Allemandtando got very bent out of shape because somewhere, I don't recall where, I pointed out that there was a set of users who were cheering him on, as he was -- arguably -- disruptive. It's a bit like the situation with, say, some involved with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, including User:Giano II, and I pointed out that supporting a disruptive user could, possibly, be considered disruptive. That hasn't been established, but it's pretty clear from the situation of Giano II that a good chuck of the community would want to see this support sanctioned, (as another chunk is cheering him on, in effect).
There have occasionally been highly disruptive editors who become heroes, as it were, to Wikipedia factions, doing what some other editors wish they could do, and saying what others wish they could say, but aren't willing to risk their accounts doing and saying. It has been claimed that I'm such an editor, so if someone were to start compiling "evidence" against me, I wouldn't be complaining about it, it comes with the territory. Allemandtando, I suppose it should be mentioned, did start such a file, in his sandbox.[1]
I became aware of it, and, unlike his later action, did not go to AN/I, nor make a big fuss about it anywhere. On June 24, I did ping a friend of Allemandtando suggesting that actually filing an RfC or the like with that "evidence" would be practically suicidal,[2] and apparently that informal intervention worked, and Allemandtando quieted down a lot. (He'd, at the same time as my contact with his friend, changed his previously very provocative name, Killerofcruft [3]. The sandbox list was blanked about an hour later.[4]
On 29 June, 21:53, I started a page, User:Abd/MKR incident, an essay on an AN/I report that got diverted over an irrelevancy, This page was not an Evidence page for a user RfC, but an essay on the incident. Allemandtando filed an AN/I report over this page at 22:56, which, amidst much irrelevant discussion over the notability of the MKR article -- which wasn't the point at all, and that was how the original diversion on AN/I had come down --, seems to have settled on a consensus that the page was legitimate. [5] The target of this MfD was started July 2, and it was "noticed" in the above AN/I discussion, with some of the debate that took place here being repeated there.
I do notice what may have inspired Ryan's belief about the page, my edit summary was "(start watch page)", but that was accidental, the page itself didn't talk about "watching," as can be seen by the creation revision:[6], and my intention was to review history, not to "watch" current contributions looking for bad stuff. I think I had in mind the idea that users -- all of us -- should realize that everything they do is visible, that the future is watching, and that what isn't noticed now may be noticed later. Lots of stuff passes under the immediate radar, users and administrators get away with abuse every day. But it can come back to haunt them. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Schulz wrote:[7]
There is a nonsense argument and what I hope is a cogent one. The nonsense argument, I must agree with Stephen, would be that my page was okay because Allemandtando was a sock puppet. Non sequitur. Now, human speech and human writing is always ambiguous, susceptible to multiple interpretations. A more sophisticated version of WP:AGF would be to assume that what people write is correct, but simply has not been understood yet, and so one engages in a process of inquiry. We imagine, sometimes, that Socrates was simply much smarter than his fellow citizens, but what if he did not assume that those he was questioning were idiots, but that they were trying to say something that he hadn't understood yet. What they were saying didn't make sense to him, and so he asked. Looking at it now, we can say that this was because those people didn't know what they were talking about and had never examined the foundations of their thinking. But that is not necessarily how Socrates looked at it. And that's not how I look at it. Even when I'm tempted to think that the writer doesn't know his shirt from facial tissue.
So what was the cogent argument, if I'm correct?
I gave it earlier, at [8]. This was followed by another editor's echo of it: [9]
And then I repeated it,[10], as an argument for speedy deletion, and Stephan responded with the above.
But, since saying it three times apparently wasn't enough, I'll lay it out anew, here in Talk, where it is less of an affliction on the poor administrator who shoulders the burden of closing this.
First, what the argument is not. It is not an argument that the page is legitimate, civil, not an attack page, not, indeed, as nominated and as Schulz argued. (Though it was not those things.)
Rather, the page is no longer as it was, when nominated, a basically empty page with the name of a user. It's an evidence page used in formal process, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), and then Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. And whether that report turned out to be accurate or not, the page has become an historical document, partly establishing the basis for the SSP report and the RFCU. If it were as described, an attack page, and with an unsuccessful attempt to identify Allemandtando as a sock puppet, it would still be important to keep the page as evidence against me, perhaps in an RfC over alleged harassment. Evidence pages full of actual attack on editors have been prepared for proceedings before ArbComm, and are referenced in ArbComm proceedings. Would we delete those? I was reviewing the block of User:Coldmachine, and one of the diffs in one of the SSP reports is a dead link, gone, I'd guess it was oversighted from the nature of how it is described. Which could raise some suspicion. We try to avoid that kind of thing. The page now has a very clear reason for continuing to exist which it did not have when this MfD was filed. The page was actually used, and this would be sufficient to keep it even if the SSP report had been rejected. (By the way, the SSP report is still open, as is the RFCU, so, technically, the whole thing could go south, hell could freeze over, and pigs could fly. It's possible.)
Got it? Stephen had stated, in this MfD, We only delete pages which have no potential value for the project. Now, does the page, given what it became during this MfD, and how it was used, have value or "potential value for the project?" Stephen, do you want me to tell you what I suspect is going on here, why you are presenting such blatantly bad arguments? I won't do it unless you ask. --Abd (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Though I wrote this, I've considered whether or not to put it up. The editor involved seems to have been a bit chastised by the events of the last two days, and is doing useful editing. In no way is this a complaint about this editor, but issues were raised by his comments on the project page, and it's my hope that he and others may benefit from this analysis. As they say, take what you like and leave the rest.
MickMacNee wrote (in italics below):[11]
Well, seeing as your replies are becoming essays in themselves,
I'm a writer. I've been an editor professionally. That can mean that I do it when I'm paid, or sometimes as a volunteer, but I prefer to write rather than to hack up or tear up or delete what others write. When I have something to say that I think of value, I write. Often it happens that others don't see the value, and some are, sometimes, quite allergic to what I write. I'd suggest to them, don't read it. It's dangerous. Subversive. Confusing. Doesn't seem to have a point. And has been known to cause unstable personalities to come unglued. When I was younger, two people committed suicide when I made some unguarded comments. Coincidence? Maybe. An early internet conference moderator, in the 1980s, deleted months of her own work because she realized that she couldn't delete what I'd written without making a mish-mash of what was left, because of it being quoted by others, including herself.
So, yes, for those Wikipedia editors who don't "get" WP:DGAF, my advice is to not read what I've written unless it's a warning on your Talk page or something like that. In which case, read it carefully and get help if it isn't clear. I almost never drop such warnings any more, except when necessary to protect others, so if I come to that point, I mean business. Now, to the point:
and I apparently don't have the foggiest,
I'd have guessed that. And events over the next day confirmed that. We'll get to that.
and now you've started poking your nose into my activities without cause, bar your need to 'police' others (do I have my own /evidence page now?), then I shall withdraw.
But you did not withdraw, Mick. You made this comment, and you did not retract your prior comment. Not a problem, you have that right, but "withdraw," it was not. Rather, you re-asserted the substance.
As to "poking" my nose into his activities without cause, I've made a habit lately of checking if users are administrators are not, I like to know, not that it really matters. So I looked at Mick's user page. But his user page redirects to his Talk page. And I saw, there, a response to a user comment that was incomplete. So I responded to the user, on Mick's page, with more complete advice. Something wrong with that?
To answer the question about his "own evidence page," no. Mick, I don't compile evidence pages about editors who are merely a bit uncivil or who edit war occasionally. I have, indeed, only compiled, now, three evidence pages. The first was to investigate what was behind an RfC, still ongoing, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. The evidence showed that the user had been uncivil, but in an environment where he had been immediately met with incivility, not just from odd users, but administrators. It's a mess, and I'm still wondering what to do about it, if anything. I do not try to get people punished, indeed, I try to prevent it, normally. I have only twice before filed an SSP report, the first failed. (Complicated case, and I probably wouldn't do it again. Note, however, the RFCU was considered reasonable, even though the editor in question screamed "fishing expedition" just like Allemandtando did). Next one was for Fredrick day (one sock verified, one "possible," perhaps an unfortunate coincidence.) Allemandando was the third time, also a Fredrick day sock. And this user was massively uncivil and disruptive, it is amazing that he wasn't blocked, he'd done so much. But he also made fast friends, because his activities served the interests of a fairly powerful block of editors. As did those of Fredrick day, before. No, Mick, you would have to work really, really hard to convince me that I should create an evidence page on you. I suspect that you simply don't realize what was going on and have made some assumptions about it.
Suffice to say, the Mfd started on the two week deadline, and you had done nothing with your evidence page, not that you had indicated what type of dispute resolution it was being compiled for.
Did I argue that the MfD was improperly filed? I don't recall that. Suppose this were an AfD. There is an unsourced article. It's AfD'd. So someone puts sources in it. Are we then to say, Delete, because it didn't have sources in it when nominated?
Here is what happens. For whatever reason, an editor commits himself or herself to an opinion. And, from then on, this opinion becomes an assumption, a fact, a world-view in which everything which contradicts the opinion must necessarily be false. It's a terrible trap, and once in a while, people recognize the trap and escape it. From my experience, Mick may not escape immediately. But I've had people come to me years later and say, you know, you were right, I couldn't see it at the time.
(Does this mean I'm right? No. And nobody should accept what I say simply because I say it, unless I am expert on the subject, which I'm not claiming here. Indeed, the world's foremost expert on Mick is Mick, not me, for sure. And he's the one who has to live with Mick, more than anyone else, so it is entirely his domain and jurisdiction. I just write about what I see and think. If he is reading this, he passed over the warning above. Heat. Kitchen.)
As for not signing user page content, when it's a multi-contributed evidence page, I suggest you get a clue about the relevant policies (listed above).
It was my page, and not a Talk page (it has a corresponding Talk page, where contributions were signed). It was like an Essay, and essays usually don't have signatures on the essay page. Users are generally given more latitude in user space than elsewhere. I'm claiming that every user has quasi-administrative status over user subpages, that, just as with user Talk, the user can revert others without limit, whereas the others would be limited by 3RR and, indeed, by a simple request from the user to not edit the page. I'm not at all claiming that this is absolute and without exception, but if anyone knows of any ArbComm cases on point, I'd love to know about them. But this was all moot. Was the page to be deleted because there was an alleged error in it where I asserted that I'd not tolerate POV edits on the page? No, It seems to me that Mick is convinced I'm wrong, bad, power-mad, and so he's looking for ways to prove it.
(The power that I assert is the power that every Wikipedia editor has, if they wake up, learn how the community works, and act within WP:IAR. Which requires, by the way, great caution and respect for precedent and consensus and civility and learning the guidelines; but that respect must not become substituted for the essential goal. In the end, IAR suggests serving the project, and serving the project suggests serving a higher goal. What is this knowledge thing about, anyway?
Check out an arbcom evidence page once in a while too.
Oh, I have, quite a bit. Some people have done mind-boggling amounts of work, I know what's involved, from having compiled much smaller pages. But, since Mick suggests it, I'll look at some more. There is always something more to learn.
Finally, the 'clueless' user on my page was copy-pasting whole sections of a company website to an article, claiming verbal permission. Even with your assessment of my competence, I think I'm justified in saying that's not allowed.
Mick had presented the user with a brick wall instead of a welcome. He's correct it is not generally allowed but there are exceptions. It was an incomplete, brick-wall answer. There were actually a series of issues involved, and my answer addressed the aspects which occurred to me.
Instead of wikilawyering and policing the project single handedly (or through posse pages), just go and absord the spirit of those policies, you will be a better person for it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure. (But the page was not a posse page, and others were not invited to edit it, that was an error made in the nomination and assumed by a few !voters; but neither were contributions by others prohibited.) However, the project needs, I'd say, policing, and I saw an example on Mick's user page at the same time as the matter I previously commented on. We have administrators, but they are spread far too thin, even though there are 1600 of them (only a few hundred are really active, I think.) I saw that Mick was involved in an uncivil exchange with another editor, and I was not surprised to see that he was blocked later that day (not because of any action of mine). He was telling the other editor not to violate 3RR, and violating it himself. I can easily understand that. The other editor is doing the wrong thing, so you have to stop him. So what do you do? Too often, the wrong thing. What did they teach us as kids about two wrongs?
So I got involved with the article Mick believed he was defending, partly, in fact, to prevent some possible damage while he was blocked. Haven't done much, except to prevent some removal of significant content without consensus or binding cause, and then when two of the blocked editors came back and started savaging each other again (not Mick, as far as I've noticed, he's kept clear of incivility) -- over a fairly pathetic issue, it's amazing what people will risk their accounts to promote or prevent -- I've been, shall we say, stern, while emphasizing over and over that all editors are welcome to participate in finding consensus, if they remain civil. It's very simple. If someone is edit warring to change or preserve the article, I won't edit war. I'll ask for article protection or go to AN/I or the 3RR noticeboard if it gets to that level, and continue to seek consensus. If users are being uncivil, I've warned them on the Talk page of the article (a possibly controversial practice), not on their user Talk pages, making the point that this warning is a friendly one, because it can't automatically be used against them and will disappear with time, effectively. Next step would be a formal talk page warning, which will stand out in User Talk History. And next step would be, essentially, to call the police. And guess what has happened? The issue that the edit warring was over may have found a consensus, or at least an improvement to the article, albeit small, that did not involve telling the intruding editor to go fly a kite. He may not be satisfied, the jury is still out, but, at least, at last glance, the edit warring stopped, after a small twitch. Small victories. We'll see if it lasts.
And Mick seems to be editing the article just fine now, working on this and that, good work, it seems to me. Keep it up, Mick. Do what you are good at, and learn about the rest. Those buses are truly beautiful, as I said in Talk:Routemaster, it makes me happy to see them. Never been to London. Love to go someday.
As I hear someone say just about every week, from an old guy who has been to the bottom and back, take the cotton out of your ears and stuff it in your mouth, you might learn something. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)