User talk:Abd/Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Banned from editing this page"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting points at the RfC (GoRight)

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

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

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

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

Please show some restraint. Your edits are now being reverted as "vandalism" [1]. This isn't good, even if you perhaps disagree. Wiki isn't here for playing games and tweaking people - that will get you blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus and community

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

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

To make you aware of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?

This[2] is now the second time that i find strange claims by you about my editing. Without commenting at all on the content issues - where i of course disagree. What exactly is this referring to:

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

I've just looked through the history for minor edits around that time - and i can't seem to find any. So where is that? The other issue - was this [3] ... which anon editor did i revert? Frankly i can't find any reverts of such an article anywhere, that i should've done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just a single note: Solomon did know how to use talk pages - since he contacted me on my talk-page the 27th [4], where i did explain that WP:V was the trouble. Verifiability not truth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5], [6]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Intimidation

Please stop with the intimidation efforts. As Stephan Shulz noted above: your implied threads ("topic ban", "de-sysoped", ...) are simply incivil. You have used such threats on several occaisions - most recently as "trash your admin bit" here: [7]. Consider this a warning, future use of such comments will be viewed as harassment. Vsmith (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Just like clockwork. As soon as someone points out the obvious, they're accused of harassment, no matter how politely or civilly they go about it. Let the witch hunt begin. Abd, perhaps you now understand why things are the way they are, and why you should just drop it. If you continue, you will be banned. That's not a warning, that's reality. See also [8]. You have been identified as an undesireable and are scheduled for termination. :-/ ATren (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Strunk and White 4th ed. II.17 (but except for the numbering it seem to be unchanged from the 1918 edition[9])--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Connolley once accused my prose of being prolix, [10], to which I responded "I apologize if you find my text too prolix. I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future.", [11]. For some reason he then responded by deleting the entire conversation from his talk page and complaining on mine, [12]. He is very difficult to please. :)

Geeze, I just finished reading some of the Arbcom evidence at [13]. That's quite a list of edit warring and admin power tripping. I wonder why people can't see this for what it is ... --GoRight (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

MfD nomination of User:Abd/Allemandtando

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, you will collect lengthy files about people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smile!

Smile!

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

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

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

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

Help

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

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

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

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

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

Routemaster

The following was posted to User talk:Oxyman42, [15] --Abd (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm.... Because of something else I saw, I put a friendly warning -- not a formal warning with "warning!" in the edit summary -- on Minky's Talk page.[16] He removed it with Please respect my wishes and leave my talk page alone. I'm starting to get one of those bad feelings. Minky has the right to ask me to leave his talk page alone, except for formal warnings. This editor, however, is driving down the same road as User:Allemandtando was speeding along. Deletionist editors who watch my Talk, please take a look at Minky, and help him to remain civil. It is essential that article deletion be handled in a civil and helpful manner. Minky does a lot of speedies and a quick look seems to justify most of what he does. But it is easy to make mistakes with speedies, and users will get pissed, so a "speedy deletionist" should be well armored against incivility, and should never be uncivil, and should be helpful to editors who are upset. Below is a cookie from a user whose article Minky speedied. The speedy deletion notice was proper and told how to recover the file. But the user, as is common, was upset. Minky's response wasn't -- in this case -- particularly uncivil, but neither was it helpful. I responded to that user, reminding him or her of what the speedy notice had stated about recovering a deleted article, and also suggesting to the user a bit more calm. The cookie below was the result. One less pissed-off user, who can now develop the article at leisure. Please, help editors who take on the dirty work that Minky has taken on to keep from getting damaged by it. --Abd (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right again!

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

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

A Question About Sandboxes

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fredrick day

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

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

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

civility and deletion etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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