Tiptoey spots some stub removal of mine

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240980810

and immediately reverts to stub form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240984610



And removes the evidence from ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240983998

And note that any editor who even attempts to revert those much-needed improvements to Balzac's great work will be meatpuppets, and themselves banned!

Oh dear. Seems to have caused some disagreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240984610

How utterly stupid. Way to go Tiptoety, spending his time damaging Wikipedia!

Iridescent spots this little bon mot, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240987529

And Tiptoey's reverts to Medieval philosophy remain

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240984620

By the way, when piping links, you don't need to leave spaces around the pipe.

There were no additions except the links, plus one rearrangement of a sentence. What are you talking about?

Also Tiptoey clearly hasn't spotted that when he reverted 'to last version by 86.142.235.100', that IP is also a Damian address (since the comment clearly states it is).

Nevermind, my error.

The philosophy edits weren't a significant improvement, so whether or not they're reverted isn't worth the dramaz. Your edits to the Balzac were a significant improvement and I can justify re-adding it. "Any edits by this user may be reverted" doesn't equate to "All edits by this user must be reverted", as far as I'm concerned, but equally some things aren't worth fighting about.

(Ah, just saw the conversation above. The version he reverted to seems as valid as the "final" version).

I see Tiptoey is some sort of policeman in real life. This bears out my point that the adminstration Wikipedia has become entirely the prerogative of the police. Anything that looks like disruption, even when it is improvement, is treated accordingly.

A police cadet for the Portland City Police, not a "real" policeman (that's not outing, he's described himself as such on-wiki).

Yes well that was an experiment. Next little project will be to create an FA by a sock.

You'd not be the first. Although your writing style is very distinctive so you'd probably be spotted fairly quickly.

And now Tiptoety wants OTRS access. I thought people on OTRS were supposed to not be robots, and be able to use their "good judgement"?

Alex, for once I totally agree with you.

I don't think Tiptoety is malicious - I don't even think he's wrong - but in all those oppose votes from me on RFAs of letter-of-the-law "human-bot hybrid" candidates (which you've got so annoyed with me about) this is the kind of thing I have in mind. My boilerplate "I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do" is for a reason.

An editor can be shit-hot on the huggle-reverts and memorising policy, but a good admin IMO needs to have demonstrated common sense, and in the Wikipedia environment that only comes from mainspace articles, since everything else on Wikipedia is incidental to (attempting to) improve the mainspace.

It's the exact same reason I've added suggested improvements by Greg, PoetGuy, Kelly M et al when they look to me like valid improvements, regardless of what policy says - and why I have no sympathy for the "technically that was permitted per policy" wikilawyers. The moment we start treating "policy" as more important than "content", the MMORPG faction has won.

I fixed this one, for the record.

Outrageous! Trying to improve the encyclopedia while banned?! Clearly, Wikipedia would be better off if you didn't write that FA. High-quality volunteer work by individuals excluded for political reasons makes Jimbo cry.

Another bizarre twist. I had a reply to my email to the Jimbo crowd. I won't say who it was.



I replied

Your anonymous correspondent's argument doesn't impress me. If you were editing BLPs, financially sensitive information, etc then yes, I could concede that "we can't take the chance" – but it's not like you're going to start stalking Balzac, or are trying to manipulate the market in French-literature stocks.

Quite. Also, it's conceded there has never been a problem with my editing (over 5 years worth) and that I have never had any blocks or disagreement over mainspace contributions. 'A far above average' contributor according to one of the Jimbo crowd. The block was purely over a comment made on Wikipedia Review that was perceived by Jimbo to be an insult to his lieutenant. An obviously political ban, nothing to do with real 'disruption' to the project. It gets more absurd by the second.

You're absolutely correct. You were blocked (again) for exposing and criticizing a leader of the project. Even those who support your ban don't deny this, but claim than you went about this in the wrong way.

Judging from your serious areas of interest and contributions, It's probably you, not the people who blocked you with their paraphilias and quackery, who should be running the project. You would not be the ideal candidate, but certainly better than what we have now.

Yes, because people believe that you wish to harm Wikipedia, and thus revert your edits thinking that you couldn't possibly do something useful.

I would not be the ideal candidate, because of my famously volatile temper and predilection for theatrics. This is why I have never bothered to apply for adminship in 5 years (plus the fact that administration doesn't seem to involve writing articles at all).

My idea (possibly this deserves a separate thread) would be a category 'established editor'. EE's would have no power to block, but they could not be blocked either. They would be elected by their peers, the other EE's. They could also be expelled. Criterion for admission would be evidence of good work on articles, respect for Wikipedian ethos (yes, shock) and so on.

This would devolve (in effect) decisions about editorial content from decisions about policing and obvious vandalism and so forth.

Something along these lines is exactly what is needed. I would go further and suggest that administrators (= sysops) could not also be established editors (= editors) or mediators/arbitrators, and that decisions to protect or delete articles for content reasons (as opposed to vandalism) should belong to editors. This would not solve all of Wikipedia's problems - hardly - but would begin the process of moving away from Rule-by-Sysops, and create a new class with a vested interest in maintaining its privileges and immunities relative to sysops. Presently, anyone who wishes not to be bullied by ignorants and freaks has little choice but to become an administrator (who are de facto virtually immune to blocks) themselves, or quit.

I can attest that adminship provides no immunity to bullying by other admins. It does make it much harder for them to eliminate you with one shot--but they can still taser you over and over again.

Interesting. Would you see a requirement for excluding the multiple-identity loons from entry to this class, and if so, what mechanism to exclude them would you propose? If one got past and was detected, but the other "established editors" could not reach a consensus to expel, would resolution happen within the existing mock-legal structure? If candidates have to sign up to the "wikipedian ethos", how does one set about changing that "ethos" without being labeled a liar and thrown out?

Are you certain you're not re-conceiving the same three-ring circus, minus only the power to block?

The requirement (for EE) would be identification (privately, possibly to independent third party). This is not rocket science.



See point above. On expulsion from the 'guild': the EE guild has a vested interest in maintaining its integrity and reputation (perhaps the ultimate court of appeal could still be Arcom or Wales). So it would need to have its own 'trial by peer group' body. I think much or all of the 'Giano' problem is caused by the resentment at being tried by those who are not peers, or collegiates.



Membership of EE would be by election (much as partners are chosen in accountancy and law firms). Criteria for election would be set by the peer group. Since the EE guild has a vested interest in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia (they have no other power apart from the creation of content) it would not be in their interest to maintain an ethos that was counter-productive to this.



See the remark above. The difference in interest is key. Currently, successful adminship involves vandal-fighting, successful election requires proving (usually by lying) that one can handle these matters diplomatically and gently. That results in the current environment and its obsession with civility oddly combined with the ever-present incivility of eviction by block.

A group whose vested interest is in content creation would not have the same problems.