User talk:Iridescent

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees engaging in constructive debate with Wikipedia contributors.

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Stalking the Talk Page Stalkers

Seeing as everyone else seems to be doing this, let's have a go as well...
I'm curious as to who's watching this page, as the oddest mix of people seem to periodically pop up with comments here, and quotes from this page seem to turn up on assorted policy discussions, badsites and blogs at the strangest times. For my curiosity's sake, would you please add #~~~~ below if you're reading this message? Thanks! As I believe I said once before in another context, think of it as Facebook for people who don't want to show their faces.

• Note to banned users; I won't count it against you, and request that no-one else does, if you sign here even if it's a technical breach of your ban. I know that some of you are watching this page (waves to Canterberry) and I'd be interested to see who. If you're hardblocked or don't want to risk breaching your ban/revealing your IP, feel free to email me instead & I'll manually add you.
• Note to everyone else; this is not a guestbook but a "snapshot" of this particular week – please don't "direct" people here unless they're actually reading this page.

Talk Page Stalkers:

1. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
3. RyanLupin • (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Amalthea^Talk 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) (probably not for too long though, there's too much traffic here ;)
5. This is totally a guestbook. –xeno (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Of course it's not a guestbook Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Dear god, what have I started. I was merely trying to prove a point to Orangemarlin. Of course I watch this page. My paranoia won't allow me to unwatchlist. Keeper ǀ 76 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   AFAIK I saw this done first on User talk:Lucy-marie – Keeps, for once you're not to blame. – iridescent 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Lucy-marie posted hers on Aug 19. I started mine, to prove a point to Orangemarlin, on Aug 18. I'm a bit terrified at the response, really. There are several names on their I've never seen or heard before. I know of at least one other editor (steve crossin) that is looking for the same ego boost :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   You're absolutely right, I'm going senile... If you want your ego re-dented, slap one on Giggy and Lara's talkpages and watch them race to 500. – iridescent 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   I would put one on giggy's, but by the time it reached 300 affirmatives, there would be 100 or more non-post posts that claim that he canvassed for those 300 through sultry blogs, missives, and email attacks. Keeper ǀ 76 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Only watchlisted because we had conversations on the 11th and 13th, but it's an interesting read, I might forget to unlist it... JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Slightly embarassing to discover that I'm a TPS, but it's a good read. Darkspots (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   And I've brought my own stalker along with my post. [1] Twofer da price of one. You're welcome. Darkspots (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   What talkpage would be complete without at least one piece of Wiki brah trolling? – iridescent 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Not watchlisted but I come for a chat when my watchlist is quiet. — Realist² 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
11. ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I've had yours watchlisted for a while, though I haven't jumped in on any convos (yet, well besides this one).

12. 

    Please sign my !guestbook!

    (Eco walks across the project from the AfD forums, stops, takes out a cigarette, flicks his lighter, inhales, puts his lighter in his pocket, looks around at his surroundings, sees a list of TPS names, exhales, walks over to the list, takes out a Swiss Army knife, opens the blade, inhales again while humming "Pata Pata" to himself, carves his name on the list, closes the knife, exhales, puts his hands in his jacket pockets, walks off in the direction of WikiProject agriculture, inhaling...) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    OMG. That was beautiful. Simply beautiful....Keeper ǀ 76 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

13. Fabrictramp. Only a small time one-discussion stalker. But I did love Mel on FOTC, so now I'm worried... :)
14. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
16. I don't watchlist anything, I just drift around, just drifted here from AN. RMHED (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
17. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Miaow. Risker (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) See previous thread for explanation.
19. sheepishly sticks toe in the water ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Well, err, umm, not watchlisted or anything but err, umm ... BMW(drive) 11:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
21. ? Gurch (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

    Extended conversation moved to its own subsection – iridescent

22. Metros (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I'll fess up to watching
23. Very bad at clearing my watchlist... Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Gosh, seems I just signed one of these... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
25. --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
26. O hai. I can haz stalkrs ov Iridescent membrship nao? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
27. *Waves* Not a regular visitor, but i can't say i don't look at your talk page every now and then :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
28. -holds up hands- Guilty as accused. Your talk'y is so interesting. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    I think "unusual" is more the word you're after... – 무지개빛깔 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can you give me some help and advice in dealing with User:The Rambling Man as the user is currently doing my head in and making wikipedia not a place that edits are wanting to be made by myself.--Lucy-marie (talk)

What is he doing? (I can't see anything from him on your talkpage). I know him vaguely from Norwich City F.C. and haven't ever seen him doing anything I'd consider particularly out of line.

If he's doing something that's specifically enforcing policy, as opposed to pushing his particular view of how an article should look, then assume he's probably correct; he's one of the 12 bureaucrats on Wikipedia, which means that, while he's not necessarily any better at writing articles, he's broadly trusted when it comes to interpreting policy. – iridescent 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Have found the conversation I assume you mean in your archive; I won't have time to go over the whole thing today but I'll run through it tomorrow & see what's going on. – iridescent 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Know me from NCFC? How rude, I feel I should take a shower right away... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my attempt at being a unilateral Arbcom:

On having a quick skim through what I assume is the problem – from here to the end of that archive – it looks to me like this is what happened:

1. You accidentally moved some pages to incorrect titles (fpptball, autmn);
2. TRM noticed that and started checking your other moves;
3. TRM noticed a bunch of football/association football/soccer related moves, disagreed with them and reverted them;
4. The pair of you started editwarring and both of you started to get increasingly snarky in your edit summaries;
5. TRM, rather bitily, left you a template message intended for new editors.

With the strong disclaimer that I haven't read any of the discussions relating to the redirects that took place anywhere other than on User talk:Lucy-marie, if any; my take on the above points, in order, would be:

1. You were clearly wrong moving things to typos (fpptball etc) and I assume you don't object to TRM (or anyone) pulling you up on that particular issue.
2. I don't think it's unreasonable/stalking for TRM to have gone through your other moves once he'd noticed you making mistakes, to check you hadn't made any others – it's the same situation as when you were being attacked by Canterberry and his socks and EdJogg & I went through his contribution history checking if anything needed reverting.
3. This is where it gets into personal opinion, as to whether "football", "soccer" or "association football" is the best name to use. My personal opinion is that, although "football" is an ambiguous term (especially given that Wikipedia is an American website), there are enough people on Wikipedia who use it as a synonym for "association football" that it needed at the very least to be discussed at WikiProject Football, since any move would create such a huge number of double-redirects. There's a second issue here as well in that the positions (striker, midfielder) were terminology that isn't used in American football, rugby, Aussie rules etc so there wasn't a confusion to clear up – although I do agree with you that standardisation is generally a good thing and it would have been messy to move some positions but not others.
4. Neither of you seem to come out with much credit in the editwar afterwards. You both should have gone straight off to WT:FOOTY to discuss this rather than snipe at and threaten each other. In particular, TRM shouldn't have started threatening blocks quite so early, and LM should have gone off to get a third opinion on the matter far earlier.
5. This wasn't very helpful by TRM who at no point (that I can see) had actually explained to you properly what the problem with your edit summaries was.

My conclusion on the whole thing would be: yes I agree TRM seems to have acted a bit snappier than the situation warranted, and you probably deserve at least some kind of apology and "I'll be nicer". However, I don't think he was wrong in reverting you or asking you to stop. WP:BOLD is in general a good thing, but it cuts both ways; you're perfectly entitled to take bold actions, but other people are perfectly entitled to undo them.

As per your metrication of UK distances last year and the kerfluffle that caused, sometimes there are good reasons for things to be in a non-standard format, and for anything that's going to affect articles that are worked on by a large number of people, it's always good practice to discuss it with the people who will be most affected by the change. You (LM) do do a lot of good things, but you sometimes insist on what you consider to be the right view, even when most of those affected appear to disagree with you (WP:24, WP:UKT, WP:SKYSCR etc). It never hurts to ask other people, and sometimes there are good reasons for things to be the way they are, even when it's not obvious.

Hell, sometimes there isn't a good reason for things to be the way they are but people still insist on it; that's both the biggest problem with Wikipedia, and the reason Wikipedia is one of the most successful websites of all time, and the reason Wikipedia works while Citizendium, Knol, MyWikiBiz and all the other wannabees are failing; Wikipedia's structure does cause some arbitrary value-judgements to become set-in-stone policies for no good reason, but it also forces people to collaborate even when they don't agree.

Now both of you, go do some work well away from each other! – iridescent 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an apology for being linked to NCFC... ! Good analysis, all fair from my perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(And just a quick resp to your point 5, I guess I over-reacted to the fact that the only edit summary that LM had provided during this was to have a dig at me... but you're right again, pointy and unhelpful as I'm sure it won't make any difference... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

A further suggestion

A further suggestion, only tangentially related to this particular issue; I think the root cause of the problems you (LM) have historically had on Wikipedia stem from the facts that you tend to do lots of little-bitty edits spread across a large number of articles, and that your interests tend to be shared by large numbers of other people, many of whom get very heated (politics, architecture, popular TV programmes etc). Something you might be better suited to is, instead of making strings of edits to high-traffic articles that then get reverted and land you in arguments, pick a few important-but-obscure subjects on which we either don't have articles or only have a low-quality stub, and work on expanding them. Doing this has a lot of benefits:

• The obscure articles are where Wikipedia really shines. No matter how good our article on Michael Jackson gets, for example, people will always be able to find information about him of a comparable quality on the other encyclopedias; for someone wanting to find out who obscure early-80s punk singer Beki Bondage was, on the other hand, Wikipedia is the only significant source.
• The less-trafficked articles tend to be more stable, and give you something to point at and say "I did that". Were I to do a total rewrite of Buckingham Palace, for example, within days it would be edited to shreds by a horde of others. My (much maligned) Broadwater Farm article, on the other hand, is now the primary online source for information about the area (and the only thing a Google search throws up that isn't either about events 20 years ago, or council vanispam). Even though BP gets 68000 hits a month while BWFE only gets 1700, there's a satisfaction in knowing that it's my article they're reading.
• Obscure pages are generally easier to work on without being hassled and give more leeway to do things "your way". If you work on high-profile big articles, you have to put up with insanity like this all the time; if you work on relatively minor things, people tend to leave you alone. The aforementioned Broadwater Farm article is, fairly notoriously (read the talkpage) a living, breathing example of how to write an article whilst totally ignoring the Manual of Style; were one to apply WP:IAR and WP:BOLD to this extent on an article "owned" by a project I'd be ripped to shreds (as you've repeatedly found out), whereas here, people leave you alone if you can make a valid case for "I think it's better this way", and you're not constantly fending off the self-proclaimed style police and their "zOMG you put the footnotes before the punctuation!" and "oh noez you forced an image width to over 200 pixels!" screechings.
• Article writing isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. This expansion was done in about 25 minutes, entirely from a google search, to prove a point to someone who said Skipton railway station was too dull to ever be expanded into a viable article, despite my never having been there and knowing nothing of the subject.

The article writers do tend to give off an air of arrogance and sometimes give the impression that they look down on the formatters, vandal-fighters etc, but it really isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. From experience, I know that you are a pretty good writer; you just tend to throw yourself into areas where other people come into conflict with you and revert you. My advice would be to ignore the "nuts and bolts" side of formatting, spellchecking etc – there are thousands of others doing that – and to work on getting a couple of substantive Good Articles under your belt. Aside from anything else, people will generally take any arguments you make far more seriously if you have a solid list of contributions you can point to – that's why you always used to lose the permanent arguments with One Night In Hackney, regardless of which of you was actually "right". If you haven't already, I'd urge you to read Giano's article-writing essay; although it's aimed at the Featured Article crowd (who I generally steer well clear of – I've never once worked on an FA and doubt I ever will), if you follow it in general you can't really go wrong. – iridescent 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article writers do tend to give off an air of arrogance and sometimes give the impression that they look down on the formatters, vandal-fighters etc, but it really isn't anywhere near as hard as it looks. - Realist is taking his blood pressure pills. LOL. — Realist² 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't hard. Researching can be hard, weighing opposing sources can be very hard, and following the Holy Writ of the ever-more-arbitrary Manual of Style can be damn near impossible (for the ever-shrinking circle who still pay attention to it), but article writing really is just a case of "insert a after b". It's slow and it's tedious, but it's only as difficult as the topic you choose. As long as you're on an uncontroversial topic, it's perfectly possible to create a perfectly valid GA in a couple of hours. – iridescent 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LM reversion

Okay, well I'm confused now. LM needs to know that reverting edits like this need explanation. But alright, I get the point, I'll just let her do whatever and you (if you want) can deal with the repercussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong; without an edit summary to explain why it was reverted, then at the very least she was being bitey in removing content without an edit summary – and she's certainly been here long enough to know that. All I was trying to say is that it wasn't necessarily a bad revert, just a badly done revert. Semantic difference I know, and she's an established enough editor that she should know better. L-m (I assume you're reading this), please take on board what people tell you, even when you don't like the way they tell it. – iridescent 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Respect

		The Original Barnstar
		I run into you a lot, and you are always making excellent contribs. Keep up the good work! Washburnmav (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... not sure why or where, since AFAIK we don't work in a single related area, but thanks... – iridescent 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was, of course, talking about the RPP and vandalism reversion we both do. Washburnmav (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess - although it's not really my thing; you've happened to come across me on the first day in two months that I've used any kind of automated tool other than Twinkle; I've been plowing through bunch of diffs with Huggle trying to replicate a bug (see the conversation with Gurch above), and any vandal-cleanup is collateral. (For the record, the indef-block isn't replicable but I've found that CSD A7 causes the program to crash.) – iridescent 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You know it would be nice if you told me that rather than me having to read your entire talk page -- Gurch (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops my fault – I did mean to post it at Huggle/Feedback & got sidetracked. I think it may have been a temporary glitch as I tried to replicate it yesterday and deletion worked five times in a row. Unless someone else mentions it, assume the fault is at my end. – iridescent 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For me, db-a7 works, but db-bio, db-inc, and db-group don't work. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you should probably either tell Gurch or post at WP:Huggle/Feedback. I couldn't replicate the problem so don't have anything to add, and as Gurch says it's unreasonable to expect him to notice this here. – 무지개빛깔 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not :) -- Gurch (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At least I know who you are and how this page wound up on your watchlist - some of the signatures above I've never heard of.

Incidentally, have been re-trying HG today (I usually work from a mac so don't get the chance); I'm very impressed at how few of the bugs & niggles seem to remain. – iridescent 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alas the next version introduces a lot of features that were requested, and hence many bugs too. It is a long process fixing them -- Gurch (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

←Compared to a Certain Other Writer of Scripts, I think it's an outright miracle how well you've done with Huggle, given how many bells and whistles are tacked onto it. The worst Huggle gets is the occasional rude comment about some of its users and the odd "it crashed for no reason"; this is what comes of a genuinely buggy automated tool. – iridescent 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay

Ow, it's like fireworks, very hypnotic. — Realist² 01:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the complaint... I had all the dead space at the top of the page, thought I may as well put something in it. – iridescent 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack and not assuming good fait by User:Emeraude

Can you please take some action against User:Emeraude for their blatant personal attack at Wikipedia:Peer review/British National Party/archive1..--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The user is now not assuming good faith at the same article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really consider that a personal attack, more of a content dispute. I suppose technically, they are accusing you of forum-shopping, but they're not being particularly uncivil about it; the talk page does look fairly moribund. If it does carry on, the best thing to do is post at Wikiquette alerts as opposed to here; because I've dealt with you in the past I can be accused of bias (both pro and anti you).

I think the current version of the article in question looks fairly balanced and stable. For what it's worth, I think "far right" is more accurate than "fascist". I'd strongly suggest getting someone totally uninvolved – and ideally not based in Europe, let alone Britain, and with no strong political leanings of any kind, to have a look at it – as anyone in Britain is likely to have strong opinions on the BNP. I agree with the original reviewer that six {{citation needed}}'s in one article is too many, especially on an politically charged topic like this. One of my talk page stalkers may see this and take a look; otherwise, the names that spring to mind are Jclemens, Epbr123 or DGG. Don't be surprised if some or all of them want to stay away from a topic like that that's likely to lead to a flamewar, and be prepared for people to disagree with you. I'd also suggest BrownHairedGirl who writes a lot on British politics, but I know she's away until next month, and the most obvious peer-reviewer of all for an article like this is Jennavecia – however, while I'm sure she wouldn't object to your asking her, would probably decline as her talkpage has still fully to recover from the flamewar & backlash the last time she touched a "white pride" related topic.

Sorry I can't be more help... I'm not trying to wriggle out, but you really do need someone totally uninvolved for something this sensitive. – iridescent 16:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As the user complained of, may I thank you for your decision above and also give some detail on the BNP article.

You are probably not aware that Lucy-marie has a long history with this article of opposing any mention of the word "fascist" as a descriptor of the BNP and, indeed, the word was constantly inserted and deleted over a long period until respected academic sources were cited to back up the use of this word. Lucy-marie then changed tack, and picked up on the fact that some of the references were three or four years old (not unusual when looking for information on a minor party which is, therefore, a somewhat specialist area for political science academics) and that the party has changed, but despite repeated requests from other editors neither she or ant of several others has posted any reliable contrary evidence. Now, I'm quite prepared to accept that some people do not think the BNP is fascist and am aware that the BNP has itself attempted to distance itself from its fascism, but, I repeat, no reliable sources have been produced to substantiate the objective view that the BNP is fascist. And believe me, as a political scientist by background, I have scoured the literature myself in vain. Incidentally, you will probably find that some of the "citations needed" tags are there because the BNP removed from its website things that were previously cited - a number of editors have been trying to track down alternative sources for these.

My annoyance with Lucy-Marie stems from what appears to me a blatant misuse of Wikipedia procedures in an attempt to have her own way when she has lost the argument. In this regard she has a history in other topics. If all else fails, she has a history too of reporting other users for personal attacks. It's a great pity - she has made some excellent contributions (and I have even praised her in the past for some of them) and has recently started a page on school uniform that not only looks extremely promising but one which I may be able to contribute to as well.

Sorry to go on and on. Emeraude (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm very, very aware of the issues Lucy-marie has on Wikipedia; I'm also very aware of her unwillingness to admit when she's wrong - or even right-but-outnumbered, and the extreme lengths she goes to to defend what she believes to be right. (I was the one who got her blocked last year, and see this conversation above on an unrelated issue she's currently involved in). However, I can also see her viewpoint; she is right in that the BNP has making a conscious attempt to distance itself from fascism, and I do believe this needs someone totally uninvolved to hold the ring, unless we're to have a revival of the "white pride"/"white power"/"white supremacy" debacle of a few months ago; I'm also unhappy at (and I'm not referring to you here) the way L-m sometimes turns into a general punchbag for broader issues around any article as soon as people see her name in the contribution history, in much the same way as SlimVirgin. As I say above, you desperately need someone who doesn't care to review that article or the same edit-wars will keep bouncing back and forth. – iridescent 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to directly quote Iridescent here (referring to me) "whatever she's done in the past is in the past and unless you can find evidence of any current abuse by her, stop making insinuations." I think that sums up entirely this whole issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes – that's what I'm trying to say. I think you still have a history of not admitting you're ever wrong, but I don't necessarily think you're wrong here. I do think you need to get someone totally uninvolved to have a look at this since it's obvious you two aren't going to agree – iridescent 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter

I added some references to Colin Carter. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter. --Eastmain (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence now; on the one hand, there does seem enough to possibly push him from "marginally non-notable" to "marginally notable"; on the other, I'm not competent to judge which of those awards are significant. It looks like it's headed for a "no consensus" come what may; if it starts to sway towards deletion, I'll revisit it. Quite frankly, the creator's behaviour is not exactly inspiring me to put any effort into defending it. – 무지개빛깔 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for new messages

Thanks fr33kman (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying there. – iridescent 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_4#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FShalom_Yechiel Yechiel (Shalom) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not retracting my comment, if that's what you're after. The text of your email was neutral enough; what I aimed the "frankly loopy" at was the link you provided to a long, rambling pseudo-RFC which appeared (and still appears) to be nothing but a long series of personal attacks on anyone who dared to oppose your RFA (from me to Majorly, which is about as broad a spectrum as could be had), mixed with self-indulgent whining ("I would like the community to acknowledge the extraordinary effort I have invested", "I would like the community to praise my forthrightness", "A list of a hundred users signing a statement saying "We forgive Shalom Yechiel" would really make me cry, I hope that's not too much to ask for"). I do feel the need to point out that every single person posting on that "RFC" other than yourself – including people like Ryan who rarely agree with me on anything was echoing this view in one way or another. You're welcome to post as many personal attacks as you like against me on your blog or on Wikipedia Review; when you start posting lengthy attacks against people on-wiki, don't be surprised when those people complain.

And please don't edit talk archives; they're called "archives" for a reason. I've reverted your edit; should you (or anyone) need to see your addition, your version is here. – iridescent 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by Shalom Yechiel

I'm going to write a long essay here. I expect to save edits incrementally as I review the entire conflict between us and try to move toward a resolution.

Preamble

I have decided to invest several hours into researching and reviewing my actions and your talk page history in order to understand what happened. Writing my thoughts will require at least another hour, and if you choose to read them, it will take you ten minutes or more. Why is it worth my time to do this? What do I expect to gain from it, or how will you benefit from reading it? This is an important question. I am certain that the anger expressed in my RFC blinded you to the substance of what I was saying. I want a second chance to communicate with you and reach an understanding. I would have preferred to do this by email, but since you responded to me on-wiki, I'm coming back on your turf. I want three things: one for myself, one for you, and one for the "talk page stalkers" who will read this conversation.

1. For myself, I want to leave Wikipedia without feeling anger in my heart. I know you don't like to hear me quote religious texts, but this one is completely relevant and agreeable even to a secular individual: והסר כעס מלבך, "you should remove anger from your heart" (Ecclesiastes, end of chapter 11). I gave a lot of time and effort to this project. I wish to depart on my own terms, without feeling ostracized by other editors.
2. For you, I want you to improve your behavior. You may not realize it, but your remarks on my RFA contributed substantially to making me feel unwelcome as an editor. If you think this happened only because I am thin-skinned and not because of any provocation on your part, I will try to convince you that you played a role in this, and you could have prevented me from leaving Wikipedia - which, for the encyclopedia, was a significant loss.
3. For the "talk page stalkers," I want to salvage what little of my reputation I have left. I cannot expect to be trusted or even forgiven after what I did in 2007. What I can expect is that people know the truth about what I did and did not do. If you choose to ignore the truth, I cannot stop you, but I want the truth to be known and available to any reader who wishes to understand my point of view. I don't expect a reward for my hours of time spent writing hundreds of articles from scratch, but please don't remember me as "that guy who did such terrible things" - I hope to be thought of better than that.

Analysis of the RFA comments

I'm going to try again to explain why I take issue with your comments on my RFA. It is not simply that I disagree with your opposition to my RFA. I disagree with virtually everyone's opposition to my RFA. That's what it means to run for RFA: if I thought the predictable concerns about trust disqualified me from RFA, I don't think I would have applied. Rather, I disagree with what you said in your opposition. For lack of a better method, I'm going to quote your entire comment and explain where I agree and disagree, and if I disagree, what my opinion is, and why does the difference matter.

Oppose. This stretches "please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning" to the limits, but I hope it qualifies (as per Barneca's comments) as "a well thought out no, not a knee-jerk never!" – this is not a simple "yes, punish him for the past" oppose, but the longest RFA argument I've ever written (and hopefully, the longest I'll ever write; if anyone still wants evidence that the RFA process has problems, a single discussion comment longer than five old-style RFAs combined is surely it).

I'll grant that, but you could have chosen to keep your comment shorter.

     In my opinion, if we were to apply policy with anything approaching consistency this user would never have been allowed to come back as an editor, let alone be being considered at RFA for the fourth time, and I don't really understand why he isn't community banned given that people have been banned for far less.

I was never in a position where a community ban was seriously considered. It may surprise you, but I have never been blocked on my main account, and I have never been subject to a publicly disclosed checkuser request. It is wrong to suggest "this user would never have been allowed to come back as an editor" because I was never removed as an editor. From January 2006 to July 2007, I probably did not go a week without editing Wikipedia either on my main account or as a legitimate alternate account or IP address. If you don't understand why I'm not community banned, I can try to explain it to you, but the full story is too long to fit on this page. The short version is that, the moment I got caught sockpuppeting, I immediately admitted my guilt and apologized, and resolved henceforward not to vandalize anymore and to limit myself to one account. I have kept my word on the vandalism front, and I am editing from an alternate account. I am using my old account only to attend briefly to some issues relating to my previous identity (Everyking's RFA, Majorly's RFC, and this discussion). Even if you think I really should have been banned, despite the mitigating circumstances, please consider that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," and in retrospect, it was Wikipedia's benefit that I continued my editing until recently, racking up 25,000+ edits and 300+ new articles.

(Yes, he could have started a fresh account. If he had, then either he'd be an editor in good standing now with nobody aware of his past and none of this would have arisen, or we'd have another Archtransit on our hands. But, he didn't, and we can only judge any case by what evidence we have.)

I'll ignore this.

However, be all that as it may; since consensus seems to be that he's "served his time", I'll judge purely on his behaviour since the last RFA.

Again, I never served any time. I was never blocked on my main account. You can argue until the sun rises in the west that I should have been blocked, but I was not blocked. I think this is relevant to understanding the history.

Unfortunately, I don't think SY has been a model contributor even since he cleaned up his act. 
     While he may no longer be actively vandalising and trolling, I do not trust with a delete button someone who thinks "I have not actually read the article but I think it might be autobiographical" is a valid deletion reason.

I responded to this at the RFC. I'll expand my comments so that you understand exactly what I was doing. I was reviewing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff, where Delicious carbuncle reported that "All accounts listed have edited Jeremy Issacharoff, presumably the autobio of this user." Having experience answering queries at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I inferred that, if the COI accusation was correct, it warranted a review and possible deletion of an article. I am more than aware that COI alone does not justify deleting an article, but if the article is bad or marginal anyway, it is a factor to consider in supporting the deletion. I skimmed the article - it was four or five paragraphs, as best I recall, and I did not care to read every word - and notice insufficient references, so I began my nomination statement with the words "This is a poorly referenced biography." Again, poorly referenced biographies are not automatically deleted, but it's a legitimate concern (especially in light of the biographies of living persons policy), and if references to establish notability cannot be found, the article should be deleted. At the time, I was busy working through WP:SSP, and did not wish to divert my attention to try to clean up this article, so I passed the potential deletion of the article to AFD, noting that I had not read it in full, and implicitly inviting others to review it more carefully. AFD is nothing if not an invitation for other users to offer their opinions. I would never in a million years have tagged that article as a speedy deletion candidate, but I am certain that my AFD nomination was entirely legitimate and should not have been grounds for opposition at an RFA. I will add that the article was actually deleted (for a different reason). I will also add that I have nominated a few hundred articles for deletion, and some of my nominations (especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote for the Worst) were far worse than the Issacharoff instance.

Most deal-breakingly for me, it's only a short time since he unilaterally invented a "policy" and then, despite the only other contributor to the "debate" disagreeing with him, set about unilaterally enforcing it with no discussion and no serious attempt at discussion (unless he really thinks that typical users routinely watchlist Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)). Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular decision (I personally think it's wrong, but can see valid reasons to agree with it) there's a difference between being bold and being disruptive – as a regular at WikiProject Trains I can vouch for the fact that he never even attempted to discuss the matter with the project working with the articles in question. In an admin, particularly someone who intends to work in a sensitive field like SSP, unilateral "I think it's better this way" actions generally cause problems. (Note: This isn't a case of me WP:OWNing articles – none of the articles affected were articles I've ever worked on.)

I responded to this at the RFC. You will recall that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel was the second RFC I ever started. The first RFC I started was an attempt to discuss my proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) to resolve inconsistencies in the names of articles about rail accidents and other events. I spent about two hours preparing the RFC in my userspace. I then posted it to Template:RFCstyle and waited for responses to arrive. Four days later, I had received no response, and I honestly thought nobody objected to me taking what I thought was a noncontroversial series of page-moves. I did not notify the WikiProject because, as best I recall, either I did not think of it, or maybe I did think of it but thought I was not obligated to notify them because anyone who would wish to object would see an RFC posted for almost a week. On my talk page, Simply south commented on one of my page moves, and I asked him about my general series of actions but he did not have a problem with it. Aside from the reasonable expectation that articles about similar incidents should have similar titles, I simply cannot see how my actions could be interpreted as disruptive even by the most Draconian standards. Renaming "Chase, Maryland train wreck" to "Chase, Maryland rail accident" does not change the substantive meaning of the title, and does not confuse the reader. (Renaming "Chase, Maryland train wreck" to "HAGGER???" would be disruptive, but that's not what I did.) My actions fall within the reasonable boundaries of BOLD, revert, discuss, especially because I made a reasonable attempt to discuss my intended action before I took that action. If I could do it over, I would have notified the WikiProject Trains talk page, but opposing my RFA on the basis that my page-moves were "disruptive" seems like a disproportionate response to a good-faith attempt at fixing a problem. I stand by my actions.

     Whilst I do appreciate the eloquence and obvious effort that's gone into SY's acceptance statement, I think most of his points are irrelevant. While I appreciate that Mosaic law is important to SY in his private life, an argument based upon it in the context of Wikipedia has no more relevance than an argument based on the Starfleet Directives or the Laws of Ælfred; even were I to believe it, a system of arbitrary, dictated, non-negotiable rules doesn't, in my opinion, have any relevance to a system founded on consensus and ignoring rules.

JoshuaZ raised the same issue in different wording, and I understand it. I was trying to make an a fortiori argument: namely, if in a formal legal system, where a witness can substantively harm an innocent person by lying, the legal system grants trust to someone who has previously acted dishonestly after demonstrated rehabilitation, then surely in an informal social structure such as Wikipedia, which is inherently based on trust, it should be possible to regain trust by demonstrated rehabilitation. I consider this issue a legitimate difference of opinion, so I take no issue with your opinion that an a fortiori argument does not hold water.

The RFA process isn't about "has he served his time", but a question of trust. In this particular case, I'm sorry to say that I while I appreciate that plenty of people whose opinions I respect do appear to trust him, I still don't.

No problem.

It's not, as he says in his statement, that I necessarily expect him to repeat his misconduct; it's that I believe the possibility (I don't like to use the word "probability", which in this context carries negative connotations) that he'll "turn rogue" again is unacceptably high. It may be over a year since the last bout of outright vandalism, but it's only a couple of months since the last bout of "I've had enough and I'm never coming back" sulking.

It's a small point, but I find my decision to depart Wikipedia in protest to how User:CreepyCrawly was mistreated by administrators to be a legitimate response. If you had spent seven hours trying to prove his innocence, you might have been a little upset, too. Comparing my response there to "turning rogue" or vandalizing Wikipedia doesn't hold water, and I hope you didn't intend otherwise. Honestly, a lot of users, including administrators, take breaks in protest of various things that bother them. I recall on the same day I left Wikipedia in March, Majorly and Alison also announced their respective departures, though each of them returned less than a week later. Also, it's another small point, but "the last bout of 'I've had enough and I'm never coming back'" implies that there was an earlier bout, when in fact March 2008 was the first time I felt that way. Again, I don't think you intended otherwise, but the reader should be aware of details.

     Although in most cases, quite rightly, off-wiki activity shouldn't be considered relevant to Wikipedia, in my opinion this is one of those cases where that consideration doesn't apply. SY maintains a blog which functions as a de facto attack site (reading this post in particular took away any chance I had of taking this candidate seriously).

I responded to the allegation my blog was a "de facto attack site" at the RFC. I have removed all Wikipedia-related posts from my blog, and I wish not to discuss my blog anymore.

Also, on too many occasions his response to anyone disagreeing with him has been to post at great length on the matter to WR.

I'll be blunt, since the RFC didn't make this clear enough. I don't think this ever happened. How many occasions is "too many"? One? Two? If I ever posted at great length to Wikipedia Review regarding a dispute with another user on-wiki as of when you wrote that statement, please let me know.

I'm well aware that a number of editors (including me) post occasionally at WR and don't get in any trouble for doing so. However, there's a qualitative difference between occasionally explaining policy and how particular decisions were reached or discussing concerns about a particular editor's behaviour away from the "pressure cooker" of highly watched talkpages whilst keeping it on a site that anyone can read, and SY's posts, which include accusations of sockpuppetry against Arbcom members, repeated attacks on anyone who agrees with anyone he sees as part of "the cabal", and so on.

I responded to the "sockpuppeptry against ArbCom members" (specifically FT2) at the RFC. I was responding to someone else who claimed that TBP was a sockpuppet of FT2. I analyzed the matter, and my results were inconclusive. I currently believe, based on recent postings by FT2 to WR and private communication by email, that FT2 and TBP are two different people. I never said otherwise.

I still reject the allegation that I made "repeated attacks" on WR. I think you confused a blog post of mine as if I had made it on WR. In my blog post concerning CreepyCrawly in March, I wrote, "I took on the cabal, and I won." It was a long post, which accounts for "at great length." But it was on my blog, not Wikipedia Review. A small difference, perhaps, but it's still a factual inaccuracy, and you should be willing to correct it.

     Over the last few months, there have been a number of decent, hardworking editors who've failed RFA because of a few relatively minor, historical, transgressions or personality clashes. Given that, I see no reason whatsoever why we should bend precedent to breaking point to give sysop rights to a user who's idea of building an encyclopedia is to follow Badlydrawnjeff around changing his signature to BadlyDrawnJoke, and who (less than three months ago) said that his goal on Wikipedia was to "start the biggest arbitration case in the history of Wikipedia, involving dozens of users and administrators, to atone for the accumulated guilt of administrators". – iridescent 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Badlydrawnjeff: Yes, I did that, and I apologized to Bdj and to the community. However, I wish you wouldn't say that my "idea of building an encyclopedia" is to vandalize. My idea of building an encyclopedia is to write and improve articles. I have a Good Article (endgame tablebase) and five DYK articles, to say nothing of 300+ new articles and cleanup jobs on numerous others. If nothing else, I want the reader to understand that I left a legacy on this encyclopedia that will outlive the behavioral issues, and I hope will outlive my entire existence on this earth.

Regarding the "biggest arbitration case," I already explained on the RFC that my blog post expressed a "fantasy", not a "goal." Had I wished to bring an arbitration case between April 2008, when I wrote that post, and July 2008, when I applied for RFA, I certainly had the time to do it. Since the RFA I became aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, where the motive for starting the arbitration case was that Vanished user blocked Matthew Hoffman on a false accusation of sockpuppetry. That ArbCom case was a tragic embarrassment, and I would not wish to repeat it for other administrators, but it illustrates my point that blocking new or established users on a false accusation of sockpuppetry is a misuse of admin tools, and if done intentionally or negligently may be grounds for a removal of those tools.

So far, so good. I think I've avoided making any personal attacks until now. Let's see if I can continue.

RE:

Thanks Iri for that heads-up.:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)