Archive 28, to April 19, 2008

For Geogre's opinion

So I was doing some reading[1] and it occurred to me...Maybe that wasn't so absurd after all? Risker (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Message for Tony Sidaway: If you have something you wish my opinion on, feel free to ask. I may not answer. If there is an urgent matter, please feel free to notify me. I may or may not respond. Otherwise, gainsaying everything is not appropriate, and I'm really not speaking to you or about you, so please do not interline objections everywhere. I am not arguing with you, as I don't believe you believe the things you're saying, and you're proving quite obnoxious to people who want to write with me. Please, Tony, write here sparingly. You promised never to discuss the IRC case, and yet you broke that promise. You promised to avoid bad language prior to the last outbreak, too. You have made many promises, and there is a limit for most of us. Geogre (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I'm going to have to correct you on a statement of fact, but as I've done so before I'll refer you to my earlier edit here. There is a difference in meaning, which I'm sure you appreciate, between the words "gainsaying" and "refutation". If you make a statement concerning another person, and the person refutes it [2] , it's graceful to accept the correction, don't you think? If a person makes a refutation of one's own speculative statements [3], it's sensible to accept that you may just have to refine your theories a bit. Don't you agree? --Tony Sidaway 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CBLANK @ RFAR/IRC

I have replied over on RFAR/IRC, and would appreciate a response from you. Also, based solely on my headline for this Talk section, I hereby WP:TROUT myself for WP:WTF violation. Jouster (whisper) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

For a rather malicious remark left on your user page. I found your insinuations deeply offensive but retaliated inappropriately. Kalindoscopy (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Standardization

There is a debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style over standardization of portrait placement in articles that might interest you. Awadewit | talk 07:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding somewhere to put this link...

A little bird told me about User talk:Kosebamse#Current affairs. It's the first "response" I've seen to the IRC case, but I thought it would be nice to make sure more people saw it. Now, I should get back to the month-long slog of fixing/explaining non-free images (I have a backlog of historical ones to look at). Or maybe not. There are mutterings about an ArbCom case about that, but that would be a monumental affair. <sigh> Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The first thing is good, and I want to put a link up at the top of this page.

The -bot thing is so fantastically close to the same thing as the last two cases as to beggar imagination. I saw the Nandesuka comment and simply couldn't believe it. "I have private information on why persons of trust do not include several long time users," plus the usual "Only the clueful may know" combined with "It's mine, and so is Wikipedia, and those of us protecting the Project from evildoers doing evil evilly do not answer to the community, because the community cannot run Wikipedia" arguments, and all in the service of a program, not a person, and one that has run amok and ruined more articles than anyone else has written.

It's the mindset that has been at the root of most of the abuse cases: "I am an asterisk, because the community cannot be trusted, and that's obviously true, since it disagrees with me."

If the community cannot be trusted, then Wikipedia failed. Geogre (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which Nandesuka comment is that? It rings a bell, but I can't place it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Shmuel Alexandrov

Yo, you deleted Shmuel Alexandrov although I had added a {{hangon}} tag and was adding references to the article. Would you mind userfying the deleted text to my userspace at User:Skomorokh/Shmuel Alexandrov so that I may complete establishing notability? Thanks, скоморохъ 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A different article on the topic has now been recreated; the deleted text would be most helpful to add so that notability could be established. Regards, скоморохъ 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened at RfAr IRC

What happened? Let's get history, issues, and "resolutions."

History

The admins.irc channel was floated as an idea, and it was defeated. It was not an overwhelming defeat, but it was a defeat, which is quite some distance from "consensus." The idea of BLP did not exist then (this was well before the Siegenthaller mess), and the OFFICE did not exist, and there was no such thing as OTRS. Nevertheless, the channel was created for admins only.
Many, many, many bad decisions came out of "discussion on IRC." Specifically, discussion on that one channel.
Several instances of talk that would in no way be tolerated at Wikipedia were documented at that IRC channel.
1. This was not penis talk. Penis talk is common on the main IRC channel, and it's annoying, but it's not particularly important.
2. These cases included users plotting to organize a ban of a user in good standing and encouragement to "look for" reasons to do it.
3. They included also users agreeing to block users on suspicion of being bad people, despite the fact that they had not violated any Wikipedia policies (this was over their being suspected secret agents for users of Wikipedia Review and others).
4. They included people telling users in good standing that they had no right to speak there.
The channel was populated by many administrators, but also by several non-administrators. Some of the abusive speech and action, above, was done by people not actually administrators at en.wikipedia, or any Wikimedia project. This including calling users "arsehole," but this was hardly an issue (the dirty word). The issue was that non-administrators were bullying administrators.
Jimbo Wales would go to the admins.irc channel, but rarely to the general channel. This meant that people who spent a great deal of time there could claim fiat, or at least get the chance to be the ones framing issues. This resulted in the illusion or presence of power, and this meant that users had an incentive to spend as much time as possible on admins.irc, rather than, say, Wikipedia.
A number of on- and offwiki dramas have resulted from misuse of admins.irc; complaints and blowups have continued after the closing of RFAR/IRC.

Issues

David Gerard had written a page, directly in name space, "describing" the admins.irc page. It encouraged administrators to use the channel for conducting business. The tone of the page was self-congratulatory, but the words were also lies. I use that term carefully: the page said that the channel had been created by user:Danny out of WP:OFFICE to deal with BLP concerns. This was both misleading (the idea that the channel "was created" by any official of WikiMedia) and a flat out lie. The page was also written almost exclusively in passive voice. Over the Summer of 2007, user:Giano II, user:Bishonen, and I had edited the page to satirize its fulsomeness and to test David Gerard's convictions. A person who believes in Wikipedia's policies knows that no page is sacred. This editing was playful and an expression of exasperation with what seemed to me, at least, to be fatuous self-love. This period of editing lasted about a week and then ceased.

At Christmas, 2007, user:Tony Sidaway (who has changed his account now), who is not and was not then an administrator at Wikipedia or any Wikipedia project was on the admins.irc channel. Arbitrator User:FT2 was critically discussing an absent user he had been in conflict with, and Bishonen suggested this was inappropriate ("do you really think it's right to spread yourself about his bad character here, where he can't reply?"). FT2 immediately and politely agreed to desist ("I'm content to accept bish's correction"), but Tony, who had not been part of the conversation, broke in to speak for FT2 at that point ("bishonen, yes, of course he does"), told Bishonen (an administrator) that "this is the admins channel" and not the "problem user channel" and that she should go be an "arsehole" somewhere else. So, a non-admin (who had lost his administrative status due to insulting behavior and conspiring with Kelly Martin to block users) was hectoring an administrator that she should not bother important people like himself and informing her of what the arbitrator she was discussing with ought to have told her (FT2, astonishingly, completely failed to pull Tony up short, here or at any other point). Bishonen was outraged. When I heard about it, I was, too. Giano was outraged as well.

I, and by report Giano, felt that, if anything had put the lie to David Gerard's loving description of the Eden of the channel, that did, and so we began to edit that page again. David Gerard issued page protection and threatened to take the page to Meta, where he could control it. That, to me, was as horrendous an illustration of his attitudes toward Wikipedia as possible. Giano II took logs of the insulting exchange and e-mailed them to users who said that the admins.irc channel had no bad behavior. N.b. he did not post them. He did not convey their contents by paraphrase. He used private e-mail.

The irrational lodging of a complaint

Oddly, a user who had never been involved with any of these users or that page lodged an RFAR that Giano was not using proper dispute resolution for IRC matters. Given the fact that there were no dispute resolution mechanisms for IRC and given the fact that ArbCom had ruled that IRC is not Wikipedia, then it seemed simply obvious to me that the case would be rejected. After all, a sin against IRC cannot be prosecuted on Wikipedia, if a sin on IRC cannot be redressed on Wikipedia.

In addition to the fact that we have never before been able to use ArbCom to redress such problems and that there are no dispute resolution mechanisms for misuse of IRC, it occurred to me that the case could not be accepted because cases require, first and foremost, previous attempts at resolution. This previously unheard of user had never spoken to any of the parties in the edit war, that I know of, nor parties to the IRC dispute, unless he had been recruited from IRC to lodge the case at some convenient time.

How could ArbCom accept a case without a complaint? What was it that Giano or I was supposed to have done? In the edit war, David Gerard had violated policy after policy. Beyond that, what, on Wikipedia, was there to speak of?

Well, wonder of wonders, the new ArbCom accepted, although they never specified what they had accepted.

Issues (the real ones)

The real issues are, of course, not reflected in anything ArbCom said or "John1234," or whoever he was, said.

The issue is that the admins.irc channel not only has non-administrators on it, but it has always had non-administrators on it. However, it purports itself (in the voice of the users) as official. For it to be official, it would need to have some regulations of its uses and misuses, and yet none exist, and none can exist if, as David Gerard said, it's James Forester's channel, and he doesn't need to listen to anything ArbCom says about it. The non-administrators on the channel are "trusted users," but no one knows who is doing the trusting. RFA is an assessment of trust, or is supposed to be, and when a person loses that status, one would have a hard time asserting that the person "is trusted." However, the semi-direct rule of Jimbo, where what Jimbo says either is law or gets treated as if it were, has meant that people have gained power by being on admins.irc. They may not be conscious of it, and it may be simply a side effect: be where Jimbo is, and rise. Once risen, you are one of the people devoted to this pastime.

Ever since the channel was created, it has had some critics. I am assumed to "hate IRC," when I have used it quite a bit and do not hate IRC, as few can understand that a person can have no problem with IRC but think that the admins channel is a disaster. I do not support oligarchies at Wikipedia. I do not support self-selected ones, most of all. Many users think that the admins channel is a bad idea (as I said, it failed when it was proposed), many more simply don't use IRC out of indifference. This one toy, this geek gadget, has moved steadily up in importance, and it is now such a case that those who keep pointing out the bad behavior of the "trusted others" or the fact that this pastime has flaws, or people who want to make it uncomfortable by asking for fairness (like Bishonen did when she asked that Tony not malign people who weren't there to defend themselves) are considered painful.

I was named as a party. Giano was named. Bishonen was named. Other than all of us thinking that people need to behave properly on that channel, we have nothing in common. However, it was "time" to "deal with" Giano (who embarrasses users of the channel by documenting their disgrace).

A nice and fair appraisal Geogre, but will the incompetent and inept editors who call themselves our Arbcom bother to read it, and if they do will they understand it, and if they pass the second hurdle will they do anything to redress the damage that their actions have done resulting from this page? No - beacuase they are a bunch of incompetents who allowed their fear of IRC and David Gerard to come before the welfare of the encyclopedia. As an arbcom I beleive them to now be truly damned - they should all resign.Giano (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The prosecution and "what he'll do next"

I made a statement at the RfAr, and so did Bishonen, and so did Giano II. That was it, as far as I was concerned. I mean, since there had been no attempts at mediation prior, had been no violation of any Wikipedia policy in privately e-mailing logs to people who denied that abuse took place at the admins.irc channel, there was nothing else to do. Phil Sandifer, who used to be Snowspinner (just as Tony Sidaway has changed his account name), had blocked Giano for an extraordinary amount of time for changing David Gerard's page, and I had undone the block and warned him that blocking out of personal animus is not allowed. For my pains, or for previous pains, one, Phil became extremely active on the workshop and evidence page. This was a matter in which he seemed uninvolved, but he was opining on how a year long block and the like would be reasonable for the people concerned, how I should be demoted, etc. It was highly emotional it seemed to me.

The arbitration sat, largely idle, for about ten days. None of those accused were responding to new heapings of opprobrium. I expressed the opinion, privately, that I had been entirely in the right, and so anything that the arbitrators did say could not be applicable. There wasn't any crossing the line that had gone on, except by Tony, a non-administrator in the admins channel, who had been incredibly rude, by the people who saw that attack and did nothing, by David Gerard who had lied in his description of the channel and plastered it directly into name space and used illicit administrator's tools to protect his version of the wording (a terribly written as well as deceptive and erroneous form), so what was there to say? If the arbs acting on Phil Sandifer's accusations that I had been "incivil" hundreds of times in the past, that Giano had been "incivil" in the past and therefore must be banned for nothing he had done in this case, that Bishonen should bear some ill fame for having being insulted, then it showed that they were concerned with something other than Wikipedia, and I simply wouldn't care what they said.

So, without progress of any sort, things just lay dormant.

Eventually, a proposed remedy was so pointedly personal, and the comments so explicitly malign, toward Giano that he replied sarcastically. That, it seems, had been important. One of the arbitrators, and then another, said that they had been "waiting to see what he would do next." In other words, they were going to see how Giano reacted to the arbitration. He didn't react. So they waited some more. He didn't react. So they waited some more. Someone finally managed to propose a ban and lay all sorts of emotionally laden charges at him, and he responded angrily. Well, that was it.

I popped in periodically, when I saw the stoning in progress.

Results

Personalities and emotions

The results had to do with Giano. Now, Giano had not written David Gerard's page. He had not used IRC. He had not insulted anyone on IRC. He had not posted logs. No. None of that was part of the decision. The decision was based on a "history of incivility." It was based on having, over time, irritated people. That translates as, "I don't like you."

Parse it for a moment, please.

It means, "Giano has not done anything this time except be angry," so there's that. It means, "In the past, you made us angry." Well, there's nothing quantifiable there. Who can tell whether he is guilty of it now? How do you know that you are not establishing a "history of incivility?"

I ask because, although I was exonerated, as it were, my charge, too, was a "history" of "incivility." An array of diffs, which actually showed next to nothing, was offered where I had been "offensive" at some time in the last four years. It occurred to me to wonder how I had been offensive, when no one seemed to be offended. It occurred to me that, if no one complains to me or anyone else that can be documented that I have hurt their feelings, it's very strange for some third party to determine that my correspondents should have been offended, that the remarks contained some essential harmfulness without any evidence of causing disruption or harm. It just seemed very curious to me that Snowspinner would say that I had been offensive to him, when he had not spoken to me of it, had not asked for either clarification nor apology, had not seemed to diminish his copious editing in any way because of it.

You see, you may right now be "incivil." You may be bannable, blockable, or something else, but post facto.

It seems to me that this was the crux of the arbitration: personal feelings. Not actions. The actions in question were either annoyances of David Gerard's vanity or reminders that the admins.irc channel has tacitly approved non-administrators being evil, and only one of those was addressed (see #2). Instead, it had been about Giano all along, about "waiting to see what he does next" only in the sense of "waiting for a chance to do something we are inclined to do." That thing is "punish dissent." One can say that it's the way he does it all day long, but look at the most recent block of Giano. It was not for the way he said things. It was because he would not stop asking a question that no one would answer, a question that made the heaviest IRC users look bad.

The actual "results" were that Giano was put on a "civility parole." Since no one can define "civility," and no one attempts to be precise about what and how something fails it, this amounts to "any administrator may block Giano at any time at personal whim." FT2's block was on the verge of whim. He certainly would not answer what exactly it was that was "incivil." (Mind you, one can define "civility" in such a way that it has use, but no one is interested in that, because it restricts the freedom to block.) Nothing was done about Tony Sidaway per the arbitration, although something occurred later. Nothing was done about Bishonen, except that she remained "troublesome" for being offended by Tony (while all are free now to be offended by Giano for any word and block). If there was "a great deal of discussion on the mailing list" that contains some other conclusions, I can only plead ignorance: this is what the arbitration actually said.

Issues

The misuse of admins.irc, the fact that it has non-administrators on it, the fact that people use it as a rationale for on-wiki actions, was not addressed by the ruling, except that the arbitrators promised, in light of Jimbo's statement that IRC is answerable to them, to offer a reform of the channel. This has not happened. It was questioning FloNight, who most said that it would happen, that lead to Giano's most recent block. She said that it would occur and that she had ideas about it, and then she said that "there has been" opposition to reforming the channel. She would not answer about who opposed, where the opposition occurred, why the opposition came, or why ArbCom should make itself a liar over this opposition. There was no agreement to let the community (on Wikipedia) decide, no explanation of why the opposition could overwhelm and silence arbitrators and users, and why that opposition was powerful enough to allow for a repetition (again) of this case at a later date.

David Gerard's page was deleted, and a Meta page with a brief description of the channel exists now. That was the answer to one issue alone.

Losses

Bishonen doesn't edit Wikipedia much anymore. I look at my watchlist only. I had written over 250 articles from start to finish, but I do not intend to work for anyone here. I am not an employee.

FT2 went to the admins irc channel and asked the twelve or so people there at the time if they wanted reform. They said they didn't much think so. That's it.

Personal reflection

Personally, I think Wikipedia was born when masses of people began plonking away, making articles. I think it died when a choke point of power occurred. As soon as self-selected individuals could spend most of their time off the project talking to each other about how they will run the project, Wikipedia died. It was dying when the veneration of Jimbo started to develop into a cult. CEO's are an American mythological hero type, and they're not salubrious, unless you're a stock trader. However, I see that veneration as a way of establishing hierarchy. I long ago concluded that the person who mentions how much a friend of his Jimbo is is a person who has no arguments, but when Jimbo can only be reached by admins.irc, and when he is the only voice of power (and increasing power, I might add), then, consciously or unconsciously, users will develop a chat node that can make itself Star Chamber.

I will not exchange my labor for government by dysfunctional chat circles. Others are free to choose otherwise.

Why dead? You probably think I'm exaggerating. After all, I have a highly figurative prose style. I'm not exaggerating this time, though. Studies have shown what any long-time editor at Wikipedia knows: most articles have a single author. They have multiple editors -- multiple redactors -- but most have a single voice building from scratch. It takes only a moderate commitment to edit, but it takes a serious commitment to write. Writers tend to get passionate about what they're doing, for good or bad. When it's bad, we get the ethnic/political/religious wars. When it's good, we get people who go from articles to AfD to AN to RFA to AN/I, etc. The more people write, the better they get at it. If, though, there is a choke point, if there is an hierarchy, if there is an overuser, then writers will flee. In the loss of original old timers and the passionate authors, you are seeing a new paradigm. Existing articles won't vanish (unless some citation freak or fair use monster gets at them, or some drive-by assessment drive ends up labeling all our FA's "start class"), but you will move from the set up where someone like me is possible, here -- where someone can come at first to fill a gap and then begin joyfully adding all sorts of things -- to one where you get a revolving door of people who get in, do a little, and then go. It will be robbing the project of expertise and there ever being content expertise again. They'll stick around long enough to do a little, to realize who their masters are, and then they'll bail out. It's a zombie like population of mediocrity that's in the future. That's the death of Wikipedia and the co-opting of it by another 4chan, another Slashdot.

WINAD violation

Good afternoon, Geogre. You participated in an early discussion about whether the dork page rose above the level of a dictionary entry. After several discussions across different fora, I believe that there was a fairly clear consensus that it didn't. The page was transwiki'd to Wiktionary and later turned into a soft-redirect.

That soft-redirect has been undone by a user who does not seem to be interested in actually discussing the issue on Talk despite my best efforts. I am afraid that I am losing my impartiality on this issue and would appreciate other opinions. When you have time, would you please look at the page? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction

"Well, wonder of wonders, the new ArbCom accepted, although they never specified what they had accepted."

Just for the record, the case was accepted on December 26, before the new arbitrators were installed on January 1, and us newbs had no opportunity to vote on whether it should be accepted or not.

The rest of the history can speak for itself. I can certainly agree that the results of the case have been regrettable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the timing, of course, but two new arbitrators were heavily involved in the case. The results were logical, given the way that the arbitration proceeded and concluded. 'Let's see what they do next' on the arbs showed the worst result of all. Geogre (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the only lucid account of the matter that I've ever read. I'd read the first ten to thirty percent or so of several, but given up each in some kind of frustration or boredom.

Having lacked the stamina to read anything much before, I can't judge how accurate a summary yours is. I could utter some piffle about it having the "ring of truth", but I'll spare you that. I'll say that I did digest and remember particular little chunks of the saga, and that what you write is consistent with what I remember. So, excellent work.

en:WP is indeed losing excellent writers. As a mere editor who's never even attempted a single FA, and one who actually enjoys reading all the way through some of the best articles, I find this very depressing. My sense is that en:WP is gradually moving more in the direction of a kind of online USA Today archive with endless free advertising. It's fine on the ephemeral (often described as "iconic", "legendary" or both). But then I see that rotavirus is the FA today and that Tomb of Antipope John XXIII was yesterday (or thereabouts), so clearly the process has some way to go. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. A lot of times, RfAr's are really predictable. It's like a MIRV: the actual missile is somewhere in there, but the charge gets laid, and then people begin scattering warheads like rain. Most are dummies or malfunctioning. That's why, a long time ago, my philosophy about any of them is to ignore everything that people say except the charge. If other things get added, they're not important. If people want to jump in and suddenly be friends of the plaintiffs or the accused, they're best not addressed.

I have a personal disability, I think: misanthropy. I don't care about "people." I don't care about "personalities." It would be a sort of web-autism, except that I care a great deal about people and worry always about whether or not I am offending a person. It's just that there are no people here, no personalities. There are personae. There are constructs of wish fulfillment, projection, and id. The nearest people get to being present is when they don't care and don't try to make themselves Personalities. Those are the ones who are nearest to being actual. Those are also the ones I most care about. So, when RfAr's start, one sees two sorts of thing happen. The first is a lot of stuff based in the protection or amplification of a persona, and the other is a discussion of an operating principle of Wikipedia. I pay no attention to the former, and I focus solely upon the latter.

If you can scan each comment, looking solely for "is this about your feelings, or about our principles?" then you can end up with about two screens of commentary out of twenty of talk.

As for why personae wish to take over from people, it's hardly worth thinking about. It has been ever thus. It is the high school playground, the corporate meeting, the single's bar, the neighborhood green lawn contest.... Loads of things. It is the background level of nausea for the universe.

Whenever this... crap... takes precedence, it takes precedence. It's an irresistible fruit, too. The few who can and do resist the temptation to puff themselves up, talk about themselves all day, and worry about the soap opera of who's up and who's down in wiki-society are the ones who will be blocked by it, who will bail out, who will find themselves confronted by a pack of fashionistas converging on articles with assessments, note drives, (cn) tags, new picture requirements, etc. Then they'll see that there is no need in talking sense: a group of chatters has decided. Geogre (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long silence, Geogre.

I really don't remember who's who hereabouts. All I know is that you have written a pile of extraordinarily good stuff, which is why I genially overlook the way you once wrote something about the English language that I thought was utter bollocks. (Though I don't remember it well, and perhaps it wasn't you after all -- I certainly hope that it wasn't. And if it was you, you probably thought that what I wrote was utter bollocks -- and who knows, you may have been right.)

Bollocks are on my mind because they're near to another appendage whose appearance in en:WP has depressed me. When apparently intelligent people want to add the "fact" that M gave a blow-job to somebody (possibly J) on the grounds that tabloids assert that this was claimed by somebody with a blazingly obvious commercial interest in claiming it, I despair about Wikipedia. When I then see that the Guardian (one of the two or three least horrible British newspapers) republishes the same non-story, from Reuter, I despair of the fourth estate.

Intimate encounters aside, you've got me worried. [A] pack of fashionistas converging on articles with assessments, note drives, (cn) tags, new picture requirements, etc.: the "(cn) tagger" is me!. I suppose the fuzz will now arrive to confiscate my aerosols, handcuff me, and frogmarch me somewhere. I hope it's somewhere they stock Le Monde and Die Zeit: my French is rusty, my German almost non-existent, but a few years in pokey and I hope to reeducate myself in languages that allegedly have newspapers worth reading. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad's apologia

Sorry Brad, I don't buy it. Brad disclaims all responsibility for what he knows to be a consciously malevolent decision by the Arbcom above [4]. He is correct, he and one or two others were not on the Arbcom at the time the case was accepted, but in the four months they have been on the Arbcom they have done nothing to rectify what they know was a bad decision. They stand on the sidelines wringing their hands saying "nothing to do with me" in fact Brad's colleague FT2 has gone considerably further in endorsing the decision by his actions. If any of them had a scrap of honour they would have been publicly fighting for the decision to be overturned. The intention was quite clear, I either had to concede defeat, or I would give them the excuse to ban me indefinitely. If the Arbs are that frightened of the controllers of IRC then let us all pack up and go home now. Giano (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I explicitly voted to dismiss the case when I gathered it would not produce a useful result. I voted against the civility parole remedy. I was outvoted; we are a committee of 15 people for a reason, and this wasn't the first nor will it be the last time that I come out on the losing end of a vote. In the meantime, every time I express any disappointment on-wiki with how the decision turned out, I find myself being blamed for its existing in the first place, which hardly gives me much incentive to keep doing that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop wallowing in self pity! You are not being blamed, I am just pointing out that nothing has been done publicly to reverse this deplorable situation. In the meantime half the Arbcom is chatting away in the chatroom as though nothng has happened. Others I expect have founded a new and superior chatroom elsewhere. I want this decision reversed, and I will not stop untill it is, complete with a full explanation from the Arbcom as to what they were thinking of in accepting, and why, and whose bright idea it was - as though I did not already know. Giano (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brad, you mustn't try to please all sides and then protest that your intentions were pure. In my view, there was far too much "yes, but on the mailing list they want X" going on in general. The number of impenetrable veils being dropped is the heart of corruption, and a good deal of the fury, outright fury, directed at Giano had to do with his previous posting of logs. "Those are private!" Well, no, they're not, and there is no legitimate argument that something said in an irc channel containing fifteen active participants and a side pane of 60 dormant users is in any sense at all "private." There has been a consistent and pernicious desire to have a "private" area, an area where "we" can discuss "them." At this point, Wikipedia has none, for it cannot, but Wikipedians have dozens. From the "secret defenders of the wiki" mailing list that Durova used to the "secret defenders of private life" mailing list that I was on to the "arbs mailing list" to the sub-channels used by arbs to various other lists, there is a frenzied drive toward ownership and power by exclusion.

Look what happened when the idea of reform was proposed...for about four days (before "it was opposed"): heavy users of IRC were to decide how to reform it, and people like me, who have been heavy users and who have been analysts of the effects of the medium, were not to be consulted. After all, anyone not using it must either a) be ignorant (and therefore a Them) or b) be a hater of IRC (and therefore a Them). The central rhetorical and psychological impulse was to create and maintain a circle that could be described by the users, to maintain an exclusion, to stave off the "chaos" of "anyone may edit."

You compromised yourself by trying to negotiate. You did not do this because of bad intent or poor reasoning, but simply by picking up the tools the "sides" insisted upon. The moment you kept secrecy and kept a barrier between the Inside and Outside, you had lost your cause. How could you campaign for openness and fairness, if the tools necessary propagate occlusion and hierarchy?

Perhaps I'm being overly abstract.

I don't blame you. I am saying that anyone who upholds a hierarchy of the trusted, whose words, thoughts, and deeds must be kept as apocrypha, only for the holy priests to hear, wears a hobble.

I have always had one issue: all of us are equal, and all of us are volunteers. All of us owe each of us thanks, and none of us owns anything here. None of us is the protector, none of us is the clueful, none of us is the special person. We are words on a screen, and we cannot hide, cannot do anything without the full consent of the participants. Not only will I not be ruled, but no one will be ruled on Wikipedia, for there is no force anyone may use except insult to ego.

As for arbitrators who shocked me with their bad behavior, I'll keep the list to myself. You weren't among the number, but I'm sorry to say that a couple of people who had previously seemed interested in fairness changed their minds and became enamored of status and power and being special. That surprised and saddened me. That there is such a supermajority of them now is a sign, if not a cause, of the death of the project's growth, if not the project's life. Geogre (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be in a majority of one and an eternal optimist, but I still think, together, we could address, and solve, this situation and get the project back on track. We don't have to be ruled by these people, I have proved that, we just tell them we no longer require their inept services, if enough people tell them, eventually they have no option but to reform, stand up and be counted or resign. Giano (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitors Should Speak for Themselves

1) You state that the arbitors had sanctioned Giano for a "history of incivility" but FloNight was more specific when she clearly stated that Giano was responsible for impeding the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline: "The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline." [5]

Perhaps she can be convinced to reverse that decision in light of the recent revelations that Community involvement in formulating the IRC guideline is unwanted by the arbitration committee.

2) You state that the decision was based on a "history of incivility" which may be actual text from the arbitration committee decision. But UninvitedCompany has stated that Giano's "poor interpersonal skills" were overlooked by the committee. "The committee, accurately assessing the feelings of the community, decided that Giano's past contributions and political clout were of sufficient value that his poor interpersonal skills would be overlooked." [6]

The only way for me to understand this is that "put on civility parole"=="overlook" If that is the case, why is not everyone therefore on civility parole?

Uncle uncle uncle 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Flo really state "Giano was responsible for impeding the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline"? Poor woman must now realise that the community had no intention of writing a guidline, and the Arbs never intended that they should. Giano (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just read that link, Univited Company would do better to stick to playing his organ, rather than discussing my "interpersonal skills" (whatever they are) off site! Giano (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Uncle uncle uncle," you seem to want to make a point, but you really don't manage to make it clearly. It's awfully hard to tell what it is that you're trying to do. However, I am puzzled that you would have the presumption to come to announce what "arbitrators" think. I should imagine that every one of them is capable of speaking in his or her own voice, and not as a clipping from hundreds of bytes of words.

Additionally, what you do manage to convey is some of the same mistake that I reject. I have described the case, its basis, the issues, and the results, and you have tried to discuss a personality and a persona and tried to protest that the arbitrators don't like that person. Well, indeed, this has been my point: the arbitration, which was supposed to be about... an incident on IRC? an edit war at David Gerard's vanity page? ... was accepted and prosecuted to frame up and prosecute a person over that personality. None of the putative issues, and certainly none of the real issues, were addressed.

I'm afraid that I don't believe your clippings of text, though. I would prefer to believe that you are wildly misrepresenting FloNight than that she would say something so prima facia absurd. How on earth could Giano "prevent" other people from working toward reforming IRC? Did he confiscate their keyboards or hack their accounts? How could Giano prevent the arbitrators from opening discussions? The statement is insane, and so I don't believe that you could be quoting it accurately or in context.

Uninvited Company's comment, on the other hand, I saw when it occurred, and it was one more bit of chaffe in the discussion. It was part of why the arbitration was meaningless. Uninvited Company has never met the person behind the "Giano II" account. He is himself presumably not the owner of a birth certificate saying "Uninvited Company," either. Nevertheless, several arbitrators offered insults to the person "Giano." They speculated on motives. They asserted personality traits. They concluded on his motivations and intentions, and yet, shockingly, never once asked him about any of these things. They never spoke to him to find out what was going on, had no interest in it, and neither showed anything he had done against policy nor anything he had done previously against policy. Instead, they said that he was rude to them.

Despite what many believe, rudeness is no crime. Indeed, "civility" is no policy. It is a policy that we all behave with civility toward one another, but it is a policy that we all assume good faith about edits, that we all be friendly, etc. It is a policy intentionally vague, not so as to allow for greater blocks at lesser provocation, but to prevent blocking without exceptionally clear provocation and unequivocal consensus.

During the morass, I asked what policy was violated, and there was no answer. I asked what policy was being negotiated, and there was no answer. The arbitration was, as your response is, about personalities. Personalities bore me. Soap operas are a low art form. Geogre (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Drapier's Letters

As you are the local Swift expert, would you consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Drapier's Letters? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Three things on this - 1. George Faulkner doesn't exist, so there is a red link at the top. 2. The proper name should be Drapier's Letters and not necessarily The Drapier's Letters. Ehrenpreis, Smith, Ferguson, etc, call the work just Drapier's Letters. Herbert Davis calls it The Drapier's Letters to the People of Ireland. 3. "for" is used improperly, "because" is the proper word to explain a situation, and always follows a comma in such a situation. The word is not used as a conjunction in that line. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And I don't think Ferguson, Ehrenpreis, Davis, Goodwin, or Scott can really be called "exotic", especially since they are famous experts in Swift studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, and now you want to argue. The exotic references were to Works of 1903. Ehrenpreis is fine, although I find him worthless, and Davis is wonderful. I rely on him whenever possible. Smith... fine, but not indispensible.

Faulkner doesn't exist, but I wouldn't create a red link unless I intended to blue it. However, perhaps I won't. If you really have read extensively, then you know that Faulkner is extremely important a figure, and a red link, even if I didn't blue it, would be a desperate call. In fact, I would say that the link is mandatory, and the failure to blue it would be objectionable.
The formatting of the italics had to do with the requirements of the prose. In fact, the work is known as both "The" and "Drapier Letters" and "Drapier's Letters." As you, or someone who wrote the lede, goes on to explain: Swift didn't name them. The name is ... get this... critical convention. It is therefore varied according to the needs of the sentence. Being binary about the article is one of those great episodes of trees instead of forest that means negligible content.
You are wrong. "Because" is not a coordinating conjunction. You had an independent clause following the comma. The coordinating conjunctions are: but, or, yet, so, for, and, nor (thought I'd list them for you). When you join two independent clauses, you must either use a semicolon or use a comma and a coordinating conjunction. The coordinating conjunction that acts as a signal of explanation would be "for." If you are not using it as a conjunction, then you have a comma splice.

You had such errors in the first paragraph, such ancient nuggets, that it was a bad article. I had hoped to improve it. I shall no longer, though. (Just for your information, you might want to look into the actual economics of Wood's half-pence again. Current scholarship indicates that it probably wasn't going to rob the people of Ireland, but Swift couldn't know that. It was probably an acceptable coinage, although the obtaining of the patent was corrupt as anything. To baldly state that it was an imposition (following Davis, probably) is to be out of date.) Geogre (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. His importance isn't established until someone puts it up. I, however, took the initiative and put forth a basis of a page to put information there. And "extremely"? Not really. Important, sure, but he is just one of many publishers.

2. The work is not known as both things. The work is primarily known as just "Drapier's Letters" in italics. On a quick view, Eilon follows this model, Daw follows this model, etc. To italicize "The" is a rarity among scholarship. And the critics weren't the first to use the term - Faulkner and Walter Scott were the ones who established the renaming.

3. And the 1903 Works were the first major edition of modern publishing standards and is constantly used by Ferguson and Ehrenpreis. It is based on the Walter Scott edition based on naming and organization.

4. "Because" can be used to join two independent clauses when one is being explained by another. "for" cannot. "for" cannot be used in any of the ways you suggest. Oxford and Websters both say that "for" is another word for "because" when used as a conjunction. Oops, I guess you were wrong there too. here gives an example of two independent clauses joined together. Ouch. Maybe next time you wont be so arrogant and claim things that are outright wrong.

5. "Current scholarship indicates" Unless you are high, this is unproven. I haven't seen one work from Treadwell disagreeing with his final conclusion that the original production quota called for over 85,000 pounds worth of coin more than what Ireland could possibly need.

You talk a lot, but all of the sources disagree with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know that if you have problem with spelling that the proper thing to do is fix it, not add complaints about it on talk pages, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! Are you really this obtuse? You misunderstand virtually everything. You also drop a lot of names, but you do not seem to have read them. Seriously, such dilettantism is not unusual, but, with such hostility, it is unforgivable. You really don't know how important Faulkner is? You really don't understand the phrase "critical convention?" 1903 may be the "first" edition you like, but it's not the current critical edition, and scholarly practice requires using the most up to date scholarship rather than the most ancient. Again: does the name "Macaulay" mean anything to you? You are just brazenly wrong about grammar and independent clauses, with a mixture of misunderstanding and malignity. You haven't "seen one work from Treadwell?" Have you done a literature search? Read the journals?

I would do your work for you. I would offer the citation for you. I would help your clumsy wording, would help you make less a fool of yourself with overstatement, but I would never offer help when you're so proud of your ignorance and sure that ten minutes online has given you a proper overview.

I do not need to help anyone whose response to being helped is to snarl. If you want to protect your ego, Wikipedia is a terrible place for it. I was asked to help. I tried to start. You came to whine and stamp your foot. I am done with you. Go be sure that you're right, and, in your spare time, do some damn reading. Geogre (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can pontificate all you want, but your words are empty and meaningless. Your claims to grammar rules are provenly false by dictionaries and English grammar handbooks. You claims about sources are highly incorrect based on actual scholarship. Your comments are incivil. Your comments are unWikipedian. And your comments lack all verifiability. You should go on a wiki break until you learn to treat other members of this community with respect. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "because" is not a coordinating conjunction, as Geogre rightly pointed out. Thus, his edit was perfectly correct. Consult grammar sources for when "because" should be used instead of "for". For example: "I slept because I was tired." is correct usage. "I slept, for I was tired." would also be correct. "I slept, because I was tired" is incorrect, just like "Above all, the Drapier's Letters are the reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, because he was one of the earliest writers..." is incorrect. BuddingJournalist 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the dictionary uses it in several sentences in that way. Oops. I guess your unverifiable information vs my cited information fails. "http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm#for" Notice the words "rare". Meaning, the exception. The sentence requires a "because", since "for" is not grammatically nor logically appropriate. The word has been misused and is constantly misused by those who seek to put grammar that is not natural nor belongs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Oops. I guess your unverifiable information vs my cited information fails." Such snark...why exactly? Your link does not back up your assertion that "The sentence requires a "because", since "for" is not grammatically nor logically appropriate." My "unverifiable information" is easily verified in any grammar source you wish to consult. The only occasion where because should follow a comma is when not doing so would introduce ambiguity. Are you honestly saying that "I slept, because I was tired" is good grammar? BuddingJournalist 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That is only true if you ignore the words "rare". "Rare" words mean that it is not standard. It is an exception, and has limitations that apply to the situation. "because" always follows a comma based on standard stylistic guidelines. Joseph Williams Style emphasizes this point many times. Page 49-50 and 113-115 of the Third Edition, for example. Note - this book is taught in most composition classes and is held as extremely credible. On use of the term "for" in substitute of "because" - "But for is weak, a bit formal, and it signals logical rather than causal consequences." So, when everything is equal, according to him, "for" is wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE "for": Yes, the key point is "everything...equal". In this case, it is certainly not. Read http://www.towson.edu/ows/conjunctions.htm for an overview of conjunctions and an explanation of why "I slept, because I was tired" is as incorrect (you do agree, no?) as "Above all, the Drapier's Letters are the reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, because he was one of the earliest writers..." They are comma splices. I tend to avoid "for" as a substitute for "because" in writing, too, but I don't do so at the expense of sound grammar. I have recast the sentence to put the subordinate clause at the beginning, thus keeping "because" intact. BuddingJournalist 05:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Williams would disagree. The only citation your link has is to "because" at the beginning of a sentence, whereas, that is not necessarily the case. "for" is not mentioned on your page in an example. As Williams states, the comma is based on the "logic" of the sentence. The example from the Towson link, "We have an umbrella" does not "logically" exist on its own, but needs an immediate explanation. So, it falls under the exception that allows (but not requires) the comma to be removed. Williams emphasizes the comma as stylistically emphasizing the change of the first clause to the second clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just so unfortunate. I received the same type of response when I tried to help on the article's talk page. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to figure out. I wondered if he just hated my correcting a comma splice or if I had been insulting in my edit summary, so I went to his talk page. There, there was nothing but a glowing, loving tribute to his beautiful prose and Sermons of Dean Swift. I went to look, of course, because -- let's face it -- there isn't that much anyone can say about the sermons. I was aghast that the thing had been praised, as the prose seemed bad. His response to my pointing out those errors was some WP:PAIN replacement thing. Wikipedia may not be the best site for people who can't stand having their stuff corrected. You yourself know how I respond to changes in my articles. (How have I protested at the changes to the Tale? None, I think.) <sigh> I'm no paragon, but obduracy is ugly. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrected? You don't correct, and your English isn't even close to anything you claim it should be. You weren't even capable of providing line citations to properly verify information at the page you glorified over. You have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and you should start with behavior. WP:CIVIL. If you can't follow those guidelines, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Geogre. -- Vary | Talk 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! (By the way, George Faulkner is now written. "All anyone needs to know," someone arrogantly said, was that he was one of Swift's publishers. Apparently, "all" is a very small set for some people.) I suppose I'll have to go wag my finger at the people there, as such a noticeboard is news to me, and not welcome news. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran into this chap where he was trying to legislate the colloquial use of the term "portmanteau word" out of existence. Quite a character. Nandesuka (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of... unteachable. Reverting every change and insisting that everything he has ever written is right is really antithetical to Wikipedia. I shudder to think of his nominating FA's and the nightmare it must be for him to receive an objection. I deleted, earlier today, Swift's printers. The "article" had footnotes to non-existent references, and it contained material that is completely duplicated. Had he investigated, he would have seen that there are already articles on several of the printers, as most of the major printers of this era turn out to be quite important. Any student of history realizes that this is the era when copyright comes into existence and when the production model shifts from press owned to editor owned. Edmund Curll is one of my better articles, for example, and the man himself was every shade of villain. Intellectual curiosity is important. Making one's mind a castle impervious to correction or information is evil. Oh, well. One wonders how well one of "his" FA's would compare to the timeless Chrono-trigger. Geogre (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"reverting every change"? Now, if you would be willing to provide proof of such an absurd claim, you are welcome. However, most of your claims are completely unverifiable and wrong. And if Edmund Curll is the best you can produce, then I don't think you understand Wikipedia's guidelines requiring sources and citations to verify information. The fact that your only source is one encyclopedia is very distressing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting every change? Its nice of you to say things that are blatantly wrong. Do you ever say anything that is actually true? Do you even care about the truth? You sure do like to make such accusations without any proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats outright false. I put forth the proper use of "compound word" and "blend" when they were not actual portmanteaus. There is a huge difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Geogre. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper Deletion. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother...wait for the (inevitable, and unfortunate, as you were right) DRV. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no need for AN/I. Normal procedure with disagreements over deletion is to go to DRV. All of this trying to ring alarm bells and get even is worthless. My deletion reasoning was perfectly clear and perfectly within policy. The fact that I also regard the author as a bellicose dunce is irrelevant. I'm not the kind of person who uses teh buttons to win arguments. Instead, the ignorance of the article's creator led him to make something that was unnecessary and duplicate; had he simply checked other articles (by other people (gasp!)), he'd have never created it in the first place. And then there's the matter of its idiosyncratic name. Geogre (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I love how people with no discussion with me know exactly why I deleted the article. Oh, investigation not necessary! The fact that I've been here for four f*cking years and been an admin for nearly that long is not to be figured in: DGG knows my heart and mind and can conclude without ever even thinking, much less talking. "Their ignorance is untemptable," Ezra Pound wrote of bourgeoise. Geogre (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been here for four years, so you should know that your continued personal attacks on Ottava Rima are very inappropriate. Huh.. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you read? If you can, can you spot the "personal attack?" Can you tell me what it is? I'm not allowed to consider Ottava Rima a bellicose dunce? Am I allowed to think him or her a hypersensitive nullity? Am I allowed to think him or her a reincarnation of a blocked user? Am I allowed to have opinions of any sort, or is "Wikipedia for praise?" Why are you not praising me and building me up? Why are you making a personal attack? Do you know what happened to the philosopher who dreamed up the quidqunc? Geogre (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not allowed to call Ottava a "dunce", etc. Keep it up and you'll be blocked. -- Ned Scott 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not allowed? Really? That's amazing. Could you show me the policy that says what I am an am not allowed to call a person? Can you tell me what level of invective is necessary? Would you like to block me for calling that person a dunce, or would you just like to block me? Can I think you're a dunce? Can I think a lot of people are? Is it better or worse if I think that many of you are dullards? Can I call you insupportable, illogical, and petty? More to the point, have I called Ottava Rima, or you a dunce? I don't see it. I stated that this is my opinion, and it is my opinion, but I stated it as a way of saying that my personal opinion of the "person" involved had nothing to do with my actions on Wikipedia. Do not try to puff up, please. It doesn't do anyone any good, and trying to wield "power" is the first mark of abuse. It gets people demoted. I say this as a person who has always avoided the temptation and always counseled others that, the moment they come along as threaten is the moment they abrogate every tenet of being an administrator. Geogre (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing I'm not an administrator. I'm just a fellow editor letting you know that getting blocked for acting like you are is a common outcome, no matter how many years you've been here. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we agree on something. It's a good thing you're not an administrator. Geogre (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Swift's printers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Swift's printers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)