This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Some days Some nights Yellow daisies dance by moonlight While the other flowers sleep And dream of love. El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I-are-seem to be reaching out
Let's talk to rather than past each other. Refractoring some select excerpt for targeted discussion.El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
On "WEA [as] a special [page]"
Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Reconciling the un-citability of (non-personal-info) irc logs with accountability & community confidence: possible, or forever a source of woe?El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"[C]ontroversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama" [...] Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Wikipedia) that contradicts 'controversy' [...] Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
To be continued...?
Comments
Dream of love
Some days Some nights Yellow daisies dance by moonlight While the other flowers sleep And dream of love. El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Refractored chipetting
To pet a chipmunk, you need to project the calmness of love.
Love, and peanuts!
If you have anger in your heart, the chipmunks sense it and they will refuse petting.
Let's talk to rather than past each other. Refractoring some select excerpt for targeted discussion.El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
On "WEA [as] a special [page]"
Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If no prior notice was given of these special rights and status ... how could any Wikipedian be faulted for assuming that a page appearing in Wikipedia was open to editing? Risker (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I just have one: if it's a "special place" that isn't Wikipedia, how can there be a Wikipedia policy about it? Does Wikipedia host policy pages about how SomethingAwful is to be run? By the way, I invited such comments before. There weren't any, so I figured it was fine to edit the page. I guess we were all supposed to read the silences... presumably by hearing a great deal on IRC. Geogre (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I-are-seeing evidence?
Reconciling the un-citability of (non-personal-info) irc logs with accountability & community confidence: possible, or forever a source of woe?El_C05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Geogre "repeatedly": explored
Geogre has repeatedly been [sic] incivil and engaged in personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear: it's not enough to say "In this diff Geogre makes a personal attack," because I looked at those diffs and, frankly, didn't see the claimed personal attacks. Nandesuka (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I don't have anything more to add than what I said on the Workshop page: if you're making the serious accusation of a "personal attack," then you have an obligation to state what you think that attack actually is. Phil utterly failed to do this. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Do I finally get to say something? Ok, here it goes: Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has always had a thing about "personal attacks." He introduced the very concept to Wikipedia, and his original attempt at "semi-policy" failed miserably, thanks to the work of user:Orthogonal and myself. It was an absurdity that has since been used to countenance illogic and misbehavior. There is no way for me to say that Phil's heart wasn't broken by my warning to him, or that Guy didn't weep in bitter tears when I called his comments "horse shit." There is no way for Phil to say that Guy did, either. There is no way to quantify, assess, consider, or even acknowledge a "personal attack." Uncivil behavior can be assessed, however, by its effects. So here is how we can determine whether a person has been uncivil: has that person's comments meant that editing ceased, and all conversation turned to the speech act, rather than the reasoning or issues? Was a single user so deeply affected that she or he left the project or decided not to edit as much?
Well, let's use those two alone and see. After my "repeatedly" "incivil" (why can't people ostensibly getting training in an English department learn to use a dictionary?) remarks, what was the result? Did Phil begin discussing my vicious comments? Did he swear off Wikipedia or swear off editing as much? Did Guy? Has David Gerard said that I'm the reason he stopped adding any content to Wikipedia? Did any of these editors contact me at any point to ask me to tone it down, to clarify, or to apologize? Did any of them tell me that they were insulted? Did any of them attempt dialog or redress in any form? The answer to those is "no" in every single case.
Now, we can look for a different thing, too. We can ask what Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer has done. Has he attempted dialog? Has he attempted mediation of this rampant uncivil behavior? Has he tried to work out differences with me? Oddly, my talk page is, I believe, a virgin to any comment from Phil in four years. What has he done, then? He has tacked me on to an arbitration, and for what purpose? He moves for demotion, punishment, and all sorts of mean, nasty things. What is the effect of this? It is to draw attention to his personal emotions, his personal sadness at taking losing positions or being unable to argue his positions against me. That, friends, is the definition of uncivil, for it is evidence of someone putting the personal far ahead of the communal. Geogre (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thought from an irrelevant editor who has to get this out somewhere: Every one of Phil Sandifer's proposals on that arb works hop makes me feel sick. The point of arbcom, even for the non-arbs participating, is (as the order of the elements suggests) to start with the principles, etc, etc, etc. These proposals (principles, findings of fact, remedies) seem to be geared towards specific ends: keeping the channels in a position where they are both official and free of any scrutiny; and driving away users that he perceives to be 'against' him. I for one would rather be rid of any number of those who seem to gather around these WP namespace controversies than any actual content contributer, let alone somebody as generally genial as Bishonen. No more bongos (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Access to arbcom-l: parties and peers
Some have argued that David Gerard's read access to the committee's secret deliberations constitute a pivotal advantage (i.e. being able to adjust his conduct according to expectations gathered therein). Others maintained that there isn't much he could do with that knowledge. What is, however, clear is that he is the only party with such access, which places him in a unique position.El_C03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Community admonished?
The community is admonished for its repeated protection of Giano. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"The community" is Wikipedia. Arbcom exists for our sake, not vice versa. Crotalus 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I would want to see evidence of other users being protected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This could be a long list... Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Phil's acting insane, or he's writing insanely. It's as if he wants people to mention his own misdeeds, as I suspect that he is thinking of getting "even" for being caught short. He, for one, has been well protected, despite horrible acts in the past. Tony Sidaway at en.admins after resigning his admin status under a cloud, and then being offered ops there? Kelly Martin not being an admin and yet given ops over that channel? Kelly "thanked" during an arbitration that resulted in resigning under a cloud? Ed deleting AfD, and Phil doing the same (but claiming "IAR" and being too "clueful" to worry about doing things by the numbers) and not being banned? There are quite a few people who have been arbitrated frequently, but, oddly, the various times that Giano has been mentioned in arbitration, the cases have never, so far, actually been about anything he has done. Before Phil gets away with telling the whole world that he's right and that they all need to be warned that he is, it would be good if he could be precise and say exactly what Giano II is supposed to have done in this case and at this time. Seems like "edit war" is about all there is, and, as Phil should have learned by now, there were a dozen people in that war. Blocking only one of them, and not for the requisite 24 hr but for the outlandish 72 hr, is itself a misuse of admin tools and something that should be arbitrated. However, Phil gets away with abuse. Giano gets blamed for every time people get caught doing something outrageous. Geogre (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"Beyond odd"
Hi. I'm trying to facilitate a laid back, on-wiki discussion about Wikipedia and IRC and would appreciate your particpation. Thanks. Regards, El_C 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it would be grossly inappropriate for me to comment whilst a case is in train. I also find it beyond odd that you would seek to carry such a conversation out on a user's talk page, but hey. :-) James F. (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything prohibiting you from commenting; I can ask other members of the committee in case you feel constrained. And I'm sorry you feel Wikipedia users carrying such a discussion on user's talk page is "beyond odd," but IRC was unavailable! ;) El_C 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
To James F's credit, at least he replied to my invitation. The other two editors whom this extended, did not. El_C17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What on earth would a case have to do with anything? JamesF is not named as a party, and I sincerely hope he's not arbitrating it, given the conflict of interest. For that matter, either he has total control, because it's his party, and then there is no Wikipedia link to that channel, or he is ruled by the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, in which case we can finally begin to set forth best practice by consensus and rationalize the thing. There is no "semi-policy" and there is no "semi-adherent." If it's not Wikipedia, then Wikipedia's got no place advertising it. Geogre (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
...when *presenting* findings
Carcharoth notes that "balance is important when presenting findings of fact." It is, therefore, noteworthy that three editors from one side of the dispute (Giano, Geogre, Bishonen) are mentioned versus only one from the other (the arbcom-l privy David Gerard). As well, the former are noted in less heated ("provocational") terms than the matter-of-fact description of Gerard, who of course did not shy of such exclamations as "idiocy and trolling."[1]El_C17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I may release some of my own communication to arbcom-l from last month which may shade light on the nature/source of this unevenness. El_C17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What's more, the talk page to that idiotic vanity page of David Gerard's is now showing a group of people realizing that... guess what?... the page was inaccurate. It was poorly written (no contest), inaccurate (now community finding), and self-loving (no one has said anything about that, one way or the other, but it would explain the poor writing and inaccuracies). If this is so, then people have a wholly laudable need to edit it. The provocative edits of Giano, the sometimes pointed edits I did, and the edits Bishonen did that brought onto Wikipedia a matter that needed to be addressed and which was being ignored behind the veil of "can't be quoted," are all therefore legitimate. On the other hand, with the community findings of fault with the page, David Gerard and others who moved to his preferences, were fighting for no stated reason. Additionally, he in particular, but they in general, employed insulting language over and over in their edit summaries and in their rare talk page comments. The uneven comments reflect something other than fact, other than assessment, and other than reason. Geogre (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, unfortunately unsurprisingly, more one-sidedness, this time in the realm of remedies. Needless to say, I strongly protest this injustice. El_C21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen, specifically
Moreover, Bishonen only made three edits to the page. Several other editors edited, and reverted, the page more times during the course of the dispute. She, as the victim of the attack, with very few edits (three) to the disputed page, is singled out negatively, whereas her attacker, Tony Sidaway is left unmentioned. Somehow, I am sensing this findings of fact presentation mode is intentional.El_C17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
See above comment. Quite a few other users made more than three edits, and furthermore, Bishonen withdrew involvement therein early on. El_C17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway, specifically
Thus, bizarrely, some feel that it is fine to have Bishonen, an admin with an exemplary record, labaled as a troublemaker due to these three edits. Not only, they propose that she will be placed on an indefinite civility parole due to these three edits, which were not even uncivil. [2]
It all strikes yours truly as an approach that seems rather Orwellian. Bishonen is aggregated in this parole with Tony Sidway (the person behind the IRC insults), whose record of indiscretions was submitted to the now virtually unreadable, hundreds of pages-sized workshop. I will outline this Finding of Fact directly below (thankfuly, it was also submitted on Newyorkbard's talk page,[3] which makes for much easier copying):
Tony Sidaway is frequently the source of, or very near to, large-scale disruption, mostly over issues that are confined to Wikipedia space and do not directly effect the production of encyclopedic content. Principle amoung these are the "wars" over userboxes, signatures, and spoilers.
As the items below indicate, Tony is involved in disruption of some nature every few months.
How can Bishonen and Tony Sidway be equally aggregated when she possesses an exemplary record+3 edits, compared to his record, above? It boggles the mind. El_C21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's practically every three months, and what is remarkably similar about all of the cases is that Tony is consistently accused of insulting other users. In the present fracas, I'm accused of being insulting, but not Bishonen. If we want to see what uncivil action really is, it's a person who continually (not once) gets everyone around riled up. That fits with Tony's pattern, not Bishonen's. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you.Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"[C]ontroversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama" [...] Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Wikipedia) that contradicts 'controversy' [...] Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it isn't. Here, I'm interested discussing what defines controversy vs. drama, an issue which I felt the above exchange touched on. El_C15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Drama" is a term heavily used in gay slang, and it always comes across to me as cattiness. I find its use offensive, as it turns legitimate issues into "oooh, that bitch." Such trivial people should not have an audience, and they most emphatically should not have imitators. People who leave in controversial circumstances are those whose ability to voluntarily leave is controversial, because there is a segment of the editing population that believes that such a person should have a finding stripping him or her of position. E.g. several users, and not merely the ones I dislike, have "left" when arbitration began, and that has been used as a reason for stopping the RfAr. In other cases, people have "resigned" their administrative status during an arbitration, and therefore the arbitrators have not been moved to give an official demotion. The "under a cloud" finding has now had a face lift and wording change, but the import is the same: a person who quits/resigns when there is substantial evidence of wrong doing is not truly volunteering, and therefore they have something "on their record," as it were.
I still find that ruling problematic, myself. I do not think ArbCom should be taking cases that are about personalities. Personalities and personal problems should be dealt with either by community actions or by mediation. If it's just, for example, the case of SandyGeorgia and Zeroath, there should be an easier way to deal with it than arbitration. Instead, arbitration should take place when there is an operative principle involved, when there is something deeper than unhappy people or jerks. If there is an issue, then ArbCom should make a finding, even if the people all leave/resign/apologize. The point is to make a finding on how policies should or should not be employed or to recommend places where policies need to be formed. Geogre (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen and Giano Main pageness
Bishonen (in five days) and Giano (tomorrow) are the gift that keeps on giving, even when whilst away. As always, when it comes to claims of having the project's best interests in mind, this editor feel that action speaks louder than loudly-spoken words. Congratulations to them both!El_C17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added the following to your proposed sanction and hope that it meets with your approval, as it is designed for the edification of all mankind and arises from my own lucubrations:
"Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it."
I believe, with that eminent scientist, that there is no point in discussing such difficult solutions, when it is simpler to eat the inhabitants -- preferably alive, but by dead reputation alone, if necessary. Geogre (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hard Times
So strange to turn from the chimneys to the birds. So strange, to have the road–dust on his feet instead of the coal–grit. So strange to have lived to his time of life, and yet to be beginning like a boy this summer morning! With these musings in his mind, and his bundle under his arm, Stephen took his attentive face along the high road. And the trees arched over him, whispering that he left a true and loving heart behind. *** Mister James Harthouse, 'going in' for his adopted party, soon began to score. With the aid of a little more coaching for the political sages, a little more genteel listlessness for the general society, and a tolerable management of the assumed honesty in dishonesty, most effective and most patronized of the polite deadly sins, he speedily came to be considered of much promise. The not being troubled with earnestness was a grand point in his favour, enabling him to take to the hard Fact fellows with as good a grace as if he had been born one of the tribe, and to throw all other tribes overboard, as conscious hypocrites.El_C23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Within every one of us there lives both a Don Quixote and a Sancho Panza to whom we hearken by turns; and though Sancho most persuades us, it is Don Quixote that we find ourselves obliged to admire...El_C02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wienie 'shonen delete her socks. [5] :-( Bishonen hasn't edited much since her evidence section got screwed over in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/the IRC RFAr case. And she complained about humiliating findings and remedies about her getting left in deadlock on the Proposed Decision page. Removed now. Big deal, anyway, you should see the findings posted about me. And why take it out on the socks in any case? Poor dear 'Zilla, grimly climbing Reichstag with Little Stupid and Frutti di Mare in her pocket! A tragic scene! Who is Frutti di Mare, anyway? Mysteries! Proposal for a wiki homage: let's make this day Talk Like Bishzilla Day from now onwards! Swat feel free to propose this beautiful tribute on ANI! Giano (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
I agree with MONGO, I'm rarely active now because of schoolwork and such but we can't lose anymore article writers (same message to Giano) Secretalt (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Towering heights
Parturiunt montes et nascetur ridiculus mus — Horace, Ars Poetica
An analysis of the IRC case
I know you may not be around to read this, Bishonen, but I wanted to share with you (and who ever else happens to stumble on this page) that Kosebamse has taken a look at the IRC case and posted a very astute analysis at his/her talk page.[6] You are missed. Risker (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think, actually, that two editors have been lost, and a third is all but lost. It was the dumbest arbitration in the history of Wikipedia -- beating out some very stiff competition. At least we know now that there is no more incivility at Wikipedia. That problem has been solved. 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utgard Loki (talk • contribs)
Hey there, I recently found a grave error that had cuccìa written in an English wikipedia article as cuccià. This is an incorrect spelling of Sicilian, since the accent rarely falls on the last syllable. And this word just doesn't exist as such. So, I've since corrected the page name and title, and have gone to the subsequent pages that are linked to cuccìa and have done the same there. I see that your Sicilian Christmas user page links to cuccià, but I did not want to change your user page. So if you'd like, you can also update your page to the correct spelling of cuccìa. Cheers! --Salvuzzo (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Best 8th of March greetings to Bishzilla, the freest and the most committed to the best of Wikipedia. Let the world, life, arbonauts and the rest of Wikipedia be kind to you! --Irpen22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mrs Bishonen, I was so sorry to see you have been away, and thought you may need a little cheer. I was clearing out some old fashioned and rather dreary clothes and baubles and was wondering who on earth would wear them, and then I immediately thought of you. Just an old "travelling tiara" but quite a lot of wear left, I'm sure it will be useful, if only for when dining home alone, or entertaining those odd friends of yours, when your salon re-opens. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: Emancipation of women! If a woman need emancipating it's her own fault for chosing the wrong husband, never had any problem with any of mine, they were all perfectly well behaved. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An ode to Tee-Tee
I once had a parrot.
His name was Tee-Tee.
He was green,
and happy.
After about a year,
he flew away when
my grandpa
left the door open
(I refused to fuck with his wings
so he had unrestricted flight).
Later that day,
some kids told me
they saw Tee-Tee
on a tree nearby!
I biked there and, lo!
Tee-Tee, on a tree
happy.
I never saw him again.
He is probably still alive
(they live to like 100
or something,
and there are no
natural predators
facing him
in the old country). El_C
Thank you very much for the greetings, poems, and artwork, all my lovely friends, I appreciate it more than I can tell you. To Rdsmith4: I hereby confirm that I own the account "Bishonen" on meta. Bishonen | talk18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC).
Re: User talk history
I'm sorry about that ... I accept that I should have informed you, or at least asked about it beforehand. I was on a mission to restore wrongly deleted pages ... your talk page was an extension of that. In other words I was in a strange, policy-obsessed, frame of mind at the time. In hindsight it seems obbvious to inform you ... it was *your* talk page and *you* deleted it. I won't modify the history of userspace pages for established users in future, without their permission first. Graham8702:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen. Forgive me, but I noticed you deleted all your userspace. Given the circumstances, I have to ask: are you leaving us? - Mtmelendez(Talk)01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly does, and I've seen it happen in the past. Do not undelete this talk page. If she wants to leave in peace, let her. It'll make a nice change from the harassment and nasty comments she's put up with. SirFozzie (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Harassment stops NOW!
Please do not harass anymore the editor routed away from Wikipedia by the IRC coordinated harrassment campaign. The only good thing that can happen is Bishonen deciding to return. Baiting and taunting like above by "Save_Us" is exactly the opposite. Take your lecturing on the RtV and other stuff elsewhere. There are still millions of user talk pages of other editors who wrote the Wikipedia content. They might take it better. --Irpen02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
When you delete a user talk page, you delete contributions by other people. A better solution is to blank and protect the talk page with a departure notice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I will email this suggestion to Bishonen. Hopefully, she did not abandon her email account. We will see what she decides, but there is no overwhelming need for an additional show of disrespect through reversing her last action wrt to her userspace. --Irpen02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If people are leaving, they're allowed to delete their talk pages. Even people who haven't left are quite regularly deleting theirs. But that really isn't the issue at the moment. The issue is why Bishonen left and what can be done about it. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Me too. If there's even a five percent chance that Bishonen might come back, let's not reduce it to a four percent chance by making Wikipedia seem even less attractive. She has given a huge amount to the project. She's obviously upset. We'd love to have her back. There is no absolute necessity to have her page undeleted unless we value process for the sake of it over and above human beings. It seems in rather bad taste to start insisting on it immediately after she leaves, unless diffs are actually needed as evidence (and even then, it could be done more sensitively). Finally, let's consider this, although the second sentence certainly doesn't apply to Bishonen. ElinorD(talk)14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
<<< It is very disturbing to me to see Bishonen leaving. Is anything I can do have her back? I am sure I am not alone on this feeling. If you are reading this Bishonen, please email me. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
I'm sorry you removed your evidence. I thought it added important insight and context even without the log excerpt, which the Committee has received by email anyway. Thatcher14:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Bish, hope you are feeling okay. You can delete my messages because they are not important. Stay strong in whatever path you choose to take. And, most importantly...DON'T LET WIKIPEDIA DRAMA RUIN YOUR HOLIDAYS! :-P miranda10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're well and having fun. WP should be about enjoying contributing. Be well assured that you're valued and your work is greatly appreciated. A semi-detached fan, dave souza, talk17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Refractored comment by Geogre
I just have one: if it's a "special place" that isn't Wikipedia, how can there be a Wikipedia policy about it? Does Wikipedia host policy pages about how SomethingAwful is to be run? By the way, I invited such comments before. There weren't any, so I figured it was fine to edit the page. I guess we were all supposed to read the silences... presumably by hearing a great deal on IRC. Geogre (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd start a petition...
but voting is evil. We love Bishonen. For values of "we" that includes just about everybody I give a toss about, as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In light of Giano returning, perhaps we can plead with you enough to do the same, Ms. Bish??? We miss you and the 'Zilla --Tex21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Bishonen's absence has less to do with Tony Sidaway's anger management issues and more with the fact that she feels she was abused without receiving any support from her admin colleagues on the channel. While she is appreciative of the support given here, she seems to find it hard to be as forgiving as me of those who wish to attack me for my support of her. This is a very sad state of affairs and I hope too that one day she feels able to return and continue her tremendous work in both main and Wikipedia space. With luck her forthcoming 24 hours of much deserved fame [7] will remind her of how appreciated she is here. Giano (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I sign the petition 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) also, I don't get what you have ever done to be called a b****** b**** from h***, I can think of some people who might fit that definition, but I've never known of you doing anything BBfH -like. Merkinsmum13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I know things got very rough, Bishonen. But remember that many of us "little people" admire and respect you. I hope you reconsider and come back. WBardwin (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I hardly ever come to Wikipedia anymore. The amount of vandalism the Swedish article is getting is absolutely unbelievable. Not only is there the general school computer lab BS, but there are all sorts of fantastically stupid people who don't know what encyclopedias look like (cn) and can't imagine (cn) writing that doesn't have little numbers in front of it (10 Goto 20 20 Print cn 30 Goto 20 40 End) (cn). Geogre (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Aha. Well, I found what all this (cn) stuff is about[8]. See, this is what happens while editors are busy writing articles. Someone comes along and rewrites the MOS and half the relevant policies (check out WP:V and WP:RS for their shock value) and then our best writers get yelled at for "not following policy." All of these sections/policies/guidelines have changed in the last two years, some quite dramatically. Sigh. Risker (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I think it is wonderful to see it being so vandalised my own humble <no don't contradict me! - sigh> offering was resolutely ignored by vandals last week, in fact I was beginning to wonder if Wikipedia was losing its popularity - it just goes to show the poor and starving (and frankly unattractive) always attract more attention than the "magnificent and educated" pages. Trust dear little Mrs. Bishonen to pick up on that and exploit it - no wonder she is the most famous and popular Wikipedian of all time - I just hope she does not attract resentment because of it - people can be very cruel towards the successful. Giano (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
All I know is that I spent over an hour cleaning up vandalism in the article last night, got a bunch of vandals blocked, and even had my own user and talk pages messed up. I think it is because of the word "Swedish." Two thirds of the folks logging into Wikipedia are young enough to have fond feelings toward the Swedish Chef. And of course, by definition, all Swedes are beautiful - if only all countries had such benefits for their citizens. I agree with Geogre, though, one would have hoped at least the few "real" Wikipedians would read the manual of style before asking for citations(cn). I posted a discussion of it on someone's user page last night, maybe it should be moved to the talk page of the article. Bishonen, lovely article, even if at various points it has had pictures of Al Jolson and discussed Swedes in Cuba and Jamaica. Risker (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also getting lectured that the main page article should have removals and things, because it's part of... get this, because it's now part of the alphabet soup meant for hurling rather than reading... WP:BB. This same person said that protection isn't extended because the main page article is there for target practice for newbies. Harrumph. Geogre (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the real questions are now up at the talk page to talk:Swedish emigration to the United States, and I can't answer them. I can and did slap down the tagger, but there are good questions there and better questions below that. Bish should come back, or the 'Zilla should answer. Zilla knows how to cause emigration. Geogre (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No wonder it got vandalized so much. The entire population of Smaland (the area in the IKEA) or Minnesota-outside-Minneapolis-St. Paul read it. Geogre (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, is he saying that the square footage of some IKEA's is as large as certain regions of Sweden? Having been lost for a weekend in our local one, I'd believe it. I imagine there is a particular room in hell fashioned for me as an endless IKEA with no exits and cheap crappy furniture with baffling instruction to be assembled for an eternity.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume, based on how the question is formulated, that you consider my stances in the two situations in question to be contradictory? I don't really see them as being so; that I noted Tony's problems with civility (which are being dealt with in the present case, albeit not with quite as much urgency as certain others) shouldn't require me to ignore my concerns about the behavior of other editors. My tolerance for certain activities has decreased over the course of my presence on the Committee, of course; but I would think that is not an unacceptable position for me to take. Kirill02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It must have sounded like it. Actually I was only marginally concerned with Tony. I was looking for a more specific—somehow, a fuller—response from you to my original post—for a more direct comment on your own action in supporting Uninvited Company's re-definition of me from admin in good standing into "problem user" here. You signed a FoF about my disruptiveness on January 5th, and I just thought it ... unimaginative of you to merely tell me on January 24th, after I'd described how it felt to be left so long in limbo, that the committee "expected to deal with everyone in due course." Now, my post had been about my personal experience, rather than about the dispute escalation which you discussed in reply. You didn't seem to fully catch on to my meaning, which may likely have been my fault, so I took another shot at it, attempting to ask from a different direction if you—personally—realized how brutal a process it is that involves posting and supporting and leaving up in a public place for weeks such "findings of fact" as for example the one about me. I feel I understand better now how little empathy the committee expends on such things. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, and I won't nag you any more. Bishonen | talk09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
Are mere expressions of empathy—devoid of any associated action—really what you want? I can tell you that, in all honesty, it pains me to have to go down the path the case has taken, and that I entirely understand that having your actions under a critical microscope—and not a particularly friendly or sympathetic one—is a harrowing experience, and that cases that drag on and on with no resolution are a miserable place to be; but if I just do that, and don't actually do anything about it, would that help you at all?
And if what you're really looking for is not words but actions, what is it that you think I should do? Make the case move faster? It would be far easier if we didn't empathize with you; if you were merely another troublemaker that we could ban, the case would have been over in a week. It's precisely because we value your participation here that trying to come up with some resolution takes so long.
Or do you want me not to view you as a "problem user"? I'm sorry, but I simply can't do that at this point; it was ultimately your decision to assist Giano—and I cannot believe you so ignorant of the history that you had no inkling of the potential consequences of doing so. It is my view that Giano's method of interacting with other editors must be stamped out, ruthlessly if need be; and that anyone who aids him in his actions must bear a portion of the responsibility for their effects.
No thanks, I've no interest in empty professions, and frankly no reason to think of yours as non-empty. You don't know me, and I don't regard arbitrators as some form of higher beings. But there are surely better ways of arbitrating: more convenient, less crudely antgonistic, and simply better. One concrete suggestion for this case: you implied strongly that the case was (at least partly) deliberately and knowingly delayed ("because we continued ... to harbor the (unfortunately naive) hope that certain participants here would step away from the brink" etc).So why preserve the rather randomly collected accusations ("findings of fact") in amber on the page for several weeks while you (plural) wait for the stepping away, or for internal agreement to chrystallize in the committee? What kind of procedure is this, the stocks? "What is it I think you should do?" Nothing now. I think you, singular and plural, should have waited to start posting "findings" and supports until the long period of inaction (as perceived by the onlookers) was over. Or, if it wasn't clear from the start that there would be such a period, I think the premature posts should have been withdrawn—removed—for the duration, and put back much later, if they were still current then. Oh, and I think we, as in you and I, should stop this dialogue now. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me and try to understand where I was coming from; and I wish you'd stop. I have, at long last, all the information I need. Bishonen | talk15:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
Hang on. I don't get this. People were supposed to step away from the edge? Well, you went on strike for about a month, I completely ignored the thing and wrote 3 articles, Snowspinner filled in the vaccuum with charge after charge after charge. How the hell could anyone "step away" more? That's just nuts. Giano was running for ArbCom and working on an FA, and his talk page is covered over with sweetness toward all humanity. If anything made him turn acrimonious, it was all this rot.
If people wanted that "edge" to be stepped from, there were two unbelievably obvious ways. One was to get some attention to David Gerard's vanity page and deal honestly with how shabby it is. No, "I agree, but you said it wrong." Even better, though, was to set up processes and procedures for dealing with malefactors on the IRC. That would have been easier, faster, and more harmonious all the way around. Geogre (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Assistance
As far as the page itself is concerned, the conflict was already in full swing by the time you edited; so I write that "you assisted Giano" as a shorthand for "you entered an ongoing dispute started by Giano's edits and took actions that supported Giano's position in said dispute". That Giano's original edits were intended to help you—that you were the victim and he the helpful bystander, in other words—is true but not really relevant unless you mean to say that you were unaware that he had already edited the page when you did so. Otherwise, it was up to you to evaluate the situation and decide whether entering the dispute along with him was the proper thing to do; and it is my position that your decision was the wrong one. Kirill21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And three wrong edits instantaneously metamorphosize one from an exemplary to a problem user. Unless you're David Gerard, of course! El_C20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And then you can use threats and page protection and be ok, because you have secret agreements and concordats! Apparently, everyone was watching to see what the trouble users "did next." Well, I ignored them and wrote articles. Bishonen went away. Giano ignored them for 3 weeks. Then, of course, they kept poking, waiting for someone to say something to them or about them. When Giano did respond to getting stabbed and poked, it was, "Sigh, this is very predictable." Damn right it is. What has David Gerard done next? Still nothing on Wikipedia. Still no dialog. Still no cooperative editing of his private page. It's still in name space. Geogre (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jerk?
In future if you decide to email me, please do so in less of an attacking way. A one word "Jerk." email is not what I expected off someone I happened to have a lot of respect for. Ryan Postlethwaite22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I please ask why you feel saying that Postlethwaite is a jerk is a personal insult? I don't think Bishonen would do that unless some people thought that your jerkish behavior in the arbCom case had reached serious levels, and neither would she e-mailed you if this wasn't at least partly true. Bish's e-mail wasn't incivl, it was her opinion and reasoning for her objection of your patronizing Bauder - I honestly see nothing wrong with it, some people just need to open their eyes. When users have to resort to publicizing private communications and start getting defensive (just because they're admins?), I don't really think you've got much rebuttal when someone says something like this. (didn't you say you got a lot of repsect for her? why don't you keep your mouth shut or keep the communication strictly offsite?)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point CG - I didn't deserve to be called a jerk because of a difference in opinion. I don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, “jerk” is not an attack. Postlewaite, if you think “jerk” is an attack (uncivil), then life is going to be very hard for you on ‘pedia. You’re also the one who claimed Bauder’s vicious attacks/prejudice toward several parties in the proposed decision page is not a problem. What about WP:DICK? That ain’t an attack, is it? And maybe it isn’t fair that Sidaway should get away with calling Bish a “bitch” on IRC (offsite), the very reason for this arbCom case. I couldn’t help but notice the double-standard of your argument.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A jerk is not a personal attack? I suggest you take a look at this - "a dull stupid fatuous person". I find it overly ironic that Bishonen is the one complaining about people making personal attakcs (yes, I agree, Tonys comment was out of order) and yet she's the one resorting to them as well. If this had happened on-wiki, she would most probably have been blocked at this point in time. I've made no attacks against her, or anyone - but I suggested a reasoning behind Fred's comments - he said Giano was disruptive, well yeah, many people think he is in project space. Ryan Postlethwaite05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Look my friend, I’m not exactly in the mood of getting into semantics and lawyer talk. But the fact of the matter is that Bauder’s comment in the proposed decision page is partial, disgraceful, and un-arbitrator-like while Bish’s e-mail to you (which I have no access to verify its authenticity) is just something you can laugh it off. Calling it a blockable offense is just laughable. Btw, you are probably the one who needs to open your eyes. If you think Bauder doesn’t hold grudges against certain parties, you’re delusional (or judging by your contributions, maybe you’re not here long enough). This isn’t an arbCom case. This is a chance to seek revenge for certain arbitrators. This is a concerted effort to drive out several mainspace contributors who made ‘pedia at little bit more human and fun.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A jerk is hardly a pesonal attack, and by the standards if this case and #admins it is quite restrained and ladylike. I'm afraid this sort of stuff is going to hapen now, we take our lead from our betters. When a chatroom is set above the content and editors of the encyclpedia it is evident that things have gone seriously wrong. Giano (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake. Of course a one-word e-mail stating "jerk" is a personal attack = "Slang. A foolish, rude, or contemptible person". Under no stretch of the imagination is it (or many other contributions of many people) a constructive way of handling disputes. Lacking evidence, I refuse to believe people would deliberately stoop to that, and so I assume some sort of mistake. Although we all lash out unjustifiably at times - and perhaps could all learn some of Tony's newly-found introspection and willingness to apologise. But then, we've lately had worse from all sides. Are Fred's asides helpful? No; certainly not. But they are rather the least of the heated rhetoric we've seen latently. But if people can wantonly attack one another by e-mail, it rather makes a nonsense of complaining about iRC (and v.versa). The problem (on all sides) is not the medium, the problem is people fuelling disputes, and nursing grievances without genuine attempts to de-escalate. Righteous indignation is unseemly unless you are genuinely whiter-than-white righteous. At least with IRC there's always the chance of someone trout slapping you for being a moron. Clichéd as it sounds, this whole "incivility and personal attacks" thing brings to my mind too old adages: pots should not call kettles black (and I refuse to be drawn on who are which) and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (and I'm not defining the glass house). Either be think-skinned or be a paragon of civility - or better, be both.--Docg09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, you just made the greatest point of this entire fiasco here. "I don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki." This entire thing started with attacks made by Tony Sidaway off-wiki, yet he is "getting away" with it! This entire arbcom started because of that and you "don't think it's fair" that Bishonen should get away with something similar. Do you also think Tony "shouldn't get away with it"? The entire arbcom should stop. SGT Tex (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That post makes no sense to me. This thing started because bishonen (rightly) objected to Tony's incivility. Tony apologised and has indicated a willingness to change. That's a result - he may not, but we can AGF and hope for the best here. We don't punish people - we try to get them to change. This is not about "justice" and punishment it is about getting people to be civil and to calmly try to resolve disputes rather than edit warring, upping the rhetorical temperature and incessantly assuming bad faith. Those who were concerned (as I was) with Tony's remarks to bishonen, and want a more gentle community must surely get that. There's far to much of the childish "they behaved badly, so we are entitle to behave badly too" going on here. We all need to stop it - if we can't, then sanctions will be necessary. If people want the case dropped, then they need to show a capability for calm, measured, discussion that truly aimed at building bridges and creating positive working environments. In the end, those who cannot, or will not, do that will need to leave the project.--Docg17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doc. If that post doesn't make sense to you, then perhaps it wasn't meant for you. I apologize for the way the indention made it look as if I were replying to you, but my post begins with "Ryan" and goes on to quote Ryan's message so I thought it would be clear that I was talking to him. As for the rest of your post, we'll have to agree to disagree. Since you think the problem started with Bishonen objecting to Tony's incivility, instead of with Tony's incivility itself, I believe we are worlds apart in this. Thanks for your thoughts, though. SGT Tex (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So let's get this straight, because Tony made an attack against Bishonen (yup, he was way way out of line with that), it's ok for her then to start attacking me? You really think that makes it ok? I haven't been rude or incivil to her, or anyone else in this matter, so I don't expect to be send an email in which the only word it contains is "jerk". We all have differences of opinion here, but we should have to resort to attacks to solve them, especially not taking cheap stabs at one another in email where the person who receives the email hasn't really got much defence. Ryan Postlethwaite19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you misread the word Ryan, or Bishonen made a typo. I have a huge problem believing Bishonen would use such a crude, vile, obscenity as "jerk" when referring to you. I'm sure its all a simple misunderstanding. Its not as though she has called you an emotional cripple, or a weak and ineffectual man is it? Had she done so, Thatcher would have bounced along and joyously banned you for objecting, on his masters' orders. So just relax a peg, by wiki standards I could probably live with being a jerk. Giano (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC, reply to Ryan) Nope. In no way am I condoning the e-mail you were sent (no matter who it may be from). I was just pointing out the fact that Tony made some virtually indefensable comments to Bishonen off-wiki and is not even getting a slap on the wrist. You said above that you "don't think it's fair that Bishonen should get away with attacks because she uses the email button instead of posting it on-wiki." Why would you think anyone should receive anything for sending you an e-mail that said "jerk". Even if it were Bishonen who sent you that message, how does that e-mail compare to Tony's comments? Tony's "getting away" with much worse in this case, don't you agree? I would much rather be called a "jerk" than a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "arsehole". I just keep getting amazed at the number of double standards in this case. That's all; I've said my peace. I'll go back to lurking now. SGT Tex (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't care who "gets away with it", I care that people knock it off. Tony has promised to do so and apologised. We'll take that on face value, for now. Some believe it, some don't, but there's little point in arguing as time will tell. I agree with Giano in finding it hard to believe bishonen would be as rude and as inarticulate as to send an email like that. There may be a simple explanation. However, I'm also fairly confident that if bishonen has slipped up here, she'll be at least as gracious as Tony in putting her hands and apologising. We all make mistakes (even me) and perhaps if we were all a little humbler about our failings (and a little less self-righteous, self-justifying and defensive) we'd all do better at de-escalating disputes.--Docg18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Here I thought that it was the height of bannable behavior to reveal the contents of an e-mail. Huh. By the way, for southerners, "jerk" is a verb used as 'corrective,' most frequently heard in, "I'm going to jerk a knot in you." The term, of course, has a confused etymology. There is the "soda jerk," but as an insult it derives from "jerk off": a person who engages in extraordinary degrees of masturbation.
Getting away with it: Tony Sidaway gets to perform the insult, explain the insult, and then have the one he insulted called "problem user" for being insulted. This is amazing. No one knows what the "grudge" is supposed to be that Bishonen is supposed to have, and yet it's supposed to explain everything. If you, the reader, think that the grudge explains her complaint, please tell me what the grudge is. If you don't know, then why do you accept that it's an explanation? Why would you want to see users on Wikipedia blocked for saying, "Asshole" to someone but think that Tony Sidaway, who is not an administrator, should be back at en.admins.irc, and with ops, after trying to run off an esteemed editor and administrator? Why are people who aren't administrators there? Why are administrators required to ask for access?
Ignore "arsehole" for a second and focus on the actually annoying bit, please. Bishonen has heard rude English words before (from me, if no one else, as I cuss like a wounded sailor). What was the conversation that led to that? Tony was dragging someone through the mud. Bishonen protested that you shouldn't do that, that you should have the person present to defend him or herself. Tony told her that "we" don't do that, that we (administrators) at the admins channel don't do that, because it's a channel for administrators (he has the gall to say, as not one). If it were the problem users channel, he said, then they would have the right to represent themselves. That would have been enough patronizing and impossibly hypocritical talk to have me, anyway, calling all sorts of names, but Bishonen was patient about it. Tony then added that she should go be an arsehole somewhere else.
You know what's sickening? Tony was right: the admins channel is built on the idea of being able to drag people through the dirt without hearing from them. It was built on trashing other users freely. It was built on degrading people. It was built on non-administrators coordinating their bile at other users who differed on faction.
There was a promise that it wouldn't be like that.
There was a promise that things would change.
They didn't, and so Bishonen left. The few feeble gestures made to change failed, as Tony was allowed to say that it was just someone being annoying, and they all welcomed back their friend, their non-administrator friend, to go back to maligning whoever pleased them.
I don't like the #wikipedia channel, but I don't care. I think en.admins.irc, on the other hand, has no usefulness except for creating cadres of vicious and viscerally disgusting malignity.
So, Ryan, if you think that Bishonen is being a problem for wanting fair treatment on the closed channel, you are being a jerk. If you think that Tony said "sorry," so all is well, you're being a jerk. If you think this is about one person saying one bad word, you're being ignorant. This stuff matters. If the channel will never be open, then it must be so tightly regulated as to be useless as a playground. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I used to be an administrator at Wikipedia, and an enthusiastic content contributor, but after a head-on encounter with the Arbitration Committee around Christmas 2007, I'm neither (although I keep an admin in my pocket). If you like, see links by Kosebamse, Giano, Geogre, and myself; but I can't say I recommend anybody to dive into the sour and incurable old business. Thanks to all friends and sympathisers for the lovely messages of encouragement which they posted throughout those troubles, with special thanks to my pretty secretary. There are a lot of great people here. Peace. Bishonen | talk22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
Are you OK? Your emails are bouncing back? C'mon life is never that bad. Look at me! Wilipedia needs your insight, perceptivenes, intellect and wit? At least let us know you are still incommunicado. Giano (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It needs what? (What do you want to borrow?) I need a little time off, that's all. E-mail's a great way to savage somebody. Don't worry, Giacomo. It's only the Internet. It'll pass. Look at the wikibreak sunset photo, it's a bit like something by the Skagen painters. I'll be back in a few days. Bishonen | talk21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC).
I disagree with your characterization that "George has not wheel-warred", but significantly the reason I disagree is more a semantic one than a factual one. We appear to have different conceptions of what defines a "wheel war". While I can't speak for him, this may relate to Sir Fozzie's opinion as well. Dragons flight (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Åse Kleveland
Wikinews is doing an interview with former Norwegian Culture Minister Åse Kleveland, and I would really like your input. Please, if you have time, think up some questions that we could ask Ms. Kleveland. The page for submissions is here. I'm going to be wrapping up the call for questions on Friday evening, so please get back to me ASAP. Hope everything is well with you! Mike H.Fierce!03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Aahhh, very lovely. I confess I was secretly hoping somebody would take me up on it. You've done it perfectly. Now give yourself one! (Just the rose in your case.) Bishonen | talk17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC).
Actually, I think it looks pretty silly. I just took two wiki pictures and slapped them together and drew a line for the stem. Someone will probably delete it soon, so enjoy it while you can! Tex (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
See! Told ya they would be deleting it soon. Does anyone who watches this page know about image descriptions? Should I just say "I took two public domain pictures and manipulated them"??? Any help would be appreciated. Tex (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Pretty well. Link to the images (I assume they're from Commons) in your description, and add what you have said above. Your PD release should be fine. The editor who put the notice on your page might be able to help too. Risker (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I only noticed the problem after reading your comment above and being curious why anyone would care to delete it. The first important point is to show us where those specific component images came from. Dragons flight (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to Risker and Dragons flight. Hopefully the new description will be OK. Sorry to be mucking up your page, Bish. Tex (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And/or picture of little ArbCom eating worms? Zilla like this game ! [10] See little user properly intimidated here? [/Me breathe lightly on little Sir F, watch with interest as user start go brown round edges. Put gently down on floor.] Now... run! bishzillaROARR!!22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC).
Ha! I'd love to come up with some more pictures for the 'Zilla, but I'm off to celebrate the 4th. If no other creative-types beat me to it, I'll try to find your requested pics on Monday. Have a great weekend, Bishonen. Tex (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Risking being cursed for saying I ruined the layout, pictures, and plan...
I had to point out a moment I'm proud of: the last exchange on talk:The Dunciad. I actually could have used that question as a major teaching point, but I don't think the interlocutor wanted to learn. Geogre (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You're one of the good guys
I've withdrawn my overhasty remarks about you and apologise for being angry and frustrated. [11] I still have enormous respect for you. It's a shame I can't share your opinion on one matter but you're one of the good guys. See Dbachmann's comment there too. I hope there are no hard feelings and that you can understand from the entire context of the incident why I was so het up. Best. --Folantin (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your comment. Sorry if I sounded like I was hyperboling it. I'm not trying to knock anyone's contributions, least of all you guys, but I'm not sure exactly where you got that impression. If you point it out, I'll try and refactor? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's a misunderstanding. I didn't say you were knocking our contributions, but that your tone in referring to us was scornful and dismissive. See where I say that? Tone as in your choice of words. Your phrasing. "Everyone here is well-acquainted with Giano's drama shows and exactly who shows up where to defend him". "Diatribe." The scare quotes. Stuff like that. And that I wouldn't have expected it.
I appreciate the good intentions of the changes you have now made. But actually not the effect of them so much... which is, to make my own posts look nonsensical, both in the evidence and the workshop. I wish you would strike through your original instead. I think it's altogether proper, on an evidence page, to make it clear when stuff was written, which is why I dated my own addition in the heading. Certainly if someone has responded in the meantime. Bishonen | talk22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC).
I put a link in to my original statement. I don't know what you mean by "scare quotes", I was just trying to point out that it's not just friends of Giano in the conventional sense, but a more encompassing group. Once again, I'm sorry for causing offense, but I guess it's just my interpretation about what Giano does- as soon as he gets blocked, or something happens, he evangelizes on his talk page about it and it does become a drama show, causing much more fuss than the actual incident (I blocked him in violation of 3rr for one hour and we got an ArbCom case out of that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. But once again, I did not mean to demean you by some negative connotation (although looking back on it, I shoulda phrased it better so it did not appear so.) Semantics, semantics... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (oh, and you don't have to double post, I do check back on other people's talk pages!)
WMC block of Bardcom - timeline
Hi Bish. I posted a timeline at ANI. Partly because I realised that while you are right to say "WMC's diff shows that the warning was understood", there is a second and important extra condition - that the edit Bardcom was blocked for was after he saw the warning. It turns out that it was, but only just and more because the edit he made four minutes earlier to WMC's talk page (the templated warning edit) shows his awareness of the warning, not the near-simultaneous edits he made to the talk page and article. Would you agree with my statement at ANI that: "if Bardcom had not templated WMC, and Bardcom had reverted at the article before reading and editing the talk page, Bardcom could have quite legitimately argued that he hadn't seen the warning yet"? I know Bardcom didn't say that, but I'm bringing this up because this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gee—yes, sure. I did check those times before posting. These seem to me minor matters, and I would far sooner complain of the comment in the ANI discussion that "It was a three-hour block. Please get over yourself", as far as mistreatment of Bardcom goes. I detest that attitude. Blocks are big deals. Blocks hurt. All blocks. A three-hour block is not a matter of "preventing somebody from editing for three hours," as you sometimes see stated. I mean, I know of an editor, not especially sensitive, who still feels humiliated by a bad block by Betacommand in 2006. One really ought to catch up admins, every time, on such cavalier and callow notions. I certainly would have done, if HalfShadow had been an admin, and perhaps I should in any case. Bishonen | talk06:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC).
You might also be interested in the discussion on my talk page about blocks and blocking philosophies. In particular the comments by User:Abd. I am thinking of investing in chairs and tea-making facilities and charging rent, so many people have come to my talk page this month! :-) I will have to make clear the shutters are down on that talk page when I go on wikibreak soon. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't bother, we will just show up and talk in your absence. No need to play host, we can take care of ourselves. ;-) Risker (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw your notes to the arbitrators. That is what alerted me to Kirill's moving of his proposals from workshop to proposed decision. Doesn't look like he changed anything or tried to provide any additional context or even acknowledge any of the Workshop discussion as all. Makes me wonder what the point was. I've posted here about that and some other points. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I don't always, I admit. Where did I forget to use them? Are you say the headers in the arbitration case might change? Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, now I see you do, sorry. (But I got to mention the guide, haha!) I was worried by the links in your "Context and community" post here, that's all. No, I don't mean just the proposed decision headers. (Though certainly I think those might change! FT2 is always fiddling with them, for one thing.) It's just that [/me hastily and belatedly lays it on] your posts are important and much read, so it would be a great pity if there were dead links in them. Bishonen | talk14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
Maybe you forgot this? :-) I find your diff and link guide very helpful, but did you know there are ways round that? Try and link to a section in a new or old version of User talk:FayssalF... And thanks for the compliment! You were quite right to remind me to use permanent links, as I didn't do that in a few previous cases. Having said that, if there is ever another Giano case (heaven forbid!) I will be keeping out - I made a comment that the same people prosecute (or snipe from the sidelines each time), so if there is another case, I will merely point that out, request that those people let others have their say, and then watch from the sidelines. The next arbitration case I get involved in will hopefully not be for at least a month, and will be something completely different (in case that came across wrong, I'll just keep an eye on RfArb and see what looks interesting, not filing a case or anything horrendous like that). Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes, I do. Thanks. I created those pages, and you kindly did the template on request, I think? Wasn't that it? I mainly recommend the middle guide, the simple. But when the cute little compunerds kept adding subtleties to it, I figured those had better drain off into a complete. It's useful, of course—for other nerds—but not altogether pedagogical for the n00bs. The simplest is purely for the terminally confused—it's for "'shonen when she was new." ('Zilla has always been too smart for it.) Bishonen | talk15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC).
Thanks! Yeah, I would so much have needed something like that when I was green, so I wrote 'em. :-) (Since you ask.. I should perhaps mention that if you chase down the history, it looks like Moreschi created the simple. He copypasted it from my userspace, though.) Bishonen | talk15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC).
The other day I stumbled across this in an archive while I was searching for something else. Turned out to be fairly easy to restore. Best, DurovaCharge!00:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had to look carefully to see it wasn't from the movie. I know the shape of the mountain used in the movie though—I live quite near it—and, no, that's got to be the real Spitzbergen. Bishonen | talk14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
I-totally understood that. Which brings me to my next point: more scratching groundhog behind ear & rescuing a baby bunny, less bad things! El_C09:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Idiotbot
Could you have a quick peek at this deleted image [12], I'm sure it's one that has been deleted before, and that I took from a vaporetto, if it is a lopsided palazzo, across the canal clearly taken from a boat by an amateur photographer could you undelete it, on the premise that any image is better than none. It has even been speedied FGS [13], is it a wonder I get bad tempered? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The mouse that ate the palazzo.
I've started trying to, but as you can see the situation is a little complex. Can't you re-upload it yourself, with a rationale about it being self-created, if you took it and have it? Bad-tempered? Who? Never! Bishonen | talk09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
No I can't because all the old fotos are in a cardboard boxes in the attics, being eaten by mice, untill such time as I decide to catalogue them, and I don't know where to start looking. Giano (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Melesse. I see that you have speedied the image , with the comment (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW). User:Giano—who is not the uploader—has asked me to restore it, because he thinks (from the amateurish quality) that it must be a self-taken photo, although it was apparently uploaded with an erroneous Fair Use rationale. Going to look, I intended to write to the uploader, Habanerosrl and ask him/her to re-upload it, this time with a proper rationale, if he has indeed taken the photo himself. But I'm flummoxed by seeing that Habanerosrl's talkpage is a redlink. Nobody has ever sent any notification to it, as far as I can understand. So, well, how can he have been notified more than 48 hours ago..? And is there any point in me creating the talkpage and posting on it? I must have missed something here. Can you throw any light, and assist us in getting the image back, if possible? Giano's viewpoint is that the page needs it. Bishonen | talk09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
Ugh... This again. I wish people would read, the upload prompt pops up a big red warning saying that pictures of living people and existing buildings can't have a fair use license. So of course there's no notification, the upload form assumes (wrongly) that people will read the warning and stop there. Do go ahead with asking them to re-upload with a proper license though. Melesse (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. But I hope you won't mind me saying that it would be a good idea to stop saying the uploader was notified, if they weren't. (Twinkle isn't responsible for anything you say; you are.) I mean, either stop saying it or (better) start doing it. Regards, Bishonen | talk09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC).
Civility and baiting
There is a discussion here in which your insights and opinions, particularly about baiting, may be able to provide important touchpoints for people to be thinking about. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I found another dunce who deserves consideration: James Ralph. I wonder if his Touchstone could be dug up in one of those PD sources. It seems like a hot document. (Battestin makes much of it.) I've done two others, too, but they're not that interesting. Why? I don't know why I'm still writing articles. Someone asked me, so I did. Other than that, I really don't. Geogre (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
He's nothing compared to Mrs. Kittridge, who wrote, upon visiting Westminster Abbey:
Holy Moses, take a look!
Brains and brawn in every nook.
I encountered her in an essay on camp, and I've got to admit, short of newspaper poets who commemorated local tragedies, she takes the prize. Geogre (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In honor of this, I went looking at the Internets, and it seems that there are far too many collectors of "bad poetry" out there. If the authors are just intraweb dweebs trying to be bad, it doesn't count! The only one that seemed to be actual bad poetry from actual publications in actual little (shall we say "very little?") magazines, was this one. What is depressing about it is that it is what one actually sees submitted. What cheers me is that I know of some people who I shall force to read it. Geogre (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to hear from you...and I really appreciate the trout. :) Please feel free to stay in touch. Wikipedia is a lonely place without the likes of you and Geogre. Miss you both much. Yours, Lucky 6.9 in his secret guise of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC), international man of intrigue!
WP:AN/I
Thank you for your succinct and, I thought, on-target defense, especially your calm demolition of absurdity of feeling entitled because someone has the admin bit.
And if I've been rude to you, I apologize. I honestly don't recall being such, and I'd hate to think it was true, as you are an admin who as far as I'm concerned, universally has her head screwed on properly. Except for the whole "destroying Tokyo" thing, which plays hob with the property values. --Calton | Talk14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with the general principle that RfCs are a waste of time, this situation brings to light an important gap in our dispute resolution process. That is, there is no effective way of addressing patterns of behaviour that are seen over several discrete situations rather than one isolated locus. This is particularly noticeable with any RfC involving administrative actions. It gives the community no opportunity to provide feedback to the administrator about its concerns over time, meaning that the only effective way for the community to bring forward concerns about a pattern of behaviour in an administrator is for one or more community members to bring the issue to the Arbitration Committee with a Request for Arbitration. That strikes me as excessively dramatic when sometimes all that is needed is to give the admin a wake-up call. Of course, I have never seen an RfC about a specific editor or administrator really solve the highlighted problem, so I suppose it's spitting into the wind to complain about what is and isn't covered by the process. Risker (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the deletion reason? Supposedly uncertified RFC? Anyway...in the case of admins up for recall, there is another rather obvious remedy, nicht wahr? I haven't followed this case to the extent of knowing whether recall would be reasonable; but I must say I was rather sorry to see Elonka's unpreparedness to acknowledge or take on board anything problematic at all about her approach. Her total defensiveness. Yet I must agree that that is what usually happens. People humbly reconsidering their own practices is the rarity. Bishonen | talk07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
Immediately deleting the talkpage too, before the issue is resolved?[15] No, see, we don't do that. My pet admin has restored the talkpage for now, in order to have a venue for people to comment on a contested deletion. Do not re-delete the talk until the issue is resolved. Bishonen | talk08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
An interesting diff
I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff. ;) And I'll still be in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign. But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways. :) --Elonka08:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[16]
Meh. She just assumes anyone who disagrees with her is acting in bad faith. I guess she'd say her jumping in to do an ignore all rules sort of thing and enforcing 0RR on a controversial article in which she coaches people how to act is not a controversial thing at all and that others are unfairly trying to present it as controversial. I've known her for years, and she has a remarkable inability to admit that any opinion other than her own has any possible validity. 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)
Actually, the reason that I'm getting into the Israel/Palestine stuff at all, is because ArbCom appointed me to the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I did not volunteer for it, I only heard about it after the fact.[17] So ArbCom asked the group to analyze areas of perennial dispute, and identify ways to deal with the problem. Which is exactly what we are doing. I've actually had considerable success in calming disputes at articles that had been in a state of open warfare for a long time. If anyone knows of an article that "no one can figure out how to deal with," please point me at it, I'll be happy to give it a shot, and you can observe firsthand how the technique works. See also Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, a page that resulted from WorkGroup discussions. --Elonka18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting news. I think you need to patch up relationships with some of the editors who are criticizing you before you dive into new projects. People have concerns. If you take the time to explain things to them, and to listen to what they have to say, I think that would really help. JehochmanTalk18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of users who could post notices if any were needed. Why exactly would the subject of the RFC do this, except to gain some sort of tactical advantage? In light of recent attempts by Elonka to have the RFC deleted (which failed), it is reasonable to conclude that the wikilawyering strategy is being continued.JehochmanTalk20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's come to that (in my mind, at least), but how does one go about requesting recall? I think there's enough here to at least ask.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whoops, didn't notice this section, sorry. Jonathan, post at the bottom of the page, please... I don't know if the crossposting is customary. It's not the end of the world, though, is it? I don't see how it can yield much of a tactical advantage. But I certainly have an opinion about that ridiculous sock: that it should be tagged and strongly encouraged to get the hell out of the RFC. And checkusered, if anybody has an idea who it is (I don't). I put a note where it appeared on the talkpage; there should be one on the main page, too. Anybody removing a sock tag from it needs to be told off, that's my opinion. Ramdrake, instructions for recall are here. But please note that Elonka's recall criterion, from her RFA, is "All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage". Now, are the present concerns to do with Elonka's use of the admin tools? She uses her adminship, yes, to throw her admin weight around; but the tools? Not so much, surely? To issue a page ban, for instance, doesn't involve using any tools. On the other hand, I don't know a lot about what's been going down. As I keep telling Elonka and others, I not only haven't studied the RFC, I haven't even fucking read it. I've glanced at it! Sorry I missed you guys. Bishonen | talk22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison is almost as bad as reading The History of Sir Charles Grandison. The article is mysteriously finished, DYK, and assessed high importance and B, and yet all without complying to English grammar. I don't care about its author, but if it's going to be "high" and "B," it really should read as if literate. Geogre (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Now I expect to be called names for doing so. I was shocked to find out that it's a counter to Amelia. Given that the debate between those two novels, to the degree that it can be discerned, is a very thin-air discrepancy between two versions of human psychology, and given that we today reject both of them, it's hard to see it as much of an answer novel. Geogre (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly the person who made up "verisimilitude" to mean "fiction surrounding the author." As in, "Richardson claimed to be the editor, but he soon dropped this verisimilitude." I am only surprised that the sentence didn't get an award from the people who know so much about content. (Again, for those just tuning in: mistakes are fine! Mistakes are normal! Just don't be pretentious. Don't make up citations, either, like "Flynn 149-19," and be cautious with vast statements.) I've never heard the novel called "Grandison". I've seen serial references in criticism use it as an abbreviated title, but that's no more "commonly known as" than a critic's last name, which is frequently a second or third reference handle, how the person "is known." I had to descale passives, too. At any rate, if the fellow deals with these improvements properly, I'll be surprised. Geogre (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Those Pesky Bots
Ms. Bish,
I would not presume to edit your page for you, but I noticed you might be annoyed by those pesky bots signing posts on your page. Perhaps putting {{bots|deny=all}} on the page will work. The {{NoAutosign}} tag you have actually only keeps that pesky sinebot from signing your posts for you, it doesn't affect what others do on your page. I'm not sure why your {{nobots}} tag is not working but maybe the deny all will work for you. Tex (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Now we wait and see. Oh.. wait. How about we try it out right now? As in, you write me a message and "forget" to sign it? :-) Da 'Zilla will appreciate! Bishonen | talk16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Oh, great, you have beaten them, Tex! :-D And my dear Lady Catherine... it's that "no fair use images in userspace" thing, I expect. Let me suggest that you post a complaint on that charming young Giacomo's page—you know him? User talk:Giano II. It's a great place for getting assistance! I'm sure image-savvy people will rush to do your bidding as soon as they hear the distressing circumstances. Positively droves of them. Nobody reads my modest page, you know. (Snort.)Bishonen | talk18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, your page is modest and humble by comparassion, but I cannot bother such an important person as poor dear Giacomo with my silly minor womanly problems. We women must keep our trivia from our menfolk, who have so many more important things to worry about - don't you agree? The mere thought of his darkly tanned good looks coupled with that muscular honed and toned body exuding power and strength leaves me all of a tremble. He reminds me so of my beloved young Benito Amilcare Andrea in his prime. I still weep. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Giacomo! Solebaciato! [/me loses herself in pleasant reverie. ] And I know how you treasure this unique footage of your dear Benito coming to offer you his heart, Lady C, accompanied by an unknown friend and watched by an interested crowd. Ah, the romance..! [/me trembles, too ] Bishonen | talk19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Given the conversation at the next table today at the restaurant, I am of the impression that the menfolk are even more interested in darkly tanned good looks and toned bodies than we women. Based on their nearly clinical descriptions, I'd hardly venture to suggest they consider these factors trivial. ;-) Risker (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Romance has never been a problem for me, with my looks and talents; I only have to click my fingers in that department. Few who have heard my latest recording of romantic songs, entitled: "Lady Catherine singing, accompanied by an Alpenhorn" have been able to overcome their emotions. I recently sent poor dear Jimbo a copy to help him relax, only I suffer more than he! Confidentiality forbids me posting his reply, but let us say he was deeply moved. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin Mountfort FAR
Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
I would not trouble yourself to find out if I were you, Mrs Bishonen. Probably ashamed of his actions, I shouldn't wonder. Just count to 10 and relax - listen to one of the soothing melodies played on my alpenhorn. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that he left a notification on 6 pages with his fancy little script, but did not sign any of them. And yet he's qualified enough to recommend that the article lose it's FA status because he thinks there aren't enough inline citations! Who is he, indeed? What's the saying about inmates and asylums? Tex (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comment
I understand your concerns and I shall remove my comment. But, I feel that your concerns carry less weight as you do appear to be on good terms with Irpen. Friends are always quick to defend friends. I guess I was just still angry at Irpen for his behaviour on previous occasions. One can't be friends with everyone on Wikipedia :-) Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I appreciate being told when I'm out of order. ScarianCall me Pat!20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(This is what I wrote on Irpen's user page) - Yeah... *through gritted teeth* thanks Keeper. - No. I shall stop being angry now. I guess I've always had a bad temper on here and it really has collided with some people. I've decided to stop giving into the addiction :-) - I don't think I'm a bad person. I know how to be nice and polite. I guess I just lose control when I see things that I believe are wrong. That happens with everyone. Irpen, in the past, I've found some of your comments to be enraging to the point of wanting to burn my whole flat down. But oh well :-) I am passed that as of now. I have nothing against you personally. You're a human being. I'm genetically programmed to love you in some sort of fashion. Maybe not physically just yet... We'll talk about that another time (if you're into that sort of thing... I'm game if you are?). Anyway, I'd just like to say I'm sorry for losing my temper with you. I promise I won't engage in any future discussions on Wikipedia that will lead to me swearing or losing my temper. This includes ignoring Kurt Maxwell Weber, any cabals, Daniel Brandt, and the poo (that's not a swear word) stain that is Wiki Review. I promise I won't make fun of, belittle, insult or upset anyone (intentionally) ever again on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review or on the Internet in general. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to anyone whom I have upset over the past 17 months and I will endeavour to patch things up with them again. Thank you to everyone whom has been nice to me :-) ScarianCall me Pat!20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a very nice post. Thank you. Though about being friends... well, you have a point there. On the other hand... I suppose that you meant your comments to Irpen on your friend Enigmaman's RFA to carry weight, huh..? I really do appreciate what you posted on Irpen's page, though. That was a beautiful response. :-) Bishonen | talk21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
You're welcome. I don't warn people much, let alone block for personal attacks, but that was just too, too bad. Wait, I'd better go give her a timeframe. Bishonen | talk21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
A block seems over the top, though it is what she does to others (without the out of providing diffs or other justification). Seems a bit too much just making a WP:POINT about the partiality of her behavior. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen, this threat to block Elonka is completely inappropriate. You cannot be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination, and such a block would not comply with policy. I sincerely hope you wouldn't actually follow through with such a ridiculous threat. - auburnpilottalk22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Stretch your imagination a little further in that case, AuburnPilot. It seems to be excessively narrow in compass. Bishonen | talk22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
Your snide remarks aside, such a block would be completely unacceptable and no doubt overturned. I certainly can't stop you from making such a mistake, but there are plenty who would reverse it. - auburnpilottalk22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A block would be justifiably overturned, and any such sanctions against Elonka would be rendered moot and pointless by the wheel-warring that would ensue as a result. seicer | talk | contribs22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Chillum, always the man of the hour. I wouldn't forbid you my page, certainly, but could you please limit your comments on it to those you feel are absolutely necessary? Anything that includes the word "ill-advised" or any of its synonyms I think we can take as understood, you and I. Bishonen | talk22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
You can rest assured I felt my comment necessary. While we have disagreed in the past I would hate to see you make a block that leads to you being reversed and likely admonished. I cannot bring myself to assume that these things are "understood" due to your actions. Chillum22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And you reckon that comment was necessary as well. I see. You know, I would have thought that might sort of show you what I mean. Bishonen | talk22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
I've responded on User talk:Elonka, but as our exchange isn't exactly benefiting anyone, I'm happy to end it at that. Best wishes moving forward. - auburnpilottalk23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. "Chillum" thinks that blocking someone for calling another warned for harassment and a liar is out of line? This is the person who thought that "incivility is the #1 problem at Wikipedia?" This is the person who has favored every "NPA" block that has ever been proposed? Ok, that's odd. As for Bishonen being uninvolved, it's a simple fact. She is entirely uninvolved in the RfC and has neither edited the same articles as Elonka nor had any quarrel with Elonka in, what, three years? By such a standard, no one is an uninvolved admin, because every admin has either expressed praise or condemnation of Elonka at some point on wiki, and who the heck knows how many are getting and sending private e-mails? Bishonen has a point of view, and -- get this -- it's an informed point of view (a deep concept, I know). I have a point of view, too, but in the case of Elonka it's far more impressionistic and not based on deep investigation. However, I have never had a quarrel with Elonka in any venue. Would I be "uninvolved?" You folks are comic in a very dark way. Geogre (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, way too many <koff> uninvolved admins are actually uninformed admins. Again CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder, what is unCIVIL to Chillum and Elonka is clearly not applicable to them. Shot info (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
George if you need to misrepresent me to make your point, then perhaps you should reconsider your point. My position on NPA is a little more complex than what you make it out to be. This is not the venue for this debate, but if you wish to have a civil discourse my talk page is open to you as always. Chillum02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never interacted with Elonka, so have no interest or comment on her, but as a frequent visitor to this page, I know than I would trust Bishonen's judgement over that of many other admins any day any time. However, as an observer to many of Wikipedia's furores, one thing strikes me as rather odd. Why is it, Chillum, so often that whenever there is a whiff of trouble, there you are, two paces behind - pontificating? Especially, if it concerns the group of editors to which I belong. It seems to me you just love any excuse to turn up and opine and criticise any of us. What are you actually here for? When your behaviour is pointed out you scream and shout that it is unfair, yet you seem to pursue certain editors just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to poke your stick into any hornet's nest. It's my opinion that you just lurk around Wikipedia, agendaless, seeking problems, any problems because you simple enjoy the drama of trouble. You certainly appear to have no sound reasons or excuses for such behaviour; it's not pleasant - So disinterested am I in you, that I do not even know the subjects in which you edit, and where your peculier interests lie, so why not extend the same courtesy? In short, leave us alone and find something more constructive to do with your time, before others, less kindly than myself, begin to notice - what is amounting to obsessive behaviour. Giano (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Giano you ask me to avoid you then you pop up to something unrelated to you and criticize. Well I am responding because you asked me to, so please don't think I am stalking you. The answer is that I have WP:AN and WP:ANI and my watchlist, this lead to Elonka's user space being on my watchlist, and I have concern about the community. When I see an admin making a mistake I try to stop them. I notice that I am just one of many people who have criticized this warning, yet you seem to think I am out of place somehow. I am not really aware of what sort of connection you and Bishonen have, if you could enlighten me to its nature I could perhaps be more sensitive to you in the future when speaking to Bishonen. I really did not mean to offend you, you didn't even cross my mind in this instance. Chillum17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, please do not whitewash, let everyone, in particular the Arbcom, see that the contributing editors of this project are sick to death of useless twits like Chillum popping up to stir every pot - and getting away with it. These people have been encouraged in their stupidity for long enough. Now is the time to sort it! Giano (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Chillum, if you "got the message" and didn't mean to provoke, etc., then the way best to show that is to not come back to say "Fine" and "ok" and "you can have the last word" and the like. You don't need to answer. It's ok. I didn't answer you, above, because this is Bishonen's talk page, for talking to Bishonen, about things Bishonen wants to talk about or things Bishonen has done, if Bishonen wants to talk to you. She said she didn't want to talk to you. That's about that, I should think. It's easier to have peace than conflict: just remove user talk pages from your watchlist and add articles to it, instead. Life gets far simpler and more interesting that way. Geogre (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, a DYK today is Skaga stave church, and it's in Tiveden, Sweden, or something my American mind remembers as that. Now, it makes a "could it be because of pagan sacrifices" sort of claim in 1774. Was this a wild area in 1774? How likely is it that Aesir worshippers were hanging about dedicating battles to Odin at that point? Just wondering. Geogre (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It was a wild place, certainly, a big ancient intractable forest with no cultivated plots of land nor decent inhabitants. Known for its dangerous trolls, outlaws, and masterless men. (Redlink? Bah! Geogre fix!) Tiveden was much feared by travellers who had to traverse it to get to/from Stockholm. Bishonen | talk15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
I'll look at those links (Easter egging them! forshame!), but I don't know the geography. If this is way the heck north or way the heck sparsely populated at the time, then that's alright. As for offerings, this always bothers me, at least slightly. If you go to Wales or some parts of Dorset, you may find folks who will put out a dish of milk for the fairies in the 19th c., but suggesting that they were actually pagan would be inappropriate. My concern is with the neo-pagan folks who take itsy bitsy folk practices and try to turn them into a battle of (good) native religion and (violent, bad, mean, and un-fun) Christianity. It's that exaggerated Green Man thinking that worries me -- not that I think it's going on here -- I'm just watching and worrying and trying to be learning. Geogre (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the pagan survival angle is sometimes played up a bit but not just by neo-pagans - 19th century romantics and 21st century fundamentalists (read a Chick tract lately?) do it too. As for Tiveden it doesn't seem like it's in the middle of nowhere. Haukur (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh-oh! The Trollchurch is pretty good proof. I would venture, though, just secretly, that they were pagans the way the 18th c. "Satanists" were Satanists. Maybe not, though. I just don't like drawing big lines through the dead, when I can't figure out the living. (Oddly, we're on the same wavelength here. Yes, Chick tracts are everywhere down here. I have only to go to the Dairy Queen down the street to gather up a whole graphic novel of them.) Geogre (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I fancy myself something of a Chick tract... connoisseur? A particular favorite is this one - turns out that the Jack-o'-lantern is an ancient Druidic tradition having to do with spirits and sacrifices. Though I think Chick probably believes in this stuff with much more fervor than the average neo-pagan.
I bet you do, I bet you do, Haukur! Having quite admirably restrained herself from eating her campaign manager,[24] the lizard probably only has one question for you, namely [longingly ] "So... is the little Haukur plump and juicy ?" Bishonen | talk14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
White Rabbit....
One pill makes you larger And one pill makes you small And the ones that mother gives you Don't do anything at all Go ask Alice When she's ten feet tall
You could probably think of some amusing bluelinks to put in there.....or to the rest of the song acutally....White Rabbit/Grace Slick/Jefferson Airplane just sprung to mind when I stumbled over one thread or other :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
[Puny Bishonen reaches for pekingese to put it into her middle European beef stew. Bishzilla rescues it. Reprovingly: ] Pet! Not snack! Name it Bishingese ! bishzillaROARR!!22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
I don't care for rabbits and other vermin, unless in a game pie at a shooting luncheon, as for reptiles, I don't feel Ms Bishzilla has the necessary charectoristics for an Arbcom member, perhaps listerine may help her, I really can't say. However dear little Mrs Bishonen, as you appear to an animal lover, here is a little gift, the progeny of my very own darling Wonki Poo. Please name him something apt.Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's so appropriate, that chipmunk. In honor of Sunday, he's obviously saying his prayers. That might be because of piety or fear of the strange vanilla tube punching his stomach. Geogre (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Veropedia
Hi Bishonen. Thanks for the note about Veropedia. I've been aware of Veropedia for a while, I even entered the core contest which died a death a while back, but I'm looking for something better than that, something the community as a whole supports and which the community owns. How that is achieved I do not know. And part of it was an aimed point at Tony. Anyways, I am glad you are back and editing at Wikipedia. HidingT17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Polar exploration
Hi Bishonen. I think you were one of the major contributors to S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. So I thought you might be interested in this. I've known for a while that the amount of FA-class Antarctic articles had been building up, but wasn't aware that the number of FA-class Arctic exploration articles was so lacking. I was amazed to find that there doesn't even seem to be an "Arctic" WikiProject. See Talk:Arctic for example. What I want to try and do is get an Arctic WikiProject going (or find one if it exists), and get the Arctic exploration articles up to the standards of the Antarctic ones (see Category:FA-Class Antarctica articles), so that the overall topic of polar exploration can be improved (do you think that combining the Arctic and Antarctic exploration articles might work?). Do you know any editors that might be interested in this? I've been going through Category:Exploration of the Arctic and Category:Polar exploration and there also seems enough there to maybe have a portal or featured topic on this, though possibly having the exploration articles in Portal:Antarctica and Portal:Arctic (doesn't yet exist!) might be better. What do you think? I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Antarctica as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Crazy old Andrée... well, he was no crazier than Scott, I guess, but in a more colorful way. But I think you've come to the wrong shop, Carcharoth. I'm not really a WikiProject kind of person. ("Bishonen too explosive personality to fit in!"—"Do shut up, Bishzilla! Everybody can't be lovely like you.") They seem to rub me the wrong way, especially the assessment systems. It's nothing personal to myself, but I've seen some unfortunate stuff going down. Sometimes some projects seem to attempt to claim special power over articles—well, I suppose one notices those more than the ones that are just beneficially busy.
Although I wrote the Andrée article, I don't really otherwise know from Arctic exploration, or anybody that's into it. I just researched that one crazy tragicomic weird balloon thing. Sorry. Good luck. Bishonen | talk22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC). (Er, what IS a Featured topic anyway? I've never heard of such a thing.)
Wikipedia:Featured topics should explain all. I'm not clear where the line gets drawn between a topic and a portal, so I'm getting ambitious and gunning full speed ahead with gathering material for Portal:Arctic. Wish me luck! Oh, and did you know about several other tragicomic (well, some more tragic than comic) Arctic expeditions? How about Umberto Nobile and his airships Norge and Italia in the 1920s? The story of the America airship (1906 up to 1910) is only a decade or so after Mr Andrée. The Ziegler Polar Expedition (1903-1905) is also interesting. The Chelyuskin steamship (1933) was famous in the Soviet Union (it got stuck and crushed, while the earlier Icebreaker Sibiryakov expedition, led by the same people, succeeded), and earlier was Zarya (polar ship) (1900-1903). Going back to the 1930s, there were several successful Soviet transpolar flights, but also some that were never heard from again... (see Sigizmund Levanevsky for the N-209 mission - we don't have an article, but see Chertok front matter, pages 130-137). Flitting back to the 19th century, the story of George W. Melville (and the USS Jeanette) in 1879 is quite amazing. The grand-daddy of them all, though, is Franklin's lost expedition of 1845.
Nothing takes your fancy there? :-) More seriously, I understand the aversion (or rather disinterest) some have for the WikiProject model. Sometimes it produces stuff, sometimes not. I'm kind of hoping though that I can inspire some people to do as much work on the Arctic exploration stuff as they have on the Antarctic exploration stuff. I might try and make a start at List of Arctic expeditions, though I fear that will be different in scope to the Antarctic equivalent (more expeditions). Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(butting in) some wikiprojects I have been in have worked or are working really well, notably birds and dinosaurs, folks have been really collaborative and supportive. The FA-Team's work on all the Everglades articles in a drive to Featured Topic-hood, and a current collaboration of sorts at major depressive disorder is going ok. One has to pick and choose but I think I have been luckier than most. Still, if it ain't a controversial topic it could be a goer...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Projects show up to announce that my article "has been assessed" as unimportant, trash-class, and a stub (because it's short and doesn't have an infobox with a photograph of the ancient Greek poet, or the poetic meter I'm describing). I haven't seen them generate things that the people weren't going to generate anyway, and I have seen them announce, "This is now property of Project X. Kindly obey and conform to our guidelines." For those of us who just work, the Projects are noise, insult, and clutter. (Oh, do you have a banner announcing the brand of your Project, with a box 3 screens long? Oof.) And, to add to that, in this case the problem with anything arctic is that, unlike the antarctic, there is the problem of a transglobal settlement by humans through time. Thus, there are people already there, but, more importantly, there were once people there before. This introduces complexity to any age of exploration. I recently looked at my favorite fictional place, Baffin Island, and I heard that, definitively, it was the land called X or Y by the Norse. Huh. I read the Vinlandsaga, and they didn't land on Baffin Island, because it looked like it was all rock, to them, I thought. However, there were probably some jokers living there, all the same, on the 8 vegetative acres. Anyway, I'm a little vitriolic, but my exchanges with the projects have never yet been positive. Geogre (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, they never bothered me - all the wikiprojects I have been involved with have been pretty laid back...basically a collection of editors interested in a particular subject, hence all the project template box serves is to point an interested party in the direction of aforesaid wikiproject for help. And it allows fun things like WP:BABS, WP:FABS and WP:MABS....and those assessment charts which may give one an idea of what to edit next...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea if we're allowed to show complete copy/pastes of websites if the "owner" has given "permission"? I wouldn't think so, would you? Shall I just point him to WP:COPYVIO? Thanks for moving the post! ScarianCall me Pat!10:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, no, don't point him to that, do you want his head to explode? I'm not a copyright whizz by any means, but I'll give you the common-sense answer: what he wrote is not the kind of permission we need. His use of the word "responsibly" ruins it. Wikipedia can only use stuff that everybody and anybody else can take from us and re-use. We only have control of our own use being responsible, not of anybody else. You might want to ask him if he wants to release it freely to the entire internet, regardless of how they use it—say, for instance, release it under the GFDL. Because on such a condition, Wikipedia can use it; otherwise not. Regards, Bishonen | talk10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Custom
Thank you for putting me right with regard to this convention and moving my comment. I did not know that the custom is to put new posts at the bottom of talkpages; I presumed it was the other way. Your help is appreciated. 86.135.208.100 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it's time that I write an article about the Bible recommended weight loss product and then get really involved in making sure that it has its own Project. Geogre (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hyssop and moly, hyssop and moly.
No comments? It's a cool picture. The lady has scriptural evidence that the best diet is beans and water. Incidentally, there is medical evidence, too, that it's a good, basic diet. Now, where in the Bible there is a description of brains growing on trees is another matter. Geogre (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If your problem is gluten intolerance with communion wafers, then you're engaging in gluttony. I don't think a flat disk 2cm across is going to trigger anaphylactic shock. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I have since been random paging, and I have discovered that there are portals, and then there are portals. How can we not have an article on every character in every prequel of a Philippino fantasy TV show? Utgard Loki (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Eep! It's like Pokemon, but a single nation's miniseries. It's like Heroes, but more like Heroes and Power Rangers. Weird. Geogre (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Locusts and honey is a Bible approved diet (John the Baptist), and so is bread and wine, famously. It was a grain and fish oriented diet, with generous portions of lamb and goat, but other peoples were just as thin, as no one had developed high fructose corn syrup yet (just saw a documentary called King Corn that wasn't very good, but it was fairly good). Folks today are eating candy bars, even when they think they're eating muffins, all thanks to Earl Butz. Geogre (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the rule about it may be, I'm afraid. But common sense suggests just revert to me. Given that there's no revealing edit summary, who's going to notice it? Bishonen | talk16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, sod it. Conclusion - there's a reason I don't do recent changes. Actually I was surprised how many anon IP's aren't 'friends of gays' anymore - has vandalism just become more sophisticated lately or have people given up expressing their joy about living in sexually liberated times? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
They have teh MyFace.com. They there can pollute at will and even "friend" each other over it. "My favorite things are drawing penises on the Queen, putting 'on wheels' before everything, and writing 'is so gay' on everyone else's page." Utgard Loki (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You're so gay. I'm going to draw a penis on your picture. Everyone who is cool knows you put "On Wheels" after everything, not before. Gah. Me?!?17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In other news
I'm wishing I'd bought the canoe I saw at a yard sale a couple of weekends ago. This is two streets from me.
<:--:Putting comment way down so as not to be first to reply --:>
Ow! Is that person hitch hiking? He seems to have his thumb out. Perhaps he's waiting for that canoe, too. (We nordic types don't worry about hurricanoes, you know. Much more concerned about the Fenris Wolf.) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the guy actually thinks a monster truck is going to come by and offer the ride. I work in disaster relief, an d I can pretty much guess that, unless he's in a wheelchair, famous or spurting blood from his eyes, he's going to be seen as capable of getting his own self outta trouble. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
DreamGuy.
My only alternative to warning the guy is to report him when he finally violates 3RR. The problem with that is that I might get painted as "baiting him" (a stupid argument offered by another editor, as I am pretty sure DG is potty-trained and grown-up enough able to make decisions for himself). However, you are correct in that he is going to ignore anything I suggest - if I say the sky is blue, he gets tied up in knots enough that the opposing view carries his very self-worth with it.
How do you propose the community deals with DreamGuy? He treats our rules are treated like a mildly shocking electric fence, instead of the Third Rail they are meant to represent. I am at a loss as to how to interact with him, and only do so to protect articles from disruption. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if he violates 3RR, he should be reported and blocked. I feel like I'm repeating myself here... but DreamGuy reallydoesn't need a 3RR warning, he is aware of the concept. If anybody should try to make out he isn't (highly unlikely), you can blame me for misleading you. Or point out that he was blocked for 3RR less than two weeks ago and isn't an amnesiac. IMO he'd be more likely to feel baited by an unnecessary warning, rather than by a report to WP:3RR. I'm not impugning your good faith, but it seems to me you have those alternatives backwards.
As for dealing with him—well, he was RFAR'd in 2007,[25] and is under a civility restriction.[26] If you think it warranted, you could report him to WP:AE for violating that restriction. Bishonen | talk20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC).
Look... talking about DreamGuy in those terms on other people's pages is to involve yourself with him. If you're serious about not wanting that, then don't talk about ugliness on my page, and don't warn him on his. You know? Feel free to discuss edits on article talkpages. Bishonen | talk20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC).
No problem. Feel free to join the discussion on WP:AN, if you like, and refute the accusations if you think them without merit. I didn't go into that side of it, or really study the talkpage, or the article. I just looked at the tale the History told. Well, maybe it's not worth it, that's up to you. Bishonen | talk07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
Sure. Absolutely. People should feel free to—I don't regard myself as somehow "in charge" of the case, or needing to be consulted. I'm a little stressed here—did you see that Swat and Rlevse between them messed about with the request until they'd disappeared my statement??? See history. Oh, man. A bona fide accident, no doubt (said she with admirable self-restraint). I've just put it back. I'd better go check if anything else has been lost. I'd appreciate it if other people help me keep an eye on stuff going missing. Bishonen | talk21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
No one was "messing" with your statement. It was inadvertently lost in an edit conflict btwn Swatjester and Ime (grammar, couldn't help myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) when, at the same time, we were trying to move the case to the RFAR section where it belonged from the clarification section where it was initially placed. Sorry for the trouble, it was inadvertent. I'll help check. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it was inadvertent. I know that. But it was a bit of a pity nobody noticed that the moves led to there being no reason offered for the RFAR, until I restored my statement 38 minutes later. A new request for arbitration of a high-profile user will generally tend to arouse interest, but people must have been quite mystified by that one. Bishonen | talk22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
I actually was unaware that Rlvese was even editing the page until after the fact. I was trying to move the thing from the clarification to the main section. Sorry if it got lost in the shuffle (though I think that was Rlevse's doing rather than mine) ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender11:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't deserve any more words, guys. Sorry I put it in the wrong place. 'Zilla has written to you, Swat. (Oh, your hair got singed? Sorry to hear it!) Bishonen | talk11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
Ordinarily, I would fixate on the details of the non-canine in the photo and talk about how it is a sip of water for a parched land, but I kind of sense someone quite young there, and that would make any such comments creepy rather than charming. Besides, that's a ton of pink for a bulldog to endure. (Like putting a Pomeranian in S&M gear, except that poms are a bit dominatrix.) Geogre (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Ok, I take it back. That's just well coordinated fashion sense and not feminizing the bulldog at all. (Ah, memories. Being turned down in high school, being snubbed in college, being maced in graduate school.) Geogre (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
On a more cheerful note (than my libido, everything is), El C seems to have been right about the RfAr. In fact, hats are the problem. Some people are the same venal, incoherent, vain people with their official hats on and off. I'll bet the bulldog would not be so confused. Geogre (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Do try to understand that Geogre needed arbitration and Elonka doesn't! It's what I expected. So why did I bother looking out all those diffs and stuff, and why did you write that bullshit-piercing comment? Perhaps simply so as to be able to say "We tried everything." Bishonen | talk13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
"well, I despair of finishing that sentence" - I think "wiki-lawyering" is the phrase you were looking for. The other thing is that the attitude of some arbitrators has been clear for a while. The bainer recused, correctly, because he deleted the RfC. Not sure why others have recused, but I think they got involved at some point as well - possibly the DRV over the RfC. The real trouble here is that there are lots of issues mixed up here. In that sense, trying to separate the issues out does make sense, but then any defence would no doubt consist of putting them all back together again... By the way, have you read the DRV? Interestingly, the bainer and Sam Blacketer (who both acted or commented there) recused, but Morven did not. I will raise that at the RfArb. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You're an incurable optimist, Carch. Do raise it by all means, but I've noticed that there is nothing that'll more reliably affront an arb than a suggestion that they recuse. That's by no means an observation on Morven personally, it's my impression of... arbcom culture. Never mind, the Cultural Revolution is a-coming! And, no, I wasn't exactly looking for a word so much... the despair was a rhetorical flourish. :—) Bishonen | talk16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
"Recuse" is not in Black's Law Dictionary according to noted idiot William Saffire, but Saffire, with his apolitical hat covering his head knot, reports that it is a reflexive verb. One must recuse himself. The proper transitive verb form is "disqualify." So, with this in mind, let's ask what would be true of a person who was disqualified from a trial. Would that person give testimony? Would that person engage in ex partite discussions with defense, prosecution, and judiciary? I would say that such a person would not. However, we have people here who "have recused," but who have nevertheless testified and nevertheless continue to opine and sit beside those who have not "recused themselves." That is not only a legal, but an ethical lapse. Geogre (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I most certainly did click. Did you do the same for the Saffire article? I'm a big user of Easter eggs, so I do check them out, but I am quite sure that few, if any, do the same. Oh, and there were important points I was making, too, but I suppose those must be utterly obvious. Geogre (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be the same (biased, or not) arbitrator regardless of any comments about any subject made on-Wiki. Any prejudices I might have would still be there. I feel that if all that is required for an arbitrator to be in a position that they should recuse is that they've stated an opinion on anything related to the subjects of the case in public before a case is opened, then you're not going to get more recusals - you're going to get fewer public comments, more behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and less transparency, not greater.
That's not my being affronted, though. I have a personal failing of wishing to explain my reasoning rather than ignoring the topic; sometimes this comes across as affronted or defensive, perhaps. Not my intention.
As to the arbcom case, I'm increasingly feeling that there is a case to answer with regards to complaints about Elonka's admin actions; either they are incorrect or the belief that she's wrong is incorrect (or, indeed, some combination of the above), but there's certainly a genuine difference of opinion there that's deep-seated and needs some proper consideration.
I'm not willing to consider anything related to admin recall or promises made during RFA, though. "Admin recall" is a voluntary process; I'm not about to go and retroactively make it mandatory and enforced by arbcom sanction. I view promises made at RFA to be not worth the paper they're written on, and always have; they have become campaign promises, and just as meaningful. One supports for adminship, hopefully, on record, not promises.
Perhaps the issue is that adminship has become (has always been?) political, but we have a structure set up to reinforce a belief that adminship is not political. The theory behind it has always been that any reasonably sensible user should be able to get adminship, and that it should only be taken away for egregious misuse of the extra tools. Remember that originally the naïve intention was that all users should have these tools, and that requiring blessing in the form of an admin flag was simply about keeping those tools away from the newest of new users. Any non-casual editor of Wikipedia was supposed to get them absent doing something irresponsible.
The culture of RFA has changed, however, and admins are seen increasingly as a special class, a status that should not be granted to most users and that should require special qualifications and persuasion to be granted. It is in this context that campaign promises have become more likely, and thus the question of broken campaign promises comes up.
Perhaps, indeed, it needs to be accepted that adminship is no longer what it was. I feel that perhaps you and others may be interpreting our rejection of enforcing recall as being support for Elonka; it's not that, I don't think, but rather (at least in my case) the long-time user and admin's feeling that this isn't the way it should be and wasn't the way it was.
Perhaps we do need, indeed, a way to vote people out of adminship, or a requirement for reconfirmation, or something. I guess after that the problem is that it's become increasingly hard to change anything on Wikipedia; real consensus on any policy change is nigh-on impossible these days, and any "consensus" group that can be attained tends to be a laughably small proportion of active users, and thus cannot demonstrate such widespread support as to overwhelm. Thus, policy change seems to be left to the Arbcom, or Jimbo, or to pronouncements of the Wikimedia Foundation, even though in theory none of these bodies are really supposed to be making policy outside of very narrow bounds.
The other issue is, of course, that support among admins for a procedure for de-adminship is going to be very limited; "turkeys voting for Christmas" was someone's comment on its likelihood, as I recall. Thus, I suppose, is one reason why it might be desirable for Arbcom to pronounce on this, but I can't help but think it's a step too far in terms of our writing policy.
I'm sorry for the disjointedness and inconsistency of this; it's as much thinking out loud as anything else, and on your talk page to boot. Please feel free to trim if you need to, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about any of this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, but this is a bad time for me onwiki and IRL. I'm past caring about the status of the admin in question and the RFAR. I guess I wore out my care in writing up the request, and there wasn't that much of it to begin with. If the committee, in turn, doesn't care that we have an admin who acts the way this one does, and who gathers more power to herself every day (look at this, for instance) then, shrug, so be it. It can't be news to you people that the community can't desysop anybody—we can just ask them nicely to step down. That's been tried in this case. Feel free, Morven and others, to discuss the matter on this page, if you like, but I don't think I'll be looking in much. Bishonen | talk17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Thanks anyway, and sorry to hear it.
The community can't desysop people, but even the arbcom is not supposed to desysop people for unpopularity; we're supposed to desysop only on abuse. Of course, the definition of "abuse" isn't precise and how much you have to do to get desysopped inevitably varies.
The arbcom (as currently constituted, at least) tends to believe its role is not that of dispassionate adjudicator of hard-and-fast rules, but rather that we're supposed to weigh things against the interest of the project as we see it. Perhaps that's flawed, and a wholly neutral robotic thing is what the community want, but the current arbcom doesn't believe that and doesn't believe that that's the mandate they have.
It could be that attempting to guide things in the "right direction" is behind some of the errors the arbcom has made, though - our instincts sometimes have led us away from openness in the belief that it'll encourage a better outcome, and perhaps that's been a flaw.
I'd certainly welcome any input from anyone else. Since I'm into the last few months of my time on the arbcom - and glad for it - I guess I'm in a mood for retrospection, for setting things down, for considering what we've done right and wrong for three years, and all that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, since I've belatedly recollected that I'm one of the problem users you've been "protecting the interests of the project" from, Morven, perhaps it would after all be as well to take the discussion somewhere else. It seems a little weird to have it on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, we, the community, have the power to desysop. What power we give, we can take away. ArbComm's job is to help us sort out the sticky situations where we can't come to a consensus. Regrettably, we have not come to a consensus yet on the process for a community desysop, but this does not mean that the power does not exist. Regards, JehochmanTalk02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I only posted an RFAR on Elonka because nobody else seemed willing to, you know, Jonathan. Since my approach won't do, why don't you just write a whole different request yourself? I was basically attempting to get the arbs to read the recall motion and take note of the reasons and links its supporters gave. It's a little unexpected that the committee won't take any account of the spirit of my request—considering that they've been prepared in other cases to diverge so completely from the way a request is framed. Heck, to diverge from its name, even.[27][28][29] But there you are. Bishonen | talk13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
If you recuse, you disqualify
The Saffire link I had above suggests that "recuse" is a reflexive form of "disqualify." If you recuse, you disqualify yourself. It is about ethics (knowing that you have a conflict in a case) and it is about self-restraint (on the basis of that conflict, withholding all comment). It seems to me that Morven's comment is, essentially, "At least I admitted the conflict, and if you expect people to have self-discipline, you'll get no admissions."
These are separate axes. Are users ethical enough to admit when they have a conflict? If we expect and require that they have self-discipline, Morven argues, they will forget their ethics. This implies that other arbitrators with known conflicts in a case who do not recuse have a rational basis for it. In fact, what they have is either lack of self-awareness (a bad sign) or lack of ethics (a disqualification). If their conflicts are pointed out (sorry about the passive) to them, and they deny or ignore it, then they prove that they are unethical (unless they can successfully argue the absence of the conflict).
However, people who have conflicts not only need to have the ethics of admitting this, but they must have the ethics and self-control to actually refrain from comment. It's not forced, except by the position of being an arbitrator. It is, instead, something that people should do because it is right and because not doing so will destroy the verdict they deliver. (Yeah, yeah, not a court, etc.) If people with conflicts go ahead and talk and persuade in secret, then the result will be a decision that the aggrieved parties will not respect and will not comply with.
Remember that Wikipedia is voluntary, and ArbCom has no actual power. It has consent. If members of it will admit their conflicts and yet still act as advocates in a case, even in secret, the consent disappears. When this happens over and over, the consent evaporates. The more the arbitrators appear to be leaving their personal selves out of the deliberations, the more confidence the community will have and the more readily people will enforce its decisions.
If Morven's comments are accurate, if this ArbCom, or ArbCom in general, understands "recuse" as something that doesn't impinge upon advocacy at all and if it views it as something purely on a whim and not a matter of ethics, then we need to draft a policy that will be binding on ArbCom about when and how they can agree to a case. It shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't be the case that people can disgrace ethics and think their personal awesomeness so great that common codes do not apply, but, if Morven's summary is correct, it is necessary. Geogre (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Petti...
...foggery ahead. Not that it matters much, dear hochgelahrte Magistra Bishonen, but I am forced to express a little doubt that ego loco is up to scratch, latinitas-wise. "Yo loc." or "soy loc.", or "eo. dem." perhaps (very perhaps, that is)? Thanks for listening, and should you ever be bothered by a hair in need of splitting, just consult yours truly. Kosebamse (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There are times when I find the humour on this page very infantile. Many of us use Latin phrases very often, instead of mocking I suggest you try to emmulate. Thank you. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you also think people are trying to kill you? If so, you're perfectly sane, and so you have to continue arbitrating. Geogre (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. (Even better if the eyes and the deathray are the 'zilla's..!) Ncmvocalist is probably offline, but that can't be helped. I've re-listed the RfC. Bishonen | talk17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
Yeah was offline. I'll probably continue (or try to, anyway) discuss those original reasons - even with Friday at the talk page. For now, I've closed+archived the Sceptre one given that he's retired. Should he return, then whatever dispute(s) that existed might no longer be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to my world. Helpful and clear alternatives will be ignored or have a single conjunction debated. On that idiotic Tag team, I did analysis of the issue, why people get wound up, and why the solution would always evade them, and I got a lunatic warrior wanting to say that he was always only wound up by the fight against the evil Others. Geogre (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You may or may not notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise is open. I think "Disagreements with posted views ("disendorsements")" might be necessary as well for the heated case. However I'm not a native English speaker, so I want to paste your instruction (with little alteration) on it[30] if you don't mind. Could you allow me to use your wording for the page or could you make a section (because you're an admin in a good standing)? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, use it, of course, any way you like. I'm glad somebody cares about keeping RfC's from degenerating into shouting matches. I see there aren't any "disendorsements" so far, unless I'm missing something? So there's nothing that needs moving to talk yet. If something appears, you'll be safer not moving it yourself, since you have endorsed somebody's comment. Can't be too careful about being squeaky clean uninvolved, when you enforce something (even when it's just common sense). I suggest you let me or somebody else (El C, the stern and scary RfC enforcer, comes to mind) know if something needs moving, and we'll do it. People may miss your instructions, no matter how visibly you put them; but as soon as they grasp the principle by seeing it applied, you should be fine. Regards, Bishonen | talk07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC).
Bishonen, thanks for your attention to this matter. Re: your comments on "baiting", you might be amused by this. Perhaps I should take my own advice, huh? I'll admit that I've been mighty annoyed by DG, and I wouldn't have objected strenuously if a trigger-happy admin had blocked him. But what I should do is learn to overlook minor annoyances. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha, what a beautiful comment of yours in March [/me takes notes: "'not a license to poke DreamGuy with a stick'—good—must use" ] The minor can be desperately annoying, I know. Bishonen | talk07:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC).
Then you may need a dose of Geogre's hip artwerkx. Though I think Peter Damian needs it worse. He got stifled. :-( What a great thing for the project, driving off these short-tempered article writers! [31] BTW isn't it time that uppity bishonen got warned or something? Maybe she'll get mad, too! [/me takes some more notes: "'my programmers'—brilliant—try to work in my programmers whenever posting on ANI—not easy in my case—but great stuff!" ]Bishonen | talk08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC).
Hehe, keep the bishounen shiny! What a silly username it is, to be sure. Feminine-looking young men indeed..! Hard to remember, now, that I picked it to hide behind. A shy little thing, I thought of myself as, until I discovered the unsuspected depths of "Look at meeeeee!" after about a week of editing. Bishojou21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, keeping the theme going, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. As the saying goes. "Strong martial arts abilities, sports talent, high intelligence, or comedic flair". As the man said when he was laying linoleum, ye've got tae have a flair for it. . . dave souza, talk18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:
I'd like to say that I 110% disagree with you moving my comment at the RfC for Sceptre. Your comment was "Use positive endorsements only", yet MBisanz's were frankly nothing other than negative. In fact, his whole involvement was nothing other than negative, and served no purpose whatsoever. The saved RfC now gives the deliberately misleading impression everyone agrees with Mbisanz, when they certainly do not. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you don't understand the concepts "positive endorsements", nor "disendorsements", then try reading my instructions on the RfC page more attentively, and click on the link I provided to the RFC guidelines. [32] When you have grasped the principles involved, you may come here to impugn my motives; not before. And don't try to dominate an RFC again by spattering quarrelsome contradictions on it. Take the trouble to write a view of your own, as other people do, and see if anybody's willing to endorse that.Bishonen | talk11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
Unaddressed "parcel"
Hi Stifle. I noticed you said "I apologize for my actions in this matter" on the RFAR page. But... see, it's pointless, surely, to apologize to nobody in particular. Well, I think it is. Who is the addressee of your apology? The community? (why?) The arbitration committee? (double why?) Or the unsubstantial air? I'm completely assuming that you're sincere about wanting to apologize—if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't bother to write this. But please consider addressing your apology to the person actually offended. [33][34])
Please note that I'm by no means asking, or telling, you to apologize to Peter Damian. I don't think anybody ought to ask another person to apologize, ever. All I'm doing is pointing out that you seem to be trying to apologize—for what you did to Peter Damian—but missing the mark. You've posted a parcel without an address on it. I think it's bound to get lost in the mails. Bishonen | talk14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
Well, he's invoked a right to vanish, and his email is not enabled so I couldn't contact him directly. I've left a message for him as you suggested. Just don't set Bishzilla on me ;) Stifle (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
['Zilla, who had already popped the little Stifle in her mouth, spits him out again, regretfully. ] Mmmmhm. Pity. Smelled good. Oh all right ! [Puts down little Stifle, watches benevolently as he witters in circles. Magnanimously: ] Eat little user some other day! bishzillaROARR!!14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC).
I've gone through three different versions of this, each one less offended by your rather non-AGF and less-than-brilliant comments on my usertalk. This version will simply call your comments foolish. Your comments in the AE discussion were distracting and disruptive; they did not speak to the specific matter of DreamGuy, and instead were yet another opportunity for you and Elonka to slug it out. DG is aware of this, and plays upon both of your weaknesses. If you are going to assume less than good faith, it's a lot smarter for you to put it on the person who actually deserves that scrutiny. No one has ever baited DreamGuy, and - let's face it - anyone using that infantilizing argument deserves to be called on it. DreamGuy is neither an infant or an innocent; if he were such, to be so easily baited, then he doesn't deserve to be a member of our community - and certainly not someone worthy of our continued efforts at rehabilitation (or at least restriction).
You are going to find that when you don't carry your personal arguments with other folk into unrelated mediums, you will find people take you more seriosly; if you don't want to be talked to like you are a child, then maybe don't act like a child. I am sorry that you are upset by my scolding you for acting thusly, and ever more disappointed that you chose to impart some grand strategy on my part to prevent me from being blocked by you (who, according to WP:LOA, isn't even an admin). Don't threaten with blocking those who called you a silly prat, especially when you don't have the tools to block someone. To be absolutely clear, I think that you are too involved in your discussion with Elonka and your apparent favoritism of DreamGuy to really pretend to be neutral.
I am going to write your comment off as someone blowing off steam at having their wheel war interrupted. Your argument with Elonka belongs on Elonka's page, or her RfC. Not in the DreamGuy AE complaint. Glad we cleared that all up. - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
[/Bishonen tugs absentmindedly on the leash of the huge green monster lolloping faithfully by her side. ] Down, Bishzilla! What have I told you about blocking people for acting like jerks? Come on, be the bigger... er, creature! Little user Arcayne will sleep on it and think better of his strange ramblings. Probably just frustrated nobody shows any interest in his own repetitious screenfuls on WP:AE. Didn't you learn some empathy in admin school, 'Zilla? Bishonen | talk16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
So, that magical discussion focused on proving you have a dupe account that is an admin? Hmm. Okay. Duly noted. Not really worried. Also notedwas how you managed to avoid addressing the rest of it in your screenfuls of attacks at AE. Bysh, heal thyself. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, you actually are a useless prat. If you can't understand Bishonen's comments, perhaps you could get someone who can read to explain them to you. Don't worry: I'm not an admin, so you needn't worry, since you only care about who can block you. (If this is the level of discourse he brings everywhere with him, it's no wonder people don't respond to him.) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what part of Bish's comments were you under the impression that I didn't understand? The threat of blocking, or the bad faith assumption that that's all I care about? And you are going to be served rather well by being a lot more polite than your previous response. I think we might have interacted before, but I am not sure where. It certainly didn't warrant being called a prat. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and what he said above. You are also contravening my personal civility policy [36] So get off Bishonen's talk page and take it some place else. OK? Giano (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Apparently, I haven't made myself clear, J; for that, I apologize. I did not call for DG to be blocked or banned (note that I am not the author of the AE complaint). When I discovered that the anon was not him, I retracted the notice on his talk, and noted the unconnectedness to the complaint and checkuser request, apologized to DG and let the matter go. Apparently, you may have missed in all the furor to seek out bad guys. As for discovering that FatCigar was indeed a sock, yay. When someone is wrong, I expect them to man up and apologize. I did, when I incorrectly accused DG of using anons again. Mistakes happen. It isn't as if the guy hadn't ever done that before, and you know that mistakes about that sort of thing happen quite frequently.
Additionally, I did not - and have not - "badgered" Bishonen. I suggested that he and Elonka go somewhere other than AE to continue their argument. Bish took that as a personal slight and made a fairly hair-brained accusation. When I responded here, Bish chose the opportunity to avoid the subject and further threaten me with blocking. Utgard then called me a prat for pointing out that he missed the point of the the comments at both AE and here. Finally, Giano chimes in talking about how I am breaking his personal policy (which is incorrect). Golly, being called uncivil...by Giano?
You've said that you apologized to DreamGuy so many times that you probably remember it that way by now. Diff, please? Bishonen | talk20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
Well, I actually assumed that you could look at a page history (being the leashed "owner" of an admin and all). (1) and then, more pointedly (2), amid the unfriendly response. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Those? The first isn't within shouting distance of an apology; the second is insult and sarcasm. How surprising that there was an unfriendly response. Incidentally, I see you choose to taunt and abuse Giano for making a civil remark. I'm increasingly convinced you'll feel badly about your behavior today, Arcayne, the more you think about it. I simply cannot believe you became a Wikipedia editor for the purpose of flaming and disparaging people the way you've been doing. I'm not angry—I'm rather sorry to see you posting stuff you're sure to be ashamed of—but I've had enough of it on my page. Please try to wind down. I'm afraid I'm going to blank any further posts from you. Bishonen | talk22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
A moral leson for the young
I have been looking at poor old Sarah Palin, my attention drawn by so many frequent edits and screams from so many, funny looking woman, sort of poor man's Joanna Lumley. I can't imagine anyone is going to vote for a mousse-hunting granny who was daft enough to call her children Track, Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig - odd choices I wonder why. Perhaps all Americans are related to people with these names, but keep it very quiet. Funny lot - the Americans. I expect being Swedish you hunt mousse all the time, I wonder what Track and Bristol are in Swedish? Personally, I feel sorry for the boyfriend - just imagine there you are aged 17 having a little secret nookie with your girl - and the world is bright and beautiful, then suddenly bang, not only is your girlfriend "up the duff", but her Mom turns out to be anti-abortion and surprise candidate for Vice presidentcy, and you have to stand at a a bloody airport shaking hands with a smiling John McCain - who probably wants to kill you, while the world's press snaps the happy event, just in case there is one person in the civilized world who has not yet heard of your behavior. Poor bastard, he won't forget to take precautions again will he? - probably won't ever need to! Giano (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer mine with barbecue sauce. If she owns guns or a pickup truck, she will do well. In Alaska there a twice as many men as women, but there are fortunately many spare moose. JehochmanTalk17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
He will, too forget to take precautions. Palin forbids them. She believes that children should only be educated on how to abstain from sex, and she models that behavior in her own life, by having a baby per throw. Her daughter couldn't take precautions, because she was abstaining from being educated about it. Don't miss the fact that Mrs. Palin also bans books -- the pages might be made into prophylactics, if they're vellum. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
<guffaws!> Geez - I just heard a commentator on the BBC explaining the problem with Hillary was her schoolmarmishness - but then Palin!!! The Ann Widdecombe of the Americas - poor bastards. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Vellum prophylactics? Ouch. That in itself would be an argument for abstinence. Perhaps the pro-lifers should instead target the condom industry... - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bristol Palin is a poster child for how well "Abstinence only Sex Education" actually works. (i.e. more or less "not at all") ++Lar: t/c20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it is very unfair she has to be, and I hope all parents are now thinking "There, but for the grace of God go I" Perhaps now, even her ignorant mother will wake up to the real world Giano (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps hell is freezing over just now... since when are fundamentalist American politicians interested in the real world? I mean, someone who advocates abstinence only sex education, capital punishment, creationism, the vandalising of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and civilian's individual rights to bear arms? Just wondering. Kosebamse (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ignore the monster, Paul. She'll opine anything anywhere right now—she's trying to rack up edits to make sure she's qualified to run for arbcom in December, that's all. (Er, are you a furry?) Bishonen | talk22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
I beg your pardon! Please be aware that some of us are born to rule and some of you to serve. Remember people like me built an empire; an empire which people like you in the frozen wastelands of Europe and America were proud to belong to. Rule Britania and Lady Catherine! Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Mistress Madam Palin is opposed to those who bear it all. That's why her daughters have two options: chased or bear. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Mother Douglas's house of bear women
Imagine my surprise to see Matt Damon is a talk page stalker of yours! [37]. "I really want to know if she thinks dinosaurs Bishzilla was around 4000 years ago, I really want to know - because she's going to have the nuclear codes!" I'm off to put a tea cosy on my head and hide under the stairs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Utgard Loki was around then, and he doesn't remember any dinosaurs. He just remembers fundamentalists telling Thor to thwack us harder. We just wanted to drink and live. (One Salon writer said that undecided voters, the most stupid creatures since the flat worm, will decide on the basis of how "doable" Palin is, but, he said, she isn't -- she seems more like a dominatrix than a sex goddess.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting article. I like the style of the legendary A. A. Gill on the conference in general its perhaps less incisive, but I love the way he writes. (Sorry Bish, he's a bit scathing about Swedes - and the Welsh/Germans/Albanians, in fact he seems to upset quite a few people - but its usually worth it for the laughs) --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Vanilla 'Zilla
ATTENTION: Fine prizes for best ArbCom election slogan rhyming vanilla with Bishzilla!
Thrilla, hee hee, excellent! Loki good poet, lead slogan competition! Try smore, little users, or truckload Bishapod plushies arrive Loki back yard soon! bishzillaROARR!!14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
[/'zilla turn on tact ] Er, handsome sig... most ..agreeable sig... [/me give up on tact ] Tex sig need MoarRoarr !
P.S. Huh.."Zilla for arbcom" part of sig? Aha! Campaign sig! Excellent, hee hee! Sorry zilla ungrateful! [/me gratefully pat little manager. Tex go flat.] Oops. Campaign manager job a little unsafe. [Cautiously pocket flat little Tex, head for Reichstag. ] bishzillaROARR!!06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC).
And a suggestion for the campaign: imagine a choir of dinosaurs on the doorsteps of the arbcom's palace, shouting on top of their voices while the arbcom tries to argue their way back into safety:
[Whining arb: Easy come easy go-, will you let me go-]
Heheh! :-D ! Little Tex excellent campaign manager, fine designer! 'zilla already use new poster to put new user "Powerzilla" nose out of joint, see user talk! Justallofthem "'drama mama' Bishzilla" very good meme also, ho, hum... bishzillaROARR!!22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
Hmm. I see you mentioned me, yes. I think I'll exchange a friendly word with Jbmurray. I hope I'm not starting any drama. Bishonen | talk15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
As for your contribution to 'Zilla's election campaign, it all depends on how !vote is pronounced, doesn't it? I've always wondered. Bishonen | talk15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
I think Bishonen should reveal that she's really La Belle Otero. I understand that, with a picture like that on your user page, you can get anything. ArbCom would be far too little to ask for. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Mhm. Always excepting that I don't want ArbCom! I'm totally against the 'zilla's election shenanigans, but it's been a long time since I had any control of "my" monster. Anyway.. if I do post your "belle" image on my page, will you in return admit that User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is really your own "good hand" account, with Loki as the "bad hand"? And will you post some appropriately magnificently-moustachio'd self-portrait? Then we might talk. Bishonen | talk14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
Why would ladies chase the cavalry? Wouldn't the cavalry be able to swoop in on the ladies itself? They would, unless they were commanded by some magnificently moustachioed individual like this. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Too busy grooming to attack, Burnside was very popular with the cavalry.
Oh, and La Belle Otero had two cupolas built in the image of her breasts. Now that's the kind of highly reputable and verifiable fact that Wikipedia thrives upon. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(High-born Victorian ladies always ignore innuendo—hear that, Lady Catherine?) This is amazing, Loki. The term sideburns is a 19th-century corruption of the original burnsides, named after your moustachio guy Ambrose Burnside! Why didn't I know that? It's a wonderful factoid, I could read Wikipedia for ever. Bishonen | talk22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
Americans invented many things in their Civil War. Consider, for example, Joseph Hooker's hookers. Every time Americans worry that they're no longer inventing things, I just mumble that a good civil war could take care of that. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Cutie Fenris Wolf good friend, Pmanderson! Signed, Bishzilla (always susceptible).
Well, the "15 months" is from Rolf Kjellström, pp. 50-51, as stated in footnote 27. Kjellström is making a comparison of the diet of the Andrée expedition with that of Nansen and Johansen, in order to evaluate Tryde's trichinosis theory. There may well be a better source (but probably not an English-language source) for how long Nansen and Johansen spent in the area, and for which 15 months are in question. My passage there is, er, pretty much recycled Kjellström, rather than profoundly researched. For instance, I haven't read Tryde's book, which was hard to get hold of. But I don't see any reason to mistrust Kjellström. He is (or was, when his article was published) a "docent" at Nordiska museet. That's a creditable research position. Gosh, I bored myself writing that... I enjoy doing research, but I hate chewing over old research I've done... [/me falls asleep.] Bishonen | talk18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
P.S. And in case poor Bishonen got it wrong, wouldn't it be a nice and fun job for a footnote enthusiast to lift the original Swedish snippets from the Swedish translation of the article[39] and add them to our article? Or consult User:Peter Isotalo, the bilingual translator. And feel free to link the Verifiability discussion to this post. [Little 'shonen makes undignified exit; anything, anything, to get out of doing actual work! ] Bishonen | talk19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
Necromancer? My cousin is a bit of a turd, but he's not a necromancer, and he's not to be confused with his son, the dog. The dog don't do nothing. My own dog is a lot better anyhow. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted, little Septentrionalis! ['Zilla stuff little PMAnderson in pocket of comfy banlon spiderman suit, swing agilely from ledge to ledge. ] Hold on tight, little user! bishzillaROARR!!22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I attempted to start this discussion at the talk page of the policy that, being abused more than any other, obviously needs to be fixed. Maybe even such policy is not needed at all? I am not sure, but I am sure that if this page is to exist and shine the {{policy}} tag on its top, it needs a complete overhaul. You are one of the editors, whose input would be especially valuable to improve this page. Please take a look if, of course, you have time. Thanks, --Irpen05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Bishzilla adds "Fuck off." - Bishzilla. as the last item of Carcharoth's quote collection on the talkpage. Down, Bishzilla!!! No starting Ragnarök today! Bishonen | talk06:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. I've been reading User:Bishonen/Civility (got there from User:FayssalF/Civility_pages). It doesn't really seem like an essay, more a quote farm (which can be very useful - it reminded me of the quotes I lifted from the September 2008 RfArb thread). I was looking to add your page to Category:User essays on civility), but instead, maybe some of the points you raise or highlight there could be raised at WT:CIV (though it would have to be noted how old some of the comments are)? Would you want to do that yourself, or would you mind if someone else does that? Maybe the points raised could be discussed on your subpage talk page before being raised at WT:CIV? Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion on author request. And Geogre, it had been around for nine months. Here's a challenge: turn your redlink blue and find some suitable pictures to illustrate it with, and see how many pages you can get it linked from in nine months. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Little wolfie had his eye on that bone! :-( Got distracted by ping-ponging ban discussion at ANI. First at ANI, then at subpage, then back at ANI, now back on subpage. Very confusing. Maybe Zilla can sort out? No, I'm joking, it is rather a mess, really. And a bit depressing. I'm going to go and do something else for a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Nice! Hang on. What is being eaten here? <looks suspiciously at Bishzilla> You know, I might recreate the essay. I think Geogre is right. A lot of people did miss the point. <hangs head in wolfie shame> Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Paul. I did notice, but I've given up trying to keep these people in order. My page is the Home of the Weak Pun—shrug. There doesn't seem to be a lot I can do about it. Bishonen | talk13:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
Dear Bishonen - it's one thing to berate Lady C for her double entendres, but then piping up on G's page with references to Haw-Haw, whilst flying over the head of the more inhibited middle classes, will surely be seen as a socking shocking offence to the louche landed one.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Il Duce, accompanied by anonymous friend, coming to propose to her ladyship
Well, I linked it, didn't I? People don't get away with being too lazy to click, not in this salon! Also, compare the rivetting account of Mussolini's arrival to propose to her ladyship here. Bishonen | talk23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC).
Modernist poetry in English FAR
Modernist poetry in English has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The article was only written by an expert, so it's obviously not FA quality. (They're targeting every Filiocht article now, one by one. Everything "old" is bad. Footnotes, you know. Footnotes ensure absolute quality and verification. Nothing with footnotes is ever bad. Everything without footnotes is. Twelve footnotes to websites derivative of the Wikipedia article are better than a whole article without footnotes.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This obsession with referencing each whiff and every flatulence could actually be a good thing, if only it worked the other way round, that is if it helped these schoolkids learn how to argue cleanly in a scientific (ooooh, bad bad word) context in the real world; once they'd learned it, then they could come back with a mature judgment and help write great articles here. In other words, primum vivere, deinde philosophari. Unfortunately, that opinion will not gain much currency here. Kosebamse (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Little Whiskydog look in very briefly, withdraw when getting paws wet.[41] Come sit in pocket, grumpy little doggie! [Bishzilla snatches little dog from Bishonen, who has tried absent-mindedly to drop it into her ever-simmering mid-European meat stew. ] Bishonen much scarier personality than people realize! [Sternly.] 'Shonen! Dog is pet ! Not snack ! Have whisky, leave dog! bishzillaROARR!!10:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC).
"Arcaded and pedimented wings"
About time to you returned! Huge laugh reading The Times this morning, an unusual turn of phrase cropped up - you remember when we worked on "our page" in our early wiki days and my English was notta so good, I often used to babelfish Italian terms into English and the result would occasionaly be what I now know to be very odd turns of phrase. "arcaded and pedimented wings" being one, and it survived in our page - and is now quoted authoritively in The Times, and according to google elsewhere many time too, concerning that one particular house. To thiink I have introduced new architectural terms into English. I suppose I had better go and change it, but it soes seem a pity. Proves, though, what a widespread and authoritive place Wikipedia is. Giano (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, don't ask its author. He's being extremely hostile about it and plans to stay away and offer nothing but curses for the whole affair. I have it on authority, in fact, that he would prefer that the article not be an FA than that people who don't know the area, the field, or academic standards go mucking about trying to get rid of any sign of a thesis, any hint of insight, and any use to the reader. He has, after all, sworn never to get near FAC ever again, to intentionally ensure that his articles stay out, and to continue to write well, write good articles, and to continue to spit and hiss at the entire craniorectal inversion of ratings. He must be a newbie. Geogre (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I actually meant that I am being extremely hostile. Of all the things I've done on Wikipedia, I'm proudest of a different article, but I've felt for a long time that Augustan drama was the single most useful article, the one thing that contributed most to the world. At least prior to the article, it was the best overview available on web or print. There are thesis-driven examinations of segments of the drama these days -- New Historicist examinations of this or that, the stage and images of the body here or there, that kind of thing -- but a general overview for a general reader that contained any theme, wasn't poisoned by prejudice and 19th century platitudes wasn't there. Wikipedia's existence has forced EB to get off their duffs and offer far greater depth than they previously did, so it's possible that they now have much better, but they didn't then. And now... despite that no expert would contend with any of the statements... we're back to "where are the footnotes?" and "inline must mean footnote." I lose the heart to even pretend to be nice. Geogre (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And it was offensive, lazy and reflexive. Come on you have more wit and brains than that. The hubris in this romm is getting old. (sorry i cant spell) Ceoilsláinte16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, I meant to leaven the situation with some minor humor, which fell flat. I apologise. This is clearly too serious to laugh much about. KillerChihuahua?!?13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is that supposed to mean, beyond a clever celver in joke? I would be nice if ye reaised that FAr is not entirely populated by cranks, and although a fair share of them do drop in, we are always Kicking Against the Pricks. Frankly, I'm shit fucking sick of being taged with a generalised tag, by people who have nothing to contribute except scoring points and bullying, and no more. Its boring, it incorrect, and it is so its old. Ceoilsláinte16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This "room" is my page, you know, Ceoil. It would be even nicer, if possible, if you got shit fucking off of it and returned to your selfless task of mentoring other editors about graciousness and a collegiate tone.[42] P. S. Hello there, everybody. Bishonen | talk21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC).
What is it supposed to mean? Well, let's see. An article is off doing its job, informing the reader. A long process determined that it was an FA. Now, though, with a predisposition to "all things old were not ours," any person can come and say, "This article doesn't look the way I want it, or the author pissed me off earlier, so I can start a process that will last for weeks or months, keep anyone from interfering with any changing we do, and, in the end, change nothing except its status." That sure looks parasitical and hubristic. "It's old so it must be reviewed" is only valid if the "old" people were all wrong all the time or if there is some change in standards. The first is an insult to both authors and reviewers of the past. The second is untrue.
The question is, therefore, why FAR? Is it because the article had problems? If so, why not just fucking edit the thing and talk to those who know? Is it because there were factual matters that other sources contest? If so, talk to the author and get the citations. "FAR" is neither necessary nor good, and it isn't going to result in "improvement." It's either going to result in the loss of the star, which would be fine by me, or it's going to mean a bunch of nervous citations are thrown in when they weren't necessary, or it's going to be a phrase changed here or there, which, again, could have been done without any stamping and stomping with passive voice banners.
So, if there ain't a whole hell of a lot of good that can come from it, and if it allows for any random jackanapes to get revenge for affronts, and if it annoys or alienates the authors, then how is it different from a cheese maggot? Geogre (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen - I put up some notes on the talk page of Augustan drama if anyone wants to apply them appropriately. I mentioned this on Geogre's page, but I have seen no response. I normally stay away from pages that Geogre heavily edits based on our conflicting styles. However, I would prefer it if this well done page is not pushed aside because of some sourcing claims. Could you please work with Geogre and rely on some of the sources that I have put up on the talk page? It doesn't matter what style of preference is used, nor do I really have any interest in deciding how the page turns out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you obviously have nothing interesting you here
Could you, Risker, or anyone of this page's regulars, start giving this User:Giano/The Winter Palace a copy edit, I have stared at it for too long now, and cannot see clearly the mistakes. There is just the "contents section" for me to complete, the rest of it can be copyedited - then I can give it the final tweaks. I would be very grateful!!!!! Giano (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for the amzingly spotted edits so far, I have jusy had a horrible thought, though, now you have all edited, the page will have to be eventually merged, rather than quick pasted - who on earth had the patience to do that? Buggeration! I don't want it in mainspace yet, as it is far from comlplete - we shall jusy have to think on it. I wil take this over to my page for further consideration, as Bishiperson probably wants some peace and quiet. So suggest at your leasure there. Giano (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
OK
Point taken. But do the thought experiment. Giano has defenders against the civility police. Yanni, apparently, does not.
Oh, and if it wasn't obvious, I typed "fuck" to underscore how preposterous it is to bring somebody to AN/I for typing "damn". I found the thread a gob-smacking example of how AN/I often does more harm than good. Anyway. Marskell (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
AN/I has a predisposition to it, just as AfD does. One assumes, before reading the details, that the person typing has a complaint and that the person complaining about is guilty. However, the really nasty part is that it replicates peer pressure. If two "bigger" Wikipedians "Endorse" then I must, too, and then the next one will archive it as a totally solved issue. It's a fucking disgrace when that happens. Complaining of "civility" is uncivil. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree - there have been many cases where there's been consensus at ANI, I've been asked to take a look, and stated bluntly that the case is badly mishandled or the user said to be a problem isn't. Making loud noises or exaggeration (as some might do) doesn't help. But actually analyzing the evidence for it in a calm neutral way, does. "If they endorse I feel I have to as well" is very poor reasoning. I've never felt the obligation to go along with others if they have misjudged an editor, and although many cases that come to ANI do merit admin action, I've routinely and successfully defended users on the edge of a ban or block and criticized the would-be blocker when it's clear they haven't done anything deserving of it. You (or anyone) can do the same, just as well. I spent most of 2007 being asked to review and help on difficult cases, including quite a few of apparent bias and bad admin judgement by other concerned admins, and most times you can do something if there's a good reason why it's not been done well so far. (And hi, Bish, hope commenting on this is okay) FT2(Talk | email)23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The "managed to" was a public vote of 264 - 33, the second highest rating (and 5th highest in support, 2nd lowest in opposes) of any user, in a heavily scrutinized public open election that any non-banned user with a fairly modest level of editing and any views whatsoever could vote in. I work (mostly in the background) on disputes, problems, and content issues to help editors and other users, in preference to getting into conspiracy theories and drama, which probably doesn't hurt. Over time, acting to a high standard earns trust from a wide range of users, which has included admins, non-admins, and banned or sanctioned users alike [43][44][45][46][47]. Nothing odd about it at all. FT2(Talk | email)10:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, mentioning Giano without relevance on Wikipedia is a poor idea because tends to put a penny in the Automatized Anti-Giano Cliché Minority Gang, especially on the en-admins IRC channel, where I've been lurking a little during my break. They apparently missed your remark this time, I'm glad to say. Not that Giano cares much, I guess, but it makes me type "fuck". (Plus, I don't want people running away with the impression that I've mellowed any from my wikibreak.) What *I* would call an interesting thought in the context would be a comparison between Giano's block log and Yannismarou's block log. You might like to try that thought experiment for size. Bishonen | talk18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC).
Heard my name mentioned - I am conducting a survey at the moment - how many check users and Arbs are chanel ops at IRC? 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
FT2, Lar, Nishkid64, Bastique, Deskana, Jdforrester, Dmcdevit (rarely in channel), FloNight (rarely in channel), Mackensen (rarely if ever in channel), Yellow Monkey (rarely if ever in channel). It's unclear whether Newyorkbrad has chanop access, and he does have checkuser access but (in order not to blow up the wiki) does not use it. Uninvited Company, DavidGerard and Morven are inactive on the channel but retain chanop rights. JWales is rarely in channel, and I don't know that he uses checkuser though he does technically have the permission. Risker (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That must make you feel very left out in Arb discussions. It seems the Arbcom is little more than a convention of Chan ops with check-user right. Most interesting.Giano (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
And all these people are check users? Goodness me! No wonder they were so frightened when they found out I was there too. Giano (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, Giano, Name recognition can do a person in an election. For example, look at all the candidates for President. None of the third party people have a snowflake's chance in Hades of being elected. Not because of their platform, but because nobody has heard of them. Not that anybody asked me.--*Kat* (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Bish, please note the first two words of my initial post. Je m'excuse, honestly. But the fact that Yanni has no block record is part of what makes it so awful. He wasn't behaving well, admittedly, but he got hounded needlessly. An admin, a massive content contributor, a three year editor. And he's asked to leave because of "damn" and his use of exclamation marks? Elonka would make Kafka proud.
Well, I'll add that a little bit of context never hurts, and that the quick archiving away of AN/I threads doesn't help matters: Yannis often used exclamation points in his everyday writing about minor matters, even with editors he has worked with for a long time. [48]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The inescapable fact is that "civility" is not "politeness," and "politeness" is not prudishness, nor is it "least offensive to the most offended." The next person will object to "hell," and the one after that will object to "you're wrong," and the one after that will exclaim that all responses must be kindergarten-style positive feedback. Meanwhile, things like FAR are ruder than a wounded sailor's most irate rant. Utgard Loki (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply to FT2
Starting a new section to make sure this does not get lost in amongst, as Marskell says, the different directions above. FT2, you seem to be using this page, in my opinion a little irrelevantly, to inform Giano and Utgard Loki and the world in general about your integrity and how trusted you are by a "wide range of users". I congratulate you on your happy assumption that flattery towards the powerful can have no other root than sincerity. But, since you ask, I would actually prefer you to take any further statistics and reflexions to a more appropriate forum. None of what you've written above seems exactly to be anything to do with me, and this is after all my talkpage. Bishonen | talk15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC).
Quite right Bishonen. FT2 if you come to my page you can have the full benefit of my opinion on you and the present "Arbcom." Giano (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the view by a user, that one "has" to endorse peer pressure, even in a bad decision. I disagree with that. If you present it neutrally and with careful thought, you will be listened to more. I have enough experience of saying "this is a bad decision" to others when it is a case of bad adminship, to advise how to do it effectively.
The other post, which you mention, was to Giano, to clarify a point he found odd. I'm well aware Giano has a great dislike of arbitrators generally, many admins, and a number of other matters. If he finds something "odd", I don't want to brush it off, but give the background detail so he can see how it came about. Over time he may gradually realize people aren't "against" him, which is exactly what I've said in the past. FT2(Talk | email)23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
FT2, you really can't take a hint, can you? I'm sorry, but you're kind of out of your depth in doling out the same hard-won psychological insights over and over to Giano, to me, or to Loki, with the same air of discovery. You're also in the wrong place. (Have you even noticed that this is my talkpage that you're on, HINT HINT?) What's the difficulty, really? I assure you you couldn't go far wrong with the short-short version, which goes like this: Please Go Away. All right? Bishonen | talk02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for all you are doing there, I have completely run out of steam on it, and cannot see the gilded woodwork for the palmiers. I don't think it will ever be FACd because it's not the sort of page they like, too long and laborious to read, will anyone ever make it to the bottom, butat least it will be useful for anyone genuinely interested. There is no rush to finish the copyedit as this sub page at least has to be in mainspace at the same time, and it is far from finished, barely started. Anyway I think the main page of the series has to rest for a week at least after completion before goining into mainspace. So take as long as you like. Giano (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right. It's the disambiguation page Maples that needs fixing, then, I'll do it later. Sorry about the edit conflict. I see Gatoclass corrected some typo, too. Well intentioned, of course, but... more edit conflicts. (You haven't removed the "in use" template, have you?) Anyway, I'm just going to eat and so on--it'll be at least two hours before I resume--so there's no need for you to stay away. Bishonen | talk15:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC).
No don't worry. It's fime, I will go an edit elsewhere, and give Doc on IRC some more topics of converstaion for the afternnon, what would that channel do without me? Talk dirty to each other I expect. What a service to the community I am. I've several ages to work on, so they should all learn something. Giano (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Hope I didn't tread on anyone's toes - I just happened to see "The Rusian Page" header here and it tweaked my curiosity, so I went to have a quick squiz, saw a typo and fixed it before I noticed the underconstruction tag.
Thanks for letting me know, I very much enjoyed the unfinished draft I read some months ago, so I'll keep a lookout for the finished product :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Could I prevail
As a fellow sister-editor could you advise me is a photograph 85 years old in copyright or not, I would so hate to fall foul of Wikipedia's rules. I have found such an interesting person to make the subject of my next eagerly awaited page. Miss Alice Reighly such a courageous and wise woman - quite like ourselves and little Mrs Risker. No man tackled her and lived to tell the tale. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And remember there is many a male wikipedian who could be described as "a slick, dandified cake eater and glossy lounge lizard." Yes, you Geogre! I have seen that arovering eye running over my poor defenceless body. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I eat pie, not cake, as I grow in circumference and decrease in danger. Obviously, I could never be in a position of self-selected power at Wikipedia, as I've never found it satisfying or interesting to use it to defrock or denude or affect dishabille of girls, "girls," or women. Geogre (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Good to see that you are back and so full of . . . er . . . energy (almost used a crass turn of phrase to a lady). All the best! --Justallofthem (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am certainly full of "it" but that is not what I had in mind for you; all I was thinking about was fight and, um, verve - now there is a good word. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL. No, I only posted the once, but maybe it was one of those fonts that need a basic caffeine level (in the reader) to carry through? Bishonen | talk11:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the rollback
Thanks for rolling back the admin vandal. At least his vandalism is his purpose. I had begun to think that we didn't have any people editing Wikipedia anymore, that only -bots edited. Geogre (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Great Fire of London has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"has been nominated," "are reviewed" leads to "return it to FA quality" (because, despite this being a "review," we're sure already that the thing isn't an FA), but "are not addressed" ("do what I say or else!") it goes to FARC, and then, at the very end, where weariness and attrition would never go, we get the final piece, which should have been the first and only piece: "I don't like something, and here it is." So, instead of talking to an active editor about concerns first, there is FAR first, threat second, and then a list of Official Immutable Powerful complaints. And people wonder why I'm so hostile toward FAR people. Geogre (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone click on "here?" It takes you to the overall FAR page. So, passive, passive, passive, threat, circumlocution, and then misdirection: golly, but that's helpful. That's the way to build an encyclopedia. That's the way to encourage participation. And, if the person with "concerns" is insane, is there any way to tell him or her so? Why, no! How about a template that says, "Your nomination to FAR has been removed as a drastic misuse of project space. After five days, you will have been allowed to edit again normally. Until that time, you have been encouraged to have become acquainted with scholarly and Wikipedia norms of editing, writing, and participation?" Utgard Loki (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Augustan literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more equally well-thought-out suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. The reason I opposed is that content creation is so relevant to admin actions. Iridescent perhaps put it best: "I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected". I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but it's a shame that your empathy with the writers you perform admin actions to will necessarily at present be so... theoretical. I also think Rlefse showed insufficient empathy with you. You might well have sailed through a second RFA once you had a reasonable amount of article experience. It seems unfortunate to me that a poor bureaucrat decision has instead left you with this highly controversial "successful" RFA tied to your tail. Bishonen | talk16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).
From my own admittedly biased point of view, I see a potential trouble with your attempts to remove patent nonsense from the aforementioned page: If all patent nonsens is removed, what will be left? :-) JoergenB (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a point. But the subject may well deserve an article, with a full account of all relevant nonsense! I only removed a blatant self-contradiction, which was to call the antediluvianpatriarchsnon-biblical. If those guys and their begatteries are non-biblical, then what the [censored] is biblical? Bishonen | talk18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
Saddened by the Bishzilla Withdraw
I have to be honest, I'm sufficiently out of touch with Wikipedia that I have no idea whether it's a candidacy I would have supported; But regardless of whether we would have decided you had what it took to be an arb, you are a profound positive fixture of the 'pedia. So far, all our Arbs have been decidedly non-monster. I know that I, a supporter of diversity, was very excited by the idea of a candidacy that smashed through the glass-skyscraper. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I find it particularly saddening at all, I don't beleive that monsters and the like should be allowed to run - especially monsters with such a dreadful speech impediment. However, I expect all those that were thinking of supporting that awful creature are now looking for a new figurehead. I have, of course, launched my own small and very humble candidacy where I shall be be promoting the rights of women, women's' suffrage and most importantly equal rights on Wikipedia for the gentler and fairer sex. That sweet Mr Wales has intimated his wish to see more women on the Arbitration Committee so I am valiantly answering his clarion call and doing my duty. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah yeah. Well, Bishzilla has already thrown her weight behind your candidacy, so if you're lucky I suppose you may ride to ArbCom in her pocket.[50]Bishonen | talk12:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
Mmmm...Yes, well, hmph, of course I am deeply moved by her support, I am a great animal lover, and as you know I have often said what a dear kind sweet little thing Zilla is. I shall not forget my many friends of this page when I am Wikipedia's Queen, you will all find me just the same as I have always been, quite unchanged in any way. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll be impressed if you are. Few people are ever the same again once Bishzilla has thrown her weight anywhere near them. Bishonen | talk14:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
Bishonen, I honestly can't tell if Bishzilla's candidacy was serious or not, but I do believe that if you did take the position seriously that you would be a good Arbitrator, under whichever persona you chose to use. Thatcher21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, and gosh, I've never gotten so many compliments. "Nothing in the arbcom election became me like the leaving it," huh? :-) Bishonen | talk03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
It doesn't matter which one runs, we need you on arbcom!!! (expecially after the latest Giano kerfluffle) Tex (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not Little Stupid but Spot (probably the neutral-hand account of Little Stupid. Dick, of course, would be the bad hand). Luckily, I've outed this little plot without the need for checkuser (which is, as everybody knows a last resort for difficult cases). Since I have no sense of humour and am upset I wasn't in on the joke, I will ask for all your accounts to be blocked before some serious damage is done to the encyclopedia. Yomanganitalk02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
Hey Yo Mama, as luck would have it, I just added Dick and the other new chaps to Miranda's Bishapod page on Commons (and mentioned that you had sewn them, which was high time).[51] See the ugly plot going cross-project? Bishonen | talk02:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
Now you are calling my mother fat? I shall open an Arbcom case to address your civility problem. Oh, wait,...ArbCom case...I must mean Giano's civility problem. Yomanganitalk03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I would not want to see the signature "Little Stupid" on any arbitration proposed decision pages, out of respect for the parties. However, I think Little Stupid would make a valuable contributor to certain Arbcom-L and checkuser-L discussions, while Bishzilla would be perfect for on-wiki comments of an Arbcomish nature. Versatility is a good thing. Thatcher05:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
To Yomangan: I had to use Spot in the poster because Little Stupid is so stupid that his picture turned brown and degraded too much when converted to a gif. Spot didn't degrade as badly. To Bish...if I can't get you to change your mind about running for arbcom, you can have the 'Zilla eat all the campaign posters if you'd like. They're probably taking up valuable server space that could be used to write more Pokemon articles. I'll put a speedy tag on them if you'd like. (Little Tex depressed his management of campaign not turn out better. Was counting on a cabinet seat...relurking now) Tex (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you had removed the 2 comments. Honestly though, there are times when you just like to leave the racist comments out there for all to see permanently. You never know when an RfA gets filed :-) ►BMW◄01:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This with the edit summary No, thank you. That is correct dinosaur grammar made me laugh. I dread to think what Bishzilla's edit summary on the same revert would have been. --GraemeL(talk)17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted my question from the ArbCom page and have stopped watching the page. If that guy actually gets to be on the ArbCom, then something is irreparably broken at this website. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
I just saw your kindly defence of me here [52] what a joy to see that. The other customary accusations of eating babies, puppies, kittens and the black magic sacrifices I make before releasing a page into mainspace I can live with. Even the voodoo curses I enact on admins who block me - all true, but you my sweet spotted the lie. Thank you so much.
Oh, well, probably everybody spotted it and nobody else thought it worth refuting.. I was promptly advised on IRC against having a battle of wits with an unarmed man woman, by a user who is something of an expert on that subject, so I think I'll merely ignore if I see any more attacks on that kind of level. Bishonen | talk15:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC).
Sorry, Zilla isn't used to closing stuff, she doesn't know from the right templates and stuff. And she tends to get overenthusiastic with the roaring when she tries. I've given my opinion.. Sorry to be so useless on the closing front, and I hope you won't have any trouble locating another uninvolved admin. Bishonen | talk17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC).
Hiya Bishonen. It would've been cool, to have had my comments responded to by SlimVirgin herself (as they were meant for her). Anyways, I've scratched them out. Jeepers, I didn't wanna see her getting blocked either, ya know. Ya'll should learn to relax a little. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Having taken some deep breaths, I realize you probably meant well. I'm sorry I let the way you expressed yourself get under my skin. Bishonen | talk20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC).
[Delighted ] Is little Lady! Come sit in Spiderman suit pocket Lady C! Incidentally 'Zilla talkpage superior. Discriminating little users watch! bishzillaROARR!!23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for watching out for me
It's nice to know others keep an eye :-). However, as it turns out, that charming IP editor is a longtime unregistered contributor who I suspect most admins would recognise under his old IP of 68.39.174.238. His dumb ISP caused a forced "rename" last week, so now he doesn't have his 23,000-edit history attached anymore. Poor guy, now all the hugglers and twinklers are going to start calling his edits "vandalism" again; I think the software programmers had put his old IP on the "ignore" list. Thanks again. Risker (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please keep WP:CIV in mind when interacting with other editors. Being rude gets you nowhere, and won't convince anyone of your point of view. It does add blatherskite to people's vocabularies, granted, but that is hardly sufficient compensation for the ill will it creates. --fvw*04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No need for nasty comments. I have barely poked my nose into this place for months and when I do it is all strangely familiar. I see no need for you to rebuke me for a comment I have already apologized for. The very criticism you bring towards my comments could just as readily be applied to your comment towards me. I have not been here for weeks, and when I show up there you are to criticize me. I notice I am not the only person you have told to shut up. Chillum06:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping Bishzilla would show up at G's page, to breathe fire on Fred, but alas, the ever rational Bishonen came in her stead... S.D.D.J.Jameson22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I rather hoped that would happen too, but thanks to woever it was who removed Fred. I suppose the ld Arbs must find the election results upsetting - we must make allowances for them during this difficult time of change. Giano
The seemingly infinite voting delay re Peter Damian has emptied-out any slightest expectation of decency from the committee that I ever harbored. Come back in January, Joop. Bishonen | talk20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
There is some decency on the arbcom, it is just outnumbered and overpowered by the non-decent. I'm afraid not enough of the non-decent ones are leaving in January to make a difference, however. By the way, I'm still looking for a great disaster to write about, but haven't come up with one "big" enough. Have you had any thoughts along those lines? Tex (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know there are decent people on it. It would be odd if there weren't. I was referring to the low expectation of decency from the committee acting as a body. As for disasters, I've been thinking of August Strindberg's wives—walking disasters, every last one of them. ;-) (And Strindberg himself was a bit worse.) Or how about picking one from the List of historic fires? Lots of choice there. Bishonen | talk20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
Not sure about the front page, as it isn't in the article's milestones, but it could well be from before the day such records were kept. It is, however, a former good article, which means there's lots of good stuff there but it needs to be massaged, polished, and improved. This could well be a good choice for you, Tex. Risker (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was a long time ago, that's why I thought it worth mentioning. Nowadays a soujourn on the front page is always made clear on the talkpage, but that didn't use to be the case. Utgard, I saw a Discovery Channel feature, I think it was, about the Halifax disaster, which I remember as being very informative. It might be worth Tex's while to get hold of that. Bishonen | talk21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
Wow, all the choices! Imagine drowning in molasses...What a hoot that would be! And Utgard's idea of Cripple Creek interests me as well. I love the whole "old west" culture and assuming the gold mine scuffle is what you are referring to, that might be something. The list of historic fires reminded me of the Great Seattle Fire. That article doesn't do the disaster justice. I visited the Seattle Underground when I was out there last year and that was really cool. Fixing up the fire page would be an interesting project. Great, I went from having no ideas to having too many! Tex (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Carolean Masques
Channeling Giano "Hang on I remember writing some red links for Bishonen years ago about Carolean drama, I think Jones may have designed fantastical sets with moving scenery, or was that someone else - Bishonen will rememeber." I'm pretty sure that's on the money - wasn't he in with Johnson 1600-1613ish? The threads on G's talk under copyediting. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh mighty one, please have a happy holiday. And, if you don't mind - could you pass on the well wishes to the even scarier ones (aka Zilla and, gasp, Giano). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Mighty 'shonen consents to having happy holidays, graciously wishes some in return. 'Zilla friendly user, heart of gold, only curl little users' hair lightly with deathray these days! But [dubiously] mighty Giano very scary, aye.. will leave wishes on doorstep and run ! Bishonen | talk06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC).
Mhm. You still have the same dumb subheader, I see.[53] And your second point is.. wait while I consult Bishzilla's sekrit thesaurus.. it's petty, niggling, trivial, mean, and mickey mouse. (He misuses noticeboards? And?) Admittedly your evidence isn't peevish, spiteful, and trifling on the same scale as Seicer's, but then I wouldn't have expected it to be. Happy new year! Bishonen | talk08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
Oh, please! "Petulant" is not exclusive. I have heard sages become petulant over etymology and children speak maturely on ontology. We can all be petulant, if we try. I, myself, plan to be quite petulant in the near future. I'm going off to a singles bar, and I'm going to hold my breath until the woman I choose goes home with me. It ought to work at least as well as my previous strategy of looking mysterious and dangerous. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. *Jehochman places a plate of his wife's home-baked chocolate muffins on a coffee table, and nibbles on one.* JehochmanTalk13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The man in question. His fruit is beautifully arranged.
Utgard Loki, speaking of techniques that work...I'm writing a page featuring a guy who sweeps the girls off their feet by being a disreputable radical; scandalous; at the height of his creative powers at age 51; highly susceptible to strong, independent women; and a man of domestic tastes. He invited pretty young women of character to his bachelor establishment, where he spoke courteously and paternally to them, and treated them to beautifully arranged fruit and flowers. I'm not saying it's the only way... but it worked all right, they were fascinated. If you survive the holding-your-breath-until method, you might try that next! Bishonen | talk17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
You sure popped up fast at that edit summary, Yomangani; use your imagination !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (who is going to stalk Bish's contribs now to see this article).
Peaches? Uhhh. I can't think of many others. Arranging fruits tastefully.... You know, I think going to singles bars in a rented Mercedes and a bag over my head probably has a higher chance of success for me. I've just been adding Tom Jones references various places, because I read an article. This is what I do with my spare time, but it's better than musing about ontology or oopherology. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a literal mind, Loki. I was thinking you might want to try the disreputable and scandalous, combined with the domestic tastes. (I wonder if that meant watching a lot of cable?) Fascinating mix.. [Bishonen goes off into a dream of being swept off her feet by a fascinating disreputable courteous radical. ] Bishonen | talk20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Witty? That must be from associating with you. I think young Coren is in there—third on the right, don't you think? Bishonen | talk17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
A question via e-mail, and I'd like your feedback. I don't want to get in a fight with Martin Battestin, but I have a bone to pick. Geogre (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on my talk page. Thanks, and I hope you will look at some of the obvios proposals that need serious comments to them. You'll see them with even just scanning the page! Most of the proposals have real long names and new words defined. Thanks again for your comments, --CrohnieGalTalk16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Questionable decisions
You are aware with blocking an arbitrator can cause? This, no offense to you, is the ultimate drama causer. You are aware that there is an ANI thread? As an administrator, I see this as a highly immature decision, rather than discussing it beforehand. I suggest you highly think next time before you make such a rash decision. Personally, I can tell you now, the Arbitration Committee will not like this.Mitch32(Go Syracuse)21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee have had their chance to address this matter, their likes and dislikes are neither here nor there - the project is what is important - as I'm sure you will agree. Giano (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What Bishonen did was to take a pot of pudding that was on a slow simmer and apply a blowtorch to it. It might get the pudding cooked faster, but it also might result in a scorched and inedible mess. Thatcher21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but is that supposed to be mocking ArbCom? They are the high court, and their decisions are important to Wikipedia. As per Giano, yes the project is important, yet there are certain things impeding that, such as something like this and previous cases. Being a supporter of anti-block, I am against the type of situations these cause, and prefer the thought that we should work on solving it. There are times where it just isn't possible. Yet, I do believe this is one for mediation or something. I don't think ArbCom is the place to solve this, like has been recently for other cases.Mitch32(Go Syracuse)21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the committee should not have to judge its own members. Wales has few roles, this is one where even a constitutional monarch is allowed to step in, but ours seems to be on a yacht in the Riviera, rather than seated on his throne. Giano (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not pertaining towards Jimbo in this situation, I would like to see this taken to the Mediation Committee, where it can be solved thoroughly.Mitch32(Go Syracuse)22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Disputes between admins, in my view at least, are far bigger than the capacity of the Mediation Committee. This seems like a matter for the community. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
MedCom is for addressing content disputes. The complaint here is that FT2 ought to be disqualified as Arbitrator by virtue of recent statements that fudged the truth. As I understand the rules, only Jimbo can remove him from the committee. The other committee members have a voice of course, and if there was a consensus among the other members of Arbcom to remove him, Jimbo would be a fool to ignore it. I have no complaints at this time with Arbcom's handling of the matter, the 10 new arbitrators need time to get up to speed and it is somewhat unfair to saddle them on week one with a messy personnel matter left over from the previous committee. The community can press for FT2's resignation as well, but has no power to enforce it, other than by shunning him and ignoring anything he tries to do in the committee's name. Thatcher22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on FT2, I would like to say that your action was the most clear-cut case of adminship abuse I have ever seen. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this wasn't too swift. I'm a bit surprised and would just hope that such a thing wouldn't happen this way again. It isn't helpful to the community to create this kind of drama knowingly for the purpose of gaining a soapbox. No trout...King mackerel maybe... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen, I call on you to resign your adminship and stand for a new RfA. If you are going to take tremendously bold and controversial actions against long-term editors without prior community deliberation, you should go before the community and see whether you still have its confidence. Everyking (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Bish I call on you to keep on as normal, but not to block a sitting Arb unless they're actively causing a mess. Although the block has caused a discussion which favours FT2s removal, FT2 is sing the excuse of the "out-of-process" block to ignore the community. Again. This was perhaps unwise, but abuse? That requires a pattern of unwise and unjustifiable behaviour - not happened here. Verbalchat08:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Calling for Bishonen's resignation is laughable - thank God someone finally had the guts to try and sort this out. Giano (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The only thing about the RFAR that has surprised me so far is that FT2 hasn't annouced that he sees no reason to recuse and votes to accept the case.198.161.173.180 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Title: My Dear Bish Do Shame
Artist: Proabivouac and the Slam Bruise Sisters
Composer: Jacob Jacobs, Sholom Secunda, and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: Bei Mir Bist Du Schön (Instrumental)
Midi: Bei Mir Bist Du Schön (Klezmer Version)
YouTube: Bei Mir Bist Du Schön (Andrews Sisters)
My Dear Bish Do Shame
Please let me explain
My Dear Bish Do Flame
Means a bundle
I could say "Drama, drama,"
Even say "What the fook?"
Each epithet helps to say
Why FT2's a kook
I've tried to explain
My Dear Bish Do Shame
So piss off and
Say you'll take the blame
My Dear Bish Do Shame
A mournful refrain
I'll say it again
My Dear Bish Do Flame
It means a scandal
CopyClef 2009 Jacob Jacobs, Sholom Secunda, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
North American Bupkis. All songs abused.
Could you provide some diffs in your outside comments regarding Phil Sandifer? I think it would help others decide whether to endorse your comment or not if they could check and see for themselves the basis for your assertions. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Groan. All right—I suppose—though it's obviously hard to evidence my claim that there is nothing but flaming from Phil on that case. It's the truth, but I can't very well prove a negative. But I can drop in some diffs of the flaming, sure, if you think that would be useful. Thanks for getting in touch. Bishonen | talk09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
Pax equus
Look at the state of this garden! You said you were going to have a word with God about getting a new blade for the lawn-mower and instead I find you down here arranging fruit like you are August Strindberg. And get your hand off there! —Well, don't stand there looking like a boiled shrimp, then! [1]
…if you come to that, Sir, have not the wisest of men
in all ages, not excepting Solomon himself,
have they not had their HOBBY-HORSES; --
their running horses, -- their coins and their
cockle-shells, their drums & their trumpets, their
fiddles, their pallets, -- their maggots and their butterflies? –
and so long as a man rides his HOBBY-HORSE peaceably
and quietly along the King’s highway, and neither compels
you or me to get up behind him, -- pray, Sir,
what have either you or I to do with it? – Tristram Shandy I vii
I don't know why this old passage struck me with such force today. It is, perhaps, because I have seen so many goading their mounts into a foaming mouth, rolling eyes, and screams of pain, as they ride not peaceably, and not along the highway, but through gardens, homes, and lawns, that I am attracted to this vision of calm. The as the same man says, and I find it to be a dictum worthy of engraving:
"If I should seem now and then to trifle upon the road, -- or should sometimes put on a fool’s cap with a bell to it, for a moment or two as we pass along, -- don’t fly off, -- but rather courteously give me credit for a little more wisdom than appears upon my outside; -- and as we jog on, either laugh with me, or at me, or in short do any thing, -- only keep your temper."
I spent $400 on a laptop, and the "A" key does not function, and the thing has no jack for an external keyboard. Grrrr. Returns are always battles, and battles over specks of turf, office windows, nails for pictures, name plates affixed with glue or tape, all seem so hopeless. Then, here, we see even less consequential matters. I am convinced, more and more, that the natural state of man is complaining. Adam and Eve were ejected because they were unhappy with all that bliss. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
^"I had great respect for Alma," wrote Harriet later in an unpublished memoir. "Although she was always right when she commented on something, it wasn't easy... to hear her shouting at me... as I stood grieving, bent over my dear Axel's grave in Adam Oehlenschläger's Axel and Valborg, 'Harriet, don't stand there looking like a boiled shrimp.'"
I do try to look more like a fried shrimp than a boiled one. We have dwelt in the caverns of the sea, by sea girls dipped in batter and oil, red and brown, till our A keys break, and we're down.
And then more being ordered around. Ordered here. Ordered there. Ordered to salute, to sit, to kneel, to lick the boot, to boot the lickers, to bend the knee, to unbend the back, to upend the class, to classify the ends of the class, to calcify the process and ossify the result. It's enough to get anyone parched, parboiled, and then made into a pate, or a paté.
O Hellas Hellas, and a class with the entire Group W bench playing with their cigarettes and smoking their pencils....
Careful! You don't want to get any on your white gloves. Harridan la Tour, dame 01:54, January 17 2009 (UTC).
An admin walks into a bar with both hands full of canine feces and says, "Hey! Look what I almost stepped in!" Geogre (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Bishzilla(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges.
Bishzilla didn't do those things the first time, so I'm sure she'll have no problem not doing them "again." ("Thou has committed....") Utgard Loki (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"B" means "Well above average"
Check this out: Acharya Mahapragya. It's a living legend and a purpose. Now, you might think that it's bad to have something like that, but it's had a tag on it for over a year, so that makes it alright. Anyone have an article rated below a B by the biography people should instantly go change it to A+, if this is a B. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is Peter Symonds, and why did he "decline" to speedy it? The thing is a bricolage of junk. It is every prose crime that could be committed. I'm sure "AfD" is why this piece of crap is here in the first place: some dufus went to Google, said, "He's a real person KEEEEEEEEEEP" without any regard to how absolutely incurable the article is. Someone else then probably said, "AfD is not clean up, so I won't clean it up, and no one else will, and it will go for more years with tags on it, and Wikipedia will keep advertising to win converts to this living power and peace." Dang idjits. If this isn't a speedy delete, then we should all begin immediately preaching for our favorite yogi and politician. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What a steaming pile of...! Yeah, that's a B. Now I know why my biographies aren't: they're not grandiose enough. If there were any need for discrediting the Bio project...or any project...this would be it. I decided, since I couldn't figure out a strenuous CSD category, to look to see what happened. Was this just a vandal edit? Nope. You have to go back to December of 2007 to find a version that resembles something found in an encyclopedia, and even that was junk. So, for over 14 months, we've been telling the world how this special person is more than a man, more than a god, more than the truth. Well, isn't that special? All that's missing is the "Version 1.0 DVD release" approval. Geogre (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt Archie Mypraga, or however his "name" is (I think, and I'm not sure, that, in fact, this is some kind of title rather than name, so it shouldn't be a biography at all, but it's really, really hard to tell with folks who think that some jobs are reincarnated) will object to being called a terrestrial god, and it looks a whole lot like one of his acolytes has been busy, busy, busy, busy writing the article for a long time. No. It looks to me like admin boots are needed, a cart of dead herrings for slapping, and probably just deletion. I don't get why Wikipedia has articles on the equivalent of "holy man of the mountain" in the first place, or at least why those aren't strictly controlled so that they're about positions, not people. Then again, I'm just a whiskeypalian. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mid- importance, huh? Never mind, he designed amazing bathroom fitments. This has been low-importance from the start. The unimportance doesn't bother me, but the way it's said to be "supported" in that unimportance by WikiProject Sweden... grumble. Who invented portals, anyway? Bishonen | talk19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
So I see! Thank you! More interestingly, I see there is be a London meet up with Ms Knott and James Forrester [56], obviously my invitation was lost in the post, all the same I think it may be time, to stroll down the Earl's Court Road to the V&A and shout "boo" from behind an artefact. Oh what a merry threesome we will be - a veritable Holy Trinity. I wonder who else is going? Why don't you hop over Bishonen dear (it does say: "people of all ages are welcome") - we could go skating at Somerset House afterwards - assuming the excitement hasn't killed us. Giano (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Note
I have nominated Buckingham Palace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I would ignore that, since the notice was "not given." Apparently, some people are more eager than attentive. The FAR notice requires that the querulous one sign the post. I'm sure that you know that it's just Mattisse going back to old habits of re-nominating every time possible. This is why FAR is inherently deletion-worthy. It serves no positive function, and it gives jollies to warriors. Geogre (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Giano has replied very cogently. The article is on a kind of subject that makes it hard to maintain: hard always, and impossible if warriors get involved. Come to think of it, why don't I link to Giano's reply on the FAR page? I will. Bishonen | talk18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
As you wish. I saw Giano's comment, but I disagree. The article has been kept pretty proper, thanks to many watchful eyes, but what has doomed it is not the naughty schoolboy, but the officious fool. The "MoS says images must all be on Commons and deleted for any article that has both a left and a right margin, please see relevant sections of the Manual of Monsters and Pettifoggers, 9th ed., rev. B, 2/30/09, and comply" people and the trolling like Mattis will inevitably destroy it. I see in this repetition another demonstration of wider principles: FAR does not do anything. There is no "version 1.0," and to the degree that there is, it is not relying on FA (or so we have been assured by the Biography Assassment Teams and the Projectors), so removing an FA doesn't actually save anyone or achieve anything. All that it does is give the meaningless, incompetent, and incoherent a means by which they can compensate for their deficiencies. It also acts as another weapon of escalating annoyance. What it does not do is fix things. If our goal were ever to "improve" FA's, we'd have a drive to help them, not "remove" them. The pettiness and monomania of Mattisse is simply an excellent illustration of what's wrong with the skeevy heart of FARC. Geogre (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Unblock of DreamGuy
Hi Bishonen,
Please can I make a process suggestion? There was a lot of fuss and waste of time when you complained on ANI about WMC blocking Dreamguy for "Edit-warring" when there was no 3RR. I am sure we all have better things to do. The correct process to challenge a block is on the users talk page with an unblock request so that another uninvolved admin can come and review the block. An ANI review is not a good process and doesn't work efficiently in review terms. The comment hangs around until sometime unblocks it rather than being subject to a clean review (in practice any number of admins see it and support the block but wouldn't mark it resolved). Perhaps you could explain to Dreamguy how to do this next time they get a block. Thanks --BozMotalk13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I'm aware of how to use the unblock template. So is DreamGuy, see his page, where he immediately put up an unblock request when he found himself blocked. The reason I put the issue on ANI was that I thought it needed more eyes, and some discussion; not just review by one admin. William's reputation as a trigger-happy blocker, and Dream-Guy's reputation as an uncivil editor, made it a special case, IMO. I'm sorry you thought it a waste of time. Bishonen | talk14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
I have just done a section on "Arboropia". I hope BozMo reads it. AN/I seems like a good place to talk about an unwarranted block, particularly if there is a feeling that the community needs to caution the blocker. There are people running around hitting the "block" button frivolously, or emotionally, and then committing the more serious crime of not explaining themselves. Those people are inappropriate, if not mere bullies. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Read it. IMHO the block was fine (given it said edit warring not 3RR) and 75% of admins would have supported it. WMC has overturned the only block I have ever had overturned and I don't think he is remotely trigger happy, he is eye-wateringly fair. Perhaps AN/I would be a place to post it AFTER it had shown itself capable of being overturned by due process. --BozMotalk14:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with taking a block review to ANI if another editor feels that the block needs prompt attention. I've done it several times myself (including well before I was an administrator) in cases where a block seemed questionable or needed greater attention than it would receive in the ordinary course. Of course, the blocking administrator should be notified, which was done here. (Not commenting on the merits of this particular block.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Brad. BozMo, I suppose those admins who "have better things to do" have the option of not getting involved in any ANI thread, or any other discussion, that they see as mere "fuss". Anyway, I was talking about William's reputation, not giving my personal opinion about his blocking practices (or my opinion about DreamGuy's civility, either). WMC certainly does have the rep of blocking early and blocking long. Perhaps that simply comes from the fact that he patrols WP:AN3 a lot; I haven't done a statistical study. Bishonen | talk15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
Please do not make a point of pointing at Bishonen making a point. Besides, I disagree. I really like the Point. Trolls are pointless; they live in caves and demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of the world around them. Geogre (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
roundabouts are pointless too, and you're clearly missing the point - don't have a concrete cow, man....besides everyone knows trolls live under bridges, nowhere near caves. Privatemusings (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)gosh I hope I remember right that Bish might have passing knowledge of semi-obscure UK cultural references...... ;-)
Removal of reference from Bigfoot
I've reverted your removal of a reference from Bigfoot because I believe you misunderstood what the reference was for. Please see the talk page for details. —Fizikertc03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I probably should have included a "see below" in my email. At the bottom there's a quoted email about a related case. That earlier email explains some of the background. Will Bebacktalk08:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Great Pacific Garbage PatchThe humble games roomEditor of the highest calibre getting ready to shoot craps at the Palazzo Splendido, Cayman Islands, spiritual home of GianoTex's idea of a "lady"
Dear Mrs. Bishonen, regarding your recent edit to my user page [57] please do not think me ungrateful or unappreciative, but you may not be aware that a great deal of time, thought and effort has gone into designing the beauty of my page, indeed it is my spiritual home, Palazzo Splendido, Cayman Islands. While it is indeed kind of you to loan me your Labrador it is unnecessary, the security is more than adequate. Only those editors of the highest calibre are invited to my Friday night poker and pool evenings in my humble games room (No, Jimbo you can't come) where your bust sits above the fireplace radiating charm. So please should you wish to reclaim Fido - please do. Giano (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I see the sculptor was sensitive enough to avert your gaze from the posterior elements of those taking a long shot from in front of the fireplace, how wise.--Alfmelmac21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So THAT's what Lady Bish looks like. Prim and proper, just as I envisioned...NOT! Aren't you the one who once told me that you were more of a "ROAR! girl" than a "Lady"? Anyway, love what the sculptor did to your hair! Tex (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Mrs Bishonen are you there? can you hear me? My voice is weak, but I feel your great need of me vibrating and pulsating through the celestial plains - there is bright light penetrating the mausoleum -can you hear me - feel the electricity, my voice is growing stronger still - I feel a stirring in my sarcophagus, can you see me in the bright light? Wikipedia beware the powers of darkness are upon you. Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Your understanding of the ANI carry-on seems to be imperfect. It would be more becoming if you stopped making excuses for yourself. Bishonen | talk23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
You're threatening to topic ban be because people were obviously baiting me. From as far as I can see, you appear to be taking their side. My understanding is imperfect? Are you saying then, that I am the only one at fault? I honestly think you need to take a look in a mirror.— DædαlusContribs01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What the Admin Saw in the Mirror
+Say what you're going to say, stop with the implications, if you were truely a good admin, you'd know I wasn't the only one at fault. It isn't my fault I was baited, but it is my fault for biting the bait. My view of the situation is fine, yours however needs to be looked at if you're going to say that I am the only one at fault here.— DædαlusContribs01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Lastly, exuses for myself? Please. It would be more becomming of you if you admitted your obvious bias to the situation, and kept yourself out of it, instead of threatening me and not the users you were baiting me. You threaten a single side, rather than both sides, even though it is quite obvious that all sides are being uncivil. You tell me about being more becoming? I'm surprised you were elected as an admin at all.— DædαlusContribs02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus: (i) Bishonen performs her admin duties without fear or favour. I've been on her wrong side before, so accusations of bias on her part are not going to wash with me. (ii) This word "baiting" is doing the rounds, isn't it. Seems to have been started by Gwen Gale. Like "incivility", it can be used frivolously to gain an unfair advantage. Got it? Tony(talk)13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that was David all right. The first time was you. It was David's undoing of my original revert that got me aggravated, perhaps excessively so. Anyway, your edit wasn't the problem. Regards, Bishonen | talk14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
Dearest Mrs Bishonen, I took luncheon, today, with my new dearest and closest friend Harriet Bosse (charming little woman, such an interesting life, not so interesting as mine of course) and she asked me to boom a message to you through the celestial stratas, and thank you so much for your dear little biography, and to say how much she looks forward to being on the main page, if that dreary FAC page passes, I have half a mind to go and haunt than nice Raul and Sandy (will they ever marry do you suppose? - he won't find another gal like that again - Men!). I digress, I cannot stay here chatting to you all day, I have a sitting with Tommy at 4, and then a thé dansant with Darling Ivor at 5. I must say, being dead does keep one busy. Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just taken the time to read the page (all the way through) it realy is very good and interesting, I am just surprised that her late ladyship and others have not all rushed to support it on FAC. While I can excuse Lady C (on account of being dead) I can't help wondering where everyone else is, perhaps people spend so long politicing these days, no one actually reads a page anymore. Giano (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of us have important work to do and are, for real, overdue on projects. This is on top of any disaffection we might have experienced with the process or with persons. However, we keep meaning to. We've kept our meaning-to's for ages, but this one we may be able to dispense with soon. Geogre (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear my name reverberating across the celestial plains. Now, don't be tedious and grumpy Georgie, I'm quite sure Giano (such a good looking, talented boy) had only the higest intentions and was casting no aspersions. What an amazing achievement Mrs. Bishonen, Harriet is delighted, we were playing bridge with Aly and Larry when we heard (nice pair of boys, a little WHT trouble though). Anyhow, one just popped over to say congratulations; can't stop in a rush for luncheon with Noël (no fear of WHT there) and Darling Margot, you really must come and join us sometime, you'll find the company so much more stimulating than here. Love and kisses to all. Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
FA review of Restoration comedy
Hello, I've nominated Restoration comedy for a featured article review here because it doesn't have any inline citations. I noticed that you're the main editor of the article so I thought I'd drop you a note. I think it's a good article but the lack of inline citations is a major issue that needs looking at. All the best, Downstage right (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I wrote that sucker, it's my first FA (five years ago). I do find it desperately dull to fiddle with old pages, but we shall see. I still have most of the books, but I don't recollect the page numbers (well, would you?). Anyway, I started in on it yesterday, but Mattisse's crap has put me off so much I'm no longer sure I'll finish it. It'll all come out in the wash I expect. Bishonen | talk10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC).
Hi, Luke, thanks for the link. I ended up interviewing several CheckUsers, who all said the same thing: that they would put Truthtell as "likely", at the least, to be JA's sock, even though there could be no absolute certainty, the IPs involved being dynamic. Clearly that wasn't, as such, worth taking back to the evidence page. What remains for me is the personal thing: I don't think JA would lie, and I've never known him to. Wikipedia isn't that important to him, for one thing. And I don't, in particular, think he'd lie to me. Those are my opinions—they're not evidence, obviously. That's why I never added anything to that evidence section. Bishonen | talk18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. Yes, that sounds right. I reran it and circulated the evidence to other arbitrators. There's reasonable doubt in my mind, but I guess in the circumstances it would seem more likely than not. Maybe a misfortune of living in the same area. I don't know. Cool HandLuke17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I always stick them afterwards and nobody has complained yet (although I've written precisely one article this year and it didn't have any foreign titles to worry about) You've already sort of done that with Dramaten anyway. Yomanganitalk11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's better. Why doesn't she die though? She just hangs out at the theatre slowly diminishing. It's romantic to think of her still drifting around on the wind in the wings but it doesn't satisfy my desire to see the article close with the slam of a coffin lid. If only she'd become terminally melancholic, what a way to go! Yomanganitalk17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, now Ka of Harriet can hang out with Ka of Catherine de Burgh (who I see has taken over Lady C's rollback—it's not just Bishzilla that's an uppity sock around here) in the wings of Dramaten (our main drama venue besides WP:RFAR). Luvly. Bishonen | talk12:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
Sorry to but in on both of ye. Things got out of hand on Brontë, over nothing, again. Smacks were handed out, and it seems to be over until the next time. I have no answears at this point. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear. I'm tired exhaused and a bit embarressed by all this at this stage. I'm not sure who you are shunning, nor do I really care by now. Too much heat from either side. Sick of friendly fire, all of it, and I have cut ties with Ottava. He is not open to help, and I'm getting older. The Lucy FAC revealed a lot of motives, and was a last straw for me when I was shot my both sides. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, his steadily more frenzied and incomprehensible ramblings make me laugh. I wonder if he has a "Mad Libs" of WP arguments "You are a NOUN who doesn't understand NOUN because you come from LOCATION". "You are a SOCKPUPPET who doesn't understand DATE-DELINKING because you come from THE TOP SHELF IN MY KITCHEN" Yomanganitalk01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings
Just needed to clean up the accumulated botcrap sediments on my talkpage. While I'm here, I thought I might do something about a few BLP issues I have noticed.
Thanks. I had thoughts of Ågust, but just imagine the research..! Harriet was very manageable. Is that really botcrap you've got? Isn't it just crap? Considering that you have the {{bots|deny=all}} thingy, which seems to work for me. Anyway, lovely to see you! Bishonen | talk23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Well, most of it was botcrap. I did not have the the anti-bot template on the page – I copied it from this page just now, as I had no idea how to keep the bots away before. I wonder if I should add some garlic and a crucifix or two, just to be on the safe side? up◦land (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Got a silver bullet for your muskedunder? I just sucked that template up into my clipboard and trotted over to your page to input it—and it was already there! Failing to check the history, I didn't know how new it was, though I could tell it came from here. I note you missed the handsome {{User:Maxypoda/zilla}} template, though. Try it! It's for scaring off bots and morons less well-informed users. Bishonen | talk00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
I tried my hand at that "Living people" project, but this HotCat "gadget" seems too run too slow on my old computer and I don't really want to get back into this anyway. I wonder if this article shouldn't be nominated on AFD (again). Someone who could be the subject is continually forced to make edits like this one. No idea how to judge notability, but he doesn't appear to be a full professor. up◦land (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Featured sleepyhead
I believe it's me. If only I were cute like that. The bear below, BTW, is just gorgeous. I'd like to smooch with it, perhaps after the vet has shot a tranquillizer dart into it. Tony(talk)08:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No chance. I'm sick of the games played by either side, and the extent they will be taken to...that was a very wild chance you took there with me, you obviously think I am so stupid to be sucked in, but no. I'm finished with a full stop, not with a stategic pause. Lucy was a horrendous experience, and it was born of old gruges. No more, I want out. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments in opposition of date autoformatting, I'd like to make it clear that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. They're currently interconnected by the use of the bracket syntax around dates, but a recently-installed patch also allows for date autoformatting without linking, and other proposed solutions similarly disentangle the two issues. --Sapphic (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ingmarssönerna in the Bosse article
Regarding the title of the film Harriet Bosse starred in. The Ingmarssons seems to be Waal's own translation of the title (really just a translation of the determined form, not the actual words). Sons of Ingmar is the official English title, and as the Wikipedia article is an article of its own, not dependent on Waal's book, I think it should be used. Though the film was originally released under a different title in the UK, it is referred to as Sons of Ingmar in all modern sources I can find, with Waal's book seemingly being the only exception. At least I think the title in the Bosse article should link to the article about the film. Smetanahue (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bish, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. Thanks for your support. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
....I am relieved that someone on the other side of it is keeping an eye on matters of consequence. I can go to bed knowing that it is in your capable hands. With Daylight Saving, it will be April 2 in 16 minutes.....YAWN! Amandajm (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Dead parrot! What dead parrot? What on earth are you talking about? Last time someone mentioned a dead parrot, I took a look at my budgerigiar and found him sleeping happily in the bottom of his cage with his four little feet in the air. I'm sure whatever I meant was deep and meaningful and very well meant indeed. But I'm getting a little folgetfurf as I age. How is our dear friend Lady Catherine? I haven't seen her around the traps for some time? Is she still in the land of the living? Amandajm (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. We haven't seen eye to eye on much, but thank you for unblocking Nishidani before too much time had passed. We need people like him around. (The seeming suggestion that we were bloc voting as friends was... clearly made in ignorance ;-)Avruch T 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I read your very to the point commments here[60]. Thank you, it was worrying that so many seem to admire and endorse such behaviour. Your comments were a welcome breath of fresh air. Nothing much surprises me he here any longer, but that such a person dares to run for Adminship is more than concerning. Giano (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad you liked my post. I'm sorry it lead by indirection to a block for you, and to the usual whining from the usuals.[61][62][63]; But I don't suppose you care that much? Bishonen | talk11:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
My Budgie
My Budgie is most definitely not a Norwegian Blue, which is only found in a Norwegian Wood. My budgie comes from Coonamble..... or maybe it was Cootamundra... I forget which. He learnt to talk while hanging around the shearing sheds, and has quite a vocabulary.
I am so sorry to learn that our much esteeemed Lady Catherine has "passed away". I do hope that she keeps in touch! My heartfelt condolences to you and all the family.
Expedited motions and decisions (draft arbitration policy)
Not sure if you were aware, but there is currently a community discussion of a draft of the arbitration policy. Back in January, I promised Yomangani that I'd make sure the issue of expedited motions was discussed, so I've started a discussion section here and invited those who this affected, or who asked about this at the time. I hope you will have time to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter
Happy Easter (belated) from me and (my new pet) Feliciano il Furetto, he's my answer to the Easter bloody bunnies that seem to be multiplying like rabbits up all over the site; I was going to put him next to the sweet little bunny on Jimbo's page with felicitatious greetings, but I expect both me and Ciano would be banned, by some trigger happy Admin on commission, in a second for gross disruption (Block log: Giano banned indefinitely for killing Jimbo's easter bunny with a ferret); so I wish you "Buona Pasqua." Giano (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh.. ah.. what a, hm, lovely little fellow [gingerly pets Feliciano]. Can I call him Giano III? Let's release him on the site and see which of us gets blocked first. Bishonen | talk20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
It's Ciano, not Giano! Ciano is short for Feliciano; Giano is short for...Oh never mind; do I have to explain everything in minute detail? Just beware if he escapes their could be carnage, he takes no prisoners. Giano (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How very sad, but I have heard that many restoration comedies were written by pen wielding skeletons and furetti, and the article does not mention that; I ecpect if you add this missing nformation the common masses will press for it to be elevated to featured status again. Giano (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I keep waiting for anyone to explain anything good that has ever come from FAR. What positive effect has been had by it? I'm entirely serious. What function has it served? Running out of storage space for all the excellent articles, were we? Changes in formatting were tantamount to changes in content, were they? There are no solutions other than FAR? There are no solutions like, say, having the date listed in the FA tag -- oh, wait, that's already done! -- that would allow people to recognize a 2003 from a 2009, so that they could tell, oh, Exploding whales from Emma Watson (two whole screens long on a 19 year old, and it even has sections on "early life" verses later, and gobs and slops of references to websites). No, Restoration comedycertainly can't be compared to Emma Watson, isn't in the same class at all, shouldn't have the same designation. Meanwhile, why FAR exists, I still don't know. Geogre (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
FARC exists because it gives some people, who enjoy such passtimes, the excuse to insult the work of others and get away with it. There is also a breed of people who love rules, conformity and similarity and then prefer to spend their lives imposing such diktats on the works of others, in this way they imagine that they appear very useful and clever without having to actually having to spend the time proving their brains by researching pages themselves. It take 2 minutes to destroy an featured article and over two months to create one - so the advantages of destroying over creating are pretty obvious. Why such people don't want to concentrate their talents on those many truly dreadful pages which wikipedia has is also obvious - they get more attention at the top of the tree than at the bottom. It is well known that I detest FARC and all those who regularly use its spacce for their own ends. This is not a massive assumption of bad faith, it is an observation gained over years spent writing on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for kibitzing, but ... Geogre: I keep waiting for anyone to explain anything good that has ever come from FAR. The improvement to El Lissitsky. "FAR" pain in bum lasted from 29 Sep to 25 Oct 2008. I don't know the degree to which this pissed off others, but it certainly pissed me off (see my comment there). Improvement to article. I do concede, however, that at the time I was keener to strangle this Tiger person than I was to improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, the improvement is rather underwhelming, rather formal, not very much having to do with the contents, information, or substance in any way, that I can see. It's exactly the sort of thing that could have happened if the fellow had, with some grain or crystal of personality in his soul, accomplished by simply contacting the primary author and saying that there are all sorts of formatting things that seem to be off and to bear with him and let him run a trial by you, then to go do a version, and then the two of you discuss and agree. Unimaginable that, though. Asking people to talk! Asking people to negotiate! Asking people to collaborate! Hah! "This is clearly not an FA, and it must be demoted unless the following 27 arbitrarily chosen fetishes are fulfilled: 1. the author must dance around in a tutu, 2. the author must move all the images to the bottom, 3. the author must make all the images fit my browser, 4. the author must come remove Cornfckr from my computer, 5...."Geogre (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What could be done well by FAR(C) would be done better by volunteer (workers) who communicate and participate. Geogre (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Turning to rant in another direction, but still on the subject of vital information, I have noticed of late that pages are developing advice on how to pronounce them. Am I the only person in the world who has not a clue how thes symbols are suppoes to help one? Today, I saw this stunnning advice: "(pronounced /ˈbluːmənˌθɔːl/) " on a bio page - Sorry? ..Duh..WTF? How is that suposed to help anyone - and more to the point who is it supposed ot be helping? It's rather similar to that demented woman flapping about like a one legged crow distracting the audience at Covent Garden these days. In the interval, when I asked why she had not been forcibly removed, I was told that her implematation was a condition of a Government grant, and she was actually signalling the words of the opera to the deaf. FGS how many sensible deaf people are going to pay the extortionate price of going to Covent Harden if they cant't hear it when they get there - the world has gone quite mad. Giano (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Opera makes many of us wish we were deaf, and I think watching the one-legged crow might be more entertaining, but I'm not sure how much I would pay. Now, Mr. Blumethal might, but he's a man of means and speaks fluent IPA. Myself, I prefer to drinkIPA than speak it and regard the project, outside of linguistics, where even among the lunatics who devote their lives to fixing the mercury of the ever-shifting bucket/pail line, it's of limited use, as another Esperanto. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish, opera is entertainment for the soul. IPA? Is that what it is, well it says on its page "The IPA is designed to represent only those qualities of speech that are distinctive in spoken language" Well sorry, but my spoken language does not include dits and back slashed, even indistinctly. Why on earth has Wikipedia got to have this mumbo jumbo plastered over every page? Giano (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Because, dear fellow, this is the standard notation and is understood by a large and growing number of people (larger than understand any alternative) that unfortunately happens not to include yourself. Rather than "(pronounced /ˈbluːmənˌθɔːl/)", would you prefer "first two syllables pronounced to rhyme with the first two of 'room and board' (in rapid speech), and third syllable like an r-less 'thrall'"? Likewise, the architecturally underinformed are given descriptions in terms of clerestories and so forth, and ... well, they have to lump it. ¶ Now, what does make me depressed today is that Clement Freud has died. -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, that's really saddened me - and I heard about it here is troubling too - clearly I've been abducted by aliens again and false memories implanted........--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, a fellow admirer; I'm glad to learn I'm not alone. Whenever I've been in Britain, I've listened out for Just a Minute. If, as was usual, Freud was a contestant, I listened; if he wasn't, I didn't bother. Occasionally there'd be somebody who'd be in the same league. They had the the obvious jokes, Freud had few if any; but listening to Freud was not unlike watching Buster Keaton, bringing few laughs but a great glow. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Back to subject
That's a very sad edit [64]. If you abandon it, who do you suppose is capable of taking care if it - Mattisse or one of her chums? C'mon don't make me laugh. It's not the page's fault it was atacked, it needs someone to protect it from vandals and idiots. In short, it needs you. Giano (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sweetie, but I'm sure the knowledgeable users X, Y, and Z will take good care of it. In any case, would it have been worth a WP:BATTLE? No, it wouldn't. Bishonen | talk20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
Well of course, in my view, content triumphs over all, so I cannot agree with you. However, I do sincerely admire you massive assumption of good faith regarding users X, Y and Z. How I wish I could beleive with the innocence of a lamb, or whatever the expression is. Sadly, my thrice arownd the Wiki block has put pay to any such naive assumptions. Giano (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I demand that the images be resized to display "properly" on my sarcasm monitor. My sarcasm monitor is a CGA VESA complaint operated by CP/M in the Malawian library system. Now, adjust all images, or I move to demote the article. Geogre (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Help Required
Can you move the history back to where it belongs as reiquired here please [65] Honestly, before long we shall have every monarch who ever reigned disambiguated to a list or pubs and hotels - one despairs. Giano (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh god, you made a cut-and-paste move? Remind me to despair, too, Giacomo. I can't handle a history like that, sorry. I've never fixed a cp move. Please ask somebody smarter (shouldn't be hard to find). Bishonen | talk18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC).
You are such a disappointment to me (that nice Risky lady would do it), what is the point of knowing Admins if they won't administrate. Do I hire a butler (Jimbo says we have to be professional) and serve the drinks myself? No, I do not. You have your mop and bucket, now you say you don't want to mop, I can see what is coming, I shall have to become an Admin myself, I go nominate now me - but I refuse to wear the peaky cap and sing the Wiki-song beneath Jimbo's balcony each morning. SO i expect people will object. It will be your fault, I am not accustomed to servitude. Giano (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I look at form and page - too complicated, can you do it for me, just say I promise to be good blah di dblah di blah. Vote for me and we all have a happy wiki. Giano (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh that is clever, thank you very much indeed. Perhaps, you can give poor Bishonen some lessons. when I am an Admin (in the near future) I shall do that type of thing all the time. Giano (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Accusation of sock-puppetry by user Locke_Cole
Hi. As you took an interest when you posted your "Serious Business" comment (here), I would like to ask you what the next step in the process should be. As background, Locke_Cole made an allegation (here) that Tony1 and I were involved in sock-puppetry. I assumed good faith and tried to lighten the mood by giving Locke_Cole a way out of the allegations (here). Not only was this olive branch ignored by Locke_Cole, but he continued with his allegations (here). Since then, I've ask twice for Locke_Cole to withdraw his allegations (here and here)—the first was ignored, and the second was deleted. As my reputation at WP has been brought into question, I would like both the opportunity to clear my name, and for the appropriate action to be brought against user Locke_Cole when the allegations turn out to be false. (Not sure if I need to, but) I give full permission for the CheckUser mechanism to be used in order to resolve this issue. Thanks for your help in this matter. HWV258 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's bad. Really bad behaviour. I'm not one to hand out blocks for personal attacks, but with this persistence from Locke I suppose I'll have to make an exception—with an explicit warning first, of course. Btw I note he removed your last request with an abusive edit summary, too.
The CheckUser thing is a bit problematic. In the first place, CheckUser results can't disprove sock accusations, ever. Secondly, while a CheckUser—Dmcdevit—has checked you out at your own request, he pointed out that it would be inappropriate to invade the privacy of Tony1, who hasn't made any such request. That means the check is only partial. That said, Dmcdevit found no reason to suppose it was a case of socking.
Locke is still ignoring what I told him about mentioning the incident on the Date Delinking evidence page. So I guess I'd better go mention it. Back later. Bishonen | talk10:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for your attention to this. Please note that despite a wishy-washy and conditional withdrawal ("If it makes you get warm fuzzies...") of the allegation (here), Locke_Cole has managed to continue the allegation in the same post with: "...he might as well be a sockpuppet...". Weirdest "withdrawal" I've ever seen. HWV258 23:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we should let it go. I've just realised that most of his other allies have jumped, some have joined with those who oppose date-autoformatting, yet the Captain is still aboard, thinking he must be doing the honourable thing to go down with the goodship SS Dynamic Dates. It's lonely there on his bridge. His honour, or what's left of it, is all that he has now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Since that particular RFAR is overwhelmingly clogged up, I thought I would leave a note here where perhaps someone might actually see it to let all involved know that Bishonen's evidence as linked above has been seen, and I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues. Risker (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the very first sentence of the very first paragraph of one of WP's country articles:
Kyrgyzstan ({{pron-en|ˈkɝːɡ<s>ɪ</s>stæn}}; KUR-gi-stan; Kyrgyz: КыргызстанLua error in Module:IPA_symbol at line 51: bad argument #3 to 'format' (string expected, got nil).; Russian: Киргизстан[ˈkirɡistan]), officially the Kyrgyz Republic, is a country in Central Asia.
Lovely, isn't it?
We had a WP editor with an IQ above room temperature who challenged this and tried to make it more reader-friendly. Needless to say, he was thwarted by a couple of moronic editors at every turn. Eventually he hurled some choice epithets at them and got himself indef blocked. Some of the carnage can still be seen at User talk:TungstenCarbide.
Perhaps you didn't notice the header of this. And please note that it's admins that are supposed to be role models for ordinary users, not the other way round. (WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to lead by example".) Reading BrownHairedGirl's responses to Vintagekits on her talkpage, I can easily understand his frustration. Bishonen | talk14:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen. I have left a question for you concerning this matter on my talk page, and would greatly appreciate an answer. Best, Sandstein 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Afterall I am a big scary tough guy that thats been accused of everyting from being a member of a terrorist organisation to an axe murdered! but thanks for the time and effort you spent when undertaking the unblock. Thank you.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I blocked you for 3 hours for a personal attack. I am very hopeful that, based on general principles, you will endorse this block as entirely appropriate considering the kind of atmosphere we are trying to cultivate here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You'd better block any underage sysop from a chat room on sight. It is they who turned the English Wikipedia into the kind of place where editors feel themselves uncomfortable. In practice that would mean about 80% admins and half the ArbCom; I doubt any reader would notice their departure. That would be fair. But I know you would not because it is you who made the English Wikipedia, through its close intertwining with IRC, the least meritocratic Wikimedia project of them all. --Ghirla-трёп-06:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Admins - please block Jimbo Wales, clearly the account is compromised and now disruptive - we've often wondered at the management's ineptitude, but this is so utterly and monumentally stupid, it just can't be the bearded wonder at the keyboard. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Would administrator user:Jimbo Wales please link to the policy "personal attack" that Bishonen violated and explain how and why and where her remarks constituted such a thing? Shouldn't it be unambiguous, if there is a block without discussion? Shouldn't it be clear, if there is a block without a report to AN/I first? Geogre (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
George, since Jimbo probably has better things to do with his time than continue arguing with people over this matter, i'll answer your questions! The AN/I discussion is right here and the personal attack that started all this is right here. I'm sure I don't need to explain why thats a personal attack. Cheers! John Sloan@11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, he doesn't, and yes, you do. 1. This is blocking an administrator without warning. Procedure in blocking requires warning, talking to the person, and trying everything short of a block. 2. As the blocking administrator, Jimbo does not have "better things to do." If he does, he should not have blocked. We've established, over and over again, that people must not block and skip away, as we are answerable for our actions, and blocking is a horrendous thing to do. 3. I do not see personal attacks. I see insults of screen names. A person is another matter entirely, and an attack is another matter, again. An attack is not a response. An attack is an action taken by itself.
If you need an illustration of how the legitimate policy regarding attacks and blocks came about, it was this: Some schoolboy accounts and vandal accounts registered simply to write "Mikeizsogay." Those were attacks on some person (notice the name involved). Then there were accounts that existed to do something like "Jews are evil and run the media." Again, an attack account. Those were properly blocked as accounts that existed to attack. This is continents away from a person replying to a vexatious situation.
On the other hand, saying, "You answered my screen name by calling it something nasty, so I get to block you" is prima facia absurd, unsupported by policy, and unsupported by judgment. The first of these is obvious by simply looking at the policies. The second is obvious by watching people react when questioned: they will avoid, at all costs, specifying what the attack is or having a group examine it to assess whether or not it constitutes harm. There are ways of determining real damage from silly sods trying to get even, but the people who like to block, and especially the people who like to block in the name of peace, never show any interest. Geogre (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Friendly advice
This knitter hopes no one will loose their adminship.
Hiya Bish. In future, ya should let other Administrators watch over Giano's page. I don't wanna see ya loosing your Administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: IMHO, only Administrators or the retiring editor-in-question, should be adding the Retirement tag to that editor's Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I was just taking a peek and then I find this. It seems Wikipedia isn't treating its veteran editors very well. I feel sorry for you. — mark✎15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Once we judge by words, instead of utterances, we are fundamentalists throwing proof texts at one another or Victorians putting skirts on pianos lest someone think of "leg" and then think of mons veneris by runaway mentation, and, of course, be blamed for causing it.
Once we judge by reaction, instead of by community standards, we are in the height of the "politically correct" language wars, where, because a person could hear "man" in "woman," and might feel that the "wo" is "womb," all speakers must write and say "wymyn"; where, because a person felt bad when you said, "Nice outfit," you were harassing. Furthermore, we beg, or we demand with guns and knives, the question, "Whose reaction?" Is it the reaction of the person who reacted or the person who reacted to the reaction, or the person who reacted to the reaction to the reaction?
These are idiotic hymns being sung to idols, off key and off color.
Who "disrupted?" Giano for "calling names," or the 'crat who promoted against serious opposition and cited "discretion?" Who "disrupted?" Bishonen for calling someone a name, or that someone who insisted on vandalizing a user page? Who is at the "higher standard," Giano, who is not an admin, or the 'crat who defied the rules and procedures to promote without good rationale and who showed poor judgment? Is the "higher standard" on Bishonen, the administrator, or Jimbo, the administrator who is treated as something else? Once we get into these obviously stultifying arguments, the questions just don't stop.
They don't hold water, rationally. They don't make sense. The only thing they satisfy is emotions and interests. Geogre (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Crap. Well, do what's best for you and what you enjoy, many thanks for all your contributions and your sense of fun which was much appreciated. Sad, dave souza, talk20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Very sorry about this. And Giano, too. Who is going to finish the encyclopedia now? Sandstein and Jimbo will have to work overtime now. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
California vs. Northern Europe? Seems more like Gordon Gecko vs. Mitt liv som hund's Ingemar. CEO's have no place at volunteer projects, and the CEO personality has no place outside of a reality television show.
In my own look through history, people get obsessed with the letter over the word, the word over the sentence, when they're afraid, when they're stressed, when they don't understand. "I don't know what's going on here, but that one said 'shit!'" is the attitude of the puzzled authoritarian. It's the reflexive attitude of the person whose action confesses instantly that there is coercion but not control. Well, the idea that there would be either one in such a place, in such a case, is laughable, and can only be proof that we're looking at a neolithic mindset. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia, degenerated as it may be with all its committees, behavioral guidelines, and pettifogging patrollers, is still a social experiment in taming the neolithic mindset. Largely failed in that respect, in my opinion. Or rather, it has contributed much to the development of the elaborate neolithism that dominates nine out of ten disputes these days. Enough of that. Bottom line: fscking crap. Kosebamse (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We behold
Bishonen, see this garden? It's like your contributions over the years to this project—rich, colourful, deep, multifaceted. Mr Wales was wrong to block you. Please don't give that incident false dignity by reacting to it. You're strong and it will pass soon. Badge of honour, if you ask me. So please, if you must take a break, make it short, will you? We need you. Tony(talk)16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Being a Californian of Northern European descent, it's certainly my hope that there needn't be any cultural clash between those two places. I can assure you that Signior Wales's actions are not representative of California. As for this Californian: He hopes you'll be back before too long and values your contributions. Heimstern Läufer(talk)10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Upon my return to civilization, I am disgusted at the way you have been treated - and even more disgusted that not one Arb had to the common decency or guts to publicly stand up and defend you! What a bunch of cowardly little shits they are. Giano (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Bishonen made a small error here: if she's writing about Wales, he's not from California, but from the American South (born in Alabama, lives in Florida). And while we Oregonians aren't all that fond of Californians (well, at least officially), there's nothing in a Californian mind-set which explains, let alone justifies, what happened here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
What do you do with a problem like a toxic asset "CEO?"
Here is a new question and suggestion:
Civility is the quality of behaving in a way that allows for civilization
Civility is that which allows the civil society to function
Civility has nothing to do with taboo or politeness, everything to do with the social group functioning politically.
If these statements are true, and I think they cannot be doubted (borrowed from other users), then blocking a productive (building relationships and content) user is uncivil, while calling someone a twelve headed gastropod is not. Calling someone a miniature scat is irrelevant compared to blocking someone who builds and enables building.
Bishonen is well known as a defender of the blocked, as a questioner of the received wisdom of blocking. Such a person is inevitably going to annoy and inevitably going to be invaluable, as long as she uses rational argument and evidence. In all of her defenses of the rapidly blocked, she has proven her cases. She has been, in these cases, working tirelessly and thanklessly to keep the project functioning, to put the brakes on mob rule.
Bishonen has also been one to coordinate efforts and social interactions between editors. She has argued against power, which, of course, will antagonize the proponents of power, but it is also invariably an important position in keeping a multifocal and open project functioning. It is vital for the "civil" side of Wikipedia that there be no log jam of power brokers. Nor has she done so with inflammatory language or off-wiki tools, as many others have done.
It therefore seems to me fairly clear that Bishonen is a force for and of civility and civil construction at Wikipedia.
Blocking people with whom one disagrees is a long time taboo at Wikipedia. No one is supposed to do this. From the earliest moment of the project's creation, people were supposed to seek the uninvolved before doing something like blocking. However, when a person uses a term like "toxic personality" (n.b. "personality," not "edit," not "action," not "words"), that establishes that the block is performed out of malice or anger. It is a violation of the blocking policy.
Supposing that there are different standards of behavior for different users at Wikipedia is to suppose that there are special people. Such a belief puts the lie to the very founding impulses of the project, where all contributions were to be seen as equal. If some contributions are to be weighted more than others, then, indeed, there are holy and unholy users, and yet there is no way of telling who those people are. To my knowledge, there has never been a process at Wikipedia for selecting such a person, as selections of administrators carry no such warnings.
If there is no special status inherent or adherent, then Jimbo's block of Bishonen is administrative abuse and a breech of WP:CIV.
Therefore: should an RfAr be opened on Jimbo Wales to seek his demotion? Is there no other way to solve these fundamental misunderstandings? Can Jimbo no other way give up the illusion of "god king" and "CEO" and other such concepts of infallibility? Can there no other way be an apology and a measure to prevent more such Alexander Haig-like command? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
an audience with the king
Over at User talk:GiacomoReturned#So!, Giano suggests that you still care about this block from Jimbo, and above he complains that Arbs have done nothing. That isn't quite true, as Casliber did mention his "dismay" over at Jimbo's talk page, and Jimbo did clarify that he did not intend to label you as a toxic personality. However calls for an RFAR, or a desysop, are terribly premature. You have both been around for long enough to know that dispute resolution starts with a one-on-one discussion. I am guessing you meant to start that with this post, however there are a lot of bystanders on both user talk pages, so I recommend that you two have a discussion on a separate page somewhere in userspace, either your own or you can use my userspace if you wish for me to exercise some control over unhelpful heckling. I would rather not become involved, but I will ask Jimbo to engage with you, if you are willing to have a one-on-one discussion with him. John Vandenberg(chat)23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, John. I will have a discussion with Jimbo if he's willing. However, since you mention it, I should point out right away that I'm unimpressed by Casliber's intervention (however well-intentioned) and by Jimbo's "clarification". I'll explain why if the occasion arises. A new subpage in my own space would be appropriate; I can't believe heckling would be a problem, once I explain to the too-helpful that the audience is supposed to be with the king, not the courtiers. Bishonen | talk23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC).
I have taken the liberty of changing the tongue-in-cheek heading for a more direct one. This is not a moment for cuteness.--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. I would prefer that the original section name was preserved to put this in the right light of the accused, but I have added it as a hidden section name for now, as there is an incoming link. --John Vandenberg(chat)01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That is a question for him to answer; I am just endeavouring to set up a forum for Bishonen and him to chat in the hope it will allow these lingering questions to be answered. See also his clarification where Jimbo acknowledges that his use of "toxic personalities" was not ideal. John Vandenberg(chat)04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Swift pointed out that the ancient Athenians argued that it was acceptable to say whatever one wished about whichever politician one liked. Call Themistocles a name, and you are alright. However, call Athens evil, and you will be hung. Call mankind bad, and you will be executed. It is better to lash an individual than a class. Well, speaking of "personalities" at all smacks of hubris. I want to know how anyone is qualified to speak of anyone else's personality or even the "personalities" (i.e. the virtual realities of discourse symbols that we call "users") other than that according to just some dude. I.e. if Jimbo is just some dude with an opinion, not held to any higher standard and not afforded any higher power, then he can think, for example, that I'm toxic or corrupting or diseased or venereal and I won't care -- he's some dude, and some dude will always have an opinion. However, Jimbo was simultaneously announcing that there were super-ordinary standards for expression and then betraying those by passing judgment on unspecified "personalities." Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that he has any longer any credible reason to have extraordinary authority. Such authority would either have to come from being well informed or extremely wise or extremely prudent, and not only are the facts against that, here, history argues that he is less and less any of those things. I don't know what sort of cloud he came out of to make such an announcement, but I don't think it was a nimbus. Geogre (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
←Please pardon my interruption, but I noticed that Jimbo asked on his talk page if there was a sub-page for discussion a few hours ago. I know it's absolutely none of my business, but I'm only hoping that something can be worked out where we wouldn't lose a great editor and great administrator. If this is all being handled privately, please feel free to just delete my post. I honestly hope that any disagreements can be resolved all the way around. Thank you for your time and use of your Talk Page Bish. All my best, — Ched : ? 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So, um, if there isn't, then, uh, where on Wikipedia would Jimbo like to take part in dispute resolution? Seeing as he's deeply committed to Wikipedia to the point that Wikipedia need only hear his name to agree to his decisions, trusting that they are made with the best interests of all of Wikipedia at heart, I presume he would only want to use Wikipedia and wouldn't favor some off-wiki venue, like IRC or another website. Patience is a virtue, but one would rather not let the stale turn toxic worse. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Burlesque Toni hitting the floor deeply, before a weekend camping trip.
Bishonen dear, this is rather delicate, but I feel someone should mention it. I have noticed of late that you seem to have a problem - it's ..er...talking to yourself [68]. Perhaps a longer Wikibreak is called for, somewhere nice, relaxing and soothing. Might I suggest my own establishment The Noto Home for Nutters permanent and temprorary cures guaranteed from $500,000 per weak. All credit cards accepted or cheques to my Cayman Island account. Giano (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely hope not! I have just been looking for images here and discovered the "Texas dip." It has to be either a wind up or a bizarre sexual position because I can't beleive that has ever been practiced in any court, I'm sure it's anatomically imposible as described there: "The "Texas Dip" is an extreme curtsey performed by a Texan debutante when formally introduced at the International Debutante Ball in the Waldorf-Astoria. The young women slowly lower their forehead to the floor by crossing their ankles, then bending their knees and sinking. The escort's hand is held during the dip. When they get close to the floor their head is turned down towards the gown and floor. The rising is made as an awakening." Oh the Americans, you can't help but love 'em can you? Giano (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think they actually hit the floor. After all, the chamberlain hits it to tell 'em the king is acoming, and he hits it to tell 'em where to stand. I figure this is like dog training. After all that advice about not baring their teeth and snarling, it's got to be something like a stomp. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Good theory, but with all of that floor stamping, it must surely have been deafening. Plus, the phrase "hit the floor deeply"? is odd in that context. Hit the floor "Hard", yes - "with deep feeling", maybe..... --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming quite clear JC that you do not move in exaulted circles, in fact I suspect you may never even have witnessed the "Texas Dip." I realise Buckingham palace is not what it was, but please do not mick the behaviour at the Quirinal. I expect though there is quite a bit ot tap dancing and Texas dipping going on at the Palazzo Chigi though these days. Giano (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So, when the Italian guys in my neighborhood tell me that I need to pay up or they'll slowly break my leg, they're offering to take me to a royal party? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I survey this page: No wonder you dreadful people are where you are, lowly, vulgar, common editors, while I am invited to take Dom Perignon and canapes with Jimbo and the Arbcom - I know that the cocktail stick should be discretely placed in the handbag and not used to impale one's enemies - I also know that in the presence of ones betters one smiles and slowly breaks one's leg - a choice you will happily make when I catch up with you in RL. As for Signor Berlusconi, had poor dear Amilcare not been so cruelly disposed of, I would be the current "La regina d'Italia" - and beleive me, you would all be hitting the floor super pronto. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Lady Catherine, may I be so bold as to suggest that now one is in one's incorporeal state, one may sip whatsoever one wishes, with whomsoever one chooses whenever one chooses? Given that, it seems odd to see you quaffing the odd bottle with the lay-judiciary and a man with no razor. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
EEEUUUUW. Texas dipping sounds like something that Lady Catherine should not be exposed to. Or can we all relax in the knowledge that it is some new type of poker? Tony(talk)13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The joys of nicotine without the perils of paralyzed cillia. Oh, sure, one's face gets eaten away by squamous cell carcinoma, but most of us don't have much in the way of a face to begin with. Meanwhile, the nicotine boosts memory and... other stuff... like... where the city of Copenhagen is. :-) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to mess up the Evidence, below, but I found a picture of the Civility Patrol admin. corp! It took some doing, too, as the flash can induce panic. An administrator encounters a dirty word and reacts with proper offense.Utgard Loki (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Evidence
Evidence regarding views that blocking is inappropriate for provoked single instances of incivility, possibly provoked, without attempting to discuss with uncivil editor
I see you have been asked for evidence. Feel free to use this as evidence, if you wish. I believe Geogre would not be averse to you citing User:Geogre/Civility; I know there are other links which may prove useful, I will link here if my fuzzy little brain spits them out. KillerChihuahua?!?12:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"I'm now convinced that Civility Warnings, Cooling Off Blocks, etc. are a mugs game."[72] Lar, Jan 2007
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, where the only mention of civility is at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which cites blocking criteria as "when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project" and clarifies this to be "persistent gross incivility"' no other mention of incivility is made at all.
User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility "Enforcement of the civility policy ... it's not a terribly helpful one." and "For those who insist that one cannot ignore uncivil users: Why not, pray? "
WP:ADMIN "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."
The oft quoted WP:CIVIL has "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." There's no specific definition of 'civility' other than a description of the effects. "Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment." How nice. Nothing there about blocking without warning. "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The blocking policy hits the nail: "cooling-off" blocking is forbidden, and so is punitive blocking. The onus is on the blocking admin to explain, when queried, why a block is necessary to prevent damage to the project; that onus is encapsulated in WP:ADMIN's policy on communication. It's as simple as that. Shoot now, explain later is fast becoming outmoded, and a good thing that is for the sake of the project. Senior admins need to be setting an example. Tony(talk)13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah woe. A flash of irritation at a time when a close friend appears to have just been driven from WP, and a nagging insensitive follower of the rulebook is descibed by a term which is not terribly stong in some cultures, but perhaps a deadly insult in others. Followed six hours after the event by a 3 hour block for "Incivility unbecoming an admin"[73] Sadly, punitive actions to make examples of admins have a history of unwanted effects, and had it been anyone else a warning would have been properly considered the appropriate action, a necessary precursor to any block. As it is, this has engendered bad feeling and wasted hours if not days of wikitime. Including mine, when I should be contemplating orchids. There must be a moral there. Ideally both blocker and blockee would concede that they've been rather naughty, and agree to make that an end of it. Just my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am without standing, but may I only say this: I was reminded of what I've seen at AN/I. Someone shows up there, saying, "X has been mean to me, and he called me a craphound." A naive admin goes and blocks the person who used the dirty word, but the more experienced ones go and actually investigate and frequently come back saying, "You know, you were being awful. You were trying to insert junk, and you were past three reverts, and you were trying to get outside websites to bus in to win the argument. UserY shouldn't have called you a craphound, but it was understandable. You will be blocked if you don't start conforming to policy." Reacting to a dirty word is the mark of someone who is either too foolish or too naive or too indifferent to understand what is going on in a situation, and that's a bad, bad way to get civil interactions. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
↑This guy is smart↑ Everyone should listen to Utgard Loki. Someone should frame the above post and hang it on the wall beside Jimbo's desk. Tex (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My view may be a given, but I'll state it. Blocking is a last resort, not a warning shot. Blocking stops conversation, and Wikipedia is nothing but conversation surrounding articles (and, hopefully the conversation is about the articles). As for "civility" and its rank among our concerns, let me quote a famous person, Sigmund Freud: "The first man to hurl an insult instead of a stone, that man was the father of civilization." Insult and opprobrium are part of civilization. Violence -- including exclusion, coercion, and intimidation -- is not. What Jimbo is calling "civility" is a question of language, and specifically of "social register". In language, profanity functions, surprisingly, not to offend, but to indicate the emotional state of the speaker. Obscenity is supposed to offend, but in contemporary English it is rare. To offend, we usually go to something extended. "You should go to the sperm bank, because there people will like the fact that you're jerking off" is something I wrote to someone years ago to offend. My mood was coldly furious, and I wanted to wound. In general discourse, though, "You're a piece of shit, you know that?" is not designed to make the other person feel shock of offense: it's designed to say, "You have made my so angry that my next step is to violence." Online, where real violence is impossible, people move this language up and use it sooner, because the consequences do not exist. However, this is functional language designed to ensure civil interactions by communicating degrees of emotional freight and warning. It is not "offensive": it's admonitory. Blocking over something like that, then, is, if you'll excuse me, insane. It's stepping into a situation at the height of the frustration and looking at the person who cares the most and blocking that person. The "bad words" are signal words, and they're social signals that the other person needs to moderate behavior, but when a block comes in, the message is to validate the bad behavior. When Jimbo blocks an experienced administrator who has been pushed to her limits, he is saying, and user:Daedalus was quick to interpret it this way, that Deadalus should go on acting that way, because there are no consequences, and that process farming and whinging are winning ways. There is much, much more to say, but I fear I've gone too long and started to be specific. Geogre (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that it then? Well as a soap opera It has rather lost my attention - have you noticed the way paint hardens and acquires a sheen and gloss as it dries, utterly fascinating, I could watch it all day. However, I digress, back to the dull side of life - so what was the outcome of the great Wales/Bishonen clearing of the air? - Is it you that has the "toxic personality", or someone else. Perhaps it is User: !!? I seem to remember Wales dismissing and trivialising his complaints as he was driven from the project. It seems you are to be trivialised too. Not really good enough is it? I would be bloody angry if he had called me a "toxic personality", but of course he didn't - it was you. Sorry, can't stop chatting here all day, the undercoat has just dried and I have found this long-lasting specialised paint that only takes 36 hours to dry, it has a secret micro-porous recipe and is only available from good hardware sho.............. Giano (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Let us just pretend that a warning was, in fact, channeled prior to the (singular) offense having been committed (i.e. powers of telepathy and precognition, somehow!); and let us also pretend that Mister Wales can act as just any ordinary administrator without his blocks carrying any special and extraordinary significance.
Because not pretending that makes the chippie sad...
Which, hopefully, can still be remedied with extrahard petting!
Without question, Bishonen is one of my top four or five favorite people on WP. Among the reasons I like her is a practical, common sense approach rather than being a "policy wonk". Also her block of user:FT2 (then a sitting arbitrator) was a pretty gutsy thing to do. Regarding the incident at issue, I fully concur with the insult handed out at the editor, though I would have added another choice adjective or two for a full-flavor experience. HOWEVER… not everyone who heard about the insult knew about the past behavior of that editor. As was evident from the responses, the discussion quickly turned on the question of user A (an admin) intimidating and insulting user B (an editor) from a position of superior power. If no action had been taken, many people would have concluded that admins are free in general to abuse and threaten good-faith editors. Which in fact DOES happen frequently enough to adversely affect the user experience on Wikipedia. True, there is the question of fairness, when much worse behavior by admins goes unpunished or is punished much less severely (e.g., only a 1-hour block on admin Scarian for his lengthy hate-filled tirade, spammed across several WP pages, against user:Malleus Fatuorum.) However, fairness and justice are always elusive concepts. In short, it is my opinion that while worse admin conduct often goes unpunished regrettably, this three-hour block by Wales was right or at least not grievously wrong. Sorry. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please advise me: a block should never be imposed to prove "a principle"—that is my intuitive understanding, but it may be wrong. Can someone who knows more about the rules of blocking confirm that this is correct? Tony(talk)08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're not wrong. Every consensus-built project page I've ever read about blocks on en.Wikipedia is very straightforward about this. Blocks are technical steps which are meant only to be preventative, to stop edits from a named account or IP from doing later harm to the project. Hence, there has to be a good faith notion that there's a meaningful likelihood of later harm, meaning the technical step of the block is needed to stop it from happening. There may be disagreement over the likelihood, or whether what could happen is even harm, but policy abiding blocks can never be punitive, or "cool down," or set to such a short time that they're clearly meant only to note unhappiness over some behaviour. Anything else calls for a warning, a ban (which is not at all the same thing as a block), RFC or arbcom outcome of some kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm Right: I'm Always Right, and I Was Right Again
It's rough, when you think you're talking to a person, and it turns out you're not.
A translator.
I mean, there you are, ready for logic, and you find that it's just Gumbo, or Jumbo, or some Spoonerism thereof. It's like watching an interview with W. Bush. Geogre (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
temporary fencing quickly erected
Privatemusings created User:Bishonen/block discussion with a copy of the messages that Jimmy removed from his userpage.[74] From the edit summary of that removal it is obvious that Jimmy wishes to continue discussing this with you, and part of the agreement was that it would be a one-on-one discussion, so I have redirected and protected User:Bishonen/block discussion, and left privatemusings a note about this.[75] Do what you will with the page from here, and sorry for interfering with your userspace. John Vandenberg(chat)06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.
Admins are people too. I cannot agree with the blanket statement that "admins who curse at people should be blocked for 3 hours (or more) for doing it, and should be at serious risk for losing their adminship". It cuts across well-established policy, as Gwen has pointed out above, and it is increasingly the practice by admins to use a more conciliatory approach with established editors. Such an approach might include an examination of the underlying context, a strong suggestion to consider either a unilateral or bilateral apology and perhaps a self-striking-through of the text at issue. This type of approach is implicit in the New Admin School's excellent section on dispute resolution, and in positive responses by RfA candidates to recent questions on this matter. Incivility, ruffled feathers, heated off-the-cuff comments: we're all human, and I see no reason to hold admins and other experienced editors to different standards. If a curse-word occasionally pops up, it should be treated as an opportunity by admins to promote healing and harmony. Blocking, I believe, is normally appropriate only for intransigent, repeat offenders who refuse to engage in productive dialogue about the matter and who are likely to cause damage to the project. Leadership by example would be most welcome. Tony(talk)06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively we could make it very clear that Wikipedia has a warrior caste with a strong codex of honour including no swearing. You become a member by fighting vandals and optionally doing some gnoming, then you advance to adminship. And a content creators caste with more liberties but no promotion path. Content-creating admins like Bishonen are only suffered under a grandfather clause. If they can't follow a brainless military code of honour they must give up their tools or will be shown the door.
nb: you can often spot the wannabe-warrior-caste-types by their sigs; look for an abundance of mark-up and styling of the colours-and-borders-and-background variety wrapped around some ludicrous user name. If their, sig, user name, and general demeanor are all about attention-seeking, you may have landed one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Gack; (not intended to impugn humourous alternative accounts that may be derived from Smaug, of course;) — rather, the sort all so common on simple:wp and oh-so-focused on the Whack-a-Vandal or the Great-Sock-Hunt games here on teh encyclopaedia that any idiot can edit. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It reminds me of the blinkered, superficial focus of some fundamentalist religions. Some words are "bad", and some words are "ok", and your motive, spirit, and intent behind the "ok" words can be absolutely horrible, but it would only be wrong if you used the "bad" word. The result of this is vindictive, mean-spirited, and hurtful people who will insult you by calling you a "little turd" instead of a little shit, who will damn you by saying "darn you" instead, and who will mock and humiliate homosexuals by calling them the ok word "gay" and not the "bad" word "fag". But they will think this is all within the bounds of reason, because they have only used acceptable, non-cursing language. I remember being allowed to shout terrible things at my older brother when angry, and it was always ok, until I used a curse word. Surely the whole point should have been to not be shouting at him at all, or to not be wishing to wound him, or to not be angry? It pains me to see this attitude actually being enforced on Wikipedia. Encouraging a shallow, meaningless, and trifling concern with "words", and wholesale ignoring a much more sinister, bitter, and damaging spirit hiding in the shadows. Maedin\talk09:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, above, we need to shout, as humans in a civilization. Now, we can do so stupidly without bad words, like the admin who wrote on the talk page of an article, "If you don't speak English, don't edit here!" We can do so cleverly without using the forbidden seven, as has been my wont and Bishonen's and Giano's. We can modulate, using the simple profane as an attention getting message that is embedded in a full argument, which is a perfect use of profane words. We can smile politely all day and conduct secret trials. We can adopt the habit of some people and say absolutely nothing at all, but merely block and then put in nine words in a block summary. The last of these is the most barbaric, the least civilized, the most totalitarian. Otherwise, we're off with the worst of the Taliban mullahs. Geogre (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen, I just wanted to offer you my 2¢, which is a decidedly outside view by a decidedly uninvolved regular editor. I’ve heard about this dispute on the grapevine for a while now, and just looked at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion. You and Jimbo seem to have gotten into a vicious circle here, where you are both trying to save face. He is quite right, administrators, who are *supposed* to be held to a high standard of conduct, should not call someone a “little shit”. I, frankly, couldn’t care less what language anyone uses, but… (you know all the arguments so there’s no use repeating it). And Jimbo was quite right to block you. He made an example out of you. A very small, short block, but a symbolic example nonetheless. And, after dealing with KC, below, I might add that while what Jimbo did wasn’t in accordance to the rules of blocking, we all know that admins dish out three-hour-long “gentle taps” to editors all the time, so let’s be “real” here and not spin our wheels in a rut of our own making because of the *principle* of the thing. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, however, made a huge error in writing “toxic personality”. For a hard-working admin who exercises good faith—and since the words came from such a notable person as Jimbo—such words were deeply, deeply cutting. I see that Jimbo clarified “toxic personality” as having been meant as “toxic behavior”. Too little, too late.
I encourage you to drop this. Frankly, the words uttered from the tips of Jimbo's fingers strike me as having been an forgivable error. However, his failure to offer you an unconditional retraction and unconditional, profuse apology speaks, I think, more to his shortcomings. He seems to not understand how hurtful those words were to a well-meaning, hard-working volunteer such as yourself. He appears to be all wrapped up in trying to make his point about how inappropriate it is to have administrators flouting rules of conduct. Your dropping it at this juncture will reflect well on you. I wouldn’t be surprised too, that after a few days to a few weeks after you drop it, Jimbo might reflect on how showing magnanimity to volunteer followers wears exceedingly well on leaders and he might make an overture to you. At least, I hope he will. Greg L (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocking policy expressly forbids blocking to "make an example" and any admin who did so would be up before ArbCom in short order, if not de-sysopped by Jimbo. As your entire "the block was ok" argument hinges on your severe misunderstanding of the blocking policy, your entire post is moot. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's true the block strayed from policy, given the background, there was no way a three hour block filled any technical need to stop harm to the project. I may raise eyebrows by saying this, but had the block been for longer, say 3 days, it would have been within policy as to the technical goal of a block, though likely not supported by consensus as to any harm it was stopping. At the very least, civility blocks must follow warnings and a pattern of incivility. Even then, some wonder whether civility blocks are even helpful when made on the accounts of good faith, long term content contributors. This said, I agree that admins should stay wholly professional in how they word things, but folks do slip up now and then, each in their sundry ways. A friendly but stern warning from Jimmy would have been enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree completely with Gwen; except as regards the 3-day block: no harm was imminent or indicated. My post was specifically adressing Greg L's complete misunderstanding of the blocking policy; it was he who used "make an example" to characterize Jimmy's block of Bishonen, saying Jimbo was "quite right to block you. He made an example out of you. A very small, short block, but a symbolic example". This is horrible reasoning; no block is to "make an example". KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
KC, only to clarify, a three day block would have fit the technical (software) goal of stopping harm, but only had there been harm to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should have come out and said the block strayed from policy in at least two ways, but I wasn't keen on rubbing it in, still not. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Rubbing it in? I was trying to correct a complete misunderstanding of the blocking policy. As admins, we are charged with explaining policy and educating those who are ignorant, or confused, about our policies. I don't think a second voice confirming what our policy says would be rubbing it in. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say you were rubbing it in (but I'm sorry if you took it that way, it's not at all what I meant). I was saying I didn't want to rub it in to Jimmy, how thoroughly he strayed from the blocking policy. He's already said he won't block anyone for six months. I know other editors have other worries about other things he's said since the block, but I've come here only to comment on the block itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying - but I believe you are mistaken. Jimmy only said he wouldn't block for six months if Bishonen explicitly repeats, word-for-word, a statement Jimmy has given her. Its conditional, you see. Unless he didn't mean to say that, in which case he really needs to rephrase completely. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Ok, I could be mistaken, he said Therefore, I pledge not to block anyone for 6 months as a good faith gesture to you. In return, I want you to... Since he made an unconditional pledge in a stand alone, complete sentence, I didn't take the next sentence as a bargain that went with the pledge, but maybe it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You may well be right. It is unclear enough that I am uncertain, and at least one other admin has publicly agreed and said it sounds like "either an ultimatum or a horse trade". Pending clarification, I cannot presume to know for certain. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
<edit conflict, hope this helps to clarify> Gwen, I agree that the pledge itself was unconditional, but then what he wanted "in return" was backed by the implicit threat that a failure to deliver would be "incompatible with fundamental principles of Wikipedia". The latter statement remains in the latest version, as I read it. Most unfortunate, but clearly against blocking policy as I think we agree. . dave souza, talk16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Having read what must be over a thousand of Jimmy's posts for over 5 years, I think he's made the pledge but KC did get me wondering. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, only speaking for myself, only noting I've read lots of his posts, which make me think, maybe wrongly, that I understand the meaning behind his syntax. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As all three of us have been here around 5 years, and 2/3 of us think his meaning is at least unclear, then I suggest there is a problem with phrasing. On the chance that the 1/3 of us who is tentatively confident she understands what is intended, may I gently suggest that if 5 years of careful reading of Jimmy's posts are necessary background to understanding his meaning in this one, then that is far too obscure a subset of the human population to call his post in any way clear. Either way, it requires clarification from He Who Wrote it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
KC, I wasn't comparing myself to anyone, I was only speaking for myself. As I've said maybe thrice now, I may have misunderstood what Jimmy said. Moreover, I came here only to comment on the block itself, which I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua: I know all about blocks. I also understand human nature. Admins are people and they come in all sorts of flavors. Some are wise and mature. Others are immature dicks. And admins hand out blocks. So let’s look a bit more at blocks. They are meant to be *protective* and not *punitive*. It’s kind of a gray area ain’t it? Administrators hand out unjust blocks all the time with utter impunity and hide behind the apron strings of “protective” whenever they do so. Moreover, admins often have a severe double standard and will block regular editors for minor lipping off to admins that wouldn’t get on anyone’s radar screen if it was directed to a regular editor. Check out my block log. All five are for lipping off to admins. Take note of my first one. I twice reverted an edit made by Connelley himself. His remedy? A three-hour block, accompanied by this edit summary: “edit warring at g-force - gentle tap”. So I don’t buy into your implicit argument that Jimbo is not allowed to dish out a little bit of “correction” given that admins do it all the time. We all know what is really going on here. Jimbo gave Bishonen a “gentle tap.” But because it was Jimbo, it’s all blown out of proportion.
I hope you chose your next post with care, KillerChihuahua, for your message point of “I disagree with one part of Greg L’s post so the entire message is moot”-argument has given me some insight here in your style, which doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You know "all about" blocks, yet you argue that an expressly forbidden reason to block can be used to legitimize a block? Uh, no.
You are entitled to your opinion, which amounts to “Keep making a holy stink about this Bishonen/Jimbo thing” because of your principles. You missed the point of my post by being blinded by your intransigence. I will no longer respond to you. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your "small" comment above, you're wrong again. You were blocked for edit warring, which is clearly stated in the blocking comment. That Connelly called your block a "gentle tap" does not obviate this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe William M. Connolley is one who's block reasoning should be imitated by anyone. If Jimbo is following the example set by that particular admin, we are all in trouble. Tex (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jumpers, it's too bad you've (apparently) decided to continue your retirement, Bishonen. I suppose, life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So, according to the subpage, Jimbo blocked Bishonen because it is policy that you should block people for saying dirty words, and the good that came of his block is that it established that policy. I.e. it was policy because he thought it. It had been policy because it was his idea. The usefulness of the block was that he did it, and that set proof for everyone else.
Well, for all the people who think that Jimbo is something more than an administrator, or who believe that he possesses wisdom, despite his overt lack of prudence, this should not allow you to heave a sigh of relief. Indeed, this subpage has made your lives much, much, much more complicated.
Now your divine leader has, by fiat, created policy without the intervention of pesky administrators or policy review, and he's going to leave it to you to figure out what it means. Let me give you some things you'll need to settle for yourselves, ok?
Are all dirty words the same? Does a "shit" get the same block as a "fuck?"
Are all dirty words the same in context? Does it require the word to be used as an adjective or verb, or can it be an exclamation? Does, "Oh, fuck me! I made a terrible mistake" get 3 hours, while, "Fuck you, you twerp" get 4 hours?
Will there be a list of words that people may and may not say, so that people can be sure, in advance, when they are allowed to express their anger or frustration and when they are not, and how?
If there is a list, will it be the American FCC's famous Seven dirty words, or will Wikipedia avoid systemic bias and use the BBC's list? Or will a person get blocked for using a word disallowed by the national broadcaster of the IP address of the account he or she is using?
If there are differences, will it matter where the person receiving the comment is? Does it matter that calling a British person an "ass" is calling him a donkey, while calling an American an "ass" is calling him a rectum?
Now that you have sorted out the exact weight and penalty of each word, will you also get at the synonyms for profane terms so that clever wordsmiths do not avoid the letter of the law and may be blocked for saying, "Intercourse your mother, you unstoppable masturbator?"
Be aware that you have a brand new day of blocking ahead of you, an exciting time when you will get to block lots and lots of people, and perhaps even yourselves, for all sorts of words. I'm sure that you will have a good time discussing the words and how bad they are. After all, you don't want "process wonks" to question you. No doubt they're up to no good. Geogre (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
except its minimal outline but here's my advice anyway: extract some vague lesson? Which I believe would be an idea that although at the end of the day surface things don't count for much, still it takes so little to change surface things that, if they are taken to count for much by another, simply change em (maybe a surface thing that ultimately doesn't account for much, anyway...). ----- Sorry, Bishonen, it's late and I've been up a long time. Anyway, good luck...and congratulations/thanks for all your help with this open-access encyclopedia's really great/fun/rewarding project. ----- Oh, and the other option is just to come back and be yourself? The poor guy gets so many reverberations from having blocked you, he'd be hesitant to block again for a mere word or three. Anyway, it seems you're a real asset and are/would be sorely missed. (If this post makes zero sense, just treat it as some random collection of words: albeit sent you with good intentions.) -- Just me here now 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just sad.
I just read that pernicious page referenced above, which resulted in four otherwise-uninvolved housecats being awakened from slumber by the sound of their human yelling at her monitor--"NO, that was NOT what she SAID..." and "ARRGH are you even LISTENING?" and similar rhetorical devices. When even I, dense as I am in matters of logic and philosophy, can pick out the garish flaws in an opposing point...well, they've gotta be sticking out there like a sore thumb, is my point. I have never seen two people conduct a conversation so completely at cross-purposes to each other, and since Jimbo's line of questioning repeats consistently three points which you have already disproven--that you allegedly think you were right to cuss at Daedalus, that you think all admins should be allowed to cuss at will, and that you believe policy should be adapted to encompass that ability--
I would say your assertions are much better-supported. (And that's to say nothing of yet another most-beloved Wiki-principle: AGF, anyone? The assumptions made about your opinions--assumptions which, I repeat, you had already debunked several times--show an expectation of spectacularly BAD faith. Per those assumptions, you are a defender of profanity and personal attacks, you advocate rude treatment and unkindness based solely on rank, and you believe that rude behavior should be specifically codified and advocated by policy. I can think of only, perhaps, a few malicious trolls who would cop to supporting any given ONE of those three tenets; certainly, as a good-faith contributor and (dare I say it?) a da...er, da...um, a doggone good admin, I cannot imagine even an alternate universe in which you actually believed a word of that mess.) Personally, I believe the block was per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, pure and simple, and no matter how many times the concept of "civility" is invoked, it will not justify the block that was given--except to those who view "civility" through the same lens as Jimbo, and those people would require no justification, since they would have already supported the block. And around and around and around...
Okay, then; enough about my opinions of Jimbo's opinions on that page. You will be missed; come back soon, and in the meantime, be well. The encyclopedia will haz a sad without you.GJC22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One last try then
And I think this would be best on that page.
Can you explain to me why you think current policy allows admins to engage in personal attacks, indeed to curse at users and not be blocked for it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ye gods, Jimmy, she never said she thought that. Would you stop this "when did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning? She never said that she thought that, she never indicated she thought that, and your obtuse persistence in repeating the question only makes you look extremely dense, or else hostile and manipulative. If such is not your intent then I advise striking this accusation masquerading as a question. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I for one genuinely question the sanity of anybody who continues to want to contribute content to an encyclopedia headed in any manner by someone who could pursue this topic with such small-minded, petty, un-nuanced and to my mind unintelligent views as Jimbo has demonstrated during the course of this discussion. Abandoning this project is the best response. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See the last on my talk page. I have been asked what I am planning to do about something and what I would be willing to give up. The question is whether people are willing to give. They need to feel a sense that they're giving to some people (in my case, the world... until a -bot comes to put a banner at the top saying that the article is worthless because it has no footnotes, and, despite being written by an expert in the field and containing numerous references to exact sources in words in the sentences, no one should read it) (or to the workers at Wikipedia, in the case of people like Bish, who seems to care about people). They need to have a sense of giving something of use. They need to have a sense that what they're giving will be gotten. Take any of those three away, or, in my case, all three, and there is no reason to give. Geogre (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave up trying to discuss anything long ago with J Wales - he wants Wikipedia to be only one way - his way. All debate with him his futile. However, he cannot be allowed to have it all his own way because we are the ones creating the project. From what I can see, he now travels the world proclaiming what a fantastic idea Wikipedia was (indeed it was and is) and has lost touch with what is happening on the ground floor. It seems, any editors proving themselves too prolific or intelligent becomes a threat to the inner circle over which Wales presides. His discussions with Bishone proves that, his method is that if one says something loud enough and often enough it becomes true, and on J Wales' Wikipedia that does seem to be true. Giano (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
'Tis alwasy best, to practice usage of the Preview button, when formulating responses. Avoiding usage of 'colorful words & phrases', helps. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is so unconscious.
In fact, if I get in the mood for a final post or something, I promise to write
COMING SOONThe Handy Chart for Converting Cussing to Expletive:
BEING
An Useful Way to Translate the Dirty Word You Want to Say into a Word that Means the Same or Worse, Guaranteed, but without blocking
It'll be a chart. You look in the first column and find "little shit," for example, and then, in the second column, you see that you should, instead, say "toxic personality." Instead of getting a three hour block, you'll have people lining up to tell you how wonderful you are. Geogre (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
For "fucking," substitute "drama," and vice versa. For successful administrators who model the best possible behavior, it's the preferred term. It means less, it's true, than "fucking," but it gets a person into the circle of Friendso'Jim. Geogre (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
My favourite piece of incivility is a line uttered quickly by Helen Mirren to one of her subordinates in State of play, a film in current release: "Fuck you very much." Tony(talk)09:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This one sighs and faces a wall,
'That is not what I meant, that is not it at all.'
I've not been around for a while, and when I come back what do I find? More drama created by the autocrat of all the wikipedias - still, a block from his nibs is a badge of honour in my opinion. I hope you are keeping well, and remember Noël Coward's advice to just try to rise above it. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Second that. Rise above it, like cream! Like balloons floating over the arctic ice! Like smoke from a fire! Like... um... like other floaty things! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you remember me from the good old days - I'm A Train/Fernando Rizo. I've got a bit of a project I'm looking a little help with, probably half an hour of your time, but I saw that your userpage is blanked right now. You've got some recent edits, but are you on a break or anything? Let me know if you've got the time/inclination to be a second set of eyes for me on something.
I'm on a break or something, sorry, A Train. A dramafest. I blanked my page in protest against what I consider shabby treatment by the Founder. I won't necessarily edit any more, we shall see how the drama pans out. About your project: it's not the half-hour, as such, that I begrudge you... but... I'm just too stressed right now. Sorry again, and for replying so late. Best wishes. Bishonen | talk10:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC).
Bish, don't you worry, I completely understand. Drop me a note when you're back, I've been meaning to spend more time on the project. Hope to see Bishzilla back before long, too. ATraintalk08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom and Jimbo's bloody brilliant block
While I can understand your want for ArbCom to deal with your problem, I really think this is going to be a waste of time. I just can't see any chance the committee's going to be willing to look at a single admin action, particularly because it seems they continue to labour under the myth of Jimbo as some ordinary admin. (Never mind the fact that he can prevent an Arb from taking a seat on the committee or fire an Arb at whim, or that the last time someone undid an admin action of his, he was temporarily desysopped. Just a normal admin, indeed. Not even sure the committee members themselves believe such nonsense, but I think they feel bound to support the idea, anyway.) I suspect that any move to check Jimbo will have to come from the community at large. Anyway, I'm bothering to make this note on your talk page just to say I think you won't get what you want here, but that I continue to think you rock and hope to see you contributing more in the future, as unpleasant as that can be (I just got off a two-week enforced Wikibreak because of frustration about how things are going here). Here's hoping to see you around. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If the ArbCom are wise, they will accept this case. To let so much bad feeling and confusion fester on would be destructive. Giano (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Homestar Runner. Though... even if it comes from the community at large, it has to start somewhere, you know? Man, that's a great comment you've written, I wish it was somewhere the committee could see it. Like round about here maybe. Anyway, glad to see you back, I was concerned about your break. Bishonen | talk18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
I'm OK. Thanks for your concerns, though. It's always good to see that people care. I may be cutting back at Wikipedia just to deal with real life, but I'm sure I'll be here at least some. I know what you mean about how it's got to start somewhere, and I'm not sure where that would be. Incidentally, in response to both you and Giano I'm not sure I can see the committee being able/willing to solve these bad feelings and confusion even if they were to accept it. As usual, I haven't really got any good ideas for how to fix this sort of thing. Maybe I should just go proofread an article. Heimstern Läufer(talk)02:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
@Toth - Sucking eggs is a rather easy thing for anyone to do, however, for person's of a certain vintage for instance, your Grandmother, it is generally considered that they have become more adept at the skill than others - Have you really never heard the expression? [76] - now retract your baseless accusation of Personal attacks please. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have never heard about that expression at all before; Also, it was implicit I retracted the accusation in my comment above, but if you want ,i do it explict here as well; Bishonen, sorry for the accusation of personal attack, please ignore it. →AzaToth15:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you think about it, children today aren't allowed to collect bird's eggs, what with the planet coming to an end, being green and Prince Charles and so forth. So it's not suprising younger people don't know it.Giano (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Having read Bishonen and Jimbo's exclusive talk page, where they discuss their differences and his responses on his page, I would say all attempts at reconciliation have been met and made. 10 out of 10 Ryan for effort in this matter, but neither party is prepared to concede one inch of ground, as far as this matter is concerned. There is also another small matter, perhaps it is just me, I find something sinister and menacing in his choice of words, cannot quite put my finger on it, but I know what I mean. Probably a language and cultural difference I expect. Just I can't quite get it out of my head somehow. So I think it is best to let the ArbCom sort it out rather than drag you and even more people into the mess. Giano (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Giano is mistaken. I am ready to concede a lot. I believe that reasonable people can find a mutually satisfactory solution if they work on it. A public discussion page is not the best place to do that, and Ryan will be a trusted and neutral person to help us work out a solution that works for everyone. In email, Bishonen has suggested that what would work for her would be for someone to work out a statement for the block log that she and I can both agree to, and I hope she'll accept Ryan as a person to help us try that. It strikes me as virtually certain that I'm willing to simply freely give Bishonen a lot more than she would get out of an actual ArbCom case, and I hope she agrees. (If she has a problem with Ryan for some reason, I'm happy to talk about others who might help us.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In commercial disputes we occasionally have each side select a mediator, then those two mediators select a third. The decision of the three mediators is then binding or influential. On the arbitration request thread I posted what I thought might be a reasonable settlement. You both are free to read or ignore my prattling. JehochmanTalk20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, please stop saying I've suggested we work out a statement for the block log. I have not. You must have completely misunderstood me. Bishonen | talk21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
What, again? Give it up Bishonen, he seems to have some kind of breakage wherein he decides you've said something, and no amount of telling him otherwise penetrates. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello bishonen. I've gone ahead and filed a request for mediation which will be accepted should both you and Jimbo agree to the request. I've added a number of issues to discuss during the mediation, but please feel free to add more should you think of any. As it stands now, me and Sunray will be acting as mediators. Should this be a problem, we can certainly look at other mediators to take over the role. Regards, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"What, again? Give it up Bishonen, he seems to have some kind of breakage wherein he decides you've said something, and no amount of telling him otherwise penetrates." Giano (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(Crossposted to the mediation page.)
Sorry, Ryan, I'm not trying to be difficult or make some sort of point here, but I do not agree. I have tried to discuss and communicate with Jimbo already--note, not only on my subpage User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, but by now also on the arb's mailing list. I'm completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts. We both do our best, no doubt, but I've never had so much difficulty in communicating and arguing with somebody before. Surely this whole thing can't depend on me performing that feat? And what the blazes is so wrong with the arbs opening a case? Presumably the community looks to them for guidance on this--not to me. (I am, whatever Rlevse says, after all a "Jane User", although Jimbo is by no means a "Joe Admin".[77]) The arbs have already proposed a number of suggestions for how to frame a case--for the scope--on the RFAR page. Also, if there's is something magically repugnant about an "arbitration case" about Jimbo, NYBrad has said he's proposing to deal with the matter by a motion instead, and what's wrong with that? Bishonen | talk14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC).
I belive that question has already been answered, on the MedCom mailing list. I'm beginning to believe that my fellow mediators, cheerful optimists that they are, are in this case greatly overestimating any possibility a mediation could be of use here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we are referring to the same question. As to being an optimist, guilty as charged. However, I've stated reasons on the Arb case page why I think mediation should be tried. In any case, Bishonen is not privy to the MedCom list and I would like to hear her answer. Sunray (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if the mediators managed to convey it to Jimbo that a Founder with a very plausibly (not to say necessarily) perceived honesty problem is not in anybody's best interest, especially not in his and not in Wikipedia's, then I think such a mediation could have a chance. HansAdler19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not support for any particular behaviour, in particular not support for behaviour you've said is not ok, but support for you as a person.
I'm sorry that you're in this unfortunate situation, I realize it's very difficult for you, and I feel for you.
Jimbo is also in a difficult situation. The extra attention you've received by virtue of having been blocked by Jimbo is extra attention that he receives on a regular basis. I can hardly imagine what that's like but I'm sure it isn't easy.
Jimbo seems to have been missing the point that some behaviour may be prohibited and yet, if the behaviour does occur, a block may not be the best response. Judgement needs to be used in each situation, and most often some other response is better than a block: e.g. page protection, warning, reminder, advice, mediation, defusing, diplomacy, use of humour, or doing nothing. This point may be much easier to accept when stated by someone other than the person who was blocked. It may not be a matter of blocking being prohibited in a defined set of situations, but of use of good judgement.
It seems possible to me that there is a misunderstanding over the definition of the word "personalities". Jimbo could perhaps have been using sense 9 here [78] "a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particular person: The political debate deteriorated into personalities".
I'm sorry that all this has happened and I hope it's all resolved to everyone's satisfaction soon. I hope this message from me doesn't make things more difficult for you in any way. Email me if you feel like it (though I may not be available until the weekend). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Coppertwig, I appreciate your message very much. I have thought of the sense of "personalities" that you suggest.. but it's perhaps a bit strange that if that was what Jimbo meant, he seems to be himself quite unaware of having meant it--the phrase itself allows for that definition, but his responses about the phrase, to Casliber and to me, don't really allow for it at all. Also, there is a third, quite different, possibility ... I'll think about sharing that one by e-mail. Regards, Bishonen | talk19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
)
Hello
Saw your RfM up at MedCom between you and Jimbo. I'm sorry to see that you declined the request (personally, I don't think mediation was the best option anyway, so whatever). This dovetails with a previous exchange we've had (the only one, I think) a few days ago (or weeks -- I have a fuzzy brain) regarding the sockpuppet tag placed on User:Utgard Loki's page. You had reverted the tag, which, given the knowledge that folks were in-the-know, I apologize for (I hadn't known).
IIRC, that exchange took place before the RFAR (and the subsequent attempt at an RfM). Particularly since, coming here, I took a look at your talk page (the chipmunks kinda distracted me ;-) ), where both Utgard and Geogre are talking together, which at first gave me the impression that there were more people talking until I saw the sigs. I was wondering if you made Jimbo aware of this offsite? It wasn't clarified here on your talk that they were the same people. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh... did I make Jimbo aware of it? No, indeed. Jimbo doesn't usually take any interest in such ordinary admin stuff, and would probably be in a state of permanent exhaustion if he did, with the size en.wikipedia is now. Do you yourself make Jimbo aware of all your admin stuff..? Surely not. Did you perhaps mean, did I make an arbitrator aware of it? No; I knew several of them already knew. Of course I was also myself aware of the rather simple reason why Geogre needed one work account and one home account. Do you have any complaint about the way the two accounts were used? I mean, was the impression you received harmful in any way? That would be what "abusive sock", or indeed "sock", means. Bishonen | talk14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
Geogre - a wiki-friend of yours, whom you knew owned and operated both accounts, was using both his accounts to support your position, and in your user space - and you didn't consider that the person with whom you were in dispute, had a need to know? FT2(Talk | email)15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If I were you, FT2, I would leave well alone the subject of why people were not openly told that UL was Geogre - it is not usually necessary to tell people what is generally comsidered to be already known to them. This whole case has been allowed to pass with the minimum of accusations, mud flinging and presentation of unpallatable facts. Durova called and Wikipedia sacrificed, against my better judgement I have allowed this to pass, but beleive me, please do, beleive me, there is nothing I would like more than to fling some mud. So in the interest of the project fuck off from this page and shut the fuck up! Giano (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
FT2 makes a very good point here. The person involved in the dispute, and indeed the public reading the dispute taking place on the page, had a right to know that the dispute was being subverted by an individual using multiple accounts inappropriately. Bishonen, perhaps you should release Jimbo from the pledge he made about using the blocking tool. It's highly unlikely he would ever use it to block you again, and it appears that he made the pledge under a false impression regarding how many people supported you. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Do be quiet, Giacomo. It's totally inappropriate for FT2 to attack me on my page, but then nobody's going to take it seriously. He's embarrasssing himself, not me, so don't let yourself be baited. As for you, Cirt, I'm astonished to see you coming out of the woodwork. Are you actually watching this page? You making a hostile appearance on it isn't quite as inappropriate as FT2 doing it, but not far off. Why don't you go ask Jimbo how interested he is in how many people support me? (And if you do a count, you might be interested to note that I have archived those supporters once, before the page started filling up again.) Geogre, by the way, is a valuable supporter—for anybody, about anything—not by way of filling up a headcount, but because of his logic and his eloquence. If you have an itch to discuss this matter, FT2 and Cirt, perhaps you'd like to do it on some appropriate RFAR page? Isn't that a good idea? You'd get much more attention there than here, and you're surely not ashamed of the points you make, or of your battleground background with me and with Geogre? Are you? Bishonen | talk18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
P.S. Oh, good grief, somebody did take it seriously. Ryan, would you like to read up a little on FT2's and my adventures in January 2009? Cirt, I think yours may be the prissiest "Miss, Miss, he did a bad thing, send him to the corner!" remark ever to disgrace this page. (Note that I'm not saying you are prissy!) Bishonen | talk18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
(ec x 2) The only attack made on this page was a brief use of gutter language from Giano. But since he also pulls my name into the Bishonen-Jimbo debate (an issue where I've had no involvement), it does seem like two contradictory things are being asserted: either Jimbo couldn't be expected to know that Geogre and Utgard Loki were the same person because he doesn't have time for it, or Jimbo was assumed to know because some people assert it was obvious. How about just asking him whether he knew? And in good faith it would be conciliatory to release him from his pledge about the block tool if he didn't know. It's highly unlikely he'd ever use that tool on Bishonen again so she has nothing to lose by being gracious. Durova28818:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The question of fact is not an attack. Trying to attack Cirt (describing him as "coming out of the woodwork" or describing his post as "a hostile appearance") is pointless. This isn't formal dispute resolution, this is purely a talk page thread. All that's asked is a simple question. Hopefully you can easily answer it and put the thread to rest. FT2(Talk | email)18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You're a fine one to talk about a simple question that can be easily answered, FT2, and that's the reason you ought, in particular, not to attack me. This thread is more than a little ridiculous, and the answer so obvious that it makes the soles of my feet tingle to discuss it, but very well: I'll assume that the three of you are despite appearances asking in all seriousness, and will be satisfied if I answer. Here it comes: Jimbo's pledge not to use his block tool again is nothing to do with me, nor can I "release" him from it, nor do I intend to offend and annoy him by going to his page and offering to do so. That pledge has been made to a) the community, b) the ArbCom. Not to Bishonen. All right? Are we done? Bishonen | talk19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
No were are not done actually. Ah Durova, here you are, read again - no one's personage has been attacked, my own civility code is not broken. I'm sure Ft2 has been told to fuck off before probably in RL too, which is far nastier - I doubt he is even offended - most men aren't - it's a term in modern parlance - wise up. I merely think it would be a good idea if FT2 (for the good of the project) dropped this line of questioning; Like you, he is another dissatisfied customer, out to sell and cause trouble and simultaneously put themselves in a good light. Which brings me neatly to you Durova: - Sweatheart, Durova, it aint gonna happen. we have moved on, the likes of you and FT2 are transparent - no one's impressed - you're history, now go restore an image or whatever it is you claim to be very good at...go shooo.... Geogre is de-sysopped and whatever else it was you wanted is done ....now go, just don't expect thanks and reverence as a result - you are as nothing on this page. Giano (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec'd, haven't read intervening post, to Bishonen) Actually that doesn't wrap things up and these events are related to you. Jimbo's pledge to cease using the block tool is a direct result of your complaints and RFAR filing after he blocked you. Your discussion with him about block that took place in your user space, and Geogre used multiple accounts on your user talk to discuss Jimbo and his role. It isn't a stretch to suppose that distorted the appearance of consensus, especially since it requires a rather hardy spirit to come to this page and express polite disagreement. Would Jimbo's perception of the community's opinion have been different in a neutral Wikipedia mediation? We'll never know. But you could certainly earn good faith by making a statement that, for your own part, it would be all right if he resumed use of the block tool. Durova28819:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Durova darling, you are becoming extremely tedious; I'm quite sure there is a distressed image calling you somewhere - go find. Giano (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Giano, as stated a year ago and repeated at your conduct RfC, I consider it uncivil to call an adult by pet names without permission. Please do not refer to me as "sweetheart" or "darling" or any other endearing diminutive. I am not dating you. Durova28819:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's probably not your intention, and I am friends with at least some of you, but the appearances of FT2, Cirt and Durova on this page are likely to inflame conflicts rather than help resolve them. Would you all please back away from this page until and unless Bishonen invites your further comments. Your concerns may or may not be valid, but this is neither a good time nor a good venue to discuss them. There's a social cue up above where our host says, Are we done? That's a hint to leave. Thank you. JehochmanTalk19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
After conflict: ::Durova is here for some cheap publicity, and FT2 realising that he is a passe hasbeen also. They acheived their aim and are to be congratulated, but if they are expecting resultant respect then this page is the wrong place to come, all they wil get here is the publicity, I'm surprises Jimbo and the arbcom did not advise them of that (perhaps they did) - Whatever, they need to take their comments and justifications elsewhere. Giano (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough
Warning to all: The user whose talk page this is has requested that everyone cut it out here. Please follow normal talk page etiquette and respect her wishes, regardless of whether you support her personal positions or not. The current behaviour on this page is not acceptable; user talk pages should not be battlefields.
Bishonen has asked me to specifically comment on the suggestion that she should "release" Jimbo Wales from his personal pledge to refrain from using the block button. That pledge was not made to Bishonen personally, but to the community as a whole. Whatever anyone may think of Jimmy, he should be given credit for his constant re-evaluation of his personal role within the project, as it grows and matures. Over the years, he has stepped aside from many functions as the community has shown its willingness to assume responsibility for various tasks. There was point in time where Jimmy was the *only* person who could block editors, as some may recall. Jimmy's recognition that his own role must continue to evolve as the project matures is a good sign, and I would like to see him receive the respect he is due for taking steps that permit him to gracefully acknowledge this continuous process of change. Risker (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well said. I came here to say something similar but Risker beat me to it. I don't know what prompted everyone to come here and I know why some feel it necessary to be incivil, but it all needs to stop, NOW. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
<-- on your page, instead of Alvin and the Chipmunks...:-P miranda 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
, with the comment (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW). User:Giano—who is not the uploader—has asked me to restore it, because he thinks (from the amateurish quality) that it must be a self-taken photo, although it was apparently uploaded with an erroneous Fair Use rationale. Going to look, I intended to write to the uploader, Habanerosrl and ask him/her to re-upload it, this time with a proper rationale, if he has indeed taken the photo himself. But I'm flummoxed by seeing that Habanerosrl's talkpage is a redlink. Nobody has ever sent any notification to it, as far as I can understand. So, well, how can he have been notified more than 48 hours ago..? And is there any point in me creating the talkpage and posting on it? I must have missed something here. Can you throw any light, and assist us in getting the image back, if possible? Giano's viewpoint is that the page needs it. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
1st prize: 101 dalmatian fishapod plushies
2nd prize: portrait your favourite candidate
3rd prize: strawberry icecream cone
Tex (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
_-_Tricoteuse_(1879).jpg)
09:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
![[13]](https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Image:Barbarigo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_DOJ.jpg)
