User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Jun-Jul 2004)

Distrust
I have listed the Distrust article on Peer review. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Central Asia
I notice that you removed the protection from Central Asia - that's good. I also notice that the first thing to happen to it is for Cantus to revert it to his prefered version without comment, which is not good. Do you have any suggestions for how to move forward with this? It is one of the most futile edit wars I have seen, but we need to address it. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I will try to get some meaningful discussion. Could you do me a favour and keep an eye on Central Asia? It seems that if users do revert without comment it may need to be protected again. Thanks, Mark Richards 20:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark Richards 20:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Michael, your words of kindness while I was on vacation (in addition to the haiku, which was exactly what I needed to see at that time) cannot be adequately repaid by any brief note - but I will write one in any case, in spite of your generous suggestion that none is needed. Please know that they reminded me of all the things I love about this place, and all the reasons I know I will continue to be here long after today's trolls have turned to stone in the sun. I wish you much luck in the current election, and admire greatly how swiftly you have become one of this place's wisest and most rational voices, whose name, when I see it on a talk page, always makes me pause to read your words, regardless of the subject at hand. I wonder if you would be open, at some point later on this year, to a Seattle meet-up? You, I, and Jmabel, at least, are local, and a few others as well, I think -- it could be formally and publically announced, or simply a private arrangement between a small group of us. Just a thought, which occurred to me when I saw you so easily suggesting all the tiny things of home (the Fremont Troll was a nice touch) and recalled that you and I in all likelihood share an area code. I wish you all the best, and thank you once again for your words, which in all circumstances will remind me of Wikipedia's finest accomplishment in my life -- introducing me to intelligent minds from around the world who are interested in discussion, collaboration, and above all, knowledge. Jwrosenzweig 20:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot. I have taken your advice, and have done my recent editing almost entirely on date articles and templates for the "selected anniversaries" box on the main page.  I feel quite relaxed, and am pleased to have had your advice. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Protected pages
Michael, while I agree with the removal of page protection on Zviad Gamsakhurdia et al, which is long overdue in my opinion, please be aware that they will almost certainly come under attack again from the former User:Levzur (who is now editing using anon proxies). User:UninvitedCompany also protected Alarodian languages, Caucasian, Hurrians, Hurro-Urartian languages, Iberian-Caucasian languages, Laz language, Megrelian language, Nino Burjanadze, South Caucasian languages and Svan language for the same reason - you may wish to unprotect them as well. Could I ask you to keep an eye on them? -- ChrisO 17:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * They've all been hit again by Levzur and reprotected by User:Bryan Derksen - sigh... -- ChrisO 07:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Headlines
I wasn't for deleting the Stanley Cup altogether. The expanded news section would have been the ideal location, which I also duly mentioned. I agree that balanced articles should be there. As far as the link you gave me I still haven't figured out who decides the top articles. I strongly feel that only articles of international importance should be on the main page. My main grouse about the Stanley Cup is that it is an intra country event, not an open international tournament. I have nothing against ice hockey. What is also needed is the weeding out of stale news such as the George Tenet article. Last week, on the main page, an article about the inaugaration of a memorial by Bush almost made me reply in the talk page, however, when I attemped to do so, wikipedia went offline, and the article was removed the next day, so replying was futile. Else you might have heard from me a little earlier. Anyways thanks for being a good NPOV person. Nichalp 20:48, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Condolences
Though of course I like and approve of the victors in the election, I admit a real sadness that you are not on the board. Perhaps there will be an additional spot opening up? I remember rumor of that. Anyway, I wanted you to know that your contributions here are very valued, and to offer a word or two of encouragement. It may simply be that, given your relatively brief time here, a lot of the old hands were more comfortable with....well, the old hands. :-) And we had some good candidates to choose from.  Best wishes, and I urge you to run next year! Jwrosenzweig 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for AMA assistance
We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   03:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fees
Hi Michael. It is not written on your page when you will be back from holidays, so please contact me when it is so :-) Your legal help would be most welcome to work on membership issues and in particular fees. Thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing

WP:RFROAA
(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, &#8212;No-One Jones 14:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dues
Yes, this is what I meant. I started a brainstorming page a week ago, and spent hours on irc discussing the topic last week end. I think I am beginning to see what will be at the same time simple, fair and feasible :-) However, I would like some help, in particular with regards to legal consideration (such as data sharing and rights for privacy... for example, is that mandatory for the real name of the person to be known, if so, how could we organise ourselves so that this information is kept separated from the website). I also need more input from the German people and developers. I'll try to do this in the next few days; I would be happy if you could help :-) http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I have a question : is there a legal minimum in the amount of dues that may be collected in the USA ? If there is, what is it ? Is it legal to have 2 or 3 membership level ? In this case, does tax departement consider the minimum to be the due, and all what is above a donation ? Does that make a difference for the member ? Does that make a difference for the foundation ?

Also, is that legal that members who do not *pay* have rights in an assocation (such as voting rights) ? I ask because in France it is not legal.

Besides : what are the requirements in terms of information which must be given by the member ? Is it required that real name is provided, or may a user be a member without being identified ? (in saying this, I know that it would be required for an american who wants a receipt, but is it necessarily globally a requirement ?). What about other requirements such as adress ?

Thanks :-)

SweetLittleFluffyThing

RRFOAA
Sure - it looks like it is resolved, since G and H have not pushed the issue. Thanks, Mark Richards 06:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Of course! Thank you :) Fredrik | talk 22:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Question [about Zoe]
No, I'm not acquainted with Zoe. The reason why I posted the comment was because I suspect that (from a vandal's perspective) Zoe's departure was extremely encouraging. If vandals discover, from studying the case of Zoe, that by making incredible asses of themselves they can drive away useful contributors, we'll have hell to pay. Zoe's departure will only cause vandals to step up their attack, emboldened by the feeling of power that surely comes with such a sick victory over a sysop.--Ingoolemo 03:25, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Archived Delete Debates
HI! I noticed you cleared up a lot of the old listings from Votes for deletion/Old over the last couple of days which is brilliant, however you haven't archived any of the discussions at Archived delete debates. These debates need to be stored here in case there is a request that they be undeleted again, or for some other reason related to a user's actions on wikipedia. Do you think you'd be able to go back through what you've deleted since yesterday and store the debates away? Cheers. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 12:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * OK my apologies. I've always filed by when the articles were deleted because it's easier to find them when the votes for undeletion debate kicks in.  I'm afraid I don't know what the policy is (or indeed if there is one)... -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 21:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
Thank you both for you edits and the heads up. I believe the changes you made are good ones.

As you may be aware, it is my view that there have been no substantive policy changes in well over a year, except for two initiated by Jimbo:
 * change in the way adminship is granted (now done by vote on wiki rather than by nomination on mailing list)
 * arbitration committee

A few other changes with policy implications, such as the creation of bureaucrats and the category and substitution features, have occured as a result of technical fiat. Minor changes adopted during the last year include minor changes to deletion policy allowing more material to be deleted, the autobiography policy, and rather less tolerance of personal attacks. There have also been mechanical changes to the way certain activities have been handled, such as the changes in how pages are listed for deletion and the WP:RFC process that has replaced the old "problem users" page. None of these are really policy changes, in my view.

Therefore, I don't believe it's entirely accurate to claim that there is any sort of means for formulating policy on an ongoing basis. In the past, consensus among key figures, combined with strong leadership of Jimbo, determined policy. If I were more cynical, I would edit the "How are policies decided?" section to read: "Wikipedia policies are deeply rooted in history and were determined by consensus among key Wikipedians from the projects' inception through the end of 2002. There is no mechanism in place at present for changing these policies, though some have evolved over time where there has been a clear consensus for change."

I'm not that cynical, and that's too strong and doesn't belong there, so I haven't written it there. What you wrote is better, but it represents something of an ideal that we embrace rather than a reality.

Fundamentally, with a project with over 100 active, impassioned participants, it is not possible to make decisions by consensus. In my personal experience, the largest group of people that can engage actively in consensus decisionmaking is six. Larger groups up to about 12 sometimes work if there are six or fewer people actively trying to shape the outcome.

Forgive me if I have pointed this out before.

UninvitedCompany 17:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad you approve of my contribution. I would certainly concede that what I wrote is an expression of an ideal as much as of reality. In my view, policy is by its very nature focused on the ideal - it is normative and says what should happen. The reality is that "policies" of all kinds are violated all the time, everywhere. This often happens because people find conflicts between policy objectives and their practical applications. A typical way people deal with conflicts between policy and reality is by creating more policy, to clarify or improve existing policy.

Policy and consensus are words that we use frequently in this project, but nowhere are they concretely defined. For that matter, it may not be possible or desirable to define them too precisely, because this limits our ability to use them. And of course there's the ultimately circular problem of getting a consensus as to what they mean (I found the discussion of what is consensus for promoting admins an entertaining example of this).

Your discussion relies on what I would say is a fairly narrow definition of policy. When I made my changes, I had a broader definition of policy in mind (for example, I recently discussed with User:Francs2000 the "policy" on how to archive debates from VfD, which is what inspired my edit). This is not to say that I disagree with you about the definition of policy; I think both definitions can be useful, depending on the circumstances.

Also, I agree that some changes have been incremental, and as much due to changes in the culture of the community as shifts in policy. The two are difficult to separate, and identifying policy becomes more of a challenge. At this level, I think the chore of codifying policy in writing can be beneficial, because written policy has more potential for self-reinforcement than existing practice does alone.

Finally, I'm not prepared to say consensus is impossible at any level, but this depends again on what definition of consensus we want to use. For example, it is often stated that consensus does not equal unanimity, and frequently a "consensus" includes those who may have objections but do not consider their objections so strong as to override the wishes of the community. I agree that adding more active participants to the process of directly making decisions makes this more challenging. But in the group dynamics of an open community, people will ultimately self-select in terms of where they participate in decisionmaking and where they simply add to the "silent consensus" of those who accept and implement policy decisions made by others.

Forgive me for explicitly employing so much definitional ambiguity in this discussion, but I rely on your intellectual capacity to deal with the fuzziness and understand me nevertheless. --Michael Snow 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to differentiate between creating policy and implementing it. "Deletion debates are to be archived" is policy; the mechanics of how this is done, how often, where, by whom, is implementation. They do not lend themselves to the same procedures, since implementation is rarely divisive and changes often without concern, sometimes just depending on who takes out the trash on any given day. Wikipedia as a community is very good at implementing, since it is a foundation belief here that one must be willing to either accept another contributors' work or amend it. Implementation of policy lends itself well to this, and I can think of a couple of occasions where others have improved my archiving of debates when I was less thorough in providing backlinks and so forth than others thought appropriate.

Your comment on culture shift is insightful, and as I stay with the project over time, I am amazed at the contributor turnover and its effects. A consequence of this is that ForgiveAndForget is implemented through constant departures. Anyone who is willing to wait around for six months will find his sins forgiven simply because only a handful of people will remain who remember them. Another consequence is that divisive debates where there is really no right answer, like some of the geographic naming conventions, occur cyclically, about every 12-18 months, as newcomers arrive and become senior while remaining unaware of the previous acrimony and its resolution.

Not sure I'm with you on consensus. In a sufficiently large group, *someone* will have strong opposition to any policy decision that really matters, and it becomes impossible even for a talented facilitator to craft a compromise that will have consensus support. The "bike shed" paradox where the simplest and least important choices are the hardest for groups applies here -- look at the difficulty we've had picking colors for the main page. In that case, consensus was the first casualty and the layout changes have been approved, each time, by a fairly slim majority vote. The trouble, of course, is that anyone can have a strong opinion on color, and they are different for each individual depending on the associations they have developed with certain colors and color combinations over time. Some people have graphic or artistic training, which gives them a more powerful vocabulary but one that is largely unpersuasive to drive-by voters.

With something like the main page, there has been enough of a consensus that something has to be done that a consensus develops to take a vote and abide by it. If you take a group of twelve people and tell them that they all get free pizza but only if they can all agree on the kind of topping, they'll agree, because they understand that the alternative is no pizza at all, and they'll end up agreeing to take a vote and live with the outcome. On the other hand, if the question is structured otherwise, say they get a taco salad if they can't agree on which pizza, then someone will always hold out against the consensus. The larger the group, the more compelling the issue must be before consensus will be possible. I offer my maximum of six for general policy discussions based on my own experience.

That's the dynamics, and we have people at Wikipedia who passionately hold fringe positions on various policy issues. They will not participate in a consensus on any policy discussions for these reasons. The AC is one example, in that much of its behavior can be explained by the fact that some members of it are essentially opposed to all bans. In like fashion we have people who oppose essentially all deletions of articles, who foil any sort of attempt at forming carefully articulated policy in this area. Hence we deal with deletion on a case by case basis and the results are inconsistent.

UninvitedCompany 21:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, a distinction between creating and implementing policy does have value, but I would submit that it's a sliding scale. Using the Main Page as an example again - at a fundamental level, I think we have a design policy that the Main Page should be a gateway to the rest of the encyclopedia. The issues you mention about layout and colors are implementation questions, but in this case controversial due to their visibility. Somewhere in between are questions about additional goals people have for the Main Page - should we aim to look more professional? more artistic? more like other encyclopedia websites? more like a news site? more like a printed encyclopedia (i.e. focused on table of contents and index)? more like a community site?

All of these are partially policy questions themselves, and partially competing approaches toward implementing the fundamental policy. It might be simpler if we could set a clear policy, but given the diversity of viewpoints this is unlikely. Instead, the primary operative force is inertia, which is occasionally overcome when an amorphous alliance of users pushes a major overhaul through, each with different and perhaps contradictory expectations of being able to accomplish their policy goal under the new version. The situation serves to illustrate the idea of Wikipedia as an experiment in anarchy (the metaphor is not always apt, but it can be an interesting paradigm).

Your observation that the community as a whole is better at implementing than creating policy sounds accurate to me - I would offer the development of the category system, and complaints about its lack of overall structure, as a case in point.

I'll agree with you that compromise is not always possible, but I won't go so far as to say the same about consensus. If someone continually and consistently remains a lone wolf in opposing some policy, eventually a consensus will develop that they are obstructing the consensus. At this point, they get marginalized and to some extent their opposition is no longer considered. In the end, at least in open communities, this individual is left with a choice: either submit to the will of the community, or leave it. The latter may be expressed as a right to fork or a right to leave.

For larger groups, the problem is not just the increased likelihood that one or more members will strongly oppose a policy. Another complication is that the more the policy matters, the more reluctant the group may be to enforce the policy when these holdouts still exist (e.g., the long delay in blocking JRR Trollkien when some people remained uncertain whether this was an account operated by Craig Hubley). Naturally, for those who have long been ready to implement the policy, this can be frustrating. When the moment of marginalizing the opposition comes, the "consensus" group will typically engage in considerable exercises to justify this.

In the end, I think the concept of consensus is, as I also said earlier about policy, focused more on the world of ideals than reality. Consensus is in some respects paradoxical; it requires a level of active attention from multiple people to develop, but this same attention also works to defeat it. The debate also depends on one's orientation to time, and whether one focuses on the immediate present or looks toward the future. Consensus is a goal we work toward, and if you want to take an existentialist approach, one that perhaps we will never reach. But the process moves on - sometimes we move closer, and we may also take steps backward.

As a result, I see things as transition phases, and sometimes find consensus both everywhere and nowhere. The Arbitration Committee is in one such transition phase and will eventually, if it continues to operate, presumably shift from Jimbo's appointments to community-elected members. According to the community's views on the relevant issues, this may well produce a cultural shift in the committee.

I don't see any real disagreements between us here, just different approaches to looking at things. I hope I've understood you as well as you've understood me. --Michael Snow 00:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of what you said. The situation with categories is certainly a good case study for many of these issues, as you point out.

With rare exception, I don't believe that there are Wikipedians who fight consensus in all matters. Nor do I suggest that a single malcontent is sufficient to damage a sense of consensus in a larger group. We all have our pet issues. I am an outlier on certain issues myself as you are probably aware, as are nearly all longstanding members. As in all large groups, there is a problem with people showing up at a debate and providing input (voting) based on a surface analysis. Many do not invest the time or energy to really understand the issues and do not show the willingness to compromise necessary to achieve a real consensus. To work, consensus depends on a great deal of willingness to change ones' mind -- a personality trait just as rare and precious here as it is in real life.

Regarding JRR, I believe the chief problem was that the matter was perceived (probably accurately) as a tarbaby and few became involved because they did not wish to get stuck. Part of the culture is that WPedians in good standing are loathe to revert each other, and bans have always been controversial, so it was quite some time before anyone was willing to conclude matters. Perhaps part of this is the absence of a distinction between implementation and policy, though even if this was so I don't see it as part of a larger pattern.

Anyway, the point of all this is that we really do need some sort of effective means of policymaking in place due to the growth. Governance questions have been asked for a good while, and answers to them are overdue, IMO. The nature of wiki and the nature of the project and the great people do not exempt us from the same group dynamics that have led to the decline of so many similar projects (Shirky again), and just because we have an open, wiki-based editing model for the articles does not mean that we must (or should) have an anarchistic, community-consensus model for governance. History has shown that such models do not scale.

UninvitedCompany 01:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Encouraging people to invest the effort necessary to produce consensus is indeed challenging. Willingness to change one's mind is also valuable (except in those who are too willing), and I would even settle for having more people who are willing to learn and consider other perspectives. Truly willing, not just for the sake of a he-said-she-said form of NPOV. That kind of person is normally capable of the difficult operation of recognizing a consensus, even though he or she personally disagrees, and supporting that consensus until an appropriate opportunity arrives to renew the challenge. Unfortunately, many people don't know when to move on, so we have to try and get them to accept arbitrary rules like the 3-revert limit instead.

The tarbaby analysis is also a good explanation of the JRR Trollkien situation. On that score, I appreciate your willingness to get involved and tackle the problem.

We have had some movement toward better-developed governance, such as the arbitration and mediation processes, plus the Board of Trustees. At the same time, there is considerable resistance to being governed. This should not be too surprising, given the independent-minded bent of the community. The organs of governance will need to prove their worth in order to survive and have their authority accepted.

I would not advocate using community consensus as an actual form of governance, where governance is necessary. Anarchy is not capable of governing. However, as a fundamental matter of policy, I think whatever governance we use must commit itself to respecting community consensus, seeking it out, and using it as a resource for further policy decisions. Based on the attitudes of Jimbo and the elected Trustees, I am cautiously optimistic that we can keep the positive aspects of our group dynamics and still develop a good system of governance. --Michael Snow 03:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gedday, interesting debate. Mind if I join you? I agree completely with UC on consensus (now with its own page at consensus). I think we are pretending that if everybody agrees to exclude the final recalcitrants, that the subgroup have formed a consensus. I would describe that as an overwhelming majority!!

May I reframe the debate a little? I think we’d all agree that consensus:
 * 1) has sociological advantages and its achievement helps to create a sense of community and "comfort" in belonging
 * 2) gets harder as more people become involved and
 * 3) leads to the best outcome, especially if groupthink is avoided.

But consensus costs. The practical questions in my mind are:
 * 1) how much effort should be given to trying to achieve consensus before falling back onto crude old democracy?
 * 2) how do you know you’ve reached that point?

Oh, but I really came here because I’m interested in policy development (test link.. is it red?). Erich 06:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's an assumption built into the first of your two questions that I'm not sure everyone shares. It should be two questions: How much effort should be given to trying to achieve consensus before you give up, and what system do you fall back on if consensus isn't achieved? Democracy is one alternative, and of course many people here support democratic ideals. But even democracy has different forms that can be debated, not to mention implementation problems.

I don't want to represent anybody's position for them, but I think you would find some people prefer a different alternative in the absence of consensus - a policymaking body that would be small enough to use consensus decision-making within itself, when true consensus isn't practical to achieve among the entire community. This body might of course be elected and/or have its decisions subject to democratic approval by the community. For one proposal, see User:Hcheney/Govern. --Michael Snow 15:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dispute
Hi, welcome back. It's not certain what the status of my conflict with 172 is; we did communicate privately, though not much - my fault since I've been on a vacation of my own (although not a "cold turkey" one) and have fallen behind on correspondence. But hopefully we'll stay out of each other's way rather than risk a new conflict, although time alone will tell.

By the way, while I'm here, I'll note that I had a chance to review your work at User:Michael Snow/Arbitration and am quite impressed by the amount of effort you must have put into that document. I can only guess your motives (172 seems to have unflatteringly) but it seems you have a degree of willingness to work hard at resolution which perhaps neither of us possessed.

I also noted 172 cited to you my conflict with User:Kevehs, so to respond: This old conflict (which peaked around November, and thus is a bit foggy) was because "Kev" was pushing a certain anarchist POV, and for a while I was the only one standing in his way. If some of his charges sound similar to 172's, it is because he tracks my conflicts like a hunting dog. For instance, see this recent incoherent rant on Talk:Anarchism. It is likely he simply lifts accusations and language from the RfC pages (e.g., the risible "witch hunt"), which he has also visited. Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned fogginess, I approached his recent reappearance on Anarcho-capitalism with cautious good will, but you can see how that went.

On an unrelated note, I am dismayed by the overwhelming support for the bureaucratship of the monstrous User:Danny (with your support I note - you for some reason seem unbothered by outbursts of incivility). It is becoming clear how meaningless the "rules" of this Wiki are; maybe it is just becoming cliquish. Anyway, without rules, it really will be about who fights the longest. As you've seen, I'm willing to do this, but it's sad that this is what it's come to. VV 20:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * My own feeling on the dispute pages is that the dispute should be delisted - on the grounds that it is inactive - but not deleted; the history in question should be kept and might become important later. Just IMHO.  Note there have, as you've probably noted, been past interbellum periods, although the incentive for us to avoid conflict may be stronger now than it was then.


 * The editing tactic I've settled on through experience is "tit-for-tat", that is, treat users as they treat me, be polite and restrained with the polite and restrained, and ruthless with the ruthless. This may not be the most noble stance, but it's not a gross one.  Of course, I remain constrained by personal values; I'm never (e.g.) going to call someone a bitch, a fuck, or a dildo.  But nor will I make commitments I'll feel need to break.  Also, 172's harmoniousness will be proven to me through actions not words.


 * What is a personal attack is a fine line. Perhaps I should have called Danny abusive rather than monstrous - but I've been accused of attacking for what seems less even than that (e.g., on Talk:Augusto Pinochet).  However, I do not consider Danny's outburst to be isolated; while I can't document this offhand, I recall being unsurprised by his attack at the time, it seeming wholly in character.  His rewrite (born I suspect more out of good politics than recognition of error) was not glorious either; his contention that 172 showed "considerable restraint" is downright comical; how many reverts were there on Pinochet?  (To stave off a would-be reply, I'm by no means claiming to have shown restraint myself; both of us were reverting at full throttle.)  The signatories to this were thus unsurprisingly drawn heavily from those who put ideology above behavioral standards (the exceptions were disappointing, but informative - I am now clear about Heph where before I was ambiguous).


 * But my issue was less that Danny became a bureaucrat than that no one seemed to care one iota about his treatment of others. This could be because my detractors have succeeded in marginalizing me or damning me as a troll or worse (God forbid, "right-wing"), this could be apathy or ignorance, but all told it was disappointing.  (Curiously, the issue was raised vis-a-vis Mirv, but to little effect.)  Of course, this makes me want less to "work within the system", so to speak.


 * I can't blame you for wanting to have no part of the Kevehs/anarchism dispute (I am also less involved now, as it has attracted a large number of editors now who seem to be hashing things out alright). I merely wanted to contextualize the familiarness of Kev's accusations.


 * Thanks again for all the time you've put into this. Sorry this reply was so long; I tried to be as brief as possible, but you raised many good points. VV 22:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172
my reasoning had 0% to do w how 172 and VV got along. 172 has been abusive to me personally, and to those around me, and behaved badly generally. I hardly know VV. If their getting along, thats great, but what confidence do I have of 172 not continueing to do what he has always done (check out his history). Sam [Spade] 04:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your right, my complaint will be lost in the shuffle. Prob for the best, I've decided 172 is a worthwhile editor despite his negative aspects. Hopefully he learns and grows from these hassles. As far as the larouche thing, the fact I have no POV (and basically no previous knowledge of the man) helps a bit. See ya round, Sam [Spade] 04:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Hello, Michael! Just a quick note to let you know how much I appreciated your vote in my favour in last week's sysop poll. Wikipedia is a project to which I've given my heart and soul, and have a great vision for its future. I'm so glad to be a part of it, and your vote meant a lot to me. David Cannon 10:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 14:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll feeding
I presume you want more than a rhetorical answer to that question. I feel that as a senior admin he should be setting a better example. As I said to UC, the options I see for him on the user page issue are:

1. Do nothing, unless the users compromises the content or makes personal attacks etc. The annoying user page stays the way it is, hardly anyone sees it. It falls to obscurity.

2. Enter into an edit war over the contents, blanking it, arguing with the user over it, stirring up a hornets nest in areas with at best unclear (I think the policy is clear, and this is in breach, but whatever) policy. Probably at some stage the user will respond by blanking Heph's page (something that seems a frequent occurance). By choosing this fight, Heph is encouraging trolling. Bans and blocks are not effective, they are easy to circumvent. A cursory glance at Heph's userpage history shows this. By choosing to fight this in this way, he has already lost, since he is giving oxygen to a fight he can't 'win'.

Any serious advice you have on this would be welcome. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I do think about it quite a lot, and I think the vicious cycle thing that you pointed out is pretty interesting. I guess my principle in getting involved is to try to reduce the number of harmful actions (vandalism, banning, trolling) by lowering the heat. Ok, the heat is between Heph and I right now, but we can both handle that, I mean the heat between sysops and non-sysops, which I see as a crucial point of friction right now, and the cause of much vandalism and trolling. I actually believe much of it arises from frustration at what people see as unaccountable admin action. Since there is no legitimate route to express that, it comes out as vandalism and trolling.
 * You're right, Heph and I need to find a more productive way to deal with our disagreements, do you have any ideas? Do you agree with the vicious cycle analysis? Mark Richards 21:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you might be right technically, but in the past Heph has never responded to requests to explain what he is doing except with insults. He has not responded to the question on the talk page about the protection either. There are two sides to that, and there has to be some willingness from both sides to use dispute resolution. I honestly don't believe that Heph thinks he should have to explain or resolve anything. The fact that he is who he is is enough to justify it.
 * I am not suggesting that anyone be demoted, simply that established policy be followed, and, if it is insufficient for the task, the community craft policy that is appropriate. I feel that the burden of explanation should be on the person acting outside of policy, not on those trying to hold them accountable to what the community has decided.
 * With regard to unblocking policy, it certainly advises that it should be discussed beforehand, but if honest attempts to discuss it have been met with repeated rebutal, I don't think there is much alternative but to act according to ones conscience. Mark Richards 23:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You have, from what I've seen, only discussed the matter with Hephaestos directly before acting. I too wish he would be less dismissive of your concerns. But that's why my suggestion was to involve other people. They would be able to bring pressure to bear if correction is needed, or give you someone else's perspective on why it is not. Hephaestos already has voices around him that support his actions, which is probably why he's not inclined to explain himself very much. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have that. --Michael Snow 23:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For sure we have the usual suspects weighing in with go get em, who cares about policy if you're fighting the good fight. There is definately a vocal minority who are very outspoken and aggressive about that. I disagree that there are no voices supporting my actions. There is a considerable climate of fear around speaking out against Heph, I have had a couple of emails from people who are supportive, but do not wish to say so on the web site. There is a definate need to be seen to be 'tough on trolls' even at the expense on what the community has agreed on.

I have raised the issue with other people in several places, with significant agreement, here, here, and here.

Also, see the poll about 'obvious trolling' []. While there is a majority in support of the motion, most of those have conditions that would cripple the poll and not support Heph's actions, while at least 1/3 are actively opposed. Hardly a clear concensus. The community is obviously divided on the issue, and the last thing that is needed is for one person to press on boldly with their agenda in the face of hugely divided opinion. Mark Richards 00:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well for sure, I was simply saying that I do not feel that it is a one-man crusade. If I felt so, I would probably shut up and get over it. Mark Richards 01:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
I am not proposing dissolving the arbitration committee because I don't want an arbitration committee. If the arbitration committee were dissolved, I think the community would be forced to replace it, and hopefully it would be replaced with a more effective and positive force. I have a couple of policy proposals I am hammering out at User:Hcheney/Govern, if you would be interested in looking at them. --H. C HENEY 02:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My proposal incorporates the progressive era concepts of reformed state and local government with European style parlimentarianism. Consolidating power consolidates responisblity, allowing for voters to "fire" a poorly performing policy apparatus in one clean sweep (since the members serve for short concurrent terms). Assuming the method of election is either STV or cumulative voting, we will have a very representative body, probably including a troll or troll-cheerleader. If the community makes the fatal mistake of using approval voting, disapproval voting, or a variation of first past the post, we will have a very bland homogeneous committee. Since the committee should need a 2/3 majority to pass any resolution, almost all resolutions that pass would have broad based community support or there would be a ballot box coup in short order.


 * Furthermore, I don't think the "judicial branch" should be directly elected... I can imagine the campaign promises "If elected I will vote to hard-ban User:X"... not very pragmatic or just. Since it would be fundamentally undemocratic to let Jimbo appoint AC members forever, they need to be appoint from somewhere - why not by an elected body?


 * Being an observer of history, I realize that the consensus based and ineffective Articles of Confederation could not be reformed from within. What was needed then, and is needed now, was a complete reestablishment of authority. However, considering the views of the community, I doubt that we will move away from consensus decision making, which is why I suggested that the resolution be voted on twice... before and after the community comments on the resolution. An astoute elected Wikipedian would never vote for a resolution that lacks a community consensus. --H. C HENEY 05:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

24
Thanks for the clarification - I'm still not clear how people know, given that I can't see anything that this user has actually done (ie threats, personal attacks, vandalism etc). It appears to be based entirely on some material posted on the userpage, which is apparently similar to some material that this other user(s?) wrote. I would like to wait until the user does something questionable, or make clear what text is banned before the fact. Mark Richards 22:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality admin poll
Hello, I didn't see the fuss about my vote until just now. Since it's closed now I have responded here and here. pir 11:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Belated thanks for helping to scrap the arbitration matter. 172 06:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Principles of Definition
How come you deleted the entire article? Was there a vote? I have noticed that many people do not know how to define and I find it interesting that you, a public school teacher, would delete information that many people do not know about. That info you deleted might be able to teach someone to do a job better. Don't you think that the principles of definition is important for many people to learn about?WHEELER 15:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the welcome and advice. I have indeed tossed my hat into the ring -- would you mind terribly looking over my statement and giving me some thoughts? I wrote it in some haste (I can't figure out when the deadline is for filing), and if I have the opportunity to tweak it a little, I think I will. If you notice any phrases that seem really obscure or confused, I'd appreciate knowing. :-) Thanks for the encouragement to run -- I hope you will consider it also, although certainly there are a number of qualified candidates already, as you have a level head, a wise approach to disputes, and the right perspective, I think. Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice, thank you! I did like the phrase on literary merits, as you noted, but have made it more clear, given the intended purpose.  And now I think I'll sit back and let the chips fall where they may.  I'm not desperate for the role, but given the encouragement of many others, and my own natural inclinations, I hope to win, just to see how it goes.  Who knows, after 6 months I may find it's not for me. :-)  Anyhow, we shall see what we shall see.  Thanks again for your advice. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many many thanks for your point out my error on Arbitration Committee - oops! :-) I've fixed it now.

Thanks again.

James F. (talk) 23:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

adminship stuff
Yes, I think it would be a bad idea to nominate me in the midst of the current events... it would look like a counter-nomination, which would leave a bad taste in my mouth, let alone what other people might think.

I don't have any particularly strong desire to become an administrator on Wikipedia. I've noticed the occasional benefit in being able to revert abuse faster or delete pages (usually to facilitate renaming), but it's nothing particularly fancy, and nothing I can't get a friendly person in #wikipedia to tend to when necessary. I'll continue with my moderate temperament and levelheadedness with or without administrator rights. These traits don't need to be restricted to admins, in fact it would be best if they weren't :)

Thanks for your kind words in any event, it's a nice thing to have people notice you. --Shallot 20:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I completely understand what you're saying. I just want to avoid any sort of controversy regarding me being an admin or not. If you can make it happen without stirring any trouble, that's good. If not, it's still good. :) --Shallot 20:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You asked after Perl - here's the Wikipedia Maori list of admins for you to explore from. (You could also reach it from his English Userpage.) We don't need many admins over there for the current amount of contribution! Robin Patterson 20:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My gender confusion
D'oh! :-) Thanks for catching it -- I shouldn't have trusted my assumption about "Kim".  You'd think the nominator would take a little more care... ah well, I grin sheepishly.  Nice nomination of DropDeadGorgias, by the way -- don't know how I missed that he/she/they was/were not an admin. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, saved my life there! Kim Bruning 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's all very sound and I'll try to take each point into consideration. 172 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)