refers to). Let's suppose all that to be the case. Let's suppose all of that. What does it have to do with my administrator's status? In what way are administrative tools involved in any of this? Have I blocked someone in the "battle?" Have I deleted or protected a page in it? If the author had wanted to stamp his foot and protest being shown up as a fool for writing a page of contradictory and semantically void "decisions," then he should have proposed a block for "battle" violations. The administrator's status is unrelated, unless I have been doing bad admin actions (like blocking people to "cool off" or revealing checkuser data publically and then saying that I'm allowed because I'm important, the way Kelly Martin has done). Geogre 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Steady on stallion. (To mix my farmyard metaphors.) You've got a full head of steam on, I know. (Now I'm onto mechanical ones. I shall resist the urge to complete the triumverate with a vegtable.) But, from someone who has often said too much... you're saying too much. (Which is easy for me to say as I'm not being bushwhacked.) - brenneman {L} 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. We all know it's easier to tell people not to raise to bait than to avoid rising to bait ourselves. The problem here is that the baiting is by someone I'm not allowed to engage, and Mackensen isn't entirely innocent of "power." He acts within policy, and I have no complaint about his actions, but I think his desire to make a point is leading to giving credence to an incredible position. Well, I have to be awake in 5 hr, so I'll let all others say their fill or keep their silence. Geogre 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I think you owe Mackensen an apology, you mixed him up with Fred, or misread his comment as supporting the sysopping. I know that the proposed decision made you upset, and rightly so, but you know I know you know that your family, dog, fish, flees, and the bumm in the street are all living things, while all of this is just electrons flying through chunks of copper and silica. It's not worth getting real-life-upset over. Zocky | picture popups 06:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree, Zocky, about the need for an apology, because showing up, as a former ArbCom member, and offering a rationale for Fred's statements lent them credibility, when they were otherwise clearly too weak to be supported. His distinction from Fred was buried. As for whether I am being real life upset, it's not Fred's motion. Fred makes motions like this, and they fail. No, what is upsetting is when otherwise reasonable people, like Mackensen, appear to gloss over some extraordinarily grave violations of Wikipedia policy to chase after a private subpoint. In other words, having someone swing wildly and weakly, as Fred did, is ignorable. Having someone else go up to that person and say, "No, no. Swing in a straight line...like this...and put more force into it....thusly" is upsetting. Geogre 09:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you saying Mackensen is not an arbcom member? I thought he was, why does he always sound (to me) like he is then? Giano 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen is not currently an ArbCom member, though he used to be. Currently, he spends a fair amount of time at RfCU running (and more often rejecting) CheckUser requests. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
My comments there showed more ire than I desired, mainly because I was tired and speaking in half thoughts. Mackensen has a valid point he wants to make, that we all need to be civil. He has another point that's valid and with which I wholly disagree: administrators become leaders. I don't want to argue my disagreement here and now, but I invite him, certainly, to talk it out calmly on a page at some appropriate time. However, to make this point, or because of his beliefs, he, intentionally or not, ended up lending a great deal of credibility to Fred's argument, credibility it did not deserve. Fred's whole decision shows an overt advocacy and hostility, and this is the most outrageous part, perhaps. To have this most heinous section given credence will, I think, lead those who look up to Mackensen to think, "Well, if this most outlandish thing can be argued, maybe all the others, like thanking Kelly and ignoring any misdeeds, is right." That really outraged me, and it did so because of the damage I think may follow. Geogre 15:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm, calm, please

Let me add a voice to the chorus urging restraint with respect to your statements about Fred Bauder. He's here in the role of judge, and judges are traditionally assumed beyond politics personally. That's not saying that he actually is or isn't, but it's a very useful assumption to make, like Wikipedia:Assume good faith - it sometimes becomes a self-fulfilling assumption, and even when it doesn't, it makes you look a lot better. Even if you don't think he is neutral, please pretend that you do. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another voice - it is faintly ridiculous that an Arbitrator is complaining that someone has been talking too much in a debate about policy and then in the resulting case. I wonder who has made the most edits to the relevant pages, hmm?
As for the borderline personal attack, surely it puts his position as an arbitrator in this case into question.
However - you have been carrying the argument on this one for long enough (many thanks, by the way - you have done it in a far more loquacious manner than I could have done) and you have plenty of friends - not because of who you are, but because of what you say and do. Let them (us) make some sweet mood music on your behalf for a while. I could carry on, using words like "bait" and "troll", but will now stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I told myself last night that I wouldn't even bother looking. I didn't follow through. I told myself last night that I wouldn't even open the site today. I have. Up above a bit, you can see why, I suppose. I'm not worried about Fred. I've counselled people in the past, on multiple occasions, not to worry about Fred. He's pretty overt in his bias, and his motions rarely get more than one more vote. It was my own fault that Mackensen replied, I guess, because Fred had trolled me into expressing contempt for his logic. Once I did that, once I pointed out the wholesale irrationality of his position, that invited Mackensen to "explain" it. That was the outrage that I couldn't leave alone, because, unlike Fred Bauder, Mackensen is respected and is looked up to. Without voting, I felt that he had just swung three votes to principles that were so obviously without merit as to have disgraced their author. I was the wrong person to object, but I was the only person at the time to have felt that danger. I should retire from the field and let people assert things that are not so and let others point out the problems. I do wish someone would note that Fred's responsible for the talk page to the decision heading the same way as the Workshop: to 3 transcluded pages. It's shambolic. Geogre 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reversing your strikethrough. I wasn't defending thr evidence (indeed I haven't even read it). I was just keen that it didn't become annother battleground. Arbcom are at liberty to dismiss it, or a clerk to remove it (maybe that would be best). Do you have any objections to me moving our conversation to the talk page? --Doc 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, until the evidence is signed. Once it is signed, or once a clerk makes a decision, then our conversation serves no purpose, but I think the oddity of the evidence needs some flag. I wish I could say that I have confidence that every voting arbitrator has considered all of the evidence on the evidence page well. I still have hopes that they have, but I can't have confidence anymore, and so I think some sort of caveat needs to remain until there is a more official and proper motion. Geogre 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone has added an —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs) to it, as I suggested. Will that do, or do you want Cyde to sign in person? --Doc 11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
'Twas I, Leclerc. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, what I want is for either the caveat to remain or there to be some ruling of admissability of non-partite submission of non-Wikipedia evidence. We can move the evidence with the caveat to the talk page, or remove the caveat with a warning, but there needs to be some indication that this is irregular stuff. We don't know that Kelly intended this to be pasted in. For all we know, it was done against her will, and since, in the evidence, she says "this isn't Wikipedia" so she "doesn't have to be civil," it's a pretty damning thing, as it contains some really overt violations of WP:NPA. I would think she wouldn't want this posted, since she wrote it thinking that it "was not Wikipedia." Geogre 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I think the best we can do it attribute it properly (to Cyde, who added it), rely on the links to the blog to show that she (or someone pretending to be her) wrote it, and wait for a decision by an arbitrator (I'm not sure why clerks should be making decisions about admissibility of evidence).
I agree, it is unlikely that she intended it to be posted there, and it would be a pretty easy way to avoid NPA and other policies if external blog posts can (on request or not) be posted as evidence. On the other hand, I think IRC and mailing list comments are occasinally taken in evidence, so why not statements on blogs (so long as the attribution, etc, is done properly). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly advice

Seriously, just don't get involved in this conversation at this point. It won't help anything. Nandesuka 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, because the premise is wrong. I do wish someone else had made the point that no one much follows me. Would Ghirla and I be in agreement often? We'd never crossed paths until the issues that came into this thing (the irrational RFAR). People may admire me or may listen to me, but I respect all of those people far, far, far too much to think that they can be lead, much less lead by me. Kelly claimed that she lead an army of thousands who looked to her for opinions. I lead no one. I don't want to lead anyone. I have avoided standing for any position that's higher profile than admin. Geogre 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Nandesuka's request. Let's consult WP:TROLL: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves". I've had some experienced of dealing with Ideogram, so my advice is to stick to the policy delineated above. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I'm out. I was willing to go as long as it looked like we might have the material where no one would miss it (one thing about repetition is that it makes things so long that no one reads them, which then makes you need to repeat something elsewhere, which makes the other person repeat, which makes it so long no one reads it, which...), but there isn't, in my view, enough to assume that any good could come. If I'm so persuasive and stuff, then there really shouldn't be any ambiguity in my position. Geogre 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you plan to make a 500 word answer every time Fred leaves a non-sequitur on that page? Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The serious 500 pound query I haven't made, and that's the one taking his "finding of fact" that I have alledged that the current power structure of Wikipedia has administrators harming editors. I clicked on the link he provided (not entered into evidence or mentioned in the workshop), and it hasn't even the first word that could come close to that interpretation. That's not surprising, since I have never thought the thing I'm supposed to have said. I have said and say still that there is no power on Wikipedia, that we have only tasks, not powers. And Fred has no power greater than you or I, either. However, by convention he has one thing only that he is allowed to do that the rest can't: he can write on the page that says "only members of ArbCom should write on this page," and he has used that to make statements never alledged, never argued, and never proven. That's a pretty hostile act. He threaded "Kelly is sad, and we must not be mean" throughout the proposals, and always to say, essentially, "We shouldn't ask these questions."
Well, you see, that same illogic came up at the Eternal Equinox case. That child had been disrupting pages for half a year, but then he had his summer vacation. Since his home IP's had been blocked long ago, he did his damage at his school library. Therefore, he announced that he was leaving forever goodbye. Fred bought into the argument that that meant that the case didn't need to really go forward. Sure enough, school got back in session on Sept. 5, and the child was right back to disrupting the place. In other words, I think it's a matter of logic and basic good thought to say something about that idea. "Kelly is gone, so stop asking for answers" is not sound.
Also, although I stayed as far away as possible, I thought that Kelly's role in the userbox fiasco warranted serious injunction, but she again "quit," so the rulings were weakened, in my view, or lessened. People quitting a position in a melodramatic twirl doesn't stop the need to make a ruling on whether the behavior was just or not. I don't want punishment, but I do want the precedent set that spending 4 hours a night talking about who you want "gone" from Wikipedia is bad practice, that threatening people is bad practice, that saying vile things on a blog and then pasting it into Wikipedia does not except you from the rules of Wikipedia just as conducting Wikipedia business on a non-public venue like IRC does not establish consensus. At present, I'm told that I am, by name, being accused of all sorts of things on Kelly's blog and being accused of "libel" on IRC. Well, that's a legal threat, and it would be the sort of thing we'd give an instant ban (not block) over if it were on Wikipedia. Because it's not... well, that's ok, then. I don't want any person's life ruined, but I want those practices to cease, and I have to say that trying to hide it in vagueness and excuses is not satisfactory.
Still, this is only my talk page, and these are merely my opinions. I will not press it, but the entire "I have quit! I'm telling you this on a Wikipedia IRC channel, but can't you see that I'm not here" is cheap and passive aggressive.
I don't espect anyone else to get it, but the things that draw me out are the irrational statements. A person disliking me or my words, or insulting my writing, doesn't mean much. I'm way too old and accomplished to worry over such things. However, I feel like mounting the charger when I see poor Dame Logic in tatters, being accosted and violated by people wanting to abridge rights or varnish over wrongs. I get upset at the current US president declaring there is no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and that there is a major connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and I get upset when ...things like these have been said. Geogre 03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That seemed like a 500 word answer to a yes or no question. --Ideogram 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am formally requesting that you not communicate with me on my talk page unless it is a matter of Wikipedia policy that requires my attention. Thank you for understanding. Geogre 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I will cease until you tell me I may resume. --Ideogram 03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Always willing to talk to you

I am sorry you no longer wish to talk to me. If you ever change your mind, I would be happy to accommodate you. I will watchlist your talk page. --Ideogram 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)