This one is just too funny. Not that tl;dr posting isn't an issue, but word counts with "11% leeway"?

He's not the only Wikipedian who gets an allowance.

JzG is really back in full force, isn't he?

Anyway, with 11 being my lucky number (along with 2), I have to tip my hat to the 11% allowance.

What a load of horseshit.

It continues to amaze me that a project intent on writing an encyclopedia is staffed with so many people who appear adverse to things such as reading and scholarly debate.

From Larry Sanger to JWSchmidt to Jon Awbrey to myself and many others, Wikipedia seems to have an antagonistic and intolerant attitude toward credentialed academics.

OMG, someone noticed! Here I have been rolling on the floor laughing, and thinking that I should avoid sharing it.

This whole sequence has convinced me that rational argument has no place. Let's suppose I've been writing "too much." Okay, how much is too much? Let's take a look at the length of what Abd has been writing. Where is it? What is it? Indeed, since we are considering a sanction, when was it?

No examples. Only one of my comments is pointed to, a response to an enforcement request, where the comment is easy to read and very on-point, and probably is a good example of how to respond to a laundry list of scurrilous complaints without dumping a tome on the readers, which is part of why these laundry lists get filed, they encourage irritatingly long replies, thus functioning effectively to convince otherwise neutral editors that "there is a problem."

But you don't need any evidence at all for an AN ban, that's what I've seen, and it used to be different. It's one of the signs I point to as evidence of the collapse, there are many others. There is some sane comment there. But will it make any difference? I'm not holding my breath.

The really crazy thing is that, even without this new absolute nutso ban, which would not prevent any of the recent allegedly disruptive behavior, it's totally irrrelevant, rather with the old ban as now interpreted by Carcharoth, I've become so restricted that I'm not willing to try. I'm retired, until and unless something drastic shifts. I've done my part on Wikipedia, maybe more than necessary. I'll be cleaning up a few things, and I might even file an arbitration case, though without much hope that even the most blatant administrative abuse, and it happened, will be addressed.

ArbComm prefers to define problems as personality problems, which is a very old and simple practice in chaotic communities, guaranteed to demolish the community eventually. Doesn't work.

Yeah. Talk about instruction creep (an instruction written by a creep).

JzG has indeed come out of retirement. He might ask for his tools back, he resigned not "under a cloud," technically. One little sign of what's going on: his activity at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. He's acting like an admin there, closing whitelist requests that would be allowed under the RfAr that admonished him over his abusive blacklistings. I was working in cooperation with Beetstra, a strange bird. Beetstra has typically been very friendly and cooperative (and cogent) in discussion, then, when I'm hauled up before some process, he succinctly stabs me in the back. He's done it so many times now that I'm glad I'm done with it. I made all those recommendations -- brief, to the point -- because of the backlog, and he knows that the page needs volunteer support. Nothing I recommended was extreme or odd, the basic principle is that whitelisting should be easy, and it's impossible to spam with the whitelist, it takes too much work and attracts too much attention.

The only controversial comment I made was on the blacklist page, where I repeated evidence that had been given to me by email. By Beetstra. Plus I added what I'd found by my own research into the web site. Thus, by contradicting the comment by the filer of the blacklist request, I was, denovo, originating a dispute. Allowed by the sanction. Nobody's paying attention!

JzG used, and wants to use, the blacklist for content control. That's what ArbComm specifically rejected, in RfAr/Abd and JzG.

The best response to idiocy on ANI is no response. I applaud your retreat from Wikipedia. Let the fools argue in a vacuum for awhile.

I've learned how to write so that it doesn't offend legitimate tl;dr sensibilities. Can't particularly be done here on WR, not easily, any way, and it already takes a lot more work than just writing. But I'd do it here if I could.

But I did it in the Arbitration Enforcement page which is cited in the AN ban request.

The reality is that tl;dr isn't the problem. Discussion posts that are too long can be easily handled, it's trivial. What really happens is that most of those who complain don't like the substance, and "too long" is just a handy point of attack. If someone legitimately responds with tl;dr what does it mean? It means they didn't read it. So? They didn't waste their time. So?

What amuses me here on WR is someone who responds to a long post of mine, quoting the entire thing, and then puts tl;dr at the end.

It's too long, so, er, why did you quote the entire thing? I can say, easily: to irritate me, you think, and you don't give a fuck about value to the community. Jon Aubrey, unfortunately, fits into this, or else he has too high an estimation of the value of his own opinions, that we should bow down and adore him for presenting a huge image of someone throwing up.

Someone who does read a tome, on-wiki, and who considered it a waste of time, and who wants to prevent others from wasting their time, can collapse it. Very quick and simple, and I never objected to a non-abusive collapse. (And with abusive ones, it was usually that the collapse header didn't neutrally present the content, such as "Collapse garbage by Abd." So I'd edit that to a reasonable summary. Sometimes I'd add a precis outside of collapse. But, in fact, these comments were considered even more disruptive. The length is not the issue, that became very clear.)

Indeed. This AN report (not ANI, there used to be a difference) showed me that it is not at all about any rational response to the "Abd situation." Reason, careful and cautious compliance with the actual ban, made no difference. And when I saw that there was going to be no support from ArbComm, quite likely, that was it. It's not that they "won." It's that the people who would have balanced the situation, and, once upon a time sometimes did so, had almost all disappeared.

A year earlier, roughly, sentiment to ban me would have run, when the cabal was exercised, two-to-one. With some very reputable editors, well-known, on the "one" side opposing a ban. (And, of course, ArbComm later confirming my position at RfAr, something which JzG is now denying.)

Those who are left are big frogs in a shrinking, increasingly polluted pond, it is killing them one by one. None of the truly disruptive ones are people I'd want to get to know face-to-face (though sometimes surprising things can happen, I'll probably meet some of these people someday). There are some editors I'd want to meet left, to be sure. But they are increasingly voices in the wilderness, or operating on-wiki as if in a trance, senses dulled, unable to understand what's going on. Or simply in despair.

I haven't actually retreated from Wikipedia, not from the WP community, broadly defined. I'm here, and I will be elsewhere. I've just retreated from the "polluted pond" which is the wiki itself, where I'm now unable to function without causing more disruption than my personal participation there is worth. I haven't promised to make no more edits, and, indeed, I'll do some cleanup. But the intention is definitely, stopping on-wiki activity. What continues will be extremely limited. And should be non-disruptive. Except any edit with Abd in the history might be considered disruptive. I didn't expect the current objections (mostly -- and I did make one mistake).

I'm not blocked and probably won't be, but you can never tell. It will be interesting to see, in fact, if a block of any significant length is applied with no on-wiki activity.

Okay, there has been a little more cogent comment at AN. No recognition, so far, that the "excessive length" claim wasn't a current problem. I'm at AE over non-comments or allowed comments, none of them inappropriately long. But at least there are some people speaking up for what used to be obvious. I don't see a ban coming out of this discussion, not that it makes any difference! That's what's really crazy.

I did not encourage anyone to comment. In fact, by email, I said it was useless. Perhaps I was wrong, except, in the end, that ban would make no difference, not a snowball's chance in hell I'd violate it now.

Count Iblis is (was) a cabal editor who has lately been parting with the cabal in a number of areas. He has an idea for a mentor, which was originally part of the ArbComm MYOB ban, and was the only way to make it a workable ban. I accepted the original ban as not being a problem because of that provision. Fritzpoll offered to mentor me. He was originally told it was irrelevant, because mentorship wasn't being required. But it was required, for the ban to make sense. Later, when it came up, he'd been elected to ArbComm. He'd told me that it was my case that inspired him to run, in fact, before he was elected, and he did not expect to last. That's how bad it is, folks. A sitting arbitrator can't change the situation. His application to function as my mentor was denied. And the mentorship provision was removed, leaving nobody in place to interpret an innovative, badly-considered ban, creating ample opportunity for wikilawyering. Had the intention of the ban been very clear, wouldn't have been a problem. But it wasn't clear. More accurately, there was an intention that wasn't reflected in the language at all.

It appears to have been nothing more than "we don't want to see any more trouble." Which, unfortunately, assumed that I was the cause of the trouble. That's an assumption that's often true, that if there is a lot of fuss over someone, that person is probably doing something wrong. But it fails when someone becomes identified as an enemy by a "cabal," which term properly includes informal ad-hoc alliances of editors who act coherently, like a mob, even though there is no central coordination. I.e., English language.

C'mon, Abd, you knew they would try anything they could think of as a "rationalization" to silence you. That's how they roll. (Especially Guy. He doesn't roll, so much as masturbate explosively. Yeah, that's a better way to explain Guy's thinking process.)

I liked this:


Snigger. Natives are restless, etc.

1000 words per 48 hours would remove any ability to follow [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Ncmvocalist's post alone is 450 words. Lets make it across the board and start blocking everyone.

By the way, looking over the list of responders, I don't see one person who ever contributed anything really worth while to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Normally, doctors need to know how to practice medicine and lawyers how to practice law, so what about people who opine over what is good for the encyclopedia? We need an exam. ;/

Depends what you mean by "worthwhile". Sandstein is, in my opinion, an industrial-grade officious prick, but when he's not stomping around like the result of a one-night stand between John Belushi and Singa the Courtesy Lion, some of his writing (Zytglogge and Switzerland in the Roman era for instance) is pretty good quality.

Well, Sandstein was the closest responder there to having a reasonable response. So, we can create a direct correlation between good contributor and ability to respond rationally to the proposal.

Can't say much for his sense of page layout. If you need to stack pictures along both sides you've got way-y-y too many of them.

Abd, it's like the famous adage by Justice Potter Stewart. I can't define when you are in the tl mode, but I know it when I see it.

Attn. SB Johnny: "the biggest Schwarz" means "the biggest black." You may have intended "the biggest Schwanz," but then again, maybe not.

I read it as "penis," which seems to be the gist of the entries at Urban Dictionary.

Okay, you can't tell me I'm the only one here who saw "Spaceballs". Sheesh.

I thought it was schwartz with a t. But yah.

Sandstein does tend to get his panties in a mighty twist in regard to incivility and then blocks and bans come raining down but one thing you got to give him credit for is lack of bias, which is helluva lot more than you can say for your average admin. Everybody gets banhammered according to the same, very strict, rules.

I'll take Draco's Law, harsh but well defined and fair, over the wishy washy "I'll protect my friends and humiliate my friends' enemies" that typically goes on, any day.

And yes, Ncmvocalist does tend to stick his nose into everything, often without bothering to read/research the issue first. And he doesn't even have "I'm an admin" as an excuse.

Sandstein issued an interpretation of the MYOB sanction that I considered extended it, but I did not consider Sandstein anything other than neutral. Sandstein, from this extended interpretation, found that I'd violated my sanction, but because I' already promised to follow his interpretation, which I then discussed with him, he did not block me. Had I repeated what he claimed was violation, I'm sure he'd have blocked. And I'd be unable to complain. Sandstein has been okay. I'd give him a B or a C.

It was Future Perfect at Sunrise who blocked me last, based on commentary that already existed at RfAr, I merely moved it around and explained it a little. So the only admin who has blocked me over MYOB violations is FPAS. Who, before the first block, had threatened an editor with blocking on my Talk page for having reverted FPAS's removal of a comment of mine from a poll on AN. FPAS reverted back and said, repeat that and I'll block you. I.e., FPAS threatened to grossly violate recusal policy. So I warned him.

Ordinary editors are not supposed to warn administrators, it shows arrogance, which is probably ban stuff right there.

I think of Mathsci's current posturing at RfAr/Clarification: Moi? How could I possibly do anything wrong? You couldn't be implying that I'm disruptive? Moi?

FPAS grossly violated recusal policy, then, by blocking me twice, in the name of Arbitration Enforcement, the first time for having criticized him, the second for discussing the subject of a current RfAr/Clarification, on the RfAr page.... and knowing that I was claiming he was involved, already.

Now, does this make any difference at all? I don't know. Sometimes ArbComm gets it right. They did respond to both RfArs where I was the complaining party. Two highly abusive administrators are no longer administrators as a result. Now, I can understand that they don't like that. But the idea that I somehow managed to turn these perfectly respectable, well-behaved admins into monsters, luring them into their actions, is preposterous. Rather, I think, it's very simple. They are administrators, and I'm not terribly impressed. I'm not quaking in my boots, apologizing profusely for .... for what, exactly?

Not being perfect?

Great. Let me use your "too much" detector. Where, recently, on Wikipedia, have I written "too much"?

Wikipedia Review? No fair, doesn't count!

Here is my problem, HK, I just write. Now, when I've written too much -- which I often think, as well, WTF do I do? I've already, generally, spent way too much time. So, fuck it. Save it. Every reader who sees the wall of text can skip it, and the work involved in all of the skipping is less than it would take me to cut it down. Now, polemic and high-traffic pages, that's something else.

And if WR had an ability to layer text, as I've been doing at Arbitration Enforcement, I could then, later, edit a post to layer it into summary and detail. Best of both worlds, a top level that is succinct and a bottom level that's detailed. So people can skim it quickly and read in detail if they want. That is, if i have the time. Sometimes I wouldn't probably.

Maybe I'll figure out how to set up some pages somewhere I can put detail, leaving links here. But it would be nifty to have something like collapse boxes here.

For a real academic ... or at least a grown up employed in academia ... Future Perfect can be an asshole and what you are describing is par for the course which is why they took away his admin super-powers for a while.

It has little to do with the content etc ... I would say that he just enjoy stubbing people down.

You'd think he had better things to do in real life than play on the Porno-pedia all day.

Really? I should look into this. I've been holding off on filing the RfAr because

a. It's a pain in the ass.
b. It will raise a shitstorm no matter how carefully focused and clear I keep it.
c. I asked here if he was a problem and didn't get much response.

Whenever I raise a recusal case (twice so far), I realize that the result could be that I'm banned. There should be some value, not merely my bruised ego or whatever. I don't have much left to lose, though, under present conditions. And I know how to do it.

This is all part of what's seriously wrong with Wikipedia. I could be an awful editor, disruptive as hell, but if I'm abused I should be able to object and have the objection fairly heard without being banned for having the temerity to object to being abused. If I'm going to be banned, it shouldn't be for raising a legitimate complaint, which is actually a service. Very often, though, editors become disruptive because they have been abused. Address the abuse, they might themselves reform. Show them that the system is fair, they will be more likely to play fair with it. Not always. But more often.

It should be a high priority: make the system fair. But, instead, it's "how many articles has this troll written?" If I were being called a troll, I'd be pretty unlikely to invest in articles that I'd care about!

I have great sympathy with this post. The basic problem with WP in my opinion is the quality of the administrators. Few are mature, professional people who understand the way to administer things. When they see a problem they try to find the easy, quick solution. Is one of the parties himself an administrator? Obviously he must be in the right. Has one made thouzands of edits and written a few FAs? He's a good and valuable contributor so must be looked after. The last thing they do is spend time actually investigating the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute because that takes time and trouble.

In other words it's rarely crooked, twisted admins (though of course they exist) who ar ethe problem, more it is incompetent ones.

I say that despite having been the beneficiary of this system once or twice when I subsequently decided I was in the wrong.

Bingo, Wikipedia needs to professionalize the admin corps. Simply having the community's trust is not sufficient to guarantee ability as an administrator. ("Past performance does not indicate future results")

Admins should be required to pass an examination in Managerial Ethics before being given the power tools to referee the game. More importantly, the referees and umpires should not also be players in the game itself, as it's all too tempting to call plays in favor of their own team.

Heh. I'd admonish you for failing to use scare-quotes if I thought they'd make a damn.

Power corrupts. When in doubt, refer to previous sentence. Offer not void in the U.P., sorry.

Unless you'll be brainwashing outright, this "examination" will teach little more than how to hide the symptoms.

The Senior Corruptician, El Jimbo, has already declared Managerial Ethics to be "beyond the scope" of WMF projects.