User talk:Abd/Archive 6/Before flap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

The sitaution you commented about

I'd encourage you to look a bit deeper into the User:Ottava Rima matter. The way he treated me (loads of completely baseless accusations, hours and hours of wasted time) was despicable. The links can be found scattered in the ANI thread. S. Dean Jameson 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Investigating the details of extended confrontations on Wikipedia can be extraordinarily complex. Since this user suggested I look into it, I did so briefly. No diffs or other references were given except for the AN/I report,a version from today so I followed a reference to a Wikiquetta alert.(permanent link to a version today.) (Don't you hate it when people give you a link to a page that is frequently archived?)
I must say that Ottava Rima had a point. I am not agreeing or condoning the manner in which he pursued that point, but the "accusations" were not "baseless." If Mr. Jameson wants me to explain why I think so, I will, but only if invited, and I'd ask him to first consider if he's willing to listen, to try to understand another point of view on this; it will involve stepping outside himself, dropping self-defense, and just reflecting neutrally. I'm not claiming this is easy, but it's an important skill if one can pull it off. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go there. I did nothing wrong. Nothing. Less than nothing. I called him on his baseless accusations against Blechnic, and that was all. He then accused me of lying, following him around (when he was posting about me to talkpages I had watchlisted), and all other manner of non-existent incivility. I'm not certain where you feel I erred (other than perhaps even gracing his accusations with a reply), but I didn't. S. Dean Jameson 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In other words, if you're going to defend the baseless attacks that Rima leveled at me (which were agreed as such by WQA and ANI), then no, I don't want to hear it, thanks. S. Dean Jameson 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone claims that something you wrote wasn't civil, is that a "personal attack"? Does it matter if it was civil or not? There are degrees of incivility, and some level of incivility is, unfortunately, far too common on Wikipedia. OR originally pointed to what he considered incivility on your part toward another editor. I have not reviewed all the ensuing fuss, I only looked at the original incident. And OR was correct, what you had written was, to a degree, uncivil, and a great deal could have been prevented if you had been able to see that. But you were not, and the rest is history. You have called the comments "baseless." I was not involved, never had contact with you or the other editor before. They were not baseless. Take it or leave it. Obviously, you are not obligated to read my Talk page. But now that I know, I may comment elsewhere. You asked me to look into it, remember. None of this is an approval of the general behavior of OR, which I have not reviewed. He definitely seems to take things a bit too seriously. He may need a good dose of WP:DGAF. And some others involved, as well.--Abd (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You've clearly barely even glanced at the underlying facts. Here's the nutshell: 1) Rima accuses Blechnic of making personal attacks for questioning WW's ability to understand technical scientific texts (which is objectively a true statement, and not a PA at all); 2) I defended Blechnic from these accusations; 3) Rima drug me to WQA with no grounds whatsoever; 4) Rima rejected all opinions at that WQA that told him he had no grounds to accuse me of anything; 5) Rima accused everyone who tried to reason with him of either being my friend, or being involved in some way; 6) Rima made accusations against the editor who closed the WQA complaint; 6) Rima was blocked. Your above comment shows that you didn't even understand the genesis of the problem. I'll reiterate: you'd be well-advised not to comment further on the matter. S. Dean Jameson 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unclear on the concept, it seems. I don't have to understand the situation thoroughly to remark as I did. The claim was that OR had made "loads of completely baseless accusations." Now, an accusation can be false, without necessarily being baseless. Dean didn't point to specifics, so I looked at the AN/I report and found what was given there first. I saw claims that were reasonable on the face, with responses that missed the point and argued in such a manner as to avoid facing the issue. There are no "underlying facts." There is the discussion in question. And it's repeated here. Dean uses a strange definition of "objectively true." Now, we have a claim above from Dean:

"Rima accuses Blechnic of making personal attacks for questioning WW's ability to understand technical scientific texts (which is objectively a true statement, and not a PA at all)."

I've been "computer conferencing" since the mid-1980s, and there is this strange phenomenon that I saw then, and continue to see. There is a complete record of the communication, yet many people will argue about what was said, and will continue to argue in ways that are, to say the least, not supported by the record. Is that what is happening here? Let's see.

The original edit by Blechnic is here. In it, Blechnic, as an argument for a topic ban for an editor, states: She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

User:Ottava Rima then made this request on Blechnic's Talk:

Please remove "The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately." from your post on Wilhemina Will on AN/I. This is a personal attack, and it undermines your case. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima was correct. It was a personal attack. It's hyperbole, for starters, almost certainly. Dean claims that the statement is "objectively true." For starters, a statement could be objectively true and still be a personal attack; the key would be apparent motive. From WP:NPA: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Blechnic was clearly attacking Wilhelmina Will, it is not just that sentence. Now, nothing in what I'm writing indicates that there was not some underlying necessity for the comments. What is a personal attack in one context might be a necessary exposition of fact in another. However, what I quoted above from Blechnic is not, contrary to Deans's claim, "objectively a true statement," at least not completely, and to judge the degree of subjectivity in it would require much more research than I intend to put into this at this point. Let me ask this question: is it true that "almost every sentence" of Mesodermochelys has had to be rewritten because of Wilhelmina Will's "inability to read scientific articles accurately," and, how do we know the cause? If this is an objective truth, as claimed, what is the proof? Let me put it another way: if we were writing an article on the history of that article, could we make that statement, would it be NPOV?

Dean also claimed "hours and hours of wasted time." Now, there was several very simple possible responses to the request of OR on Blechnic's Talk. (1) Do nothing. Or write back, "Thanks for sharing your view, I don't agree that this was a personal attack." And if tendentious argument follows: "Please do not comment further on my Talk page." (2) Strike the sentence. Neither of these responses takes more than a few minutes. What does WP:NPA recommend as a response to personal attacks? Nothing. If someone makes a report on WP:WQA, there is no obligation to respond, at least not at first. Consider this: if the claim of "personal attack" was baseless, then nothing is likely to happen from it. However, what is more likely is that it was not baseless, there were some edits which, at least in appearance, could be viewed as personal attacks, as with the edit of Blechnic above. And even then, one could avoid wasting lots of time by simply saying, "Oops! Sorry. I really shouldn't have said that," and, if appropriate, striking it. Or, if one can't bring oneself to that, one could still strike it with the comment: "I don't understand how this was a personal attack, but some have so considered it, so I'm striking it."

But for some, such actions are extraordinarily difficult. It's a trap. Knowing how and when to back down is a crucial skill in working with a diverse community. Some will defend and continue to claim that they were right even when almost the whole community is united in a different perspective; we have several ex-administrators who continue to believe that they did nothing wrong when they blocked a user for allegedly "making a personal attack." On them. Thus violating very important conflict-of-interest rules.

Now, Dean wrote above: I'll reiterate: you'd be well-advised not to comment further on the matter. I must say that I worry this is some kind of threat. However, I'll assume that it is connected with the earlier comment, Your above comment shows that you didn't even understand the genesis of the problem. Thus, read this way, Dean is trying to protect me from the embarassment of making an ignorant comment betraying my lack of understanding. However, he apparently doesn't know what I consider to be the fastest way to learn about new situations: open my mouth, say what I see, make all the mistakes, and learn from them. So, now that I'm informed that I might have a lot of misunderstandings to clear up, I may go to AN/I and Wikiquette to expose them.

What I've found is that when I have some misunderstanding, others often have it too, so when I make myself into an idiot in front of many, with my stupid questions and comments, they learn from it as well, without having to go through the embarrassment. (This is actually an ancient teaching technique.) Of course, once in a while I'm right, it has been known to happen. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well that was fairly incomprehensible. Huge blocks of text like that usually are, which is why I gave you the nutshell view. If you really follow through on your statement that you "may go to AN/I and Wikiquette" with it, I don't think you'll be happy with the results. Two additional things: what Blechnic said wasn't a personal attack in any WP sense of the phrase; nothing I said to OR was worthy of a WQA report. That's all I have to say to you on this matter, and I'm unwatching this page. If you wish to communicate with me further, feel free to post to my talk. If your messages are as long as the above, I will most likely not respond. I truly don't have the time for this. S. Dean Jameson 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but wasn't the alleged inability of an editor to comprehend what they were reading what started all this? Huge blocks of text are not, per se, incomprehensible, unless they are truly nonsense. Rather, they take some work. I guarantee that the work of reading what I wrote is less than the work it took to research and write it. Jameson has the time to waste "hours and hours" responding to and dealing with allegedly baseless attacks, but not to examine what might be at the root of the problem. Prediction: he will continue to waste hours and hours defending himself. He dropped nothing but vague hints and allegations on my Talk, and, as a courtesy, I worked it back to the sources, which I then reported -- thus creating "huge blocks of text." Sure, if this were an RfC or a report to AN/I, I'd have boiled it down quite a bit, paragraphed it far more carefully, bolded key sentences, etc. It's work, and I don't normally do that on my Talk page. As to going to AN/I and Wikiquette, whether or not I do that depends on the value to the project, in my judgemnt. I don't do that just to prove I'm right. Above, Jameson claims that what Blechnic had written wasn't a PA in any WP sense. In my "massive block of text," I cited the relevant language from WP:WPA against which Jameson proposes nothing but his personal conclusion as if that were authoritative on its own. The question remains: why did Jameson suggest I investigate this? I think it was because I had dared to say some encouraging words to Ottava Rima, words that did not encourage disruptive behavior, but which also did not simply chastise him and assume that he was wrong. Thus, I must see Jameson's comment here as part of carrying on some kind of harassment of this user, though at a fairly low level. The level of incivility involved is low by Wikipedia "standards," i.e., by the real standards, what actually happens with the community mostly yawning. The guidelines are stronger, as written, indicating that there is a community wish that there was less incivility, but the community hasn't figured out how to realize that wish. It does start, however, with indentifying the problem. It's not going to go away through wishes and magic. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You have gall, I'll give you that. You accuse me of harrasing Rima, after what he did? I'm finished with you. I am removing this page from my watchlist, and any posts made by you to my talkpage will be removed. I have no use for baseless accusations made against me, no matter who they come from, or how many words they use to make them. Good bye, S. Dean Jameson 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Who knows what power is concealed in the ragged sleeve of the beggar? I don't see the harassment charge above, but it's moot. I'm just intrigued by an editor who makes two "final" goodbyes in two days.
That's all I have to say to you on this matter, and I'm unwatching this page. If you wish to communicate with me further, feel free to post to my talk. If your messages are as long as the above, I will most likely not respond. I truly don't have the time for this. S. Dean Jameson 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm finished with you. I am removing this page from my watchlist, and any posts made by you to my talkpage will be removed. I have no use for baseless accusations made against me, no matter who they come from, or how many words they use to make them. Good bye, S. Dean Jameson 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, I'm the new Tar baby --Abd (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unable to Post

HI Abd; I seem to be locked out. I could not edit my user seems to tied to the Paul Smith blocks.....wuz up? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you were able to edit my Talk page. Your user pages don't seem to be protected, either. Try again! What exactly do you see? "Locked out" would imply you could not log in. Perhaps you could not log in from some particular service provider/IP address? But you could from another? --Abd (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Paul Smith"? -Abd (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a cut and paste from the discussion on his page about his indefinate block [[1]]
I was trying to enter the date and issue of a newspaper article in India. Wiki would not accept my post, saying that I was connected with a blocked user and this would affect my efforts to post elsewhere. The only blocked user I know here is Paul Smith-Wfgh66(see link)SuzanneOlsson (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That isn't likely to be connected. More likely, some other blocked user was using your IP or IP range and there was a temporary block. Obviously, you aren't blocked, because you wouldn't be able to edit this page. It's also possible you were not logged in, this could prevent you from editing a semiprotected page. You should always log in when editing, exceptions would be rare. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A storm's a brewin'

See [2]. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

That's the most consoling of all of the messages I have lately received. I don't know where I went wrong.

It was back in March that I decided I needed to do more with my account than I had previously. I decided I would set a goal for myself: strive to have created a total of 10 000 Wikipedia articles in your entire lifetime. I then set to work, trying to make that possible. In May, however, after meeting some users who had created up to forty DYK articles, I got the idea that it would be nice if half of the ones I had created were DYKs. So I set to work impulse-writing articles in which the main body was 1500 characters large or more. When I learned about the five-fold expansion rule, I decided I could give some of the extinct animal articles I had created through AFC a second chance at being DYKs. I successfully got five of them in, and have created, in total, nearly thirty. Then, in the middle of July, this whole mess started up.

I had created an article on the Tierra Redonda Mountain, which I then nominated for DYK. However, User:Blechnic came along and said it was a copyright violation. I didn't understand; I honestly thought I had sufficiently written the article in my own words, and it relied on more than one source, so I tried to fix the problem. But the other user reverted me, and said that I had to have an administrator look it over. I thought that was unfair (and just plain ridiculous), so I looked to User:Antandrus for help. However, as I saw it, he seemed to agree with the other user, and the page was deleted and reborn from another user. I felt as though Antandrus, whom I had considered a friend and a partner in business, had betrayed me, and I was furious at Blechnic, so I decided to cool down with a week-long wikibreak.

When I came back, I decided to start afresh. Nearly all of the other posts I had made at DYK had been accepted, so I felt inspired to keep going with it. However, when I got to working on Mesodermochelys's five-fold expansion, Blechnic returned and removed a lot of the stuff in the article. I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals, which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and then the corrections could be made. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up. But then this whole discussion brought up by Blechnic started, and I thought the users were just being either silly or mean to me, so I decided to ignore them and just continue on my way. Then, I found out from Blechnic that their discussion was to ban me from DYK, and I now feel just shattered. I was crying with rage for over two hours. This hasn't stopped me from my goal of ten thousand articles, but I am mad that I will only ever have 28 DYKs.

I hope you will understand that I am still in my mid-teens, and don't quite get most of the rules here, but am only trying to do the best that I can. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I glad to hear that it was consoling, I'm never quite sure what response people will have to what I do. You said that you did not know where you "went wrong." I might be able to help you understand; given that you are so young, it might be well worth your while to figure it out, because you may run into other situations elsewhere that are analogous. Instead of just explaining my thoughts on it to you, though, I'll wait to see if you feel ready to confront the issues. (It's not some terrible thing, but ... sometimes it can be difficult for people to face even small things that they have done "wrong." And it's not even exactly that you were "wrong," but that you overlooked something, I'd say.) But there are a couple of positive things I can say, right off.
I read your article on Mesodermochelys. Your first version wasn't bad. Sure, there may have been some errors in it, but the article was there. Look, if what had been said was true -- that every sentence had to be revised -- so? There is nothing that stops an editor, encountering a poorly-written article, from simply rewriting the entire thing, and the existence of the article you created if it were utterly useless would not add to the labor of creating a new article. You did a good thing by creating that article, and, I'm sure, it helped create the final article, which may not have existed if you didn't create it. Those accusing you quite simply have a totally incorrect concept of how the project grows. Now, I have not examined the edit history. If you edit warred, that's a problem. Edit warring is a bad idea even if you are right. (There are degrees of edit warring, with increasingly rare situations that justify each degree.)
Secondly, your ban from DYK can be overturned, if you think it worthwhile. It's a little risky, these things can blow up sometimes. But even if it stands, I'm a little puzzled. I haven't paid much attention to DYK, it's a transient thing. However, I've seen editors being notified that an article they had created was used for DYK. So didn't they get a DYK? Without editing the DYK page? AN/I is a bit of a bad page on which to create a topic ban, it should have been an RfC for a remedy like that, and you could, in fact, appeal this (to an RfC or to mediation or to ArbComm.) I'm not necessarily encouraging you to do so, but, rather, just to understand that this ban should be understood as a transient thing. It doesn't get in the way of 10,000 articles at all, and, in fact, the focus on DYK probably made that goal harder to reach. Wilhelmina, in any case, someone else can nominate your articles. Quite simply, it does not have to be you. Was there anyone working with DYK whom you found congenial?
Here is something I've found here on Wikipedia; I've also found it in life in general. When things don't go the way I wanted, it quite often turned out better than what I wanted. And those jerks (the supposed agents of my failure) had nothing to do with it, they were, perhaps, still wrong. Apparently, life is bigger than them ... and me.
For example, I try to save an article from AfD and fail. For technical reasons an AfD was improper, but did conclude Delete. I could have gone to Deletion Review with a reasonable chance of success. But, of course, the article would have again been AfDd eventually, unless it became better sourced. And then I realized that the article can be developed in user space free of the constant nitpicking of certain editors who take out every marginal source; and if an article has an abundance of marginal sources, it might be considered sufficiently sourced to be notable, but if they all get taken out, an AfD becomes a difficult procedure, where one set of editors is judging an article after another set of editors have taken out all the sources.... With the article brought to its best possible condition in user space, it can then be taken back into article space, and if those working on the AfD take out the sources, it becomes pretty transparent what's going on. It is possible, with some time, to create sources (and quite legitimately, and this is part of what encyclopedias traditionally did). In other words, Delete turned out to be a better outcome for the time being. If the article comes back, it will come back stronger and able to survive AfD; the resources, and editorial support, will have been built at a point when this can be done without, for example, violating WP:CANVASS.
By the way, "mid-teens." I would never have guessed, you write very well. That would make me something on the order of four times your age. Pleased to meet you. Let me know if I can help. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I think I am beginning to understand the issues a little better now. And as a matter of fact, I actually had no participation in George Davenport, Joseph M. Street, and Nathaniel Reed's DYK nominations; someone else did those. But I wonder; are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me? Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Be careful, though. If the person doing the nomination doesn't take responsibility for it, but just automatically passes it on, this could be considered meat puppetry. Exactly what you can and cannot do may depend on the nature of the sanction against you (the topic ban), and why it was implemented. Not being a crisp process like an ArbComm proceeding, which votes on alternative remedies, specifically, the AN/I ban may be a bit unclear, I'm not sure, I haven't reviewed it in enough detail. I'll look and come back. --Abd (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing on behalf of banned User:Wilhelmina Will

If User:Wilhelmina Will asks other users to promote her articles to DYK I will asked that she be blocked for a time. There is a policy on this, it's already been made up, if you're going to advise her please advise her as to this existing policy.

Editing on behalf of banned users[3] clearly states "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." Should Wilhelmina ask other users to post her articles as nominations to DYK I will remove them and ask to have her blocked for doing so.

Again, if you have accusations against me, go ahead and make them in the appropriate venues, otherwise I will assume you have none and are simply making personal attacks and Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks WP:NPA. Which is what I assume now, so cut it out. --Blechnic (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My, my, such befogged wikilawyering, vicious to a level I'm not accustomed to seeing! It inspires me to this: Wilhelmina, if you have any nominations ready for DYK, you may email the wikitext to me. I will put this text, from you or from anyone else, if I think it a reasonable nomination, on User:Abd/DYK. Anyone may take it from there to an actual nomination who agrees that it is worth nominating. Obviously, you won't get the "medal." But if I get one, or I see that the articles you created or expanded have been nominated, you will get something from me that's the equivalent. After the fact. For accepted articles, of course. Ordinarily, I wouldn't do it this indirectly, but Blechnic made a direct threat to harass you if you made any suggestions, and it is legitimate for me to keep the contributions confidential for a time to prevent such harassment.
I'll mention something that a rather pugnacious administrator once wrote to me: "You are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs." Of course, I'm old enough to be his mother, if not his grandmother, so it was a little off in his case.
There is, as I noted, a problem with creating a vague topic ban on AN/I. It's a hot medium, not a particularly deliberative one, and, while there seemed to be a consensus for a topic ban, there was no clear term; various terms were suggested, with some as short as "till she gets it." So what term was adopted? As to what came down to cause this to happen, I'm reviewing the situation, considering a User RfC on involved editors. Really, it is the fact that two of these editors, on one side, have pursued the matter here, on my Talk, by attempting to interfere with my communications with Wilhelmina Will and Ottava Rima, that is making me realize that I may have stumbled across a real problem, or, more accurately, it stumbled across me.
Blechnic, you are walking on thin ice. Worse than a personal attack (and you did personally attack the editor in question, that much I've found so far) is a threat. She is not a "banned user," she is not even a blocked user. I'm astonished at your ignorance on this, and on what a "topic ban" means; on the other hand, you may be a new user, so I should explain. You tried to get her blocked, but failed. Nor was any offer made to post material "at her direction." Rather, even COI editors may ordinarily make suggestions in Talk for an article, and ArbComm topic bans, unless it proves impossible (typically through continued incivility in Talk), often allow the editor to still suggest edits in Talk.
Not at all, let me correct your ignorance on this, I tried to get her banned from nominating articles to DYK until she learns to write to Wikipedia standards and I succeeded.
Yes, that is precisely what you offered. Go ahead and read your own exchange, "But I wonder; are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me?" asks Wilhelmina Will. "Yes you can," replies Abd.
Anyway, the rest of your post and exchange is probably as inaccurate, so I will pass on reading it. As you have apparently passed on reading your own posts, it's not an invitation for anyone else to bother.--Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
However, given the fuss that you created, through your tenacious incivility, I'm taking this one step further: off my Talk page. Do not post here, you are not welcome. I consider this post harassment of Wilhelmina Will, one more to add to the pile at a potential RfC, and if this continues after warning (this is not formal warning, yet), you may be blocked. --Abd (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Abd! You are without doubt one of the sweetest users I have ever met! You will always have a place in my heart. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot: I don't mean to be a bother, but I don't know your e-mail address. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In the toolbox panel as it shows when you are viewing a user page or user talk page, there is an option "E-mail this user." That will send a mail through the Wikipedia mail system. I'll then have an email from you, showing your email address, and when I respond, you'll have my email address as well. I can't send you an email directly because you have not enabled it for your account. If you have any problem, let me know. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at AN/I

[4] --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I mentioned on AN/I whether you might like to consider adopting user Wilhelmina Will to help her contribute good content. Just thought I'd mention it here so you don't think I'm discussing it over your head :) Sticky Parkin 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comment, seriously. I'm not convinced she needs mentoring, though she needs friends she can trust and will listen to, and in a true supervisory sense, I probably couldn't take it on full mentoring, but I can and will help her as I can. She's been treated unfairly and uncivilly, and is still being harassed. Take a look at recent posts to my Talk page to see it, plus, of course, the AN/I report today was itself totally unnecessary. AN/I for a marginal offense that hasn't happened but might? That would do little or no harm if it happened? I'm afraid that someone has gotten the idea that AN/I is a handy tool which can be used to punish users who dare to offend him. And that's going to have to stop. We may have lost two significant contributors over this flap, so far, it's too soon to tell how deep it will go.

The idea that articles are supposed to be fully "correct," before being created, is very much contrary to the Wikipedia model. Articles are created and are usually pretty bad, except for a few good writers and editors. What WW was doing was creating articles that were better than average (if I trust User:Ned Scott's opinion, and I think it is reasonable to do so), but was calling attention to them by nominating them for DYK. So? I fail to see how this is a problem. Some of her behavior was improper, but on a level that normally doesn't raise eyebrows. I think that she reverted a change because it lowered the word count, to below what she needed for the article to be DYK eligible, which was obviously improper, and blew some fuses. But I see far worse reverts, based on POV purposes, that don't result in any sanctions at all unless they are part of a major pattern, causing major disruption, or are leading to edit wars, which I didn't see charged against her.

There is an ancient struggle between writers and editors. Notice that we call users here "editors"? It's one of the flaws in the Wikipedia model, because writing and editing are different skills. Writers don't generally give a fig about sourcing, and they may or may not care about NPOV. Editors, on the other hand, tend to be far more rule-bound, and to expect everyone else to follow the rules as well. Wikipedia is murder on writers. From what I've seen, in many areas, article quality is declining, as articles increasingly meet guidelines, and writers are condemned for not following them. (That is, articles, becoming more technically correct by the standards, are becoming less interesting, as well as less informative. Accuracy, in what remains, is probably higher, but a small amount of highly accurate information is not necessarily better than a large amount of mostly correct information, provided that errors can later be corrected. I could give examples from my own learning about a topic from Wikipedia....

The example that the harassers of WW gave, so often, was Mesodermochelys. Looking at the original revision,[5] her creation, and the current, the original article wasn't bad, and it is hard to see how the original article made it harder to come up with the current revision. If she had tendentiously debated each change, sure. But the Talk page shows only the brief discussion of which so much was made later, where WW made what seems like a supercilious comment. It's easy to assume that this was the true reason she reverted, to keep the word count up. But what this points to, really, is some arbitrary rules in DYK. The whole concept of automatic "awards" is problematic in the Wikipedia model. We may need to look closer at the whole DYK process. WW is essentially being accused of being reward-greedy. But then why are rewards offered?

The situation is a can of worms. I just realized that Blechnic is a fairly new editor, blocked May 4, first for disruptive editing, which block was removed for "good faith," then renewed for a week for "personal attacks or harassment, email abuse, talk page abuse, continued harassment despite warnings)." The block log was annotated much later, June 17, by Bishzilla, with a comment that "the blocks of Blechnic on May 4, 2008, have been found by WP:ANI consensus to be bitey and over-hasty." Given that Bishzilla was involved in the Wilhelmina Will affair, I can see I'm going to have to look back at that, but, on the face of it, the annotation doesn't say that the blocks were truly incorrect, that the user hadn't done those things, but simply noted that we readily forgive newcomers, though, in fact, some we don't, and Blechnic seems to be insisting that the courtesy which was extended to him not be shown to Wilhelmina Will, and he's repeating the old offenses, it seems to me. --Abd (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say, and thanks for mentioning the previous block, I hadn't looked. Some things are probably better confined to email or something, unless you want to make a RfC request for comments page. As to DYK- yes, lots of problems with the whole thing, not that I know much about it but if you think about it, it favours someone producing content quickly, rather than taking time over it. The only article I substantially expanded and thought could be a DYK, I realised wouldn't fit the current rules as it had taken me a couple of weeks to expand rather than a few days. Also, I've spend ages adding refs to an article to improve it, but I don't think, for instance adding numerous references to an unreferenced article counts as 'expanding' it for DYK purposes, despite the work it takes. As to WP:ADOPT- it just gives a more structured impression that the editor is trying to improve and there's someone both the editor and other editors can go to for help. A similar situation to that you describe happened to User:Presumptive. Sticky Parkin 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to adopt her if that's what she wants, but it should be clear that in many ways she is a more experienced editor than I am. So I'd see it as more of a partnership, where I can help with certain problems involved in interacting with the community. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WW and DYK

(In response to my post on his Talk:) It doesn't matter whether taking the problem to AN/I was a bad idea or not, the fact is it was taken to AN/I and a bunch of people decided WW should be banned from DYK, though the length of time she should be banned was not resolved. So you can't just decide for yourself the ban no longer applies, otherwise you will be accused of acting in violation of community consensus. I am just trying to sort things out at AN/I so that everyone is on the same page, otherwise Blechnic will be back at AN/I in five minutes accusing you of enabling a banned user. Please just give it a rest for 24 hours while we try to estabish a new consensus to let her submit articles again. That is the safest way to go IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

She hasn't submitted an article, I have. In any case, I'll make that clear. directly. My edit did not challenge the ban, but, in fact, acknowledged it (and my revert was disclosed at AN/I, by me, before, apparently, anyone noticed it). Blechnic is going to rant and rave, but I doubt for long. I respect your request for 24 hours, but only so far. I will nominate the article on my own, because (1) I became aware of the article, (2) It seemed proper to me as an article, (3) it's a legitimate candidate for DYK, and all that the ban involves is a prevention of her making nominations. Blechnic, I've been discovering, has been engaged in a pattern of harassment of WW, and was previously blocked for harassment, and the only reason that previous block was "annotated" in his block log was serious and tendentious argument in AN/I, and the consensus to annotate quite obviously arose simply because it would shut him up. And now it seems that a similar motive is being expressed by you. A proper nomination should not be made because Blechnic will complain. No, I don't think we do things that way, though I appreciate your effort to maintain calm. Just deal with my nomination as you would any other. Thanks. -- Abd (talk 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may, my only concern with your actions is that the problem wasn't that she was posting at DYK, but that her desire to get DYKs was leading to problems with editing. While I don't really have a problem with your actions, and this may be the best way to proceed, (as you can endeavor to make sure that the articles are fine before going to DYK), if she continues to aim for DYK rather than for quality articles the same problems will (potentially) continue. (Noting that I think they've been blown somewhat out of proportion, anyway). Personally, I think the fault is at DYK - it isn't about quality so much as size and growth, which seems a tad dangerous given the neither are necessary for quality articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Blown somewhat out of proportion!" Yes. She got into a tussle with Blechnic, and gave as a reason for an edit that she wanted to keep the size to 1500 bytes. It was foolish, yes, but, then again, so is the DYK requirement if it is seen as a rigid rule rather than a guideline, and that seems to be the trend at DYK. I'd agree, the DYK process is a bit broken. You are correct that the problem wasn't really that she was posting at DYK, but then why did the wrong remedy get put in place? And the answer is that Blechnic discovered that, sometimes, he could essentially bully the community at AN/I, which will make a bad decision in order to shut him up. That is an extrapolation from only two incidents, but the fact is that he has harassed WW, beyond all reason, beyond all necessity. Apparently he took something very, very personally. It's really totally silly: if there was a problem it was in article editing, not in DYK nominations, because, after all, a DYK nomination will cause editors to review the article and find and fix problems.
It seems she really just wants to create articles and get DYK points, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. She knows that if she goes beyond limits, she'll get wikitrouted or worse, and she doesn't want that. Blechnic is now calling all her edits "vandalism," when the worst thing she has done is be a little careless; compared to the average editor, she's actually superb. But he's been going over her contributions with a fine-tooth comb; he just made a big fuss about an alleged copyvio, a sentence copied directly, word for word, from a web site.[6] Turns out she didn't write that article, seven months ago, she found it in the Sandbox and asked an admin about using it, and this was way back and she didn't even think to check for copyvio, since most of what she had done was to write articles herself, apparently. And the worst of it? Well, let's say that Blechnic is doing us a service by looking for copyvios. He found this one but didn't fix it, another editor did. And the net result of it is that we have an article that we would not have had without WW's work. All I'm trying to do is keep WW from blowing a fuse over it, it would be a terrible shame for us to lose such a productive editor. And, yes, she is productive, very much so, compared to the average editor. Her articles read well, they are interesting, they are referenced, the amount of work they need to polish them, to fix her occasional errors, is small. However, the work needed to deal with the disruption created by Blechnic is quite another thing. This does not create content, it wastes editorial time, and it can reduce a sixteen-year-old girl to tears. It's the incivility, the brutal hostility, that is the real problem here. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to create articles. I don't really see anything wrong with wanting DYK points, either, but I do feel that if there is going to be a problem it will be driven by the desire to write articles in order to get the points, rather than to simply write good articles. Which, I guess, is just something that needs to be watched - it certainly doesn't constitute vandalism, and at worst can lead to "good faith" errors. It's also something which I think is reflected (as others have acknowledged) in the nature of DYK. That aside, if I can help in any way let me know - I think the last thing she needs is a whole lot of previously unknown editors stopping by to volunteer to "help" her overcome (minor) editing problems, especially given that she seems to be a good editor already, so I'll stay away unless asked. :) Indeed, she's probably better than many of my first year students. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fightin' words, eh?

You want fightin' words! I'll give you fightin' words! I wasn't trying to implicate anything about you or your posts, but you've self-admitted to being verbose (so have I). I just found it profoundly humorous (I literally belly-laughed) that someone was capable (and willing!) to create a post so long, so convoluted, over-diffified (it's a word in my mind), and over-wrought with decries and "observations" of TRUTH, that even ABD said tldr (in effect). I meant no harm or disrespect towards you, I hope you can see the levity in my post, I only remember that verbosity was a criticism during your RFA (by me and others). Cheers, good editor, Keeper ǀ 76 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, Keeper! I was simply picking up on your humor. I thought the "seriously" after it would make that pretty obvious. Yes, verbosity is a criticism I've heard over and over. I even agree with it, it's a problem. But the solution is less obvious. For me to write less takes far more time; I know an number of others like myself. There is one, a very good writer, who understands the same things, generally, that I understand, and sometimes writes about them. He will say what I would say, in about a third of the words. Problem is, it takes him three times as long. So he doesn't write as often, and he ends up saying less. Hence I do edit, but normally only when I'm trying to make some impact and I expect people to read it who would otherwise not because of length. The long form, so to speak, is still read by quite a few people who appreciate what I write, and I get lots of comments -- lately many by email, from some administrators who, in the past, might have considered me a nuisance -- telling me that what I write is appreciated. Now, imagine this new editor's problem. He's done massive research. Hours and hours and hours, it's really mind-boggling. He doesn't know the environment, doesn't really know how to boil it down. There really ought to be a way that he could pass on what he has found, for review, not by AN/I, but simply by another editor, more experienced, ideally one he trusts, who would then decide what to pass on and what to keep in, say, an evidence file. I do have ideas about how to implement structure that would accomplish this, so that it would happen more reliably, but it will take time to even get to the point that proposing it -- again -- would be more than a waste of time. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth, response from his Talk

Abd, thanks for thinking of me. But in light of the draconian manner in which I was treated, and the lenient manner in which another editor is now being treated, further participation is pointless. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Wikipedia isn't fair, sometimes. Know any place in this world where there is a guarantee? It can be extraordinarily difficult to reform an existing structure, and that is what Wikipedia has become. But it's not impossible, I'd say. I'm looking forward to a Wikipedia where NPOV means that all points of view are fairly represented, in balance and with truly maximized consensus. I think it can be done, but it involves, in part, welcoming editors with unpopular views, however that is defined. It involves setting either clear boundaries, or a clear process by which boundaries are set. It involves making this a safe place to find consensus on content and behavioral issues. It involves developing a whole culture that respects differences and disagreements, that abandons coercion as a means of resolving disputes, and, on this, I'll allow that there might be exceptions, I'm not a purist. It involves, actually, some of the really excellent principles that Wikipedia was founded on, and that have been only imperfectly realized. Used to be that WP:AGF was policy, but that was abandoned and AGF was demoted to a guideline. I'd say that a great deal was potentially lost when this happened, even though the argument was reasonable: it's hard to enforce. But, of course, what would be enforced wouldn't be actual assumption of good faith, but a prevention of the expression of the reverse.
We need to be at the same time firm against incivility and attempts to force articles into a mold required by some POV. "POV pusher" has become confused with having a POV and using to to detect possible imbalance. There is nothing wrong with being informed by a POV. In fact, if nobody has a POV, nobody can see anything. NPOV is a synthesis, something beyond POV, and one of the great errors that has been made by some is to assume that there is some POV called "NPOV." And thus, when someone comes in with a "different POV," they are violating "NPOV." No, they are questioning the POV of the existing consensus, thus making it possible to expand the consensus to be more truly neutral. Maybe. It will never be known unless it is sincerely attempted.
I once attended a class on Islam given by a Christian minister. As a knowledgeable Muslim, I wondered what it would be like. The minister started the class with a comment that it was his hope to teach it such that a Muslim would say, "Yes, that is what we believe." He understood neutrality. He wasn't abandoning his Christianity, just allowing himself to understand how others thought, and to express that. When an article has found NPOV, most editors of most POVs will say, "Yes, this is neutral." Maybe even all, it is reasonable to hope so, because it does happen. Certainly we can think that there are some editors who won't be satisfied with anything less than turning the article into propaganda for their own POV, but I think this is rarer than some might think. AGF. Really. Even assume good faith on the part of the administrator who blocks you and the one who incited it. Not only is there no harm in it, it turns out that one can be more effective, for it is far easier to convince the community that some mistake was made, something was perhaps well-meant but excessive, than to convince the community that there is some monstrous conspiracy. And this is true whether there is a monstrous conspiracy or not.
By all means, sure, speak truth to power, but be careful, it is far too easy to mistake speculation, suspicion, and the rest of that, for "truth." --Abd (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Abd, thank you for your kind comments on my Talk page. I have left my impression of the situation at User talk:HandThatFeeds. Curious bystander (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is against NPOV

Consensus is always in direct conflict with NPOV.[7] If you want NPOV then you are against Wikipedia's consnesus. QuackGuru 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Con-sneezes?

Consensus is how we judge NPOV. If we have 100% agreement, with informed editors, we have found NPOV, or, at least, the best currently possible. So that's the goal. We may not always be able to reach it. But we can, and should, try. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I like your comment [8] and have said so on the RfC talk page. I particularly like this bit: "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately." I would like to put it on my userpage as a quote. Did you write it, or did you get it from somewhere? I see you have quotation marks around it. (Is it from a policy?) Thanks. Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I wrote it. It's my own thinking on the topic. You are looking at a diff, those are italics for emphasis. NPOV is like Truth. It's not something that any of us own; if anything, Truth owns us. All of us. Yes, you can quote it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the goal NPOV or consensus. If the goal is consensus then the text can easily be watered down and even become misleading. There is currently misleading text in an article that has been going on for days and nothing is being done to remove the misleading information. In fact, some editors prefer the misleading text. When there has been agreement, then that is proof that consensus is against NPOV. QuackGuru 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the goal water or drinking? In any case, the argument is specious. "Some editors prefer the misleading text." Sure. But that's "some editors," not a "consensus of editors." The goal, here, though, is NPOV. Consensus is how we measure our success in finding it. By the way, since this is my Talk page, I'll mention that this is a very old topic in Islam. The Sunni position, generally, is that the best guide to truth is the consensus of the knowledgeable. (Sunni is short for ahlu s-sunnah wa l-jamaa', or, roughly, "the people of the tradition and consensus." My gloss on that is that such a consensus is not infallible, it is merely better to treat it, temporarily and for most purposes, as if it is. The error comes when a prior consensus is enforced with a new set of analysts. Thus, the error made classically was in determining that the "door of ijma is closed," on the theory that -- when it came to religious understanding -- the best analysts had already done their work and all that later generations could do was to memorize it.... but the way it was put to me by a scholar: "there is no consensus on consensus." In particular, there was never a consensus that the door of ijma (i.e., the formation of consensus) was closed. To likewise make the religious connection, NPOV is, ultimately, how God sees things. We don't get to do that, at least not directly, and not in such a way as to be able to "own" it. To claim this kind of knowledge (i.e., as personal and direct) is equivalent to claiming to be God, and to attach to a personal view and assert it as ultimate truth is a form of Shirk. Enough for today?
There was a prior consensus but no new consensus but a few editors claimed they have consensus for adding the misleading information. QuackGuru 03:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Editors claimed they have consensus. So? People claim all kinds of things. Do you agree with them. If not, then they don't have full consensus. If most editors agree with them, though, they have "rough consensus." What's your point? Do you have an example? "Prior consensus" is not consensus, necessarily, though it may enjoy a certain persistence and presumption. --Abd (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See [9][10][11][12]User talk:Levine2112/archive8#Misleading edit Inaccurate insertion of "Simon says" phrases. QuackGuru 03:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

Updated DYK query On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamie Howarth, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A new idea

This is being posted simultaneously in two places. You can probably guess the other.

<------------User:Abd______________User:S. Dean Jameson ------------->

Each of you should follow your own arrow. Keeper ǀ 76 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Great idea. Except. You might notice that I have not pursued S. Dean Jameson, rather, he has pursued me, insisting on commenting on my communications with other editors, insisting on attacking my comments on public matters, without any necessity. I became aware of the situation with Ottava Rima when SDJ, quite out of the blue, apparently because I'd posted a consoling comment on OR Talk, attacked OR on my Talk, which can be seen above. And he suggested that I investigate. So, assuming good faith -- perhaps OR was really some kind of terrible monster as implied -- I did investigate, and I was horrified by what I'd found. OR was improperly blocked, for starters, and another editor, with a history of harassment, had been harassing Wilhelmina Will and the community had "bought" it. It's taking days to try to disentangle the mess and prevent damage ("damage" would be the departure of a productive editor for no good reason). I started by creating a path for WW to complete some DYK nominations, and that succeeded, she now has 29 DYKs. And there is another pending. Doesn't anybody find it suspicious that there is this editor with 29 DYKs and another pending nomination by an experienced editor, who supposedly is creating messes all over the place and needs a mentor? I regret not having the time to do more than I've done for OR, but I'll get to that. At least OR now knows that there is at least one friend here, one who won't excuse bad behavior but who also welcomes and attempts to respectfully guide. The idea that WW needs a mentor is actually preposterous. She hasn't repeated improper behavior after warning, I see mandatory mentors when warnings don't suffice and the only alternative is blocking.

When I simply informed OR what I'd found, the results of my "looking deeper" as had been suggested, he complained that it was too long, and then threatened me not to take this to AN/I or WQA. (which I had no intention of doing at the time, but eventually, something might appear.) No, I have not pursued this editor; rather, it's easier to conclude that this editor has been harassing other users and is attempting to prevent anyone else from aiding them, and I find that highly offensive; but there are other, more important issues at this time, so SDJ has little to fear from me, unless he continues to poke and prod me. Last editor who did that isn't around any more, and all I did was do what he'd been demanding: make a formal complaint or shut up. So, hey, since he insisted, I made the complaint and he was immediately history. That one was easy. Sock puppet of blocked user, though there was quite a bit of screaming when I filed the SSP report that there wasn't any basis for it. Lucky guess? Maybe. But I don't make reports like that unless I've got my ducks in a row and consider the probability high. I don't like to waste my time and the time of other editors over premature reports and tendentious debate at AN/I, which has been one of the problems all along, I'm finding. AN/I is a *terrible* place to try to resolve disputes, it should be reserved for cases which already clearly call for administrative action, and not a lot of debate. And, frankly, I'd protect the discussion at AN/I and have a report filing page where other users file reports and make comments, with what's cogent from that being transferred to the actual incidents page, which would then become clean and usable for it's original purpose, as a kind of 911 for administrative action. Can you imagine what a real 911 would be like if the operators had to listen to arguments from callers?

Caller 1: "Send the police! He's killing me!" Operator: "Calm down, maam! We need to get the facts." Caller 2: "Don't pay attention to her, she's hysterical, she gets this way once a month." Operator: "Do you have any proof of that, sir?" Caller 1: "He's got a gun!" Caller 2: "She's lying!" Operator: "Look, both of you, calm down. Maam, assume good faith. Maybe he intends to put the gun away. Sir, please don't accuse anyone of lying, it is uncivil." (confused sounds, call terminates. Disposition: no action needed, parties seem to have resolved dispute on their own, after standard advice to remain calm, assume good faith, and be civil.)

No, real 911: after first comment by Caller 1, police are notified and despatched, and the address determined from Special:Contributions for the caller. There is no argument allowed, the police show up and, indeed, tell everyone to be calm. And if somebody isn't calm, such that violence is feared, they block the offender, pending further investigation. The police are not judges of who is right and wrong, and they do not punish or decide fault. They maintain order and civil process, so that the community can make considered decisions. And 911 is not part of WP:DR. Period.

So, anyway, thanks for trying to keep things calm. Let's hope it works. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This post is also being posted in two places, simultaneously. You've both replied in exactly the same manner, and have only reinforced my belief that my solution is necessary. You've both replied with some version (one much longer than the other, but I read them both in their entirety) of "He STARTED IT!!! I'll stop when he stops!!!" Okay then! We all agree to stop, because if we all simultaneously stop, then it settles it right? Sorry to sound so "go to your room until you can calm down" condescending, it's not my intention. The whole thing is tiring. SDJ, you tried to shorten OR's block with an ANI post. Lesson learnt I hope, that ANI simply invites more bees to the hive. Abd, you tried to object/shorten/nullify/(I think you said "update blocklog to prevent future prejudice" or something) Or's block. You are on the same side, see? Follow your arrows. Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Keeper. I never thought we (SDJ and I) were on opposite sides. I didn't try to address the block through AN/I, but, of course, once the question was there, it was important to express my support for unblock, and, with that, my opinion as to the block in the first place, with a little reference to what actually happened. However, I can't stop doing what I'm not doing. If I'm not upset, I can't calm down. If I'm not pursuing or attacking, I can't stop it. What I've been doing is to examine what happened with Ottava Rima and Wilhelmina Will, not to identify and punish the bad guys, but to protect the good ones, and I assume that every editor is a "good one" until proven otherwise. There is a user whom, if that user continues his or her recent behavior, I might seek a block -- which I've not done before, actually, I've never gone to AN/I or an individual administrator with a block request. It's not SDJ; but his role in the affair might be mentioned from time to time, simply to establish the context and history. The only way, really, that this could hurt him is if he opposes efforts to clarify what happened, and it would not be me seeking to harm him. I'd actually try to prevent that; I can't say more simply because I don't yet know enough of the details. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to fear. And, in fact, if he tried to vandalize a thousand pages, then, but wasn't likely to do it going forward, he'd actually also have nothing to fear as long as he doesn't look like he'd do it again. If he simply stops defending what he did, whether it was good or bad, almost all risk would disappear. (This is because his form of defense has been to assertively claim -- when there was no risk to him -- that all charges against him were "baseless." When it's clear that there was a basis for charges, i.e., a neutral editor could see events, possibly incorrectly, as showing a problem. Not to mention an involved editor.)

If an editor thinks I'm attacking another editor -- and it can sometimes look like I am -- you would never see me complaining that the other editor has made "baseless charges." Rather, I will assume good faith until events take me beyond that possibility -- and even then it takes very little for me to return to AGF. AGF means that I think the editor had a basis for the claim, and that better communication or something else is necessary to resolve the situation, or, perhaps best if direct communication fails, the intervention of a third party who understands the issues on all sides. I will often seek such when a situation remains beyond a few days. (And I should add still another possibility. Perhaps I was, quite simply, wrong. Maybe I was angry or upset and thought what I was doing was justified, and I didn't realize the extent to which my own emotions were affecting what I was saying.) --Abd (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch

I really don't like having bad feelings between myself and others here on the project. It distracts me greatly from the actual work I'm trying to do, and is just generally a bit distressing to me on a personal level. Therefore, I propose the following:

  1. I will not reply to anything you write, unless my name is directly mentioned in the text, or so overtly implied as to be obvious.
  2. When and if we have occasion to work together on an actual article, the events of the last few days will play no part in my thinking and actions with regard to article editing.
  3. If we both have occasion to comment on a thread at ANI, the events of the last few days will play no part in my thinking and actions with regard to the situation upon which we are commenting.

All I would ask in return is that you do me the same courtesy. I don't want to have adversaries on this project, Abd. Clearly we won't agree on the underlying causes of what has transpired over the course of the last several days. That doesn't have to matter in the long run, really, as long as we let bygones be bygones.

Is what I proposed above acceptable to you? Regards, S. Dean Jameson 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'd encourage you to continue with your work on articles, and I have not had the opportunity to review that, but I have seen no reason to believe that you are not a fine editor. I am also not seeking to convince you of anything, nor am I seeking you out to oppose you or harass you in any way. However, events have transpired that have harmed other users. Ottava Rima was blocked, and now has a black mark on the block history, and Wilhelmina Will has a topic ban on an area obviously dear to her. In order to ameliorate that damage -- if that turns out to be appropriate -- it may be necessary to describe what actually happened, and that could involve mentioning your name. However, if you look at what I've been doing an arguing, part of it is that Wikipedia does not punish, period. I don't care what you did, I wouldn't aim for sanctions based on it, but only on what you can reasonably be expected to do going forward. By the time all this comes out, whatever you did last week or yesterday or even today will be, as far as any serious risk to your account, ancient history, probably moot. And that is if you really did something truly nasty. Which I have not seen yet.

There is no reason that I can see for you to worry about this in the least, at this point. It is possible that at some future time, some process will ensue that would require your attention. But, to give you an example of how easy it could be for you to undo your part of any possible damage with Ottava Rima, and if you have not already done so, you could go to the Talk page of the blocking admin and repeat your request for unblock, just so it is clear that protecting you -- which would have been part of the legitimate reason for blocking in the first place, for the most part -- is no longer a reason to keep the block up. You are done, then, provided that you don't act contrary to that in the future. It doesn't matter if he was right or you were right, and it is entirely possible, and preferred, to assume that everyone had good faith and that there were simply misunderstandings and errors.

I don't want adversaries either, and, I think, if you look around, you will see plenty of examples where editors who thought, it might seem, that I was out to destroy the project, have become workingp partners and who even, occasionally, read what I write. I know it because I get emails from them saying, "There must be something wrong with me, you are starting to make sense. Thanks for what you wrote on ... blah, blah." So, my friend, carry on. I'm not gunning for you. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:

Thank you for your opinion. I believe you are clearly wrong. Most people don't contact an attorney to bake cookies. I'd say the user's actions were just short of trolling. seicer (talk · contribs) saw it the same way I did. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor is an attorney (or lying). Yes, indeed. Seicer made the same mistake as you. I have a simple solution. I'll contact Michael Godwin myself. He might have an opinion. To take the posts as legal threats, when there is not one shred of language indicating intent to sue anyone, there is only a request from one attorney to know the address of another attorney, an address which is actually, I believe, public record, is, I must conclude, simple incompetence, it's that blatant.

I'd recommend immediate unblock and an apology for the misunderstanding. If the block is quickly undone, it will be relatively harmless to all concerned. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is likely that the attorney who posted to AN/I -- if that was an attorney -- was wrong. But that is entirely another matter. We don't block people for being wrong, even if they are attorneys. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to make it personal

Like this. Shame on you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban

I have taken your concerns regarding my decision to the Administrator's Noticeboard and requested, in essence, a certification of my close. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work and refreshing objectivity

I owe you a significant debt of gratitude for your taking the time to really look into the details behind my RfC. I know that this must have taken a significant amount of time to compile and the results were very well presented. If there is ever anything I can do for you please let me know and I will be more than happy to be at your service. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready to Mainstream the Page

The page under creation as an American author or a biography isn't perfect or finished, but it's as good as many similar pages already at Wiki. Can we move the page in creation now and make it a mainstream Wiki contribution? I don't have a copy of the original article in the Greater Kashmir Times. I have contacted the editor several times asking for a copy but no response...Perhaps you can ask him for it? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. Last first. No, there is no reason why I'd be more effective in asking than you. Are there any friends there who could go to a library or place where the Greater Kashmir Times is archived and make a copy and get it to you? Any decent digital camera could do it, it just has to be readable, and it can be a series of images that, together, allow reading the whole article. And the whole page should be shown, for the first page, if there is more than one, plus a closeup of page information which would ordinarily show date, etc. That way, anyone looking at the set of images can verify that the article existed. If we cannot find the article, then we are depending only on your report of it, which isn't enough.

Then, as to the article as it is now, remember the plan? The plan was for you to write a decent article, without depending on whether or not sources were available, but then to, probably, stub it down to what can be solidly established by reliable, independent source. That's what would go into mainspace. In order to establish that the article isn't going to get deleted at any time, we'd probably go to Deletion Review to get the deletion overturned with the new article, which really should be impeccable, or as close as we can make it.

You should understand that the quality of "similar pages" isn't relevant. There is a massive cleanup under way at Wikipedia, and, necessarily, it hits some articles before others. There are "similar pages" that are terrible. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, your idea here is a common one, and has been rejected. Now, if we could show that other, similar articles, with the same problems, are passing Articles for Deletion, and your article was improperly rejected, then we'd have some kind of basis. But simply that you can find them in the encyclopedia, no, that merely means that there is other stuff that should be deleted.

So, anyway, I will look at the article and work on the sourcing. You haven't used standard in-line sourcing, I'll fix that, and you should then be able to see how it is done for the future.

I apologize, by the way, for taking so long to get to this. I've been fighting fires, so to speak, plus I traveled for a few days. Am I correct that you live in New York state? Where? (tell me by email if you don't want to state it publicly, and no obligation to tell me, either). --Abd (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


You have been very helpful and insightful during the fluster about Ottava. I would appreciate if you could help drafting the terms we are putting together on his talk.[13] None of us have much expeirence in this area, so are touting for openions;). Thanks. Ceoil sláinte 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience with mentorship, either, at least not formal, recognized mentorship. However, I do have some ideas about it and I'll participate if both of you accept that. Having a mentor could be a huge help in any area where the mentor has experience, and even without experience, two heads are better than one, and three are even better. This works with even greater numbers, if all share sufficient common goals.... --Abd (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My flippant reply on Ottava's talk was only an attempt to keep things light. You have shown a lot of integrity through out this, and thb I cant see this working without your input. None of us know what we are doing re mentorship, but we all want the same thing, which is a good start. Ceoil sláinte 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)