Rodhullandemu and Malleus Options

[Theanima]

Malleus was busy trolling the bureaucrat's noticeboard, and Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) did not like this, so started threatening and attacking him on his talk page. Well, Malleus being Malleus answered the admin back and got a block from Rod... for doing the exact same thing Rod did. Moni3, Malleus's admin meatpuppet, unblocked him, and Floquenbeam blocked Rod. Who then retired for a day before returning.

There's a request for arbitration open, but it looks like it won't be happening. It's all very lulzy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Ongoing AN discussion here, and arbitration request here.

[A Horse With No Name]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Eva Destruction]

Undoubted best line from this debacle is "I'm here at least twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, minimum […] please don't criticise me for playing the admin card, because above most other editors, I have the right to do so, because I am committed to our mission. That doesn't mean that I lack humility." I find something fascinating about the idea of someone so self-deluded as to their own importance that they think "I spend more than 50% of my life on the internet" will increase anyone's respect for them. ("Seven days a week, minimum"? How does that work, exactly?)

(adding) What on earth does "I don't have the personal luxuries enjoyed by many other editors here, but I make the effort to improve this encyclopedia in the best way I can; and that surely, should be enough" mean?

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Ottava]

I think the weirdest part of this whole thing were people claiming Rod was a decent article writer. Seriously, how could they type that while busy rolling around on the floor just at the mere thought of claiming something so outrageously absurd?

[Eva Destruction]

I think the weirdest part of this whole thing were people claiming Rod was a decent article writer. Seriously, how could they type that while busy rolling around on the floor just at the mere thought of claiming something so outrageously absurd?

He did write the masterpiece of education which is Cunt. (The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…)

[A Horse With No Name]

I think the weirdest part of this whole thing were people claiming Rod was a decent article writer.

People also claim that there is a monster in Loch Ness. Some claims are more plausible than others. (Apologies to Nessie - no slur intended.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

What on earth does "I don't have the personal luxuries enjoyed by many other editors here, but I make the effort to improve this encyclopedia in the best way I can; and that surely, should be enough" mean?

Presumably he can't afford to decorate mom's basement as nicely as the wikipediots who at least have a part time job?

[GlassBeadGame]

I think the weirdest part of this whole thing were people claiming Rod was a decent article writer.

People also claim that there is a monster in Loch Ness. Some claims are more plausible than others. (Apologies to Nessie - no slur intended.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Any claim by any Wikipedian or anyone in support of any Wikipedian that they have any level of skill as a writer and this is demonstrated on Wikipedia by their "contributions" is not only ill founded but shows a shocking lack of understanding of the nature of nature of the very activity that occurs there. Whatever else Wikipedia might be it is not writing.

[Malleus]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I'm not trying to get anyone off the site, and if I recall correctly Flo is a bloke. Rod just made a mistake, that's all, no big deal.

[Alison]

The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Theanima]

The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…

I don't see that anywhere on his userpage.

[Eva Destruction]

The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…

I don't see that anywhere on his userpage.

User:Rodhullandemu#cite_note-3

[Theanima]

The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…

I don't see that anywhere on his userpage.

User:Rodhullandemu#cite_note-3

Oh, I thought you were quoting exactly. It's not so bad in its original form.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm not trying to get anyone off the site, and if I recall correctly Flo is a bloke. Rod just made a mistake, that's all, no big deal.

My bad...I mistook this Flo with FloNight. Hey, you can't tell these character apart without a program! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[ulsterman]

My bad...I mistook this Flo with FloNight. Hey, you can't tell these character apart without a program! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Yes, I used to have a similar problem. I always mixed up User:FloNight (whose real nane isn't Flo but Sydney Poore and, despite the name, is female) with Florence Nibart-Devouard. The latter is actually User:Anthere.

Condused? You will be!

[EricBarbour]

I think the weirdest part of this whole thing were people claiming Rod was a decent article writer. Seriously, how could they type that while busy rolling around on the floor just at the mere thought of claiming something so outrageously absurd?

He did write the masterpiece of education which is Cunt. (The "I don't currently have the time to concentrate on Cunt" on his userpage could be taken in so many ways. As, indeed, could…)

He did not---it's been there since 2004, and a whole lot of people edited it.

Still....this is how you deal with RH&E, people. You use mockery.
Because you can't reason with him. I suppose that could be said to be a major
problem with WP--too many crusty, smug, contumelious Englishmen......

[Moulton]

You use mockery.
Because you can't reason with him. I suppose that could be said to be a major problem with WP--too many crusty, smug, contumelious Englishmen......

Yes. You start with just a standard objection, stated forthrightly.

When that doesn't work, you write a serious, sober, and scholarly essay outlining the problem (in the manner of Habermas, for example).

When that doesn't work, you turn to Civil Disobedience.

When that doesn't work, you turn to humor, mockery, and song parodies.

When that doesn't work, you mount a full-fledged comic opera that incorporates all of the above.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[radek]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I'm not trying to get anyone off the site, and if I recall correctly Flo is a bloke. Rod just made a mistake, that's all, no big deal.

Hmmm, you're right, subsequent statements by Rod, once he cooled down (and all of the "It's impossible that I am immodest because then I wouldn't be perfect" kind of assertions aside) do suggest that he just messed up, whatever.

The person who should be immolated for this is Ncmvocalist, who once again jumped into drama that doesn't concern him/her and poured gasoline on the fire just because... hmmm, not sure exactly ... because it's her/his raison d'etre?

[Kevin]

The person who should be immolated for this is Ncmvocalist, who once again jumped into drama that doesn't concern him/her and poured gasoline on the fire just because... hmmm, not sure exactly ... because it's her/his raison d'etre?

...because Durova is MIA, and some has to do it?

[radek]

The person who should be immolated for this is Ncmvocalist, who once again jumped into drama that doesn't concern him/her and poured gasoline on the fire just because... hmmm, not sure exactly ... because it's her/his raison d'etre?

...because Durova is MIA, and some has to do it?

My sense of it is that Durova actually does some productive work in addition to running to every fire with a big can of gasoline. Ncmvocalist is all can of gasoline in search of fire, all the time.

[Moulton]

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury, because he had a mercurial personality.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Yes. You start with just a standard objection, stated forthrightly.

When that doesn't work, you write a serious, sober, and scholarly essay outlining the problem (in the manner of Habermas, for example).

When that doesn't work, you turn to Civil Disobedience.

When that doesn't work, you turn to humor, mockery, and song parodies.

When that doesn't work, you mount a full-fledged comic opera that incorporates all of the above.

Followed by petrol bombs when no one is looking.

The problem with digital property though is that, even if one is able to nuke it ... they will be able to restore from a backup in hours.

So, what is the alternative to that? Probably football fan chants.

[Moulton]

Music hath charms...

Yes. You start with just a standard objection, stated forthrightly.

When that doesn't work, you write a serious, sober, and scholarly essay outlining the problem (in the manner of Habermas, for example).

When that doesn't work, you turn to Civil Disobedience.

When that doesn't work, you turn to humor, mockery, and song parodies.

When that doesn't work, you mount a full-fledged comic opera that incorporates all of the above.

Followed by Recent Petrol Bombs when no one is looking.

The problem with digital property though is that, even if one is able to nuke it ... they will be able to restore from a backup in hours.

So, what is the alternative to that? Probably football fan chants.

Ah yes, shades of Spike Jones...

Spike Jones - William Tell Overture

[trenton]

Mr. Rodhullandemu must surely have set a new record for the length of his temper tantrum-to-quitting-to-returning. However, I believe Giano still holds the record for his temper tantrum-to-password scrambling-to-returning cycle. The emotional maturity level on Wikipedia is simply astounding.

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury....

ah, that makes sense. He has the same quality, where if you try to parse what he writes, it makes you lose IQ points, bringing you closer to his level.

[Milton Roe]

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury, because he had a mercurial personality.

I thought it was because he could prance like Freddy Mercury while screaming vocals.

An early Durova protege, don't forget. Possibly into macrame.

[CharlotteWebb]

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury, because he had a mercurial personality.

I thought it was because he could prance like Freddy Mercury while screaming vocals.

I know his behavior tends to induce bulimian rhapsody. (IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

[Subtle Bee]

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury, because he had a mercurial personality.

Are we sure about this? You're probably right, but I thought Mercury/Navou etc eventually wound up as NonvocalScream. Or maybe that was just an 80's hair band.

[Moulton]

Ncmvocalist used to known as User:Mercury, because he had a mercurial personality.

Are we sure about this? You're probably right, but I thought Mercury/Navou etc eventually wound up as NonvocalScream. Or maybe that was just an 80's hair band.

Oh, you may be right. I may have confused Ncmvocalist with NonvocalScream (aka Mercury/Navou).

[Encyclopedist]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

[Alison]

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

Encyclopedist (T-C-L-K-R-D) ??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Ottava]

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

Encyclopedist (T-C-L-K-R-D) ??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

It does have the same personality as Rod. Too bad that account isn't fresh enough to see if it really is Rod, as the use on WR is Rod.

Coincidence that Rod started August 2007 while Encyclopedist was banned in January 2007, giving enough time and then some to ensure that IPs couldn't be checked?

I think we found out why Rod is such a douche.

[Alison]

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

Encyclopedist (T-C-L-K-R-D) ??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

It does have the same personality as Rod. Too bad that account isn't fresh enough to see if it really is Rod, as the use on WR is Rod.

Coincidence that Rod started August 2007 while Encyclopedist was banned in January 2007, giving enough time and then some to ensure that IPs couldn't be checked?

I think we found out why Rod is such a douche.

I don't think Encyclopedist is Rod, given that I know who 'pedist is IRL. He's got another account and is no longer banned, FWIW. Water under the bridge (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) I'm just surprised at seeing that old name reappear here, and in this context.

[GlassBeadGame]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

"Fuck you" right back at you, loser Wikipedian. I have no idea what your "contributions" might be but if you mean Wikipedia who cares? Your three posts here contribute nothing and show no promise. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[A Horse With No Name]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

"Fuck you" right back at you, loser Wikipedian. I have no idea what your "contributions" might be but if you mean Wikipedia who cares? Your three posts here contribute nothing and show no promise. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Thank you for responding to that nasty person's slur against my comment. You get a big Horsey kiss for that. Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Malley, you owe Big Flo your own version of a Horsey kiss! And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!

Way to go, Big Flo -- more bounce to the ounce with her, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers, which is why I see no reason to participate here. You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you.

"Fuck you" right back at you, loser Wikipedian. I have no idea what your "contributions" might be but if you mean Wikipedia who cares? Your three posts here contribute nothing and show no promise. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Thank you for responding to that nasty person's slur against my comment. You get a big Horsey kiss for that. Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

I didn't really see what the comment had to do with your post. I figured the loser didn't know how to post without replying to a preceding post.

[A Horse With No Name]

I didn't really see what the comment had to do with your post. I figured the loser didn't know how to post without replying to a preceding post.

I said: "And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!"

He said: "I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may...You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you."

The comment was a response to my post. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

I didn't really see what the comment had to do with your post. I figured the loser didn't know how to post without replying to a preceding post.

I said: "And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!"

He said: "I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may...You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you."

The comment was a response to my post. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Carry on, Wikipedians.

[Jon Awbrey]

I didn't really see what the comment had to do with your post. I figured the loser didn't know how to post without replying to a preceding post.

I said: "And for anyone who gets Rod off the site, kisses galore!"

He said: "I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may … You may not like my attitude, but you cannot deny my contributions. If you're not able to see that, er, fuck you."

The comment was a response to my post. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Carry on, Wikipedians.

Wait, now I'm confused —

Exactly who is screwing who?

And who will have to buy who dinner first?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[Alison]

Carry on, Wikipedians.

(IMG:http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/alliewiki/_40561545_carryon_203.jpg)

[CharlotteWebb]

From another thread:

[TL;DR]

Hi I'm sorry I missed this - I'm guessing it's RH&E because of your remark about the storage (which you have made before on-wiki). I think academics do understand the neutrality principle, because of the strict requirements for sourcing if you are referree'd.

And I don't believe you specifically have abused any control, for what it's worth.

I'm pretty sure Rod created this WR account unaware that DJB a.k.a. Ulysses-whatsit had once used the same name on WP.

[Somey]

I am staying on Wikipedia, come what may. I have no time for losers...

See, I think he only said "no time for losers" because the Freddie Mercury references earlier in the thread reminded him of Queen's massive hit, "We Are the Champions." So that means he probably did read the earlier posts in this thread, which in turn means that he doesn't think we're "losers" at all (since he does, in fact, have time for us) or that he does, in fact, have time for losers, in which case he was simply lying.

I was thinking someone could do an "atrocious song parody" of "We Are the Champions," and call it "We Are the Admins" - the lyrics practically write themselves - but I didn't want to encourage that sort of thing, and besides, someone might have already done it.

[ulsterman]

Coincidence[/url] that Rod started August 2007 while Encyclopedist was banned in January 2007, giving enough time and then some to ensure that IPs couldn't be checked?

That doesn't square with Encyclopedist's block log.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3AEncyclopedist

He was first blocked on 8 May 2006, with note "After being identified as abuse sock-puppeter, admits this and asks to be blocked. So be it." He was unblocked and given a second chance, then reblocked on 31 July 2006. He was blocked again (by Tiptoety) on 13 Nov 2009 for "full-fledged exhaustion of community patience", which I suppose is meant to be a ban.

I don't think Encyclopedist is Rod, given that I know who 'pedist is IRL. He's got another account and is no longer banned, FWIW. Water under the bridge (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) I'm just surprised at seeing that old name reappear here, and in this context.

Indeed, I know what the new account is, and it's quite a nicely little productive one.

[A Horse With No Name]

Carry on, Wikipedians.

(IMG:http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/alliewiki/_40561545_carryon_203.jpg)

Simply the greatest film in the history of British cinema. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

He was blocked again (by Tiptoety) on 13 Nov 2009 for "full-fledged exhaustion of community patience", which I suppose is meant to be a ban.

Actually, it means: "I've got the block button and I don't like you, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!"

You cannot exhaust "community patience" without a community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Anonymous editor]

Undoubted best line from this debacle is "I'm here at least twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, minimum […] please don't criticise me for playing the admin card, because above most other editors, I have the right to do so, because I am committed to our mission. That doesn't mean that I lack humility." I find something fascinating about the idea of someone so self-deluded as to their own importance that they think "I spend more than 50% of my life on the internet" will increase anyone's respect for them. ("Seven days a week, minimum"? How does that work, exactly?)

Minimum was referring to the 12 hours a day part. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) So apparently he's on Wikipedia at least 12 hours a day, if not more.

A lot of admin abuse going on here. Floquenbeam, Moni unilaterally unblocking, Rod... for being a hypocrite, Bishonen for generally being a hypocrite and terrible admin...

[Subtle Bee]

Undoubted best line from this debacle is "I'm here at least twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, minimum […] please don't criticise me for playing the admin card, because above most other editors, I have the right to do so, because I am committed to our mission. That doesn't mean that I lack humility." I find something fascinating about the idea of someone so self-deluded as to their own importance that they think "I spend more than 50% of my life on the internet" will increase anyone's respect for them. ("Seven days a week, minimum"? How does that work, exactly?)

Minimum was referring to the 12 hours a day part. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) So apparently he's on Wikipedia at least 12 hours a day, if not more.

I'm dissenting! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Best line was this classic ploy at RHE's doomed Arb request:

I am currently neither physically nor mentally fit to offer a full statement. Should I become able to do so, I would hope this would be sooner rather than later. That's all for now. Rodhullandemu 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That was about 3 days & 500 edits ago.

[A Horse With No Name]

I am currently neither physically nor mentally fit to offer a full statement. Should I become able to do so, I would hope this would be sooner rather than later. That's all for now. Rodhullandemu 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but when "A Nobody" stated that he did not wish to participate in an Arbcom discussion due to health issue, his account was immediately disabled in complete violation of WP:BLOCK policy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[trenton]

Another pearl of wisdom from rodhead:

@Rlevse: Zackly so. My block of Malleus was was a mistake caused by (a) combination of (unaware) 7.5% cider as opposed to my usual 5.3%, with [[Piriteze]] and [[Prozac]]; (b) the failure of Malleus to realise that when you are given good advice, to take it.

So apparently drunks may be bad drivers, but their advice... that is spot on.

[Subtle Bee]

Another pearl of wisdom from rodhead:

@Rlevse: Zackly so. My block of Malleus was was a mistake caused by (a) combination of (unaware) 7.5% cider as opposed to my usual 5.3%, with [[Piriteze]] and [[Prozac]]; (b) the failure of Malleus to realise that when you are given good advice, to take it.

So apparently drunks may be bad drivers, but their advice... that is spot on.

Like when they advise you to get the hell out of their way... jackash!

[A Horse With No Name]

Another pearl of wisdom from rodhead:

@Rlevse: Zackly so. My block of Malleus was was a mistake caused by (a) combination of (unaware) 7.5% cider as opposed to my usual 5.3%, with [[Piriteze]] and [[Prozac]]; (b) the failure of Malleus to realise that when you are given good advice, to take it.

So apparently drunks may be bad drivers, but their advice... that is spot on.

In some pubs in the world, Chris "Editing While Drunk" Cunningham is a deity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Actually, the rest of the quote gives me reason to stop and say, "Whoa, someone needs a shoulder":

You can push an [[WP:AGF|principled]] editor only so far in such circumstances. Would that I could rewind the clock, but I can't. If I could do so, I would do so even to the extent that my parents were still alive, and able to give me some support. But that isn't going to happen. Some people have all the luck, but I'm not one of them. Cheers.

I am not even touching that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Malleus]

You can push an [[WP:AGF|principled]] editor only so far in such circumstances. Would that I could rewind the clock, but I can't. If I could do so, I would do so even to the extent that my parents were still alive, and able to give me some support. But that isn't going to happen. Some people have all the luck, but I'm not one of them. Cheers.

I am not even touching that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Rodhullendemu is clearly not well, and he's being done no favours by those who are choosing to ignore his increasingly erratic behaviour. As I've said elsewhere, I find it mildly amusing that several arbitrators and administrators are doing what they can to divert attention away from one of their own and instead trying to place the blame for Rod's blow out on me. No surprise there.

[A Horse With No Name]

Rodhullendemu is clearly not well, and he's being done no favours by those who are choosing to ignore his increasingly erratic behaviour. As I've said elsewhere, I find it mildly amusing that several arbitrators and administrators are doing what they can to divert attention away from one of their own and instead trying to place the blame for Rod's blow out on me. No surprise there.

But at the same time, if the arbitrators and their apologists did their duties correctly...what would we have to talk about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Subtle Bee]

Rodhullendemu is clearly not well, and he's being done no favours by those who are choosing to ignore his increasingly erratic behaviour. As I've said elsewhere, I find it mildly amusing that several arbitrators and administrators are doing what they can to divert attention away from one of their own and instead trying to place the blame for Rod's blow out on me. No surprise there.

But at the same time, if the arbitrators and their apologists did their duties correctly...what would we have to talk about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Their weight?

[Obesity]

Rodhullandemu has a big penis and Malleus is jealous. thx

[The Joy]

This is all madness on wheels, if you ask me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

(Speaking of wheels, whatever happened to old Willy? I miss him. To think he was once the greatest threat to Wikipedia before Seigenthaler.)

[Alison]

And just to revive an old thread, Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) got blocked for two weeks today for "disruption, harassment, and childish behaviour in the midst of a discussion of his actions", mostly as a result of this dramafest on ANI. Right now, he's throwing a minor snit on his talk page ...

[Ottava]

And just to revive an old thread, Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) got blocked for two weeks today for "disruption, harassment, and childish behaviour in the midst of a discussion of his actions", mostly as a result of this dramafest on ANI. Right now, he's throwing a minor snit on his talk page ...

I honestly don't know why people feel the need to post on someone else's talk page when they don't like them. Isn't avoidance supposed to be the natural human response? Too many people feel the urge to go to other people's talk page on things they aren't involved with and have a bad background with them.

[Malleus]

I honestly don't know why people feel the need to post on someone else's talk page when they don't like them. Isn't avoidance supposed to be the natural human response? Too many people feel the urge to go to other people's talk page on things they aren't involved with and have a bad background with them.

And too many of them are administrators. For now at least.

[Peter Damian]

This is really sad http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=415612930 . And this shows that the administrators can be nasty even to their own species http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=415612930 .

And how about this for jaws dropping

I'm sorry to hear that Rod. I see that you largely lack a family but surely you have friends or co-workers? Rather than complain, cuss, and spend the next 48 hours making yourself seem like a fool, why not just walk away? I know it may seem hard to do but it's not really. Take a load off, sit back, and watch TV, or do something else to entertain yourself? I know that your rather old but if you have a job still you could just spend more time there or something. There is a world outside of Wikipedia and even if you lack any friends, or any family to call, everyday is a new chance to meet someone new and make a friend (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) All the best,--White Shadows Stuck in square one 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=415631129

And this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=415657023 beyond belief.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Milton Roe]

And just to revive an old thread, Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) got blocked for two weeks today for "disruption, harassment, and childish behaviour in the midst of a discussion of his actions", mostly as a result of this dramafest on ANI. Right now, he's throwing a minor snit on his talk page ...

Sucks to be Rodhull. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I supposed I'd have more empathy if he wasn't such a dick of distinction.

Malleus unilaterally changing the Walter Raleigh page to Walter Ralegh is a classic dumbshit thing to do on WP (has anyone ever heard of a redirect and a correction to a less-common but more correct spelling, on the primary page?), and the very much to be expected argument over that and the ANI and talkpage drahmas all make it worse. That last comment is correct: this editwar is one to add to WP:LAME. A couple of weeks in the dungeon for this might benefit Malleus. It was beyond BOLD and into the realm of troll.

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

You know if any of these people had children, they're exactly the sort of parents who would not let a kid born Feb. 29 have a birthday party, except every 4 years. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Hey, someone invite Rod to come over here and hang with the cool kids! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Malleus]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

[Milton Roe]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

No, for the sake of consistancy, you should go change Joan of Arc to Jehanne Darc, since the first name is how the person herself spelled it, and the last is at least closer to how contemporaries would have spelled the family name, since there ware no apostrophes in 15th century French names and there certainly is no place called "Arc" for her to be "from." Good luck with that.

[RMHED]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

Oh dear you really do need a break from Wikipedia don't you. I think both you and Rod would benefit from a 3 month block.

[gomi]

(IMG:http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)

[Malleus]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

Oh dear you really do need a break from Wikipedia don't you. I think both you and Rod would benefit from a 3 month block.

Why don't you just fuck off and do something useful for once in your life?

[Malleus]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

No, for the sake of consistancy, you should go change Joan of Arc to Jehanne Darc, since the first name is how the person herself spelled it, and the last is at least closer to how contemporaries would have spelled the family name, since there ware no apostrophes in 15th century French names and there certainly is no place called "Arc" for her to be "from." Good luck with that.

Is there no limit to your deliberate obtusnesss? Even the French wikipedia article doesn't call Joan of Arc "Jehanne Darc", as you can see here

[EricBarbour]

Nice trolling, Mal!

Rod deserves to receive all the misery he's handed out in the past.

[Malleus]

Nice trolling, Mal!

Rod deserves to receive all the misery he's handed out in the past.

Nobody deserves to suffer, not even Rod.

[RMHED]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

Oh dear you really do need a break from Wikipedia don't you. I think both you and Rod would benefit from a 3 month block.

Why don't you just fuck off and do something useful for once in your life?

Oh but I do, I is an Wikipedia admin. Now what could be more important, just ask Rod.

[Malleus]

Why don't you just fuck off and do something useful for once in your life?

Oh but I do, I is an Wikipedia admin. Now what could be more important, just ask Rod.

This isn't a fight to the death, and nor should it be. Rod apparently has some personal problems, and obviously shouldn't be an administrator, but then neither perhaps should I. Whatever, doesn't make either of us a bad person.

[Milton Roe]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

No, for the sake of consistancy, you should go change Joan of Arc to Jehanne Darc, since the first name is how the person herself spelled it, and the last is at least closer to how contemporaries would have spelled the family name, since there ware no apostrophes in 15th century French names and there certainly is no place called "Arc" for her to be "from." Good luck with that.

Is there no limit to your deliberate obtusnesss? Even the French wikipedia article doesn't call Joan of Arc "Jehanne Darc", as you can see here

So what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Joan_of_Arc

[Malleus]

There's that OCD thing. If the guy's name was Ralegh, somebody cannot STAND not to have his bio be under the name of Raleigh, even though most people know him by the other.

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh. Some people are so against using the name that modern historians use just because it was me who made the move. not someone more popular.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency I ought to suggest renaming the Boudica article back to the name most people know her by, Boadicea, and see what happens.

No, for the sake of consistancy, you should go change Joan of Arc to Jehanne Darc, since the first name is how the person herself spelled it, and the last is at least closer to how contemporaries would have spelled the family name, since there ware no apostrophes in 15th century French names and there certainly is no place called "Arc" for her to be "from." Good luck with that.

Is there no limit to your deliberate obtusnesss? Even the French wikipedia article doesn't call Joan of Arc "Jehanne Darc", as you can see here

So what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Joan_of_Arc

You are the complete idiot, a model for the rest.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[EricBarbour]

Rod apparently has some personal problems, and obviously shouldn't be an administrator, but then neither perhaps should I.

So, why do you keep logging in there and trying to hold back the tsunami of crap?
Or do you enjoy being stabbed in the back by furries and Wellbutrin-gobblers?

[Peter Damian]

The guy's name was Ralegh, he never used the spelling Raleigh.

I vote to change all the names that people are currently known by to the names they were actually known by. E.g. Aristotle should be known by the name as it was spelled in Ancient Greek (if the character set allows), and so on.

No, for the sake of consistancy, you should go change Joan of Arc to Jehanne Darc, since the first name is how the person herself spelled it, and the last is at least closer to how contemporaries would have spelled the family name, since there ware no apostrophes in 15th century French names and there certainly is no place called "Arc" for her to be "from." Good luck with that.

Oop sorry Milton got there before me. Agree.

Is there no limit to your deliberate obtusnesss? Even the French wikipedia article doesn't call Joan of Arc "Jehanne Darc", as you can see here

Ok, so it should be Walter Raleigh then. Right first time.

[Milton Roe]

Rod apparently has some personal problems, and obviously shouldn't be an administrator, but then neither perhaps should I.

So, why do you keep logging in there and trying to hold back the tsunami of crap?
Or do you enjoy being stabbed in the back by furries and Wellbutrin-gobblers?

Do you think that's what it is? Due to extreme irritability, people should not edit Wikipedia when taking Wellbutrin/Zyban or Chantix, when trying to stop smoking even without aid of drugs, when trying to lose weight, when sleep deprived, when reading news about congress, when suffering from alcohol withdrawal or hangover, or when experiencing severe PMS. I think that should be in the "Welcome to Wikipedia Templete." Didn't it used to be?

[Basil]

Rod unceremoniously stripped of power. Why can't I stop sniggering?

[Peter Damian]

Rod unceremoniously stripped of power. Why can't I stop sniggering?

This user has engaged in conduct unbecoming an administrator including: placing blocks and page protections when involved; engaging in personal attacks and incivility; as well as feuding and edit-warring.

I don't see any problem here.

ArbCom isn't meant to be a kangaroo court.

Again, what is the problem?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[powercorrupts]

The problem with off-wiki 'de-sysoping' is that supposing Wikipedia had a significant amount of good admin (a leap of imagination I know), it's not too hard to imagine a 'difficult' admin (ie a decent and fair-minded one) suddenly losing their status for reasons "too problematic to be dealt with in public", or some such line.

So much for this new arbcom.

If the typical way of desysoping is too inherently lengthy and dramatic - and it obviously is - why not adapt it (Iet alone make some universal changes to admin life status - ie take the civilized approach), or use some imagination and amend when it needs to be easier for clear-cut, pre-run and painful cases?

And if 'enough' bad-adminship has occurred from someone already, why does it take so long to get to this stage? Clearly because de-sysopping is not just meant to be a last resort (per the typically autocratic approach of Wikipedia), but is effectively meant to be almost impossible, as if (like paedophile priests etc) the wayward elite will 'at some point' be made to come to their senses.

De-sysopping offline is always going to look sleazy, esp given the secretive history of Wikipedia.

Let's be honest - the only real way of admin being desysopped as things stand is clearly behind the scenes, when things have got to (or are on the verge of) an intollerable level.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Peter Damian]

Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia --Scott Mac 12:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely about neither?

[Text]

Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia --Scott Mac

What are the administrators supposed to do then, if the ArbCom administrates? Are they just janitors and hard labor workers?

[Milton Roe]

Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia --Scott Mac

What are the administrators supposed to do then, if the ArbCom administrates? Are they just janitors and hard labor workers?

A corrections metaphor is better. Admins are prison guards. See "screws." Arbcom (the warden, parole board, prison board, judicial system, etc) is generally absent, and generally not in contact with the population.

Wikipedia occasionally attempts to make a trustee class, but nobody really trusts trustees. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Oh well at least everyone has got the pitchforks out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...r:Rodhullandemu . Drama has been sadly lacking this February.

Amen, Coren. Who the hell needs this "process" crap, anyway? When it's obvious that you're guilty, fuck being fair to a longterm contributor, to the gallows with him! The facts are indisputable here! I've never been a big fan of Rodhullandemu (or the Arbitration Committee, for that matter), but this whole thing is unprecedented and should be noted as another hop down looney lane.
There are a few extraordinary aspects to this, the first of which is the lengths to which the Arbitration Committee will go to try to justify its own behavior. "Well, you see, we wrote these 'temporary removal code red procedures' a few months ago without any community consensus or approval. And even though this isn't really temporary in any meaningful sense, these rules that nobody agreed to are totally applicable here, guys. Just think about it." When you look a bit deeper, you see the Arbitration Committee's collective bargaining power. "We can remove your rights and let you fight a case, or we can just remove your rights." That's, um, kind of like plea bargaining, if you do to that term what you all have done to the word "temporary."

Most importantly, however, it occurs to me that calling the Arbitration Committee a "kangaroo court" is no longer really applicable. A kangaroo court has hearings/trials/public debate generally; that's the whole point, isn't it? No, no, the Arbitration Committee has leapt forward now into new territory. We'll need to revise the terminology appropriately. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A tad hyperbolic, perhaps, but the essence is entirely true. Why is it that the Committee can simply decide without the posting of any evidence whatsoever that they are entirely right? It is as if you all learned nothing in the past two years. NW (Talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

That's much better, but they still said too much in the announcement. Once again, ArbCom, the proper phrasing is "After reviewing the statements of all involved parties and other evidence, the ArbCom has concluded that it is no longer in the best interests of the project that $ADMIN continue to serve as an administrator. Accordingly, $ADMIN is hereby relieved of those duties and privileges."

The ArbCom is the disciplinary committee of a voluntary society; it should behave as such. This is a step in the right direction, but still falls short of the mark.

All the people in this thread (and on the Wiki) demanding "more information" or "a more visible process" are just drama hounds and should be ignored as such; alternatively, they (the ones who are themselves Wikipedians, at least) should be disciplined themselves for failing to respect the privacy of their fellow members.

[Somey]

I'm confused - did they desysop both of them, or are they letting the emu stay on as an admin?

[Jack Merridew]

I'm confused - did they desysop both of them, or are they letting the emu stay on as an admin?

Methinks Rod would need another account, for that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Gold Hat

[Malleus]

I'm confused - did they desysop both of them, or are they letting the emu stay on as an admin?

They'd have a hard job desysopping me -- have to sysop me first.

[Jack Merridew]

I'm confused - did they desysop both of them, or are they letting the emu stay on as an admin?

They'd have a hard job desysopping me -- have to sysop me first.

Tehy desysoped Rod Hull *and* Emu.

[Peter Damian]

All the people in this thread (and on the Wiki) demanding "more information" or "a more visible process" are just drama hounds and should be ignored as such; alternatively, they (the ones who are themselves Wikipedians, at least) should be disciplined themselves for failing to respect the privacy of their fellow members.

That's not what they are complaining about.

[Milton Roe]

Oh well at least everyone has got the pitchforks out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...r:Rodhullandemu .

The most interesting thing to me about this thread was that they clearly gave Rodhull the opportunity to put down the tools "for personal reasons" in order to "save face" or else be fired publically. So, NOW we know what happened to Jayjg (or was it Jossi?). Anyway, one of those J people who resigned his sysop tools just before ArbCom was about to pubicly convict. I guess arbcom offers the traditional pistol-with-one-bullet for long-time officers, so they can do the honorable thing in private, before they take them to the firing squad. Of course, a few malcontents still have to get hanged at Tyburne, to provide an example to the Rabble.

Also, there's a such a thing as a level I desysopping, and a level II desysopping! So high tech. ArbCom is like Star Trek sometimes. Shields up, Mr. Crusher! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I suppose somebody will tell me what the difference is. Do they give you a super wedgie before sticking your head in the school toilet, for one of them?

[Peter Damian]

Also, there's a such a thing as a level I desysopping, and a level II desysopping!

As far as I can make sense of it (not much) the Level II can only be used for temporary desysop, not permanent, so it's some sort of violation of something. The reality is that everyone is taking their favourite side.

Hopefully there will be a resignation or two, and the the mighty Sandstein will be there to sort the Wiki out for good.

[Encyclopedist]

All the people in this thread (and on the Wiki) demanding "more information" or "a more visible process" are just drama hounds and should be ignored as such; alternatively, they (the ones who are themselves Wikipedians, at least) should be disciplined themselves for failing to respect the privacy of their fellow members.

That's not what they are complaining about.

They did NOT give me the opportunity to resign quietly; they (or Roger Davies on their behalf) put allegations to me and stated that desysop was being considered. I took that as an opportunity to defend my case, however strongly you may think that I could not have done so; however, there were more things in that email than are being discussed on-wiki, and it smells to me like "throw enough mud". You may not like me (and here, I don't really care), but at least I am entitled to a proper view of the evidence against me. This whole "secret cabal" is all-too typical of Wikipedia, and I am close to having had enough of it.

RH&E

[Zoloft]

All the people in this thread (and on the Wiki) demanding "more information" or "a more visible process" are just drama hounds and should be ignored as such; alternatively, they (the ones who are themselves Wikipedians, at least) should be disciplined themselves for failing to respect the privacy of their fellow members.

That's not what they are complaining about.

They did NOT give me the opportunity to resign quietly; they (or Roger Davies on their behalf) put allegations to me and stated that desysop was being considered. I took that as an opportunity to defend my case, however strongly you may think that I could not have done so; however, there were more things in that email than are being discussed on-wiki, and it smells to me like "throw enough mud". You may not like me (and here, I don't really care), but at least I am entitled to a proper view of the evidence against me. This whole "secret cabal" is all-too typical of Wikipedia, and I am close to having had enough of it.

RH&E

Some of the discussion on the Wikipedia side claims that your desysop was due to something you said to the arbs, was temporary until you explained what you said, and that you have not so far explained yourself. Hence the 'temporary' Level II bullshit.

Is any of that true, and if so, would you be willing to explain what you said to the Star Chamber Arbcom that ruffled their feathers?

Oh and speaking of feathers.
"*coos* Who's a pretty emu then?" *pets the emu under its neck*

[Milton Roe]

They did NOT give me the opportunity to resign quietly; they (or Roger Davies on their behalf) put allegations to me and stated that desysop was being considered. I took that as an opportunity to defend my case, however strongly you may think that I could not have done so; however, there were more things in that email than are being discussed on-wiki, and it smells to me like "throw enough mud". You may not like me (and here, I don't really care), but at least I am entitled to a proper view of the evidence against me. This whole "secret cabal" is all-too typical of Wikipedia, and I am close to having had enough of it.

RH&E

"Close"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Wecome to Wikipedia Review, Rodhull. This is the snide place where we put some stinging alcohol antiseptic on your scraped knee (ouch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) ) and ask you if you learned anything about the shark-infested feeding frenzy and videogame that you yourself helped perpetuate for sometime on WP. Before you became the baitball yourself. Yes? No? (Looks like "no." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

If "no" we give you the horselaugh and compare you to Robspierre.

Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

What goes around, comes around. What the hell did you expect? Due process? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[powercorrupts]

That's much better, but they still said too much in the announcement. Once again, ArbCom, the proper phrasing is "After reviewing the statements of all involved parties and other evidence, the ArbCom has concluded that it is no longer in the best interests of the project that $ADMIN continue to serve as an administrator. Accordingly, $ADMIN is hereby relieved of those duties and privileges."

The ArbCom is the disciplinary committee of a voluntary society; it should behave as such. This is a step in the right direction, but still falls short of the mark.

All the people in this thread (and on the Wiki) demanding "more information" or "a more visible process" are just drama hounds and should be ignored as such; alternatively, they (the ones who are themselves Wikipedians, at least) should be disciplined themselves for failing to respect the privacy of their fellow members.

Who actually is the true 'Wikipedian' here KM? Certainly with the tone you often take, I do myself get to feel a little, um, disciplined. Not exactly a pleasant feeling - esp when one completely disagrees.

[Kelly Martin]

Who actually is the true 'Wikipedian' here KM? Certainly with the tone you often take, I do myself get to feel a little, um, disciplined. Not exactly a pleasant feeling - esp when one completely disagrees.

I have no idea what you're talking about, dude. Public disciplinary proceedings are wrong for the same reason that incautiously maintained biographies of living people are wrong; if we're going to be serious about criticizing Wikipedia for blithely publishing defamatory content about living people we have to include the case where they do so with respect to one of their own. ArbCom rulings have, traditionally, been absolutely chock full of defamatory content regarding (presumably) living people often identified by real name, and for us to make an exception for such just because we dislike a lot of those people would make us just as bad as them.

[EricBarbour]

Also, there's a such a thing as a level I desysopping, and a level II desysopping! So high tech. ArbCom is like Star Trek sometimes. Shields up, Mr. Crusher! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

No, I'd call it a Little Boy's Club.

How typical, to throw a tantrum, take your toys and go home:

Have you/we gone collectively batshit crazy? I hear the very people who decry how much we are not a bureaucracy complain loudly that points of fucking process were not meticulously followed, and hollers for "natural justice" demanding that an editor be dragged publicly through the mud against their will! To what end?

"Dignity be dammed, we want our public spectacle!"

You disgust me. I'm taking a couple days' break. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's Arbcom. Can't talk your way out of a disaster? Run away, run away!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kelly Martin]

The truly sad thing about Coren's temper tantrum is that he's absolutely right; he just expressed his indignation in a particularly immature way.

On the other hand, his maturity level is pretty well matched to that of the mob baying at his door. It's a good thing for him that wikipitchforks are only virtual.

[powercorrupts]

Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia --Scott Mac

What are the administrators supposed to do then, if the ArbCom administrates? Are they just janitors and hard labor workers?

An 'administrator' is supposed to just cover the mop and bucket tasks, but obviously in reality they are asked to perform stressful and difficult tasks that are way beyond that pay bracket – so naturally they get the security and comfort of a 'job for life' as reward. It's fucked up on the job description level. Create more posts, I say – allow for some movement, and stop people from having any of them for life (Wales included).

'Arbitrations', in terms of its dictionary definition, means The settlement of a dispute or debate by an arbitrator; the process of arbitrating a dispute. (OED) Technically you can say arbcom have done that much here - as there has been plenty of on-wiki debate about this dispute, and also of RodHull's behaviour in general. But the problem is in the modern western world we all used to at least some level of accountability. Hard-won ideals that the high ranks of Wikipedia have time and again turned their noses up to, esp when they are constantly claiming that the very masses who are supposed to be building the encyclopedia (ultimately a big con in itself) are forever on the verge of being a potential 'mob', and thus cannot be trusted on all kinds of matters, like infiltrating the admin elite for example.

Is it me, or has Ellen of the Roads already given 2 differing reasons for RodHull's desysop – firstly that they had to remove the tools ASAP to stop immediate and damaging sysop abuse from happening (ie the 'protecting Wikipedia' line?), and then a bit later on, that it was in fact done to protect an ill man from being the victim of a circus (like this particular ill man minds about that!).

Should arbcom could reply here, they would no-doubt say a variation of the old line “damned if we do, damned if we don't”, but that would be a politician’s fudge: they just have no instinct about how to do these things properly. Look at the Orangemarlin case (which someone has said this reminds them of) – arbcom claimed to have learnt something by doing things off-wiki, but what happened there? They made a problematic editor effectively an 'untouchable', by allowing his fond admirer JPGordon to be his mentor! And OM (albeit ultimately self-destructive) simply carried on as he left off. Arbcom never seem to get it right because they are flawed people working in a muddled system in a rum old business.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[EricBarbour]

Anyone wanna place bets on how many arbs will quit over this episode?

And where the hell is the "mature" NYB in all this crap? Has he given up?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[powercorrupts]

Who actually is the true 'Wikipedian' here KM? Certainly with the tone you often take, I do myself get to feel a little, um, disciplined. Not exactly a pleasant feeling - esp when one completely disagrees.

I have no idea what you're talking about, dude. Public disciplinary proceedings are wrong for the same reason that incautiously maintained biographies of living people are wrong; if we're going to be serious about criticizing Wikipedia for blithely publishing defamatory content about living people we have to include the case where they do so with respect to one of their own. ArbCom rulings have, traditionally, been absolutely chock full of defamatory content regarding (presumably) living people often identified by real name, and for us to make an exception for such just because we dislike a lot of those people would make us just as bad as them.

Firstly try looking at your ever-strident language if you want to know what I'm talking about. Then ask yourself how you can you compare someone who doesn't want anything to do with blasted Wikipedia (ie a BLP victim) and 'one of its own'? And your argument is supported on a ridiculous structure - Wikipedia.

I'm no fan of the anonymous element of Wikpiedia, esp for admin and upwards. They'd simply behave more responsibly if they felt accountable at least to some degree. They are like an invisible self-replacing network of no-good people.

[powercorrupts]

The truly sad thing about Coren's temper tantrum is that he's absolutely right; he just expressed his indignation in a particularly immature way.

On the other hand, his maturity level is pretty well matched to that of the mob baying at his door. It's a good thing for him that wikipitchforks are only virtual.

It's the 'mob' again - forget what they say, you can just never trust them. I'll take an angry crowd over a languid shroud.

[RMHED]

It was always likely to end this way for Rod, especially as many of the current Arbcom are Malleus fans.

This of course this will change soon enough and it probably wont be too long before Malleus finds himself banned.

I think Malleus realises the inevitability of this, though it remains to be seen how he will react to it.

[EricBarbour]

It was always likely to end this way for Rod, especially as many of the current Arbcom are Malleus fans.
This of course this will change soon enough and it probably wont be too long before Malleus finds himself banned.

I know, I know. It's all vaudeville. There's no "encyclopedia" here.

[Kelly Martin]

Public show trials do not improve accountability; they just create added drama. Wikipedia's culture of pseudo-openness doesn't actually increase accountability; if anything it decreases it. And your contention is morally bankrupt: Wikipedians are, whether or not you like it, people too; many of them get involved without realizing the monstrosity of the beast they are dancing with until it is too late for them. The right not to be defamed is not available only to the purely innocent; if anything is is the vaguely guilty who need that right the most.

My language on this matter is "strident" because I know I'm right. You only call it strident because you are (like so many other both here and on Wikipedia) addicted to the drama, and like nothing so much more than to see one of the people you've decided you don't like get thrown under the drama bus, and if Wikipedia actually did as I (and so many others) recommend, you'd lose that visceral thrill.

The problem is that Wikipedia, by playing into that visceral thrill that so many of humanity's weaker-willed members indulge in so readily, has effectively prevented itself from developing effective disciplinary and supervisory processes. Instead of optimizing for maximum efficacy they have optimized for maximum drama, to the benefit only of those who want that drama and to the detriment of virtually everyone else.

[powercorrupts]

It was always likely to end this way for Rod, especially as many of the current Arbcom are Malleus fans.

This of course this will change soon enough and it probably wont be too long before Malleus finds himself banned.

I think Malleus realises the inevitability of this, though it remains to be seen how he will react to it.

He's too into the FA/GA tag-team thing - you can get away with quite a lot if you are into all that bollocks. They use those little gold medallions to impress their hapless benefactors - despite the fact that they are mostly chocolate-flavouring and covered in fluff.

Basically, he passes the grizzly smoking room "yesss, but is he good for the (mmmaaahhahahah) praaaah-ject" test.

[RMHED]

Public show trials do not improve accountability; they just create added drama. Wikipedia's culture of pseudo-openness doesn't actually increase accountability; if anything it decreases it. And your contention is morally bankrupt: Wikipedians are, whether or not you like it, people too; many of them get involved without realizing the monstrosity of the beast they are dancing with until it is too late for them. The right not to be defamed is not available only to the purely innocent; if anything is is the vaguely guilty who need that right the most.

My language on this matter is "strident" because I know I'm right. You only call it strident because you are (like so many other both here and on Wikipedia) addicted to the drama, and like nothing so much more than to see one of the people you've decided you don't like get thrown under the drama bus, and if Wikipedia actually did as I (and so many others) recommend, you'd lose that visceral thrill.

The problem is that Wikipedia, by playing into that visceral thrill that so many of humanity's weaker-willed members indulge in so readily, has effectively prevented itself from developing effective disciplinary and supervisory processes. Instead of optimizing for maximum efficacy they have optimized for maximum drama, to the benefit only of those who want that drama and to the detriment of virtually everyone else.

These regular drama fests serve a useful purpose, they're used as a distraction. The more time and energy the 'players' invest in the dramas, the less they have to look at things that matter, like the WMF Board's piss poor governance. The last thing the Foundation wants is the 'players' turning their attention toward anything important.

[powercorrupts]

My language on this matter is "strident" because I know I'm right. You only call it strident because you are (like so many other both here and on Wikipedia) addicted to the drama, and like nothing so much more than to see one of the people you've decided you don't like get thrown under the drama bus, and if Wikipedia actually did as I (and so many others) recommend, you'd lose that visceral thrill.

You have one hell of an ego going on there I have to say it. You lecture me (entirely missing the point) about Wikipedians "being people too" yet you bundle me in with your 'drama mob' cliche, purely for the sake of listening to yourself do it it would seem. Irony there perhaps? If that condescending and aloof attitude wasn't so often there I simply wouldn't be pointing it out. It's just not the kind of rhetoric people find appealing (ok, apart from maybe GBG and one or two others), though I doubt you care much.

As for your arguments, I simply can't see how they are connected to my own.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[powercorrupts]

These regular drama fests serve a useful purpose, they're used as a distraction. The more time and energy the 'players' invest in the dramas, the less they have to look at things that matter, like the WMF Board's piss poor governance. The last thing the Foundation wants is the 'players' turning their attention toward anything important.

I think they are happy if the general anger is blind of 'key' facts (or supposed key facts) - ie they've gamed their own system in some way, like using hidden decisions. They can rectify things when it's all blown over then. Another example is when favoured editors/admin retire in mock disgust at an accusation, and then return when the heat is off. Or when certain people are allowed vanish perhaps. The key is in various the elements of secrecy of course.

But I suppose the key players know that little can be changed done on Wikpedia regarding pretty much anything anyway, and that's just the way they like it. So yes, I doubt Jimbo (for example) has ever lost sleep over an angry anything on WP. Anything that truly changes WP will surely have to happen off-wiki in some way.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Milton Roe]

It was always likely to end this way for Rod, especially as many of the current Arbcom are Malleus fans.

This of course this will change soon enough and it probably wont be too long before Malleus finds himself banned.

I think Malleus realises the inevitability of this, though it remains to be seen how he will react to it.

Yes, the office is quiet for about a week after a witch is discovered, and at at last gets the pink slip. Then talk slowly begins to build against the next person to be eliminated. This game can be played forever so long as new hirings keep up.

BTW, it works the same way with clock-punchers. There's always a last guy that everybody knows is up to get laid off. And when he goes it doesn't take long to figure out the next one.

Yes, it's very much like Survivor and tossing people one-by-one off American Idol. Bruahahahah. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

You know, if WP keeps tightening its standards for RfA, one day there will be only Indians, and not enough chiefs even to fill Arbcom. They'll have to make up admin-sockpuppet accounts even to ban anybody who has any editing chops. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Everybody knows vandal-killing (blocking new SPAs) is no fun at the arena. You gotta have somebody who has learned to fight in gladiator school, defending some monstrous COI writing record, before it's even halfway interesting. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/jawdrop.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Public show trials do not improve accountability; they just create added drama.

What do you mean 'public show trial'? There are public trials, and there are show trials, which are by definition public. Why do most democracies insist on public trials? Or public 'hearings'?

[gomi]

Public show trials do not improve accountability; they just create added drama. Wikipedia's culture of pseudo-openness doesn't actually increase accountability; if anything it decreases it. ... The right not to be defamed is not available only to the purely innocent; if anything is is the vaguely guilty who need that right the most. .... The problem is that Wikipedia, by playing into that visceral thrill that so many of humanity's weaker-willed members indulge in so readily, has effectively prevented itself from developing effective disciplinary and supervisory processes.

Kelly, the problem here is one of framing: you describe Wikipedia as one might imagine a business, while it thinks of itself as a community. In a business, there is a clear hierarchy, "supervisory" and "disciplinary" functions are handled (usually) discreetly, and in general things are managed for the smooth functioning of the enterprise. Vindictiveness, "show trials", and whatnot are usually not called for.

In a "community", however, the power of the leaders nominally resides in the hands of the governed. In this case, "justice" is by must needs meted out openly, and the trials -- rigged or not -- must be open and appear to be fair. In this environment, the individual and his/her privacy are sacrificed to the greater good of showing that malfeasance is punished and justice is done.

The problem with Wikipedia, of course, is that it is a (criminal?) enterprise pretending it is an (autocratic?) community. Certain troublemakers need to be gotten rid of for the smooth functioning of the enterprise, and the best way to do this -- usually -- is quietly. However, every now and then there needs to be a giant display of jurisprudence, to convince the proletariat that the autocrats are on the up-and-up.

If Wikipedia wished to run itself like a business, then user pages and administrative pages would be closed to outsiders, all of Arbcom's proceedings would be private, as would almost all administrative decisions, and the hierarchy of admin decision-making would be made clear. On the other hand, if Wikipedia were a real community, then the admins would have term limits (or regular re-elections), the disciplinary process would be by jury (as you yourself have suggested), and the "product" would be secondary to the community process.

Clearly, an "encyclopedia" cannot be the second, which is why it is so puzzling that Wikipedia pretends to be so. Wikipedia runs on the genetic memory of its formation, which did require a mass collaboration. It doesn't know how to move on. But the autocratic mode has its own problems, rooted in the competence (or lack thereof) of the autocrats. If they are inconsistent, lackadaisical, or just plain stupid, it leads to discontent among the employees/volunteers/governed/proletariat, and even among the middle managers (like RH&E).

Why you are vociferous in this matter I do not know. We outsiders revel in the inconsistencies and hypocrisies or Wikipedia without wishing they were better. Drama is better for critics than competent and secret courts. Thus it should be unsurprising that -- all other things being equally fucked up -- we wish for drama.

[Gruntled]

The right not to be defamed is not available only to the purely innocent; if anything is is the vaguely guilty who need that right the most.

That sounds great in theory. However, the Internet isn't remotely like that in practice. Ask Jon Abrey, HK or almost anyone else who's done a bit of socking. All sorts of things get heaped on their heads that they never had anything to do with.

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly, the problem here is one of framing: you describe Wikipedia as one might imagine a business, while it thinks of itself as a community. In a business, there is a clear hierarchy, "supervisory" and "disciplinary" functions are handled (usually) discreetly, and in general things are managed for the smooth functioning of the enterprise. Vindictiveness, "show trials", and whatnot are usually not called for.

What I'm describing is a voluntary society, which is exactly the model that Wikipedia ought to be using. In a well-functioning voluntary society, disciplinary matters are also handled discreetly. Wikipedia is a voluntary society, although it is most certainly not a well-functioning one.

The problem that Wikipedia has is not that it's a community, but that it's a community with ill-defined boundaries, and thus has no way to ensure that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", as it were. One of the problems created by Wikipedia's lack of boundaries is that there is little or no collective responsibility for anything in the encyclopedia, or for the conduct of one's fellow editor.

Wikipedia needs to stop thinking of itself as a microstate in cyberspace. It's not, and acting as if it (and even outsiders treating as if it were) is, is a good deal of its problem, if for no other reason that it leads editors to talk about their relationship with other editors, with the project as a whole, and with the broader community in terms of rights instead of in terms of duties.

Why you are vociferous in this matter I do not know. We outsiders revel in the inconsistencies and hypocrisies or Wikipedia without wishing they were better. Drama is better for critics than competent and secret courts. Thus it should be unsurprising that -- all other things being equally fucked up -- we wish for drama.

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

[Abd]

Rodhullandemu, this is and becomes a general discussion, at great length, of the Wikipedia Problem and some possible solutions, using your case as a wedge into the topic. Welcome to Wikipedia Review, there are all kinds here, some who will cheerfully condemn you, some who will understand what you faced and sympathize. Wikipedia Review is normally not censored, you have to be really extreme here to be blocked. I'm sometimes dinged for the length of what I write, but nobody is forced to read any of it, except perhaps some hapless admins here may think it obligatory. To them I apologize, but if we want Wikipedia Review to be, on occasion, more than the local bar where people grouse and kibbitz and brawl a bit, deep review is necessary sometimes.

They did NOT give me the opportunity to resign quietly; they (or Roger Davies on their behalf) put allegations to me and stated that desysop was being considered. I took that as an opportunity to defend my case, however strongly you may think that I could not have done so; however, there were more things in that email than are being discussed on-wiki, and it smells to me like "throw enough mud". You may not like me (and here, I don't really care), but at least I am entitled to a proper view of the evidence against me. This whole "secret cabal" is all-too typical of Wikipedia, and I am close to having had enough of it.

RH&E

I know full well what it is like to be questioned by an arbitrator, to answer the questions openly, and to then be slapped for the answers by different arbitrators, to be sanctioned for having filed a successful case in the face of many users screaming, apparently because ArbComm must throw a bone to the dogs or else they will tear the place up.

Anyone who imagines that ArbComm or Wikipedia follows "due process" is dreaming. I'm not denying that some arbitrators try. They even succeed sometimes. But there is no guaranteed process, it is not predictable, and, very openly, there is no rule of law. There is arbitrary and effectively unappealable exercise of power by a group which makes decisions privately, and routinely, even when there is an open case.

It's an abusive system that grinds up and eats those who work within it. It evolved as such, because it served a superficial understanding of the purpose, to build an encyclopedia. The adhocracy rapidly created massive content, and even functioned -- and still functions -- to improve the content, but quite unreliably and extremely inefficiently. In societies functioning with deliberative democracy, minority opinion is heavily protected, it must be, or the societies becomes rigid and oppressive for all.

This would have been even more important for Wikipedia, because part of the basic mission was neutrality. There is only one objective measure of neutrality, consensus, that is, we can measure the relative neutrality of text by the degree to which it enjoys a judgment of fairness among a reviewing population, that is not pre-selected for its opinion on the topic.

Consensus as a snap judgment by a sample population is likely not to be deep, based on knowledge. There are organizations which depend on organizational unity, and they have developed true consensus process, and one thing that's known about this, and known well, is that finding deep consensus, which would represent an approach to maximized neutrality, takes lots of discussion often facilitated by those who are skilled at teasing out agreement. In functional organizations where the scale has become large (more than a handful of people discussing at a time), structures are set up whereby deep discussions take place on a small scale, with larger review only when needed.

ArbComm never understood its role as that of maximizing consensus; rather, it became, from the beginning, a body which would make decisions regarding behavior, judgments, executive decisions, though technically they are advisory. (It was a process error to give arbitrators administrative power over anything other than their own internal process, it would be like giving judges in law courts guns, and the power to execute.) ArbComm did not value those who worked to find consensus among disputants. This was something I was fairly successful at, where I wasn't personally involved. I was indef banned from this kind of activity, without there ever being a showing of harm done. Initially, the ban was ameliorated by allowing it on the permission of a mentor, and that was how it passed. I didn't oppose it, with that restriction. I thought it was fine! -- even though it was without basis in the case involved, where I was, in fact, a primary party, thus allowed to comment, etc. The bottom line was that a majority of arbitators didn't like Something about what Abd Did, and so were trying to find some way to prevent what they could not exactly specify, and, no surprise, this led to vast amounts of wikilawyering later, as admins made decisions based on what they imagined ArbComm was trying to do. Which often contradicted the sanction itself and the discussion that led to it....

However, then, the general mentorship provision failed, rejected by the opinion of some arbitrators that it would be useless, that mentorship doesn't work. Later, the clause itself was removed.

Fritzpoll offered to mentor me, when the clause was still in place. He was told that, as an arbitrator, he could not mentor. He wasn't told that publicly. ArbComm polices itself, internally and secretly. Fritzpoll was already recusing from any case involving me, as were the other arbitrators who understood what I was trying to do. So the problem with him mentoring was?

The problem was that Fritzpoll might have allowed what some arbitrators Did Not Like. For example, that I might file a process or case successfully showing defiant and blatant recusal failure, leading them to be forced, more or less, to desysop a popular admin. They, many of them, as with the WMF itself sometimes, are terrified that they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg, all that free admin labor. That's an illusion, because the real goose is being strangled out back, out of sight, and slowly. The real goose is the vast public, which is unruly and not trusted by much of the administrative core.

ArbComm is itself abusive, to its members, who find themselves caught in the system. Fritzpoll had told me, before he was elected, that he expected he'd be banned within months. That didn't happen, he simply resigned. He came to understand that the system was hopeless, and real life beckoned.

Rodhullandemu, I was struck by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Botched_move.2C_lacking_consensus this piece of evidence] cited by Elen of the Roads, supposedly showing cause to desysop you.

This was a report filed on AN/I, by you:

Would anyone care to take a look at recent moves here. I'm not getting involved, but an IP editor has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR on the same issue. I am about the notify the editor involved. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have argued for a much clearer recusal policy than what exists. My arguments were part of the reason I was banned. Too many words.

I proposed a policy for Wikiversity, it's been resisted, gutted by removing the provision for emergency action. Bottom line, what you did, Rodhullandemu, was precisely how an admin should proceed if possibly involved or not wishing to act while involved. You pointed to a situation, you did not accuse. Accusation was assumed, however, and then, apparently, what was assumed is being held against you. The report was not disruptive except as AN/I itself is disruptive.

(it was a complete mistake to ever allow debate on AN/I, AN/I should have been a pure emergency hotline, so to speak, a place to solicit a neutral admin to review a situation. There should only be allowed there the barest of reports, as a request for attention. Nobody should be allowed to argue that a situation should not require attention. Public emergency hotlines do not argue with a caller. Rather they dispatch an investigator or other emergency response. They would never decide on a sanction. If someone calls 911 many times, there are procedures for restraint, but those only kick in, usually, for totally egregious abuse, like false reports of fires.)

I debated recusal policy during the ArbComm case that sanctioned me. I was amazed to see established administrators, openly arguing before ArbComm that recusal requirements were wrong, stifling. ArbComm supposedly would examine the conduct of "all parties," which must mean, to make sense, all those who appear before it, presenting evidence and argument. But these admins openly defied ArbComm precedent and prior decisions. Given the arguments, they could be expected to violate recusal policy, and therefore should have been considered for temporary desysop until ArbComm was assured that they would not. But ArbComm has never managed to set up functional process for this. It does not, in fact, consider the behavior of all parties, and it tolerated, during my case, egregious abuse, including revert warring on case pages, on an attempt to add a party to a case, resisted by the main party to the case, quite obviously pursuing support from prior collusion, payback for a favor done, without a mention by any arbitrator.

The recusal policy I wrote provides for emergency action while involved. It considers that any admin with enough knowledge to understand a situation deeply may be the only one available to act, but, because of what it takes to obtain that knowledge, may be involved.

The policy provided that recusal requirements set in if there can be, to a reasonable person, an appearance of involvement. But recusal does not prohibit action. Rather it guides how action is taken.

If an admin expects that there might be an appearance of bias, the admin should "recuse." But if the admin expects that recusing would cause harm, the admin may "declare an emergency," which merely means possible harm from delaying action, and may act, but then should consult, request review, just as an involved admin, who restrains himself or herself from acting, may still request review of a situation, and probably in the same place. If an admin under a recusal requirement decides to protect a page, the admin would go to RfPP and request protection, and if the admin has already protected, the admin should request a confirmation or undoing of that action, by any uninvolved admin.

Doing this would normally protect the admin against charges of recusal failure. Repeated declaration of emergency combined with common undoing of the action as improper would then lead to an examination of the admin's competence to make judgments, and to possible restrictions, specific or general, up to removal of tools.

Those arguing against recusal never seemed to have understood the subtleties. They claimed that clearer recusal policy would be wikilawyered, but, in fact, as proposed, it would make wikilawyering quite hazardous to the would-be wikilawyer. I argued that recusal kicks in if a blocked editor claims bias. But recusal does not require that an admin undo any action, it limits or guides future action. By perhaps the third time that some editor screams "bias" with no evidence, the editor would be indeffed, with nobody willing to touch it.

Further, I've argued, what any admin can do, the same admin may undo, without being considered to be under a recusal requirement. So if an admin, assuming good faith, unblocks, and then finds reason to believe that there was, in fact, a likelihood of harm from allowing editing, the admin may (1) set limits for voluntary restriction of the editor, pending review, (2) block up to indef pending review. Even if the editor screams bloody murder when the admin tries to set restrictions.

What an admin could not do would be to block for a period, and then increase the period based on, say, incivility toward him or her by the blocked editor. That is not undoing a prior action, it is increasing it with a judgment that is now involved. This would fall under recusal restrictions, i.e., would require a request for immediate review, not merely allowing the editor to put up an unblock template.

(Probably, were this policy, clearly, there would be more of a tendency toward indef blocks. The first real block I experienced was indef, by Iridescent, and there was no harm from indef. I could see an argument for all blocks being indef, which would reduce argument over what length is appropriate. Iridescent wrote, about my block, "indef" as in "until reviewed," not as in "infinite." In reality, cool-down blocks are issued, and they should really be indef ... until the person cools down and writes, say, "Okay, I got a little hot there, I'll be careful....")

When Rodhullandemu was roundly criticized for filing a report that I'd consider it his duty to file, unless he were under specific sanctions prohibiting that (which would probably be unwise in themselves), he responded:

It has nothing to do with that. I'm trying to avoid Malleus, but when he does something like that, I consider it my duty to request fresh eyes lest I be accused of the very thing of which you accuse me. Unhelpful and perhaps unworthy. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The response he got was "just plain malarkey," from SandyGeorgia.

None of this should be happening on AN/I. Allowing debate there is practically demanding disruption and tendentious argument and incivility.

However, even discussing this on-wiki has become practically impossible. Structure creates people who are familiar with the structure and who know, or imagine that they know, how to manipulate it. Once established, structure preserves itself through these mechanisms.

Continuing the defense which should have been unnecessary, on the face,

Kindly do not accuse me of knowing things I do not know anything of. I do not go to FAC, nor am I aware of any discussion of ODNB there. I saw an undiscussed move, lacking Talk page consensus, in the middle of an edit-war on the very same issue. No matter whom the parties, that did not look good to me, and furthermore, to accuse me of "shopping" is disingenuous when I tried to distance myself from reverting Malleus directly and brought it here for "fresh eyes". Rodhullandemu 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So far, I've quoted everything from Rodhullandemu in that report. He made a neutral request for "fresh eyes," as he claims. He was attacked based on assumptions of bad faith. He defended himself civilly, though he's getting a bit hot, with "disengenuous." That's very mild, by Wikipedia standards, given that, indeed, he was being unfairly attacked. For doing what, given his opinion, he was required by care for the project to do. There is nothing disruptive about asking for review of a situation, done in the manner he did it. Unless we want to think that Malleus is above review, that any independent observation is hazardous to the project.

In a functional AN/I, Rodhullandemu would have made the report, and a neutral admin (or as neutral as possible given such a "high-level" dispute, i.e., with the popularity of Malleus) would have "taken the case," i.e, immediately responded on AN/I, promising to investigate and act or report. That admin might question Rodhullandemu further if necessary. Might have questioned Malleus. If an offense were obvious and clear, and not requiring warning before block, he or she might have blocked as appropriate. The admin would report back on action taken, which might include stating a judgment of no action required. And that would be it. AN/I should never become a trial of the parties. With an AN/I like that, with clearly stated rules and actual enforcement of them, with warnings and blocks if needed for abuse of the report page, we'd see many more administrators who actually watch the page. I know that whenever I've had AN/I on my watchlist, it overwhelms it. The function has been lost in the noise.

RfPP operates more like this. It can be gamed, I've seen that, and there is little followup on the gaming, which is an error. But whenever I've needed page protection, I've been able to go there and get it, quickly. Thus, to that extent, I don't need the tool for page protection!

Eventually, Rodhullandemu has been baited into debating the alleged problem behavior itself.

I'm not happy with the concept of "consent by silence" in law, but the article had persisted for six months in its present form. The Talk page shows some discussion but no consensus for a change of title. Furthermore, if you're going to move an article, you should at least change all references in the article from "Raleigh" to "Ralegh", except those that impact upon image names and references; that wasn't done, hence the "botched" in the title of this thread. Now, making major changes implies a responsibility to follow it through, and even perhaps include in the lead, text such as "rendered by modern writers as Raleigh". But that didn't happen. If you're going to do a job, at least do a proper job. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

He is now disclosing the thinking behind his report. With a functional AN/I, when an admin "takes the case," he might make that argument on the admin's talk page. The admin would accept or reject it, presumably stating reasons. What became a time-waster for many, the AN/I report, becomes a small-scale discussion, "wasting the time" of few. The admin may regulate behavior on his or her own talk page, may ask intervenors to bug off. I've made comments on the Talk pages of admins considering a situation, and have been asked to bug off. It's fully within the ordinary discretion of any editor what discussion they will allow on their Talk page. The admin may only have so much time, and simply wants to keep it simple, to deal with the 'case' that has been accepted.

From the discussion, reported completely as to what happened on AN/I so far, there was a "Proposed Interaction Ban." It degenerated from there.

Instead of addressing the structural problem, ArbComm shot the messenger.

Rodhullandemu, you are experiencing the very dirty underbelly of the monster you fed with so much labor, for so long. You have obviously noticed problems before, but, my guess, it seemed to you that they were manageable, or you'd have retired before this. Some here on Wikipedia Review are claiming that you are simply getting what you deserved. I don't agree. I think you were sucked in by a system that provided you, for a time, with rewards, as it was designed to do. Your responses are normal, human responses. There may be some justice involved here, and I have no opinion as to your performance as a sysop. My guess, though, sometimes you were part of the mob with the pitchforks. Or, almost as much of a problem, you stood off, allowing the lynchings to occur.

There are few editors who would investigate cases where they were not involved, the structure provides practically no incentive for it, and, indeed, punishes it. I investigated JzG's abusive blacklisting of the major library of papers on cold fusion, which hosts them, typically preprint copies allowed by publishers, for free access, as well as being a complete bibliography on the subject. I was neutral or even skeptical on the topic. My investigation led me to much learning and changed my opinion. As an editor dedicated to the neutrality of the project, to NPOV, to the policies and guidelines, and acting to "enforce," through simple editing, ArbComm's own decisions on fringe science, as well as what was clear about recusal policy, I started editing the article, only a little at first, and carefully.

Because I did not do this "perfectly," in the eyes of some, I was sanctioned and prevented from ever again investigating a conflict where I was not an "originating party."

Before filing the first major action in the case, I was warning, by Durova -- who co-certified the RfC -- that I would be banned from Cold fusion, that would be the backlash. She was ultimately correct, she understood the politics of Wikipedia. That judgment had nothing to do with tendentious editing there, only that I would be perceived as being a POV-pusher, because wasn't that was JzG was resisting?

Now, ArbComm, any committee, can make mistakes. What led me to effectively retire, however, was not ArbComm itself, but the lack of review and response by the rest of the community. At one time, when I'd post something controversial, I could normally find either majority support or, at least, about one-third support. When I filed RfC/JzG 3, about one-third of editors supported the filing, which was, in fact, crystal clear, an arbitrator later entered the bulk of the evidence, simply gathering it independently. About two-thirds were highly involved editors as to POV on fringe science, often having opposed ArbComm's rulings on it before, instead of noting that, er, JzG seemed to have gone beyond limits, as ArbComm later confirmed, screamed that I should be banned.

Consider that. There can appear to be a two-thirds consensus in the kinds of discussions that Wikipedia fosters, with ad-hoc participation, that is blatantly contradictory to policies, guidelines, and precedent, as well as simply fairness.

The only way to handle this trend and possibility is conscious escalation to broader discussions, where neutral editors become involved. And when the processes have been so corrupted that only the most insane will even watch them.... you have Wikipedia as we know it. And getting worse, steadily. With no restraining forces. ArbComm certainly isn't doing it.

And the general sanity of neutral editors commenting in discussions where I was involved disappeared. They stopped commenting. When I looked at those who had commented before, most of them had retired. The stable base of those who understood how the project should supposedly function was disappearing.

There are many remedies short of desysopping, but ArbComm has not explored them. I suggested to ArbComm, in every case where I was involved in a desysopping case, that they "suspend" the use of admin tools until they are assured that the likelihood of future problems will be low.

The simplest suspension would be to order that the admin not use tools in some area, with respect to some person, or otherwise as necessary to prevent a repetition of problems, pending their acceptance of assurances from the admin. Voluntary compliance assumed and expected, with enforcement by actual desysop only if needed.

In fact, though, they have found recusal violations, have "reprimanded" or "admonished" the admin, who was defiant, who never acknowledged any error at all, who therefore was not assuring them in the least that there would be no repetition, but they did not act even to suspend.

All or nothing is bad policy. My guess is that Rodhullandemu was baited into expressing a very strong position about Malleus, baited by ArbComm. Who then sanctioned him for his position, not necessarily for his actual behavior. (But I have not reviewed actual behavior, beyond the first item cited by Elen of the Roads, I did not read the second.)

Rod, I highly recommend that you request an open case, and that you avoid, in that case, accusations against Malleus. Malleus should be irrelevant, and all that is needed, as far as what was in the AN/I filing I've covered, would be that you had reason to think there was a problem. The content issue is basically irrelevant, you could be dead wrong on the content issue, and I think you might be, but if you conducted yourself consistently with the proper restraint that should be expected from administrators, filing an AN/I report like that is within the reasonable discretion of an editor.

Except for the reality that AN/I functions like a mob, making or attempting to make the kinds of decisions that should be reserved for much more careful process, like RfC as to voluntary compliance and RfAr as to formal decision.

It would be easy for me to conclude that the underlying issue was a content issue, not a behavioral one, but that would require a detailed examination of the evidence. Given that you did not assert clear evidence, at the beginning, all we can get from your AN/I filing is that you thought there might be a behavioral issue.

Again, in a filing, you could defend that view. I.e., the reasonableness of your perception, not it's truth, necessarily.

I do not recommend being attached to maintaining admin privileges. Wikipedia is not fair, and expecting fairness is rather foolish. But we never know where a case might lead, and sometimes structural changes that do represent small improvements do fall out of them. Maybe someday we will all get lucky, and a real change will come about that's deeper. I think there are some "good arbs." I'd encourage them to speak out, to not accept the argument that it is good for the project if they keep quiet to maintain an appearance of unity. False appearances do not improve the project, they paper over and prevent or postpone the resolution of real and deep disputes. Maintaining collegiality, good. Pretending agreement, not.

None of this is a specific judgment on what ArbComm actually decided, in private. There can be reasons for private decisions, but they have become, in fact, the norm, as far as I can see, that is, there are many decisions which are negotiated in private, based on private arguments. That should be a rare exception.

Any editor should be allowed to request (or accept) private consideration of sanctions. However, any change in sanctions based on private discussion, where others may be affected, should be announced before becoming effective, with others allowed to make comments, also private, for the consideration of ArbComm. And with editors who so comment being themselves held responsible for what they write.

There are very good reasons for having due process and clear regulations. It's for predictability. If every decision is ad-hoc, what is proper and allowed becomes muddy and unpredictable. The principle of public policy requires that no law be utterly fixed, (IAR is common law) but public policy also suggests predictability as a high value for the public welfare.

I found a situation where guidelines suggested that certain kinds of articles would be deleted for lack of independent sources, when this was really an application of general principles that did not apply in a certain situation. The exception was clear and had a clear basis. I tried to edit the guideline to cover the exception, and this was resisted, apparently because it was believed that, in some unspecified circumstances, people would try to wikilawyer it. But deletion decisions are not made by robots, they are made as the result of adversarial discussions at AfD. In fact, out of 18 or so AfDs covered by this issue, 17 closed as Keep and 1 closed as delete, idiosyncratically, the evidence was almost exactly the same. The nominations cited the guideline, the nominators were, in good faith, applying the guideline. So they were being led to waste the time of the community through the lack of what others thought would be excessive detail in guidelines. A great example of how the community repeatedly shoots itself in the foot by not valuing editor labor.

A sane community would develop and maintain (which means change as found to improve them) guidelines for all behavioral and content issues that lead to disputes. The "manual" would become more and more detailed, so more and more work would, indeed, go into making the manual clear and easy to use, with reliable results. The complete encyclopedia would include clear guidance on how to develop and maintain it, efficiently. Yes, that involves work, but ad hoc editing wouldn't be disallowed, and someone who violates the now-more-detailed manual guidelines would simply be pointed to them.

And if they disagree with the manual, they would then be pointed to the discussion of the relevant manual section, it would not be necessary to repeat all the arguments. And if they found that discussion incomplete, the guidelines would be clear as to how to efficiently, with minimum time-wasting, question the guidelines or make new suggestions that would make the matter even more clear and reliable.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

What I'm describing is a voluntary society, which is exactly the model that Wikipedia ought to be using.

Is that the same as an 'intentional community'? A well study sociological form.

Let us just accept that we are all, sub-consciously at least, the masters and mistresses of our own self-distructing destinies.

Welcome, Rodhullandemu, to the other side.

Please note, you have now suffered Wiki-death and are dead.

It is time for you to go to the light.

Do not be afraid.

Just let that final breath go, and pass over gently to a better life. Soon the old world and old way of life will be nothing than flitting shadows at the back of the cave.

I always thought you were a bit of a perineum really. That is, half way between a .... and an ....... . The funny thing is, I no longer remember why or about what it was about. Your fake identity trying to teach my fake identities some kind of lesson or another, stomping all over areas which you knew nothing about. Strange to think you spent hours of your life over weeks doing so now.

It is like that here. One day merges into the next. It is very pleasant, you know. You'll soon give up that addiction for the bitterness and adrenalin, and you'll learn just to love and laugh again. We all forget sooner than we forgive and then there is no need to because one cannot remember what it was one was not forgetting.

Imagine carrying all that around inside you all the time ... how did we ever do so.

Please, just let it go ... just let it go ...

[Peter Damian]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

[RMHED]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

[Kelly Martin]

What I'm describing is a voluntary society, which is exactly the model that Wikipedia ought to be using.

Is that the same as an 'intentional community'? A well study sociological form.

The concept of "intentional community" has implications that go beyond that of a voluntary society; intentional communities normally involve physical proximity and a commitment of a greater proportion of personal resources and time to the common goal of the intentional community. From what I've read on this, I'd say that intentional communities are a special case of voluntary societies. Most of the sociological work I've seen on intentional communities involves communities where the members are interdependent on one another for fundamental needs.

Both differ from conventional communities in that membership is normally the result of a fully conscious, voluntary choice, and that one has the free choice to withdraw from the society or community, with the only consequence of such withdrawal being the possible loss of access to the society's shared resources (including possibly any personal resources pledged to the society's interest) going forward. Intentional communities may begin to exercise effective terrestrial jurisdiction (because of the proximity of the members, the significant gathering of material resources, and the likelihood that members may be or become dependent on the community for fundamental needs) and thus can begin to cross the line into becoming governments, especially when they become generational. Voluntary societies that do not serve the fundamental needs of their members (which Wikipedia does not) typically will not evolve in this manner.

[powercorrupts]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

He's no wiki hero though is he.

Apart from a few other Jimpage gimps like Off2riorob and NickMcNee, nobody is protesting in support of a great administrator - people are angry and disappointed with the new arbcom in action, and generally critical of the man.

RH was such a visibly flawed/suffering admin that the end (whenever it happened) was clearly nigh for him. Surely nobody genuine would really want him to keep hold of the tools, as much as anything for his own good. He's had them for so long partly out of sympathy - and how can that be good for anyone? It was just a question of how to ease them off him – ie how arbcom would do it. They knew he was a vociferous drama queen, so they tried to fast track it - typically without considering how it would look. But honestly, Wikipedia is stuffed full of drama queens (KM is right about that at least), and all they can do to improve that situation is make WP a better place, where there is a great deal less for people to be dramatic about. But they are just not interested in making changes for the better of course, or do anything that will compromise their positions, or make the encyclopedia a less malleable and half-baked entity as they need it always to be.

The jiucy question for WR is how easily will RH remove his tongue from Jimbo's arse now that he doesn't have all the power he was rewarded for his support?

Maybe this place will suite him just fine.

[Milton Roe]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

[SB_Johnny]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

The full colon tends to be a sign that shit is about to happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Perhaps I'm in the minority here in that I don't care if Wikipedia's processes are "fucked up". My problem is that they don't work: they do not provide organizational governance sufficient to ensure that Wikipedia conducts itself collectively in a socially responsible way. I don't care if they're despotic tyrants internally; if that's what it would take to ensure that Wikipedia behaves in a socially responsible way, so be it.

Part of the reason I think so many people think that it's wrong for Wikipedia to be "unfair" in its internal processes is that they believe they have a right to use Wikipedia as a publisher, and that further they have a right to not have that right infringed arbitrarily. None of this is consistent with Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia, or with Wikipedia's stated mission.

To a degree, this also reflects the rise in the predominance of the language of rights, and not the language of duties, in the discussion of social relations since the middle of the 1980s. Viva libertarianism!

[Milton Roe]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

The full colon tends to be a sign that shit is about to happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Indeed! Too bad they can't put that in Strunk and White.

[chrisoff]

Part of the reason I think so many people think that it's wrong for Wikipedia to be "unfair" in its internal processes is that they believe they have a right to use Wikipedia as a publisher, and that further they have a right to not have that right infringed arbitrarily. None of this is consistent with Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia, or with Wikipedia's stated mission.

Exactly:I want to publish my stuff my way and have my opinions be right!

[RMHED]

Perhaps I'm in the minority here in that I don't care if Wikipedia's processes are "fucked up". My problem is that they don't work: they do not provide organizational governance sufficient to ensure that Wikipedia conducts itself collectively in a socially responsible way. I don't care if they're despotic tyrants internally; if that's what it would take to ensure that Wikipedia behaves in a socially responsible way, so be it.

Part of the reason I think so many people think that it's wrong for Wikipedia to be "unfair" in its internal processes is that they believe they have a right to use Wikipedia as a publisher, and that further they have a right to not have that right infringed arbitrarily. None of this is consistent with Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia, or with Wikipedia's stated mission.

To a degree, this also reflects the rise in the predominance of the language of rights, and not the language of duties, in the discussion of social relations since the middle of the 1980s. Viva libertarianism!

Now that's the sort of hippy kaftan clad, woolly Liberalism that means Jack Shit.

[SB_Johnny]

To a degree, this also reflects the rise in the predominance of the language of rights, and not the language of duties, in the discussion of social relations since the middle of the 1980s. Viva libertarianism!

Indeed. I think that's also part of the problem with WP-styled "consensus"... in real voluntary communities, there's the duty to concede the point and move on if you actually want to get done any of the things you volunteered to help do. What they tend to have instead is long-winded debates between hardened positions, and the folks in the minority never drop it.

[Milton Roe]

To a degree, this also reflects the rise in the predominance of the language of rights, and not the language of duties, in the discussion of social relations since the middle of the 1980s. Viva libertarianism!

Indeed. I think that's also part of the problem with WP-styled "consensus"... in real voluntary communities, there's the duty to concede the point and move on if you actually want to get done any of the things you volunteered to help do. What they tend to have instead is long-winded debates between hardened positions, and the folks in the minority never drop it.

You've probably put your finger on one of the reasons why volunteering is pretty rare in fully libertarian communities. Anarcho libertarians are big on the idea that only the owners properly make the rules, which leads inevitably to the demand that those who do the labor will be wanting a piece of ownership, or cut of the action, a.k.a anarcho-syndicalism.

Jimbo's idea of libertarianism is that you do your labor for WMF for free, after which the WMF is then free in the libertarian way to control it, or apply any rule to it, that they please. IOW, it's socialist when it comes to production, then libertarian when it comes to ownership.

WMF is quite willing to play both ends when it suits them in other ways. They're quite willing to put their foot down and say "You'll do what we say or else because we own the site," and at the same time say, "We have no responsibility at all for the site because it's run by volunteers and it's a public charity." It terms of maximal control per unit of responisibility it takes corporatism yet one step further.

[Kelly Martin]

Jimbo's idea of libertarianism is that you do your labor for WMF for free, after which the WMFis then free in the libertarian way to control it, or apply any rule to it, that they please. IOW, it's socialist when it comes to production, then libertarian when it comes to ownership.

What's especially interesting about this is that the producers don't seem to mind this at all! History is replete with examples of intentional communities based on a socialist model of resource production (years ago I wrote a paper on the one in New Harmony, Indiana from the early 1800s) that fell apart because of the misappropriation (real or perceived) of the communally produced goods by the community leadership. Wikipedia has shown little sign of that. I suspect that this is largely because most of the people contributing to Wikipedia are doing so because they simply don't care about who owns their product or what happens to it after they produce it.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

Magnificent post (seriously), except for the possessive "it's".

(I overuse both the dash and the semi-colon, and underuse the period, but I prefer the colon in this instance.)

[Newyorkbrad]

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

That assumes that I don't, to a significant extent, agree with you. To be sure, I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but some of it certainly have merit.

Some of my hardest work as an arbitrator and administrator has been in resolving situations behind the scenes, which I believed would become public spectacles and cause significant harm if they played out on-wiki. I know a number of the other arbs spend time doing the same thing. There are a number of reasons for the drastic fall-off in the number of arbitration cases from 2007 to today, but matters being worked out quietly rather than dragged through weeks-long arbitration spectacles is one of them.

For years I've expressed concerns about the way we treat sanctioned editors, including blocked and banned users, especially those who edit under their real names. I've done my best to mitigate the side effects in some instances (though I've been overruled in others). I've proposed a number of times both in formal decisions and otherwise that we work to minimize unnecessary publicity about editors who get involved in disputes or in arbitration cases.

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia") that you used to scold me for constantly, but let's not digress onto that right now.

One issue, though, is that most editors who become parties to arbitrated disputes wantto have a public on-wiki discussion. If we wrote to a "typical" party to an ArbCom case or even an ANI discussion, and offered him or her the choice of "we can either discuss this and come to a decision on-wiki, or we can discuss it with you by e-mail and let you know what we decide," what sorts of responses do you think we'd get? To be clear, I don't say this is a dispositive point, but it is at least a relevant one.

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad:

[EricBarbour]

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia") that you used to scold me for constantly, but let's not digress onto that right now.

Yeah, let's not. Instead, let's wonder why you are here, trying to explain why you prefer "working out quietly" disputes, and "respecting" your contributors, when they are clearly not interested in participating in a "civil" online society, nor in "respecting" each other, or even you and the rest of Arbcom.

If you really cared, you would either quit, and start publicly criticizing Jimbo and His Gang for running a deeply flawed society; or you would go back in there and get the rules changed, so the "encyclopedia" will start operating more like an encyclopedia.

[Milton Roe]

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

Magnificent post (seriously), except for the possessive "it's".

"It's" is programmed into my cerebellum so I autotype it even while I know better. Or possibly my fingers have independently decided to irritate Kohs whenever they can. Bad fingers! Bad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[radek]

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

That assumes that I don't, to a significant extent, agree with you. To be sure, I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but some of it certainly have merit.

Some of my hardest work as an arbitrator and administrator has been in resolving situations behind the scenes, which I believed would become public spectacles and cause significant harm if they played out on-wiki. I know a number of the other arbs spend time doing the same thing. There are a number of reasons for the drastic fall-off in the number of arbitration cases from 2007 to today, but matters being worked out quietly rather than dragged through weeks-long arbitration spectacles is one of them.

For years I've expressed concerns about the way we treat sanctioned editors, including blocked and banned users, especially those who edit under their real names. I've done my best to mitigate the side effects in some instances (though I've been overruled in others). I've proposed a number of times both in formal decisions and otherwise that we work to minimize unnecessary publicity about editors who get involved in disputes or in arbitration cases.

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia") that you used to scold me for constantly, but let's not digress onto that right now.

One issue, though, is that most editors who become parties to arbitrated disputes wantto have a public on-wiki discussion. If we wrote to a "typical" party to an ArbCom case or even an ANI discussion, and offered him or her the choice of "we can either discuss this and come to a decision on-wiki, or we can discuss it with you by e-mail and let you know what we decide," what sorts of responses do you think we'd get? To be clear, I don't say this is a dispositive point, but it is at least a relevant one.

In the EEML case at least, I think most of the "subjects" would have been quite happy with the "discuss this privately through e-mail and make the decision off wiki" way of doing things, even if it had meant more stringent sanctions at the end of the day. I can't really speak for other former members of the list but I personally would have much preferred that option. And I'd probably be less bitter, even if the final decision made by the ArbCom had been more ban-hammery on wiki - it would have saved me, (and others) from some serious off-wiki harassment - than I actually was at the end of the case.

So in one case where these kinds of concerns were a central issue, and where the participants would have probably been willing to go the route suggested by NYBrad... the offer wasn't on the table.

[chrisoff]

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia")

Isn 't this attitude the problem? Is Newyorkbrad a social worker or something? The encyclopedia is just the excuse for a massive dysfunctional social game ostensibly to "help" humanity, is that it?

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Milton Roe]

In the EEML case at least, I think most of the "subjects" would have been quite happy with the "discuss this privately through e-mail and make the decision off wiki" way of doing things, even if it had meant more stringent sanctions at the end of the day. I can't really speak for other former members of the list but I personally would have much preferred that option. And I'd probably be less bitter, even if the final decision made by the ArbCom had been more ban-hammery on wiki - it would have saved me, (and others) from some serious off-wiki harassment - than I actually was at the end of the case.

So in one case where these kinds of concerns were a central issue, and where the participants would have probably been willing to go the route suggested by NYBrad... the offer wasn't on the table.

Because having the Admin tools amounts to being a Knight-Lord and riding a High Horse on WP, it makes it considerably more difficult to do the natural thing in a lot of these cases, which is not a ban a person, or a desysop a person till they manage to make it though another RfA (not likely)-- but simply a timed loss of the tools. For, say, 3 months or 6, in order to remind somebody what it's like to just edit again for editing sake. I believe (correct if wrong) that the Arb finally did that kind of thing to SlimVirgin, since it was understood that once deprived her tools she'd made so many enemies that passing another RfA would be WP:SNOBALL.

If the admin functions were easier to get and easier to lose temporarily, rather like a uniformed officer putting on and taking off a uniform every day (except you don't get to carry any more concealed weaponry than Joe Citizen while in off-duty, nor have any more arrest powers), Wikipedia would work somewhat more smoothly. You might find that long time editors could be given admin functions on a brevet or pro-tem or intern basis, and you'd get a much better crowd than with all the RfA drama. At the same time if somebody was getting to be a little powerhappy and find themselves doing nothing but arguing and swatting lower editors all day, without remembering how to write content, one could remind them by giving them a timed-rest or time-out or time in the corner. If you will, psychiatric leave from carrying the badge. Paid leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

But this has been all fucked up and gamed, and now we can't do it. So feelings are hurt and people get all psychologically scarred about being booted off the force and not being part of the thin blue line anymore. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) And all that just happened on its own, without even a Stanford Prison Experiment design to make it all go. In retrospect, pretty stupid.

And now that it's going, how are you going to fix it? The only people with the power to change policy THAT much, are the WMF board, and they either don't care, or are too far from the problem. ArbCom is close enough, but even ArbCom couldn't make systematic changes this large. Nor, at this point, could Jimbo.

So, way to go, Bozos! You, the Communiteh of administrators.

[Milton Roe]

If you really cared, you would either quit, and start publicly criticizing Jimbo and His Gang for running a deeply flawed society; or you would go back in there and get the rules changed, so the "encyclopedia" will start operating more like an encyclopedia.

Would need to be done at the WMF board level. At the encyclopedia level you can't even get the WP skin to show "redlinks" for the average user in some other color (anything but red). That's how bad the inertia is by now in 2011.

We probably differ in how important the "side effect" encyclopedia being produced here, is. Given Google, it's very important what it looks like and what's in it. It's sort of like the stock market-- 99% of it is pure lotto with a little blackjack thrown in for interest. The other 1% is what raises the big capital funds that drive our economy! As a side effect, as it were. But not one we'd dare lose.

[powercorrupts]

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

That assumes that I don't, to a significant extent, agree with you. To be sure, I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but some of it certainly have merit.

Some of my hardest work as an arbitrator and administrator has been in resolving situations behind the scenes, which I believed would become public spectacles and cause significant harm if they played out on-wiki. I know a number of the other arbs spend time doing the same thing. There are a number of reasons for the drastic fall-off in the number of arbitration cases from 2007 to today, but matters being worked out quietly rather than dragged through weeks-long arbitration spectacles is one of them.

For years I've expressed concerns about the way we treat sanctioned editors, including blocked and banned users, especially those who edit under their real names. I've done my best to mitigate the side effects in some instances (though I've been overruled in others). I've proposed a number of times both in formal decisions and otherwise that we work to minimize unnecessary publicity about editors who get involved in disputes or in arbitration cases.

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia") that you used to scold me for constantly, but let's not digress onto that right now.

One issue, though, is that most editors who become parties to arbitrated disputes wantto have a public on-wiki discussion. If we wrote to a "typical" party to an ArbCom case or even an ANI discussion, and offered him or her the choice of "we can either discuss this and come to a decision on-wiki, or we can discuss it with you by e-mail and let you know what we decide," what sorts of responses do you think we'd get? To be clear, I don't say this is a dispositive point, but it is at least a relevant one.

I'm not one for icons, but I need three of this little green one to express the feeling of nausea I honestly felt when I read most of that. :sick :sick :sick.

You understand editors are real people - wow! I find you fully disingenuous. And clearly "dispositive" is some kind of Freudian management language on Wikipedia, a kind of euphemism for a little slipping-out of guilt.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[powercorrupts]

"It's" is programmed into my cerebellum so I autotype it even while I know better. Or possibly my fingers have independently decided to irritate Kohs whenever they can. Bad fingers! Bad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Your fingers have my respect! You are lucky the Kohser (and SBJohnny for that matter) aren't here, you'd be at risk of getting your slips up in bold. Everyone messes up "it's" in this form every once in a while, it's a classic spelling slip, like spelling semi-phonetically when you are extremely pissed off.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[radek]

In the EEML case at least, I think most of the "subjects" would have been quite happy with the "discuss this privately through e-mail and make the decision off wiki" way of doing things, even if it had meant more stringent sanctions at the end of the day. I can't really speak for other former members of the list but I personally would have much preferred that option. And I'd probably be less bitter, even if the final decision made by the ArbCom had been more ban-hammery on wiki - it would have saved me, (and others) from some serious off-wiki harassment - than I actually was at the end of the case.

So in one case where these kinds of concerns were a central issue, and where the participants would have probably been willing to go the route suggested by NYBrad... the offer wasn't on the table.

Because having the Admin tools amounts to being a Knight-Lord and riding a High Horse on WP, it makes it considerably more difficult to do the natural thing in a lot of these cases, which is not a ban a person, or a desysop a person till they manage to make it though another RfA (not likely)-- but simply a timed loss of the tools. For, say, 3 months or 6, in order to remind somebody what it's like to just edit again for editing sake. I believe (correct if wrong) that the Arb finally did that kind of thing to SlimVirgin, since it was understood that once deprived her tools she'd made so many enemies that passing another RfA would be WP:SNOBALL.

If the admin functions were easier to get and easier to lose temporarily, rather like a uniformed officer putting on and taking off a uniform every day (except you don't get to carry any more concealed weaponry than Joe Citizen while in off-duty, nor have any more arrest powers), Wikipedia would work somewhat more smoothly. You might find that long time editors could be given admin functions on a brevet or pro-tem or intern basis, and you'd get a much better crowd than with all the RfA drama. At the same time if somebody was getting to be a little powerhappy and find themselves doing nothing but arguing and swatting lower editors all day, without remembering how to write content, one could remind them by giving them a timed-rest or time-out or time in the corner. If you will, psychiatric leave from carrying the badge. Paid leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

But this has been all fucked up and gamed, and now we can't do it. So feelings are hurt and people get all psychologically scarred about being booted off the force and not being part of the thin blue line anymore. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) And all that just happened on its own, without even a Stanford Prison Experiment design to make it all go. In retrospect, pretty stupid.

And now that it's going, how are you going to fix it? The only people with the power to change policy THAT much, are the WMF board, and they either don't care, or are too far from the problem. ArbCom is close enough, but even ArbCom couldn't make systematic changes this large. Nor, at this point, could Jimbo.

So, way to go, Bozos! You, the Communiteh of administrators.

I actually agree with this 100... well, maybe 97%, but it isn't really relevant to the specific example I'm calling NYBrad out on.

While we're on the topic though, the first obvious step would be term limits for admins, which is such a no brainer and yet such a non starter! I mean, you could quote whole swathes of research from Political Science, Sociology, Economics or even plain old common sense which all say that term limits are a good idea, that lack of them creates an entrenched "close-minded, self-centered social club" and that feeds back into the opposition to this common sense measure itself but we all know that just ain't gonna happen.

[Newyorkbrad]

And clearly "dispositive" is some kind of Freudian management language on Wikipedia, a kind of euphemism for a little slipping-out of guilt.

Actually, it's a legalism that slipped in. Sorry about that.

[Kelly Martin]

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

That assumes that I don't, to a significant extent, agree with you. To be sure, I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but some of it certainly have merit.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. If I thought you didn't agree with me, how would my pointing it out have the effects specified above?

In any case, I know you agree with me, at least to some degree. Do you think I just ignore everything you've said to me over the years? (I know you've ignored most everything I've said to you, and choose to fixate on only the tiny fraction that serves your purposes, but that's beside the point.) Sir, you wound me!

[powercorrupts]

The main way people's lives get fucked-up off line is when arbcom and their cronies decide to claim they've done something really bad when they haven't. All the other issues are exacerbated by the dodgy-in-so-many-ways system of 'Wikipedia' - and people should be told what they are in for, esp if they are going to fuck around with people's heads/lives themselves. Arbcom ALWAYS think first in terms of the encyclopedia (which in their minds means themselves) and in terms of limiting any damage (to themselves).

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[chrisoff]

The main way people's lives get fucked-up off line is when arbcom and their cronies decide to claim they've done something really bad when they haven't. All the other issues are exacerbated by the dodgy-in-so-many-ways system of 'Wikipedia' - and people should be told what they are in for, esp if they are going to fuck around with people's heads/lives themselves. Arbcom ALWAYS think first in terms of the encyclopedia (which in their minds means themselves) and in terms of limiting any damage (to themselves)

It is a drug, and it is a vaudeville presentation. The "encyclopedia" is a side effect.

--EricBarbour

How sad, really, that real people are harmed by "arbcom and their cronies". And under the guise of "consensus".

You can read the latest sad play out here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=416307209

[Abd]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Thanks for asking nicely, Peter. Unfortunately, I've little time at the moment, family emergency today. In brief. perhaps:

Rodhulllandemu, what happened to you is not surprising at all. Unfair, but it's been unfair to many for a long time. The problem is not bad people, but poor structure, that brings out the worst in people.

And I added a lot of details, covering the first allegedly Bad Thing that Rodhullandemu had done, from Elen of the Roads "evidence," and he was, on the face, acting properly, and had been attacked for it, and I covered my own experiences as related.

[Abd]

Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of that, Abd?

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

I agree with later commentary, that the semicolon was the most appropriate. The processes are "fucked up," the technical term, and that stands independently of whether Rod was shafted or not, this time, but he was.

[radek]

Looking through all of this, and having actually wasted my time reading through all the useless discussions, it's actually amazing how much of a WIKIPEDIA INSTITUTION Malleus is. He keeps saying "Oh I'm sure they're gonna ban me" but they never do. And there's a reason for that. They need him as much as he needs them/it. He's like the "loyal opposition" that lets them say "oh look we're actually a diverse society with all kinds of disagreements". Eh, he's a tool at best, unintentionally complicit in the whole scam at worst. But it's all within the same framework and part of the same culture. This is one of those "fights at the top" where various factions among the Bolsheviks fight it out about whether it's gonna be Stalin or Bukharin who takes over, and the local peasants take side but they all get screwed in the end. It really has zero relevance for the everyday Wikipedia editing experience of the average editor. Ultimately who cares, I might have an opinion on it, Rodhullandemu tried to purge somebody but it backfired and now he is being purged and for the articles that I care about it matters because?

Seriously at this point can someone explain to me why the fuck should I care that all these Wikipedia superstars are busy devouring each other? As is, it's a forum for them to continuously pee themselves, and on each other so why should I be concerned?

What have they done for me? A person who still, against all odds (as lots of people on this website have pointed out previously) somewhat believes in the idea of an all purpose free encyclopedia?

Take this shit somewhere else. Oh wait it's in the Annex already. For a good reason.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up, Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up. Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up— Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up: Rod got shafted.

Wikipedia's systems and processes are fucked up; Rod got shafted.

I think I like the semicolon best, for it's intimate connectivity. Although the full colon also conveys a certain additional sense of mechanistic inevitability.

But what about ...

Wikipedia's systems and processes are. Fucked up Rod got shafted.

Only, I am not sure if it might not be better as ...

Wikipedia's systems and processes are. Fucked-up Rod got shafted.

Yah, Rod, you'll love this place. You can remain addicted to Wiki-drama and be as much of a bitch as you like without a load of pricks telling you what you can and cannot say and sneaking up behind you to shaft you. All of the fun with none of the labor.

The jiucy question for WR is how easily will RH remove his tongue from Jimbo's arse now that he doesn't have all the power he was rewarded for his support?

Goodness, yes. Wasn't he just chatting to his friend Jimbo a short while ago about how they were building this great edifice together. I wonder how his friend will react now and if his tongue will be so welcome.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Malleus]

Looking through all of this, and having actually wasted my time reading through all the useless discussions, it's actually amazing how much of a WIKIPEDIA INSTITUTION Malleus is. He keeps saying "Oh I'm sure they're gonna ban me" but they never do.

I don't recall ever having said that. But let's remind ourselves, even Rodhullandemu admitted that he was wrong to block me when he did, although he never had the decency to apologise for it.

[Milton Roe]

Seriously at this point can someone explain to me why the fuck should I care that all these Wikipedia superstars are busy devouring each other? As is, it's a forum for them to continuously pee themselves, and on each other so why should I be concerned?

What have they done for me? A person who still, against all odds (as lots of people on this website have pointed out previously) somewhat believes in the idea of an all purpose free encyclopedia?

Take this shit somewhere else. Oh wait it's in the Annex already. For a good reason.

Take the pledge.

A Wikipedia Dissenter's Credo

Milton Roe

I swear by Zeus and Apollo and all the old gods who we don't believe in anymore (which is doubtless why the world is so screwed up) that I will make the following changes, as regards my further use of my longstanding, and still active, Wikipedia name-user account.

These vows for action I take in protest of the way Wikipedia is handled. Wikipedia runs without any acknowledgement of any accountability by its board of directors at the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF) for its content, particularly its content regarding biographies of living people. At the same time, WMF continues to retain effective power over any of Wikipedia's content, by means of retaining the ability to make any change whatsoever in the site's policy, or its present content, or its records of past content.

WMF also continues to retain ownership of all software and hardware in connection with Wikipedia, making the issue of final responsibility in any long-contested question of content or policy, physically obvious. WMF does have the plugs and connectors and programmers, and thus they do have complete power, on all timescales longer than ordinary human-organization reaction time. And they will say so, in any ultimate contest of strength, except when temporarily legally convenient to claim otherwise. This is the problem.

This level of hypocrisy has become untenable to me. Even if the legal system of my country, the United States, has not (yet) recognized it in terms of libel law.

THERFORE, henceforth, I will take more honest steps toward my own Wikipedia editing, to ensure that I myself do not follow the hypocrisy that I criticize in Wikipedia. I do not ask others to do the same, but provide my own thinking, in the hope that it may save others some time if they happen to be upon the path that I am on.

[1] I swear by Zeus to make no further edits to Wikipedia, other than those which give me artistic pleasure and/or please my ego in creating something which pleases me by its very existence, for its own sake. I will edit for the same reason I may play the piano or violin, when I am alone. I will henceforth edit for no other reason.

[2] If accused of editing merely for myself, to please my own ego or aesthetic sense, I will keep quiet. I may say to myself "Quel était le premier indice pour vous, M. Poirot?" [What gave you your first clue, Sherlock?], but I will not argue with Wikipedia. Let them think what they will.

[3] I will attempt to make editorial changes on Wikipedia that appear by comparison so necessary, and are so clear and pure in language, that it will not even occur to future readers to change them. I find this goal worthy, and I do it because it is interesting and difficult. I do what pleases me. Your mileage, as to what work on Wikipedia pleases you (if any), may vary.

[4] I abjure and renounce any belief that editing Wikipedia is necessarily an altruistic enterprise. This remains an open question. To what extent it may be, is impossible to tell. In any case, I wish to hear no more about poor children in Africa. I observe that the altruism of contributing to a third-world-helping project can be used as a stick, to beat guilty Western volunteers with, to get them to work for somebody else's gain, for free. I swear that I will never let this argument as regards world poverty and Wikipedia, influence me ever again.

[5] Because of Wikipedia's deliberate policy of encouraging and coddling anonymous vandalism ("anyone can edit"), in part by simply failing to require emailed password protection to ensure that name-users have traceable email accounts, I swear I will never revert another Wikipedia vandalism. The exception is as they happen to occur coincidentally as byproducts in the course of making an edit in which I am interested in for its own artistic sake. Likewise, in a similar way, I swear I will not fix isolated spelling or grammatical errors, or copyedit Wikipedia, again except as happens in the course of making some change more interesting to me personally.

Vandalism problems are largely the result of poor choices by Wikipedia and those who run it. By helping to fix their consequences, I realize that am helping to enable folly. After proper warning, "enablers" in some sense deserve what they get, and that is (as a rule) that they find themselves used for someone else's selfish purposes. I acknowledge that many enablers (of Wikipedia and in other spheres) work from love, which is not to be belittled. But a person may love the mountains without the mountains loving them back. Wikipedia, as an artificial and somewhat fluid and sociopathic enterprise, has some of the same characteristics of inanimate objects. It is wise not to invest in "relationships" with inanimate objects.

[6] Because of Wikipedia's encouragement of allowing nonprofessionals and the ignorant to edit academic subjects, I hereby swear I will no more edit articles on which I am a formal and citable academic expert. This leads only to conflict and no lasting pleasure for anyone. It has led to infuriation for me. I therefore leave these articles to those who would deface them. Editing Wikipedia is a Buddhist exercise in learning to let go of that which one inappropriately is attached to.

[7] I will made edits which I know to be true and worthy of citation, but unless citation is easily at hand, I will not bother to add it. This is unproductive. If an edit of mine is obviously true, or better worded, or both, a citation will be found by someone else quickly, or the statement will stand without a citation indefinitely. If the statement is not popular, a citation rarely helps. In any case, I will not waste the time to try to prove that which people do not want to believe, by this means. This wastes time, and causes unpleasantness.

[8] Nor do TALK page arguments convince fools. I will therefore not argue on talk pages. If one argues with a fool, chances are that he is then doing just the same. I vow to avoid arguing with fools on Wikipedia, but will let them have their way. I will instead go on to find, and perhaps work on, other articles of less general interest. Nothing, time-wise, is worth an ArbCom hearing, or even RfC. These procedures, in a semi-democratic setting of anonymous entities protected in their anonymity by Wikipedia policies, are so deeply flawed in so many ways, that it is best to keep away from them altogether. In a game such as Wikipedia where power is held by those without responsibility, the only way to win is not to play. I will not play at power games on Wikipedia.

[9] I will not criticize bad administrators or their actions on Wikipedia, nor even vote "no" for RfA candidates I do not like. This only generates vendettas which last for months or years, and are not worth it. Most bad administrators on Wikipedia are not bad people--they are simply bad administrators. Bad administrators tend to self-destruct, and those that don't, have social connections outside of Wikipedia which make them impossible to get at, with Wikpedia tools anyway. In few cases, is getting involved a productive use of my time. I will limit my participation in RfCs to simple one-line support votes for candidates I very much like of reasons of my personal noting of the quality of their work.

[10] I reserve the right to criticize, ridicule, or otherwise satirize Wikipedia and those who run it, in other media, where the time penalty is small, and vendettas to punish such criticism are not mobsterish. Time doing this on other websites, such as Wikipedia Review, is also possibly wasted in terms of changing Wikipedia. However, criticism is an art form also. I do it for the pleasure of it, even if perhaps it changes nothing. The odds that criticisms made about Wikipedia in other venues will be effective is much higher, since Wikipedia defends itself against criticism posted on Wikipedia itself. Do not write in water.

[11] I will not attempt to change Wikipedia policy by arguments on Wikipedia; after seven years of sameness, I have learned this is a particularly fruitless exercise. In particular I will stay away from anything on the "perennial proposals" list, realizing that it is perennial because usually it is a good idea suggested by many people before me, but yet still a proposal because shot down by an eternal cadre of incompetents or the socially-challenged, many times before. Why should I repeat this cycle again, but this time wasting my own time?

[12] Realizing that web-biography of unwilling living people, at least those who are not already exceedingly world-famous, is immoral, I will have nothing to do with it, in any way. I will not attempt to fix these bios, since this leads to reactionary wars, and wasted time. I will not start or contribute to such articles, and will not support those who do.

I will, however, support unauthorized biographies of Wikipedia living-biography editors THEMSELVES, in other venues, as an exercise to open their minds, regarding the difference between giving and receiving pain.

[13] Perhaps it is needless to add that, given the above, I will not request administrator-ship on Wikipedia nor accept any Request for Administratorship, if a nomination is offered me. Nor have I ever done so, and I realize now, why not. Administration of Wikipedia involves so many automatic chores of a completely unnecessary nature, that I believe it is deplorable, and unworthy of sapient human beings. To be sure, the same may be said of whittling, playing video games, or staring into a log fire. But these things rarely have the hold on life which Wikipedia can take.

It is true that even without being an administrator and while making edits which please only me, I may enable WMF and Jimmy Wales, to some extent. However, since I also enable myself aesthetically and emotionally with such edits, as in the production and reproduction of all art, I am in no danger of being used, and there is balance from the outset. I do not wait for a reward, for the reward has been given at the time I edit. All administrators, by contrast, are in severe danger of being used, for few of them spent most of their time contributing artistic content for the sake of seeing the content remain.

[14] That said, I refuse to belittle those who, with open eyes, take more of a role in administrating WIKIPEDIA, cleaning up vandalism, fixing spelling errors, moving pages, making templates and adding them, and the like. If this truly makes them happy on the spot, and not for the sake of future reward of promises of a future world-changing enterprise, then let them do it. But likewise, if it makes people happy to be bound in leather and fitted with an inflatable rubber mouth gag, then let them do that. I urge only that all people connected to Wikipedia not to let themselves be used. I advise all persons not ever to sacrifice themselves for any person or cause, unless they have the expectance of a long and permanent relationship, which is reciprocated. Most people and causes are not worth the effort, and when they turn out not to be, the person who has invested in them finds they have sacrificed part of your lives for nothing, on behalf of something which never cared about them. Therefore, in most cases, edit Wikipedia only when you wish to be alone for other reasons. Wikipedia is not your friend and will not substitute for a friend.

[15] Likewise, I will refuse to criticize those who go farther than I have, and will have nothing at all to do with editing Wikipedia. If these people don't like to edit, or else they DO enjoy it, but are protesting in the manner of a "hunger strike," then whatever pleases them, is fine with me. But do me the same courtesy as regards my own editing, please. All of us will face the future of our time choices eventually.

[16] I reserve the right to change my mind when Wikipedia's policies eventually change, as eventually they must. Since I now have some thousands of edits over more than several years on Wikipedia, I expect to have many of my old former edits still surviving in what is the new Universal Online Encyclopedia, when it appears many years in the future. A good edit should transcend authorship and should transcend the media and the many users of it for one reason or another, for many years. And if this does not happen for many of my own edits, then it may well be that I'm not the writer that I think I am, and that learning experience will be useful, too. Life is education and entertainment, and I am willing to take the first with the second. But entertainment rules my editorial involvement with Wikipedia, from this day forward.

[17] In all cases, I swear by all the gods that from now on, the minute I don't enjoy being logged into Wikipedia, is the minute I log off and move on to something else. I have not always done this in the past--- this I confess! But this is part of the reason for this credo. Bad experience teaches, and it is never too late for learning and change.

[18] Reminder to self: get a life.

M.R.
SoCal
June 8, 2008
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=106647

[radek]

Oh, I'm mainly doing this to tweak the noses of Newyorkbrad and the other lawyers and law-trained individuals involved in Wikipedia. They will know, when they read what I say, that I am incontrovertibly right, and it will just increase their frustration in knowing that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, and yet they can do nothing about it.

That assumes that I don't, to a significant extent, agree with you. To be sure, I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but some of it certainly have merit.

Some of my hardest work as an arbitrator and administrator has been in resolving situations behind the scenes, which I believed would become public spectacles and cause significant harm if they played out on-wiki. I know a number of the other arbs spend time doing the same thing. There are a number of reasons for the drastic fall-off in the number of arbitration cases from 2007 to today, but matters being worked out quietly rather than dragged through weeks-long arbitration spectacles is one of them.

For years I've expressed concerns about the way we treat sanctioned editors, including blocked and banned users, especially those who edit under their real names. I've done my best to mitigate the side effects in some instances (though I've been overruled in others). I've proposed a number of times both in formal decisions and otherwise that we work to minimize unnecessary publicity about editors who get involved in disputes or in arbitration cases.

All of this is simply a function of caring about Wikipedia's contributors not only as encylopedia-creators or maintainers, but as people as well, which means that we don't stop treating people decently even when their usefulness to Wikipedia the encyclopedia may for some reason have diminished. Of course, that's perilously close to the sort of thinking ("caring about the community more than the encyclopedia") that you used to scold me for constantly, but let's not digress onto that right now.

One issue, though, is that most editors who become parties to arbitrated disputes wantto have a public on-wiki discussion. If we wrote to a "typical" party to an ArbCom case or even an ANI discussion, and offered him or her the choice of "we can either discuss this and come to a decision on-wiki, or we can discuss it with you by e-mail and let you know what we decide," what sorts of responses do you think we'd get? To be clear, I don't say this is a dispositive point, but it is at least a relevant one.

Actually I'm going to repost and reply for a second time to this. Because somebody needs to call total bullshit on the above statement. I'm pretty god damn sure that during the EEML case you guys were getting a slew of "ban me if you want to but quit freakin' making a spectacle of my private emails" kinds of messages sent to the Arbcom list. Whether any of you 2008 arbs ever bothered to read any of these or not is another question. Yeah yeah yeah, the Arbcom was not the one who released the private emails but they where the ones that made damn sure that those emails would be spread all over the internet.

If it really was all about "protecting the privacy" of people who supposedly would have liked it better to have things handled off wiki, you could've done it. And then done some similar shit you done to Rodhullandemu now. But, at least the 2008 Arbcom, enjoyed that show. The best we got in response to desperate pleas to keep our private shit private was Coren (put on a stupid stoner voice here - which is what it was) "oh gee, yeah man, that sounds bad, I'm sorry about that, we, uh, I think about it, we get back to you, sorry, bummer man, shucks, blah blah blah"... while he was proposing bans for everyone in sight and enabling vicious little Wikipedia sociopaths.

Fuck this hypocrisy. Some of us did get email death threats, weird phone calls at work, repeated attempts to hack into our email accounts and then there's stuff you don't even want to bring up simply because it attracts undue attention to disgusting campaigns that should not be legitimized.

What happened to Poeticbent?

I realize that you, NYBrad, were not the only person on the committee on the time and I also realize that you were (in my guesstimates) not quite aligned with what happened. Which is why I actually wrote most of this before, but then deleted it. But then I read your statement again and just couldn't help making this explicit.

There's no way you can pretend that the reason that these decisions are made in "sekkrit" is to protect the privacy of the accused. There's been way too many instances where the ArbCom was quite willing to not give a shit about people's real lives when there wasn't a threat of a backlash. Spare me the hand-wringing moralizing - take your own words seriously - and just don't fucking do it again, when it next comes up (even if it's concerning people who deserve it).

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

Oooh! Is this the beginning of the end for Sandstein's "career"?

At present I count 5 in favor of his proposal, and 15 opposed......

[Peter Damian]

And predictably it all ends with the usual cliches. First, some c-nt comes out of the woodwork and urges everyone to get back to building an encyclopedia.

Let's get to work people. Lot of crappy articles that need upgrading. There's a whole world outside there kicking ass at writing newspapers and books and magazines. Let's up our game and drop the drama.

I mean, does any real person say things like 'lets get to work people' or 'lets up our game'. OK he did. Then someone displays a picture of an absolutely enormous trout. Then someone else makes a snarky comment about admins vs content editors.

Did I read that right? Did someone above talk about writing articles? That is what the enemies of Wikipedia do, content editors. The only value content editors have is that administrators can block them. Wikipedia is now about the dignity and power and glory of administrators. On no account should an administrator be desopped unless s/he has clearly done something terminally offensive to the administrator corp. That means attacking other administrators. Why do you think there is such an uproar here? Being an administrator is for life. Desopping is a very serious matter. We cannot have administrators feeling anxious about it. As far as I know, Rodhullandemu never attacked another administrator. He may have obsessed about destroying top content editors who can do things he can't do, but that is his job. Many administrators can't and don't contribute any really useful content and it is essential for them to feel empowered and take the bastards down who can. Many administrators of that ilk profess to believe that Wikipedia has been basically written now, and that content editors are endlessly replaceable, and certainly always dispensable. But administrators are here for ever. Please, before you are terminated, stop this disloyal talk about "content", and support our glorious and beloved administrators. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They should all f-ck off. Thats what I think. In fact, they should elect a champion from among the admins and a champion from the content editors and then put them in a cage with especially sharp axes or those things with a ball and spike on the end of a stick and then try to kill each other. [I struck out the rest, too disturbing].

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

And predictably it all ends with the usual cliches. First, some c-nt comes out of the woodwork and urges everyone to get back to building an encyclopedia.

I looooooooooove the C-word! Thanks, Petey, for including it here! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I mean, does any real person say things like 'lets get to work people' or 'lets up our game'.

I don't know if these guys count as real persons, but:

[Peter Damian]

And predictably it all ends with the usual cliches.

I looooooooooove the C-word! Thanks, Petey, for including it here! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Cliche?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Abd]

Oooh! Is this the beginning of the end for Sandstein's "career"?

At present I count 5 in favor of his proposal, and 15 opposed......

At some point the drinker of wiki-Kool-Aid realizes that a reasonable proposal gets shot down by a supermajority of people who are clearly clueless, who haven't really given the proposal due consideration, and who are not interested in doing so.

In other words, sooner or later, the bell tolls for them. It might take a few more years before Sandstein realizes that he's been building a contraption that is effectively designed to fail. It looks successful, hey, look at all that "free" content.

It's like loving the product of slave labor, and considering it cheap or free. That's, perhaps, overdramatic, because Wikipedia is built by volunteers, nobody is actually whipped for not contributing.

But editors may not get, for some time, just how wasteful the "project" is. Some people get it immediately, a "fan" spends 20 hours building an article on his Favorite Subject, which he and all his friends know is Important, he makes it a thing of beauty and art. And it's deleted, sometimes with a keystroke if he didn't show notability in the sources.

That is waste, introduced by lack of clear process and guidance. It's waste if a short page has had thousands of edits to it, especially if it went back and forth on some issue. It's not hard to imagine processes that would avoid much or most of the waste. But putting them in place? Impossible.

It would change the Way We Do Things, and anyone who tries to change this is, or surely will become, "disruptive," more interested in "process" than in the task here, building content.

Back to work! Stop wasting your time objecting to The Management! You aren't going to get a barnstar slacking like this!

(Neutrality? Neutrality requires real consensus? Didn't that troll Abd suggest this before ArbComm, we sure showed him how preposterous the idea of consensus is, no, we guarantee neutrality by keeping Right Thinking Editors in charge. Anyone who disagrees is clearly, by definition, a POV-pusher, we'll make short work of him so we can all go back to the Great Task of Building an Encyclopedia.)

[powercorrupts]

And clearly "dispositive" is some kind of Freudian management language on Wikipedia, a kind of euphemism for a little slipping-out of guilt.

Actually, it's a legalism that slipped in. Sorry about that.

Exactly. (Smarmy git).

[chrisoff]

Malleus was busy trolling the bureaucrat's noticeboard, and Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) did not like this, so started threatening and attacking him on his talk page. Well, Malleus being Malleus answered the admin back and got a block from Rod... for doing the exact same thing Rod did. Moni3, Malleus's admin meatpuppet, unblocked him, and Floquenbeam blocked Rod. Who then retired for a day before returning.

Is this the real story?

[Text]

Back to work! Stop wasting your time objecting to The Management! You aren't going to get a barnstar slacking like this!

"Why do you complain after YOU destroy what i do? I'm the one doing the deed and you deliberately destroy it and i can't complain? Now YOU do it idiot!"

Is this the real story?

I read somewhere that Rod has a permanent disability (probably bound to a wheelchair). So if it were true he has little to do besides sitting at the computer. And at one point he said he was spending about 10 hours a day on the site.

[chrisoff]

I read somewhere that Rod has a permanent disability (probably bound to a wheelchair). So if it were true he has little to do besides sitting at the computer. And at one point he said he was spending about 10 hours a day on the site.

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

[powercorrupts]

Back to work! Stop wasting your time objecting to The Management! You aren't going to get a barnstar slacking like this!

"Why do you complain after YOU destroy what i do? I'm the one doing the deed and you deliberately destroy it and i can't complain? Now YOU do it idiot!"

Is this the real story?

I read somewhere that Rod has a permanent disability (probably bound to a wheelchair). So if it were true he has little to do besides sitting at the computer. And at one point he said he was spending about 10 hours a day on the site.

One of the problems with the kind of inflexibly tight level of secrecy favoured by abcom both new and ex, is that the kind of matters they come across with RodHullandEmu (what a stupid name for an admin anyway) weigh on people's minds and imaginations. Everyone has their own idea of what is physically wrong with RH - it's pretty clear it isn't just a mental/psychological issue. The question is, how much does he deserve people's sympathy? Nobody knows. So how can people formulate an idea of how 'far out' he can be allowed to behave as an admin? Although admitedly, the 'rabble's' opinion of administrators is a near-total irrelevance to arbcom anyway - which is nothing short of repulsive in this day and age of course. Only in America could something both this technologically advanced and socially/intellectually backward evolve. RH himself seems pretty happy with only giving us angry tidbits about himself and his current moods - to his shame, in my view. But then I don't what is wrong with him do I?

A mature arbcom should be able to decide whether something best kept from the public or not on their feet, as happens in comparable real-life situations all the time. The shitty stuff people come out with is a condition of Wikipedia - and it's up to people whether they want to go through it or not. They can always just clear their desk and get out. 'Oversighters' are forever deleting various comments on the wiki anyway. It is totally hypocritical of Wikimedia to have their 'living person' biographies where people re-vomit any kind of slander, and a wantonly closed-door arbcom like this - which is clearly their working mode now. And their rationales for their behaviour amount to nothing short of contempt for general Wikipedians, combined with almost decadent back-slapping.

Wikipedia (as an ideal rather than a business) desperately needs balanced people as admin and arbitrators. But adminship will never attract balanced people as long as it remains a corruptible system most balanced people would be ashamed to be part of. And by a natural extension you could say this of the encyclopedia in general too.

In short: bring in admin terms, you fucking crew of fucking slimy cunts.

Say it loud: You fucking cunts!

[I think I dropped the last few letters & I meant 'terms', not 'tenure' (in the life sense) - amongst other changes they could explore properly if they first just decided they currect system cannot go on as it is, and has to change in some way. Unlike the real world, there is little that is 'expedient' on Wikipedia, and very little to force them to simply move on structural decisions. They need to be seriously ruffled by something from the outside. The chances are they won't change it much, but even Wales wants to adjust it (minimally I'm sure, and in effect to seal something almost as bad) - but he tellingly got nowhere when he posted the suggestion on his talk page some weeks back. That's what happens when you have a system where rogues vote in rogues - it ends up full of rogues.]

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Text]

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

SlimVirgin has been there since 2004 and has had occasional edit streaks which were longer than 24 hours. Either the account was operated by more than one person or there was lots of help from coffee and crystal meth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Malleus]

I read somewhere that Rod has a permanent disability (probably bound to a wheelchair). So if it were true he has little to do besides sitting at the computer. And at one point he said he was spending about 10 hours a day on the site.

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

Are you suggesting that Rodhullandemu has been motivated by a concern that I might be damaging my health?

I try not to complain, *cough*, *cough*, but some days the pain is so bad that I can't sleep for days on end. I know that my time is short, but I'd hoped to leave something worthwhile behind me, perhaps even see my next birthday ... oh for fuck's sake just wake up and smell the fucking coffee dickhead.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[chrisoff]

Oh no! Are you in a wheelchair too? COP, lung cancer, asthma, too many cigarettes? Too much alcohol? Please stop to save yourself! So much acrimony would be lost on wiki if you disappeared (died)!

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

Oh no! Are you in a wheelchair too? COP, lung cancer, asthma, too many cigarettes? Too much alcohol? Please stop to save yourself! So much acrimony would be lost on wiki if you disappeared (died)!

Enough of my problems, what about yours? Let's start with stupidity; that must be really hard to live with.

[gomi]

[Modnote: Even for the Annex, this has gone far enough. Next step is the Annex Tar Pit, the lowest of the low. Please stop, or take it back to Wikipedia.]

[Malleus]

[Modnote: Even for the Annex, this has gone far enough. Next step is the Annex Tar Pit, the lowest of the low. Please stop, or take it back to Wikipedia.]

Gomi, if you had half an arse more you'd be a complete arse.

[Obesity]

[Modnote: Even for the Annex, this has gone far enough. Next step is the Annex Tar Pit, the lowest of the low. Please stop, or take it back to Wikipedia.]

that is an excellent idea...

[EricBarbour]

SlimVirgin has been there since 2004 and has had occasional edit streaks which were longer than 24 hours. Either the account was operated by more than one person or there was lots of help from coffee and crystal meth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(IMG:http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1611/avatar45008ib3.gif)

[Lar]

[Modnote: Even for the Annex, this has gone far enough. Next step is the Annex Tar Pit, the lowest of the low. Please stop, or take it back to Wikipedia.]

Gomi, if you had half an arse more you'd be a complete arse.

Always so charming.

[gomi]

[Modnote: Even for the Annex, this has gone far enough. Next step is the Annex Tar Pit, the lowest of the low. Please stop, or take it back to Wikipedia.]

Gomi, if you had half an arse more you'd be a complete arse.

Mally, I am many things, but half-assed is not one of them. Nonetheless, if I have redirected your vitriol onto myself, then mission accomplished!

[powercorrupts]

I've adjusted an above post of mine, where I meant to say admin terms, not 'tenures'. Like most of the modern world, I'm against jobs for life.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Encyclopedist]

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

SlimVirgin has been there since 2004 and has had occasional edit streaks which were longer than 24 hours. Either the account was operated by more than one person or there was lots of help from coffee and crystal meth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Don't know about you, but what little time I have left is dedicated to improving Wikipedia; or at least, it was. It doesn't matter if I am in the full bloom of health, or whether I am Stephen Hawking. Either way, I am doing what I can. Would that others could do the same.

[RMHED]

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

SlimVirgin has been there since 2004 and has had occasional edit streaks which were longer than 24 hours. Either the account was operated by more than one person or there was lots of help from coffee and crystal meth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Don't know about you, but what little time I have left is dedicated to improving Wikipedia; or at least, it was. It doesn't matter if I am in the full bloom of health, or whether I am Stephen Hawking. Either way, I am doing what I can. Would that others could do the same.

I'm with you Rod, we must keep the essence of 'da 'pedia pure. I'll go and block a vandal.

[powercorrupts]

You're kidding! Have you ever looked at how many hours Malleus has spent on the site -- for years!

SlimVirgin has been there since 2004 and has had occasional edit streaks which were longer than 24 hours. Either the account was operated by more than one person or there was lots of help from coffee and crystal meth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Don't know about you, but what little time I have left is dedicated to improving Wikipedia; or at least, it was. It doesn't matter if I am in the full bloom of health, or whether I am Stephen Hawking. Either way, I am doing what I can. Would that others could do the same.

Sorry Rod, but it just does matter when you are an admin, esp the bold and brash kind like you were yourself.

You often suggest you have a terminal illness, and have been given a relatively short time left to live. Is that true? If this in the case you simply must see - though I fully understand how it might be obscured to you somehow - the problems that uncertainty surrounding your condition causes people on Wikipedia, and also how some people would be uncomfortable with someone in a terminal condtion remaining an admin (eg arbcom - who presumably know more of your condition).

I for one wouldn't advise you hanging around on WR if you are in this bad a way, but would suggest staying at WP. Helping Wikipedia in the long run has surely got little to do with fighting vandalism, or getting into edit wars on anything less than the most central of articles (and there are plenty around who will do that, surely).

To me, the obvious things for someone terminally ill to do are; quietly improve FA's by checking links and removing cliche's, theft and errors (it won't go unnoticed), and arguing with the known dissenters for a change to the admin system. I know that you seem yourself to be happy with the admin system as it is, but I'm sure you'll find that Jimbo (and I know you are a fan of him) wants to see at least some adjustment to it but has found little support.

Even if you go for general article editing, you don't have to be around trouble, surely - just make a case and move on to somewhere new if things become impossible in an article. Easy advice to make maybe, but it's what most of the sane 'Wikpedians' - ie those who aren't employed to look after a concern, or committed to a noble cause like ensuring fairness over the Middle East (or an infantile one like promoting nationalist interests regarding all things UK or IRE) have learnt the hard way to do. I'm sure many of them really enjoy it.

If you really love the idea of the encyclopedia (and not just the swirl surrounding it), these kind of routes - which do not need the admin bit - are surely the way to go.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Milton Roe]

To me, the obvious things for someone terminally ill to do are; quietly improve FA's by checking links and removing cliche's, theft and errors (it won't go unnoticed), and arguing with the known dissenters for a change to the admin system. I know that you seem yourself to be happy with the admin system as it is, but I'm sure you'll find that Jimbo (and I know you are a fan of him) wants to see at least some adjustment to it but has found little support.

Even if you go for general article editing, you don't have to be around trouble, surely - just make a case and move on to somewhere new if things become impossible in an article. Easy advice to make maybe, but it's what most of the sane 'Wikpedians' - ie those who aren't employed to look after a concern, or committed to a noble cause like ensuring fairness over the Middle East (or an infantile one like promoting nationalist interests regarding all things UK or IRE) have learnt the hard way to do. I'm sure many of them really enjoy it.

If you really love the idea of the encyclopedia (and not just the swirl surrounding it), these kind of routes - which do not need the admin bit - are surely the way to go.

Hear, hear. And no whining that you don't have admin powers. 99% of good content addition doesn't require them, and for the remaining 1% I'm sure you know a sympathetic admin you can go and complain to, in order to get the school IP vandal blocked, so you can continue your work on some article.

If it's political edit wars you're afraid you'll be handicapped in fighting without yer bits-- guess what? As an involved admin, you should not be involved in THOSE (in an admin capacity) anyway. Sure, many corrupt admins are, but so what? That does not change the fact that only thing to miss there is something you shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Either way, you get no sympathy. If you want to edit, then edit! Maybe you'll regain some understanding of what it's like to be a peon, by being a peon. God forbid people will start judging your additions, by your writing quality alone. Is that what really scares you? Pick a new username and start over: Dickwadandcassowary is probably not taken, and there you are.

If you are going to decide you've been screwed over, merely because they desysopped you, and take your ball and go home because of it, then you were contributing for the wrong reasons anyway. It's stupidity to contribute to WP because you think it's run by a bunch of nice people; it's run by a bunch of assholes! The only reason to contribute to it, is for your own writing pleasure, and because the content itself will outlast the Gamers who lord it over WP now. Really. And if you disagree, then you really do have NO reason to contribute there, ever again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) And should THANK Arbcom for bringing you to your senses.

[EricBarbour]

Dickwadandcassowary is probably not taken, and there you are.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[EricBarbour]

Boo hoo, he went away. We made him mad, yes?

[powercorrupts]

Boo hoo, he went away. We made him mad, yes?

It's because I just asked him a question that no-one has the bottle to ask on Wikipedia. (and I've drawn my own conclusion now). Or they all think it will jiggle their own little skeletons perhaps. I doubt he'll be back until this thread is long-dead. And I bet at some point in his wikilife he's declared this site as being bad for 'the project' too.

My temptation is to put a full transcript up of his CLOWN edit war with Malleus - which effectively blows LAME into space, leaving a space for a new more fitting word (if anyone can find one - maybe put a French slap on the E). The question is, can I do it Malleus too (as he was just as crazy-shoes mad in not seeing the obvious ways round it), or even Wikipedia - as all this together makes 'the project' look like the biggest circus in town.

Unfortunately I keep seeing RH as Stephen Hawking now, zipping around the screen like a Brass Eye video - which is entirely his fault and not mine.

[radek]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check.

Malleus Fartorum is a "content creator" blow hard, and also a Giano wanna be, who's regularly obnoxious on purpose, and who likes to play the "victim of abusive administrators" card and who purposefully trolled Rodhullandemu to provoke this whole situation. Check. Just, Malleus, remember the old adage, "wannabes will neverbee", Giano's the real thing and there's only one of him, for better or worse. Maybe if you can get him banned...

The ArbCom is a mostly incompetent body which doesn't know how to deal with individuals like Rod and Malleus so it sometimes does stupid shit which it isn't supposed to do. I.e. it abuses it's authority, which authority it is really insecure about having in the first place. And because it is so insecure about it's authority it abuses it. Circularity and stupidity ensues. Check.

Sandstein is practicing being a "no nonsense lawyer" on Wikipedia so while he agrees with the spirit of the ArbCom decision he disagrees with some minutae of how it should have been done. That and he would really like to ban everyone involved, some of the ArbCom members included. At any rate, it's an opportunity to show of his "lawyer talk" skills, which are far superior to the "lawyer talk" skills one can see on regular daytime police dramas, like Law and Order, Special Victims Units possibly excluded (that's some good writing on that show!). Check. Work on it Sandstein, you will get to the SVU level yet.

A good portion of Wikipedia "important peoples" drops whatever it is their doing and makes sure that their "insightful" opinion is somewhere recorded in the overall drama. Well... a lot of this community actually does nothing but this so who cares. Not much effort lost there. If they didn't have this red ball to play with they'd probably be off harassing some poor soul on some obscure article that no one gives shit about anyway so this one actually maybe a win overall. Overall community stupidity - check too.

Wikipedia Review itself wastes a buttload of thread on this particular topic, partly because it likes to cuddle "disgruntled but official bad boys" (you know, like Motley Crue was REALLY REBELLIOUS!) like Malleus and also because it enjoys the schadenfreude of watching folks like Rod get their comeuppance. But fuck it, IT IS important not to confuse the two - Rod deserved it, that don't make Malleus' nonsense alright. A plague on both their houses! Check. To it's credit there are some voices here that say "this is all freakin' stupid" which is more than then you'd get on Wikipedia.

Bottom line:
Rod deserved it. Fuck him, he deserved it long time ago.

Malleus baited him. He should be banned for being an asshole - not because he's an incivil asshole, that part's fine and who really cares, but because in this case he was a sneaky creepy weaselly piece of shit trying to goad Rod into a stupid decision. The fact that Rod fell for the con is neither here nor there, as far as Malleus' character is concerned.

ArbCom was stupid. Not much else to say. After it all came out and they realized they were stupid they tried to do damage control typical of incompetent organizations - telling you "we can't tell you what really happened because we want to protect privacy". Which would be fine, except for the history of ArbCom decisions which in other circumstances completely ignored privacy concerns (to be fair, it's a new ArbCom and all that, but still). some of these kids are way over their heads, it's obvious.

Wikipedia - oh hell, I don't have to tell you, it was a pecking fest a la One Flight Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with Sandstein playing the role of the Big Nurse, but that's just part for the course so nothing new here.

Wikipedia Review - likes the drama and the schadenfreude. The glee tends to overshadow insightful commentary in situations like this. Also, you fuckers pay way way way attention to these little Wikipedia "superstars" and way way way too little attention to the little guys that get fucked over without so much as a peep from anyone. Homework assignment: find a no-name editor that through no fault of their own got themselves in trouble in the last 6 months simply because they ran into one of these Wikipedia superstars, be they admins like Rod (or GWH, or SoV or Sandstein, or whoever), or former admins (like Slim, etc.) or even these established assholes like Malleuas. It's not hard and it happens all the time, but the "little executions" happens without all the drama so no one pays attention. You're as much of a problem as these guys.

Oh yeah, another lesson. How freaking insanely hard is it for an admin to give up his tools? WTF? In any kind of a sane organization, the tools would be taken away on routine basis as a matter of fact, if for no other reason than to avoid the APPEARANCE of favoritism towards the patrician class (hence cops get suspended automatically if shit's even a little but controversial and it's a matter of routine) (Crap, Piotrus gave up his admin tools the second it looked like there was some question about them - even though he never actually used them!) Just to satisfy some insane lynch mob!) - and my understanding of it is that that is what ArbCom initially tried to do here until Rod escalated the situation). But on Wikipedia, once you've got your toga it's yousr for life and you got to kill Ceasar or something (or marry a goat) before they take it away from you. Lesson is that, you do this more often, the less drama will be. Keep on de-sysopping these folks ArbCom, it will be easier next time!

Me - I'm using this as a vehicle for my own grudges. Also I think this will make me very popular with all the parties concerned; Rod, Malleus, Giano, Sandstein, Arbcom, Ottava, Ottava's dog, and all the other putzes who will all eventually come to deeply appreciate my honesty and forthrightness. Someday it will happen. It's my selfish long term plan.

[Peter Damian]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check.

Malleus Fartorum is a "content creator" blow hard, and also a Giano wanna be, who's regularly obnoxious on purpose, and who likes to play the "victim of abusive administrators" card and who purposefully trolled Rodhullandemu to provoke this whole situation. Check. Just, Malleus, remember the old adage, "wannabes will neverbee", Giano's the real thing and there's only one of him, for better or worse. Maybe if you can get him banned...

The ArbCom is a mostly incompetent body which doesn't know how to deal with individuals like Rod and Malleus so it sometimes does stupid shit which it isn't supposed to do. I.e. it abuses it's authority, which authority it is really insecure about having in the first place. And because it is so insecure about it's authority it abuses it. Circularity and stupidity ensues. Check.

Sandstein is practicing being a "no nonsense lawyer" on Wikipedia so while he agrees with the spirit of the ArbCom decision he disagrees with some minutae of how it should have been done. That and he would really like to ban everyone involved, some of the ArbCom members included. At any rate, it's an opportunity to show of his "lawyer talk" skills, which are far superior to the "lawyer talk" skills one can see on regular daytime police dramas, like Law and Order, Special Victims Units possibly excluded (that's some good writing on that show!). Check. Work on it Sandstein, you will get to the SVU level yet.

A good portion of Wikipedia "important peoples" drops whatever it is their doing and makes sure that their "insightful" opinion is somewhere recorded in the overall drama. Well... a lot of this community actually does nothing but this so who cares. Not much effort lost there. If they didn't have this red ball to play with they'd probably be off harassing some poor soul on some obscure article that no one gives shit about anyway so this one actually maybe a win overall. Overall community stupidity - check too.

Wikipedia Review itself wastes a buttload of thread on this particular topic, partly because it likes to cuddle "disgruntled but official bad boys" (you know, like Motley Crue was REALLY REBELLIOUS!) like Malleus and also because it enjoys the schadenfreude of watching folks like Rod get their comeuppance. But fuck it, IT IS important not to confuse the two - Rod deserved it, that don't make Malleus' nonsense alright. A plague on both their houses! Check. To it's credit there are some voices here that say "this is all freakin' stupid" which is more than then you'd get on Wikipedia.

Bottom line:
Rod deserved it. Fuck him, he deserved it long time ago.

Malleus baited him. He should be banned for being an asshole - not because he's an incivil asshole, that part's fine and who really cares, but because in this case he was a sneaky creepy weaselly piece of shit trying to goad Rod into a stupid decision. The fact that Rod fell for the con is neither here nor there, as far as Malleus' character is concerned.

ArbCom was stupid. Not much else to say. After it all came out and they realized they were stupid they tried to do damage control typical of incompetent organizations - telling you "we can't tell you what really happened because we want to protect privacy". Which would be fine, except for the history of ArbCom decisions which in other circumstances completely ignored privacy concerns (to be fair, it's a new ArbCom and all that, but still). some of these kids are way over their heads, it's obvious.

Wikipedia - oh hell, I don't have to tell you, it was a pecking fest a la One Flight Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with Sandstein playing the role of the Big Nurse, but that's just part for the course so nothing new here.

Wikipedia Review - likes the drama and the schadenfreude. The glee tends to overshadow insightful commentary in situations like this. Also, you fuckers pay way way way attention to these little Wikipedia "superstars" and way way way too little attention to the little guys that get fucked over without so much as a peep from anyone. Homework assignment: find a no-name editor that through no fault of their own got themselves in trouble in the last 6 months simply because they ran into one of these Wikipedia superstars, be they admins like Rod (or GWH, or SoV or Sandstein, or whoever), or former admins (like Slim, etc.) or even these established assholes like Malleuas. It's not hard and it happens all the time, but the "little executions" happens without all the drama so no one pays attention. You're as much of a problem as these guys.

Oh yeah, another lesson. How freaking insanely hard is it for an admin to give up his tools? WTF? In any kind of a sane organization, the tools would be taken away on routine basis as a matter of fact, if for no other reason than to avoid the APPEARANCE of favoritism towards the patrician class (hence cops get suspended automatically if shit's even a little but controversial and it's a matter of routine) (Crap, Piotrus gave up his admin tools the second it looked like there was some question about them - even though he never actually used them!) Just to satisfy some insane lynch mob!) - and my understanding of it is that that is what ArbCom initially tried to do here until Rod escalated the situation). But on Wikipedia, once you've got your toga it's yousr for life and you got to kill Ceasar or something (or marry a goat) before they take it away from you. Lesson is that, you do this more often, the less drama will be. Keep on de-sysopping these folks ArbCom, it will be easier next time!

Me - I'm using this as a vehicle for my own grudges. Also I think this will make me very popular with all the parties concerned; Rod, Malleus, Giano, Sandstein, Arbcom, Ottava, Ottava's dog, and all the other putzes who will all eventually come to deeply appreciate my honesty and forthrightness. Someday it will happen. It's my selfish long term plan.

This sums it up very well. The bit about daytime police dramas was particularly good.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

Law and Order SVU? Terrible show. A better title might be something like, I dunno, Unrealistic-Behaving Twits Jumping to Ridiculous Conclusions About Cornball Criminal Stereotypes Based on an Alarming Lack of Evidence.

Wikipedia Review - likes the drama and the schadenfreude. The glee tends to overshadow insightful commentary in situations like this. Also, you fuckers pay way way way attention to these little Wikipedia "superstars" and way way way too little attention to the little guys that get fucked over without so much as a peep from anyone. Homework assignment: find a no-name editor that through no fault of their own got themselves in trouble in the last 6 months simply because they ran into one of these Wikipedia superstars, be they admins like Rod (or GWH, or SoV or Sandstein, or whoever), or former admins (like Slim, etc.) or even these established assholes like Malleuas. It's not hard and it happens all the time, but the "little executions" happens without all the drama so no one pays attention. You're as much of a problem as these guys.

In WR's defense, I myself felt that this situation was fairly unusual, in that Mr. Hull (with or without the emu) was seen to be in the midst of some difficult personal (i.e., medical) problems and that this situation highlighted Wikipedia's inability to properly deal with established users (admins or not) who are under high levels of real-life stress. And it isn't just that they should have figured out a non-coercive way to get Mr. Hull to "retire" quietly a long time ago. They simply don't have any realistic means of dealing with things like this, other than hand-wringing and endless yammering, which these days is their means of dealing with just about everything. They're completely dependent on the stressed-out user in question and his/her willingness to do what they want him/her to do, including "just go away."

Having said that, I agree that more attention was paid to this incident than was probably warranted.

[powercorrupts]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check...etc.

This sums it up very well. The bit about daytime police dramas was particularly good.

It was a bit circular mind... in short we all (or most of us) agree. I don't particularly see the thread as over-long, or a waste, although Malleus (who must be embarrassed) certainly got away with the clown fight: which is partly down to WR apathy imo, although he a regular fave here. Which is sweet really - because many people here, whatever they say, clearly still want heroes who are still fighting some kind of fight within WP. In my experience, WR these days seems interested more in various 'wider' issues, and even non-related WP news, than with this kind of annex-level stuff - whether they contain Giano or Jerry and Joanne.

[Kelly Martin]

Indeed, Wikipedia's general approach to dealing with difficult situations is, in general, to yammer at them long and hard with the hopes that, by so doing, whoever is responsible for the situation will get irritated enough at the yammering as to quit or leave. This is especially inhumane in situations like Rod's, where he's already under enough stress. I suspect that you'll find that David Gerard is the primary architect of this scheme. Hounding to exhaustion is cruel; it is also very amusing to the dramahounds, of which Wikipedia has no shortage.

[powercorrupts]

Law and Order SVU? Terrible show. A better title might be something like, I dunno, Unrealistic-Behaving Twits Jumping to Ridiculous Conclusions About Cornball Criminal Stereotypes Based on an Alarming Lack of Evidence.

Wikipedia Review - likes the drama and the schadenfreude. The glee tends to overshadow insightful commentary in situations like this. Also, you fuckers pay way way way attention to these little Wikipedia "superstars" and way way way too little attention to the little guys that get fucked over without so much as a peep from anyone. Homework assignment: find a no-name editor that through no fault of their own got themselves in trouble in the last 6 months simply because they ran into one of these Wikipedia superstars, be they admins like Rod (or GWH, or SoV or Sandstein, or whoever), or former admins (like Slim, etc.) or even these established assholes like Malleuas. It's not hard and it happens all the time, but the "little executions" happens without all the drama so no one pays attention. You're as much of a problem as these guys.

In WR's defense, I myself felt that this situation was fairly unusual, in that Mr. Hull (with or without the emu) was seen to be in the midst of some difficult personal (i.e., medical) problems and that this situation highlighted Wikipedia's inability to properly deal with established users (admins or not) who are under high levels of real-life stress. And it isn't just that they should have figured out a non-coercive way to get Mr. Hull to "retire" quietly a long time ago. They simply don't have any realistic means of dealing with things like this, other than hand-wringing and endless yammering, which these days is their means of dealing with just about everything. They're completely dependent on the stressed-out user in question and his/her willingness to do what they want him/her to do, including "just go away."

Having said that, I agree that more attention was paid to this incident than was probably warranted.

I don't know - I'm have an interest in disability (RH would be hated by most disabled people for the way he milks whatever is wrong with him - and WP just can't deal with off-wiki stuff like that, who how they can edit), and I think a lot of Wikiepdia's misgivings and inabilities are highlighted here. I think it's a strong story - the wayward Abusive admin vs the pampered FA-floosy, a feud that gets surreal, and a new arbcom that simply has no way of dealing with it - so they think on their feet, and piss off all kinds of people across the board.
They obviously want to keep Malleus, and they obviously don't want any kind of high-profile admin reviews or desysopping (which is partly why so many admin get so out of hand, although most of them them simply stabilise as hardcore bastards).

These kind of things have to be dealt with simply to lead to pressure on the powers that be, or they will never feel the kind of pressure they clearly need to to reform the admin process.

The whole thing about WR being as it is surely to a large degree a natural force-for-force (or whatever the best term is here) phenomenon. The main thing is that it actually doesn't forget where the 'annex' is, or what's the point? Things often come down to the ever-present, does WR want to improve the 'bad thing' called Wikipedia - or let it rot, conundrum. There is always some kind of conflict here over that it seems. I'm in the camp that if Wikipedia is doing immediate damage now (which we all know it is), and removing/replacing it looks a difficult and distant thing (to say the least), then at least attempting to bring about reform is the obvious short-term option. You don't have to chose one or the other.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Malleus]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check...etc.

This sums it up very well. The bit about daytime police dramas was particularly good.

It was a bit circular mind... in short we all (or most of us) agree. I don't particularly see the thread as over-long, or a waste, although Malleus (who must be embarrassed) certainly got away with the clown fight: which is partly down to WR apathy imo, although he a regular fave here. Which is sweet really - because many people here, whatever they say, clearly still want heroes who are still fighting some kind of fight within WP. In my experience, WR these days seems interested more in various 'wider' issues, and even non-related WP news, than with this kind of annex-level stuff - whether they contain Giano or Jerry and Joanne.

Embarrassed? Not in the slightest. Why should I be embarrased about being right? The clown article means very little to me and I sorted out the issue in dispute with a slight rewrite, which Rod could himself have done instead of chucking his dummy out of the pram.

[powercorrupts]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check...etc.

This sums it up very well. The bit about daytime police dramas was particularly good.

It was a bit circular mind... in short we all (or most of us) agree. I don't particularly see the thread as over-long, or a waste, although Malleus (who must be embarrassed) certainly got away with the clown fight: which is partly down to WR apathy imo, although he a regular fave here. Which is sweet really - because many people here, whatever they say, clearly still want heroes who are still fighting some kind of fight within WP. In my experience, WR these days seems interested more in various 'wider' issues, and even non-related WP news, than with this kind of annex-level stuff - whether they contain Giano or Jerry and Joanne.

Embarrassed? Not in the slightest. Why should I be embarrased about being right? The clown article means very little to me and I sorted out the issue in dispute with a slight rewrite, which Rod could himself have done instead of chucking his dummy out of the pram.

I've seen plenty of people get blocked for going about it the way you two did - the earlier edits in particular were simply a size-13 spat. The joke is in the standing you both have, and how Wikipedia fails on a daily level with quanititive adjectives like "many/some" etc (as I call them, I forget their technical name). I've been collecting examples of them for a while now - they are the scourge of badly-written articles and POV wars. Many people would edit-war rather than try and work around them, mostly as they convey subtle quantities of weight, and sometimes because it's too hard for them (or hard work) to re-write the sentence.

What an example you both set! A certified FA finisher and an intollerant admin - on an aticle that didn't even offer a POV-reward for going with one or the other! (unless you both really are clowns in real-life, of course.) "Some" or "many" wasn't it? I think "quite a few" came in too, and not forgetting of course the classic "it is alleged"!

Admit it - you both are ingrained in one of a number of ultimately-tollerated 'inner-wiki' feuds, while everyone else just has to accept that there is one rule for you people, and another for everyone else.

Myself, I really do have a fear of clowns.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Malleus]

Ok, so let's recap.

Rodhullandemu is an abusive administrator who abused his admin privileges once too many. Check...etc.

This sums it up very well. The bit about daytime police dramas was particularly good.

It was a bit circular mind... in short we all (or most of us) agree. I don't particularly see the thread as over-long, or a waste, although Malleus (who must be embarrassed) certainly got away with the clown fight: which is partly down to WR apathy imo, although he a regular fave here. Which is sweet really - because many people here, whatever they say, clearly still want heroes who are still fighting some kind of fight within WP. In my experience, WR these days seems interested more in various 'wider' issues, and even non-related WP news, than with this kind of annex-level stuff - whether they contain Giano or Jerry and Joanne.

Embarrassed? Not in the slightest. Why should I be embarrased about being right? The clown article means very little to me and I sorted out the issue in dispute with a slight rewrite, which Rod could himself have done instead of chucking his dummy out of the pram.

I've seen plenty of people get blocked for going about it the way you two did - the earlier edits in particular were simply a size-13 spat. The joke is in the standing you both have, and how Wikipedia fails on a daily level with quanititive adjectives like "many/some" etc (as I call them, I forget their technical name). I've been collecting examples of them for a while now - they are the scourge of badly-written articles and POV wars. Many people would edit-war rather than try and work around them, mostly as they convey subtle quantities of weight, and sometimes because it's too hard for them (or hard work) to re-write the sentence.

What an example you both set! A certified FA finisher and an intollerant admin - on an aticle that didn't even offer a POV-reward for going with one or the other! (unless you both really are clowns in real-life, of course.) "Some" or "many" wasn't it? I think "quite a few" came in too, and not forgetting of course the classic "it is alleged"!

Admit it - you both are ingrained in one of a number of ultimately-tollerated 'inner-wiki' feuds, while everyone else just has to accept that there is one rule for you people, and another for everyone else.

Myself, I really do have a fear of clowns.

I don't have to admit anything, but you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, no matter how flawed. If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Kelly Martin]

If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

But of course it wasn't reliable; it asserted as fact something that some Wikipedian disagreed with!

Remember, boys and girls, "reliable source" means "a source that supports my point of view", nothing more and nothing less.

[Malleus]

If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

But of course it wasn't reliable; it asserted as fact something that some Wikipedian disagreed with!

Remember, boys and girls, "reliable source" means "a source that supports my point of view", nothing more and nothing less.

That's very true, sadly. Compounded in this case of course by the fact that Rod was then an administrator, who in the eyes of some, especially their own, by definition can do no wrong.

[RMHED]

If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

But of course it wasn't reliable; it asserted as fact something that some Wikipedian disagreed with!

Remember, boys and girls, "reliable source" means "a source that supports my point of view", nothing more and nothing less.

That's very true, sadly. Compounded in this case of course by the fact that Rod was then an administrator, who in the eyes of some, especially their own, by definition can do no wrong.

You know only too well that the source you used was fine for referencing the term Coulrophobia, but the way you used it was rather spurious. It was also very much a selective quote you used; "For some reason quite a few people seem to be afraid of clowns" being the full quote, you just used the "quite a few" part.

For some reason quite a few people seem to think Malleus is a troll, can't think why.

[bi-winning]

To me, the obvious things for someone terminally ill to do are; quietly improve FA's by checking links and removing cliche's, theft and errors (it won't go unnoticed), and arguing with the known dissenters for a change to the admin system. I know that you seem yourself to be happy with the admin system as it is, but I'm sure you'll find that Jimbo (and I know you are a fan of him) wants to see at least some adjustment to it but has found little support.

Dude, you are one sick fuck. If I had terminal illness, I wouldn't spend very much--if any--time on Wikipedia, and I sure as hell wouldn't tell someone else to.

Yeah, spend your last days arguing with cliquish morons about that your article should be promoted to FA. And for what? Have you seen what happens to FAs when the author leaves? Millions of nitwits turn it slowly into shite, and the FA status is unceremoniously revoked by one of the same busybodies who you had to argue with in the first place. Some fucking memorial.

Here's what I would do: reach out to my family, siblings I hardly see. Tell everyone how I feel about them (mostly that I love them, which I think is too rarely done, but I'd probably also tell off a fucker or two). Then I'd either blow the rest of my money seeing things I always wanted to see, or devise it off to causes or people I know could use it.

Your time is precious, especially when you know you're almost out. Advising someone in that situation to spend some of their last hours on Wikipedia is one of the most fucked up things I've ever read.

[Milton Roe]

Wikipedia Review - likes the drama and the schadenfreude. The glee tends to overshadow insightful commentary in situations like this. Also, you fuckers pay way way way attention to these little Wikipedia "superstars" and way way way too little attention to the little guys that get fucked over without so much as a peep from anyone. Homework assignment: find a no-name editor that through no fault of their own got themselves in trouble in the last 6 months simply because they ran into one of these Wikipedia superstars, be they admins like Rod (or GWH, or SoV or Sandstein, or whoever), or former admins (like Slim, etc.) or even these established assholes like Malleuas. It's not hard and it happens all the time, but the "little executions" happens without all the drama so no one pays attention. You're as much of a problem as these guys.

The problem, Mr. Radek, is not that it's "not hard," and yet we don't do it. The problem is that it's so EASY that we CAN'T do it. If WR paid much attention to every nobody-nameuser who got tromped-on by some abusive admin, Bambi vs. Godzillza, that would take over most of the forum. It's like accusing us of not noticing and not caring, every time some African kid dies of diarrhea. It's individually a tragedy, but its so frequent that if you knew every tale, it would merely be a statistic.

Wikipedia has systemic problems. People get abused. There's no effective government in Haiti and there wasn't any, long before the earthquake. Same is true of Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Do we fix this by telling the stories of individual abused Haitians or Wikipedians? Well, I have no interest in doing that. In Wikipedia's case, I'm still trying to deal with a world thinks Wikipedia is some exotic place that has a wonderful government, and no systemic problems. The TV cameras haven't even got there, because it takes a lot more brains to see what' wrong with Wikipedia than getting on an airplane with a camera crew and going and having a look. The "news" hasn't even got to the stage of realizing that Wikipedia is chaotic and anarchistic and nuts, and that if it was a country, it would be (perhaps) Egypt. The media is still flying over and looking at the pyramids from the air, but the monuments are not whole story, and aren't all the relevant to the human conditions today.

It's always easy to criticize the opposition to a bad government, since the opposition is always someplace else, is always underfunded, and by definition, is always not actually running anything. The same goes for any relief organization: they're always fighting a losing battle somewhere. It's never difficult to find some villiage X in country Y and go there with a mic and say "You know what? Let me introduce you to little unknown kid Z. UNESCO/Salvation Army/Gates Foundation/International Red Cross isn't doing SHIT for poor child Z!!"

Yeah? So? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) You yourself are involved in WP content-creation, just as I am. So where do we see you fullmanating about WP governance on WP:PERENNIAL? If you think telling stories of abuses of minor characters on WP is the way to change WP, then you go, girl! Don't forget to leave us links to your blasts of righteous indignation, and the WP responses.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Malleus]

If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

But of course it wasn't reliable; it asserted as fact something that some Wikipedian disagreed with!

Remember, boys and girls, "reliable source" means "a source that supports my point of view", nothing more and nothing less.

That's very true, sadly. Compounded in this case of course by the fact that Rod was then an administrator, who in the eyes of some, especially their own, by definition can do no wrong.

You know only too well that the source you used was fine for referencing the term Coulrophobia, but the way you used it was rather spurious. It was also very much a selective quote you used; "For some reason quite a few people seem to be afraid of clowns" being the full quote, you just used the "quite a few" part.

For some reason quite a few people seem to think Malleus is a troll, can't think why.

I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that you're capable of thinking at all, so I'm rather surprised to see this. Not.

[Somey]

For some reason quite a few people seem to think Malleus is a troll, can't think why.

I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that you're capable of thinking at all, so I'm rather surprised to see this. Not.

Perhaps he was being facetious? In any event, to a Wikipedian who doesn't care about the thing at the locus of the dispute, there's effectively no difference between a "troll" and a qualified expert trying to assert the truth in the face of agenda-driven opposition - particularly if one of the disputants has offended him or her at least once in the past.

[Kelly Martin]

A "troll", in Wikipediaspeak, is any person who refuses to meekly submit to being cowed by anyone of higher Wikiauthority than himself or herself. This is itself a genericification of its original meaning, which was "anyone who disagrees with Jimmy Wales".

[RMHED]

If you take the trouble to actually read what you're pontificating about you would see that the crux of the disagreement was Rod's refusal to accept a couple of sources as being reliable, one of them The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins.

But of course it wasn't reliable; it asserted as fact something that some Wikipedian disagreed with!

Remember, boys and girls, "reliable source" means "a source that supports my point of view", nothing more and nothing less.

That's very true, sadly. Compounded in this case of course by the fact that Rod was then an administrator, who in the eyes of some, especially their own, by definition can do no wrong.

You know only too well that the source you used was fine for referencing the term Coulrophobia, but the way you used it was rather spurious. It was also very much a selective quote you used; "For some reason quite a few people seem to be afraid of clowns" being the full quote, you just used the "quite a few" part.

For some reason quite a few people seem to think Malleus is a troll, can't think why.

I'm yet to see any convincing evidence that you're capable of thinking at all, so I'm rather surprised to see this. Not.

Get back to the 'pedia Malleus, that riveting local history shit you spew out doesn't write itself you know.

[Malleus]

A "troll", in Wikipediaspeak, is any person who refuses to meekly submit to being cowed by anyone of higher Wikiauthority than himself or herself. This is itself a genericification of its original meaning, which was "anyone who disagrees with Jimmy Wales".

Indeed you're right. Rod even once told me explicitly that I was unwelcome because I refused to accept wikipedia's norms "book and chapter". The truth though is that as any kind of dissent is unwelcome then any kind of change has become impossible.

[Malleus]

Get back to the 'pedia Malleus, that riveting local history shit you spew out doesn't write itself you know.

Your attitude only hurts you, not me.

[powercorrupts]

To me, the obvious things for someone terminally ill to do are; quietly improve FA's by checking links and removing cliche's, theft and errors (it won't go unnoticed), and arguing with the known dissenters for a change to the admin system. I know that you seem yourself to be happy with the admin system as it is, but I'm sure you'll find that Jimbo (and I know you are a fan of him) wants to see at least some adjustment to it but has found little support.

Dude, you are one sick fuck. If I had terminal illness, I wouldn't spend very much--if any--time on Wikipedia, and I sure as hell wouldn't tell someone else to.

Yeah, spend your last days arguing with cliquish morons about that your article should be promoted to FA. And for what? Have you seen what happens to FAs when the author leaves? Millions of nitwits turn it slowly into shite, and the FA status is unceremoniously revoked by one of the same busybodies who you had to argue with in the first place. Some fucking memorial.

Here's what I would do: reach out to my family, siblings I hardly see. Tell everyone how I feel about them (mostly that I love them, which I think is too rarely done, but I'd probably also tell off a fucker or two). Then I'd either blow the rest of my money seeing things I always wanted to see, or devise it off to causes or people I know could use it.

Your time is precious, especially when you know you're almost out. Advising someone in that situation to spend some of their last hours on Wikipedia is one of the most fucked up things I've ever read.

Jesus, read it again - and don't be so quick to quote parags out of context, it will save your blushes.

I'm wasn't talking about ANYONE editing Wikipedia! I'm clearly talking entirely about RH, who states all the time how much he is addicted to Wikipedia and how he is unable to leave it. It is clearly his life. The flow, context and situation of the paragraph is entirely about RH. I clearly couldn't describe him directly as being terminally ill (and say "what you should do is.."), as I'm actually asking him if he is terminally ill or not - a question he simply refuses to answer. If you want to get the additional irony out of it, read the flipping thread.

To make it even simpler..

On one level I was saying to him: if you really ARE terminally ill - don't come to WR, but stay in the place you can't live without, and learn to edit without the admin bit - while keeping away from any shit. On another other level I was simply asking him the question. (I've since decided that he can't be). As everyone here really knows, terminally ill or not, RH is basicaly a drama queen who simply needs to be part the shit-fest.

And by the way (from your other post), most FA's already are steaming piles of cliched shit, just as they are sliding down the Review tract. I've always hated FA's, and I've even seen them being pushed just to 'draw a line' and avoid adding important content, to effectively get a poor article 'rubber stamped'. If it wasn't for the fact that people can still edit them (though in many cases, it is actually very difficult to do), Wikpiedia really would be the work of the Devil.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[bi-winning]

If you want to get the additional irony out of it, read the flipping thread.

There you go again, telling others to do something completely useless and unrewarding.

Note to self: don't take time management advice from "powercorrupts."

[powercorrupts]

If you want to get the additional irony out of it, read the flipping thread.

There you go again, telling others to do something completely useless and unrewarding.

Note to self: don't take time management advice from "powercorrupts."

Nothing like refusing to read up on what you are contributing to is there? Sounds like you were a perfect Wikipedian. Even judging by these first couple of posts on WR, I think it is pretty safe to call you a troll. What is 'bi-winning' all about? Being an arse on WP and WR?

[powercorrupts]

Used reply instead of edit.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[chrisoff]

Even during this case Rodhullandemu continues with his provocation. I have never "falsified" sources on ''any'' article, and I resent his allegation that I have. The discussion, which centred on the term "coulrophobia", can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clown#Original_research here]. To claim that, for instance, ''The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins'' is not a reliable source, or that ''The nightmare encyclopedia: your darkest dreams interpreted'' is "not just shite, it's unvalidated shite" does not demonstrate and kind of balanced position. Rodhullandemu used his inflammatory language over a rather small issue: whether "many" people suffer from coulrophobia or "some" people do. He has lost any sense of balance. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Even at Arbcom, Mally is preoccupied with the "clowns" article. He IS a troll. Read the thread above. His view: "It's all about me, Me and MY opinion." "I'm RIGHT, you ****heads."

Talk about Me so I can put you down! Specially since no one reads my FA articles! Boring things from books that no one can fact check! Wife selling is getting more hits since it is being challenged than it ever did before.

[Malleus]

Talk about Me so I can put you down! Specially since no one reads my FA articles! Boring things from books that no one can fact check! Wife selling is getting more hits since it is being challenged than it ever did before.

In what way is wife selling being challenged? Were you not around last April 1? It would be well for you to check your facts before further demonstrating your ignorance.

Your friend Mr Hull only yesterday decided that it would be a good strategy at his proposed ArbCom case to abuse the committee. The act of an entirely rational person do you think?

Anyone can fact check stuff from a book, but it does take a little bit of effort if it's not on Google Books, admittedly. Like actually getting hold of the book, but there are these wonderful things called libraries that you may never have heard of.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Zoloft]

If you want to get the additional irony out of it, read the flipping thread.

There you go again, telling others to do something completely useless and unrewarding.

Note to self: don't take time management advice from "powercorrupts."

Aren't we the little rosebud of amity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[powercorrupts]

Just noticed RH has retired. He says he has better things to do with this life, which is the most positive thing I've personally seen him say on the subject. My gut feeling is to say good luck to him, though you have to suspect that the usual dim-witted talk-page coos will soon see him back. If he had real friends on WP they'd leave him alone right now, and at least give him some time. WP never was a place to make genuine pals though unfortunately, but you never know - he may get an intelligent response or two from people he respects.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Milton Roe]

Just noticed RH has retired. He says he has better things to do with this life, which is the most positive thing I've personally seen him say on the subject. My gut feeling is to say good luck to him, though you have to suspect that the usual dim-witted talk-page coos will soon see him back. If he had real friends on WP they'd leave him alone right now, and at least give him some time. WP never was a place to make genuine pals though unfortunately, but you never know - he may get an intelligent response or two from people he respects.

My irony bone is tickled!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

The guy who blocked Sanger for not being pure enough to only have the building of the encyclopedia as his goal, has now decided to retire because now he can only edit as a non-admin. I guess as a non-admin, he just decided he didn't have anything more to add. That makes me sad!

Not.

Meanwhile, in today's content-wars, did you know WP was using an incorrect source for the statement that a particular nuclide was a positron-emitter with no decay by electron capture? That's what you get from trusting just one source (in this case the Wolfram website). Of course, the claim is physically impossible. All positron emitters ALSO decay by electron capture, since anything that is not forbidden in physics, is required, and conservation of energy and various quantum numbers always allows electron capture for nuclides that emit positrons. Of course, the reverse is not always true. Some proton-rich nuclides only have enough decay energy for electron capture, and not enough for making a positron. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) So they have to eat an s-electon and emit a neutrino, and you see various transition gammas and auger electrons, and that's all....

[powercorrupts]

Looks like it came after a few cool words from Jimbo.

I hope RH wasn't expecting any thanks for his 'service' (not least to Jimbo's own talk page). Interesting that Jimbo seems to be supporting arbcoms method of de-sysopping him though, and that his privileged glance at arbcom's mail seemed to be the deciding factor for him (a 'threat' was made to arbcom apparently, though that could entail a number of things of course).

[powercorrupts]

Just noticed RH has retired. He says he has better things to do with this life, which is the most positive thing I've personally seen him say on the subject. My gut feeling is to say good luck to him, though you have to suspect that the usual dim-witted talk-page coos will soon see him back. If he had real friends on WP they'd leave him alone right now, and at least give him some time. WP never was a place to make genuine pals though unfortunately, but you never know - he may get an intelligent response or two from people he respects.

My irony bone is tickled!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

The guy who blocked Sanger for not being pure enough to only have the building of the encyclopedia as his goal, has now decided to retire because now he can only edit as a non-admin. I guess as a non-admin, he just decided he didn't have anything more to add. That makes me sad!

Not.

Meanwhile, in today's content-wars, did you know WP was using an incorrect source for the statement that a particular nuclide was a positron-emitter with no decay by electron capture? That's what you get from trusting just one source (in this case the Wolfram website). Of course, the claim is physically impossible. All positron emitters ALSO decay by electron capture, since anything that is not forbidden in physics, is required, and conservation of energy and various quantum numbers always allows electron capture for nuclides that emit positrons. Of course, the reverse is not always true. Some proton-rich nuclides only have enough decay energy for electron capture, and not enough for making a positron. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) So they have to eat an s-electon and emit a neutrino, and you see various transition gammas and auger electrons, and that's all....

Enough with the porn Milton, lets keep on topic!

Believe it or not, I wasn't being ironic (well maybe not much). I think my brain is coexisting in two states - one for a negative rod state, and one for a positive one.

[Milton Roe]

Looks like it came after a few cool words from Jimbo.

I hope RH wasn't expecting any thanks for his 'service' (not least to Jimbo's own talk page). Interesting that Jimbo seems to be supporting arbcoms method of de-sysopping him though, and that his privileged glance at arbcom's mail seemed to be the deciding factor for him (a 'threat' was made to arbcom apparently, though that could entail a number of things of course).

You see, they should have sent the bouquet. They have wikibarnstars, but no folded flag to give the wiki-widow (should there be one) when the wikiwarrior is laid to rest.

We should make a tricorn folded flag award, to put on userpages of The Fallen who have a lot of edits. For their service. For their selfless devotion. For the fact that they've been srsly butthurt.

Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation convey their deepest regrets, and thank you for your ultimate sacrifice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) The tree of knowledge is watered by the tears of assholes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Just noticed RH has retired. He says he has better things to do with this life, which is the most positive thing I've personally seen him say on the subject. My gut feeling is to say good luck to him, though you have to suspect that the usual dim-witted talk-page coos will soon see him back. If he had real friends on WP they'd leave him alone right now, and at least give him some time. WP never was a place to make genuine pals though unfortunately, but you never know - he may get an intelligent response or two from people he respects.

My irony bone is tickled!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

The guy who blocked Sanger for not being pure enough to only have the building of the encyclopedia as his goal, has now decided to retire because now he can only edit as a non-admin. I guess as a non-admin, he just decided he didn't have anything more to add. That makes me sad!

Not.

Meanwhile, in today's content-wars, did you know WP was using an incorrect source for the statement that a particular nuclide was a positron-emitter with no decay by electron capture? That's what you get from trusting just one source (in this case the Wolfram website). Of course, the claim is physically impossible. All positron emitters ALSO decay by electron capture, since anything that is not forbidden in physics, is required, and conservation of energy and various quantum numbers always allows electron capture for nuclides that emit positrons. Of course, the reverse is not always true. Some proton-rich nuclides only have enough decay energy for electron capture, and not enough for making a positron. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) So they have to eat an s-electon and emit a neutrino, and you see various transition gammas and auger electrons, and that's all....

Enough with the porn Milton, lets keep on topic!

John 3:8: The thread bloweth where it listeth...

Believe it or not, I wasn't being ironic (well maybe not much). I think my brain is coexisting in two states - one for a negative rod state, and one for a positive one.

Quantum porn. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Keep that up for long and you're bound to suffer wavefunction collapse. If there is no decoherence after four hours, you should seek medical help for continued cognitive dissonance. For example, Jon has kept up a superposition of mental states for years, and look what it's done to HIS brain. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Deep breath--- ψυχή

Now:

big Ψ

[bi-winning]

Nothing like refusing to read up on what you are contributing to is there? Sounds like you were a perfect Wikipedian. Even judging by these first couple of posts on WR, I think it is pretty safe to call you a troll. What is 'bi-winning' all about? Being an arse on WP and WR?

You wound me, sir. Just for that, I'm not going to tell you the super secret meaning of "bi-winning."

Honestly, is it ever unsafe to call someone a troll? Kelly Martin correctly defines the word here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...14&#entry270214

Sadly, Wikipedia has lost one of the great troll banners in Rodhollandemo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

This post has been edited by bi-winning:

[bi-winning]

Aren't we the little rosebud of amity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Although I am not bi-polar, my pharmacological friend sees clearly.

Dear powercorrupts: I was embarrassed to have misunderstood your ironic comments. When you replied self-righteously, I found it easier to tease you than to say "I'm sorry, my mistake."

I'm sorry, my mistake.

<3

This post has been edited by bi-winning:

[powercorrupts]

Aren't we the little rosebud of amity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Although I am not bi-polar, my pharmacological friend sees clearly.

Dear powercorrupts: I was embarrassed to have misunderstood your ironic comments. When you replied self-righteously, I found it easier to tease you than to say "I'm sorry, my mistake."

I'm sorry, my mistake.

<3

Perhaps it was a bit early to call you a troll, but you did start in a pretty high key. Not sure exactly what you said about above bi-polar, but when I saw 'BI' I was a little suspicious of something else I'm afraid (just a tedious WP argument that spills onto here every now and again).

[SB_Johnny]

Aren't we the little rosebud of amity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Although I am not bi-polar, my pharmacological friend sees clearly.

Dear powercorrupts: I was embarrassed to have misunderstood your ironic comments. When you replied self-righteously, I found it easier to tease you than to say "I'm sorry, my mistake."

I'm sorry, my mistake.

<3

Perhaps it was a bit early to call you a troll, but you did start in a pretty high key. Not sure exactly what you said about above bi-polar, but when I saw 'BI' I was a little suspicious of something else I'm afraid (just a tedious WP argument that spills onto here every now and again).

I was wondering when he'd start yelling "liar! liar!", tbh.

[bi-winning]

Rodhullandemo "retires": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417523736

Again! (previously: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417347591 )

[Somey]

Rodhullandemo "retires": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417523736

Again! (previously: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417347591 )

Now, let's be fair, that was the same retirement. You can't insist on someone adding the template to both their user and talk pages simultaneously - I say you give the person some leeway, at least 72 hours, maybe even a week.

Obviously the (usual) question is, will he stay retired? I certainly hope so, and if he decides to post here on occasion to help ease the transition, I can only ask - respectfully, of course - that members here try not to abuse him so as to make the transition worse. I'm sure he's rubbed plenty of people the wrong way over the years, but remember, he was under cult discipline. Now, hopefully, not so much.

[EricBarbour]

Obviously the (usual) question is, will he stay retired? I certainly hope so, and if he decides to post here on occasion to help ease the transition, I can only ask - respectfully, of course - that members here try not to abuse him so as to make the transition worse. I'm sure he's rubbed plenty of people the wrong way over the years, but remember, he was under cult discipline. Now, hopefully, not so much.

Good luck with that. He's quite far gone in the Jimbozone. Although I have no problem with treating him with some respect (provided he doesn't log in here and start being a dick again).

More to the point, I keep having the feeling that I've accidentally logged into a soap-opera fan's
forum instead of WR. This thread is not actually making for much useful debate.

[Jon Awbrey]

More to the point, I keep having the feeling that I've accidentally logged into a soap-opera fan's
forum instead of WR. This thread is not actually making for much useful debate.

It's called “As The Wikipedia Annexes” …

You were expecting Edward R. Murrow ???

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Somey]

Well, there really isn't much of anything to debate. It's fairly obvious that they don't have a constructive/positive/effective way to deal with situations like the one Mr. Hull represents, and it isn't really any specific person's fault... It really boils down to internet criticism (and possibly internet-anonymity-culture criticism) more than Wikipedia criticism, because this sort of thing could happen on almost any collaborative/community website. The only thing we could bash Wikipedia for in this instance would be flagrant insensitivity on their part, and there hasn't really been enough of that to make it a clear-cut case.

I mean, we've already bashed them for not desysopping Mr. Hull a year ago, when it became clear that it was going to be necessary and (I'm guessing) also fairly clear that he wasn't going to go away on his own. That could have saved a few WP users some grief, but hey, grief is what WP is all about. If you don't like being unpredictably jerked around by officious admins now and again, you just stay away from WP, simple as that.

[chrisoff]

if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417649032

[Malleus]

if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417649032

But I didn't block someone for making an edit I didn't agree with though. Big difference.

[Kelly Martin]

But I didn't block someone for making an edit I didn't agree with though.

Isn't that just about the only reason someone is blocked, ever?

[Malleus]

But I didn't block someone for making an edit I didn't agree with though.

Isn't that just about the only reason someone is blocked, ever?

It is, of course. I was just making the point that I wasn't the one throwing my weight around by blocking those who opposed my will. That would be Mr emu.

[chrisoff]

I was just making the point that I wasn't the one throwing my weight around by blocking those who opposed my will. That would be Mr emu.

Only because you can't; what a mess if you had the tool. You can't refrain from having the last word.

Rod has clearly accused ArbCom of lying about its actions and the reasons for them. What's to wait for? Rod made it very clear that he wanted a case to be opened; if he decides to go awol when he realises that his bluff's been called then so be it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417672966

Pitiful that you have such thin skin and can't back away!

But you have "Moni3, Malleus's admin meatpuppet" to save your poor little ass.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

I was just making the point that I wasn't the one throwing my weight around by blocking those who opposed my will. That would be Mr emu.

Only because you can't; what a mess if you had the tool. You can't refrain from having the last word.

Rod has clearly accused ArbCom of lying about its actions and the reasons for them. What's to wait for? Rod made it very clear that he wanted a case to be opened; if he decides to go awol when he realises that his bluff's been called then so be it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417672966

Pitiful that you have such thin skin and can't back away!

But you have "Moni3, Malleus's admin meatpuppet" to save your poor little ass.

Your crystal balls appear to be broken, or at least they ought to be.

[chrisoff]

Has it ever been established that Rod was in fact telling the truth about his terminal illness, rather than inventing a reason to excuse his increasingly erratic bahaviour?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417827100

Good god! Drop it, Malleus! Move on and do something else with your (obviously too much) free time.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

Has it ever been established that Rod was in fact telling the truth about his terminal illness, rather than inventing a reason to excuse his increasingly erratic bahaviour?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417827100

Good god! Drop it, Malleus! Move on and do something else with your (obviously too much) free time.

The truth is sometimes inconvenient.

[powercorrupts]

From the evidence page (after Malleus suggests RHE could have 'Münchausen by Internet'):

Hi Malleus, I've left a comment on your talk page, but please, do not speculate as you do above.. if you have evidence that RHE is not what he says he is, please post it, if all you have is suggestions and theories, please cease. It's not doing anyone any good, I don't think. SirFozzie (talk) 8:00 pm, Today (UTC+0)

(outdent) I'll just note that Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to drop the issue, and wish to thank them for doing so. SirFozzie (talk) 8:09 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Now how is this from SirFozzie anything other than high drama?

Obviously people are going to wonder what made Malleus 'step back', given the obvious problems to Wikipedia that an administrator claiming/feigning/having illness can create - which exists whether RHE-RH-rod or whatever we call him, is using it as a loophole or not.

Perhaps an innocent party is somehow involved, though it's hard to imagine in this case - though who knows I suppose. But as Malleus pointed out - even if RH is terminally ill (or something equally grim), you just can't be the kind of admin RH was and milk it they way he did.

It does also seem like, trial nor no, they have decided that RH is not getting is admin status back, and it would seem that nobody is really going to know why - only that his actual response to the decision (when combined with his prior behaviour) was inappropriate enough for them to justify their decision.

I suppose that if arbcom absolutely insist on awarding anonymous people the right to wield such a mighty sword (very-often for being the kind of like-minded bastard they are comfortable with) - and allowing them to have no effective fear at all of their power ever being taken from them - then this is what you can get.

Like they give a shit either way. Why would they?

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[chrisoff]

Malleus is suggesting a "behavioral pattern" described by an article, Münchausen by Internet, written by Moni3, Malleus's admin meatpuppet and then promoted to GA by Malleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M%C3%BCn...by_Internet/GA2

Now he is going around "diagnosing" editors with a made up diagnosis that includes:

# Medical literature from websites or textbooks is often duplicated or discussed in great detail.

# The length and severity of purported physical ailments conflicts with user behavior. Feldman uses the example of someone posting in considerable detail about being in septic shock, when such a possibility is extremely unlikely.

# Symptoms of ailments may be exaggerated as they correspond to a user's misunderstanding of the nature of an illness.

# Grave situations and increasingly critical prognoses are interspersed with "miraculous" recoveries.

# A user's posts eventually reveal contradictory information or claims that are implausible: for example, other users of a forum may find that a user has been divulging contradictory information about occurrence or length of hospital visits.

# When attention and sympathy decreases to focus on other members of the group, a user may announce that other dire events have transpired, including the illness or death of a close family member.

# When faced with insufficient expressions of attention or sympathy, a forum member claims this as a cause that symptoms worsen or do not improve.

# A user resists contact beyond the Internet, by telephone or personal visit, often claiming bizarre reasons for not being able to accept such contact.

# Further emergencies are described with inappropriate happiness, designed to garner immediate reactions.

# Other forum members post on behalf of a user, exhibiting identical writing styles, spelling errors, and language idiosyncrasies, suggesting that the user has created fictitious identities to move the conversation in their direction.

Dr. Mally, are you suggesting Rod fits the behavior of this made up condition? In the real world, this would be considered unethical.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[RMHED]

Has it ever been established that Rod was in fact telling the truth about his terminal illness, rather than inventing a reason to excuse his increasingly erratic bahaviour?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417827100

Good god! Drop it, Malleus! Move on and do something else with your (obviously too much) free time.

The truth is sometimes inconvenient.

"The truth" is whatever you want it to be. Facts on the other hand...

[powercorrupts]

It's not quite 'Munchausen by proxy' isn't it? (ie screwing with the health of people in your care and lying about it, to get attention on yourself, like the nurse Beverly Allit - someone who's always bugged me, as she was a fault of early-privatisation of the NHS, but is pretty much forgotten in the UK I find). I can see how the name is being vicariously used perhaps - the character 'Munchausen' was just a big story teller I think. But when there's a source there's a way, as they say, and it looks like it's a common enough term. Thinking about it, it's the story-telling element that makes it 'Munchausen' - and the accusation here is that RH is spinning a huge yarn.

So it's Munchausen's syndrome using the internet.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Kelly Martin]

I though Munchhausen's involves actually getting sick or injured to get attention, while Munchhausen's by proxy is when you make someone else ill to get attention. Merely pretending to be sick on the Internet in order to get attention, sympathy, or status doesn't seem to rise to the same level, since there's no imposition on the health care system and no injury to physical health (either of the self or another). It's just yet another form of trolling. Lots of people pretend to be something they're not on the Internet, for all sorts of reasons good and bad. Don't see how this one is any worse than any of the others.

[Malleus]

I though Munchhausen's involves actually getting sick or injured to get attention, while Munchhausen's by proxy is when you make someone else ill to get attention. Merely pretending to be sick on the Internet in order to get attention, sympathy, or status doesn't seem to rise to the same level, since there's no imposition on the health care system and no injury to physical health (either of the self or another). It's just yet another form of trolling. Lots of people pretend to be something they're not on the Internet, for all sorts of reasons good and bad. Don't see how this one is any worse than any of the others.

It's not worse, simply that it shares with Munchhausens the characteristic of feigning sickness or injury .

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[RMHED]

Lots of people pretend to be something they're not on the Internet, for all sorts of reasons good and bad. Don't see how this one is any worse than any of the others.

Quite so. A certain J. Wales pretends to be the sole founder and overall godhead of an online "encyclopedia". When in reality he's a blood sucking parasitic tic on said online "encyclopedia".

[chrisoff]

It's not worse, simply that it shares with Munchhausens the characteristic of feigning sickness or injury .

You seem to be confused, Mally boy. The symptoms you describe fit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MalingeringMalingering. Read the article you passed for GA.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[powercorrupts]

It's not worse, simply that it shares with Munchhausens the characteristic of feigning sickness or injury .

You seem to be confused, Mally boy. The symptoms you describe fit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MalingeringMalingering. Read the article you passed for GA.

Don't go to Wikipedia for anything on this - not untypically it can't settle on (or lead with) single definitions. Kelly has a point I think - but the Munch'en syndome and Malingering articles both cross over, and I suspect they are not particularly good articles. No bombshell for a WP article of course, medical esp. Can't be arsed ot look elsewhere on this, but there is not point using the name 'Munchausen' unless actual bullshitting for attention is involved somehow - which seems to suit RH. I think I'm the opinion that there is fuck all wrong with him other than his personality tbh. He can't have any complaints about people thinking that. God knows what arbcom thinks he's got - something contagious probably, like a bizarre anti-WP meme condition. Or maybe they feel so sorry for him they gave him a sympathy shafting. Nothing they do or he does (like his energy, or even attitude on-wiki for example) adds up to him being so ill imo.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[powercorrupts]

Meanwhile, RH (who hasn't at any point taken himself away from the wiki for even a day it seems), has declared that he will be demonstrating what a loss his anti-vandalism edits are - via holding them back - at his arbcom trial. But can he prove to them how he also needs the tool, or is he (as I suspect) not offering them one without the other.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[chrisoff]

Don't go to Wikipedia for anything on this - not untypically it can't settle on (or lead with) single definitions. Kelly has a point I think - but the Munch'en syndome and Malingering articles both cross over, and I suspect they are not particularly good articles.

Well, to be fair the Malingering article is on an actual medical term used by real doctors as the article correctly states and reflects medically accepted sources. It follows MEDRS

Münchausen by Internet is a made up article based primarily on a term invented by one man promoting himself. It is not accepted as a medical "diagnosis" and the sources are not RS. Mally just synthisized a bunch of unrelated sources and passed it as a good article.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

Don't go to Wikipedia for anything on this - not untypically it can't settle on (or lead with) single definitions. Kelly has a point I think - but the Munch'en syndome and Malingering articles both cross over, and I suspect they are not particularly good articles.

Well, to be fair the Malingering article is on an actual medical term used by real doctors as the article correctly states and reflects medically accepted sources. It follows MEDRS

Münchausen by Internet is a made up article based primarily on a term invented by one man promoting himself. It is not accepted as a medical "diagnosis" and the sources are not RS. Mally just synthisized a bunch of unrelated sources and passed it as a good article.

So you're suggesting that I wrote the article and then passed it as a GA? Get real!

[Versa]

Don't go to Wikipedia for anything on this - not untypically it can't settle on (or lead with) single definitions. Kelly has a point I think - but the Munch'en syndome and Malingering articles both cross over, and I suspect they are not particularly good articles.

Well, to be fair the Malingering article is on an actual medical term used by real doctors as the article correctly states and reflects medically accepted sources. It follows MEDRS

Münchausen by Internet is a made up article based primarily on a term invented by one man promoting himself. It is not accepted as a medical "diagnosis" and the sources are not RS. Mally just synthisized a bunch of unrelated sources and passed it as a good article.

So you're suggesting that I wrote the article and then passed it as a GA? Get real!

What does it matter if "Münchausen by Internet" is a medical term or not?

Asshole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole isn't a medical term - but it is still descriptive.
No one would argue that it is improper to call someone an asshole because it isn't a DSM-IV recognized diagnosis, or that it would be unethical to speculate if someone was an asshole without performing a complete psychiatric workup on them.

I'd agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assclown#Simi...pounds_with_ass asscoulrophobia may be stretching it a bit - but that would be up to Malleus and Rodhull to work out.

[Peter Damian]

Quote of the week.

@Elen, the [[Witchfinder General]]: You could have offered a middle position, regardless of what I said. You didn't, and clearly have no experience of negotiating. In the mid 1980s, I was in that position as regards terrorist organisations, and to be honest, they were far more amenable than you are to finding an acceptable situation. The obvious difference, of course, is that they had weapons, and you do not. User:Rodhullandemu
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417931457

I have now seen the correspondence and actually Rod has some cause for grievance, IMO.

Oh and a sneaky bit of outing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417931457 .

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

What a mess.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[-DS-]

I really could not care less how the ArbCom handled the desysop.

Abusive admins need to go.

[Malleus]

Don't go to Wikipedia for anything on this - not untypically it can't settle on (or lead with) single definitions. Kelly has a point I think - but the Munch'en syndome and Malingering articles both cross over, and I suspect they are not particularly good articles.

Well, to be fair the Malingering article is on an actual medical term used by real doctors as the article correctly states and reflects medically accepted sources. It follows MEDRS

Münchausen by Internet is a made up article based primarily on a term invented by one man promoting himself. It is not accepted as a medical "diagnosis" and the sources are not RS. Mally just synthisized a bunch of unrelated sources and passed it as a good article.

So you're suggesting that I wrote the article and then passed it as a GA? Get real!

What does it matter if "Münchausen by Internet" is a medical term or not?

Asshole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole isn't a medical term - but it is still descriptive.
No one would argue that it is improper to call someone an asshole because it isn't a DSM-IV recognized diagnosis, or that it would be unethical to speculate if someone was an asshole without performing a complete psychiatric workup on them.

I'd agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assclown#Simi...pounds_with_ass asscoulrophobia may be stretching it a bit - but that would be up to Malleus and Rodhull to work out.

Not much chance of that, and not something I have any interest in doing.

[EricBarbour]

Abusive admins need to go.

Well, then, David Gerard needs to go, and JzG needs to go, and SlimVirgin needs to go, and Will Beback needs to go, and several members of this very same Arbcom need to go...........
where are the arbitration hearings for those removals?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[chrisoff]

So you're suggesting that I wrote the article and then passed it as a GA? Get real!

No Mally, I'm proposing that you passed a trashy article "Münchausen by Internet" to GA to make Moni3, your admin meatpuppet happy.

[Malleus]

So you're suggesting that I wrote the article and then passed it as a GA? Get real!

No Mally, I'm proposing that you passed a trashy article "Münchausen by Internet" to GA to make Moni3, your admin meatpuppet happy.

You are an idiot, and not even a consistent one. You very clearly said that I "synthisized a bunch of unrelated sources" when I did no such thing, by your own admission.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[powercorrupts]

Quote of the week.

@Elen, the [[Witchfinder General]]: You could have offered a middle position, regardless of what I said. You didn't, and clearly have no experience of negotiating. In the mid 1980s, I was in that position as regards terrorist organisations, and to be honest, they were far more amenable than you are to finding an acceptable situation. The obvious difference, of course, is that they had weapons, and you do not. User:Rodhullandemu
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417931457

I have now seen the correspondence and actually Rod has some cause for grievance, IMO.

Oh and a sneaky bit of outing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417931457 .

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

What a mess.

Rodhull is someone called Phil Nash. If you look at his uploaded photo's he's use the 'own work' label here, and also uploaded a deceased relative called Nash too (with an OBE no less). Unless all this is somehow symptomatic of a condition he has I suppose, you can't really call this 'outing' him. You can google him and find him talk about Wikipedia under his real name. Interesting comment about terrorism though! Unless perhaps that is symptomatic of something too.

Though I can see places where things might be 'difficult' for them, I ultimately have no sympathies for any of these people. They made their rod when they give him the 'super bit'. In fact they made their rod when they created the super bit - so they always get what they deserve. Wikipedia administrators are the army of WikiMedia - it's is a totally corruptible system which they've used to exert as much control without recourse as they can. And they'll carry on doing it until somehow they can't.

[bi-winning]

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

Twice, actually, and specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417879841

[powercorrupts]

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

Twice, actually, and specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417879841

It does look like he might be leaving trails deliberately.

What gets me is this, "I may not be able to react too >> quickly, as my sleep is still very poor, but I am at least going to >> try to eat something. "

Because he always seems to have plenty of energy to me. He would have to be seriously drug-assisted to work as he does if he has had problems eating. Why isn't he coming out about this illness he has? He's either keeping people in the dark deliberately for the attention, or it's all bullshit. Perhaps most likely is that he's exaggerating whatever illness he does have.

(Sorry Peter, I somehow managed to miss this diff when I wrote my post above, despite reading your comment and opening the link. Also I can see from Google that you exposed him on WR sometime last year I think, from the wmf mailing records.)

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Encyclopedist]

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

Twice, actually, and specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417879841

It does look like he might be leaving trails deliberately.

What gets me is this, "I may not be able to react too >> quickly, as my sleep is still very poor, but I am at least going to >> try to eat something. "

Because he always seems to have plenty of energy to me. He would have to be seriously drug-assisted to work as he does if he has had problems eating. Why isn't he coming out about this illness he has? He's either keeping people in the dark deliberately for the attention, or it's all bullshit. Perhaps most likely is that he's exaggerating whatever illness he does have.

(Sorry Peter, I somehow managed to miss this diff when I wrote my post above, despite reading your comment and opening the link. Also I can see from Google that you exposed him on WR sometime last year I think, from the wmf mailing records.)

My energy is limited to about 8 hours a day. Mostly, I only go out to the local shops for basics. I haven't even the energy to go down to my GP's surgery to book an appointment, and I don't have access to a phone to do so. But my energy can still cope with pushing a few buttons on my PC. Mostly otherwise, I sleep, because that's all that my illness allows me. Specifically, pernicious anaemia, diabetes, and for the time being, in remission from Hodgkins' lymphoma, and though if it comes out of remission, I will probably have less than six months left. Bottom line is that I want to do something constructive while I still have the chance, and am probably better left to get on with it. Thanks for that

[Encyclopedist]

My mistake, he outed himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417872061

Twice, actually, and specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417879841

It does look like he might be leaving trails deliberately.

What gets me is this, "I may not be able to react too >> quickly, as my sleep is still very poor, but I am at least going to >> try to eat something. "

Because he always seems to have plenty of energy to me. He would have to be seriously drug-assisted to work as he does if he has had problems eating. Why isn't he coming out about this illness he has? He's either keeping people in the dark deliberately for the attention, or it's all bullshit. Perhaps most likely is that he's exaggerating whatever illness he does have.

(Sorry Peter, I somehow managed to miss this diff when I wrote my post above, despite reading your comment and opening the link. Also I can see from Google that you exposed him on WR sometime last year I think, from the wmf mailing records.)

My energy is limited to about 8 hours a day. Mostly, I only go out to the local shops for basics. I haven't even the energy to go down to my GP's surgery to book an appointment, and I don't have access to a phone to do so. But my energy can still cope with pushing a few buttons on my PC. Mostly otherwise, I sleep, because that's all that my illness allows me. Specifically, pernicious anaemia, diabetes, and for the time being, in remission from Hodgkins' lymphoma, and though if it comes out of remission, I will probably have less than six months left. Bottom line is that I want to do something constructive while I still have the chance, and am probably better left to get on with it. Thanks for that

I'll just say this: Nobody particularly knows me on the Internet, since I don't particularly think it's important. My real name may be Phil Nash, but on the other hand, it may not. There's no way of knowing.

[Silver seren]

Everyone knows who I am on here, because y'all are jerks and googled my username. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I shouldn't have been so smart and gotten myself in all of those school function articles. Curse my high school notoriety. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Okay, brevity attempt failed. Feel free to carry on.


@Rod: That was for everyone else. As for you, i'm sorry that events have gone this way. But, really, losing your adminship doesn't really affect your ability to be constructive on Wikipedia. Sure, it's probably annoying, aggravating, and maybe even a little humiliating, but it's not really that much of a block to continuing to edit articles.

I think you shouldn't retire and should instead just keep going forward. If editing Wikipedia is something you enjoy, then I don't think you should stop that on account of this stupid situation.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you look at his uploaded photo's...

Hmmm, I like this picture! I never knew that ol' Rod had an eye for cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Encyclopedist]

If you look at his uploaded photo's...

Hmmm, I like this picture! I never knew that ol' Rod had an eye for cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

She was beautiful, but you should see her younger sister, who used to work for me. No pic, unfortunately. RH&E

[radek]

You know, at this point, I'm actually feeling sorry for the ArbCom. Not trying to excuse any of their actions, past or present, but geez frk krst, I'd really hate to be part of that august body right now. It's a kind of a mess that once you get involved in, there's simply no way you can come out looking good. As I said before, a bunch of these kids are in way over their head.

The Sandstein/Ludwigs2/Dread monkey case is looking like a more promising avenue for the possibility of an actually important and intelligent decision (which would of course be "'discretionary sanctions' are a joke and the AE board CAUSES battles, rather than solves them, so let's try something different") (I got 20 bucks for anyone who can point out a single, one, uno, jeden, ein, controversial topic area which had been in any way "solved" by AE). Of course that's probably not going to happen either. But at least that one has some "real issues" going on for it rather than what is fundamentally a glorified personality conflict between two drama queens.

[-DS-]

Abusive admins need to go.

Well, then, David Gerard needs to go, and JzG needs to go, and SlimVirgin needs to go, and Will Beback needs to go, and several members of this very same Arbcom need to go...........
where are the arbitration hearings for those removals?

Who needs hearings? Desysop them after a brief chat on IRC. It'd be quick, and deliciously ironic to boot.

[powercorrupts]

If you look at his uploaded photo's...

Hmmm, I like this picture! I never knew that ol' Rod had an eye for cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

She was beautiful, but you should see her younger sister, who used to work for me. No pic, unfortunately. RH&E

younger sister? Sounds like commons would lap it up!

But seriously, you say,

"'ll just say this: Nobody particularly knows me on the Internet, since I don't particularly think it's important. My real name may be Phil Nash, but on the other hand, it may not. There's no way of knowing. "

I'm sorry you are ill (I've never doubted you are in some way or other), but I'll be up front with you: You seem to have some serious issues with getting in other people's heads, and with hypocrisy in positions your too.

You need to understand how many people see openness as important. It doesn't have to be bare-arse nakedness. It stops speculation as much as anything, and it encourages trust and therefore productivity. It seems like only the admin-for-life system (which you seem to feel so 'cheated' of) can get around the lack of it - ie people have no choice but to show trust. But you yourself want to see a little more 'openness' now with arbcom don't you?

Presumably to make a point, you say that "there is no way of knowing" whether you are called Phil Nash or not (although it is what you call yourself in various places). By the same token there is "no way of knowing" if you really do have the above symptoms.

Incidences like your bizarre Larry Sanger block won't be forgotten too quickly here either. Why exactly did you do that? What is this fixation with 'the project' that so many men (and sometimes women) like you seem to have? Millions of people signed up to Wikipedia expecting the complete opposite of that kind of corporate-style crap. So people in general may not understand or even claim to care about Wikipedia's inner workings - but it doesn't mean that they want or expect it to be the kind of oh-so-typcially grim 'state of affairs' you've been pretty damn-well supportive of - up till now that is.

You seem to think that arbcom will lose your battle on various 'legal' technicalities. Forget that, you simply need to see their point of view - which is all that is going to matter whether you like it or not. For them, the case against you is a compounding one, and they've probably come to the realisation that allowing/tollerating and (in some cases) deliberately offering their sympathetic support to an administrator who is/claims-to-be so very ill - is just a really bad idea. It has potential for all kinds of problems, including leading were they are now. They are not going to change their mind, and as you well know, they have too much power to bend to anything anyway. All the appalling 'trophies' and faux-friendships aside, Wikipedia has always dropped people like a tonne of shit: you caught a draft of their inherent coldness from Jimbo himself. It's a fucking business son - you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[A Horse With No Name]

If you look at his uploaded photo's...

Hmmm, I like this picture! I never knew that ol' Rod had an eye for cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

She was beautiful, but you should see her younger sister, who used to work for me. No pic, unfortunately. RH&E

Well, get your camera out and start clicking. C'mon, baby, there's a wide world of hot chili mamas out there in need of lens time -- and you could be the guy to uncover the Diana Dors of the 21st century! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I'm sorry you are ill (I've never doubted you are in some way or other), but I'll be up front with you: You seem to have some serious issues with getting in other people's heads, and with hypocrisy in positions your too.

Welcome to the human race, Rod. We all screw up -- some big time, others in a small scale manner. Fortunately, Wikipedia Review is here to point out everyone's foul-ups. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[thekohser]

So what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Joan_of_Arc

Writers said things like "gigantic blockhead" in 1847?

Honestly, that's news to me, but I guess it's true.

[thekohser]

If you look at his uploaded photo's...

Hmmm, I like this picture! I never knew that ol' Rod had an eye for cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Is that Angela Beesley's cousin, maybe?

[powercorrupts]

My energy is limited to about 8 hours a day. Mostly, I only go out to the local shops for basics. I haven't even the energy to go down to my GP's surgery to book an appointment, and I don't have access to a phone to do so. But my energy can still cope with pushing a few buttons on my PC. Mostly otherwise, I sleep, because that's all that my illness allows me. Specifically, pernicious anaemia, diabetes, and for the time being, in remission from Hodgkins' lymphoma, and though if it comes out of remission, I will probably have less than six months left. Bottom line is that I want to do something constructive while I still have the chance, and am probably better left to get on with it. Thanks for that

Not being able to ring the doctor is a pretty grim thing for a man as ill as you. Assuming that you have no mobile reception or landline near enough to you, surely you could use Skype, or your internet connection in some way. Sounds like you live in the middle of nowhere. If you are in the UK (and therefore under the NHS) you would get regular visits from people could help you sort that kind of stuff out.

[powercorrupts]

Hey jonny, I didn't know you cared! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Encyclopedist]

Hey jonny, I didn't know you cared! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Expected result from Wikipedia to a user blocked five years ago, and effectively considered de facto[i][/i] banned. I wasn't there at the time, so I have no axe to grind here. Unfortunately, the credibility of blocked users tends to approach zero much more rapidly than asymptotically, and I'm not sure that this was helpful to my case. Meanwhile, I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended. If he were that brave about his own vision, he'd cut through the crap and say "I started this, and this is how it shall be". But he won't. ~~~~

[Kelly Martin]

I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended.

Does whatever illness you have include delusions as a symptom? Believing that Jimbo did not "intend" ArbCom to function as it does certainly counts as such.

[RMHED]

I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended.

Does whatever illness you have include delusions as a symptom? Believing that Jimbo did not "intend" ArbCom to function as it does certainly counts as such.

Arbcom is Jimmy's fig leaf for lack of governance.

They are completely expendable, the moment they look likely to be a nuisance to Jimmy, they'll be gone in a heartbeat.

Going AWOL is probably the wisest thing Iridescent has done.

[powercorrupts]

Hey jonny, I didn't know you cared! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Expected result from Wikipedia to a user blocked five years ago, and effectively considered de facto[i][/i] banned. I wasn't there at the time, so I have no axe to grind here. Unfortunately, the credibility of blocked users tends to approach zero much more rapidly than asymptotically, and I'm not sure that this was helpful to my case. Meanwhile, I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended. If he were that brave about his own vision, he'd cut through the crap and say "I started this, and this is how it shall be". But he won't. ~~~~

'Expected result' as in simply assuming an IP was a banned user just because they used the same common name? I don't think it was Mr Awbrey somehow. I was fully decipherable for a start!

And don't you mean 'banned users', rather than 'blocked' ones? (seeing as you've blocked quite a few users yourself).

Meanwhile, I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended. If he were that brave about his own vision, he'd cut through the crap and say "I started this, and this is how it shall be". But he won't. ~~~~

How different things look from the outside, eh? You don't need worms in here btw.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Milton Roe]

Hey jonny, I didn't know you cared! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Expected result from Wikipedia to a user blocked five years ago, and effectively considered de facto[i][/i] banned. I wasn't there at the time, so I have no axe to grind here. Unfortunately, the credibility of blocked users tends to approach zero much more rapidly than asymptotically, and I'm not sure that this was helpful to my case. Meanwhile, I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended. If he were that brave about his own vision, he'd cut through the crap and say "I started this, and this is how it shall be". But he won't. ~~~~

Yes, if you could just get THROUGH to Comrade Stalin about those horrible gulags and other stuff. Doesn't he realize the things being done in his name! Write a letter. If he finds out how bad conditions are, here in Siberia, surely he'll fix it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Sorry to hear about your Hodgkins. I'm even sorrier that you live in the UK where it's tough to get a PET/CT to follow your remission. It's important to get your butt in there regularly, since early detection still allows a certain fraction of detected relapsers to be re-treated and cured. Waiting too long and "not looking" of course, is not a good idea. This is not a disease where it doesn't matter if you look or not. I'm sure your docs explained that.

http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/content/s...s=1&ssource=mfc

[powercorrupts]

I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended.

Does whatever illness you have include delusions as a symptom? Believing that Jimbo did not "intend" ArbCom to function as it does certainly counts as such.

Arbcom is Jimmy's fig leaf for lack of governance.

They are completely expendable, the moment they look likely to be a nuisance to Jimmy, they'll be gone in a heartbeat.

Going AWOL is probably the wisest thing Iridescent has done.

Admin are the army, arbcom are the generals, Wikipedians are the home support, and the rest of us are the daydream.

He's been effectively comparing himself to Steve Jobs I was reading in the 'i' magazine today. (The i Magazine being a budget-priced UK news digest, with articles often clumsily clipped from the Independent - I call it the 'Wikipedia of news', and it's not exactly a critic of Jimbo either.)

[powercorrupts]

Hey jonny, I didn't know you cared! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Expected result from Wikipedia to a user blocked five years ago, and effectively considered de facto[i][/i] banned. I wasn't there at the time, so I have no axe to grind here. Unfortunately, the credibility of blocked users tends to approach zero much more rapidly than asymptotically, and I'm not sure that this was helpful to my case. Meanwhile, I am in email negotiations with Jimbo, without much confidence, but if "he wakes up and smells the coffee" in this case, he will realise that he has created an uncontrolled monster in the ArbCom, and perhaps that is not what he intended. If he were that brave about his own vision, he'd cut through the crap and say "I started this, and this is how it shall be". But he won't. ~~~~

Yes, if you could just get THROUGH to Comrade Stalin about those horrible gulags and other stuff. Doesn't he realize the things being done in his name! Write a letter. If he finds out how bad conditions are, here in Siberia, surely he'll fix it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Ah, the old dictator choice conundrum.

Sorry to hear about your Hodgkins. I'm even sorrier that you live in the UK where it's tough to get a PET/CT to follow your remission. It's important to get your butt in there regularly, since early detection still allows a certain fraction of detected relapsers to be re-treated and cured. Waiting too long and "not looking" of course, is not a good idea. This is not a disease where it doesn't matter if you look or not. I'm sure your docs explained that.

http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/content/s...s=1&ssource=mfc

Yeah he's got to get that telephone sorted out.

[tarantino]

Going AWOL is probably the wisest thing Iridescent has done.

This is all pure speculation on my part. but maybe the reason Iridescent wanted to be on Arbcom and become a checkuser and oversighter was because he wanted access to the secret tools, wikis and mailing lists for research purposes.

[bi-winning]

Yeah he's got to get that telephone sorted out.

He needs something sorted out, that's for sure.

[EricBarbour]

Who needs hearings? Desysop them after a brief chat on IRC. It'd be quick, and deliciously ironic to boot.

Feel free to try and talk an admin into doing it.

Just curious: how many of these are actual socks of yours?..........

This is all pure speculation on my part. but maybe the reason Iridescent wanted to be on Arbcom and become a checkuser and oversighter was because he wanted access to the secret tools, wikis and mailing lists for research purposes.

Maybe Iridescent's writing the book that others have talked about, and failed to do.
Put me down for 100 copies right now.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[-DS-]

Just curious: how many of these are actual socks of yours?..........

All of them except "Trash can of fortune".

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[Gruntled]

Honestly, that's news to me, but I guess it's true.

It's far older than that. Shakespeare (Coriolanus, II. iii. 29) says "Your wit ... 'tis strongly wadg'd up in a block head." And a 1549 source refers to "Blockeheaded asses".

[chrisoff]

Finally some common sense:

:It is for Rodhullandemu to decide how to take this situation forward as he is the only one in possession of the facts. It is not the prerogative of you, me, or anyone else, to decide what may or may not be in his best interests unless you are privy to all of the facts. (edit summary) let's drop the nanny-sytate attitude --Malleus Fatuorum

Or should arbcom hold a therapeutic "Intervention" as is done with addicts? A Charlie Sheen style prescription?

[Milton Roe]

Finally some common sense:

:It is for Rodhullandemu to decide how to take this situation forward as he is the only one in possession of the facts. It is not the prerogative of you, me, or anyone else, to decide what may or may not be in his best interests unless you are privy to all of the facts. (edit summary) let's drop the nanny-sytate attitude --Malleus Fatuorum

Or should arbcom hold a therapeutic "Intervention" as is done with addicts? A Charlie Sheen style prescription?

Search Rod's house with paparazzi, twitterers, TV journalists, and news helicopters outside? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I'm for it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[bi-winning]

Oh man, this guy is a riot. I hope they make him an admin again, just so we can do this again in a few months.

I am not yet so incompetent that I require a guardian ad litem, as it were. It's difficult enough with a mouse that persists in issuing multiple WM_CLICK events at random times, and I have no time to write a new mouse driver right now, and a keyboard that sticks on certain keys for no apparent reason. However, given the choice between a new keyboard and mouse, and eating, I prefer to eat right now to try and maintain the stamina necessary to see this thing through to its inevitable conclusion, however unpalatable that might be to the participants, including myself. As regards the case, I have refactored my evidence to move the emails to a separate subpage, and if anyone thinks I have misrepresented them, please feel free to add/remove/edit them, but not my commentary, please. I have also withdrawn my "Witchfinder" comment about Elen because, on reflection, it represents an injustice, and that is something up with which I will not put. Rodhullandemu 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just SO POOR that it makes more sense for him to "write a new mouse driver," instead of buy a new mouse, but he doesn't have time for that! So he's stuck, laboring in the dark, cold, hungry, pressing his case against ArbCom, with a keyboard that sticks and mouse that double clicks, and he can't buy replacements because he couldn't afford to buy enough food to "maintain stamina" if he did.

Woe, Rodhullandemo.

[chrisoff]

Back to Malleus and his admin meatpuppet Moni3. Seems that he he grooming another one: User:Nikkimaria [*,user,autoconfirmed,sysop]

Using the same methods he used to cultivate Moni3 , i.e. heavily copy editing her articles and then supporting them through GA and FA . "Support" given early on in the FAC process. Thankfully, others stepped in an pointed out the multiple problems, especially Carcharoth.

*'''Support''', with the obvious disclaimer that I was the GA reviewer. I thought then that there was a gap or two in the narrative, but I believe that they've now been plugged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417726941

See current state of article FAC, AFTER the Malley ''Support": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fea...ughter/archive1

Having admin meatpuppets is GOOD! Lets you get away with Rod type language.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

I don't quite see your argument. Are you suggesting that only administrators are allowed to get away with "Rod type language"? Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?

In regard to Carcharoth's comments, those three additional links obviously made all the difference. Not.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Theanima]

Back to Malleus and his admin meatpuppet Moni3. Seems that he he grooming another one: User:Nikkimaria [*,user,autoconfirmed,sysop]

Using the same methods he used to cultivate Moni3 , i.e. heavily copy editing her articles and then supporting them through GA and FA . "Support" given early on in the FAC process. Thankfully, others stepped in an pointed out the multiple problems, especially Carcharoth.

*'''Support''', with the obvious disclaimer that I was the GA reviewer. I thought then that there was a gap or two in the narrative, but I believe that they've now been plugged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=417726941

See current state of article FAC, AFTER the Malley ''Support": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fea...ughter/archive1

Having admin meatpuppets is GOOD! Lets you get away with Rod type language.

To be fair, Nikkimaria has only unblocked Malleus once, whereas Moni3 has done so twice. Then again, Nikkimaria is someone who hardly ever uses the block tool, so it's pretty obvious there is a bit of admin misuse among friends here. Moni3 has used the block tool fewer than 50 times, and her only 2 unblocks are of Malleus. It is good to have admins around to watch your back, isn't it?

[Malleus]

If fewer admins used their block tool wikipedia would be a much better place.

[chrisoff]

To be fair, Nikkimaria has only unblocked Malleus once, whereas Moni3 has done so twice. Then again, Nikkimaria is someone who hardly ever uses the block tool, so it's pretty obvious there is a bit of admin misuse among friends here. Moni3 has used the block tool fewer than 50 times, and her only 2 unblocks are of Malleus. It is good to have admins around to watch your back, isn't it?

My, my! Yes it is. And Nikkimaria pays attention! Smart little cookie aiming for FAC clique membership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418536518

How come I don't get to be one of your "admin meatpuppets", Malleus? Maybe because you don't support my FACs after you copyedit them and review them for GAN... Oh well, I guess if working with you to create content is what makes people your meatpuppets, at least they're in good company (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) @Nikki, good luck on the FAC! I've skimmed the article and it looks awesome - I keep meaning to stop by and actually post that thought on the review page but just haven't gotten around to it yet... [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418525889

Looks like User talk:Dana boomer [*,user,autoconfirmed,sysop] is aiming for membership too.

Malley meatpuppets: Moni3, Nikkimaria. Ready to be added: Dana boomer

Agree that Moni3 uses her "tools" only for personal reasons.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

In the words of your hero Mr emu, you're like a drunk shouting in the street.

[chrisoff]

:::So since you copy-edited/supported ''my'' article, I'm ''your'' meatpuppet? Here I thought meatpuppets were supposed to bow to your every whim...oh well, at least I'm being "groomed" and "cultivated" properly now (does that make me a pet or a flower?). @Dana: thanks! [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria#top|talk]]) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418529728

We're waiting for you to join the Malley unblock club, like Moni3 and Nikkimaria. But Dana, it sure would be good if you would run down to FAC and SUPPORT Nikkimaria's "awesome" article! - The one that Malleus copy edited, passed for GA and supported for FAC. A kind of meatpuppet arrangement in getting articles through GA and FAC.

But only for the "FAC regulars" And WMF wonders why editors are dropping like flies.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[NuclearWarfare]

If fewer admins used their block tool wikipedia would be a much better place.

Interesting. I would have thought that you would be someone who would be in favor of blocking trolls and vandals more rapidly than administrators currently do.

[chrisoff]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)h, I see. I unblocked you, therefore I outrank you in the enemy standings of the Wiki-RPG. Makes perfect sense. And of course the next logical step is for you to groom me to retroactively be your admin meatpuppet. Right. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria#top|talk]]) 02:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418539474

Nikkimaria! You are already a member of the Malley meatpuppet club because you have already used your tools to unblock him for personal reasons. He writes, edits, passes your articles for GA and supports them for FAC.

Will you make another Malley unblock, like Moni3?

[Kelly Martin]

Interesting. I would have thought that you would be someone who would be in favor of blocking trolls and vandals more rapidly than administrators currently do.

Blocking is not the proper approach for either vandalism or trolling. A better approach would be to never publish such content in the first place.

[Malleus]

Interesting. I would have thought that you would be someone who would be in favor of blocking trolls and vandals more rapidly than administrators currently do.

Blocking is not the proper approach for either vandalism or trolling. A better approach would be to never publish such content in the first place.

Quite. But the concept seems too difficult for many, wedded to the nonsensical "anyone can edit" mantra.

[Milton Roe]

If fewer admins used their block tool wikipedia would be a much better place.

Yes, at least when it comes to people with a history of solid edits. Observe Carcharoth.

[powercorrupts]

Iridescent, as you are following this thread, you surely have to try and get Wikimedia to spend a small portion of those millions they sit on to get some professional advice here. It's time for them to take some responsibility, forget for a moment 'the project's' 'ideals' (idle boast they are or not) and simply make some serious contact with the real world. I honestly think that anyone who doesn't feel some degree uncomfortable from RH bringing up his broader past isn't thinking straight, whatever wider position they hold. There will be plenty of real-world examples the right professional can draw upon to deal with situations like this.

And obviously - I mean someone Wikimedia staff know to be a professional, not someone who just claims they are, or a popular ego who has read a few articles on the matter.

RH - you've got to try and keep some perspective man. Wikipedia infamously protects itself via 'Assume Good Faith' from ever needing identity proof for anything (and what could be more intrinsically corruptible than that?), but there are times in Life where people simply have to reach in their pockets and provide it. See it as a formality rather than an imposition, and give people something they can believe in you by. Saying all you do and still expecting privacy is just too much even for someone in your condition, esp when many regard you saying all you do as going too far in itself.

[chrisoff]

Nikkimaria involves herself in article dispute Coulrophobia, known battleground between Rod and Malleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418674868

Just can't keep away, huh, Nikkimaria. There is always a vacancy open for a Malleus admin meatpuppet! And there are more than one way to be a Malleus admin meatpuppet. You're doing just fine at the job.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Encyclopedist]

Nikkimaria involves herself in article dispute Coulrophobia, known battleground between Rod and Malleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418674868

Just can't keep away, huh, Nikkimaria. There is always a vacancy open for a Malleus admin meatpuppet! And there are more than one way to be a Malleus admin meatpuppet. You're doing just fine at the job.

Coulrophobia shouldn't even exist as an article; it's poorly sourced and seems to have been "something made up one day". Its provenance is just shite, yet Malleus seems to think it has some validity. If it were a valid phobia in the psychiatric community, there would be papers to support it as such but the reality is that there aren't. If it's a valid psychiatric condition, I would at least expect there to be at least anecdotal, if not empirical evidence, and preferably clinical evidence that it exists beyond popular culture. I don't see any evidence of that. Yet he, and his claque support him in that. I despair.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[Zoloft]

Hey modstaff.

Request splitting off chrisoff's 'Mally Meatpuppet' chaff into another topic, destination tarpit.

Delete this post if you desire after.

[chrisoff]

This thread is called " Rodhullandemu and Malleus".

And Malleus does get his way through having cultivated multiple "admin meatpuppets", by pushing their articles through GA and FAC. (And keeping his nose up SandyGeorgia's a**.)

Unfortunately for Rod, he is not willing to cultivate the same. If he did, it would be an even contest.

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[Malleus]

Nikkimaria involves herself in article dispute Coulrophobia, known battleground between Rod and Malleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=418674868

Just can't keep away, huh, Nikkimaria. There is always a vacancy open for a Malleus admin meatpuppet! And there are more than one way to be a Malleus admin meatpuppet. You're doing just fine at the job.

Coulrophobia shouldn't even exist as an article; it's poorly sourced and seems to have been "something made up one day". Its provenance is just shite, yet Malleus seems to think it has some validity. If it were a valid phobia in the psychiatric community, there would be papers to support it as such but the reality is that there aren't. If it's a valid psychiatric condition, I would at least expect there to be at least anecdotal, if not empirical evidence, and preferably clinical evidence that it exists beyond popular culture. I don't see any evidence of that. Yet he, and his claque support him in that. I despair.

Like many people you have rather a hazy understanding of psychiatry, but as for anecdotal evidence we had this only today. How ironic.

[Milton Roe]

Coulrophobia shouldn't even exist as an article; it's poorly sourced and seems to have been "something made up one day". Its provenance is just shite, yet Malleus seems to think it has some validity. If it were a valid phobia in the psychiatric community, there would be papers to support it as such but the reality is that there aren't. If it's a valid psychiatric condition, I would at least expect there to be at least anecdotal, if not empirical evidence, and preferably clinical evidence that it exists beyond popular culture. I don't see any evidence of that. Yet he, and his claque support him in that. I despair.

And to think they kicked Herschel Krustofski off WP, and finally removed Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me's admin bit, when he went mad and did nothing but zombie-block people all day. These are editor soldiers you could have used in this WP:LAME edit war, and now where are they?

It makes me sad, like John Wayne Gacy photos! It's like... having to stay at a Ronald McDonald House. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)



(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/evil_clown.gif)

[powercorrupts]

Hey modstaff.

Request splitting off chrisoff's 'Mally Meatpuppet' chaff into another topic, destination tarpit.

Delete this post if you desire after.

Not sure about this, at least for the posts which are more than purely being jibes from either party (which is probably tarpit if it gets too much I agree).The thread is about both RH and Malleus, and they are both big-enough wp 'names' - a notorious admin and a notorious uber editor - who accuse each other of different forms of impropriety, and as a consequence various people are supporting their man (for whatever selfish or selfless reasons they may have for doing so). Questioning issues surrounding both of their integrity and how they behave in their respective roles are important I think, and both of them are watching and responding here (well to a degree anyway).

[powercorrupts]

Has anyone made a graphic of a large 'W' presented like the 'M' of the MacDonalds sign? In Europe the curved M is often often used to satirise the negative elements of American cultural and political spread, often placed on a map like pins or flags. That could be parodied quite well using Wikipedia. And Jimbo could be a yellow clown in a disc (like the Macdonalds frizbees), hands-outstretched like the Da Vinci World in Action man. With his nuts on display, needless to say. And possibly a raging hardon.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Malleus]

Coulrophobia shouldn't even exist as an article; it's poorly sourced and seems to have been "something made up one day". Its provenance is just shite, yet Malleus seems to think it has some validity. If it were a valid phobia in the psychiatric community, there would be papers to support it as such but the reality is that there aren't. If it's a valid psychiatric condition, I would at least expect there to be at least anecdotal, if not empirical evidence, and preferably clinical evidence that it exists beyond popular culture. I don't see any evidence of that. Yet he, and his claque support him in that. I despair.

It's a shame that you are blinded by your overarching desire to have everything the way you think it should be to fit in with your very many misconceptions. Otherwise you might have been open-minded enough to have come across this paper, published only last year, which even goes so far as to say: "Not everyone loves the clown. With their masked faces, strange clothing, and unpredictable behavior, clowns have instilled fear in many".

This post has been edited by Malleus: