User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 79

=June 2013=

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure
Hi. I would like to inform you that a clarification request to the Arbitration Committee that may affect you is open at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.  Sandstein  21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ARCA did jack about this. Just dropped the ball entirely. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure
The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion "very shortly".

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 14:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've been eager to resolve this for a month now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Very shortly" has turned into "apparently never". ArbCom's dismal failure to clean up its own stinking mess, which is causing editors to resign in disgust, is among the reasons I'm, well, resigning in disgust. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record: Why I'm not editing any longer (a letter of resignation)
In response to mistaken assumptions or false characterizations of my reasoning (e.g. here), I'm going to explain more carefully why I've almost entirely ceased editing Wikipedia.

, I've not been editing, for much of any reason, since April 2013, and may leave permanently except as a decreasingly trusting reader. I've put Wikipedia at arm's length because of "cult of personality"-based, systemic abuses by "entitled" admins, and associated issues of "good ol' boy" cronyism, me-too-ism, and diffuse but stifling fear of challenging these pushy, censorious, charismatic admin "personalities", who have usurped ArbCom's authority and purpose, and turned WP:AE, WP:ANI and related administrative noticeboards into an above-the-law regime of make-it-up-as-you-go-along, arbitrary (in the negative sense), selective, even abusive and vindictive enforcement, with no checks and balances. From this Lord of the Flies-reminiscent kangaroo court, there is no appeal or recourse except to itself at WP:AE, or to a bureaucratic morass at WP:RFARB, where ArbCom generally declines to contradict admins, and not punish bad-acting ones even when the evidence can't be ignored, simply because they have a "badge".

This cancer of self-serving, aggressive, autocratic admins taking over dispute resolution process and perverting it to some kind of Judge Dredd/Dirty Harry bad-wiki-cop fantasy game, is compounded by: This is perhaps not surprising, given that (depending on whose stats and definitions you prefer) en.wikipedia.org is one of the top-3 to top-5 most used websites in the world. Wikipedia's latent power on the human stage has staggering potential, but is mostly unguarded, with very few barriers to concerted, planned abuse and subversion. That's the surprising part, and the underlying impetus of my effective resignation as an editor here.
 * 1) failure of the WP:AE/WP:ANI sub-community of admins to fulfill its role properly, with the result that it is effectively sanctioning, even egging on, the pillorying of productive editors, while encouraging the frivolous, exploitative "career troublemaking" of inveterate PoV-pushers, trolls and nutcases;
 * 2) failure of arbitrators to fulfill promises to clarify and resolve serious problems in the wording and enforcement of discretionary sanctions;
 * 3) failure of Jimmy Wales to institute the adminship reforms that he promised (vaguely as to detail, concretely as to timeline) would be in place by the first quarter of this year;
 * 4) and failure of the community more broadly to do much of anything about the increasing usurpation of the system of agenda-driven "civil PoV-pushers" who are seeking and uncritically gaining and keeping administrator authority, by which Wikipedia's coverage, tone and very nature are slowly being warped to reflect particular world-views, and increasingly limit the breadth and depth of the encyclopedia's base of contributors.

is the fact that two admins (one,, now resigned under a cloud after narrowly escaping forced-desysoping by ArbCom, the other still active) went on a two-months-long campaign of direct personal harassment of me and abuse of administrative power and processes to hound me, with virtually no response in check from the community – much less from its collective administration in particular, despite that being their "job". The other admin of the pair,, who has previously made proven-false accusations against me and refused to retract them, even himself – after admitting that many others had raised concerns that he was too involved, being party to a still-unresolved discretionary-sanctions dispute with me, and thus agreeing to recuse himself – just so he could get to be the one to personally close a WP:AE case, in a manner that censored me with an unjustified and unjustifiable topic ban for a month, perhaps one of the clearest cases ever of disruptive sanctions. I've thought about pursuing a WP:RFARB case about the matter, and many have encouraged me to do so, a few publicly but (fearing repercussions) most privately. While I think I would win such a case on its merits, and I know of at least 5 others who would join as additional "plaintiffs", I feel I have better things to do with my time. Life is short, and I would rather do something pleasant and meaningful than put up with being conspiratorially attacked by inimical, petty power-brokers in a project that seems to be running off the rails, with no recourse but to engage a witheringly time-consuming and nit-picky, pseudo-legalistic, pretentious and slow-moving bureaucracy that is clearly stacked against non-admins. I also observe that one Arb recently resigned their post for reasons that indicate ArbCom is acting in the interests of its own collective public image, not the interests of the editing community, so I am skeptical that such an RFARB case decided on its merits, rather than expediency and authoritarianism. Even a couple of admins who have seemed relatively neutral toward me appear to express similar doubts. All these temporal specifics said,  Being raked over the coals by an admin tag-team gang just happened to piss me off too much to let it slide.


 * Until I see at least some marginal progress on these worsening problems, I remain unconvinced that this project is worth any more of my time, since it is being incrementally but inexorably co-opted, while neither its most valuable contributors nor even its founder and chairman seem to care enough to speak up and take action about it. I don't even bother fixing typos any more; "Wikipedia doesn't need me", right?  I've been in the top few hundred most-active editors for .  I've even spent several  of dollars obtaining hard-to-find paper sources for articles that badly need work (not to mention donating money directly to the project), but at this point I may just write my own well-researched pieces about these topics, and publish them elsewhere.  This project certainly has no natural right to my continued massive amount of consistently productive labor, nor any entitlement to it even on moral suasion grounds, if it will not defend itself from rotting from the inside out.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I reserve the right to pop back in from time to time when I'm notified by someone in e-mail of something that actually needs my attention (like frivolous or malicious attempts to undo my work here), or to file or join actions at WP:AE, WP:RFARB, etc. that may help resolve some of the problems that have led to my leaving. Please do not ask for my involvement otherwise. I will not donate any more time to this project until I see that steps are being taken to put it back on the rails. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * S, don't let them get you down. Whether you take a long break, a short break, or a permanent break, I hope you'll forget those small-minded ones who get you down, and know that many of us here greatly appreciate and value your long-term and thoughtful contributions.  Many thanks, and I hope to see you around again eventually.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Want you back. Tony   (talk)  06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I regret that you've stopped editing. (I stand by my description of your editing as "aggressive", but apologize for the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" error in describing your ceasing to edit as because of rather than consequent on the actions of an admin.) I have been asking repeatedly for an explanation of how to de-capitalize those English names of plants which are capitalized in sources without arbitrariness and without OR/SYNTH. And there it is: a clear explanation of the difference between "jack" in "jack-in-the-pulpit" and "Brewer" in "Brewer's pine", which is obvious when you see it written down, but which no-one else had ever provided. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad that was helpful, and I appreciate the apology/clarification re: ergo propter hoc. My disagreement with "aggressive" is that it is synonymous with "attacking", yet there's no ArbCom case, no AE case, not AN case, no ANI case, no RFC/U, etc., ever showing me to be attacking anyone.  I realize that my debate style irritates some people.  Tough.  People own their own emotions.  Competency is required.  Part of competency is being able to withstand vigorous debate, or one's ability is undermined to effectively work in a collaborative and often adversarial system with a world of differing and often directly conflicting viewpoints.  Desire to be a Wikipedian is insufficient to be a good one. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * When an institution loses experienced users like you, it loses its "institutional memory". Sadly, I totally understand what has happened here; it has spurred the retirement banner on my own talk page, and on others'. Let us hope there is still a way forward. Neotarf (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. We're in touch; thanks. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks. I appreciate it. I am in the San Francisco Bay Area,though I used to live in DC back in the day. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cuegloss2
Template:Cuegloss2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cuegloss
Template:Cuegloss has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem at the glossary
Coming here I was sorry to see your retirement notice. Will read more fully on your reasons. Came here though to tell you the glossary is completely broken right now. Maybe something affecting defn, not sure. Could sure use your input.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well after saving I saw the two posts above and immediately figured the nominator forgot to enclose the TfD template in noinclude tags, and lo and behold... Fixed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's problem
Only occasionally do I run across parts of your massive body of good works, almost always off Wikipedia, but I want to say that I hold you in the very highest regard. I agree with you that there is an unhealthy intensification of rivalries on Wikipedia that dooms the project. However, I should take a moment to point out that this is inevitable based on a design flaw of the project from the beginning. The problem is that the creation of content and the control of the ensuing bandwidth are entangled. The result is that Wikipedia suffers a resource curse: as more and more content has been developed, and more and more bandwidth comes to the content, there is more and more financial and political advantage to be had from controlling it. There is, therefore, no way that the organization could ever have experienced a different fate than to be infiltrated and taken over by external interests with their own agendas. At the moment, it is possible that most of the players are still amateurs - I don't have any way to know - but it is a game of Survivor and the grand prize is enormous.

I know you are highly experienced with political activism, and knowledgeable of the technology: what we need is a way to shatter the control over what content people see when they look it up, back into the hands of the Internet as a whole with nobody in charge. We need the Wikipedia content to genuinely be mirrored over hundreds, thousands of sites - not spammers looking for quick traffic to low-grade copies, but a community of editors, just like the community of Wikipedia editors, but independent, free from any effort anyone can ever make to become admin over them. There was a project along that line at The Federated Wiki by the originator of the Wiki format, though it had struck me as crude and with too much structuring of the content by the software. There are other Wikis right now all over the Internet. The question is: does anyone have the savvy to marshall these forces into a persuasive alternative to Wikipedia that can start to take over for it as it descends into its final throes? Wnt (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first paragraph, not sure that the second is how I would approach it (short version: just because certain parties will to control a centralized resource doesn't mean that it must necessarily be decenralized).  But, I decline to make this my problem.  Too much important shit (both objectively, societally important, and important in my life for personal reasons) is going on in real life for me to concern myself with WP much longer.  Not as it stands today.  I don't have the energy to try to make a competing/replacement system, and don't see that as necessary or even helpful, compared to fixing the existing one.  I've resisted the POV-pusher and authoritarian takeover for years, and it's just not my job any more. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bye
I'm logging off again. I don't need e-mail notifying me of this party or that saying good or bad things in response to my leaving. If someone tries to destroy something useful I worked extensively on, I wouldn't mind a heads-up, though. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)