User talk:Abd

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, it has become necessary that this page be semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

Voluntary User space restriction; process to detemine the facts of my block. Blaze trail.

Because the issues that led to my block have not been resolved, because it is asserted that I committed what I consider would be egregious offenses against other users and the community, and I have not acknowledged and shown that I have understood and agree that the charges are correct,; because I therefore consider that the alleged offenses are likely to repeat; because I can therefore anticipate that my participation, whether in article space or in wikipedia space is likely to be disruptive; I am voluntarily restricting myself to my user space, as if topic-banned over all parts of Wikipedia with the following exceptions:

(1) If my comment or intervention is requested, I will consider such requests and may make an exception to this ban, in which case the requesting user would bear some share of the responsibility for any disruption that results. Please do not make frivolous requests, and do not invite me if you expect my participation will be disruptive, beyond the disruption that naturally takes place when some apparent consensus -- or even the opinion of a single user -- is questioned. I would not intervene if I see that there is already a true consensus, i.e., community agreement based on evidence and sufficiently broad participation.

(2) I may comment in ongoing discussions where I consider that comment to be necessary, or damage to the project or the community is reasonably likely to occur. This would include, but is not necessarily restricted to, my assistance in matters connected to User:Wilhelmina Will, the RfC for User:Elonka and the rather knotty issue of her requested recall, as well as Routemaster or other articles where I have previous participation. I will not seek out new areas of involvement on my own initiative.

(3) I may make noncontroversial edits in article or article talk space. I will only make possibly controversial edits in articles where I already have a significant involvement (and therefore my knowledge of the issues may be important to prevent damage to the article from, say, POV edits).

(4) Otherwise as WP:IAR requires. It better be good!

I had requested that I be unblocked with a user space restriction, before. With the exceptions listed above, I am now placing myself in the position that would have existed if my request had been accepted, if that request had not been mooted by my unconditional unblock. Various editors and, even, a troll or two, have suggested that the unblock was a problem because the issues were not resolved. I agree, hence this voluntary restriction, which guarantees, far more than the unconditional unblock, that my participation or my exploration of the issues involved in the block will not be disruptive.

I will explain in further posts how I plan to proceed, to resolve the issues, so that I can either stand advised that I had actually committed the offenses, exactly what they were and why my defenses and explanations were in error, and thus if I repeat those offenses I am either incompetent or otherwise a danger to the community, or that I did not commit the offenses, or was otherwise improperly blocked. (For example, I may have "harassed," but I stopped it before block and this was known to the blocking admin, and therefore the block was improper, and this was actually the basis of my unblock request, not a denial of harassment.)

Many -- indeed the vast majority of our six million registered editors -- will not want to participate in this process. However, it will begin as an open process, in my user space, and, if any editor wishes to be notified, specifically, as to how to participate, or support participation by someone else, such that it might be possible for me to estimate a true community consensus, without requiring all these people personally spending time reading evidence and arguments and investigation by more than a few editors, please append your signature below, and you may then unwatch my user page if you find it tedious. I will notify you, on your Talk, how you can assist and form a part of the eventual consensus here with a simple action that need take no more than a minute. Your signature here will not obligate you in any way, it merely indicates interest in the outcome here.

Canvassing is permitted, that is, it is allowed (by me) for any editor to solicit the signature of others, here; obviously, I cannot and would not waive the guidelines involving mass Talk page posts. More will be revealed. This list will be taken as a list of editors interested in the outcome of this process, plus others who later involve themselves. Involving yourself also will be taken as a consent to be notified (once) regarding any outcome. That consent may be withdrawn at any time. Nothing in this process will be binding, it will be purely advisory.--Abd (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hopefully, you will be seeing, here, the application of my organizational concepts as applied to the otherwise excellent Wikipedia process. It's an experiment, the next step in WP:Delegable proxy, and a special proxy table will be set up. Proxies do not vote on behalf of others, in this process, but they are used to estimate broad consensus from the participation of only a few. There is no proof that this will work; however, it is designed to minimize community costs, and should be harmless at worst. There are many natural objections to Delegable proxy, and my extensive work with it, over many years, has shown that not only does it take about a year after exposure to the ideas for the majority of people to even realize that it could work, and that it could solve problems otherwise considered to be hopeless, but, more than that, in the absence of functioning examples, even people who think it might work still have little hope that it could overcome all those objections. Thus it's extraordinarily difficult, even in situations crying for this kind of solution, to even motivate people to try it. Hence, this effort, where I need the results of such a process, handled in my user space, where I have substantial authority and control over it. I have an issue where I need advice that truly represents the community. I have a right to request that advice. I do not need, merely, the advice of individuals, I've been given plenty of that, but readers should realize that this advice is contradictory. And the unresolved issue is consensus. Almost all advice has stated that rough consensus is that I harassed. Note, not necessarily that I actually harassed, but that the community of all those who have expressed an opinion believes, roughly, that I harassed.

Some of the advice, including the most cogent of it, expresses the opinion that I was right, but that they won't allow me to do what I did. The they ranges from an oligarchy of editors who might feel challenged by my activities, all the way up to ArbComm itself, for I have email from at least one experienced and active administrator who seems to feel that getting a good decision out of ArbComm on these matters would be hopeless. Thus there are very important issues at stake. Is Wikipedia as far gone as some of the advice would indicate? Or is it merely that deficiencies in the structure cause bad decisions to be made with no reasonable possibility of non-disruptive review? (Setting aside the simple answer: I harassed, and that's it, and it's only about me.) The first possibility would indicate my direction: bail out, and do something more useful. The second, however, leaves open the possibility that it can be fixed, if my ideas point to a solution, or, even more possible, that my ideas would point to and discover a process which could develop solutions. Thus this could be far more important than a determination in just this incident. It could affect the future of Wikipedia, in a very positive way. All participation, initially, is welcome. Yes, this means you, Jehochman, and S. Dean Jameson, and all others, including, in fact, banned users, who may participate by email to me (and I will then filter their contributions to ensure that they are proper). I want this to be as broadly representative as possible, and anyone may participate. IP editors may participate, initially, but, if necessary to prevent disruption, the pages may be semiprotected, in which case IP editors would have to use email to participate. I'd prefer, though, that editors be registered and thus identified.

I wish to thank Xenocidic for making this possible by unblocking me. I need access to my user space, which I did not have as a blocked editor. And, in fact, I wish to thank Iridescent for blocking me in the first place even if I still believe it was technically improper. It's been a painful experience, but, in the end, probably the absolutely best thing that could have happened. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd/RfC

User:Abd/RfC is a top-level page to create a standing RfC on my behavior here. The purpose of this RfC is to advise me so that I can better understand the community in its complaints about my behavior, as well as find confirmation of my work where justified. As this is a process intended to advise me, I will properly control it and may freely revert without limit on these pages, or refactor and reformat edits from others; however, any editor who wishes to retract comments made here may do so. Participation is invited from all editors. Because of vandalism, it was necessary to semprotect these pages, so a page has been set up for the use of IP and newly-registered editors, User:Abd/RfC/IP. Content on these pages may be deleted frequently, but may be recovered from history. See the main RfC page for some descriptions of the process. The first specific RfC is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which will examine the events leading up to my being blocked on August 11, 2008. There are a few editors whom I have banned from my Talk pages; however, provided that their edits to the RfC pages remain nondisruptive, they may edit those pages; I will warn such editors if I find it necessary to retract this permission. Welcome! --Abd (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is open for preliminary comment. See User:Abd/RfC and the specific RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Notices will be given of this RfC to all those who commented on my Talk page after I was warned for various offenses on August 11, until yesterday. There is a list of those to be notified and a draft notice at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Helping WW moving forward.

This is in response to this, [1].and also the next edit, apparently. note added by Abd (talk)

I may be a new editor, Abd, but I am not young and I understand the politics of these situations. While I support you in general, in this circumstance I would ask you to refrain from any further recounting of past discussions within the context of any future WW threads, especially with respect to your block and the propriety thereof. Anywone following along will already know those things as they have been rehashed to death and beyond at this point. IMHO they will only serve to bias others even further against WW and/or cause those who are arrayed against her to become even further entrenched in their positions, whether that reaction is justified or not. Neither of these will serve to assist WW in terms of arriving at a fair and equitable result, IMHO.

I believe that the best course forward is to come to a firm decision one way or the other on the status and/or continuation of the DYK ban against her and then proceed accordingly, which is why I have proposed what I did to User:Carcharoth and User:Fritzpoll. Please try to focus on how to move things forward rather than continuing to recount the past in those discussions. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled. My block is intimately involved with what happened with Fritzpoll and Wilhelmina Will. I've now made a post to the Editing restriction Talk page. Doesn't mention Wilhelmina Will, but only the underlying WP process principles that, when I challenged a certain interpretation of them, I was widely warned. I wasn't blocked for that, but, in fact, the blocking admin considered that prior warning to be warning against the blockable behavior, even though it was quite different. And I've seen this before. Editor takes legitimate action that results in a significant number of administrators yelling at editor, because they strongly disagree or consider it a problem. Editor then is subject to massive incivility, imputations of bad motive, and every action becomes suspect. Editor then makes some mistake, or something different that is considered blockable. Editor is blocked, giving the latter reason, but the earlier warnings are considered to have been warnings against the later behavior.

GoRight, I'm challenging the block. It can be expected to cause some disruption, but this process, what happened to me, has happened to many other editors, and it is causing ongoing damage. I've figured out, I think, how to resolve this with minimal disruption, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are, nevertheless, efforts to shut it down. I'm taking your comment as a friendly warning that it could be damaging if I comment further about the Fritzpoll/Wilhelmina Will stuation, in this process; however, my comment took place on Carcharoth's Talk page, so I'm more concerned about his opinion, since he has been agreed upon, by me and by Fritzpoll, as the mediator. Your involvement is also, of course, welcome, and I appreciate all the work you have done, it has been very helpful, in spite of some of the flak aimed at you. There are some critical questions here, involving the efficiency of Wikipedia process, with a suggested possible -- and very clear and simple -- resolution that could, if accepted, as a side-effect, resolve the Wilhelmina Will question very quickly. If it doesn't, then whatever process already exists would remain in place, nothing has been lost. I am not -- at all -- trying to address the question of my block outside my Talk space, I may mention it occasionally in what will be the very few edits I make to Wikipedia space. And I'll do that with increasing caution, since, if you took offense to what I wrote, others, more hostile, probably would as well, though I really don't understand that. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All I am asking is that you try to decouple the threads related to your block (and any references to the events that lead up to it) from the on-going threads related directly resolving WW's situation. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't pursue whatever you want to pursue, but please do it in a separate thread from the ones being used to directly discuss the DYK topic ban on WW. I have no problem with you making cross references to the WW threads in your block related threads, but please try to not intermingle these two discussions. Obviously this is just my request, you can do as you feel is best, but I think both discussions will benefit from being conducted in separate and distinct threads at this point. Right now I am mostly focused on trying to get things out of the current limbo that they are in w.r.t. WW. Does that make sense?

And I am not saying that I took offense to what you wrote, although others might, I just don't think that any more retrospection is required get the DYK ban out of limbo one way or the other. Let us all just stick to the crisp facts at this point, and let us move forward on that topic as I believe that everyone already knows the details of the events that have brought us to where we are. --GoRight (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is long, but (1) the issues are important, I believe, and (2) I don't have time to boil it down, which would take me far longer than for you to skim it or read it more carefully, no obligation at all. It covers more than the WW stuff. It describes what I'm about.

Because the block is fresh, and because I gained a lot of insight from it, it's coming up fairly frequently. You are right, though, that it's not related. Even I'd done everything they claimed, even if I'd dumped a boatload of shit on the administrator involved, it wouldn't be relevant to the propriety of the topic ban for this girl. But I'll make some comments about what I've seen of the latter:

A decision to ban others from nominating her articles would be quite problematic. Essentially, it would be a ban on users who aren't involved, who have committed no offenses, and who have had no notice of the discussion, without any necessity. It would be putting DYK on a special article probation, covering all editors, and without notice to DYK. The suggestion that other editors be banned from making such nominations found no support when it was originally raised by Blechnic at AN/I, in protest over my very mention of the idea, or maybe after I made the first nomination. It found no support. In the later discussion at AN, there was no support for banning this practice, but some editors gave advice about how to do it. Given that DYK is filled with really bad nominations, that the DYK process easily handles them -- not perfectly, but, remember, the only really dangerous thing that was asserted was copyvio, the rest of it simply would be a badly written article. Like, in fact, most of our 2.5 million articles. Many of who have copyvio and need some attention.

But I haven't seen any cogent reason for the ban, and it's a shame that FP didn't simply recuse himself, there were grounds for this, or look again at the evidence and reconsider. It would have been, for example, cleaner if he had said, "I agree that the ban was improper, but I can't support changing a community decision." We would then have had a pure process problem, and we'd have sought advice on that problem, specifically, and jointly. But, in fact, he seemed, at the time, to continue to consider the ban appropriate, though he wasn't ever able, as far as I saw, to state the evidence on which it was based. At one point, though, he hinted at it. He had seen, at some point, a situation where she made what he saw as clumsy and possibly inadequate efforts to reword to avoid copyvio, and so he had this in his mind. Further, this problem became conflated with a separate problem: she had apparently misunderstood a source in rewording it to avoid copyvio. But this is an accuracy problem, and Wikipedia is fully of inaccuracy problems, and, it appears, those inaccuracies have mostly been discovered and fixed quickly. I'm concerned that one user, you are in touch with him, has said, pretty much, that he'll oppose any nominations of hers in a certain field. That's quite improper. Rather, what would be proper would be to arrange for someone who knows the field to review the article. We should never discriminate against content based on whom it comes from, beyond understanding that we may pay some special attention to content from someone with a history of error. I do not know if she's made enough errors in that field to warrant that special attention, I suspect that the problem was exaggerated, but it's possible not.

Essentially, whatever real problems there are, a topic ban isn't a solution. If she were actually doing copyvio, warning and block would be appropriate, not a DYK ban. If it is article accuracy, DYK is likely to fix the problem, not make it worse. If it is edit warring, again: warning and block. If it is making an inappropriate edit to increase the article to 1500 words, as she apparently did -- once -- the problem, actually, may be over-rigid DYK standards. Isn't it interesting that an article eligible for a DYK fact at 1500 words, wouldn't be at 1490? Particularly if the removal of 10 words made the article better? In fact, though, if I'm correct, the standard isn't rigid, there merely is a general presumption that an article shouldn't be less than 1500 words. I'd think that she could write at DYK, "This article was at 1500 words, but an editor figured out how to make it better at 1490." and, my guess is that the length wouldn't be a reason for decline. They aren't stupid!

And, of course, the errors she made weren't repeated. The incivility was minor, especially when compared to incivility toward her from the editor she supposedly was uncivil to. And it wasn't repeated. She then, when confronted about this incivility later, lied about it. It had been in leetspeak, referring to an editor as "revolting," and she, either embarrassed or trying to deflect it, claimed that it was her own code that meant something else, which was preposterous. Revolted, though, is, I'm sure, exactly how she felt, strong aversion. Seeing what ensued, and I haven't reviewed the earlier history, I'd say her reaction was, quite simply, no wonder. She had put in a year of heavy effort, you've reviewed some of it, it's voluminous, and well above the norm for articles, in my opinion. And then this editor, based on a few narrow interactions, actually speculated that her efforts were part of a plot to destroy Wikipedia, by vandalism, i.e., by planting errors and copyvio in articles. He called her entire corpus of work "crap," at the last AN/I report he filed -- over my nomination on her behalf, which, by the way, he made a complaint about her, not about me, when she had done nothing. She didn't ask me to nominate. Then, I think it was when someone pointed out that was uncivil, he used strike-out, and replaced it with "vandalism." As if that were an improvement? Yet the community listened to him about her, and assumed, literally, stating it, some of them, that they ahd no reason to suspect that what he was saying was a "lie." It wasn't a lie, not in the facts he reported, unless extrapolating from a single incident to a pattern is a "lie." It can be, but it's also a very common error. "She was uncivil" becomes "She is uncivil to editors," implying repeated incidents. "She reverted an edit in order to restore 1500 words" becomes "She reverts edits that improve the article in order to make it qualify," etc. And we don't ban or block for errors except for errors that are repeated after warning. Some of those voting did look at the evidence that was given, the single incidents. And, of course, they found them true. This is actually an old debate trick.... You make a general statement based on a specific incident, "For example, ...." even if that is the only example. It can be very effective. The person checks out what you say, and finds it true, and then they assume that what seems like a minor extension of it is likely also true. There were editors at the AN report that noted that a single incident wasn't enough, and they asked for more evidence.

What happened? Well, there was no response. And those editors, waiting for a response, didn't vote. It's an example of how such a vote can become distorted, quite easily. And that's why it is crucial to have closing admins, and to have them take responsibility for ensuring that all the arguments and relevant evidence is considered, and that a result is in accordance with policy and guidelines. We don't make decisions, in theory, based on !votes, and that is all that there was. As you have confirmed, the biggie, what Fritzpoll asserted, when I asked, was the main reason for the ban, the copyvio evidence, was nonexistent, in effect, what tiny amount there was, was very old, and should could have created a thousand articles, back then, with copy vio, only now discovered, and as long as it hadn't continued, the most she'd get would be a warning: Don't do that again, or you will be blocked.

You are concerned primarily with WW, and I've been concerned there, too, but think that we managed to avert the most serious damage, a permanent departure from the project, which was quite likely, I'd say, without my intervention, by encouraging others to nominate her articles. That leaves the really bad understanding of policy and practice that led to this difficulty, and which, I believe, leads to many such poor decisions, with great ongoing damage. We don't see most of it, most of it never rises to the attention of someone with time and motivation to correct it. I see a great deal, and I only have so much time, I have to let most of it slide. So I'm working on improving the process, so this happens less often, and so that it is more easily correctable.

And, right now, I'm focusing mostly, in an ongoing way, on aspects of my block. Not to reverse the block, but to explore the process and to test a solution. Right here. Minimally disruptive. And totally out-of-the-box, not what anyone would expect. If it works, i.e., if it helps find a genuine, deliberative consensus, which is, of course, speculative, it could fix a lot of things that are currently broken, with nobody understanding how to fix them. It's designed to be minimally disruptive, far less disruptive than my going to, say, ArbComm or even a user RfC (which are sometimes self-created). Since I'm asking for advice for myself, so that I can understand the block, so that I can avoid repeating the behavior, it is totally legitimate that I guide and control the process, here in my Talk. Nothing here binds anyone. I won't permit personal attack, etc., beyond the criticism that NPA allows.

If this works, it could point to a solution that could lead to the unblock of a fair number of editors, who have been unwilling to agree not to behave as they behaved before, so the community wouldn't agree to unblock them, because they, quite rightly, feared that the behavior were repeated. Some of these blocked editors may be irredeemable, but others might accept advice if it were created through a process that they control. I do this with my kids, who can dig in their heels if I try to control them and demand that they reform their behavior. But if I allow them and facilitate their finding answers for themselves, they can, and do, change their behavior. And it comes from them. And it is far more likely to stick, than behaviors based on some grudging acceptance or threat of some loss or humiliation.

And then, it becomes possible to make block more routine, we could start blocking for less egregious offenses, particularly if such blocks didn't become a black mark against the editor. Incivility, as you well know, is rampant, but only some incivility gets sanctioned, and often it isn't the worst in a situation. Block isn't necessary for incivility, necessarily, warning is. But if a warning isn't backed by a block if it is necessary, it can be less effective. The block is necessary for protection, when we think that incivility is likely to be repeated. This self-directed RfC in the user's own space, where the user -- I contend, it is not fully established -- can control it, can exclude some, for example -- could lead to fewer blocks, without becoming inefficient. It wouldn't be an emergency process, like AN/I.

"You have been accused of blah blah, and you appear to have repeated it after a first warning. You are now under a topic ban, you may not edit outside your user space until you have resolved this issue and either a consensus has been found that your behavior is within proper limits, or you have agreed not to repeat the behavior. You are not blocked, you may edit outside your user space if you find it essential for the project, but your edits may be examined closely and if any administrator finds that you have repeated blah blah, you may be immediately blocked without further warning. Please consider this carefully, and if you need any assistance, you may drop me a note on my Talk, this will not be considered a violation of this topic ban, and you may also .... (list of exceptions to ban, such as proper attempts to obtain assistance, etc. or ... possibly, noncontroversial edits in article space, it would depend on the nature of the offense.) Essentially, this would provide an editor with an opportunity to review the behavior and either find a determination that the behavior was, indeed, contrary to guidelines and improper, or that it was proper, assuming the editor could find at least one other editor to agree. And then, with this, they could proceed through normal channels to remedy it. Two is the minimum, and it would be difficult with only two. We'll see what happens with my own process here. My goal is to attract as much participation as possible, but the design is such that "participation" simply means, "signs up as interesting in being informed," which does not mean that the editor has to read tomes of evidence and analysis. Most participants, in the extended sense, won't do much of anything. They may do less than many participants at AN/I do, though that isn't much participation!

The discussion that is the basis for the claim of some admins that there was a consensus, for example, that I harassed Fritzpoll, was very limited, handled under emergency conditions, with no patient collection and analysis of evidence, as ultimately happened with your user RfC. I don't see any evidence that I harassed Fritzpoll, I did much, much less than you did with Connolley, for example. Setting aside the sock puppet mess, and I was seriously warned, by more than one admin, before that came up, and I think I would have been blocked anyway, without the sock puppet issues, I criticized his action, not tendentiously, as those things go, on his Talk and my Talk, and very little elsewhere. I was not uncivil about that. There was one edit that was, essentially, called "arrogant," which isn't grounds for a block. Basically, my offense was that I told him it was important. At that point I did not realize how prevalent was the misunderstanding of our procedures was among admins, it has truly shocked me, because our basic procedure is brilliant. But I don't know that it is documented anywhere! This procedure is why Wikipedia works much better than many would expect. Could it be that it hasn't been understood? And that some of the major problems are because of this? I don't know how far this goes. But, in any case, harassment it was not. Harassment implies contact continued after a request to stop. Fritzpoll could have, at any time, said, stop! enough! I don't want to read your writing on my Talk. But I can't, it's impossible, harass him on my own Talk page. And that is where that "arrogance" took place, as I recall.

So, given that I see it this way, suppose I'm wrong. How am I going to figure this out? I imagine that I see the situation better than most who have commented. I know exactly how experienced facilitators in organizations that value consensus would handle it. And we don't do that, normally. So I'm going to do it, here. We, i.e., myself and whoever chooses to participate, will, in detail, compile and review the evidence and its exact implications. As an example, there is a list of edits that I made, supposedly attacking Fritzpoll, given by the blocking admin as the reason for my block. I look at the first one. It was a supportive post I made to Fritzpoll's talk page, after he announced his retirement, encouraging him to come back, that there was no risk to his admin bit from me, etc. It is totally beyond me how this could be considered an attack.

Now, here is what happens. If I take each piece of evidence, and show this, it will be said, "Look, wikilawyer you. Sure, there is a problem with that piece of evidence, but aren't you listening to the community? There is a consensus that you harassed Fritzpoll! You are wasting your time and ours, and that you can't accept the consensus is simply more proof that you don't belong here!" The only way to move beyond this is to develop, at least, a local consensus to the contrary. (Or an alternate outcome, where I realize that, by gosh, while I may have intended those words one way, they were reasonably interpreted in another, and I'd better apologize immediately!). With that local consensus, there are then grounds and support for asking for broader review, whether it be with an RfC or even ArbComm, it depends on the issues involved. I need to know how to proceed, and I'm asking for advice and support that is more solidly based than simply telling me the obvious, which many of my friends have done. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd: are there any articles that interest you, that could use some improving? That would be my sincere suggestion. Forget about the above for a while. Jonathunder (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Does what I wrote make sense to you, Jonathunder? If not, maybe I'd do no better with articles. I do have some article work to do, and my voluntary ban does allow that, but I'm quite busy, in fact, and must devote my time to where I think it most productive. Instead of creating articles, I'm working on facilitating writers and editors who create articles. It's quite as difficult as creating articles, and when this work is not done, we lose editors. I have some expertise in what I'm doing, and years of experience. I've also been a professional editor, a bit, and a writer, a bit. In any case, I see what I'm to do. Now, what I'm to do is to set up a device where good editors like yourself can advise me, very specifically, and very efficiently. Editors have been telling me what you just did for quite some time. Is it that I don't get it, or that I see something better to do? How can I find out? Engaging me here, on this page, as you did, out of the blue -- I don't know you at all -- isn't terribly useful. It's not clear to me that the advice has (1) my interests at heart, and (2) the long-term interests of Wikipedia at heart; ah, yes, I trust your intentions, you wrote what you wrote in good faith. But we need more than good intentions. We need insight, and patience, and compassion. We blame editors and writers, reject them, define them as vandals (that was done with Wilhelmina Will, it was among the last comments of Blechnic) or dangerous loose cannons with each move doing more damage than building the project (Carol Spears). Every time we reject or drive away an editor who might have become a productive member of the community, we lessen what the project can become, and we build, in the world from which we draw editors, reservoirs of poison. Instead of creating articles, I'm creating, so to speak, editors and writers who will create articles -- or retaining them.

If I'm doing something wrong, and you actually care, instead of merely dropping by to toss me some discouragement about what I want to do, which I doubt you understand, show me that I'm wrong and that what I want to do is not good. Show me that I actually was doing harm, that I nearly drove away an administrator, as claimed, that I harassed a user, something which horrifies me when I see it happening to others. Am I doing that, have I done that? If so, definitely, I need to know. And I might need a long wikibreak, maybe a permanent one.

I have only about 2000 edits in article and article talk space. If I'm damaging the project as has been claimed, then I shouldn't be editing here, at least not until I agree to stay away from policy and procedure and just cultivate articles, as intellectuals in the Cultural Revolution in China were sent to the countryside to work as peasants for their education and rehabilitation. Many of them died there, it's not what they were suited for or adapted to. I have article work to do, and I'll do some of it, noncontroversial work. I'll help maintain articles where I already have some knowledge of the subject, particularly where I'm an expert, whether professionally or amateur. But I think I know what I'm supposed to be doing here, and I'm doing it, with great caution.

So thanks for sharing. Why don't you stick around and help me figure it out? I assure you I'll listen carefully to whatever your contribute. But I'd warn you. Prolonged exposure to my ideas has been known to have a destabilizing effect on some people, sometimes in a good way, sometimes not. It's as if my insanity is contagious. People start seeing what I see, sharing my vision. It's your choice. --Abd (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my comment wasn't quite out of the blue: I have posted here before, and was one of the admins who supported your unblocking. I did that because I think you can be an asset to the project. And I do appreciate the support you gave to WW. I was hoping, now that you are unblocked, that you will be able to help on mainspace articles of interest to you. Regards. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I might have been a bit abrupt with you. My primary interest with Wikipedia is related to what excited me about the project years ago, the potential of this kind of community. When, last year, I finally became active here, and learned more about the policies and guidelines, they made complete sense to me, it is as if half of the vision I've hand and been working on for more than twenty years had been realized already. Then I started to compare the guidelines and policies with actual practice. It's not easy to do that, there is so much traffic. The only way to do it was to get involved in specific situations, to study them, to collect the evidence, make proposals, and see what happens. My study of organizational structures and my experience with them made it quite unsurprising to me that Wikipedia is dysfunctional in certain ways. If not for a resource that has remained available to us, the damage would have become so obvious and so bad that major breakdown would have already occurred: that resource is new editors. In smaller communities, an organization can run out of that resource very quickly, so if it burns out participants, it will quickly fail. Here, we just sail on; if somebody drops off the boat or is pushed off, no problem. There are always more. It's really a kind of pyramid scheme. Eventually it will hit resource limits. And, I'm predicting, at that point the problems will rapidly mushroom, as there is an increasing burden on those who are left. Admins are already, to many of them, damaged by dealing with hordes of vandals and POV-pushers, and, without even realizing it, too often, become cynical and far to ready to act as if an editor is an enemy of the project.

I appreciate your support, but I'm trying to make your job easier. Much easier. It can be done, but how it is done is another question. Very few editors, as far as I can see, are really looking at the problem. They will look at this piece or that piece, whenever the problems become sufficiently irritating. What happened to Wilhelmina Will can happen, and has happened, to many others. Now, as it happens, some very serious charges were made against me in the process leading up to my block, and after. It is ironic; the first charge, what I was first warned about, was essentially harassment. I had (1) questioned the close of the ban, (2) questioned the appropriateness of an administrators actions based on his assumption that there was a ban in place, (3) and ask him for support for the decision, since it appeared to be missing from the original process. As part of this, I suggested, in one post in my Talk space that he was free to ignore, it couldn't have been used against him, that this was important, that his decisions could affect his administrative future. I've seen harassment. To me, this seems far, far short of it, and, in fact, it wasn't harassment at all. Now, that it was called harassment wasn't a surprise to me. I've seen people react to clear and civil criticism, many times, as if it were harassment. If I had gone all over the project, confronting him with my opinions, that could have risen to the level of harassment. But I didn't. The matter came to a head at AN. Did I take him to AN? No, I was following WP:DR, by the book, and it's an excellent book. He went to AN, in a manner that could produce a prejudiced result, same as the first AN/I discussion. So I was obligated to respond. And that was considered harassment. Perhaps someone should read WP:HARASS.

And I was blocked for this. (the copyvio thing is a complication, but I was being warned that I'd be blocked even before that came up, it was simply a provocation from a banned editor, who has found, in the past, that he can evade his ban to do this and nobody really does anything about it. Why? Because he is a voice for a substantial segment of the administrative community, which has come to think like him.) This gives me a wedge, so to speak; it could be used for further divisive process. But I want to show that there is a different way to approach questions like this, a way that is not only easier, but far less disruptive. We already know how to do it without the additional tools I'll be proposing and working out: RfC and RfAr, the latter being, usually, better. But also requiring way too much effort. We do not need to go to RfC and RfAr to work out problems that can be resolved by two people having a civil discussion, with assumptions of good faith on both sides. The question is, how to have that civil discussion. Most editors don't have time for it! This is the problem that I'm going to attempt to solve, in my user space.

I'm setting up a procedure so that I can be advised as to what I did and how to respond to it. I want, first of all, advice about what I did. Did I harass the administrator in question? If so, then the block was fully legitimate, and my only legitimate response would be to apologize to everyone involved for the harassment and for wasting their time. If not, however, if a sober examination comes up with a conclusion, likely to be sustained if taken back to the community, that I did not harass, there remains the question of what I should do about it, so I'll need advice regarding "remedies." Could I clear my name and record without creating a new disruption? And I think that it can be done. Notice that after the groundwork was laid, the lifting of the topic ban for Wilhelmina Will was relatively non-disruptive, and it could have been even less so, quite simply, probably in another day or two. I'm trying to set up, using my own situation as an example, a generic solution that could work elsewhere. There is actually a lot known about dispute resolution, there are professionals who do it very well, but we haven't been taking advantage of this knowledge, and typically tend to deal with problems by identifying the bad guy and getting rid of him or her. Or making it so unpleasant for them to continue here that they leave.

And, sure, I'll be doing some articles. But that's not why I'm here, really. I'm here to help others to create and maintain articles, in a sustainable way, that won't eventually burn them out. If I'm successful in this, the long-term effect on the project will greatly exceed anything I could personally accomplish. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Common Practice?

Is it common practice to create a page like User:GoRight/Community sanction in a user's own user space? --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it would make sense. Where else would you put it? I knew there was a log somewhere, but hadn't ever seen one. Logs for ArbComm sanctions are appended to the ArbComm case where it was decided. You shouldn't touch that page, though, I'd suspect, you could comment in Talk for it. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at others with community sanctions this seems to be common practice. I wonder if it is common practice to change the wording from that which was !voted upon?

From my topic ban proposal:

GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

From the editing restrictions page:

GoRight is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

From the community sanction page:

GoRight is topic-banned William Connolley-related pages, broadly construed. This is not to be confused with making edits concerning User: William M. Connolley.

Curious. --GoRight (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been arguing that the actual decision is made by the closing admin, not by the community. "Community ban" merely means that the community advised the process. This is apparently controversial, but Wikipedia process is seriously broken where it's interpreted that the community has made the decision, not the closing admin, it becomes far more difficult to intepret and modify a ban. And it is quite different with blocks and XfDs, where the closing admin may reverse the decision, even if the entire community !voted in one direction. The closing admin essentially becomes the community's representative for handling the decision, starting with implementing it, but also for all other aspects, until and unless the decision is appealed back to the community. So the quick place to go for an appeal is to the closing admin. Then one might try some simple process to convince the closing admin, I've been suggesting discussion with someone that the closing admin might trust to give good advice. In any case, this is an informal mediation stage, voluntary. Then appeal would go to more complex and disruptive process.

If you don't find the ban disruptive of your work, fine. The major problem I see is with this "broadly construed." But if you do find it a problem, I think there is a basis for an appeal to ArbComm, though a new RfC might be appropriate. I don't know if new facts were involved in the topic ban. If so, it's complicated. If not, it's pretty clear. I'd go for convincing the closing admin, first of all, that the consensus at AN/I was misleading, that those who had carefully considered the evidence had decided otherwise. Many of those who !voted at AN/I had a clear conflict of interest, not disclosed. I don't want to stir up trouble, but I also want you to know that you do have options. Going to ArbComm is difficult and hazardous, ArbComm could possibly decide on stronger sanctions, and there will be some opinion that it's disruptive. I'd take some time to think about it. You might decide if there are any substantial issues of fact, and prepare evidence regarding that. I've found that this often clarifies the matter for me. But it's time-consuming. --Abd (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't the closing admin, it was User:Ncmvocalist who wrote the original language in the topic ban proposal. --GoRight (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd discuss it with the closing admin. That change is important, it could easily cause the ban to be wider. That log page shouldn't be any stronger than the closing statement. Admins enforcing the ban may not look at the close, they will look at the sanctions log and at that page. They may look at both. You already got advice that you should interpret it broadly, but that's for safety. The boundary should be set where it was set, and if the closer disclaims responsibility, we'll have the same situation as with WW: a ban without any intelligent maintenance. Not good. And what happens then? Most likely, further disruptive process, as you seek to overturn a too-restrictive ban or recover from an over-eager block based on this "broadly interpreted" thing. If you have any doubts about specific application, specific questions to the closing admin should protect you, if you follow the advice. And if you find that too restrictive, then your recourse will be similar to what is happening with WW's ban, plus, of course, there is more difficult recourse beyond that. --Abd (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the mistaken impression that User:Ncmvocalist was an administrator, but User:Wizardman who closed the WP:ANI discussion indicates that he is not. Is there a way to tell who is an administrator and who is not?

If User:Ncmvocalist is not an administrator I definitely consider his taking it upon himself to close the RfC and place a Community sanction page in my user space to be harassment on his part, especially since he is not a neutral party here given that he participated in the RfC AND he is the one to create the topic ban proposal against me. Anyway, User:Wizardman indicates that he will look into it. Any thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two simple ways to check whether someone is an administrator. First: When you go to his user page, then an administrator should have a small Wikipedia globe in the upper right corner. Wizardman has such a globe on his user page; but Ncmvocalist doesn't. Second: When someone is an administrator, then he should be listed in the list of administrators. Markus Schulze 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the globe is reliable. For example, see User:Sarcasticidealist. Administrator, in the admin category, I know he's an administrator. No globe.--Abd (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I hadn't checked. Theoretically, non-admins have the same rights as admins, but don't have the tools. Generally, though, consensus has come to limit closes that require the use of tools to administrators. If a close, for example, requires a block or enforcement of a ban though blocks, it's been considered proper for an admin to close. Anyone can revert a close, though. It should never be an involved editor unless there is no objection. Ncmvocalist definitely should not have closed the RfC, even if he had been an administrator, because he was involved. It's like voting in an AfD and then closing it, so if anyone wants to reopen it, they could, by reverting the close. Don't do it merely because it was "wrong." I'd recommend that it not be GoRight, though. That RfC doesn't hurt you, it helps you, as it is!

However, I wouldn't rush to consider it harassment. Just a mistake. Now, Wizardman closed the topic ban, and he is the one, then, to go to, in the theory of Wikipedia practice that I've been writing about, for any clarification regarding the ban. Assume that he is reasonable, and, for sure, treat him civilly and with respect. If he doesn't want to hear it, that avenue is then closed, and, if you want to challenge the ban or his interpretation of it, the next step would be the intervention, preferably of another admin, to intervene as a mediator, or as your advoctate, either one. One step at a time, unless there is an emergency, which there isn't, as far as I can see. As to the log information in your user space, any editor could change that to reflect Wizardman's close. Or anything, for that matter, such as to turn it into a barnstar, but I wouldn't recommend it!

Given that a topic ban re WMC is reasonable for you, and you were quite prepared to accept it, the only immediate question is scope, so, if you have questions about scope, ask Wizardman. It's best if it be about a specific example. You could also ask, if it turns out that the ban is a problem for you, what you could do to lift the ban, such as accept a mentor, etc. I wouldn't think, though, that it would be worth the trouble for a narrow ban, maybe if the interpretation is broad.--Abd (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The way to verify any "rights" a user has is by looking them up in the list of users. Click "special pages" (should be to your left), and then find and click on "users". That should take you to Special:ListUsers. Then enter the name. Set the limit to 1 to show just one person. For example: Wizardman, Ncmvocalist, me, you. Special:ListGroupRights explains the various rights. The genuine list of all admins is here. Bureaucrats. Checkusers. Oversighters. Founder. And so on. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user pages by banned User:Fredrick day, need semiprotection of user pages.

I've been creating the pages for a self-RfC, under my control, see User:Abd/RfC, plus I created some subarchive pages to try to give some organization to the total mess that descended here Aug 11. In any case, big surprise, Fredrick day IP showed up and started vandalizing. I've been inviting him to participate in this process (under appropriate restrictions), but it seems he's pretty determined to toss shit instead of being included; however, maybe he'll change his mind. Here is what he's been doing, see Special:Contributions/87.114.131.159. Not a lot of point in wasting time blocking the IP, he'll just boot the modem. I'll go to RfP if someone doesn't see this and just do it, but:

Please semiprotect indef, if not already protected, with talk pages: User talk:Abd/Archive 1
User talk:Abd/Archive 2
User talk:Abd/Archive 3
User talk:Abd/Archive 4
User talk:Abd/Archive 5
User talk:Abd/Archive 6
User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Before flap
User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Warnings before block
User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Blocked
User:Abd/RfC
User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table
User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block
User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence

That should be all I need for a while, thanks to any admin who notices this and does it.

 Done –xeno (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. Too bad it was necessary. I'm setting up a page for IP editor input at User:Abd/RfC/IP, for my RfC process, or User talk:Abd/IP for my Talk. IP and newly-registered editors may make comments on those pages. Beware, they might be a little raunchy, I have some "friends" with potty mouths. Then again, I used to read unmoderated Usenet groups. But I'll transfer legitimate edits there to the appropriate place; generally, all posts there may be deleted quickly, those pages aren't to be used for discussion, I may review in History.

It may be necessary to protect the Talk pages connected with the RfC as well. Not an emergency, but Fredrick day has acted up there a bit as well. Maybe he'll decide to do something useful. He's been behaving like I'm the Black Death, perhaps he might be willing to explain why he thinks that. Never can tell, somebody might learn something. I can delete anything truly disruptive, and so can anyone else. In fact, wouldn't it be interesting to set up a bot to delete contributions to a defined set of pages from a specific IP range? Or, indeed, all IP contributions? This would allow IP editors to contribute, but only if "seconded" by a registered user who brings it back in. --Abd (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you are curious

Since there were quite a few admins telling me various things, in warnings, during my block, and a little bit after it, from I've not been careful enough, to I harassed a certain admin, to I've been driving editors away from the project and don't care, to I'm a total troll and waste of time and should create some nice articles for a change, to I should simply be banned, and I think that the arguments they give, when they bother to give arguments, are mostly a "steaming pile," to quote Hesperian (but, note, some criticism in this whole affair has clearly been legitimate), I really need to sort it out. What did I actually do? Was it blockworthy, etc.? Because if even half of what's been tossed at me is appropriate, I've got major problems and possibly shouldn't be editing here at all.

Since much of my purpose here is to explore and suggest improvements to Wikipedia structure, which I think is already truly excellent, but which has been unable to meet the challenges of scale by what may be truly minor deficiencies, needing only some small teaks, why not use this opportunity to test the ideas? Instead of creating some real RfC elsewhere, either a self-created RfC at WP:RfC-- I think what I'm doing will be better than that for these purposes -- or, alternatively going after the ... bad words thought of but not seriously, and given what has come down, maybe I better not disclose what I think even in jest! ... nice administrators who have been so kind as to give me their unsolicited opinions, i.e, going after them with process on AN or AN/I or RfCs or RfAr, which can be extraordinarily disruptive, why not just run an RfC in my own user space, the purpose being to advise me how to proceed. Nobody has to read it or participate who doesn't want to. The Delegable proxy table that is set up will allow people who have interest in helping me to understand my problems, but who don't have the time, to simply name someone whom they consider as likely to give me good advice, similar or better to what they would themselves provide. It should take a minute to add a proxy name to User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table. Don't worry if the proxy isn't participating yet, I'll take steps later to try to get wider participation by looking at any trusted or previously involved users who haven't shown up here or named a proxy. I'll actively solicit participation from anyone who has posted to my Talk page preceding and during my block. I want the advice that was yelled at me in the heat of the moment, with edits coming to my Talk so fast that I'd have to try two or three times to get through the edit conflicts, to come in a far more careful, sober, deliberative environment. Because the purpose is to advise me, I control that environment, presumably, I.e., I should be able to ask users to "leave." And to revert not only vandalism, but any content there that I consider disruptive. Since I really want to know, however, I'm not gong to use this to simply remove or deflect criticism, my wikifuture depends on getting the best possible advice, and the best advice sometimes come from "enemies." They will tell us things that our friends may not.

And then, of course, if this works, there could be wider implications. We try to modify editor behavior, too often, by threatening them. I have children. It doesn't work, they become increasingly rebellious, they merely resent threats and demands and, obviously, other forms of abuse. The respond to respect and to careful and supportive exploration of their behavior. My youngest daughter was born in a village four hours by donkey trail from the nearest dirt road. It was a mud road when I visited the area, going to the village was out of the question, I met her grandparents in the nearest town. My daughter had gone to a "care center" -- read orphanage -- in Addis Ababa for six months when we adopted her at three. Very sweet. And tough as nails, really, utterly and totally resistant to any sort of attempt to deprive her of the right to make her own choices, unless she permits it. If I try to force her to do something, she digs in her heels and won't budge. If I lose my temper and even touch her when I'm angry, that's it. She won't listen to me for a long time. So: how can we educate and help misbehaving editors instead of blaming them and warning them; warnings are pretty difficult to see as friendly, they often are far more like a threat, and, too often, they are accompanied by blame or incivility. And how can we do this efficiently?

This process is designed so I can trust it. Makes sense, after all, it's for my advice. That would apply to any user who has, in the opinion of some members of the community, violated guidelines or policies, but who thinks this unfair or wrong or stupid or whatever. And then, here in my own user space, I cannot predict what will happen: it could range from getting sufficient information for me to realize what an idiot I've been, to finding it confirmed that a mistake was made, and, if there is significant participation here, and thus a preliminary consensus, it could become far less disruptive to try to get any injustice corrected. Evidence already in place and agreed upon by at least a few editors. Arguments listed and examined carefully. Conclusions proposed and consensus estimated (that's where delegable proxy comes in. It's not used for voting, as such, it's used to analyze a vote and try to compensate for participation bias so that it is more likely to predict successfully what will happen if a decision is reviewed by a larger community, without having to actually do that, most of the time.) For example, many admins seem to think I'm basically a waste of time. All of them together could name, directly or indirectly, a single proxy, doesn't have to be an admin, simply an editor they would trust to represent, more or less, the way they feel about me, and to, first of all, help me understand their point of view, and, secondly, should it happen -- is it possible? -- that some mistake was made when I was blocked, to go back to those who trusted them and say, uh, I looked at the evidence and it seems he was right, or at least this was reasonable. Or not. I have no fixed idea about what will happen, I just know that this is an idea that is worth trying. Sarsaparilla/Absidy/etc., sacrificed his account trying to suggest this (and in frustration when it was misunderstood), and, here in my user space, it is clearly harmless. It's only for my advice, and nobody needs to lift a finger that doesn't want to.

The RfC is intended to be a standing resource for me, so the proxy table will be used to help me understand, from just a few comments, later, should there be problems again, what warnings truly represent the community, and what warnings are simply the opinions of a minority, perhaps threatened in some way by my ideas, or misunderstanding what I do, following superficial impressions, trusting rumors and unsubstantiated allegations, the kinds of things that, too often, cause AN/I to come up with bad decisions, as shown by later analysis, such as the topic ban that created this whole fuss, which turns out to have had totally insufficient evidence at hand -- or discoverable later -- to justify such a response. People who didn't check the evidence voted, those noting the absence of evidence asked for it, it was not provided, so they didn't vote! And the topic died and was archived, without a close, but most !votes had been for a ban, so ... it was later enforced, without anyone actually taking responsibility for it, truly. A mess. We could easily have lost a very productive, not perfect, but young and learning, editor, with hundreds of articles to her credit, mostly quite good on review, and 30 successful DYK nominations. Bullied and blamed and abused, really. I want to stop that, not just to fix this one incident, and not by blaming anybody for the mistakes made, but by fixing the structure that allows mistakes like that to be made. And this self-controlled user RfC in my Talk space is a test of some of the ideas. I think it will work if two or three editors participate, but it might work much better than that.--Abd (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Abd, I have filed a request for appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I'll be looking forward to your support. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do what I can. Be careful, be thorough, and, of course, be civil. As to my own situation, I'm working on a process that, if it works, might be able to avoid Arbitration, or, if it goes there, would be relatively likely to succeed. See User:Abd/RfC --Abd (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Thanks to Fritzpoll for correcting a typo in the link. --Abd (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many words... brain hurting... eyes failing... synaptic pathways shutting down

If you really want people to follow your arguments try being less verbose, for the love of Jehovah! give concision a try. RMHED (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Recommendation: unless it is a warning on your Talk page or there is some other very good reason you must read it, don't read what I write. I'm verbose in some situations and concise in others, and I have no idea which you are referring to, really. I'm verbose when there is generally no obligation to read what I write, so I'm writing for those -- who might only be a few -- who have sufficient interest to take the time to read what I write. I assure you that it takes far less time to read it with the necessary attention than it does to write. I'm concise, generally, when I have a point that I'm pushing, rather than merely discussing. Further, if I write something that seems too long, but that also seems interesting, you could always ask me to boil it down. I usually will. Or others might, they often do.

If I write the boiled down version first, what happens is that many people simply don't understand it, too many details are missing, and it takes me about three times as long to write concisely as to write verbosely, so.... how can I anticipate if people are even interested, unless I write the concise version first. Which means wasting a lot of time. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• On your "RFC" page, it says Abd was warned by Jehochman, regarding an edit to Abd's own Talk page.. Please link me to the edit that you were warned for. It is too hard to find it. I want a brief reply, preferably just a diff link. I refuse to read giant replies anymore. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind. TL;DR. If you can't be consise then 99% of editors are going to ignore you. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below) I've been quite succinct in any important content in the RfC, so I had no idea that Mr. Crossin was referring to this, I assumed he was writing about something else. The RfC is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block which is the RfC for the specific incident, it is extremely concise. And that page refers to User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence, which is intended for the whole incident, not just the specific first question. However, the edit I made that Jehochman was referring to is diffed in the block RfC itself; at the moment it is the only diff there, since it was so important. It is the diff given by Jehochman. I don't see how one could have looked at that page, with any caution at all, and missed it. Perhaps Mr. Crossin was misled by my reference to the Evidence page, which can be quickly reviewed, and the Warning is close to the top, but he saw that it was more than one page, and thus that he might have to read all that. Not. Plus there is a table of contents for that page, which should have made it easy to find. But, for convenience, the "screed" is at [2]. Yes, it's long, it was on my Talk page, though it would be enough to scan it looking for "personal attack," an attempt to "drive away [Fritzpoll], or the rest. It's really a pretty simple question the RfC is starting by asking, broken down into subquestions. It's not the last question to be asked, and anyone can suggest questions, which will be considered in due time.

Let me make something clear. I've invited everyone interested to participate. That does not mean that I want participation from editors who refuse to look at the actual evidence, but only want to express irrelevant or premature opinions or general impressions, at least not at this point. There will be a place to express such, but not before we get the facts straight. That present process tends to the latter, that it will propose and vote on remedies before there is any consensus on the evidence, is one of the big problems we have. It's straight out of Alice in Wonderland, the Queen: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." --Abd (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, how did you choose who to send your thing to? Was it just a list of people who'd posted on your talk page or something? Not taking part, ridiculously complicated over what seems like a small issue, can't be bothered, sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it wasn't needed any more, I deleted it with [3], but the RfC notices also specified exactly who it was being sent to. I did not discriminate. I, or anyone, may solicit other participation, directly or by proxy, subject to spamming rules. This is not a general community RfC, it is primarily for the purpose of advising me, though it might suggest some possible consensus outside, it will not establish or prove that, but it will, as an example, advise me in deciding whether or not I should pursue any further process, or drop it. Before the facts are established, to my satisfaction, I'd consider it quite foolish to proceed outside this. People will simply repeat what they've written before, without evidence, as is already obvious, see Fredrick day's deleted edit to this page, if you want. (Any of that can be brought back if a registered editor wants specific questions answered.) --Abd (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, User:Steve Crossin has more serious problems than a headache from reading my writing. See [4] Steve, I don't know if you will see this, but you would still be welcome to participate in my "Request for Advice," let's call it. You are obviously a very experienced user, and your perspective could be invaluable. Regardless. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guideline on user pages

There is a Wikipedia guideline about what a user page may contain. It says:

Examples of unrelated content include:

9. Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.

Yellowbeard 19:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellowbeard, who is welcome to participate in the RfC, even with his prior history, is correct. It says that. I'm not aware of any personal attacks or the recording of perceived flaws, in the RfC, but if such is in it, please let me know, and, if it is not necessary, I'll redact it. The RfC is not intended to attack anyone. If listing the diffs without comment is "negative information," then Wikipedia itself is the "guilty" party. --Abd (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of "waive"

At User:Abd/RfC#Symmetry you say "I wave my right to protection from incivility here". I think you mean "waive" with an "i", not "wave". Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm waving that right, i.e., demanding it.

Seriously, yes, of course. I'm waiving the right, except where I specifically assert it, after I assert it. I'm glad someone is reading at least some of this. I want editors to be free to express what they think, though, please, in context, not creating a mess. This Talk page remains open for whatever, as usual, excepting users I've asked not to edit here. The RfC pages are intended to begin as totally open, and I'll ask editors to "leave" only if they are disruptive there, after warning. It's really just an organized, extended part of my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated it, Coppertwig. I'm serious. Like a straight man, which I am. God is the comedian, and it is really, really funny. It's true that, as far as I know, nothing like this has been done on Wikipedia (though, really, I'd be surprised if it was never tried, at all), and that's part of the problem. What I'm doing is straight dispute resolution stuff from outside. I think that the reason there hasn't been a lot of this here is that Wikipedians were largely techies to begin with. Different worlds, almost, and somewhat of a different generation. It's pretty basic: before trying to come to a decision, come to agreement on the evidence first, have everyone commenting, working on solutions, be familiar with the evidence. In person, it would be requested that each party state the evidence that the other parties think is important, it would be nailed down. I have no idea how far this will go, but I find it important to try. Thanks for your support. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tried reading the evidence but didn't get far enough to get definitive answers to your questions. I may try again later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should be fairly simple for the first questions posed. It boils down to the Warning, which was about a pair of edits of mine that created a "screed," on my Talk page, which was the basis for Jehochman's warning. You don't need to review the Evidence page for for the first questions, all the rest is a distraction. (But it will be needed later.) The two edits together created a fairly long piece, on my Talk, and it will take careful reading of that, but, though I write a lot, and that wasn't one of my briefer posts, to be sure, the questions focus on whether it was a "personal attack," whether it shows assumption of bad faith (it never even occurred to me to suspect bad faith, until later, when the sock issue came up, and even then it seemed to be like Fritzpoll was acting in good faith even if he was Fredrick day. Quite simply, I had utterly no idea, and never had the idea, that FP had acted with other than good faith, even in the midst of the sock puppet speculation, nor to this day. So if I implied bad faith, I'd really like to know where! The sock stuff wasn't relevant to the Warning, since it came later. Actually, Jehochman wrote that post in a very short time, from the edit timing. It's unlikely that he read it carefully. Nevertheless, at this point, I have to assume that he did. And, the third question is whether it shows an intention to drive Fritzpoll from the project; again, I had utterly no intention of that and was astonished when he "retired," making vague charges of harassment. Criticism is harassment? When I didn't follow him around with it? I did not continue after a request to stop (there never was such a request from him.) For the third question, about harassment, it could take more reading, perhaps, though Jehochman did not cite any other evidence than the one Talk set of posts. The fourth question has been narrowed. It's impossible, I'd say, to base the charge of general disruption and drama-mongering on an examination of a few edits, but I've asked if it was appropriate to dilute his warning with that, not that it matters much if the first three charges are empty. I'd claim that impugning my general editorial work as being motivated by a desire for drama is far more of a personal attack than anything I did, but ... we aren't there yet.

Was what I wrote, in that one piece, a personal attack or assumption of bad faith or harassment intended to drive off Fritzpoll? I sure don't see it, all I see is strong criticism of one action, and concern over what seemed like refusal to take responsibility for the action and reconsider it when presented with a questioning of the evidence. Quite within what is allowed, I think, but ... that's what this is for. What do you think? --Abd (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at AN

The thread has been marked resolved and I'm glad that we've had resolution on the main issue. Yet I'd like to engage you in a little bit of dialog about the subsection I started and your response. It's a matter for concern when a respected Wikipedian attributes an angry emotional reaction and predicates a rebuttal upon that assumption. Allow me to restate the concerns in a more rigorous manner. Steve's judgement been problematic for some time, but until very recently it appeared he was harming no one but himself. In good faith, I and several other people attributed the problem to his youth, to his early assumption of adult responsibilities, and to unusual stresses. He had also done very good work on the difficult Prem Rawat mediation and had earned a triple crown for editing. Promising young people sometimes enter a slump. He often came to me for advice. Yet there were at least two distinct conversations where he disclosed to me questionable behavior that related the concerns which eventually came to light, shortly before a checkuser was run, and in which he failed to disclose what any reasonable person in a candid quest for advice would have disclosed. Now that this has come out I have been comparing notes with some other people and the concerns have deepened. As long as Steve refrained from mentioning Mellie at AN I hoped in good faith that he had made the full disclosure to ArbCom I had asked him to make, but Steve's private and public actions compelled me to step forward. With increasing frequency, Steve has been placing the people close to him in ethical binds. If his actions were not actually malicious, they certainly generate an appearance of impropriety that could cloud the reputations of honest people. I have seen situations go downhill before. And as much as I sympathize with Steve's dilemma, two administrators have already lost the bit because of his influence. By making a public statement that commonsense understanding would regard as false, Steve placed both Mitch and myself in a dangerous position: we knew his wife had accessed his account. Mitch knew it later than I did, and neither of us knew about Steve's access to other accounts. Steve was also--recklessly and persistently--sharing private e-mails and logs. Well I hadn't asked him to tell me about Mellie's use of his account, but Steve was rejecting advice and creating new problems not only for himself but also for the people around him. Steve had placed me in a position where the only ethical thing to do was to step forward publicly with a full disclosure. I was thinking of myself but not only of myself: I wouldn't want the Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skype channels and all their participants to get tainted, and if it isn't obvious to you how close things came to that, please trust me. With respect, Durova^Charge! 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problem with an attribution of anger, it's mind-reading. My comment about anger, however, was a comment of "understanding," and not central to my "rebuttal." And full disclosure was not the issue, I would never criticize you for disclosure of what you believe is factual and relevant. (Unless it violated an expectation of confidentiality, with no harm from maintaining the confidentiality; was that the case here?)

However, you, yourself, termed Steve's action as lying, as I recall. Lying is not merely the making of a false statement, it is making such a statement with an intention to deceive. And what I pointed out was that there wasn't any clear conflict between what you reported (i.e, his wife had accessed his account) and his claim that she was was not involved, i.e., in his access of administrative accounts. She wasn't involved in this incident. That they may have jaywalked together at some point is not sufficiently related for him to have a requirement to disclose it. Further, I'd seriously worry about pressure on a user to reveal confidential and private information about the activities of anyone else. Particularly one's spouse! These were separate offenses, if they were offenses, with separate implications. People would not be discussing blocking him because his wife accessed his account on occasion. (He's logged in, she wants to look up something, he says "Okay." And she fixes a typo.)

I don't regard the particular statement you are referring to -- if I remember it correctly -- as "false." I must say that I'm not thrilled that you revealed that information, because it seems that it was given to you in confidence. Yes, the situation created moral dilemmas, indeed, and that's worth looking at. However, there was no rush, I don't see any necessity for the information about his wife's access to be revealed immediately. It was irrelevant to the primary issue, his access of admin accounts.

The sharing of emails and logs you mention is not, if private, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Whether it is offensive at all depends on circumstances. If the emails and logs were obtained legally, sharing their content privately isn't even objectionable unless they were obtained under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and, even then, to share such things with a trusted counselor may not be unethical, particularly one expected to be discrete.

You felt you had an obligation to disclose the matter about his wife; however, did you have an obligation to disclose it immediately? This is one of the problems I have with the noticeboards; they should never be used, in my opinion, to make any complex decisions requiring judgment, beyond the determination of a "preliminary injunction." The environment is conducive to snap judgment, disregard of evidence, rash statements, and disorderly process. I'm a bit troubled that ArbComm decided to reveal this at all, was it necessary? Perhaps. But I'd have been happier with ArbComm revealing it as a settled matter, and, in particular, I'm concerned about the response to your comment revealing that other matters involving Steve were under consideration. ArbComm, when it is going to consider privately, should consider privately! When it needs public comment, it can solicit it, but using a Noticeboard for it is probably disruptive.

My comment was not intended to, in any way, defuse your expression of concern about Steve and possible damage due to improper influence. It was really focused on the one matter: did he lie when he said his wife was not involved? Unless there are facts I haven't seen alleged, he did not lie, nor did he fail to disclose something clearly material and relevant. Did she take any administrative action while he was logged in as one of the admins? If so, she was involved, and it was a lie, if he was aware of it. But what he disclosed to you was that she had used his account, not theirs.

Durova, you are always welcome to share your concerns with me about anything you write. You intervened some time back with regard to a sock puppetry suspicion that I reported. Not desiring to stir things up, I'm not mentioning the identity of the alleged sock, and it's not important, but I did apologize to the editor by email and told him I'd apologize in public if he wished. He has not responded. If you were not angry with Steve for betraying your trust, I apologize to you for implying it. I'll say this, though. I'd have been angry. --Abd (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I specifically avoided use of the word lying. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer by email, beyond noting here that, yes, you did not use that word.--Abd (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A WikiProject you may be interested in

WP:WPEX EVCM (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Thermite, maybe, my hobby in high school, fifty years ago.... saw some really misleading stuff about it recently in the local newspaper, some kid had been playing with it, so they ran photos of a car blowing up. They didn't explain that it was the gas tank exploding.... Really pretty safe stuff, unless you stick a burning magnesium ribbon in it. Has to get very hot to start the exothermic reaction. The really dangerous stuff? Gasoline, of course. And fertilizer. Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You should join. EVCM (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Striking

I am not watching your conversation, but I noticed an edit summary that you struck something. It is always a very positive sign when an editor is willing to consider that they may not be perfectly correct all of the time. Good going. Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman. Being perfectly correct wasn't the issue. I might have been correct, actually, though it would be totally rude to push the point. (Please understand that I've got many years of experience with people digging through their psyches for what might not have been obvious in consciousness.) (For her to be angry would be totally normal, given the history reported, and to not be angry would be, to me, somewhat scary. But she is the world's number one expert on herself, and I'm required to take her at her word. Maybe we have different definitions of angry, anyway. It was dicta, and if it offended her, and she asked me to strike it, why not? I also strike or apologize when I find out that I'm actually wrong, which happens as well. I apologized to Fritzpoll, for example, and not because I was blocked or to help with unblock. I did it because it was due. As I recall, I even apologized to Fredrick day at one point (as Allemandtando, I forget the occasion). --Abd (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jehochman, I don't know if you noticed it, but User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block has begun with an examination of the warning you issued me on Aug. 11. I don't think that there was any reasonable basis for this warning, and it was the warning that later was considered the necessary warning for my block that day. Would you mind looking at that and commenting? In particular, could you point to specific language I used which you considered "personal attack," and "assumption of bad faith," and attempting to drive an editor off the project? You referred to a specific edit of mine in that warning, and I just don't see that what you claimed was there (or anywhere, for that matter, but that's a broader question). If the warning was without reasonable basis, would you please apologize, so that your part in this affair is over? On the other hand, if it was correct, please help me see how. Comment for this RfC goes on the Talk page for it, where I've given my own comments. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your comments here.    SIS  23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please understand that it's my opinion that Majorly wasn't particularly uncivil to you in the original comments that you reported to AN, and that going to AN over such can be considered disruptive, there are prior steps in dispute resolution and, in fact, AN isn't a part of that process. Most notably, one should try to find some mediator (informally at first, simply some editor that both of you might respect). Or, as advised in [[WP:NPA], just blow it off, let it go. Later responses that went beyond the earlier ones can easily be understood as due to irritation over the fuss being made. The sock suspicion is quite reasonable, I think you should agree, given your account history. As I explained in the Checkuser request, you gave an explanation that was reasonable in some respects -- but real socks give explanations like that. I'm not sure if there will be an actual IP check, but checkuser isn't likely to turn up anything but your husband, assuming you aren't a sock; it's probably better than relationships like this be disclosed at the outset. There are ways that inquiries like this can be handled privately, if that seems necessary, so ask. (Ask with the checkuser report, that's what I'd guess would be best.) I'm assuming that you are sincere and merely were taken aback by the environment in an RfA, they are famous for becoming contentious; with little experience, you foundered on the rocks, so to speak. Good luck, and if you think I can be of assistance, ask. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the relationship I'm in is rather unconventional, I would appreciate it if the check could be private. I don't oppose to it as such (although my IP is dynamic, so that doesn't help), but I wouldn't like the results to be online. Privacy concerns. How do you suggest I go about this?    SIS  01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser won't reveal the IP, normally, unless there is current IP activity that's related and likely to be from you, then they might. I'd ask on the checkuser page, request a private inquiry, and use email to communicate as suggested. If that's not enough, I'm pretty sure you'll get advice from other experienced users on how to proceed. Maybe even from Majorly, ask nicely! (Asking someone you've had a problem with for help is a fairly fast way to start to heal it.) The problem isn't dynamic IP, though, I might point out, that would mean that if IP was revealed, no big deal, it won't be your IP as soon as you reboot your modem. The big problem is going to be that your spouse and you are going to be, normally, sharing the same IP, the exact same if the modem hasn't been rebooted, or always the same block from the ISP's pool. In other words, you will look exactly like his sock. And I think that checkuser will find this. There are ways to establish that you are separate people, and I suspect that checkusers are experienced with this. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, good chance the checkuser won't be done, for technical reasons. I wouldn't bet on it, though, checkusers can decide on their own to look into something. Still, if you have done nothing wrong, if there is nothing more than you and your husband sharing the same Internet access, and you haven't participated in the same process (even though you could legitimately do that, it would raise further suspicion), you could simply do ... nothing. I recommend, though, offering to disclose, in advance of an actual check, your relationship with your spouse, i.e., the name of his account, to a trusted administrator, who could take it from there, dealing with the checkuser, or to a checkuser directly. That's why I suggested doing it at the RfCU page, it would be seen by a checkuser before taking the case. If you disclose it, then the only problem would be, of course, if your spouse is a blocked user! --Abd (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. We'll consider going to RfCU. By the way, none of us is (or has ever been) blocked.    SIS  02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion, contacted checkuser Alison and explained the situation to her. As a result I have now been cleared and the RfCU has been declined. It's been a difficult 2 days for me but I'm glad with the outcome. Thank you very much for your views and help, they have been most valuable.    SIS  02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Burnout

Yes, burnout. Most administrators will go through it, especially if they have been harassed off-wiki by special interest parties. I've made some sharp comments on that ANI thread, and partially it is because of the burnout and the constant harassment for this and that, and partially because it does reflect an accurate observation. Too often we are failing to discuss controversies and debates with administrators and other editors in a civil fashion. We are resorting to jumping to ANI or AN at the first bat, escalating it to RFC or RFAR, or drudging it to the Village Pump for some radical proposal, and calling for the administrator to resign or to be banned and so forth. It's demoralizing, and it's all political. seicer | talk | contribs 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've been dealing with computer conferencing, as we used to call it back in the 1980s, since The WELL, pre-web. I've moderated a usenet newsgroup, soc.religion.islam, and am pretty familiar with how uncivil it can get, but Wikipedia is a project that needs a collaborative community, for applying the policies requires consensus, and incivility is fatal to consensus, it's become very difficult to determine true consensus because of it; many long-time editors have been driven away, and we don't necessarily retain the best. (And good editors and administrators become bad ones through continual exposure to incivility, while some are able to retain their balance, it's rare, and to some degree I see the ones who can do it tiring.)

So if incivility is the problem (and it's a big part of it), what's the solution? Is it to start clamping down on incivility? Block more easily for incivility? I don't think so, at least not as long as a block is considered a black mark on one's record. Punishment doesn't work to improve civility, only better process will do it. It's a vicious circle, until enough of us can step back far enough to see it and to see solutions. What has beset Wikipedia can happen to any organization, and there are professionals who are quite good at dealing with it, at changing the culture. I'm not necessarily recommending hiring them, but recognizing that the organizational disease we have isn't a new thing, it just looks a little different because we don't recognize the analogies.

We do need to identify and work with incivility at a lower level. We need to train administrators to be particularly civil, to be what they are supposed to be: examples for the rest of the community. When I see a highly experienced editor and administrator, a former member of ArbComm, revert a new arrival, with source, at an article he's maintaining with "(rv naval-gazing by ex-wikipedian POV pusher)" and nobody says "Boo!", we are in trouble. However, even to get to this point we need to learn how to make decisions not only civilly but efficiently, they go together. And that is going to take attention to structure. There are ways to do it that would keep our traditions of distributed decision-making in place, we simply need ways to make the process orderly and more reliable. Just to give a simple example, it's quite common to start collecting !votes before evidence and arguments are completely presented. What do we make of a !vote that isn't based on a common question? ("Question" must include the evidence, i.e., with this evidence and arguments, shall we decide this?) Basic principle of democratic process: no decision is voted on until the "assembly" has decided that it is ready for closure of debate, and that, under Robert's Rules of Order, requires a two-thirds vote. There are special problems with on-line "meetings," but we don't have to re-invent the wheel, there would be ways to adapt traditional procedures to our process; but, once again, the bootstrap problem. And my solution to the bootstrap problem is to start small experiments that involve testing different procedures. Voluntarily. It's quite difficult to get this going, in my experience, at present, because few recognize the problem, much less the potential for solving it. We'll need to identify those who do see it, and start working together. --Abd (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jail

"You've got to taste the actual bottle to know." That could get you arrested in most countries ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Not. In some countries, it may be impossible to know (i.e., if the bottle is wine or vinegar), legally, depending on age, religion, or other factors. Not most. (Of course, one could use a pH strip.... the point is that it requires an individual test, the age of the bottle doesn't tell you more than averages.) Balloonman, your arguments on that RfA Talk page have been thoroughly specious, and sometimes offensive. Legal age requirements for drinking, driving, etc., are set because it is impractical to make a judgment for each individual. Because of loopholes, I'm not sure it's still true, a youth could fly an airplane before they could drive a car. Same requirements for a youth as for an adult: same instruction hours, same tests. Because the youth was paying for the instruction, it was practical to make the determination individually. Here, this editor has paid for our consideration by making so many constructive edits. We should give her what she paid for, due consideration, based on her individual accomplishments and visible traits. Her age is irrelevant. She did not have to disclose it to us, and we should not consider it one way or another, though, in fact, I'd give precedence to mature youth, not because of the individual, but for the future of Wikipedia. I'd also give a bit of preference to females, who are, generally, less likely to be prone to the excesses, the arrogance, and the like that are more common with teenage boys. But only a bit, sexism is a problem for the same reason. Individuals differ widely. Each individual applicant should be judged on his or her record and responses, which is a better predictor than age. --Abd (talk)

Thank you

Thank you Abd for your great comments. I truely appreciate! Best regards PHG (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. You know, in your case, I strongly recommend that you cease all attempts to correct or reform the process and the admins and others who participated in what led to your topic ban, and focus on your article work. You stated in your appeal to ArbComm that you wanted to heal the relationship with Elonka et al. It would start by returning to AGF with regard to them, and even better than that, that you start to assume that they may be right. Just as a manner of approach, not necessarily as to conclusion. Assume that it will all come out in the end, that as the smoke clears, "truth stands out from error." You can't make this happen, but you can let it happen. Elonka has done some very good work, in some very difficult areas, and it would help if you recognized that. Her focus on civility is crucial, and her RfC and RfAr came from her enforcement of this; your usage of this as if it were a confirmation of her bad behavior was offensive. As you know, I think that she was excessive in her pursuit of you, after the ArbComm case (I'm not sure about before), but civility was a crucial issue in your original case. Here is why:

In the current flap, the point is made by those opposed to Elonka's work, that NPOV trumps civility, and that admins should enforce NPOV. That is a very serious error, and here is why: NPOV is, by definition, not the opinion or "view" of any individual. Individuals have POVs, though they may also have varying degrees of understanding of NPOV. We judge NPOV by consensus. If we have editors with all significant POVs approving some text, we can be reasonably sure that, for the time being, it can be considered to be NPOV. Often, for various reasons, we have to be content with "rough consensus," and the principle obstacle to finding true consensus is incivility; a secondary cause would be tendentious argument short of incivility; the latter is really a form of incivility, i.e., an unwillingness to consider and recognize alternative points of view. Incivility demolishes the cooperative environment that is necessary for the community to be able to find consensus on article text.

Incivility errors take place on all sides, here. You were pursued uncivilly, allegations were made against you that exaggerated what you had done and the significance of it, I'm quite aware of this. But we can only begin with what we can control, which, in your case, is, at least potentially, your own behavior. As I've said again and again, and I mean it, you are a brilliant editor, your work is invaluable to the project. I have almost entirely moved from working on articles to working on process, in order to enable other editors to do good article work; and if I can help to improve the environment here, it will benefit the project far beyond what I could do as an article editor. I was blocked as a result of my intervention in the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will, allegedly for doing so through personal attack, which, obviously, I dispute, but it's a fact that my intervention resulted in the lifting of the ban; and that before that, the very fact that I intervened may have encouraged WW to return to her article work, it looked for a week that she might have simply left the project over the difficulties she faced.

So, in a sense, I'm responsible for the continuation of an editor who has created hundreds of articles, with 30 successful DYKs last time I looked. She is 16 years old, with the goal of creating 10,000 articles, half of them DYK. If she even realizes only a good chunk of that goal, she will have done far more than I'm likely to do here in the rest of my life. To me, this is a much more efficient use of my skills and understanding than article editing itself. But there is more. It would be easy to blame her topic ban on a single abusive editor, who vanished about the time that I discovered what he'd done and I'd started to be effective in raising consciousness about it. And then it would be easy to blame it on those who did not carefully investigate before drawing conclusions about the topic ban, or on a particular administrator. But that's not the problem, really. The problem is the process, which does this kind of thing far too often. The process developed because it worked with relative efficiency, particularly under the early conditions here. It's been breaking down for quite a while. If I can help to address this, and help create more efficient and more reliable process, the improvement in the working environment here will, again, do far, far more than I could personally accomplish with articles, and it will continue after I'm unable to further participate.

There is opposition to this work, just as there is opposition to Elonka. I now have a block record, which, as you know, makes another block more likely and easier. Once there is attention focused on an editor, errors that wouldn't raise eyebrows otherwise can result in an indef block, I've seen it many times, particularly if there are admins who'd rather see that editor gone (or sticking to business that the admin doesn't mind). So my immediate personal task is to deal with the warnings and block, for, if left unexamined -- as many have recommended -- it could hamper my further work. If the initial block warning is found to have been justified, then I have a serious misconception about what I'm doing, and I'd likely turn to other more satisfying activities. It's really a very simple issue, far less complex than your case. One single edit, was it a personal attack, harassment, and an assumption of bad faith? So far, no comment; however, that, I predict, will change. I only notified those who commented on my Talk page over a short period after the warning, heavily biased toward those who confirmed the warning (whether or not they actually looked at the evidence in sufficient detail is as yet unknown.) Normally, an editor would be satisfied to have been unblocked; or, if not, would go to AN/I to protest the block. Ironically, the editor who harassed Wilhelmina Will had been blocked for harassment, and, after the block lapsed, went to AN/I demanding block record annotation. He got it, and, though the annotation did not contradict the finding of harassment, it gave him a newbie pass, i.e., the severity of the block wasn't justified. That really isn't clear, but I get the impression that this was a shut-him-up compromise. But going to AN/I is often disruptive, and AN/I isn't part of dispute resolution, so I'm following DR by the book. I started with what I'd call Step 0; that is, I examined my own behavior, carefully, compiling evidence. I did this in a self-RfC format, intending to create a standing RfC, because I can expect that there will be further controversy, and I want to set up efficient process to deal with this, without disruption. Basically, I want to set up a method whereby the community can quickly and effectively advise me, that isn't as subject to participation bias as the standard Warning on Talk is. The particular RfC active at the moment is User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, and comment should be made on Talk for that page. (I'm creating a more deliberative environment than what we are accustomed to, only ArbComm follows something like this.)

Then, having created this, and after my initial notifications, to editors who were, in some sense, involved already, most of them, and now, as Step One in DR, I requested the admin who warned me to comment, since it is his warning that is currently in question -- i.e., did my behavior justify this warning? He declined, but since I'd asked him to name an admin he trusted if he didn't have time to consider it himself, he named one. And so that admin has been requested to look at it. That's Step Two. If consensus can't be found -- which at this point would be an agreement between the warning admin and myself -- there is then Mediation or RfC. And, beyond that, ArbComm. However, I find it rather unlikely that this will get so far; in fact, it is likely, I think, at this point, that there will be a resolution on the warning issue within days. DR works if people follow it, and participants have some sense, some reasonable ability to cooperate. Part of what I'm doing is to try to set up structure that makes it much easier to find this kind of low-level resolution, because it is far more efficient.

What I'm trying to do for myself, I could also facilitate for others. Consider, PHG, the application of this to your own situation. You've been charged with various offenses. One of the problems is that a pile of offenses becomes much more difficult to deal with, all together. If you address all of them, your response becomes long indeed. To really deal with them, they would need to be addressed one at a time, in an environment where you would decide what you can agree with, and what not, but also which would bring out advice on this that you are likely to trust. I suspect that if someone who clearly has your best interests at heart (as well as those of the project) were to advise you that X was a mistake, you'd look very seriously at it and agree if you possibly could. I set up my RfC in my own user space because I can control it. The purpose of it is to advise me, not the community, necessarily. However, obviously, if I run it such that a consensus is obvious, it's possible that the community could, with no further process, effectively accept it; if there was dissent on this, it would be easy to set up a simple RfC or similar action to confirm this. And if I run it to generate a warped conclusion, it would be pretty stupid! It's a fool who attempts to control the advice he's given, beyond the necessities of civility and orderly process. So, if this works for me, PHG, I'd be happy to try to set up something like it for you, in your user space, where you would have provisional authority over it. And we could start to unravel the knot involved in your topic ban, in a deliberative environment, but not disruptively. (If you allowed me to "chair" it, a decision you could always revoke, I'd restrain and revert anything there that I considered disruptive, or refactor it; you can see how I've done this with some of the pages under User:Abd/RfC, in the presence of vandalism and other disruption from the banned User:Fredrick day, refactoring and placing what was arguably relevant from it in the proper place.

The point is to have all the evidence and arguments in place before there is any !voting, should such remain necessary. Sometimes all that is necessary is to have evidence and clear arguments, coherently presented, and consensus is obvious. So an RfC in your space could go through, patiently, each of the important charges against you, in detail. The goal isn't to pin blame on someone, as far as I'm concerned, the goal is to find consensus, starting with consensus on narrow points, bite-size chunks. And, then, building on the foundation created, to find an overall consensus that includes you as well as, enough participation -- could be a single editor -- from your critics, or someone they trust. Facilitators, in real life, are trained to do this, and, while I'm certainly not a professional facilitator, I've participated in their work and have studied the methods for almost forty years. Remarkably, standard deliberative process, such as reflected in Robert's Rules of Order, is quite good, in the hands of a body of "members" who understand and use their rights, and/or a chair who understands that for the health of any organization, decisions that maximize consensus are highly desirable. Thus, for example, contentious issues will be referred to committee, where small-group process is much more efficient than the mass presentation of a question. In an organization where the system is functioning well, committee decisions will often be approved with near-unanimity with almost no fuss. The fuss all took place on a small scale, in committee or one-to-one among members, consensus was worked out among all those who cared much about the issue. Highly efficient. Very much like Wikipedia, when it works. What's missing is deliberative process, with procedural safeguards that prevent a minority from being bulldozed or lost in the noise. (Wikipedia process incorporates much of this already, but some key elements are missing that allow abuses and harm.) --Abd (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with socks

I am glad to see you editing in article space. If you have a problem with socks [5], I'd be happy to help you resolve that. I am quite good at matching them up with the main account. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks, Jehochman, this one is a no-brainer, and he's already been blocked, though not by an admin who knew who he was, he just noticed the smell. I'm filing an SSP report just for the record, checkuser isn't necessary, but might be a good idea anyway, just to verify that he hasn't got some new trick. You know who. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave me a link to the case. Keep it brief, and mention that you are concerned about other socks and that there have been multiple incidents of harassment. There will be a benefit if checkuser "empties the sock drawer" and perhaps they can block the underlying IPs for a while. If we shut them down completely they may decide to switch to another pastime. We don't want to keep playing Whack-a-mole with a banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record here, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (4th). That 3RR warning was issued by User:Procutus, and obviously he was ready to be identified as another Fredrick day sock, or he wouldn't have confronted me as he did. Did he really think that when he mentioned my block I'd go cower in the corner? No, I don't think he's that stupid. Anyway, Jehochman, thanks for your cooperation on this. --Abd (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• You should probably email me or one of the other checkusers about your admin allegation. Someone can take a look for any technical evidence before you take further action. Thatcher 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, that was my plan. I'm refining the technique and want to get it to a decent level for presentation before naming any names. However, a private checkuser look might be a good idea, certainly before recent checkuser evidence expires. Fredrick day may be taking extra precautions now.--Abd (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

You seem like a pretty good editor (I don't care what people say). Have you considered adminship? EVCM (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to intrude and seem rude, but I don't think it would go down well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would possibly be as welcome as a fart in the wind. I'm sure Abd has the best of intentions but just isn't suitable for adminship. [Edit]: Wonders if EVCM is a FD sock on a windup... Minkythecat (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd already ran in 2007 (RfA1) and 2008 (RfA2). Yellowbeard 10:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, EVCM. I'm sure the above editors wouldn't vote for me. I'm not running. I don't need to be an admin to do what I do, the only thing I'd like to do would be to be able to see deleted contributions, something I'd suggest for all editors. Something really shouldn't be seen, it should be oversighted.

As to farts in the wind, and prior RfAs, I was nominated twice, yes, and I accepted. The first nom, I had maybe 500-700 contributions, you can expect how that went. But, as intended by the nominator, I learned something. Second nom, I had about 1400, still quite low, and yet the !vote ran 50-50, particularly after the solicited !votes by Yellowbeard, who was blocked for that, are discounted. Quite a few administrators wouldn't pass if they were to run again, because, being an admin, and using the tools, one makes enemies, and the RfA process requires roughly 75% to pass, and, naturally, those who have tangled with you are more likely to vote, the way Wikipedia works. I would totally revamp the system, making it easier to become an admin, and, at the same time, easier to have the rights suspended or revoked. Last RfA, enough of the Oppose voters wrote that they would approve if I had more contributions, and I have more than enough now.

Problem is, of course, that when I, for example, find and report a sock of Fredrick day, as I've done several times, those who really are friends of Fredrick day add another incident to their opinion that I'm only interested in drama. Yellowbeard would have a different opinion, he'd think I'm here to push a POV contrary to his. They are all mistaken. What I'm actually interested in is an efficient structure for Wikipedia, that preserves the wiki way yet that will, at the same time, meet the challenges of scale that are wasting huge amounts of dedicated editor and administrator time, burning them out and causing the encyclopedia to be unreliable. There are easy fixes that would find consensus, if we could manage the kind of discussion necessary. And we can, it merely takes a few to show the way, and the rest will walk it.

In other words, I believe in Wikipedia, and DGAF if I'm blocked. I care very much, however, about civility and consensus. Real consensus. The kind that facilitators try to reach, the way the rest of the world uses the term.

As to adminship, if I'm nominated by a respected administrator, I'd consider it. Otherwise, no. Too much drama and disruption. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend you get some featured article or content credits. Then you'd have a pretty good chance of passing. You don't seem like the type to abuse privileges for personal gain. As for the potential of drama making, sysop tools would not change that either way. By the way, I blanked the AN/I thread about FD. For your own benefit, avoid talking about them as much as possible. They crave attention. By denying recognition you will de-incentivize them from trolling. I recommend blanking any content posted by FD, and not repeating or describing anything they do. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I was in edit conflict with you, so I unblanked to add it, then reblanked, I trust this is acceptable to you. Your comments are correct, in general, but not for all socks. Fredrick day, I think must be kept in mind, quite likely has other active accounts, he's claimed it many times, and it is quite believable. I think he imagines that his use of multiple ISPs for access keeps the other accounts safe. He's mistaken. The more he edits with IPs or short-term socks, the more visible those accounts will become.

As to content credits, yes, if I wanted admin tools, I'd do that. Thanks for your confidence re abuse. Yellowbeard is seriously worried that if I had the tools, why, I'd take over his favorite topic and bash it into the shape I want. He apparently doesn't understand that this would be the fastest way to lose them, short of wheel-warring with Jimbo. There are some admins who use the tools to enforce their POV, and it keeps them on the edge of trouble; they can get away with it, to a degree, when the POV they are enforcing is a majority POV. As you might have noticed, I consider that administrators should not make controversial content decisions and enforce them with tools, rather, they should ensure that process proceeds civilly to find maximized consensus. Even ArbComm steers clear of making content decisions. This seems to be to be the core of the dispute over Elonka's work. And it is important enough that I continued to comment on it. On that point, she's right, and the difference is crucial. Administrators aren't super editors, they are process police, which is why the requirement for demonstration of editorial skills is an error; the requirement should be an ability to handle controversy and make peace, when possible, or enforce order when editors won't keep within boundaries voluntarily, as well as understanding how Wikipedia process works.

I've argued that the sole question for promoting admins should be if they will abuse the tools, or do what they don't know how to do, so as to cause damage. As I recall, in RfA2, I wrote that I simply wouldn't do what I didn't know how to do, unless I got help. Don't think this was just for me! I think we should much more easily promote users where we reasonably expect they won't abuse or be a bull in a china shop. And then we should have a rapid suspension process that removes tool access upon reasonable charges of abuse, pending investigation. It doesn't even take a software change, all that would happen is that the admin would be *requested*, by some reasonable process, to avoid use of the tools (except for the relatively harmless ones, like the ability to read deleted contributions). And any good admin, if requested in an orderly and fair process, to so abstain, would. It really doesn't have to be complicated and difficult. But we have to be able to set up "orderly process" at a level lower than ArbComm. RfC is somewhat like that, but doesn't go far enough. For starters, people express conclusions and judgments before the evidence has been developed and discussed, much less carefully considered. Very much of what I want to do here is really standard operating procedure out in the world, but few have thought about how to synthesize what we have with what else is known to work. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from IP

The following comment was left on User talk:Abd/IP, which is where IP and newly-registered users may comment. If not offensive, the comments will be moved here by me. --Abd (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[6]

[7]

Interesting, interesting. For the well being of Wikipedia, is it? 69.158.126.83 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about. The IP is Canada, and unlikely to be the banned User:Fredrick day. (User:Allemandtando was a proven sock of Fredrick day.) (But it could be Fredrick day using a proxy of some kind.). This IP just restored material I had removed from Cooper Brown, so I thank him for the ping, I checked contributions and saw that, I'd missed it. I reverted, because the material was unsourced. Prior Fredrick day behavior would normally be to remove weakly sourced material, but with this particular article, he'd done the opposite: insisted on weak source, possibly due to some personal agenda.

As to the references, yes, interesting. The first is a reference to EEMIV talk, and contains a reference supplied by Allemandtando to a comment of mine on my Talk about those who had egged on Allemandtando. It was moot because it was not at all necessary to go to ArbComm; eventually Allemandtando made such a fuss that I finally filed an SSP report and he was history. I was pointing out that those who encourage and support behavior could, under some conditions, be held responsible for it, see WP:MEAT. No specific charges were made, to my recollection. Protonk eventually washed his hands of Allemandtando.

The second reference is a post by User:Sticky Parkin who had also supported Allemandtando, and who later, as well, abandoned that support when the deception was revealed. Allemandtando had registered as User:Killerofcruft and had raised quite a fuss, reported to AN/I twice in as many days shortly after registration. He retired, claiming harassment. Then he decided not to be bullied, he'd have put it, he'd done nothing wrong. That wasn't true, really, even before it was revealed that he was a block evader. He had, for example, edit warred with an administrator over the speedy close of an AfD he had filed, bringing an AN/I report and a huge fuss, in which the edit warring got overlooked partly because of distracting comments on the notability of the article involved. Had he taken Sticky's advice, he'd still be editing. But he didn't. His obsession with me led him to bait and taunt me, simply because, knowing the danger from his activities, I simply watched them from time to time. So he demanded I "put up or shut up," essentially. And so I studied the history, decided the evidence was strong that he was Fredrick day (I'd previously mentioned the possibility on AN/I but hadn't seen the strongest indicator), and filed SSP. As soon as it was apparent he'd be checkusered, he bailed, which is typical Fredrick day behavior in itself. Checkuser is normally harmless, I've been SSP'd and checkusered, so, note to legitimate editors: if someone files a sock report on you, remain civil, it's like the police asking for an ID because some suspicion is raised, doesn't matter by whom. There a very, very rare cases where a editor has been falsely found to be a sock, and it would merely be an inconvenience until the matter is sorted out.

Yes, all "for the well-being of Wikipedia." Not for anything else. Civility is essential, and editors who try to improve the encyclopedia by being uncivil to those they identify as its enemies actually do more harm than the true enemies among them could ever do. Problems that could be solved in a few exchanges of civil messages turn into edit wars and flame wars and AN/I reports and sometimes RfCs and ArbComm cases, wasting many, many hours of editor time. It can take some extra time to deal with a content dispute civilly, instead of just reverting rudely. But it saves time, a great deal of time, in the long run. And, also in the long run, it's far more satisfying.--Abd (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop stalking and harrassing me

I did not breach WP:3RR. I could only edit section by section to see the changes rather then reverting the lot and with the other editor it did violate WP:BIO which another editor also supported me removing the unsourced rubbish (If it was try it would have been on his site or in the media by now). It's clear you have been looking at my edit history which is stalking and harassment. I call on you to stop watching my edits. Bidgee (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I count five reverts, each time after the other editor had reinserted the material.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

I'm not filing a 3RR report and I am not seeking to have you blocked, though someone else might. I've notified Mbisanz of the situation, since you seem to have a relationship with him and you might listen to him. Your aggressive behavior is damaging the project, causing disruption. As to looking at edit history, that history is available to us for a reason, and this shows it. I do not "watch" your edits. When it's relevant, which it became earlier today or yesterday, I check them. I don't know who you are, and as far as I know, we have no history, contrary to your claim. Be careful. A claim that examination of edit history is "harassment" is often a precursor to a block, I've seen it quite a few times. Because you have reverted my warning of you with regard to the edit warring with a claim of harassment, I won't be posting to your Talk page, absent true necessity. So far, you remain welcome to post here. As to Nathan Rees, you were correct, as to the content, but not as to the manner in which you handled it. Disputes should be resolved with minimal disruption; bandying about "vandalism," and taking disputes to noticeboards is not normally how disputes are resolved. See 104.1 Territory FM history. Disputes are resolved by finding consensus, and when this is done, there will be far less IP "vandalism" or "POV-pushing." I will also be doing what I can to resolve the Nathan Rees issue, I don't think it is difficult at all, and I expect that there will be no more edit warring from that user. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A useful essay: WP:WOLF. Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That essay is nothing and is unusable. Abd needs to look at WP:STALK since you're following me around. Bidgee (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman. Bidgee has apparently retired due to the alleged harassment. I had commented on Mbisanz talk], about Bidgee, hoping Mbisanz would be able to talk some sense into him, what I saw was simply that Bidgee needed to work more on finding consensus, which isn't about being "right," but about negotiation and finding ways to satisfy both guidelines and policy and editorial factions and even COI and SPA editors, when it's possible. And it simply is not possible when "vandalism" is used as a term for an apparently good-faith edit from a newbie, even when the edit is improper. In any case, Bidgee abruptly "retired," continuing to claim harassment. And I'm starting to see connections in behavior with User:Blechnic who disappeared when I started questioning what he had done (not directly, but as part of the Wilhelmina Will case that led to your warning of me and the subsequent block). Just enough for some nagging suspicions, which, of course, I'm not going to mention outside my Talk unless it's got a much better basis.

Since you seem to be, perhaps, sensitive to my "harassment," perhaps you'd care to comment? I was mild, mild, here, compared to the very strong criticism I wrote regarding Fritzpoll -- which I still do not agree was harassment, at all, merely normal, if strong, criticism of an administrative action, which is necessarily allowed. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

and you're trying to say I'm User:Blechnic? FYI I'm not Blechnic nor do I have any sock or meat puppets! Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In a word, No. Stop speculating, imagining something awful, then getting pissed off about it. That what you apparently did from the beginning of this affair, I had no idea you were connected with Carol Spears/Blechnic and, in fact, I wasn't involved at that time, AFAIK. I will say this much, though. Those who angrily proclaim that they have no sock or meat puppets have often turned out to be lying. See my Talk history for some examples. Normal users who have no sock or meat puppets will usually laugh at such silly accusations. Which I didn't make. "Connections in behavior" could possibly justify suspicion but, so far, as I implied above, I haven't seen enough to come to that point. Encourage me to look harder! Go ahead, make my day! (Sorry, I really do not seek to see any editor blocked, it's just ironic, though, that a number of socks have pushed and pushed until I did finally act. And I only do the sock work where I'm simply the person with the most knowledge about the situation, which creates an obligation for me.)

No I just asked a question after seeing this (BTW not all editors like being called sock puppets or people trying to point a connection) "And I'm starting to see connections in behavior with User:Blechnic who disappeared when I started questioning what he had done (not directly, but as part of the Wilhelmina Will case that led to your warning of me and the subsequent block)." does sound that you're trying to connect me to Blechnic who I (and a few others including Admin's) infact had a disagreement with earlier in the year but never got on until the Carol thing. If you think I have sock puppets then you have some issues yourself as I only have on account. Bidgee (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above -- and then I responded to the first "I'm not a sock" comment of Bidgee) Meanwhile, another editor has commiserated with Bidgee,[13] urging him not to retire because of the "bullying," he'd made some unhelpful comments before; so I thought of dropping him a note about how his comment may have been misinterpreted, leading to Bidgee's retirement, but it seemed I remembered something. Sure enough, I'd warned this editor, also mildly and informally, on his Talk, and he removed it uncivilly, similarly to Bidgee.[14]. While Minky isn't correct about the bullying -- what action was I trying to force Bidgee to take? what was the threat? --, he was correct about one thing. If what I wrote wasn't apropos, why not ignore it? But there were no true "screeds" here. Just clear intervention to resolve disputes with what has been, for me, relative brevity. Looks like 104.1 Territory FM is reasonably settled for the moment, likewise Nathan Rees, I expect. In both cases, I actually supported, approximately, the editorial position of Bidgee -- so what was the issue he got so upset about? Whatever it was, he wasn't willing, apparently, to endure a neutral or independent examination of it, informally, which is where I tried to take it when he bailed. He seems to have taken the whole thing as an effort to discredit him, which, if it did discredit him, would only be because of the wild way he responded. I wasn't seeking his retirement, and he can take it back if he wishes, I won't hold him to it and neither will anyone else! But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it is essential that we monitor each other's behavior, and give and accept criticism regarding it, or else it falls apart. Geez, see User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block and look at the warning from Jehochman. And still we manage to communicate civilly. Give it a try! Maybe you would enjoy that beer VirtualSteve offered, or the coffee. And I suggest a healthy dose of WP:DGAF. This is a community, Bidgee. If we don't get along, the project collapses.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Rees

Thank you for your assistance. As we are an Incorporated Club, our records and club information are available to the public. Club members are listed in our Annual Reports which are sent to the Department of Fair Trading each year. Should I cite Giirraween Athletics Club 2001/2002 Annual Report as my source of information?

Regarding the warning .... please accept my ignorance as the reason I actually received the warning. I added the pertinent information to Nathan Rees Biography (Early Life) but could not understand that even though I was saving the inclusions, they kept "disappearing" when I refreshed my screen. Being persistent, I kept trying, not realising that Bidgee was "undoing" my edits and sending warnings. Thanks again. --Wilbur56 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)