Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElinorD (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 27 November 2008 (→Not pleased: Don't give up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why this should matter to everyone

I read the Poetlister essay as well as the material posted by ArbCom and have to say, I find it pretty ironic that in ArbCom and the checkuser's so-called campaign against harassment, they hold a person, such as yourself, who has clearly been the victim of harassment, to a higher standard than those accused of harassment (then again, I think it is ironic that they seem to hold editors to a higher standard of behavior than they do members of ArbCom and people with checkuser privileges ... that increasing power should b accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability seems like a pretty obvious principle to me). I have known you to be devoted to our core content policies, and a careful editor. I think you are also now setting a standard for honesty and transparency that humbles most, and shames some, members of ArbCom.

I think your case - meaning your double-victimization - raises two crucial issues. The first is, do we consider valued editors replaceable? yes, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But does "anyone" mean that we shouldn't care if you were to leave or be forced out of the project? I don't think so. I do not think we have yet to find someone to replace JHK, for example. Our best editors, the ones who understand the relationship between policy and quality encyclopedia articles, the ones who regardless of their credentials or profession can recognize and value real research by others and are willing to put the time into doing some real research of their own, are too often treated as replaceable. I am not devaluing the important work done by thousands of editors who fix links and revert vandalism; I admire what they do and generally do not consider them replaceable either. But there are other editors who are disruptive, bullies, or trolls, who come here to push a narrow point of view ... there was a time when the Wikicommunity generally did a good job of telling the difference between trolls and serious encyclopedia-researchers. Over the past few years though I have seen too many people who, I am sure with good intent, defend bullies and trolls while really good editors, especially ones who bring to Misplaced Pages bodies of knowledge and experience that are underrepresented in the community, are either wikilawyered or bullied into leaving or just worn out and left to evanesce away. I suspect that this is because our numbers are growing so fast that too many new, earnest, and well-intentioned editors just lack the experience; lacking experience they turn to policy and very narrow readings of policy. It is easy to recognize a vandal, or behavior that violates WP:CIV. It takes a lot of experience to be able to tell the difference between a valuable contributor and a troll, between a JHK and an HJ, for example, and as our community grows at a faster and faster rate, so grow the numbers of people who really want to help but just don't have enough experience. It doesn't help when some people promote edit counts as a mark of experience. Yes, edit counts are easy to tabulate and make for easy comparisons; I am talking about differences that are harder to recognize, that are not quantifiable, that require the kind of judgment that comes with experience. If we cannot tell the difference between an editor worth fighting to keep versus those who, despite an impressive edit count and the fact that they have never succumbed to the temptation to blank a page and write "EVAN ROCKS" or some other juvenilia, Misplaced Pages will stagnate at the level of quality achieved by so many other American enterprises: so damn big that of course there is a lot to admire and appreciate, yet, as it gets bigger and bigger, nevertheless still always somehow less than the sum of its parts. Yes, anyone can edit. But some people are not replaceable. You are not.

I think your issue also raises the case of how we police ourselves. A long time ago wikipedia had sysops with powers required for regular and necessary maintenance. Obviously we want someone fairly reliable to be given these powers, but being a sysop was no prize, it did not mean that you were a better editor than others. Sysops were servants of the community. As far as i am concerned they still are. Frankly, I think we may be better off with a system where any active editor who has been around a couple of years has to be an admin for a fixed period of time, and just make it rotate, like the community service it ought to be. Anyway, then we had to create ArbCom, and my recollection is that we did it with much hesitation because we did not want to create a hierarchy at Misplaced Pages. But it was obvious that we needed a committee that, as its own page suggests, can be the last resort for mediating disputes. That is a relatively narrow mission and while it requires a lot of work - more work than I think most people appreciate, more work than we could ever make a form of rotating community service, and work I am profoundly grateful they do - it is still a narrow enough mission that the committee can operate with transparency and little fear of abuse. But now that Misplaced Pages has become internationally prominent, we face another problem beside disputes among users. We face problems that could end up involving the legal system. I mean the real powers, institutions that can put a person in jail or impose a fine or financial settlement. To protect ourselves from people who might abuse Misplaced Pages in a way that makes one or more editors, or the project, vulnerable to legal action requires giving more powers to someone, powers that cannot be used with the same kind of transparency. I can handle that. I don't think we have a choice. But I do not think we have handled these growing needs well. I am concerned about mission-creep - about a committee meant to be the mediator of conflicts concerning the editing of articles of last resort being given more and more obligations and powers when it may be better to have a much stricter and clearer separation of powers. The mission of any such committee has to be very clearly spelled out, including the limits of its jurisdiction or concern. And we need a bigger and ongoing conversation about transparency and accountability. Given the freedom of anyone to make any edit at any time, and the fact that we actually encourage conflicts among editors acting in good faith, because the clash of different views is supposed to lead not to a lowest common denominator but to something greater, the only real guarantee of Misplaced Pages's integrity is its almost absolute transparency. The only limits to Misplaced Pages's transparency are (1) the anonymity of editors and (2) those that are forced on us by governments, in most cases probably for the better, although in some cases perhaps for the worse, but there is nothing to do about that. But it seems to be that transparency itself is a core value here. I am not denying that there are cases where transparency may have to be restricted, only that we should only do this when we have exhausted all other possible actions, and do so with heavy hearts. But it seems to me that there are some people at Misplaced Pages - people who may not have violated any policy (or may have trampled on many) who do not appreciate transparency, who do not like it, who hide behind anything excuse to avoid or deny transparency. One way to recognize such people is they will act as if transparency is an all-or-nothing deal, that some things can be handled in the full view of the public and anything else must be done in the strictest confidence, as if we could have public trials and the Star Chamber, with nothing in between - a position I consider false on its face. Another way to recognize such people is that they will suggest to anyone who questions them that the needs for privacy are too complicated to explain. That is a massive act of bad faith, and dangerous because it combines a lack of transparency with a lack of accountability, when if anything the rule should be, the more of one, the less of the other. Slim Virgin, Misplaced Pages did little to help you when you were outed and harassed and since then has held you to a higher level of accountability than checkusers, or so it seems. This is really messed up. I know many people are shocked by some of your accusations and cannot believe them; many people want to extend the good faith and trust you have in the past been denied, to those whom you accuse. I've already made it plain that all things being equal I assume anything you say is true, but let's for a moment give the benefit of the doubt to those who, unlike me, do not know who to trust, what to think. What is clear to me is that the less transparency with which ArbCom acts, the larger and more toxic a cloud of suspicion will hand over this community. What you have done is to take the brave step of being as transparent as you can and inviting transparency. I assume you do this because you believe in transparency as a principle, that it works so often at Misplaced Pages that we should trust it, that the more transparency, the greater a chance of a true resolution of this conflict. I consider this a test, a challenge to others. Who else has this faith in transparency? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: your note

I'll have a look at WP:V sometime this week. As an aside, I was amused to see us lumped in the group of "editors who usually support each other". Not a statement I'd readily agree with! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts

Slim, I know you've always had a strong interest in issues related to editor privacy and confidentiality. The recent arbitration case in which you were involved gave me pause for thought, and I have created an essay on this topic, which is here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi. I'm troubled with one person about sources.(Baek Sukgi (백석기), Woongjin Wiinjeongi #30 Woo Jang-Choon (C) Woongjin Publishing Co., Ltd. 1987) The source is a book published in South Korea, and out of print years ago. and secondhand book is also not available even in South Korea. So I told him this book is not verifiable, so the book should not be the sources. Then he told me verify the contents by yourself and email to the Author. Please let me know Misplaced Pages requiring to contact the author?

references:

• Talk:Woo Jang-choon
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon

--Bukubku (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

MoS and hyphens

Just as I hoped we'd got this sorted out, you reverted again. Why? The talk page discussion reveals at least that this is a very poor example (and that normally is perfectly justified too).--Kotniski (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me more about your ant-corruption, ArbCom, and Checkuser saga

I see this grand incident about double victimization and I would like to know the deatails--Ipatrol (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi SV. Are you aware that this is replete with sly personal attacks on other editors, including their real names? I'm not convinced it is something that deserves archiving. Rockpocket 22:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Passing along the wikilove

--MPerel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbitration enforcement

I have started a thread related to your actions at
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#SlimVirgin.27s_unblock_was_inappropriate.
— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can you explain this unblock? Do you think he did not violate the civility parole? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a comment you wrote at an other place "I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of Giano have to stop." You seem to say that since other blocks were overturned, this block should also be overturned. Is that so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoc2400 (talk • contribs) 15:14, November 23, 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A case has been opened concerning the recent events at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement. Because of the urgency of enforcement issues, the fact it is an arbitration process that is disrupted, and its (apparent) simplicity, this has been initially posted for speedy handling. If there is need for more, then it will be moved to a full case.

The practical difference between the two is more one of expectation than procedure - both involve the same evidence, and the same statements by parties and other users, but full cases rarely close quickly, whereas summary motions may well do so.

Please consider the concerns raised and post your statement shortly.

FT2  19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In re the IRC cabal vs Slim

I'm rather impressed with your newfound belief in defending the right at all costs, but you must have forgotten, now that you are something of an outlaw, that the barons of the wiki do not care much for defenders of the oppressed, nor for any suggestion that the encyclopaedia is not well served by their and their cliques' powertripping, even if their victim has written more of it than any of them (outside the kinky sex sector, of course). Still, a spell in the wilderness might do you good, because you will then, one hopes, focus on your excellent writing. Your friend -- Grace Note (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No barnstar fits

I'd give you a barnstar, but I honestly can't find one that is appropriate to the situation. It seems that someone needs to create a "Stick it to the WikiDumbasses" barnstar. I congratulate you on making the tough decisions, intentionally putting yourself in the path of the storm for doing what you see is right and needs to be done. But most of all, thank you for continually standing up for the editors that remember the reason that we are here is to build an encyclopedia, and not to puff up our egos and fuel our megalomania through needless bureaucracy. If even one out of every hundred administrators was more like you are, the project would be far better than it is today. Trusilver 08:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Giano is just a content contributor with no ego or power-hunger, who without any fault of his own get attacked by megalomaniac bureaucrats (referring to FT2)? Such extraordinary claims require some evidence. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that Misplaced Pages has a bizarre record of exalting worthless idiots who do nothing for the project except build and perpetuate the bureaucracy, and marginalize the editors who actually produce the bulk of the content. Trusilver 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that, but I think you are wrong. Explaining why you think so might convince me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And some people might be more interested in other things, why don't you go and see if David Gerard was still running the Arbcom mailing list at the same time as he was secretly tampering with an Arbcom candidate's edits. That would be something interesting for you to do. Giano (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you spell out what the problem is? Do you mean that he was still running the mailing list after he left ArbCom? That seems like a simple practical solution is none of the new arbs had their own server running or whatever. Oversighting FT2's old edits is a bit inappropriate, but not a huge deal and completely unrelated to running a mailing list. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now why don't you go work that out some place else, I expect even David Gerard may be finding you a tad tiresome on his page too. You are obviously not going to be responded to here again or my page. Off you go. Giano (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I know "Off you go" is a standard phrase of yours, so I will ignore it. You are the one who asked me to look into David Gerard running a mailing list, but then you refuse to tell me why. I wrote above because Trusilver was spreading attacks against valued Wikipedians without explaining them. That only creates misery and as a member of the community it is my duty to confront such things when I see it. If Gerard or SL is bothered by me they can say so themselves or just remove the threads. I have no plans to set up camp on either of their talk pages, nor yours. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians valued by you. I hold no value to Wikipedians who contribute nothing to the probject except more useless bureaucracy, attempting to "fix" a system that worked just fine without their help, thank you very much. We could kick the entire ArbCom to the curb tomorrow without making the project a poorer place. I would trade one substantial contributor like Giano for all of them combined. Trusilver 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we need admins and arbcom to handle the disputes and disruptions that don't solve them selves. If you take a look at the arb cases that came from article writing rather than wiki-drama, you will see that ArbCom is doing an important work. ArbCom has been here for a long time and before that Jimbo was acting as a one-man arbcom. Fortunately, you rarely notice ArbCom and the wiki-drama unless you go looking for it. I am starting to re-discover this. Anyway, I don't what experiences you have had here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Side note per Trusilver: one of the arbitration committee members is currently third on Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations with 28 featured articles. Durova 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Side note to Durova. I did some research one time which indicated that, on average, our arbs were in the top bracket of content creators (at that time). Unfortunately, I can find it, but it would be interesting to analyse the thesis that arbs are somehow very different from content creators.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent). Lets modify that statement slightly... The ArbCom's were in the top bracket of content creators. Once they join ArbCom, it mostly monopolizes their time with the most ridiculous assortment of non-issues that they address in all seriousness yet I read them like a Dave Barry humor column. This returns to my point that once someone ceases contributing to the articles or their maintainance, they essentially become a liability. I haven't seen a single ArbCom decision in the last two years which I think has made a measurably improvement to the encyclopedia. Trusilver 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't expect volunteers to do everything. But it is good to know that the people entrusted with governance know how real content building works. The fact you disagree with those chosen by the community, is neither here nor there.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually YellowMonkey has remained incredibly active on the content side (he's got something like two FACs going this month). Not sure how he finds the time. It's a Catch-22 for a lot of people, though--not only arbs. As far as arbitration helping the encyclopedia? The Bluemarine case definitely improved a biography article after nothing else worked. The Franco-Mongol alliance case reined in misuse of sources at a group of historical articles. The Sadi Carnot case also addressed misuse of sources in article space. The Railpage Australia case cleared up disruption to an article. The Alkivar case uprooted a massive campaign to damage the site's database in certain subjects. That's just from the last year or so, among cases where I paid close attention. Many others bear less direct relevance to articles because ArbCom's mandate pertains to conduct rather than content. Durova 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion: re SlimVirgin

The motions above have been closed at the request of the Arbitration Committee. By motion, administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee, and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for a period of six months. The final text of the discussion and motions can be found at the link above.

— Coren , for the Arbitration Committee, 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not pleased

I can light a huge bonfire over this escapade involving your desysopping but will only do so if you recognize that further drama will ensue. There can be no doubt that arbcom has acted in an almost unprecedentedly bad manner here and the diffs onsite can easily demonstrate that. Their action against you is a bad message to any admin who dares reverse an admin action made by them, and they have elevated themselves beyond what their normal powers should be. This kind of power grab is a truly bad thing...their "job" on that committee is to render decisions regarding user conduct brought forth by outside editors. That at least three other committee members (besides FT2) should have recused themselves is also another major issue.--MONGO 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's "unprecedented", considering some other capers by this arbcom, but otherwise I endorse every word MONGO says. GoodDay below doesn't seem to be much of an expert on "the rules" of arbitration, does he. Oh well, it's the committee anybody can comment on. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Excuse moi, for not being perfect. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Not pleased" is an understatement. Look, I'm in a bit of a rush, so can't write much more, but see here, and just don't give up, and remember that I won't either! :-) ElinorD (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(add you own heading)

Sorry to hear, Slim Virgin; but them are the rules. Look at this way, six-months will pass. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be so condescending? Just a suggestion of course.--MONGO 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I'm explaining to her, that it's not the end of the world. I'm assuming, that being an Administrator is a thankless & time consuming position to hold. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)