User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Warnings before block

User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Before flap
User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Warnings before block
User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Blocked

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

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

brenneman 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I thought this had gone away, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning before block

I have asked another administrator to review your editing. The above screed [1] is a personal attack on User:Fritzpoll and includes major assumptions of bad faith. Such things are not allowed on Wikipedia, and I strongly suggest you remove them. If you continue your campaign to drive off User:Fritzpoll I will support an indefinite block on your account by a suitably uninvolved administrator. Due to past interactions with you, I will not place such a block myself. Your past editing history shows that your account is mainly used for disruption and drama mongering. As such, your account could be blocked indefinitely, per policy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Negative. He posted on this thread at 15:21 [2], prior to the latest screed. [3] Will somebody press the block button please. This disruption needs to be stopped. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4]

S. Dean Jameson's posts here.

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

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

=

"Final final warning"

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

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

Here is the text from the diff'd edit:

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

I made no conclusion from the two editors posting in the same thread and, in fact, I'd expect Fd to pop in if he thought he could make some trouble for me, he's done it many times. This would mean nothing about Fritzpoll. I can see that you are going to need to see, as well, the text of the subject edit:[5]

goes beyond that doesn't it? [6]] more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post]. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm about to block

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

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

:(e/c with the everpresent Keeper) The "please do let me have your thoughts" above was probably directed at Abd, but since I'm here, snooping: I would be inclined, instead, to see how he reacts to the torrent of advice he's received from multiple people today. As far as I know, he's only been made aware in a serious way that he's flirting with disruption starting today (although if I missed something previous, please correct me).--barneca (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) See below --barneca (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand this comment. The IP pretty much admitted on Fritzpoll's talk page to being Frederick Day[7]. And the IP's ANI comment certainly appeared to be impersonating Fritzpoll.[8]] Abd was obviously incorrect about Fritzpoll being Frederick Day, but he certainly had reason for suspicion, as the F.D. did make a post that (intentionally or not) was made to seem to be coming from Fritzpoll. Rlendog (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Abd, you say above "there is no urgency today". Yes, there is; you've accused an editor of being a banned user based on... well... if you'd bother to read what people are telling you, nothing. You can't just leave that hanging for a couple of days while you look into it. Looking into it is what you do first. Putting myself in Fritzpoll's shoes, if someone accused me of being a banned user, and never retracted it, and there were no consequences for the unsubstantiated accusation, I'd probably leave for a while, too. I'm no longer opposed to a block. --barneca (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's moot now. I went to Fritzpoll's Talk page to apologize -- for what I can apologize for, I clearly made an error in analyzing the Fd IP edit, but saw that I was blocked. However, something puzzles me, still. Fd has been known to set traps, and that certainly looks like one in retrospect. I actually looked at the original Fritzpoll diff three times before I saw the coincident text, and the way the post was put up did make it look like the "my" had been inserted by Fd. (But as I stated from the beginning, the whole appearance in AN of Fd could be a disruption, with Fritzpoll being totally innocent of connection.) And then there is now something else. I won't go there yet, but ... checkuser will probably be the best way to clear it up. I'll deal with the block separately. I would rather, though, watch for comment from others before I request unblock. I will request it, because that's proper procedure, but not yet. I had already stated that I was going to post only here for a while, so ... the block was improper, because it prevented nothing. So let's see where this goes. --Abd (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The block is very proper, before you start conjuring up your rebuttal. It was set to prevent you from continuing to debase a fine editor (I'm purposefully not saying admin, because that is what is a moot point). Even here, where you say "I was about to go apologize to Fritzpoll", you still find a way to continue to back up your baseless accusation and irrational thought process. Again, I feel bad for you, Abd, I really do. That IP showed up at exactly the worst time possible, and completely derailed an otherwise solvable dispute. It does seem, if I were to assume bad faith, to be rather "convenient" of you to say in so many words, 'well, if I weren't blocked, I was gonna apologize'. You had ample opportunity to apologize, but instead, left diatribes both at ANi and here, continuing the same insinuations. Again, unfortunate, as I know how F-day knows how to find your buttons and push them with a jackhammer. I endorse the block, and endorse the wording of it as well. It is indefinite in the sense that things need to be resolved before you are unblocked. That is not an improbable conclusion by the way. I will unblock you myself if I feel that you will be productive to the community. Say what you want, and here. If anything, I'm glad I only have to look here for the next few days. Keeper ǀ 76 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, you wouldn't say such a thing about what I said about what I was doing. I'd testify to it in a court of law, actually, but that doesn't matter, I can't prove it, except that the timing works. I made a partial retraction here, acknowledging the error about what was quoted and what was inserted, and I'm still a bit confused about what actually happened there, but I assume it will get sorted out, and then I realized that the most urgent thing was to apologize to Fritzpoll, because of the error I had indeed made, but I couldn't do that. Let me repeat this: what I saw was an edit made by Fredrick day. There was no error about this. That edit referred to "my 'administrative....'" That is, the word "administrative" was in quotes and my preceded it. Fd did not state that he was quoting the whole thing, and when I looked at it -- it was a relatively long response by Fritzpoll -- I missed the exact quotation. So, on its face, it looked like Fredrick day had perhaps slipped and said "my" and forgot he wasn't logged in. In hindsight that interpretation is weak, but I did see it as a possibility. I also saw other possibilities, and was explicit that this could just be Fd stirring up shit. (Which is, in fact, how Keeper76 has interpreted the affair.) Because of that appearance, the suspicion that Fritzpoll was Fredrick day was stronger than it might otherwise be, much stronger. I have said that I'm not yet satisfied that all such suspicion should be dismissed, and that's a simple truth. But certainly I should have apologized to Fritzpoll and explained that I wasn't accusing him of being a sock of Fredrick day. Rather, the situation was that Fredrick day had -- in my possibly incorrect interpretation -- claimed to be him. And what do we do when that happens?

But, take away my error. The post is as we now know it to be, an exact quote. So? Fd posted a post that appears to be a claim that he is Fritzpoll. The situation really hasn't changed. Fd plays games like this. Allemandtando was blocked because Fd insisted that I essentially "put up or shut up." He didn't care. He will toss an account, he loses nothing; but, in favor of an interpretation that it was pure disruption, and that Fritzpoll is totally innocent, I don't think that Fd would deliberately risk an asset like Fritzpoll, though there are other considerations I can't disclose at this time. It's possible. Just seems pretty unlikely.

None of this would be a threat to Fritzpoll unless he's Fredrick day. The chances that he's editing from Fd IP is extraordinarily low. (He has written something like "what if it's my IP?" That comment, in fact, is one reason why still have some worry about this. That is exactly what Fd might say.) Is he in London? If so, the risk gets higher. However, nothing would be automatic if it turned out that his IP were the same as Fd. As I mentioned again and again, Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, I simply disagreed with one action he took and was pursuing WP:DR with him (I did not take this matter to AN), and he could have stopped that at any point and, if I didn't agree with him by then, it would have been on me to take DR to the next stage. So the idea that I was harassing Fritzpoll, which got tossed into the mix here, is preposterous. Fritzpoll is an administrator, his skin became astonishingly thin over this. I never attacked him, but his responses did call into question, for me, his administrative competence, for reasons which will come out if it is made necessary, but process resulting from that would be way down the line, if ever, and he'd have plenty of time to amend any problems or find confirmation from the community. I simply wrote about it, civilly, on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your other considerations are that make you think that I'm a sock still, but if you let us know, we'll tell Thatcher, who's been pretty emphatic on this point Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c response to Abd). Your latest rant (and yes, at this point, it appears to be nothing short of a rant) does nothing to assuage the concerns about you, and about your use of your "anyone can edit" account. I realize you have "fans", and I fully expect them to contribute here. But for you to continue to malign an admin, and a quality editor, such as Fritzpoll, with your "continued doubts", is beyond the pale. I'm at a loss, frankly. This has absolutely nothing to do with Wilhemina Will. You've never called Fritz a "disruptive editor", I agree. You've also never claimed him to be a sock of your long time adversary, F-day. Until it became convenient to do so. I'm beyond good faith at this point. You are clearly flailing at this point, in my eyes, to restore some semblance of respectability on-wiki. I'm very glad for Iridesecent's block, I'll reiterate once again, if only to confine you to this particular talkpage with your ramblings. You just don't seem to get it. You continually cite your extensive DR experience, your off-wiki experience, and yet here we are. You are the common denominator, Abd. You have added your "2 cents" in too many places, and instead of affecting chage, you have done nonthing other than "show your hand". Again, I'll state, life is too short for your ramblings, you've completely mischaracterized and misjudged this community of NPOV article builders. At the moment, I personally don't feel that your presence is welcome here. Keeper ǀ 76 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, please provide diffs for the "repeated posting of untrue attacks on another editor," after warnings, on which you apparently based your block. Thanks.

The block reason that appears when I try to edit shows ""Indefinite" as in "Unspecified", not "Forever". Repeated posting of untrue attacks on another editor after multiple warnings."

Please, would the blocking admin show diffs for a repeated posting of an "untrue attack," that is, presumably, multiple posts that are both attack and untrue. I made an error based on the plain appearance of an edit, on its face, and until it was better explained by Barneca, didn't understand the basis for an objection that had been raised, but since I believe I always made it clear that Fritzpoll could easily not be Fredrick day, the only "error" was a misinterpretation of a post by Fredrick day that would not, by itself, prove that Fritzpoll was Fredrick day, the most it could do was raise some suspicion, quite the same as if Fredrick day had said, "I'm Fritzpoll." It would raise suspicion, but certainly not be proof. So: could Iridescent provide diffs of "repeated posting of untrue attacks after multiple warnings."? Yes, I was warned, I waive consideration of that, though I think I did ask for specifics and don't recall them being provided. But sometimes I'm a bit dotty. I'm asking for specifics now. That's the first tangled thread to be unraveled: what did I actually do? When I know what I did, I can then determine if I should apologize, request unblock, email other admins, write ArbComm, or what. It will also simplify further process, since there will be something specific to review. Thanks.

Note:I'm specifically asking Iridescent for this. Procedurally, that's important.--Abd (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent will reply, I'm confident, but first, I must ask, do you honestly feel that your block has only to do with a "misinterpretation" of an IP post? Really? This whole thread started with a "warning" about a block, only later did the IP, and the repeated assertions towards your better senses, come into play. If you seriously think that anyway will take this one infraction, as a stand alone, as the reason for your block, then you are the ultimate in the field of wikilawyering. Keeper ǀ 76 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, if you're this uncertain about things you yourself have said, maybe you should slow down and think more before writing. Friday (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of bad blocks, intervened with a few, and watched quite a bit of ArbComm review of same. Blocks are preventative, never punitive, and I had stated I wasn't going to continue with posts outside my Talk. Yes, it's true, there are a series of "infractions," and they go back for many months, and they include, for example, my challenge of a block made by Jehochman, which we were able to resolve in a friendly manner. They include other issues between me and adminstrators who have become involved here. Iridescent's behavior did not, shall we say, impress me as worthy of an administrator, a good administrator knows how to defuse problems, not to inflame them. Want to see what a good administrator would do? Look at Carcharoth's actions today. I finally saw what he had written on Fritzpoll's Talk when I went there to apologize for my error, and it was excellent.

Yes, I'm sometimes unsure about what I've done or said. You get to do that when you are 64. Unfortunately, I already put way too much time into writing. When I see the actual wrong things I supposedly said, I'll know better. Are you claiming that it doesn't make any difference? Yes, there was a misinterpretation of an IP post, and it looks to me like the post was a setup for exactly that misinterpretation. However, I didn't actually "fall for it," except in a minor way. I refused to actually accuse Fritzpoll of being Fredrick day, I repeatedly stated that Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor and I only had a problem with one action of his, that the idea he might be Fredrick day was astonishing to me, and I was very, very careful to repeat, numerous times, that the whole thing could be an Fd trick. So? What did I do?

Might be worth looking at User:Abd/Rule 0 again. I've seen these kind of arguments before, Keeper76. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to prepare an ArbComm case, if that's what it comes to. Obviously, that's not the first step, far from it. But I am always considering that ArbComm is looking over my shoulder, because they might be, later. I am really, really interested to see what happens now.

My daughter is possibly named after Birtukan Mideksa, who, when we adopted our daughter, was in prison in Ethiopia. My kids wanted to know if Birtukan had done anything wrong. "No, I explained, sometimes good people are in prison because they stand up for what is right." Well, I'm under Talk page arrest at this point, so to speak. I'll take good advantage of the opportunity, as did Birtukan. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How on earth was harassing an editor off the encyclopaedia "standing up for what is right"? Orderinchaos 00:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be. But I did not do that. I did not harass Fritzpoll, I asked him about an AN/I poll and his actions with respect to it, he never asked me to stop. I responded to him on my Talk page, and also to an AN report that he filed which mentioned me. This is far, far from harassment. He never claimed harassment, to my knowledge, until abruptly, at the end. His "leaving" -- which was astonishing to me and totally unexpected and unexplained (except through the Fd hypothesis, which does explain it, but that's another story, it proves nothing) -- may not be final, and I see no reason why it should be. However, it might point out this justice in this: I was not harassing him, but he may have felt harassed. Now, what about Wilhelmina Will? How did she feel? She was harassed, that became obvious, dragged before AN/I over matters that would ordinarily be resolved quite short of that. And Fritzpoll wasn't a help with this, and may have been part of the problem. Nevertheless, it was not my intention to cause him grief, and my next step, since it seemed that the AN report was winding down, would probably have been to go to AN/I with an unban request on WW, succinctly written -- please remember, I didn't start the process at AN, and I was in explanatory, discursive mode -- because this (AN/I) would be simpler than other possible actions.--Abd (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even this post contains subtle attacks on both Fritzpoll (in the parenthetical) and the ANI system. Keeper ǀ 76 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, one would have to block everybody if attacks on the AN/I system were a criteria :) Orderinchaos 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you really insist:

Final warning to quit the personal attacks or be blocked

Personal attacks and evidence-free accusations of sockpuppetry by yourself against Fritzpoll following that warning and prior to your block: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

Seriously, we gave you way more leniency than we'd give someone without your history of potentially valid contributions. If you really think it's "abusive" to block you after that many attacks – not to mention seven warnings after your "final" warning (they're on your talk page – count 'em), than a site that runs on consensus and not who can complain the loudest is probably not the place for you. – iridescent 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. I will review that. Do you think I should attempt to discuss these with you, here, if I think your judgement incorrect as to what is an "attack" and "untrue"? Or should I reserve that for an unblock request? I'd rather resolve this with you before involving another admin. What do you think? Oh, by the way. I have about forty years of experience with true consensus organizations, and I always seek consensus. It's a process, though, not a fixed thing, and part of it is that participants are open about what they think and see and feel. But that's beside the point, here. I will simply note that I did respond to the warnings and stated that, essentially until the smoke cleared, I wasn't going to be editing in any controversial way outside my Talk, and I had no understanding, or warning, that my Talk page edits would be considered improper, and I believe I was careful even here in Talk. So in that sense I wasn't adequately warned, possibly. But I won't stand on that. I obviously knew that a block was imminent, I referred to it numerous times.--Abd (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd there are bounds beyond which trust begins to flake away. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While the general meaning of this is simple, the specific meaning of it here may be one of those enduring mysteries to me. Or not. Why did Gwen Gale post this here? Does it refer to something I wrote immediately above? What is this supposed to accomplish? Mystery upon mystery. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just guessing and I could be wrong, in which case I apologize to Gwen, but I think Gwen might possibly mean that she doesn't believe you when you say that you didn't know that posts to this talk page would be considered improper. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your original question, I'm neither going to unblock you nor endorse any decision to leave you blocked. I am getting extremely irritated at being the subject of your sub-WR level conspiracy theory that, despite my never having heard of you before today, I somehow engineered this situation to give myself a pretext to block you; any decision I make regarding you, you'll no doubt either take as proof of my "bias" or as my "defeat", depending on how it suits your warped view of how this site operates. – iridescent 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please post a summary of what happened here?

I am not asking for much, just a paragraph or so, to give an overview of the main facts and, if possible, some pointers to the key places to review in order to familiarize one's self with the details of what lead up to the block here? I gather that it has something to do with accusations of sock puppetry and tricky IP addresses and whatever else, and that there may have been some sort of a trap involved? --GoRight (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to look yourself, plenty of diffs are offered above. If I post here, or Iridescent, the accusation of bias is soon to follow. The same for if Abd posts. Do your own research, GoRight. Keeper ǀ 76 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's complicated, GoRight. To detail it, with diffs, would take quite a bit of time, and when I took shortcuts in some comments, and stated things that I could reasonably show evidence for, but without diffs, that was used against me, as if it were an offense. I wouldn't worry about it. Watch my Talk page, it helps to know that people are watching and care. However, if you are really interested, you would look here in my Talk (start with a post above from User:S. Dean Jameson), then review what happened with User:Blechnic above, then you could look at my edits to User talk:Fritzpoll, various pages referenced here in Talk, and then, an AN thread titled "Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban," filed by Fritzpoll, and you might need to look at various pages referenced in what I've described. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I was not asking for diffs, I can find those myself, I was just asking for some meaningful place to begin. What you have provided is sufficient for now. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You really do feel that you are above reproach, don't you, Abd? Astounding. Upon looking back on my original post regarding this matter (not my original post to your talkpage, but my original post regarding this particular issue, the one where I list the several contentious issues that you've "involved" yourself in), I can't help but to feel sorry for you. You think that you have this community and its contributors right. You don't. You are so very far off, that it is actually comical. You need to understand, that I approached you, and the latest situation regarding another editor (Fritzpoll) with an open mind, and with complete respect towards you and your meta-logic. I even posted as much on your talkpage. You really have fallen off the deep end here though, Abd,. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of Abd's attitude reminds me of User:Moulton. Not saying Abd is Moulton -at all-, just saying that he's slightly similar in his outlook on other editors/wiki. I can easily see why he interpreted the IP's edit the way he did, though. When I first looked at Abd's recent contribs a week or so ago I was amazed and reassured to see less mainspace contributions than me.:) Abd- if you still can't see whats wrong it's the constantly saying others, and individuals, admins are wrong, even to the extent of saying their actions might end up at arbcom. I can assure you IMHO a thing with an admin or any case at arbcom really is not that common. It certainly wouldn't happen because you personally and mostly you alone think they're wrong. I think you underestimate the extent to which others have a consensus in each situation. And you claim you know how to make a consensus, but 'threatening'- for want of a better word, that people's actions might lead to arbcom is not the way to go, when it wouldn't be interpreted that way by anyone else. And I'm a fine one to talk with this long post lol but concision is a virtue too. I say this to you as someone who considers you a wikifriend and can empathise somewhat with some of your perspectives, such as towards younger editors. Sticky Parkin 03:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment from Fredrick day

Fredrick day wrote:[18]

Actually that's not true (about me harassing him for months) - there was a gap of three months between fredrick day and my last account (Allemandtando) who pretty much just got on with editing - but since he looks for me everywhere, he got the account CU'd and that was that. I tried to run a good bluff on it but it failed. Since I've used pretty much every major ISP in the UK - he can point to literally any IP he encounters and keep me blocked forever - that's how it went down last time I went for an unblock - he just pointed to some vague IP edits that he could claim were me. I posted to AN because I'm familiar with his methods of dealing with people - the vague threats, the attempts to get over people to give warnings to people he is in dispute with etc. Sorry I forget the quote marks and dropped a bucket of additional shit on Fitzpoll's head. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, Fredrick day acknowledges that he "forget [sic] the quote marks," and thus takes responsibility for having "dropped a bucket of additional shit on "Fitzpoll's" head." In other words, he understood why I'd interpret it as I did. Fd does a better job than those who are supposed to be assuming good faith, here. Fd, if you read this, thanks. But no bucket of shit was dropped on Fritzpoll's head. Nothing happened to him. He could have remained entirely silent about the whole Fredrick day aspect of this, with no harm. H ecould have simply told me to bug off, I've made my decision, I'm done with this.

As Fd knows, it is impossible to fully disprove sock puppet allegations. Yet we must be free to report "suspected sock puppets," that's why we have WP:SSP. Making sock puppet allegations or raising suspicion without evidence is considered uncivil, but, in this case, the evidence was right there in front of us, immediately before my Holy Shit remark, on AN. I stated repeatedly that it wasn't proof, by any means, and never said "Fritzpoll is Fredrick day." Or anything equivalent to that, and I stated this before, here, and asked that if I'd erred and had, indeed, said that, would someone please point me to it so I could fix it. Nobody responded to that. Instead attention was focused on details of how I'd interpreted the message, whether it had been quoted or not, etc. The fact is that the message on its face appeared to be Fredrick day writing as if he thought he were logged in as Fritzpoll.

By the way, Fredrick day seems to have forgotten that he, as Allemandtando, demanded that I file an SSP report and checkuser on him. I wasn't harassing him, though he took a few minor actions of mine, certainly nothing continuous or rising to harassment, that way. I simply let him know, when AN/I was discussing blocking him -- I didn't start that -- and was wondering who the puppet master might be, that I suspected he could be Fd, but I also stated that there was not sufficient evidence to pursue it, and this comment seems to have contributed to the close of that AN/I report. Possibly, if I'd been aggressive, a lot of later grief could have been avoided. But that's a long story, for another time, another place. If ever. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to reviewing what Fd had done today. Interesting. As part of that, I read what may have been one of the last comments I made at AN/I, and Fd's reply:[19]. That comment certainly can be interpreted as a sock puppet allegation. If I had had time to review these edits, I'd probably have struck it or much of it, and I certainly apologize for the impression this may have created of a sock puppetry allegation. I did maintain the distinction between suspicion and allegation, and definitely avoided certainty, but it was stronger than I'm comfortable with, particularly after the problem with interpretation of the Fredrick day comment was pointed out. At the time that was written, I hadn't seen that the text was totally quoted, which weakens the interpretation I was placing on it. It doesn't destroy it, by the way, "weakens" was a word that was carefully chosen. And again and again, I've repeated, Fritzpoll wasn't under any hazard unless he happened to be Fredrick day, and even if, terrible luck, his IP was identical, nothing automatic would have happened, and it wouldn't be me that was "prosecuting." (Fritzpoll wasn't my interest, how Wilhelmina day was treated was. I'm now the second editor to be blocked over what happened to her, perhaps, eventually, someone else will look at this.) I've been actually accused of sock puppetry (and not just by Fredrick day!): standard advice re what to do about it: nothing. It is a charge that requires no action on the part of the suspected editor, nothing will happen, almost always, if there is no good proof. And fastest way to look guilty: vigorously defend yourself. Attack the one who mentions the suspicion. That's what real sock puppets do! Again, Fritzpoll was not some naive newbie, he's an administrator. I'd think he realize all this. So the whole affair leaves me with unresolved questions. (Fritzpoll did not attack me, by the way, I say this lest someone misinterpret this comment, it would be rude to interpret his "resignation" as some kind of passive-aggressive attack, I take it more simply, though it was certainly used as ammunition by others, including the posting of his "I won't be coming back" email here.) --Abd (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To save you some time, did you check out the diff I cited above where Thatcher said there was no technical evidence that I am Fredrick Day, and circumstantial evidence that strongly indicates the contrary? Fritzpoll (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaw drops, eyes glaze. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fritzpoll. Indeed that could save me a lot of time, and, no, I didn't see that edit. A lot of edits came fast and furious here, and apparently I missed a lot, I've been going back over what happened. I'll look and come back quickly. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've also arranged to have a neutral administrator review the close of the WW case in full, as I suggested you try. With luck, the WW matter will be sorted by tomorrow, and hopefully without so much as a whimper at AN/I Fritzpoll (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, here's the diff.[20] Yes, I totally missed it. Having looked at Thatcher's edit, I now can resolve the remaining suspicions, there is no reason to continue to suspect Fritzpoll of being Fredrick day, and I apologize for any distress that the suspicion, raised by Fredrick day's "forget the quote marks" (see the beginning of this section), may have caused him. This has nothing to do with any unblock request that may be forthcoming, in my opinion, because, given what I'd seen, as has been confirmed by at least one other editor here, the suspicion was reasonable, and the most that I wanted was for checkuser to confirm or refute it, and apparently that was arranged by someone else. (I also missed other posts which were contiguous with this comment of Fritzpoll's, and I'd already been blocked by the time Fritzpoll commented here with what sealed the matter.) Fritzpoll is not Fredrick day, there is no reason to suspect it, there is plenty of room to consider that Fredrick day's clumsy intervention was simply that, as he acknowledges and apologizes for. Fritzpoll bears no responsibility for my block, here, I don't think he asked for it to happen, but I thank him for troubling to clue me in. I'd have eventually noticed it, but, as he suspected, he did indeed save me quite a bit of time, there is now one whole aspect of this that I can simply drop. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And from other aspects here, I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now. Now, we turn our attention to some other matters.... I see there is discussion of my block at AN, because that's where the Thatcher diff came from, and I can hope I'm still blocked so I'm not tempted to comment, it's getting late. Somebody let me know if I should make some noises. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of my block at AN

I did look at the thing. My, what a tangled web! Lots of errors there, but.... I'm still blocked! Which means I won't waste more time tonight, I can turn of this computer and go to bed. No rush, folks, but ... be careful. The problems I've pointed to at AN/I have to do with people making snap judgments when there is no emergency, assuming good faith without verification when there is a conflict of testimony or a right to a presumption of innocence, that kind of stuff. (i.e., someone makes charges that an editor was engaged in massive copyvio, but does not provide one single diff, and then editors write, "assuming that the charges are true, and I see no reason to assume otherwise, ... sure, topic ban.")

There is no emergency that I'm aware of, here. So take your time, sort it out. And thanks to those who have been helpful here, starting with Fritzpoll, actually, last but not least, and many others who have expressed their support or who have helped me to recognize mistakes. With patience and time and wider understanding of basic policies (IAR, NPOV, AGF, etc.), and some work on structure to make it work better, we can make this a much better place. Good night. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008

There was quite a bit of discussion of what I'd done at AN last night, and, since I wasn't invited to the party, I'll make some comments here, under specific section headers. If anyone thinks that what I write here is worth taking there, they can do it, either by stating the relevant facts or ideas, or by transclusion. I actually prefer this kind of indirect communication, where what someone proposes is reviewed by others before going before a larger group. It is, in fact, the direction that Wikipedia would need to go to survive the challenges of scale. Motion and second, before debate is allowed, standard stuff. Later today or tonight, if I haven't been unblocked anyway, I plan to put together an unblock request. Before that template is completed, I may draft it here, and comment would be welcome before it is actually submitted. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Following up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not in the habit of watching pages, so I missed your above comments until now. Wow! Anyway, I've just invited User:Nutiketaiel to join in this discussion as well (which perhaps s/he might). Thanks. (This is what I just wrote hi/r):

No, please do!
Abd expressed an interest in lending assistance if asked, which is encouraging. Although what it is we'd be needing from folks, if anything, still seems pretty nebulous.
If you feel your comment in the Talkpage section needs an introduction maybe just mention I'd canvassed for input from your expertise.
One thing off the top of my head (which you don't gotta respond to, but's something I've thought about) is the rationale behind general populations' using a secret ballot to select representatives: 'Cause of the social awkwardness that results from not choosing somebody certain people think you should. For example, if you're nominally a part of some faction but independently support another. (Even choosing somebody can seem awkward, if they haven't put themselves up as a candidate, for example, as it put on that person a subtle imperative to represent your interests, in a a way or else implies that you're in awe of them or beholden to whatever their philosophy blah blah blah.).......
Thx.
In fact let's move our discussion to User:Abd's page.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit indisposed here, being indef blocked at the moment. It's sorting itself out, I'm sure. It's taking longer than it might otherwise because I haven't put up an unblock template yet. Rather, since there has been a lot of activity here, plus I've been busy RL, I've been doing other things, and, with all the activity here, I didn't notice your post above. The only place I could discuss with you now would be here on my Talk, or I could start a mailing list for those who wanted to participate in a project. The list would be public, anyone could read it. As an off-site extension, I'd set the list to conceal the email addresses of those who post to it, but I'd insist that subscribers identify an account here.) I'll start the list if two editors here agree to it. From a systems perspective, an off-site list which participants controlled -- I'd be acting as a trustee -- would allow independent judgment, free of external constraints. Decisions made on the list would have no authority here, they would simply advise participants, or anyone else who wanted to be advised. But, of course, if there were a consensus there, and something hadn't gone awry, it would be rather easy to translate that to a consensus here, if there were enough participants. If we truly find consensus, it would hardly be an issue. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating ideas, Abd. (Good luck re the indefinate block, BTW! lol) Meanwhile another response I'd trolled for came in, which I'm copying below:

Hi - I've been editing for a long time but some of the stuff on the Obama page made me decide to get a account (because it will be easier for people to track discussion). Broadly your proposals are unworkable because community wide policy always trumps what people decide on local pages. You'd experience the same problem that many wikiprojects have - they start to think that what they decide has weight and some level of authority - it doesn't.
As long as people follow the community wide guidelines and policies, they can do what they please. You will have absolutely no power to comply people to a) follow your guidelines or b) even discuss things with you. This for example at the same time they'd probably want to run a tight ship and not suffer their judiciously crafted admonitions to be blatantly diregarded is just a complete non-starter. As long as they edit within community boundaries, they can do what they like - regardless of what your committee, moderators or whatever you like to call them will do.
Maybe that's over negative but you just seem to be trying to replicate on a specific page what wikiprojects have tried to do a number of times on a number of pages. The end result is always the same. --Hank Pym (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thx, Hank. If it's OK with you I'll add your comment over at User:Abd's talkpage, too.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up for your mailing list, Abd. My email address is accessible through my user page.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Hank Pym: That's a common objection. It's correct, i.e., local consensus does not trump community consensus, in theory. However, what a process like what we are considering does is to identify a consensus among participating editors, and participation is rigorously open. An outside consensus from the community may appear to trump this, but only for various procedural reasons. In fact, the standard is consensus. Wikiprojects do, in fact, function much in a similar way, but usually for a family of articles. That is, a consensus of, say, Star Trek editors, doesn't trump policy, but how do we interpret policy? It's through a consensus of participating editors in the forum where that consensus is formed. Pym is incorrect. "Policy" does not trump consensus, for policy does nothing, it has no boots, so to speak. Rule Number One is policy, WP:IAR, and policy is only interpreted through discussion, ultimately as judged by a closing admin, when it involves tools. A consensus of editors, if it is broad and includes editors who understand not only policies and guidelines, but the needs of the project as they apply to the particular article, will always trump strict interpretation of rules. The idea that this consensus process we are considering would be "enforced" shows that it has not been understood. It would not enforce, it would advise. What would it advise? It would advise the participants and it would advise anyone else. Its review and results would be available to any editor, as well as participation being open. Thus, it would also be advising the community as to what participating editors agreed upon -- and what they did not. The community, the broader community, often makes decisions based on allegations as to editorial consensus, for policy doesn't make content decision, though it guides them. In any case, almost nothing is invested in this process except that a means is provided for better estimating consensus than simply taking some local poll, there is a more formal definition of who is interested and a better means of estimating what this self-defined community agrees upon, and the degree of agreement, in a dynamic way, not merely a collection of fixed opinions given at a fixed time. If it were cumbersome to implement, if it involved contentious process, I'd understand the objection, I can easily understand why some or, for that matter, many would think it useless. But I also know, from experience, that there are some who will notice the implications, that the objections are based on assumptions that don't apply, and so forth. And I'm saying that if even a few editors sign on, so to speak, it will start to improve editorial function, making it more efficient, which, quite likely, will then encourage further participation, etc. I suggested two, which would make three, including myself, but I'd intend to remain rigorously neutral as to content, I don't want to get into content issues, focusing exclusively on process, as would a chair of a meeting. I'd also step down, by the way, turning over ownership of the list according to any consensus that arises among participants. That's a promise. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)