User talk:Abd/Archive 3

Archive 1 Archive 2

Grand Panjandrum inaugurates my freshly cleaned Talk page

you moved quickly to remove any suggest that you are pulling OMs strings - sadly, from the recent posts on this page, the cat is out of the bag. Section31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am gratified to see that the first post in my fresh, clean Talk page is from a Grand Panjandrum sock. I must be doing something right. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day#User:Fredrick day. I wish I were pulling OMs strings. He'd not have been blocked.--Abd (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am *not* filing a report on AN/I, even though this IP should be immediately blocked. Too much trouble. Not worth my time.--Abd (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you not so busy being smugly self-righteous, Abd, you might have noticed that

• The matter was already being discussed on AN/I;
• Both User:Fredrick day and User:87.114.141.40 were already blocked.

You are far too fond of your fantasy of being persecuted for your ideas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just looking at those pages and missed it. The active IP account wasn't blocked a few minutes ago. Fantasy? Well, let's say that I'm old enough to know what's real and what is not. I'm not being persecuted. Have you seen any place where I claimed that I was? The diff you gave doesn't show it. This error on your part is an example of what happens here. People, like you, project what they imagine on what other people write. I have not been persecuted here. It was tried and the person attempting it (James Salsman, through some socks, starting with User:BenB4) was blocked, quickly. Don't confuse me with Jordan. He's being persecuted, and that is one very complicated question. Now, "Smugly self-righteous" is a personal attack. If you don't respond appropriately here, I will place the appropriate warning on your Talk page. Your choice. The next steps won't really be up to me.--Abd (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you wrote above, I see that you did the block of Fd, even though you didn't get the active IP, at least not yet. [you did get the active IP]. Congratulations. You get some points for that. I still expect an apology for the personal attack, but ... we are judged by the balance of our deeds, may the good outweigh the bad for you.--Abd (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see the AN/I report you mention above. The discussion on AN/I was mine, did I miss another one? Your comment is strange, regarding that. But AN/I is really far too active to follow, like the Village Pump. Part of the problem. DYK that the founder of AN later concluded it was a mistake? (I think he is incorrect, but that attention needs to be paid to how it is done so that scale does not continue to make it even more cumbersome)--Abd (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much Abd for your intervention against my block! Users who manage to stand up against the level of accusations I have been subjected to are rare, and I truely appreciate your support in this respect. I did not know you before I think, but I am very grateful that you have been around! Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abd for your advice. PHG (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern

(in response to your comment at Akhilleus' talkpage) Correct, you had not been on the VAV talkpage. You have, however, since showing up at the MfD, suddenly appeared at many other places in the PHG dispute, often with unhelpful language. Then, you followed the disputants into unrelated places, such as the DreamGuy WP:AE thread, and then to the talkpage of the admin that closed the thread. Looking at your contribs: Abd (talk · contribs) it seems that you spend a lot of time doing this, jumping from dispute to dispute on Wikipedia. May I suggest that you might want to spend some time actually working on articles? --Elonka 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him, and now against DG. Why is this your concern? You said elsewhere that you were tired of following PHG around cleaning up his messes. Why have you taken on this task? Has it occurred to you that maybe you would not be the best person for that job? From reviewing your behavior around this, it seems to me that you think that Wikipedia will fall apart if you do not stop the likes of PHG and DG. Personally. Absolutely, there is a severe problem with incivility, but additional incivility is not going to solve it.

Your description of the events is warped. For example, I did make that comment on the DG AE thread; I came across it because of looking at PHGs AE thread, where you were pushing, as I recall, for him to be blocked. From history, I saw that PHG had commented there, that is why I took a look at it. I wrote something for it, put it up, and then saw that the report had been closed. I read the closure notice and was impressed, so I congratulated the closing administrator. And then *you* responded with "less than helpful comment." I wasn't following you around at all.

As to working on articles, if I feel like it. We each do what we can, when we can. Lately, I've been working on process, it is my major interest outside. I do notice disputes, though I haven't been seeking them out, getting involved in process seems to lead to those places. And something I have noticed: you are there a lot, pushing for sanctions. To return the favor of your suggestion about working on articles, have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned? --Abd (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd, as with pretty much everything else that you've posted on these topics, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You see a situation, you make a snap judgment, usually wrong, and then you start chastising people as though you have some authority to correct their behavior, even though you have completely misjudged the behavior in the first place. Some of the comments that you have been making about me have been borderline personal attacks. I am telling you now, stop it. If you persist with negative (and false) statements about my character, I will be forced to escalate this matter. --Elonka 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I would invite you to look a bit closer at the editor you are defending, Abd. Many editors and admins have spent days at a time trying to counsel him, with no lasting effect. In order to be counseled, the person being subjected to such has to actually want the counseling. If they don't, al the good intentions in the world aren't going to affect matters. I would also like to point out that I am the one who filed the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, and Elonka said very little on the page, compared to those who have since awarded each other barnstars for protecting the underdog without knowing that that particular dog has a history of biting. I would welcome any comment you may have, but I would ask that you take some time to read some of the lengthy notes surrounding DreamGuy's actions within Wikipedia; I realize they are rather extensive, but I feel that it would provide you with a fuller picture of whom you are protecting. I am aware of the ideals you are pursuing; I am just not convinced that the current subject of your passion is deserving of the effort. - - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. I would urge you to re-examine what I've done. It is not to defend DG or PHG. It is to defend the Wikipedia community, against rampant AGF failure. I don't believe I attacked any user, and certainly not Arcayne. (Elonka is more complicated, because she is more, shall we say, active in confrontation.) Let me repeat this: DG is not the subject of my passion. He could be a total jerk for all I know, or he could be an embattled editor with human failings, like most of us, responding to a bad situation with bad actions. I am suggesting that, in response to provocations, we not fall into incivility ourselves. We can deal with disruption without becoming uncivil. It's pretty simple. Someone who is disrupting Wikipedia should be blocked. It does not matter whose fault it is. However, when we make blocks into punitive actions, when we condemn those we believe we need to block, we do enter a very dangerous territory. A block should never be a punishment. And if it is a protection, anyone can be blocked for the welfare of the project. We are both too reluctant to block and too block-happy when faced with a "bad" user. And to address this will require patient work, to clean up block policy and practice to avoid the abuses -- and I see plenty of them -- and make it easier to protect the project and prevent collateral damage. I must remind readers that WP:AGF is a basic policy, it is fundamental. I know little about DG, I know more about PHG. ArbComm specifically found that it could continue to assume PHG's good faith. I'd suggest that this be considered binding on the community just as the other aspects of the decision are considered binding with PHG. There are means that do not involve any incivility for dealing with the hazards and problems presented by DG and PHG, and all of us -- including them -- will benefit if we find and follow them. Adversarial debates are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We actually have an excellent system, if the community is awake and concerned, and one vulnerable to terrible abuse if it is not. --Abd (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2008

Removal of IP and probable block evasion edits from my Talk Page

First of all, my thanks to the editors who have reverted these edits. I will, however, restore some of them here, to respond specifically to them as I choose. TenOfAllTrades, you may continue, should you so desire, to revert any vandalism or abusive edits to my pages. Equazcion, please refrain from removing any material at all from my User pages, no matter who placed it. Elsewhere, you can certainly do that.

Generally, though, any editor, unless specifically asked not to, may remove blatant vandalism here. However, merely abusive or insulting posts, however, such as those by the IP editor or the probable sock evaders, should not be removed. I'll handle that. This is intended to cause minimum wikifuss for others. An exception: posts here which clearly violate NPA, involving editors other than me, as with any such offensive material anywhere, may be removed. I'll mediate any disputes which arise in my Talk pages.

Meanwhile, the time to clean up is not while the shit is still hitting the fan. It is slowing down, to be sure, but I've also got Other Stuff To Do.--Abd (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

edit by User:Fredrick day sock (probable)

I have restored this here because I believe it raises important issues.

He's too busy, using meatpuppets trying to push his agenda to allow sockpuppets to have multiple votes, to get involved in anything as mundane as editing. Section31--87.114.10.155 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This was a continuing remark after an edit by Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC). This was a typical User:Fredrick day IP sock post, the kind I've been referring to. It attempts to stir up opposition and assumptions of bad faith by making charges that might have some basis on the surface. This user was able to do this very effectively in the process involving User:Larry E. Jordan, where what were actually lies were probably accepted as true by many of those commenting. The ABF and incivility were blatant on the surface, however, as with the above (removed by TenOfAllTrades properly). What I'm pointing out with this example is that a relatively minor offense arguably blockable, and arguably defensible as minor, was exaggerated into something shockingly awful by the implications being cast upon it, first of all, and the community was so busy piling on with reaction like that that it failed to notice who had started the flap (or certainly poured gasoline on it immediately). Blatantly uncivil posts were being made by this user, as an IP editor, with no response, it was only when User:Kmweber figured out what was going on that attention went to this abusive editor. I've seen this pattern more than a few times. The community seems to have a tendency to scapegoat, to ritually stone an alleged offender (and often the offenses are very real), while overlooking worse behavior in the crowd throwing the stones.

There are three charges in this block-evader's edit.

(1) "He's too busy." Basically, yes, while I'm dealing with policy and community process, I'm not editing articles, are at least not much. I happen to think that, at this point, process has become more important than article editing, at least for me. The Wikipedia community is slowly but surely being destroyed by an accumulation of ill will, piling up from failure to recognize the serious systemic problems. Wikipedia is chewing up and spitting out excellent editors who also happen to be human beings who have faults. We need to address this, and that is probably a major part of my work over the next months. I do not work disruptively, but I do, by the nature of this work, sometimes respond to disruption, for it is a manifestation of my concerns and it can, sometimes, demonstrate what I see. This sock wants to lay charges against me, with this comment, of not being a real editor, only concerned with making trouble for real editors, for he knows that this charge is one which is often applied in justifying blocks.

(2) "using meat puppets." This probably refers to the single user who had a series of accounts, the latest being, now, some of what currently seem to me to be block-evading socks of User:Larry E. Jordan, which just appeared today. (He seems to have stayed away from editing for a remarkable time, knowing him. I highly encouraged him to do that, for it is a waste of admin time to have to be blocking him constantly. Essentially, it's rude. If he wants to come back, he knows how to do it. This time, though, he is pretty much in despair. To put it blankly, he thinks the forces of darkness have won, he was out-maneuvered by Fredrick day, who inserted lies at a critical point which were accepted even by Jordan's friends. (There is, of course, another side. Not to put too fine a point on it, Jordan screwed up, entirely aside from the vicious lies of Fd.) Jordan's Talk page is protected, so he can't even defend himself normally. (This situation is an open invitation to edit through socks. Prevent legitimate communication, people will communicate illegitimately. That natural law should be written on the forehead of every administrator....)

Is Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy/Obuibo Mbstpo/Larry E. Jordan my "meat puppet"? As I wrote before, I wish. That is, I wish he would do as I advise him. When he doesn't, he gets into trouble. I have *never* advised him to do anything contrary to policy, and when he writes something, it is his opinion, whether or not it coincides with mine. He just happens to have taken the time to understand what I write, more than others. There are others like this, and they are certainly not my meat puppets. Believe me, all I'd have to do is say the word, and you would see quite a few. I may appear isolated here, sometimes, but that is quite simply because it would be a violation of policy for me to solicit biased support outside (and even, sometimes, inside, depending on how it is done). And I don't violate policy unless it is accidental.

(3) "his agenda to allow sock puppets to have multiple votes." This is a reference to WP:PRX, which was written by my friend after a partial study of my work with Delegable proxy, article deleted courtesy of Wikipedia notability standards (correctly, according to those standards). It will be back, because we have found reliable source, peer-reviewed publication, apparently. One day at a time. The proposal was not about voting, at all. It was about setting up a system whereby WP users could designate, in a central fashion, but through proxy files in their own user space transcluded to a proxy table, a user whom they identify as "trusted." Due to Wikipedia policy, which I fully support, this does *not* mean that they can vote on behalf of another user. It gives them no rights that are not assigned to them by consensus, and WP:PRX did not suggest any such rights. The tables were for voluntary, experimental use. Some *possible* applications were mentioned, and some of those involved voting, which is the grain of truth in Fd's salt shaker. Among these applications, for example, would be the creation of a kind of editor assembly, as was discussed on Jimbo Wales talk pages. But none of this was actually proposed by WP:PRX, which only dealt with the file formats, really. Ironically, the process demonstrated (through attention to Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy and me) how using the system to assign sock puppets proxies would be sock-suicide. The *last* thing a puppet master wants to do is to call attention to the connection between the sock and the master by explicitly stating it, nor to connections between socks. I and the others above were checkusered, promptly, even though the system was only still a test. But even without that, no use of the proxy tables was to be permitted, or even suggested, that would be contrary to policy, guidelines, and consensus.

Fd's comment was, as were many before, dense with lies, i.e., statements made to lead astray. Typical of the Master of Deception. Why bother responding? Because this liar is repeating stuff that many users think, when they have seen what they have seen, or that they can easily think with faced with what they do not understand. He knows exactly how to feed them what will most effectively lead them into hatred and contempt, which is his goal. He knows how to destroy Wikipedia, and he will do it if we let him. He has been doing it for years. (He is the archetype, not necessarily the specific user.) The Fredrick day/User:Larry E. Jordan incident shows this clearly, and I will be working slowly, fully within policy and guidelines and the spirit of Wikipedia, to raise our consciousness about this in a non-disruptive way. That's the trick. I am not claiming it will be easy. But if anyone is interested in helping, please respond on my Talk, or by e-mail. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit by probable sock of User:Larry E. Jordan

This was in response to comments above from Elonka and Arcayne. I have reviewed this and find nothing here offensive or abusive, and, in addition, I find it worthy of discussion here on my Talk page.

Abd, you probably would have been a good candidate for WP:AMA. In the criminal justice system, it is considered acceptable for one's attorneys to represent him and present his side in a biased way, helping him navigate a system that pits him adversarially against the prosecution. Here, you are simply volunteering to help defend someone, essentially being a pro bono lawyer. Yet you are criticized for it. Would a court-appointed attorney be subject to such criticism, no matter what low-life he defends? Did we fault Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran for defending O.J., despite his guilt? Would they be subject to being prosecuted themselves for their cross-examination and impeachment of the state's witnesses, because they were on the wrong side?

Yes. However, I have not been acting as an advocate for the users in question, I am functioning, actually, more like a court officer. We *all* should be functioning in that way. That is, we should all intervene to interrupt abusive behavior, to protect all present, not just the alleged innocent or the alleged guilty. The difference between me and a defendant's lawyer would be that I have no duty toward these "defendants" other than the same duties we all have, to assume good faith, to use Wikipedia dispute resolution process -- which begins with civil discussion -- to resolve problems, and to act promptly, as we can, against disruption, and AGF failure is about as disruptive as possible. When you (I'm assuming it's you, the level of writing matches) were being pilloried for creating a non-notable article, when lies were being promoted that it referred to an obscene hotline (when it was actually a parody which could be broadcast on the radio in the U.S. where fines can be enormous for obscenity, I have heard worse on the radio, in fact), there were users who were simply perplexed and frustrated and essentially burnt-out from what they quite reasonably, given the BS they were being fed, thought was a poke in the eye from someone they had tried to help. However, there were others, a few, who went far beyond that, and the most prominent was the bad hand IP edits of User:Fredrick day. I tried to act against that, and there was almost no attention paid at first. This is the problem. The court was being disrupted, and it was not being disrupted by you. The *first* thing we attend to is disruption of the processes by which we make decisions. The priorities were wrong. There was no emergency with you, whether you were blocked or not, and there are simple ways that you could be allowed to contribute to the project, and efficiently that do not involve, even, exposing the project to you japes.

Now, about those japes.... you know! Quit it! Grow up! However, I also know, very well, what you face, and I know that people don't grow up by being shouted at. So, in the meantime, you may need to be contained in some ways. My strong opinion is that your contributions far, far outweigh what it will take to contain you, to prevent your impulsiveness from doing harm, and, if we do this, you too will benefit. But you must accept that you have shown that you require some containment, some special attention to prevent disruption. Anticipating what others may claim, those who really want to see you banned completely, the labor involved in such efforts would be voluntary, by users who take responsibility for anything allowed to remain of yours. This is actually a generic solution, it can be applied to editors similar to you, who presently often end up being banned, as the sanctions escalate and are ineffective. Punishment does not work with people like you, we need to learn that. It simply does damage. But action to protect the project and the community is not punishment, and, done properly, it is purely cooperation toward mutual goals.

You have recently made a number of edits, block-evading, with the above account and I believe another, and maybe more than that. As you know, I am asking you to reveal to me all such edits, so that they can be reviewed, by me or by others. We will work out how to do this. None of this should be construed as condoning block evasion. You know and I know that I repeatedly advised you to not evade the block, in any way. We can do this without block evasion, but, if we can find proper consent, it will be easier if you have an account you can use that *is* blocked, but that is not considered banned. I intend to be negotiating this with administrators, so that whatever we do either has consensus directly, or is, by consensus, at least, not prohibited by policy. I am working, strictly, within policy and guidelines, because, as you know, I consider them to be, already, excellently formed. Not perfect, there may be some improvements, to be sure, but quite good enough. What we need is structure and procedures that are more effective in realizing the policy goals.

But Wikipedia has a different philosophy, that we're against "wikilawyering" and that, as Judge Danforth said in The Crucible, "The pure in heart need no lawyers." Well, so be it. But let me say that this system tends to disfavor the unpopular defendants, because no one wants to stick their neck out for them, even in the interests of giving them a fair defense. If we would look at it more impersonally, that these proceedings are simply a means of each side presenting its case as strongly as possible, and not as undesirable wikidrama, there might be better justice done here. But you can see from what happened to WP:AMA where the community stands. Best to pack it up and get gone, before you get lynched yourself. It's only a matter of time if you continue playing Atticus Finch. Abuv the law (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This analysis is correct, but I don't accept the conclusions. I see something else. There are indeed, lynch mobs. But only a very tiny percentage of even the most active users participate in them. Most users are occupied elsewhere, as they should be. There is, after all, a project to build and maintain. How do we address this? My claim is that it is actually easy.

Wait a minute! If it were easy, why aren't we already doing it?

Because it conflicts with certain unexamined ideas that we have about Wikipedia and what is possible. So, even though it is very simple, it seems wrong, wrong, wrong when it is first mentioned, countless objections will be raised. Each one of these objections can be answered or itself has a simple solution, but the sudden appearance of all the objections at once in the mind of a reader makes it almost impossible to understand the idea. It will take time to move beyond this. It always does. I do know how to do it, I think. We'll see. Knowing does not make it happen, time is still a very necessary ingredient.

"And the reward of patience is patience."

--Abd (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

There's an AN/I thread regarding you here. You may wish to comment. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded there. This was an interesting little demonstration. User:Fredrick day discovered that he could say what he'd always been thinking by using bad-hand IP edits, only he screwed up and got caught, but not before he managed to troll outraged response to a minor transgression by User:Larry E. Jordan, resulting in a police riot. Nobody seemed to notice that this whole disruption started out with an IP editor attacking a user. Instead many piled in, for some time, focusing on the targeted user's transgression. Shocking Article on Obscene Easter Bunny Hotline! Think of the Children! Wikipedia Reputation in Tatters! And so Jordan was, once again blocked, with his reputation completely destroyed, and many administrators and at least one arbitrator believing that he had bitten the hands that fed him. And the disruption continues, all because the community didn't notice who was trying to rile them up. Was the article improper? Sure. Non-notable. Happens every day. Speedy it out, done in a flash, and Jordan certainly would not have made a fuss. The article was not a hoax, I verified the hotline. The hotline was not obscene, the content could have been broadcast on the radio here. Bad taste, for sure. But obscene, no. I hear worse, in fact, every day, on a certain Air America program that is truly funny. Warning! The word "vagina" was used! And there is one beep and it is reasonably easy to guess what was beeped out. Any any parent who lets his or her kids read Wikipedia and doesn't want the kid to be exposed to stuff like this.... is crazy. Wikipedia is not censored. There are certain words I don't want to search for because I don't want to look at that stuff.

Definitely a bad move on Jordan's part, given the extraordinary attention focused on his every move. However, not a blockable offense, ordinarily. And now several administrators are putting in far too much labor having to deal with the repercussions. User:Equazcion is covering some of it, to be sure, and that waste of time might actually be useful, it diverts him from doing damage elsewhere. But, no, it's a mess.

In any case, Jtrainor did immediately recognize that the complainant was, shall we say, COI. Not surprising, Fd had caught a fish like this on AN/I before, so he's trying it again. Black Kite, however, took the bait. The ironies multiply. Supposedly my file User:Abd/Open was, as claimed by Fd, "advert[is]ing meat-puppet service." Obviously Fd was suggesting an administrative response. So Black Kite deletes my file, in my user space, and doesn't notify me. Thus doing what was suggested by a blocked user, which certainly looks like proxying to me. I don't think he was correct, the licensing issue did not exist, but, as I wrote on the AN/I report, it's not important. I don't need that file at this point and, if I need to, I can get it back. I'd prefer Black Kite continue to do what most administrators do, deal with the flood of crap that inundates this place. Useful.--Abd (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware who the original complainant was. However, that doesn't make any difference to the fact that we have removed such pages before, mainly because of GFDL issues, and no doubt will do again in the future. It's nothing personal. Black Kite 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't agree about the GFDL issue, the existence of that page does not create any GFDL issue at all. There are things that I could possibly do with content placed on that page which might create a problem, but I have no intention of creating GFDL problems, so, quite simply, I would refrain from such. Now, given this, what problem did that page create that was not present simply from having a Talk page? Because people could place content on my Talk page and I could do with it whatever I could do with material from Open. Likewise, anyone could place a file in my user space and I could do similar. So, now that you mention it, please undelete the file. There is no GFDL issue.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your comment above about User:Equazcion, suggesting that the editor's normal editing is damaging to Wikipedia, constitutes a personal attack. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, it is important that we begin to clean up our discussions. My comment may have been misunderstood. I see no evidence that User:Equazcion's "normal editing" is damaging, and I have not followed him to even make a comment about his general editing activities. However, he has been very, very active in deletion discussions, certain policy debates, and in commenting on other editors and their behavior, and I do consider much of this to be damaging. I don't think that this constitutes a personal attack.

For sure, I have no intention of personally attacking any editor, and if I have done so, and I am so fortunate as to recognize it, I would immediately apologize and rectify it, as I've done in the past when I made such mistakes. For me to claim that the behavior of an editor, though, is damaging is some way or other is not a personal attack. Note that such claims have been made many times about me, and I have not complained about "personal attacks." However, recently, I warned an administrator for a comment above, who had written:

Were you not so busy being smugly self-righteous, Abd, you might have noticed that [....] You are far too fond of your fantasy of being persecuted for your ideas.

That is a personal attack. Now that it has been brought to your attention, please tell me, was I correct to warn him about it? --Abd (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both comments are uncivil and I consider both personal attacks - I don't patrol for them, I just happened to notice your comment. I have not researched the background to the comments you reference but there is no excuse for such uncivil comments. To the extent that your comments about User:Equazcion relate to philosophical differences or a lack of understanding between you, you still have no grounds to call the editor's comments damaging. If you believe that editor has made harmful comments about other users you should bring it up on that editor's talk page rather than making comments like that here. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment was made by an administrator, I'll note your opinion, which matches mine. As to my own comment, it is common that we assert that this or that behavior of an editor is damaging the project, and it is not considered a "personal attack." Is it uncivil? Perhaps. Frankly, I'd prefer that we be held to a higher standard than we have been in the past, not with sanctions, but with mutual encouragement and notice made of incivility, as with your action. So in that, I agree with your warning. But as to balance, well, if you stay away from XfDs, AN/I, and the like, you might not see so much to warn. User pages, well, you are welcome to peruse mine, but I'd hope you would not only warn me! Would you be so kind as to warn User:TenOfAllTrades about his comment that I quoted above? Here is the diff for your convenience:[1]

--Abd (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You already did that on 2008-03-26, I believe, so any warning from me would be superfluous. Warning a user is not an administrative function and a warning from an admin has no greater significance. Certainly a warning from an otherwise uninvolved editor is of more significance than a warning from the subject of the alleged personal attack, but then the moment I allow myself to be directed to particular comments I am no longer uninvolved. I warned you because of a comment I saw. I will not warn anyone else unless I happen across something inappropriate. I am always available to discuss civility with any user. Beyond that, I am merely watching. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case

Please note that I filed a request to amend my case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards PHG (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I'm a named party, I have made a statement. I highly recommend that you be as reserved as possible when defending yourself. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored your statement to bring it closer to the 500-word limit. I made efforts to make certain I did not alter its substance, but you might want to verify that I have not inadvertently changed your meaning. Please do not increase your statement's length as it already is beyond the limit. — Coren ^(talk) for the Abritration Committee 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it.--Abd (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks again. I didn't see anything essential that you took out. (There were reasons for what I wrote, but all those reasons can be satisfied in other ways, if it comes to that.)--Abd (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your defense!

Hi! ^^ Thank you very much for your defense of my userbox. I didn't know that my userbox was under attack for the umpteenth time until I saw a closed MfD. :D So, thank you very much. ~ Feureau E.S.P. (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry for harsh reply on userbox nomination

Abd, sorry for being harsh in excess on my reply to your comments on the userbox nomination debate, but I had to make clear some concepts. Also, I wrote my reply while being pissed off, and I had to tone down my comment a pair of times before posting because I wanted to make clear that I was against your arguments and not against you. I fear that some incivility might have slipped on my comment. I hope you can excuse me for that. I assure you that it's nothing personal against you or against Muslim faith, it's just an argument about compliance with wikipedia policies of a part of the wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. It's easy to get obsessed with these things. Frankly, I don't think you understand my arguments, so I don't take your reaction to them personally. (This is about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah.) The problem here is that to decide that the userbox is contrary to policy requires a judgment that a simple statement of the foundation credo of Islam is offensive and disruptive. There have been many efforts to delete most userboxes that express possibly controversial opinions (and as it has been pointed out, if it is an "opinion" it is likely controversial), and Jimbo Wales wrote to me, on this issue, that he would delete this userbox and everything like it. In his view, it doesn't help the project. However, there is a very substantial segment of editors (even considering just the active core) that see userboxes as part of the social glue that makes the community function well -- which may seem paradoxical, but it is actually quite understandable, for groups where people are open and honest about where they stand function more smoothly, in the long run, than those where important topics are taboo. All attempts to find consensus on this have, so far, resulted in more heat than light. Essentially, there is no consensus, generally, to delete opinionated userboxes, and thus, the default being "Keep," deletion usually fails if there is some community interested and willing to act to defend a particular userbox. My sense is that most of the core would prefer to leave userspace alone, allowing practically anything there, within certain necessary limits. And that most *editors*, if we were to somehow ask them, would *greatly* favor this. So how is the decision made? Too often, it is made by the group that shouts the loudest. Which is a technique that sometimes works, it is actually a form of Range voting, practiced in Sparta. However, it also sometimes fails, spectacularly. We might notice that Sparta failed, eventually, and the reason would be, I'd suggest, that societies that depend on shouting down unpopular ideas become rigid and unable to adapt. Exactly what has happened to Wikipedia. There are better ways that have been invented, used in peer organizations and in democratic governments.

The whole thing is extraordinarily inefficient. It is clear that what is needed is *policy*. If there were clear policy, where the application did not depend on a very subjective judgment like "disruptive" or "attacks other religions" -- when there is no language of attack involved -- and it indicated this userbox should go, it could be speedy deleted and that would be the end of it. But without a policy, every single deletion can be contested, and often will be. And where that depends on some subjective judgment, it becomes quite dangerous. In this case, a deletion, based on the arguments presented in the MfD, could be truly disastrous, outside, because, if it becomes known, it will be seen as "Wikipedia is hostile to Islam." True or not. Unfortunately, as a Muslim, I'd have to conclude that it *was* hostile, that it depends, if done in this way, on a hostile intepretation of the credo as attacking other religions and their views of God. Or not-god, as the case may be.

Whereas if the userbox is deleted by clear application of policy, it will hardly attract notice, most likely, and if it is, there would be plenty of Muslims who would defend Wikipedia. I'm not the first to propose this, there was a recent RfC on it which I think you may have pointed to. I have read the RfC and much related to it, as well as the guideline on userboxes.

My conclusion is that we should strongly discourage these piecemeal deletions -- by speedy closing them as keep pending clear policy -- and instead encourage some process to develop actual consensus on that policy. (Where there are clear reasons for deletion, speedy deletion remains, and will avoid most debate.) Unfortunately, there are those who have some idea how to do this, and if they propose it, they are harassed and even hounded off the site. And others leave even if they can handle the harassment and incivility, simply because they realize that breathing the poisonous atmosphere isn't good for their health. Increasingly, I'm finding I need a gas mask to look at my Watchlist. What happens is that one conflict leads to a comment from me, perhaps on a user page, and that automatically puts it on my Watchlist. And then I see whatever conflicts cause posts there. Same thing happens with policy pages, etc. So, gradually, my Watchlist fills up with conflicts, leading me to become more involved in conflict. I do remove AN/I and the Village Pump rapidly from my watchlist because the traffic is so voluminous. I'm going to have to start doing the same with editor Talk pages, etc. And I've concluded that the situation on Wikipedia is essentially hopeless as to fixing it from the inside, it is going to take outside intervention, so ... you will probably see my edits cut back drastically, with what remains being ordinary article work, with a few exceptions, carefully chosen. And I will be working off-wiki on the principles and techniques which have become apparent to me as the solution. Remarkably, these are simply a more efficient application of existing policy and practice, with few tweaks. What is so frustrating for so many (the situation has burned out many of the old editors) is that Wikipedia is *almost* what it needs to be, much of what is policy and practice is brilliant, but certain errors were made early on, and it has become impossible to correct them. (They actually weren't errors to start, they were appropriate for the scale.) It's quite natural, it's quite understandable, it does not involve defining this or that set of editors as the bad guys, for it is *structure* (the reality of how Wikipedia makes decisions and implements them) that creates the various camps. More about this will be written off-wiki. Anyone interested, please e-mail me. This is an open invitation, it does not depend on your position or POV.--Abd (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I remembered of WP:USERBOX, and the discussion got more focused from that point on, with the userbox getting reworded according to a wikipedia guideline without losing its original intent. I'm confident that the closing decision will be irreprochable. Unfortunately, we can't have a policy applied to it because there are too many policies applying to it. A guideline had to be stablished precisely because so many policies covered the topic and they could be interpreted in so many different ways that some sort of summary (a guideline) had to be done and consensuated to avoid disputes.

You are right that too many disputes are not being based currently on policies or guidelines, but on "shouting", or more rather, being insistent.

If you make better rules for wikipedia, remember to add this: make clearer block rules. Currently, the only way to block a user is if he makes some gross misdeed violating WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL. If an editor is making other editors waste a lot of time, but he hasn't violated those guidelines, it's next to imposible to get him to stop or even slow. Dunno what error at the start got perpetuated and caused this present situation, but I want to meet the guy that made the original error and whack him on the head with some guideline.

I can't help you write stuff, because of lack of time and not being good at writing, but I'll happy to hear about what progress you make. Just post on your talk page when you have some material done --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the environment is too toxic for change to come "inside." That is, it will take an outside force to cause reform (or collapse). It's actually a classic organizational problem that comes up with organizations like Wikipedia. A core of members forms that is hostile to change, and this is *quite naturally* those who have the most power with the status quo. They correctly see change as threatening their privileged position. If anyone claims that they have a privileged position, they will say -- and I've heard this many times in many organizations, public and private -- "all you have to do is get involved, you will have the same power as anyone else." It's true. However, "getting involved" frequently involves more investment than most people can spare, and, if one gets involved in change, especially change that would threaten the oligarchy, it can take insane amounts of time. Most sane people won't do it, or if they do it for a time, they will not keep it up.

As to clear rules, you've been around for quite a while. I'd think you'd know that there is some reluctance to make rules too clear. It is a complicated question, and it can be approached from several quite different points of view. The early formation of Wikipedia happened with few hard and fast rules, and great flexibility is maintained. Unfortunately, flexibility in rules cuts both ways. For example, flexibility in notability guidelines makes it difficult for an author, sometimes, to know if the work they put into an article might be wasted or not. And it leads to lengthy debate, which is frequently repeated, it is highly inefficient, compared to developing clear guidelines in the first place. And this leads to the growth of hard feelings. Because clearer rules were not developed early on, it has become quite difficult to create clear rules, because now there are many entrenched interests. I see the solution as abandoning more than a very, very simple definition of notability, and using layering (see WP:FLAGGED) to essentially create the project in access layers, with the top layer being unquestionably notable and unquestionably verified. And the bottom layer is what actually exists now if we include the deleted articles that only administrators can currently see, excepting only material deleted for legal reasons or other reason that clearly enjoys not only a consensus from the active core, but also from the broad community of all editors. If this happens, admins and other users will no longer have so much work to do cleaning up non-notable articles ("fancruft," etc.); and the work can turn to the real task: categorizing knowledge. Not deleting it. What I see as an early error around notability may be the number one cause of the growth of incivility, both directly and indirectly. Notability is not a quality of a topic, it is a relationship between a person and a topic, and what is notable for one is not for another. There is, to be sure, some degree of broad agreement about major notability, but Wikipedia aspires to go deeper than that, and this sets up conflicts. Articles on non-notable subjects, if they meet WP:V cause no harm at all, nobody sees them, for the most part, if they don't want to know about the topic, which, by definition, means it is notable for them. What causes harm is unverified information in articles and POV imbalance, and the solution to that problem has nothing to do with deletion, which merely distracts from the real task, which should be verification and categorization (aside from writing articles in the first place).

Wikipedia badly needs solutions to problems that do not increase the necessary labor. The problem with userboxes is that there are two ways to go: prohibit userboxes that are not directly about the project or used for the project, or let users do what they will in user space as long as it is not clearly disruptive. Nobody is obligated to read what a user has on their user page, and users, indeed, may express controversial opinions in user space. There are arguments for the former solution, but one killer argument, in my view, against it. Enforcing it is a nightmare, diverting energy from far more useful tasks. Users are going to expect to be able to express themselves in their own space. It can, of course, be argued that it isn't their space, it is Wikipedia's space, and this is one more example of imagining that rules we make are going to be effective if people don't get them instinctively and intuitively. (or, at least, don't recognize them as reasonable and legitimate once they see an explanation). To be efficient, the rules must enjoy consensus. Consensus is efficient. It is just not necessarily easy to find; in small groups it is fairly easy, but Wikipedia has grown beyond the scale where it is easy without some kind of concentrating structure, and structure is just about uniformly rejected. Hence my conclusion that something has to break, or at least break through.--Abd (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer tomorrow, hadn't time to read it--Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid that change will have to come from inside. The only change that can come from outside are reasoning that resonate with editors already inside, or making a competint encyclopedia that is successful that threatens the success of wikipedia, forcing it to change in order maintain its relevance

Hum, I dunno. The reason for deleting non-notable articles is that, if we didn't delete them, nobody would ever review then because a) being not-notable, there is not much coverage of secondary sources b)nobody would care about those articles because they cover unimportant stuff c) there would be a *lot* more articles, increasing the load to reviewers, who already let lots of stuff slip throught the cracks d) increase the load to anti-vandals, because of more articles to vandalize. Even if they have verifiable sources, we are talking of stuff like a local paper verifying that a company once collaborated on charity. I'm sure that covering all notable companies is a worthy goal for wikipedia, but I'm not sure if it's worthy covering all companies that have never made anything that really distinguishes them from the others. Wikipedia would look like a bussiness directory, and really enciclopaedic content would be lost among unimportant stuff.

There is already a lot of laissez-faire with things done on user-space. There is already a constant low-level war going on about certain iniciatives on userspace, like Ventei's shop and similar stuff and causing a lot of discomfort from users who like organizing complex stuff with other users, but the consensus system has managed to survive the disaffecting of many of those users (see below).

This causes editors with similar ideas to the consensus to stay, and users with different ones to get offended to collaborate less or stop editing (a feedback system).

The consensus structure is already creaking under the increased load from wikipedia's growth, but for now there is enough editors willing make efforts to keep it running that it's still working well. Let's paraphrase that: the number of editors willing to keep consensus running correctly at all costs has grown on the same proportion than the number of editors trying to game the system and misuse consensus. (notice that the users trying to make "shops" are technically misusing userspace because the consensus say that they are misusing it).

The system is still "fresh" because new editors enter continuosly, and old editors leave or move to different tasks all the time. I have to say that Jimbo has managed to build a quite resilient system, that manages to heal the wounds it causes to itself very easily using the same tools it uses for its everyday running --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LIFO: I do understand very well how the system works, but I also understand how it is breaking down. In some ways it was broken from the start, but the existence of a large pool of editors willing to take the place of those who burn out has allowed these problems to remain unaddressed even as Wikipedia grew. That pool will dry up, I predict. Not entirely, to be sure, but it will no longer be able to keep pace with the growth in the project. Wikipedia is advertised as "the sum of all human knowledge," and "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and one can explain this to death, people will read it and assume they know what it means and act accordingly. The fact is that it could be, without great difficulty, exactly what the advertising implies.

I would not say that Wikipedia is working well. If it was working well, it would not be burning out editors, with old-timers leaving, often having felt that the project has failed. I've spent a fair amount of time reading parting statements, or parting shots as is often the case. I've been seeing article quality decline in certain important areas; what is left isn't reliable, because it goes back and forth under pressure from POV editors, and it is far less interesting. And interest is important. It's pretty hard to define with guidelines!

The key is an understanding that the encyclopedic project is more about the categorization of knowledge, and never about exclusion. Our nervous systems don't exclude, they filter. Big difference. The filters aren't hard-wired, rather they are active, intelligent. So when we want to we can pay attention to that voice from the next room, or what our big toe is doing. Most of the time, we don't note it, and the record does not go into more than short-term memory. But we never actually erase any of it. (It's pathological, generally, when we do.)

So consider that the encyclopedia is in layers. This is a very rough concept, not intended to be considered rigidly. There is a top layer, and this might be the first thing that readers see, by default. Everything there meets tight and clear standards for notability, and everything there has been verified by consensus. And I mean consensus, there is no reasonable level of controversy, or it isn't there.

The bottom layer is what might be called a "submission" layer. New articles are created here, and there are no notability standards. There are standards, necessary for legal purposes, and I won't attempt to describe all the standards that would apply, but, again, these would be a matter for true consensus. Again, at this end, the rules would be very, very clear and such that someone who violates them would know that they were doing so, or would very easily understand why the rules are the way they are. Basically, these articles would be outside what is reasonably called "human knowledge."

There are layers in between the top and the bottom. These layers are populated by articles which have been promoted from submissions, by established processes. In order to maintain this structure, there must be layers, again, of privilege assigned to editors. It can be relatively automatic for promotion of editors, with process for demotion if the privileges granted are abused. Examples of privileges:

• Writer -- any user is a writer, this is actually the base level, and IP edits might be continued to function here. Writers may create base level articles and edit other articles in the base. Writers may also edit working versions of articles at any layer, including the top layer working versions -- if it works.

• Editor -- really the same as a writer, but people actually tend to be better at writing or at editing, and we have lost a great deal by confusing the two. Good writers are often lousy editors, in fact. Current deletion practice really crimps the style of writers, who often write without sourcing. Sourcing is something that is done later. Academic writers will do their sourcing themselves, in the publishing world, writers may provide their notes to editors, who also deal with questions of style, etc. So perhaps an editor is someone who is simply honored for being able to follow style and to create proper sourcing.

Note that lower layers would follow WP:V more broadly than is interpreted by WP:RS. Wikipedia currently prohibits sourcing from materials that would be admissible in a court of law. That's actually crazy. There are alternate verification processes that are just as reliable, or even more reliable, than what is in WP:RS, and traditional encyclopedias used them, as do peer-reviewed publications. Some of what I'm writing might seem impractical, but, in fact, just as we need structure and hierarchy in the encyclopedia, we need it with the editorial team. And there are ways to do it that are actually *very* compatible with Wikipedia traditions.

• Fact-checkers -- says it all. These users are recognized as reliable for fact-checking, and they tag facts as checked. There may be source subpages for articles where sources are reviewed, there might actually be two: one is protected against edits by users without the factchecking privilege, the other is a working version that anyone can edit.

Managing editors -- can promote articles, using version tagging, or something like that.

Executive editors -- may promote articles to the top layer.

Community consensus is maintained on all these. In particular, nobody should be an executive editor who is not broadly trusted to represent community consensus on promotion to the top layer, which must be very well-protected. The lower layers are much more open, with the bottom layer being almost totally open. However, the bottom layer might be transient, it is possible that articles there would have a fixed lifetime if nobody other than the original author takes an interest in them and, at least, promotes them, validating sufficient notability to justify further work on the article.

This might seem like a complex bureaucracy. In fact, it need not be. How this part would be done is really a separate question, but efficiency is essential or the structure will not be maintained. Work done on articles is currently being wasted, over and over. I've seen articles go, deleted, that were clearly notable within a community, with dozens of editors involved over a long time, and obviously hundreds of hours of work involved, and even though everything in the article was verifiable, because of technical problems with WP:RS. Not only is this inefficient, it creates bad feelings, and I've seen this happen with experts in their fields, who often will write an article from their personal knowledge.... and then it is deleted for whatever reason. Instead of becoming a stub or a working draft, to then be improved with proper sourcing by editors.--Abd (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to answer tomorrow --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Hum, I still don't see anything on your system that can't be acomplished already here by throwing more manpower to the articles, but you already know that, of course ;)

Well, don't be sure that the pool will dry up, my friend. This is like the massive charges of foot soldiers on the First World War, with the infinite soldier cheat activated. Hundred of thousands of soldiers are thrown out to die, only to get a few hundreds meters of terrain advanced.

Take myself, for example. I got burned, and then returned here with renewed strength. The pool will keep full until something more interesing attracts the editors, wheter a better encyclopedia or a new World of Warcraft or MySpace. Eventually, it will dry up, of course, but it will take so much time that there is a high chance that something external will undo the wikipedia by sucking editors into it before the pool has time to dry up.

And if you make actions that could be considered by retired editors as a menace to "the underlayng spirit of wikipedia" (whatever that means), they will come back just to fight against iyour ideas. Without the support of at least quite a few insiders you won't be able to make changes.

You see, this guy, Jimbo, he made a few short principles that were easy to remember, the WP:PILLARS. Anyone can identify easily with them and remember them easily. The interpretation is also very wide, and a passable article can be written even with little knowledge of the exact details of the rules. You need to make up something similar. Some catch-phrases that sum up what you want to do, so people can remember them easily and repeat them to other editors. Your ideas can then propagated by other people instead of having to do all the evangelization yourself. You can later write more detailed explanations of the rule, and post them for the people interesed to read them, make them theirs, and enforce them. That's what I think, and I remember that most leaders on the world have done that. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your basis...

...for saying those edits were Fred Day? I had a look at the IP's contribs, and didn't see it as a giveaway. If you see any edits that are clearly him, I'd say revert 'em and, if you want, let me know the IP so I can issue a block. We obviously disagree on the excusability of some of Sarsaparilla's behaviour, but I think we agree on that bozo. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the SSP report for Fredrick day? Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. He's got his own variable IP access, plus he has some wireless networks in his neighborhood. That's his IP, 99.99%. And the text is pure Fd. Look, you see IP from a certain range editing parlipro articles, you draw a certain conclusion, and you are pretty likely to be correct. The level of necessary coincidence for this to not be Fd would be astronomical. The particular interest in Sarsaparilla's edits, the mention of me, plus the first two IP fields, this is Fd. The vast majority of Fd IPs have not seen any edits before he started using them, they could probably be safely blocked ... but I'm not terribly exercised about it. I'd revert them if I thought them damaging. I hadn't looked at the other edits. I will. Anyway, thanks. And my apologies for any possible insult in what I wrote, but this whole affair has been about very selective attention. I'm seeing it happen with other editors. Once there is a pall over an editor, especially an active one, every move is scrutinized by anyone who ever had a conflict with him; one editor now, 25,000 edit level, is clearly being harassed, yet it looks like ArbComm will sanction him, not those who are harassing him. (For what? For complaining, it looks like.) We'll see.

In Sarsaparilla's case, Fd was there with one vicious personal attack after another, on AN/I, and where was the attention being put? On Sarsaparilla, for having put up an article on the Easter Bunny hotline. We don't normally indef block users for putting up a non-notable article! "Last straw," is what is said, of course. Problem is, there was not much more than three straws. Not three tons of offenses, plus a straw. Do I "excuse" Sarsaparilla's behavior. No. But neither would I excuse Mozart for making fart jokes at the court of the ruler. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see Mozart executed for it.

I've already written too much here. I'll write to you off-wiki.--Abd (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've blocked the IP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day is back, now edit warring. Please block, I'm getting tired of hitting undo and some dizzy admin might block me. If so, my first block! I'm so excited! What do I wear to a block party? An IP AD- Dress. Seriously, gotta take care of the kids. I reported this to AN/I. And now he comes back:

I played you like a fiddle once again, you never seem to get this - you see this IP when I want you to see the edits. Now think about it, why would I you to see the edits? because I knew, that like Pavlov's dogs, you'd revert all of my edits once you saw them. This then provides a wonderful example of how on the one hand, you'll revert my good faith contributions but on the other work with the sock of a banned user to get an ammendment added to a wikiproject saying his sock-based edits should be accepted as a matter of course. I knew you'd head to ANI, which means that more people would check out my edits and thus check out your history and watch this page, thus see what you were attempting with your meatpuppet at the WP project. what's more serious folks? my good faith edits or someone trying to subvert a wikiproject, so banned users edits are accepted as a matter of course. --87.115.12.23 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)]]

I like fiddle music. I've got a four-year old and a six-year old who play. Better than Fredrick day, and certainly nicer. He has lied repeatedly, so, while some of what he says will be true. that is also the case with the cleverest liars, who will feed an unsuspecting audience whatever he thinks they might fall for, with just enough truth to make it seem verifiable. Salting the mine. It's an old trick.

No, I did not say that Sarsaparilla's edits should be accepted as a matter of course. I said the opposite, in fact. I suggested that any editor could look at them, and, if the editor thinks them useful, bring them back in. They were not being removed because they were bad edits, but because they were from a blocked editor. The same is true for Fredrick day's edits. He's made what are probably a few good edits, hoping to trap me into reverting them. I knew that. But policy is that a blocked editor's edits may be reverted without regard to the content, and there is very good reason for this. Then, if someone thinks the content worthwhile, being aware that it might contain some trap, that editor may bring it back, taking responsibility for it. There is no *necessity* that edits by a blocked editor be removed, so it is not offensive to bring them back, in itself, provided that the editor takes responsibility. I'm generally willing to assume good faith for Sarsaparilla in his parliamentary procedure edits; everything he has done that was questionable in the past was actually blatantly suspicious; indeed, they were *jokes*, which is one reason he was blocked so quickly. He had people like Fredrick day following him around, waiting for him to make a mistake so they could pounce.

What I did in the Wikiproject for parliamentary procedure was done openly, announcing it in advance, so any editor could protest, and there was at least one administrator following it, the one active reverting Sarsaparilla. He concurred, by the way, with my reverts of Fredrick day's IP edits, and he did not object to my plan. Plus, of course, another editor picked up on it and did most of the work, which is appreciated.

There are plenty of disputes on Wikipedia that are based on differences of opinion, with two sides, at least, taking positions because they believe them, these are good faith disputes, even though they sometimes get very ugly. Fredrick day was a whole new level of viciousness. He started out editing reasonably civilly with his good hand account, User:Fredrick day. But at the same time he was using IP edits to vandalize editors he hated, and to stir up as much trouble as he could. Sarsaparilla made plenty of mistakes, but his offenses, when we look at them closely, were actually quite minor *even in sum*. A hoax article, quickly speedy deleted without fuss, a joke that was an obvious joke, immediately reverted. A moment of incivility with an administrator (and he wanted to be blocked, so he was truly trolling for it). And, last straw, an article on a real hotline, the Easter Bunny hotline. Not notable. So the offense was creating a not-notable article because he thought it was funny. He's young. These are not arguments that he should be unblocked. That's properly a community decision, and Sarsaparilla was disruptive, there is no question about it. Children should not be allowed to say that the emperor has no clothes, because it can start a riot. People get roiled up. When adults say that, they may be imprisoned or worse, though healthy societies typically find ways to avoid actual punishment, relying on social isolation. Disruption is disruption, and the normal functioning of working society cannot allow it. Change happens in special ways, outside this, and is brought in gradually, normally. Too fast is too fast.

Fredrick day, on the other hand, was mostly active deleting articles, or at least that is where I saw him. (That could present a distorted picture.) There are editors I respect who are active enforcing notability standards, but there are others who seem to take some special glee in erasing the work of others; nominations are filled with assumptions of bad faith, uncivil terms like "self-promotion, vanity, crackpot theories, fancruft," etc. Again, there may be a place for these terms; but almost every article that goes to AfD has at least one editor who thought the topic worthy of work, and I've seen articles where dozens of editors had clearly put in hundreds of hours. It's a set-up for conflict, it starts with conflict, with one editor telling another that their contributions are not useful here.

There are much better solutions, which will give us clear notability standards *and* the depth of an inclusionist project, but, if we implement them, people like Fredrick day will simply find some other way in which to act out their hatred for anyone who crosses them. And we will need to face this. It's killing the project, with long-time editors bailing out because of what they have seen as an increasingly poisonous atmosphere.

Fredrick day will keep trying, but he has been seriously neutralized until the point that he is merely a nuisance. It is clear that some IP range is convenient for him. Any editor can drive around, go to a library, go to an internet cafe, etc., and block evade. But his favorite topics, he must avoid, or his session gets canned. Further, it's possible to watch IP blocks, so it does become more inconvenient for him. Sarsaparilla edits from a university library, which is convenient in some ways, and he can prepare edits at home. I've encouraged him to take a total wikibreak, to honor the block, but he is not, as Fd contends, my meat puppet, nor I his. He's a very bright and impulsive young man, of great good will and a certain abrasiveness common with genius, and I hope we can find a way to harness his energy. "We" means humanity, not just Wikipedia. In industry, he'd be given a secretary, who would make sure that he stays on track, and the company that employed him would be fortunate indeed. He is, in fact, a writer rather than an editor. My vision of where Wikipedia should go involves making those tasks more distinct, involves allowing -- in a contained way -- some level of "original research," when it is verifiable. And the writer isn't necessarily charged with the task of verification, it falls to fact-checkers and editors. Publishing houses don't refuse to publish books by writers who make unsubstantiated claims or sometimes write about matters not of interest, as long as the writers do produce usable work. And then editors" fix it. Writers and editors often can be at loggerheads, but both are necessary.

As to Fd's IP, most of his editing could be curtailed with a range block. I have looked at contributions for many of his IP addresses, and it is quite rare that any of it has been used before, ever, by an editor. An innocent user caught in that will receive a message telling the user how to get around it. But Fd will use other access points, as can any editor. It appears that he thinks he has invented this great way to edit WP that allows him to say what he really wants to say. He said as much when he slipped and linked Fd with Section 31, his IP signature. He knew he had totally blown it, so, it is typical for someone like him, "it doesn't matter, I didn't need the Fd account anyway." That's one place I can really agree with him. We didn't need it either. --Abd (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting banned users' contributions

Are you reverting Fd's (apparently good faith) mainspace contributions because you really believe it's good policy to revert banned users' contributions? Or is this more a case of "let's see how you like it?" I agree his behavior elsewhere is obnoxious but I'm not sure how I like the precedent this sets. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any user, including yourself, can look at these edits and bring them in, in a flash. Here is the problem. Blocked users generally can't be trusted to reliably make good edits, the normal assumption of good faith breaks down and often has been found to be absent. Now, if we notice a contribution by a blocked user, one whom we suspect may be up to no good, what should we do? I'm suggesting that what Sarcasticidealist was doing with Sarsaparilla edits is quite appropriate. However, anyone else noticing the original edit or its revert may examine the edit, possibly looking up sources, and revert it back in. I specifically consent to that with any of these semi-automatic reverts. (And I may install a bot to do this, could be a good application.)

What might be a good idea would be some clear place where notices that reverts like this are being done is posted. So, for example, someone who thinks that Fredrick day's contributions might be good for the project could quickly find them and take responsibility for them, by undoing my reversion. There are now a number of editors doing reversions like this, and there has been little negative comment except from Fredrick day, plus he seems to have sucked an admin into lifting a block, actually wheel-warring over this. I'm sure that Fd was laughing about that. Why didn't the admin just revert the edits back in, if he wanted to claim that they were legitimate. I am sure that some, maybe even most, of the Fd edits are legitimate, the problem is that he is making so many of them, using ISPs all over the world, that just finding them is quite enough work for me, thank you very much. You want to put his edits back in, fine. I have no objection to a registered user taking responsibility for these edits. It is not meat puppetry per se and is indeed much less objectionable than truer meat puppetry, which would be making edits for a blocked user. Here is it open what is happening.

Now, SLN, there is a checkuser request filed for you, so by the time you read this you might be blocked. If you are Sarsaparilla as suspected, I'm not following you around to revert your work, because you know I basically trust it. If someone else does, and I become aware of it, I will look at it and bring it back in if I find it useful and appropriate. Anyone can do that for Fredrick day. I'm not, because I think that the block is properly enforced with him. As to you (if you are Sarsaparilla), then I think that the block is erroneous, but nevertheless stands until an administrator can be convinced to unblock you. One size fits all. Sarcasticidealist promised to support you (at least to a degree) if you appealed to ArbComm. You know I would do what I could as well, and there are others. But you have declined, and, given what I know about your reasons, your move -- or lack of a move -- is reasonable. Remember, all registered users on this project, in theory, have the same privileges, just not the same buttons, if they are not blocked. I'm acting as a quasi-administrator, for reasons you should know well, since you nominated me for the mop. When there is a tussle, the cop tells everyone involved to shut up. First. Before trying to disentangle who was right and wrong and, in fact, that is not actually a job for the cop, it is for the sovereign. The cop just keeps order.

This solution actually works for the contributions of Sarsaparilla, it allows real work to be done and then, if reverted, to be restored easily by anyone who thinks it legitimate. There seems to be no sentiment for considering this meat puppetry. Fd claimed that it would be, but when it started, and it seemed to be working, he wanted one for himself too, like a typical spoiled brat. Well, he can have one. All he has to do is find an editor willing to help out, for the benefit of the project. How about you?

Fredrick day seems to be finding copyvio and BLP violations, my guess is that his plan is to trap me into reverting them, so he can then call down the retribution of the gods on me. However, I also have a plan, should he succeed. And, to quote the Qur'an, God is the best of planners. Just in case it isn't clear, I'm not God, I just work here.

If you are not Sarsaparilla, thanks for visiting my Talk page, hope I can get to know you better. Obviously, if someone thinks you are Sarsaparilla, you must be interesting. So I am hoping that checkuser exonerates you, or at least is inconclusive and you are left free to edit.--Abd (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, one size does not fit all. See m:Bans_and_blocks#The_hole_in_the_policy. It's a well-recognized issue. But I think in Fd's case, he probably could start a new account and evade detection since he probably doesn't have any stalkers watching for him on his particular article sets. It's just that he chooses to blow his cover by acting like a dick. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure he could. And he probably has. He has claimed to have other accounts. But ... every time he does one of the IP edits, he reveals more information about what is accessible to him, he tightens the net, even if only a little. --Abd (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, actually. On the other hand, he knows that enforcement measures against IPs have to be less stringent than those against logged-in accounts, and that people may be less cavalier about reverting the former, due to the potential for mistaken identity. So when he goes on the attack, he uses IPs. Nonetheless, he almost certainly is also using a logged-in account, if only to check his watchlist and find socks to tattle on. What's the point of all this? Heck if I know. Maybe he's just trying to amuse himself. If that's the case, Fd, may I recommend buying a Nintendo or something? Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain what he is doing. By IP editing making what may be quite legitimate edits, fixing copyvio and BLP problems, he is trying to trap me into screwing up, so that the wrath of the admins will come down on me. However, I think he doesn't know his ... from his .... I decided that discretion is the better part of valor. I don't think I'm much at risk here, at all. If the community wants this to stop, it can easily accomplish that. But, remember, sauce for the goose. I don't think the good guys can lose on this one, it works whichever way it turns out, unless it is decided that one policy applies to one blocked user and another to another. Anyone who doesn't like this is quite welcome to follow my contributions, see the blatant notices, and bring back in anything good, quite quickly, thus having turned Fd's shit into fertilizer. Quite simply, merely watching the contributions of Fd is not enough. First of all, they are hard to find, and, second, if nothing is done with them, how do we know that they have been checked? This is actually brilliant, and, as usual, we stumbled on it. Revert them all, when found, then bring them back if *anyone* finds them useful. Quick and easy. He's done most of the work, finding the violations, I or someone else has done a little to generally protect the project from him, and someone else does more work to verify them, but not as much as to find them in the first place. Net gain for the project. Win, win, I'd say. Except that this actually leaves Fd the loser, since what he is trying to do is get me canned.--Abd (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, can't we all just get along? What's with this petty squabbling? Enough with the blocks, the bans, the taunting, the tattling, and the removal of good-faith edits. Let's just all move on and forget the past. When we pass each other in the wiki-hallway, let's just keep walking. There is too much work to attend to, and this really is all a distraction. Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaborative editing, but we're letting the personal interactions become a force for bad, rather than good. Let's all beat our wiki-swords into wiki-plowshares and get back to work on the mainspace, please. Enough! Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Friendlier sockpuppet template

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of Fredrick day!

By the way, I recommend using this cuter, more friendly template in place of the standard sockpuppet template when you run across suspicious IPs in the 87 range. Perhaps we can kill him with kindness. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I'm not placing sock puppet notices on user talk pages, I'm leaving that to others. But if I start, I'll consider it. Cute. Right now, she is offering to clean up copyvio and BLP violations. Any other services she is offering? --Abd (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

note

I'm not sure if you've already made the decision to do so, but please stop blanket reverting the IP that you claim to be FD's edits. In doing so, you've reverted in some blatantly inappropriate edits, including potentially libellous claims that an actress was infected with AIDS, that another woman prefers double penetration, speculation about a man's penis size etc. I don't really care what the IP's motivations for removing the content is: the fact is that the content was inappropriate, and you absolutely should not have reinserted it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the difference between blocked and banned accounts. Blocked accounts do not have their edits reverted on site, that is for community bans only, and even then with the consideration that you never EVER reinsert libel or BLP edits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yessiree. Including the non-words of the immortal User:Absidy, when last warned:

Too late. I'm done. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretend that "troll" is the taboo word

I recommend against using the word "trolling," as in this post. It would be better to use a more verbose, yet more meaningful description of what he's doing. I actually hate the word "troll" as used in online forums, because people just throw it around whenever they don't like what someone's saying. I would prefer to say:

• Revert personal attack by...
• Removed bad-faith, clearly unjustified nomination by...
• Removed provocative taunt by...

It takes a little more thought to explain it in these terms but I think it's worth it. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the word was accurate where used. Thanks anyway.--Abd (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It was accurate, but... in my opinion, it's kinda like calling someone a shithead. What's to differentiate you from all the other people who throw the word around? I would rather say, "I find your arguments to be fallacious and your facts of questionable veracity," which they can respond to with "What's so fallacious and what's so questionable" and then you actually have the prospect of getting an intelligent dialog started. Take the high road and let them be the ones to lower the bar, to use a mixed metaphor.

(insertion by Abd (talk)) It's not like calling someone a shithead. Ever see a shithead? I presume it would even be recognizable in photos, I mean, heads and shit don't really look much like each other. I've never seen one. I suppose some conceptual artist might be inspired to do it... Fredrick day has been trolling for response, it is the original meaning of the word. Now, it is very tempting to call him a shithead, but that would be uncivil. "Troll" could also be uncivil, and often is, I see the word used to mean "I don't like what you are doing, and I'm angry about it, therefore you are trolling." But "trolling" can also be accurate, calling a spade a SPADE. To determine the difference would take investigation; I'd say that for someone to use the word, as I used it, they should be prepared to justify it, else it could be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. One of the big problems with Wikipedia is that such violations are routine, they have been accepted, and action is only taken when someone has enough of a grudge to pursue it, and is able to convince the mob that the uncivil person is the true enemy of all that is good and beautiful about the project. The mob then ignores all other present incivility; someone, when the scapegoat has been identified and is being beaten, everything becomes acceptable. And that is how Fredrick day worked. When the mob was stoning Larry E. Jordan, nobody noticed the barrage of IP edits, full of incivility and accusations of bad faith, aimed at Jordan; instead the accusations of Fd were swallowed. And we saw that happen just the other day with the flap over BLP violations. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day will probably keep doing what he's doing, which accounts for why I haven't bothered to get involved in any major constructive mainspace work for the past several hours (he will just engineer to have it removed). So in that sense he's won. Yeah, I'm just going to leave the guy alone. I get the sense he's kinda immature or something and is both easily peeved and also the kinda guy who gets a kick out of f'ing people over. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People who have been referred to as trolls so often before will of course be extra-sensitive to its use. Pedophiles probably think of the term "pervert" in a similar manner. Not that I'm equating anyone here with a pedophile, but you get the point. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:42, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can probably count on my fingers the number of times I have been referred to as a troll (and indeed, you have probably been the source of most of those accusations), but as WP:NOSPADE and other essays note, it is not always advisable to use such terms even when one is convinced that another user is trolling. And of course, there is always the possibility of being mistaken when making the accusation. For instance, your recent edit summary in your reversion of my edit to your talk page, which was not really trolling by any sense I'm used to thinking of the word being used (usually I think of trolling as something intended to vex, annoy, etc., as opposed to just making an observation, comment, or other conversation opener based on one noticing the existence of a subject of mutual interest.)

Notice, I could have called you a troll, due to my perception upon reading your comments that you were attempting to cause some reaction of indignation/anger/etc. on my part, but as always, I decided that it wouldn't really raise the quality of our ongoing discourse here. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Be nice, kids. Sarah Lynne Nashif, no big surprise, was Sarsaparilla. Continued to make useful contributions, but also got into tussles with Fredrick day, two socks duking it out, reverting each other back and forth, for the enjoyment of all. This section started because I called Fd a troll. Without getting into the philosophical difference between "being" a troll and "acting like one," Fd was trolling and continues to troll. He may be engaged in useful edits (and some of his troll edits are also useful, it is part of his game, so he picked some low-lying fruit in articles on porn stars, removing apparent BLP violations, knowing that I might find and revert these edits (he made that likely by trolling, i.e., making a provocative statement in a place he knew I was watching, after having made other edits from the same IP); some of what I reverted back in was actually good text, and merely *looked* like BLP violation, other instances were actual BLP, so, of course, when I routinely reverted without checking the content -- which takes time, sometimes a lot of time -- he then went to the BLP Noticeboard and squawked loudly, knowing that eventually he would find support there, which he did. And then he has attempted to press the point, long after I stopped doing what some found objectionable (certainly enough that I should stop, and I stopped immediately when this became apparent).

I'm sure he thought that he was really smart with this. But I was, in fact, warned about the trolling and knew that he was trying to trap me. So I did a little IAR, knowing enough that no actual harm to the project would come of it. (Those reverts back in lasted a matter of minutes; the allegedly bad material (some of which was really bad) had been there for months or more.) Why did he pick porn star articles? Well, for one reason, it is difficult to tell what is legitimate and what is not. For a normal biography, descriptions of sexual organs would be thoroughly improper. For a porn star, it might be what makes that person notable.... To really know would take research, you can't just look at the edit and know, necessarily. For sure, some of what was taken out was actually valid and legitimate and not controversial. And, with one particular article where I actually did some research, Fd's edit turned out to be taking out well-known, sourced, and not controversial material. And the admin most strongly supporting Fd seems to have not noticed that, last sighting by me he was still ranting about the hazard to the project of my reverting in information about a porn star having AIDS. The event in question was actually so notable that I think I recall reading about it in the media, and I don't follow porn stars....

So, as usual, I learned something about Wikipedia structure and process, in ways that I'd never be able to accomplish by studying the policies and guidelines. (Along the way, of course, I also got to study those!). Policies and guidelines are one thing, but how they are interpreted by the community -- which is often in conflict about them or, more accurately, about the edges -- is another. I knew that if I was wrong, I'd be told; I was merely unwilling to take the advice of an abusive sock puppet, known for lying and for misrepresenting policy for his own benefit, utterly untrustworthy.

I still believe that the technique I started applying, with the proper safeguards, would be better than what stands. What stands essentially gives an abusive sock editor like Fd free rein in certain areas, that came out.

Think about it. If we could effectively block a user who has shown himself to be disruptive and seriously uncivil, deliberately fomenting conflict between users and administrators, we would, I presume, requiring such to go through proper process to regain any editing privileges. So the fixes to the porn star articles would not have happened. What I did was not to make it as if it did not happen, that is not only impossible, but is actually unwise. What is needed is a review of all contributions of blocked editors, as editors can be found willing to do it. And by reverting all these contributions out, without exception, preferably using a bot, they have been flagged, and can be brought back in as they are found to be legitimate. Consider an automatically reverted contribution as a suggestion. If a blocked user makes a suggestion that there is a BLP violation in such and such a place, surely we should investigate it and deal with it promptly. But does this mean that we should allow such to be made directly by the blocked user? I don't think so. The big problem is that to distinguish between legitimate edits and vandalism requires immediate attention to each edit. And without bot assistance -- and the concommitant irrelevancy of content, for a rapid review of content can easily be insufficient -- continuously monitoring the edits of someone like Fd is essentially impossible. BLP policy is being allowed to rather mindlessly trump block policy, the ultimate result would be more risk of BLP violation, not less, for a blocked sock who can change his mask at will, as Fd can (and practically anyone can who really cares to do it), would simply wear out anyone watching him as the BLP enforcers would have it, and then he has a free hand again. No, what is needed is organized monitoring of the *reverts* of a blocked editor.

What I had discovered in dealing with sock edits of Sarsaparilla was that it was quite possible to identify these edits (by looking at the contributions of the administrator making it his business to find them and automatically revert them, obviously without regard to content, since they were almost entirely good edits (when in Article and Wikipedia space), review them, check the sources, and, presto! Good edits with a legitimate editor taking responsibility for them, but with the record showing that they came from the blocked user. And so a blocked user could start to accumulate a record of good edits even while blocked, provided that his other behavior was acceptable. (Violating blocks shouldn't be, in fact, punishable *in itself*, if the violations do not harm the project. A grey area is the damage done by taking up the time of an administrator, where damage can indeed be asserted.) So I applied what I'd learned with Sarsaparilla to Fd, who was continuing to vandalize and to be uncivil, at least in the edits he made visible. He may well have other accounts -- he claims to -- where he maintains usefulness, or, at least, the appearance of it. It's the classic good-hand, bad-hand story. But policy would be that if a good-hand account is found to be the same user as a blocked bad-hand one, the block is extended to the good hand. Contrary to what SWATjester seems to think.... The good behavior of the good-hand account may be taken into consideration, and an admin could unblock, thus converting the blocked user to a legitimate one. That's different. But the accounts being openly connected would be important. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Do not restore libellous material or blatant BLP violations into articles, regardless of any other policy or procedure that you believe might otherwise apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have some time? Have some tea....

Here is what happened. Our friend Sarsaparilla was making edits to parlipro articles, sometimes with a sock, I think, and sometimes as an IP editor. His edits were being reverted by Sarcasticidealist, without regard to content, solely on the basis that he is blocked. Sarsaparilla asked, in on the wikiproject page, if it was possible that, since these edits were hepful, that SI might back off, given that it is not "automatic" that blocked editor edits be reverted. Fredrick day, who has attacking Sarsaparilla or me and another user as a major project, for which he has been blocked and effectively banned, jumped in as an IP editor. It became obvious, I forget how, that SI was not going to stop, which is certainly his prerogative, but it also became apparent that I or others could find these reverted contributions, and, if we approved them, bring them back in. I did a couple, another editor did the rest. This appears to have irritated Fredrick day no end, particular since I began tracking his contributions and reverting them. He would show up with a clear Fredrick day edit, usually from a distinct IP block, 87.112.x.x - 87.115 I think it is. There is an extensive list at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. So I would look at the contributions for that block, and revert them.

So, I'm sure he thought, I'll trap Abd. He started doing BLP and copyvio edits.

Now, here is the problem. He has claimed copyvio and BLP violations and has been reverted by other users. Some of his edits are doubtless good, and others may not be. To separate the wheat from the chaff takes time, and reviewing his edits becomes tedious and not so efficient. For starters, these were articles on porn stars. For me to know what would be a BLP violation for these would take some research, and, in fact, unless an editor is familiar with those articles, I'd think that would be true for anyone. The simple fact that, say, there is description of sexual characteristics, may not be enough; perhaps those descriptions are found in reliable sources and aren't BLP violations. This is the trap he set.

However, this was my thinking: If he could be effectively blocked, instead of merely hindered, he would not be able to find and fix these alleged problems, at least not directly through edits. What if there was a robot that could quickly detect a true Fredrick day sock, and prevent edits? The situation would be that these copyvios and BLP violations would be there. Reverting them takes us almost back to the situation that existed before his edits. However, there has been a possible improvement. Attention has been called to the possible violations. All that it takes is someone willing to look through them who is familiar with policy, reverting back my reversion; much quicker than trying to find the problems in the first place.

This is a solution that worked with Sarsaparilla. And my point has been that it could work with Fredrick day, too. I rather doubt that he is doing this to benefit the project; however, suppose he is. Fine. Anyone who trusts his edits enough to just automatically revert them back in is welcome to take the risk. I don't. And when I see them, I see them as edits of a blocked user. I would not deliberately revert in copyvio or BLP violations; the problem is that, in the set of articles involved, this could be difficult, and my conclusion was that it would be better to just automatically revert and let others knowledgeable about the articles, perhaps watching them or watching me or my reports of this blocked editor's activities, find and bring back what is good. I'm pretty sure that most of the edits aren't good, but I'm also sure that some are. Especially the ones he set up so that he could then scream to the BLP noticeboard, where an admin wheel-warred over it. Fredrick day, you might or might not be aware, is the anonymous editor who raised the fuss that got Sarsaparilla (as Larry E. Jordan) blocked, on trumped-up charges, for a minor violation that would not ordinarily raise an eyebrow beyond placing a speedy delete tag for non-notability. Everyone rushed to dump Jordan and didn't notice who was egging them on.

What I'd like to see come out of this is a better way of dealing with the problem. We have block policy, editors can be blocked, which, if we could accomplish it, would ensure that the editors can't edit at all, except within restrictions, such as on a Talk page. But we can't accomplish it. So editors can edit. What do we do with their evading contributions? Some elect to delete them without regard to content. Others then can review them and bring them back if they seem good, taking responsibility for them. It works. It benefits the project, and it is not meat puppetry, particularly because it is open.

The only problem I see is with copyvio and BLP -- and also with edits to administrative noticeboards, you will notice that I was warned above about reverting Fd sock Talk edits, probably to the BLP noticeboard.

I'm suggesting that it should be allowed to revert on sight all edits from blocked editors, period. However, the summaries should note that content has not been reviewed. Anyone looking at history would see that Fd, for example, had claimed copyvio, could see the revert that was purely for block evasion, and know that something could be investigated. The hard work of finding the violations -- if they are real -- would have been done by the blocked editor, and history would show that, if he ever needs to show some good work, the revert by the monitoring editor would be quick and easy and all that he or she has to do is be sure that this is really the evader (which has been easy with Fd), and then there is minor work to be done by the final editor who restores the removal if it was proper.

The alternative has not been suggested. That is, what I have been doing has, as planned by Fredrick day, raised objections, partly based on misinformation -- this is a very active block evader, taunting everyone involved, claiming that he can't be blocked, he can do whatever he pleases, and I think he's continuing to vandalize and harass -- and partly on the real copyvio and BLP problems. But those objecting did not suggest a solution. I think there is one, and I think it is reasonably obvious.

The problem is that reviewing his edits to determine suitability is too much work for one editor when it is on top of identifying these edits, which is hard enough, he's so active. The process needs to be broken down. If there was some way of marking edits as being approved, that could be done. But, effectively, this is exactly what happens if, say, I revert Fd and anyone else brings the edits back in. That person is then responsible for them. So far, there has been no problem with a person bringing an edit back in who was himself an IP editor not Fd. It has always been Fd again with new IP.

Personally, I could just leave all this alone. What interests me here, though, is the concept of a reverted edit as a kind of "submission" by a blocked user. It solved the problem with Sarsaparilla. We can benefit from his work with parlipro articles, without unblocking him. (I've advised him, again and again, not to evade the block, but .... he's pretty stubborn.) And we could benefit from the work of Fredrick day in finding copyvio and BLP violations. In both cases, someone should review the edits. And the problem with just looking at them and not reverting them is that there is no way to tell if they have been reviewed. If they are reverted and then brought back quickly, if merited, it is then known and clear that they are considered legitimate.

Consider the work that I was doing as if it were a bot. Very good at identifying that an edit is from a blocked user, unable to examine content, removing the blocked edit, but thereby (and as directed) reporting such removals for review, as if they were "submissions." Those making a fuss on the BLP noticeboard, if they are familiar with BLP policy and its application, could have brought back in all the proper edits of this user in any one of several ways. They could simply review my contributions. They could review the SSP report, looking at the contributions of the IP addresses shown on the Talk page there. Or, if some page exists specifically for it, any doubtful reverts could be reported for rapid action. BLP noticeboard might be the place.

I worked as I worked until I was warned by a legitimate user. Until then, it was only Fredrick day screaming, and, at first, his current IP was blocked. Then came another administrator who unblocked the IP. That was not a great idea, and should receive some attention. The IP was very clearly Fredrick day, not doubtful. It was therefore block-evading. Reverting is a separate question.

Now, since we are having tea, I'd really like to discuss some other things, but it's late. Another time, perhaps? Thanks for dropping by. Do you actually live in New York? Where? --Abd (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable to restore material that violates BLP, not ever, period, not even if it was Hitler that did it. Never. So please at least do a cursory check of the material before you revert it. Thanks. -- Naerii 13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I'm pretty sure you're aware that he is playing you. The best response is to fix those BLP issues and ignore anything else he might have to say, and then move on. -- Naerii 13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotta go, but take a look at history for Jessica Dee article. It's not enough to "take a cursory look." It's not enough to go out and find a source. He will edit war and if any aspect of a reversion can be picked at, he will. He complains about "allegedly." Sure. Weasel word, thought about taking it out. But irrelevant. I've left his revert in place. Even though it seems he is now actually banned, it's entirely unclear, some admins seem to think that banned editors can do what they please.... and are to be reverted only if the contribution has been checked and found to be not okay. But wait a minute, isn't that true for any editor? --Abd (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's not enough to take a "cursory look", then take a good look. Leave it if you don't have time. Seriously, do not revert one of his mainspace edits unless it is vandalism. -- Naerii 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be reasonably common practice to revert mainspace edits of socks of blocked editors. Now, didn't I just say it wasn't enough to take a cursory look? I find the comment quite odd. I can revert the mainspace edit of any editor if I think it inappropriate. When I wrote about "cursory look," it was in response to your comment about that, and about a *proposal* that all evading edits by blocked editors be reverted promptly. This would then require rapid attention to any such reverts that recreate BLP issues. This is a *proposal*, not worked out in detail, that could make blocking more effective, while *at the same time* allowing blocked editors to make good contributions. They'd be reverted, but on examination -- and priority would be given to possible BLP issues -- they can be brought back in by any editor. There are quite a few reasons why this might be an improvement, and only BLP issues could it. (Copyvio is not generally an emergency, I think.) --18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't revert BLP removals and then check them later, we check them and then revert if need be (and if it's removing BLP violating content, then it doesn't need to be reverted). I don't know how to impress this more clearly upon you. This isn't about banned users, this is about living people who's careers can be affected by what shows up on Google for them. What if you restore the content and Google's crawlers grab the content in the time it takes for it to be removed again? -- Naerii 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get a bruised forehead from banging it against the wall..... You are trying to tell me something that (1) you already told me, (2) several others already told me, (3) I acknowledged and said I wouldn't do it. Unless the community approves. I'm now talking about a propsal, so saying that "we don't revert BLP removals and then check them later," is merely saying that this is not existing practice. And I've acknowledged existing practice.

Now, about those crawlers. The content has been there, in some cases, for months. It has already been crawled and copied and is all over the place. Nothing I saw was going to ruin anyone's career, that's preposterous (for what I saw). What was happening, generally -- not necessarily without exception -- was that statements about porn stars were unsourced. In one or two cases, I researched the matter and found that the text was correct. (This was about AIDS infections.)

My concern is efficiency. And you are looking at it from one side only. I.e., the situation that there is BLP violation on WP, a blocked editor sees it and removes it as IP. So automatically restoring the content as it was would be restoring BLP violation. However, this is a blocked editor, and one specifically blocked for vandalism, character attack, etc. Now that he has defeated, it would seem, one means by which he could be interdicted, he is now more free to accomplish his real purpose, which has been vandalism and personal attacks. And why do you seem to assume that he'd be *removing* personal attacks and never *inserting* them? I'm suggesting that for editors where there is a risk of insertion of violating material, that semiautomatic deletion be used, with review for possible BLP problems. There is another path possible that does not involve immediate reversion but rather immediate tagging. But, from what I've seen, the arguments against simply reverting are weak, based on an argument that reverting, if it restores harmful content, even for a short time, is somehow legally risky. Don't think I'm right? Well, rest easy. I'm not going to revert edits of Fd that take out possibly violating material unless I verify it, and I'm not likely to do that with porn star articles. But I might put a notice in Talk.--Abd (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the usebox, again

I changed back to Ashleys' version, plus the addition of muslim wikipedians category, which looked adequate at that moment [2], see its edit summary and my comment on deletion debate [3]. I think it's time to leave the poor userbox back to its original state before it wanders ever farther from its original meaning and let the debate close. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP case

Hiya mate, i noticed that you wanted to reopen the SSP case which i understand but i wanted to know how you explain the anomalies over the last week which im sure i could show throughout the edit history of fred. What evidence would you want me to provide? Seddon69 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to reopen the case until and unless someone else looks at the evidence and confirms my finding. Because AGK closed the case so quickly, I never got an explanation of what I found. User:Durova used secret methods to detect sock puppets, and she lost her sysop bit because she blocked a user as a sock puppet based on what she found. It is still unclear to me whether or not the user she blocked was a sock puppet or not, but the community was outraged by the use of secret evidence. I assume that the case looked very good to her, but she failed to adequately consult, which was a serious error. Not being an administrator, I couldn't block you, but I would not have done so in any case. Had Durova filed an SSP report instead of blocking, leaving the block decision to another administrator, she would still be an administrator.

There is essentially nothing I can think of that you could provide alone. Proof that you were separate individuals, by both individuals being real-world identified and the proof verified, would, of course, do it. But that would require *both* of you to real-world identify, which I would not even advise. Might not be a problem with you, but would almost certainly be a problem with Fredrick day.

As to how the anomalies are explained, it's really very simple for a user to pretend to be two different users, using different IP and with interleaved edits, so if someone is taking the precautions, anomalies you described would be found. The existence of those anomalies in modest quantities does not prove that the accounts are unrelated, so what would matter would be the preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence correlating the accounts can be so overwhelming that the existence of anomalies proves evasion of detection, not innocence. We already know that Fredrick day is prepared to undertake this cloaking action, he's shown it and demonstrated it. So, basically, if you are not Fredrick day, my advice is to ignore this case. Carry on with your excellent work.

And, in fact, if you are Fredrick day, I'd suggest the same. Fredrick day is basically dead meat at this point, as will be what looks at this point to be two more socks discovered. You are absolutely the smallest fish caught in this net.

(By the way, the identification of Phil McCavity as a sock of Fredrick day was not made by me, and I'm not at all sure that this was accurate. But there are other anomalies, if you look for them.)

What is going to count for Fredrick day is that he, through his various socks, has been a heavy, major contributor to the project. As to the identify of these other socks, I'm not disclosing that until my evidence has been independently examined. Maybe I'm totally wrong! I would then have the pleasure of apologizing deeply to you, for the trouble this has unnecessarily caused you. I'm certain, but I've been certain about a thing before and was wrong.

I'm also not providing the full evidence to anyone unless (1) I've run their contributions through this same process, and (2) I have other reasons to consider the user absolutely trustworthy. This additional work is ongoing, but I also have children to take care of and work to do. So in due time.--Abd (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages

Please don't remove content from user talk pages that are not your own, unless the user is banned (which in this case, he is not). Your following of Frederick Day is becoming something of a WP:POINT violation. I'd suggest it would be a good idea to stop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. This is with reference to [4]. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I hadn't removed any material by Fredrick day since April 8. In this case, he responded to a comment of mine about an independent matter, having nothing to do with him, and, since others, including administrators, have been removing Fd material, and there it was in front of me, I removed it, knowing that Mangojuice and anyone else interested could read it anyway. I wasn't following him, he was following me, rather obviously. So, sorry, I can't stop what I'm not doing, but, since you have asked, I won't remove any Fredrick day material. I never much liked deleting stuff anyway. I really only started to remove sock material following Fredrick day's practice. I guess I was following a bad example. Have a nice day. Oh. By the way, several administrators and users have removed the "indef blocked, nobody will unblock, but not banned, nosiree," Fredrick day contributions from my Talk pages. [5] [6] [7] Do you think they should also be warned? Thanks, and I will be very careful not to jaywalk or chew gum on the subway, because I'm quite aware that I'm being watched closely. Since you brought that material back, I'll go and respond to it.--Abd (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (that you haven't removed his material after the 8th), but in general removing user talk page posts is frowned upon. In the case of admins removing Frederick Day's posts on yours, well you've made it quite obvious that you don't want to see him talking; thus its not an issue (even if technically it's a little bit on shady side). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've brought his material back in on occasion. I think it's useful for people to see just who he is. I'm surprised, though, that you considered that comment useful, or that there was a violation on my part worthy of what is effectively edit warring on a Talk page. The post was trolling, in fact, with no substance of value for the project. It's really up to Mangojuice. If he wants that on his Talk page, with my response or not, he's welcome to it. It's up to him, but users do perform these services for each other, with the final decision being that of the user whose page it is. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough.

I don't know where your obsession with Frederick Day comes from, but making threats against another editor that you will harass them is absolutely unacceptable. You do NOT taunt the trolls (see WP:DNFTT). You are now disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point as evidenced by your threat against the IP. I'm going to warn you one last time: leave him alone, and go about your way with editing, or you will be blocked. It's that simple. Threatening another user that they should "quietly disappear" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand that this isn't about Fredrick day. And what I wrote did not suggest that the editor "quietly disappear." Rather, what I wrote was this: if my theory is correct, an SSP case could be presented that would be very, very serious. If my theory is incorrect, my theory is going to disappear and you will see no further posts regarding it, unless I'm asked. (I would, of course, apologize directly to anyone who may have been implicated, which would start with Seddon69, currently considered cleared, but I still have not apologized because the evidence was not actually addressed.

Rather, I simply wrote about the situation. I will develop the evidence, off-wiki. If it confirms the preliminary results, I would then, possibly (I will be consulting with others, as I already am, off-wiki), offer the suspected sock master, who is not Fredrick day, an opportunity to quietly disappear. If outside examination shows my evidence to be faulty, then you will see an apology. If it is inconclusive, it will simply disappear, because I won't be able to apologize, but neither would I be able to pursue it. It would be like Mantanmoreland.

I'm not obsessed wirh Fredrick day. I'm working on something far, far more significant. And for very obvious reasons, I cannot give details at this time; for if my technique is defective, I would be needlessly involving and accusing the innocent.

If there is a "threat" there, it is not to Fredrick day, but to the puppet master. Someone who is not a deeply involved puppet master behind Fredrick day and other accounts has nothing to fear from this, so, if there is no such master, the "threat" is not against any individual but only against a figment of my imagination. And not a threat, actually, but an offer, because, by the time I'm done, there will be other editors including administrators, who will know. There are already such, so if something mysteriously happens to my account.... well, that is definitely not a way to make this go away. The master's biggest mistake was to vigorously pursue Sarsaparilla, he went way beyond necessity. Without that, he'd still be undiscovered. He thought he was invulnerable. After all, checkuser would show him totally unconnected.

Is this a threat? Well, SWATjester, if you want to see some disruption, try to sanction me for revealing this on my own Talk page, in response to an unnecessary and provocative warning from you. If I'm blocked, I will not evade the block. I'm considering myself a quasi-administrator -- as anyone is who cares to follow the rules -- and so I am bound to not block-evade, and I would not violate this unless IAR *required* it. No, I'm not going to be disruptive. But the truth may be. The truth is not my property and the world does not depend on me.

One more point, for the record. Fredrick day bragged that he had other accounts and that he was only allowing us to see what he wanted us to see. He indicated that these accounts were where most of his work was being done. If he was telling the truth, and I think he was, then there are other *major* accounts involved. He also said that he was using multiple monitors. An obvious implication is that he is using multiple accounts, simultaneously, and he knows quite well enough -- and has proven -- that he can handle multiple ISPs and, in addition, open proxies. Currently, my "obsession" with Fredrick day is simply that I'm following up on what he stated. He wasn't lying. Now, if that doesn't concern you, fine. All things conspire toward the revelation of the truth. I don't need to call a spade a spade, because the spade reveals its own nature, and this is *not* calling you a spade. It is a general truth, if the shoe fits, wear it, and if it does not, it isn't about you. The only user named here is Fredrick day, and Seddon69 as a suspected sock puppet. You will note that AGK confirmed that the report was reasonable. Seddon69 himself acknowledged that the work I was doing was essential. So ... no disruption involved, except for your intervention here. Indeed, I should be warning *you*. But I don't normally do that, unless I plan to follow up, which I don't. I have much bigger fish to fry. Say whatever you like on my Talk pages, subject only to what restrictions others would place on it.--Abd (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Testing multiple logins

I really wonder how many of these could easily be done.... --Abd sock (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More than one, for sure

Not difficult. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I see you've been testing a second account. As far as I'm aware, there's no technical reason why you can't have as many as you like, though I think there's a limit to how many can be produced by the same IP address in one day, to prevent automatic spam programs, etc. However, I would strongly advise you to read WP:SOCK about the correct usage of alternative accounts, and if you are going to use them for the correct purpose, you should preferable declare them. See my alternative account, User:Pek the Penguin, for an example. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well ... this account, User:Abd sock was openly declared with creation, just through the name, and the first edit to the user Talk page was an acknowledgement, since I'd seen such socks blocked immediately when not explicitly acknowledged with a signed comment. The edits to the Talk pages (this one and User talk:Abd sock) were, well, rather obvious, don't you think? I'm well aware of sock policy. I created another sock, User:The Community, subject to special restrictions. It's been blocked, which is fine for the moment, even though that account had done *nothing* outside being created and self-restricted, since the restrictions meant that the account couldn't be used, anyway, outside the Talk page and for that to change would take a consensus of the community, in which case getting unblocked ought to be fairly easy! User:The Community doesn't speak for the community unless the community asks him to! This sock, User:Abd sock, will probably be used mostly for browsing with a shortened watchlist, but the immediate purpose was merely to make a demonstration of rapid editing, since that is relevant to some suspected sock puppet cases I'm investigating. Those edits were made from the same IP, but they could easily have had different IP. And how, I'm not going to explain! But rocket science, it isn't.

As to "declaring" the account, I see no harm in putting the same template as you use on the user page for Pek the Penguin. So I will. Isn't consensus nice? I will, of course, try to remember to change the fields or names.... --Abd (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, while you are at it, would you mind protecting the user page for User:Abd sock as you have protected your own? Good idea.... --Abd (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected - if you need it unlocked any time let me know, or any other administrator. There's no problem with you having the account, and I hope it didn't come across that I was accusing you of anything. This wasn't my intention. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in - Drug Policy

Mr. Monotheist, thanks for your comments on the Drug Policy project recently deleted. I look forward to working with you, especially given the comments about Free Associations you've listed on your user page. The Gnostic Study Group we've begun holds along the same lines you speak of, and I look forward to showing you some of our documentation and mandate once we publish them. Regards - Shamanchill (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In potential, the editor community here would be a Free Association, and rules and policies are often written as if it is. However, the classic hazard that FAs face is that they become inefficient in decision-making when the scale is large, and, in response to this, mechanisms arise, by default or by design, that leave the FA principles behind and the organizations become traditional oligarchies. Even when the theory is that they are perfectly open. In relatively anarchist or direct democratic organizations, participation bias takes over; those who have the energy to maintain the intense activity required for control of the project when the scale is large or the time period involved is long, become powerful. It's not just Wikipedia; this phenomenon commonly results in extremists taking over organizations that rely on direct participation for control. By "extremists" I mean that the opinions and positions of those participating so intensely will be different from that of the whole community, it will be toward, typically, some extreme. I don't mean "extremist" polemically. Theoretically, rule number one on Wikipedia is WP:IAR. But when I was asked, in my RfA, what was the most important rule that would guide my work, and I answered Rule Number One, I was practically shouted down. Rule Number One can easily be misunderstood, but it represented an early intuition of the project, and it is actually the foundation of common law, as distinct from statutory law. The insiders can become familiar with statutory law, those who feel comfortable being rule-bound, and so we see increasing proliferation of rules. In a positive direction, the accumulation of precedent makes it easier to understand the requirements of Rule Number One, but in the negative direction, increasing reliance on rules that are specifically stated causes a loss of freedom, and rule people tend to respond to violation of rules with punishment. So blocking, intended for protection of the project, is used increasingly for punishment. And, of course, one of the major characteristics of Free Associations is that they never punish. They may protect, as necessary, but punishment is inherently divisive and, in the end, becomes a tool of abuse. Our friend, who created the Drug Policy project, is ostensibly indef blocked for a trivial violation, one that I've never before seen used as an excuse for a block, the creation of an article on a non-notable subject. A verifiable article. But the real reason for the block (and the two prior indef blocks) was that he proposed experimenting with a solution to the problem of participation bias, WP:PRX. Currently, attention was drawn to his "sock" (a block-evading account) because he once again made the proposal, because an obvious opportunity arose in Wikipedia:Governance reform. The Wikipedia community has become quite hostile to new ideas. Actually, I should correct myself. A significant segment of the active, core community, the ones whose names we see again and again in policy discussions, arbitrations, etc., has become quite hostile. WP:AGF has broken down. --Abd (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that your First Rule WP:IAR is what I'd call a META-rule, or even an axiom in a mathematical sense, in that it's a measure implemented to skip up a level within a system when that system ceases to function as per its mandate, so as to get it back on course. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has lots to say about the failings of formal systems... and shows us the need to build such extra-systemic devices into our creations. The "Golden Rule" of the Christians is another of these. When asked what commandment in the law was greatest, Yeshua stated that his rewording of the First Commandment was greatest (he, too was a monotheist, and I think stated this to both show common ground with the questioners by giving the expected answer, as well as establishing the mandate for the system he was being questioned on and for which he gave the meta-rule), adding that second, and similarly, to Love your neighbour as yourself was what ALL law and prophets hung on. He described the meta-system for all laws, and by which all could be violated in their stricter sense.

Thanks for your analysis and filling me in. Let's wait to see if we can get the pages reinstated, and I'm open to recreating them from scratch if necessary (and have requested notice of any other objections to their existence apart from their original means of creation). Regards Shamanchill (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We're up and running again, Abd. Please go in and have a look. WikiProject Drug Policy - Shamanchill (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicommons picture of the year voting

Hi Abd,

I thought you might be interested that the Wikicommons POTY is a two round vote, approval voting in first round, plurality in the second: [8]

At a theoretical level, the first round is meaningless, if you assume ALL voters evaluated ALL CHOICES with full attention. The winner of the second round be unchanged had the first round simply been plurality to pick the winner. At a practical level, it makes a difference between too many choices is overwhelming and so the filtering process helps focus attention.

At a strategy level, there's yet GREAT power for manipulation, at least given the "top 28" rule. If the threshold was like 50% approval, there'd be no problem, but fixing the round 1 winner count means my TOP-STRATEGY is to vote for my REAL TOP SET plus ALL PICTURES I judge won't win. This strategy offers a chance than some stronger competitors will "get lost" in the vast choice set and fail the top-28. Not to say any sigificant number of voters there will vote strategically like this, only that it is possible.

I'm sure you agree that "forced elimination" is the weakness of any method. The only way I know an approval approval filter can work slightly fairly is NOT to eliminate, but simply SORT choices in the second round by votes in the first round, so that still gives an "unfair advantage" to first round manipulation, but at least earnest voters in the second round have a chance to judge all the choices if they like.

Myself I have nothing against the one vote rule of plurality, only against picking a winner too soon. I would promote the POTY voting to have a ranking round and a Condorcet method AFTER an approval ballot order sorting round which helps lazy voters identify the strongest competition.

Always fun - I'll have to watch for the next vote and propose something! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at user_talk:Lar

I responded to your comments on User_talk:Lar there, per my policy. If you have further to say, you may wish to do so there. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I expected. Thanks. I'll check again, I may have seen it. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've answered again, making the conversation rather a slow motion one, as is my wont when I'm especially puzzled. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers RfC

Thank you ► RATEL ◄ 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just asking

What I've done that requires an apology? I asked him to cutout the potshots per policy, he demanded to know why I was the only one who brought it up with him, I pointed out that several others had, and that since he had cut out the attacks, that nothing more needed to happen. That's when he signed the recall thing. Just curious. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any undue distress. I became aware of Kmweber's request for your voluntary relinquishment of the mop from a questioning of it on his Talk page. I had previously seen the interchange and had been concerned about it as having a bullying tone, with apparent threat of block for what may have been a legitimate exercise of editor rights. I suggest that you carefully review what occurred, and, if you can find nothing to apologize about, sincerely, let me know and I will review the whole history in detail, which I don't have time to do at the moment. If there is nothing, in fact, first of all, it's likely nobody else will sign it and it will become moot. I admire you for putting up such a promise to relinquish, so you have one strike in your favor to start. Kmweber can be crotchety, and Wikipedia can make that worse. But he's also usually got a point. Try to understand it from his point of view, and, as well, why I might think your behavior inappropriate. The whole thing might easily be dispelled. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over, the only line that I can consider even CLOSE to the line is If you have suggestions to improve the ArbitraTION Committee, I suggest that you bring it forward. if all you have is potshots and attacks, I think that it'd be best if you didn't say any thing at all.

What I meant to say there is that taking potshots like he was in multiple ANI threads (telling others to ignore ArbCom, saying that they had no ability to take the decisions they had (when it's pretty obvious that yes, they do have that ability), as well as referring to it as using the derogatory term the "Arbitary Committee" at every opportunity) was not adding anything of value to the conversation. After others had removed these attacks, he began edit-warring to keep them in. While my choice of worsds may not have been the best, I truly do not think that I have anything to apologize for. Thanks for the opportunity to give my side of the story. SirFozzie (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you found was not a problem. It was your opinion, and it was not a threat. I really don't think it should be that difficult for you to figure it out; but -- sometimes it is truly hard to "see ourselves as others see us." By the way, warning him for edit warring, if that is what he was doing, would be appropriate, but "pot shots" is a term which can cover legitimate criticism. Calling ArbComm the "Arbitrary Committee" may be crusty, but it's not an offense of any kind. Nor is your suggesting that he stop it. But I think you mentioned "steel." Is that enough of a hint? I'll explain tomorrow if there is still a need. And to close with another old quote, "a stitch in time saves nine." --Abd (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to restore

The editor is, now, deservingly banned, and has been for three months. There's no obligation on the part of Wikipedia to maintain his pages indefinitely. The last addition to User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress was made on March 14, 2008, linking to a discussion that closed on March 20.

It strikes me as odd that you would be so concerned about this page's fate right this instant, given that you've failed to show any interest in it whatsoever for the last three months. It's a noticeboard created by a banned user, with ten edits in its history, with no current users. Let it go.

You've already signed up at User:Basketball110/WikiProject Deletion Patrol, and are capable of following the links on that page to other centralized discussions. Perhaps you might be interested in participating in an active project, rather than preserving the pages of banned, disruptive editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I'll ask for the page from someone else, since you don't seem to be willing to provide it. I was just wondering why you found the deletion of that page so important when you've hardly been editing anything lately. It's just another factoid to toss in the soup. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I was pruning my watchlist. I noticed that there was a page on it that we didn't need any more, so I deleted it. I'll undelete it for you if you can give me a sound reason why it would improve Wikipedia for me to do so.

I'm flattered that you're so interested in my editing, and touched by your interest in my development as a Wikipedia administrator. Can't see why you would say I've "hardly been editing anything lately"; near as I can tell I've made at least twice as many edits in May as you have. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been quite inactive, I have other stuff to do. But that page of Obuibo Mbstpo's was on my Watchlist, so I saw your deletion. You called Obuibo Mbstpo "disruptive." He was a prolific editor, making many many contributions to the project. Well, was he disruptive? By removing files showing his actions, you obscure the record, leaving nothing but allegations and stink. I, in turn, find it interesting that you chose to watch his discussions page.... but so what? Lots of stuff is interesting, and only some of it turns out to matter. We'll all see in the end, I'm sure. G'night. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, in answer to my question, you don't propose any reason for undeletion that would benefit Wikipedia. Let me know if you think of one; until then, quit busting my chops. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I asked first for undeletion, but then, if not that, for a copy of the file, so I can judge for myself if there is reason to keep it. That would include the file history. Since you don't want to provide it, apparently, I saw no reason to "bust your chops" by arguing with you about it, I can get it from someone else. So go away, please. --Abd (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)

Just to let you know I have refactored long comments on this AFD to its talk page as it was getting rather long, in order to aid readability of the day's AFD page. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out and put back anything I consider essential. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

payment

I still haven't been paid for those edits I made for you. Please sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.96.109 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the purchase order, Fredrick, assuming it's you. Please remind me what account you used and what edits you made, and I'll check it out right away, and you'll get what you earned by your actions. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to you! (well, sort of)

Looking over the "IRV Controversies" article and its associated AfD (2nd), I am struck by how much effort you have put into it. Even though it appears (to me, at least) that you oppose IRV, I think that it is highly commendable of you to work so hard on this. I would normally be contributing to efforts such as yours, but I am not in the best of health and so am not up to the task of debating others. I hope that you prevail in this dispute.
--NBahn (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come to oppose IRV, and I'm familiar with the arguments, but that doesn't prevent me from trying to make the article NPOV. Given that you have been exercised to make this comment here, you might consider making a comment in the AfD. That's not debating, but every comment helps. Right now, it looks like the AfD may go for merge and redirect, which means that the article would ultimately be blanked, and the content merged with the main article, where notability issues become more of a problem. To be in the controversies article, arguments and facts should be notable. But to be in the main article, they should be sufficiently notable not to create an imbalance. The Controversies article was started through a consensus of editors, and the plan was to bring content back into the main article using summary style. That's difficult, but easier than trying to get consensus on summaries of arguments when we don't have an underlying consensus on the facts. The Controversies article provided room to explore that, and much was written there that is common knowledge among experts. Definitely, sources should be provided, but it used to be that articles would be written and then cleaned up. Writers and editors, what a concept! But now some editors expect everything to be written at the very beginning with full reliable sourcing. It's a wide problem. People write from their own knowledge and, indeed, are led to believe that they can do that, and it is only when they look at the fine print that they realize, no, you must write with immediate reference to reliable sources, and your own knowledge, the knowledge of your friends, and the knowledge of your entire community means nothing if you don't provide a published source. That drastically interferes with the writing process.

What should be happening is that if someone thinks that a piece of text isn't properly sourced, they should (1) source it, or (2) put a citation-needed tag on it, or (3) if they think it incorrect or improper, take it out. Increasingly, though, we are seeing not only the taking out of text by default, but the taking out of entire articles, even if there is sufficient reliable source for some of it already given. AfD is being used as an editorial bludgeon. Merge and redirect isn't a terrible outcome, but it is going to be quite difficult to accomplish, and, for sure, those voting for it either (a) aren't going to do the work or (b) will do it with a meat cleaver and without discussion. Probably. The people actually working on the article have all voted to keep or were at least neutral. Good question: what if an AfD comes up with Merge/Redirect and nobody does it, or it is opposed by multiple editors? We could go to Deletion Review, perhaps; the guideline says that it might be proposed for Deletion again.... But it would be simpler, a lot simpler, if we just have Keep or No consensus. The reality right now is no consensus.... but you never know, a lot depends on what admin picks this AfD to close. --Abd (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You might make a good Citizendium author

Hi Abd, there is a lot more history to the IRV article and related articles, and yourself that I was aware of. Please don’t look deep into my comments, I intended to only make passing comments on the existing version of the article and recent talk page activity. I do think that you (and/or others) have pushed to the limit of WP:SYN, possibly over it. I am impressed by your passion, knowledge and analytical skills. Have you considered contributing to http://en.citizendium.org/. I believe that there, you’d be allowed much more freedom to do a reasonable amount of analysis. I note that there is very little mention of IRV, and that it is a red-linked topic waiting for the writing (see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote). If you could write a superior article at citizendium, then it could be good for wikipedia because we could cite your borderline-analysis at that site. I have not seen much citing of citizendium in wikipedia, but I see no real problem, as it is easy to argue that it is more reliable, for what it contains, that wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have considered creating a mechanism for rapid peer-review off-wiki that could then be used to reliably source material. It's a bit frustrating for voting systems experts, because most work in recent years has taken place in mailing lists, particularly the Election Methods mailing list, and the community does in fact come to consensus, but that is never measured or marked by some definitive action. Wikipedia sidestepped a major way in which classical encyclopedias were written, which was through consulting experts. When some point was in doubt, editors would ask an expert, or several experts. We can't do that, even though peer-reviewed journals routinely accept, from authors, a reference to "private correspondence with So-and-So." So I created the Election Methods Interest Group, and solicited the participation of experts and anyone interested, and, in fact, a number of experts joined and so did some of the pro-IRV editors working on the article in Wikipedia. The plan has been that articles would be submitted to this group for review. EMIG would not make a decision; rather, polls would measure the degree of consensus in committee existing with respect to details of an article, until some member considers the article ready to present in toto to the whole "assembly." Then, again, a poll would estimate consensus on actual publication. EMIG would not publish, though it would keep the records of its process and deliberations and polls available. A publisher would then actually publish the article, based on the peer review. The actual publisher could be a journal like Voting Matters, or anyone could set up a web publisher for the purpose. The point would be that there would be genuine peer review, of a quality probably exceeding that which takes place with standard publications.

However, it had never occurred to me that Citizendium could serve for that. I'll check it out.

What was frustrating about the AfD, which just closed with a rather brain-dead "Merge and Redirect," was actually a typical problem with AfDs. Editors with no knowledge of the subject and not taking the time to become informed make snap decisions. That the first responses were Delete is actually quite common. That the charge was made that the Controversies article was a POV fork is a very easy assumption to make, see the prior AfD. However, if we look at WP:FORK and then carefully at the article and its history, it isn't a POV fork, period. This was discussed in the AfD and was never actually contradicted by anyone looking at the argument and refuting it. Rather, it simply was repeated without evidence, as if it was clear. There were various arguments that had more substance, such as the article being a convenient place to hang original research. However, that a topic attracts original research has nothing to do with its notability and with the availability of reliable source. The solution to original research is not to remove the article, but to delete the OR, or source it to reliable source. What looks like OR to one person may be simply an unsourced report of what has been researched.

The comment I provided that explained the unsourced character of some of the article was taken for a blanket justification for keeping unsourced material. My impression is that what I wrote would, at one time, have been easily understood: Wikipedia was built on unsourced articles, written by editors who simply wrote what they knew. Then, instead of simply deleting these articles (as now happens routinely within minutes, using speedy deletion), someone would improve them, and this was done in various ways, one of which was by stubbing them. My own practice has been to leave alone what is unsourced, but which I know to be true, and which I believe can be sourced with effort. When I wrote about what was "well-known," I was not claiming that material should be left in, indefinitely, merely because it is allegedly well-known. I mean, instead, that what is truly well-known needs no source unless someone challenges it. If every statement in articles were sourced, we'd have a forest of notes. Instead, we only expect sourcing for what is not well-known. The problem arises when experts write articles. What they consider well-known and not controversial may be obscure or even questionable to others. An example with this article was the monotonicity failure of IRV. "You can hurt your favorite by voting for him? How could that be?" Now, we have an article on monotonicity criterion, but, of course, that wasn't enough. I put the reference into the article, not as a source, but as a reference to a specific article on the subject. In fact, the debate, were there any, over whether or not this is true of IRV should take place there! What casual AfD commentors do is, in fact, wikilawyering. Instead of considering the overall function of the encyclopedia, they look for rules to follow, and, if it seems a rule applies, aha! There is the answer!

Now, the closer has simply blanked and redirected the article. I.e., a group of people with no real interest in improving the articles has made an editorial decision deleting content (though only normal editorial deletion, it's all there), but will not take any responsibility for the hard part: taking content from the article back into the IRV article. In that article, there is an additional constraint that does not apply to the controversies article: relative notability. Thus material that is clearly notable, has reliable source, may still be considered inappropriate for the main article because of WP:UNDUE. So the result is that notable, RS'd material is deleted. The process, in a word, sucks. Editorial decisions should not be made in AfDs, period, beyond determining notability and potential availability of source. Merge and Redirect is certainly better than Delete, but, like any editorial decision, it should be reversible readily. And it is. However, I'm not going to do it alone. We could go to DRV, but that would simply repeat the error: submitting editorial decisions, not to an RfC or other DR process, but to a process designed only to deal with deletion, merge and redirect being a kind of "keep." Notice that it is not Redirect and Merge. There is a process hinted at in the name. Merge first, and then Redirect. But the closing admin simply deleted the content and redirected. That's "delete and redirect, in fact, though not "delete" in the administrative sense but only in the ordinary editorial sense.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review the history. It's actually a fantastical one; I've been approached by media for an account of it, and there may be publication of it. I think most editors, reading what I say about it, assume that I'm just pushing some POV, but I try to be accurate. There really were sock puppets and IP editors sitting on the IRV article. And there really was an SPA created to delete article relating to IRV, selectively eliminating anything that could be used to criticize IRV. That SPA really did start the first AfD for the article, and really did come out of retirement to vote "Strong delete." Yet, ironically, one of the editors who is actually officially affiliated with FairVote voted to Keep. The article wasn't a POV fork, and the question that was asked by one editor "If it is, what POV?" was never answered. BlackKite's closing was a reasonable one as to majority opinion, but not as to argument. He simply repeated the POV fork argument. That can be overturned, in my opinion, by a consensus of editors, and, so, that's what I'll be seeking. Given that there was already editorial consensus for the article -- among those actually working on the topic, which includes pro and con editors plus a few neutrals -- I don't think it will be difficult. --Abd (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One more comment, about WP:SYN. Sure. That's what writers do. Then editors follow up and clean it up. Wikipedia has become an editor's paradise, at the expense of writers. A good encyclopedia needs both. I have seen overall article quality decline in a number of areas that I'm familiar with, what was once interesting, challenging me to do further research, has been clipped and pruned and prodded and poked until it is ... boring and much of what was most useful has been removed. For example, I needed to learn about low-carb diets. In the article on the Atkins Nutritional Approach was a link to an external site, [http:/lowcarber.org ] This site is a public forum where many ordinary people and quite a few experts discuss and debate and link to research. It was extraordinarily useful. And it has changed my life. Is the link still there? No. What happened? Well, some editor had a web site and kept putting the web site into external links. And other editors kept taking it out; it was probably a commercial site, purely. Eventually administrative attention was attracted, and an admin looked at the links and essentially took about everything out, including lowcarber.org. Why? Well, there is advertising on that site, and some policy was arguably violated. However, we routinely link to sites with advertising, such as newspapers! Could I put it back in? Sure. But how many battles can one person fight?

I write what I believe will be established by reliable sources. It takes probably ten times as long to actually source everything. If someone removes what I write, sure, I can't just put it back without sources. That's the proper response to OR: delete it or source it, or, more politely, cn tag it. But I'm not going to delete what is not yet sourced, if I believe it can be. Otherwise, in response to the AfD, I'd have clipped the article back. Quite possibly starting an edit war, doing so much clipping at once. One piece at a time is how consensus is found. --Abd (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You also ought to consider publishing a manuscript in a peer reviewed journal. Acknowledge material from mailing lists, etc, as required. The experience, the professional feedback, and the concrete accomplishment would easily make the effort worthwhile, especially if you consider that near-obvious synthesis remains unstated (explicitly) in reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Voting Matters is a peer-reviewed journal, I believe. However, the plan I mentioned above, to create peer review using broader resources, may have deeper effects. In any case, I need to get moving on the actual writing. I tend to work best in a back-and-forth exchange environment, I'm not good at getting going on solitary writing. It has something to do with my ADHD. Meanwhile, the IRV article is coming unglued as a result of the AfD, as I thought would occur. --Abd (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the ADHD controversy talk page again

I have left what will probably be my final message on the talk page. Could you take a look at it? Undoubtedly, it breaks some kind of rule but it had to be said. I assume you have given up trying to reason with Scuro, or fix the situation there, but if you haven't is there any way his power can be broken? He makes a mockery of what Wikepedia has the potential to be

My regards,

Simon Sobo MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it. Wikpedia has potential, and it's already done a great deal, but my opinion is that it is devolving. One thing for sure. Scuro won't be prevented from damaging articles by you getting yourself blocked. So don't violate policy, it won't accomplish anything but some transient catharsis. Hmmm.... come to think ..... My friend committed wiki-suicide by (1) dropping a solicitation for an action (actually a good one, but he knew the response he would get) on the Talk page of every member of the Arbitration Committee, and then, when he was warned by an admin for WP:CANVASS violation, which it actually wasn't, he wrote "too late, I'm done" and placed an image of an upraised finger with his reply. Indef block. Inappropriate, violation of block policy, but, indeed, he knew that was likely from that particular administrator. (Admins aren't supposed to block people for insulting them. An admin can block someone who insults someone else.... it's a Conflict of Interest thing.)--Abd (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

reversion of your reversion no longer possible

There have been other edits to that section, so your edit cannot be simply undone. As I am one of those editors, I tried to make a compromise version that both you and Richie might accept. (see the talk on the IRV article). Tbouricius (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. The only edit in the way of the reversion was actually yours, I think, in which case it was made after I made the request that someone accept my edit -- at least temporarily -- by reverting my removal of it.

I did it myself. When there is more than one edit to a section, after a version that you want to go back to, you just revert them in reverse order. This is generally considered one reversion for purposes of the 3RR limit. (Some people have a Rollback button that does this in one step, but that isn't supposed to be used with any content disputes, and others have assisted editing tools that will make multiple reverts quickly. But it's easy to do manually. Look at what I did to my self-revert and you'll see it.

If I'd wanted to keep your edit, though, I'd have made the change without reversion, but manually with copy and paste. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)