User talk:Orthogonal/archive 29 Jul 2004 - 1 Sep 2004

"Red faction" (Lirath Q. Pynnor)

You have been offered full membership in the Red Faction. Should you accept, you will be banned within 3 working days. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks, but I'm not a supporter of any faction. I'm a supporter of Wikipedia. -- orthogonal 17: 15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Effective dissent (Snowspinner)

I notice that you seem to break with the "crowd" on a lot of votes on Wikipedia. This is not a bad thing as such, but it is my sense (Possibly completely wrong) that the way in which you are going about it is being found annoying and counterproductive by people. What follows should not be taken as some official policy of Wikipedia, or as a demand that you reform your actions. You seem to want to help Wikipedia, and, while I disagree with you on a number of points, I want people with differing opinions to be advocating them well and sensibly on Wikipedia. These are my opinions, and mine only.

That said, a couple of things to note. First, Wikipedia is not, historically, a particularly rules oriented place. There are reasons we have a whole lot of holes in our policy - it's because historically, we've not been that interested in endless policy generation. Wikipedia has always been driven more by community consensus, common sense, and the direction set by Jimbo than it has been by rote policy. Accordingly, overreliance on the letter of the law is not going to get you that far in understanding and engaging with the Wikipedia community. Another aspect of this is that there are a lot of things that are not policy, but are still widely accepted. Removal of personal attacks, for instance, is not a policy. However, it is also not something that is hotly contested. Some people remove personal attacks. Others do not. Generally, the attitude is "Sometimes removing a personal attack makes sense. Other times it doesn't." Yet another aspect of this is that policy is occasionally spontaneously generated to deal with an immediate problem. An example of this is the case of User:Mr. Treason, who was being a huge problem, making lots of personal attacks, and occasional death threats. He wasn't blockable because he used a lot of IP addresses from AOL, which we (By, again, general tradition) do not block. So the decision was made, quite on the fly, to hard ban him, declaring that his edits could be reverted on site. This was something that had never been done before by the community at large. But it was done, there was no objection, and, lo and behold, Mr. Treason is now hardbanned. The point of all of this being that the rules are not the only thing that governs Wikipedia - the community, tradition, and complete whim (And, on rare occasions, whimsy) are just as central to its development and function.

Secondly, and relatedly, respect the community. The community is the heart and soul of Wikipedia. If you differ sharply with the community, that's fine and dandy - but the flip side of that is that, if you differ sharply with the community, let it go. If you, over and over again, find yourself on the losing side of something - whether it be RFAs, VfDs, or something else, it may be a sign that you're not using the same yardstick as the rest of the community. In these cases, instead of simply getting shot down over and over again on case after case (Which is unhelpful all around), you might want to consider that you've lost that debate, and let it go. Or you might try to spark a discussion on the general principle that you think is being differed over. Often, it's more productive, in cases where you have a sharp philosophical divide with the community, to discuss that divide, rather than to simply be a continual gadfly on a bunch of small issues. Note also that, in extreme cases, there is always the option of forking the project. In the past, when users have had a serious disagreement with an aspect of how Wikipedia is run, they have simply taken the whole of the project and begun their own branch, with a different set of rules.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, remain positive. I've noted that you're prone to moments of cynicism such as sarcastically declaring that all questioners must be banned. That doesn't help your case - it only makes you look bitter and argumentative. That means that you have less credibility when it comes to discussing an issue. If you feel a decision that is being considered is a bad one, by all means say so - but always try to assume good faith. Virtually everyone involved in this project is trying to write a good encyclopedia. If you think something someone is doing is counterproductive, say so, and explain why, but try to avoid sounding as though you think they themselves are counterproductive. I think, for example, that your objection to the request for arbitration against Avala would have swayed a lot more people (Including potentially myself) if, instead of suggesting I was on a witch hunt and trying to rally people to vote against me on RfA, you had gone to the arbitration page and stated simply that you think Avala is a positive contributor, perhaps with some examples of what Avala has done to improve Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a great site - I'd argue one of the best on the Internet. I'm glad you're here and trying to improve it, regardless of our differences. But I hope you will, at the very least, consider some of the advice here - I think it would help you be a more effective member of the Wikipedia community. Snowspinner 00:59, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I thought I would take a moment to answer your comment on my user page. I must say that it took me completely by surprise, since I had not anticipated anything so oddly impersonal and puzzling. I do not believe that a point by point answer serves anyone's interests, but I feel you might have a few mistaken impressions, and for the good of the Wikipedia project I would like to help dispel them.

The most shocking bit of your message was where you criticized me for not voting in the mainstream. As I made many edits, and votes, before you arrived at Wikipedia, perhaps you are not aware of my record. But be that as it may, had I always voted in the minority, it would be of little import; because I don't think that Wikipedia is about everybody thinking alike or marching, or voting, in lock step.

You also criticize me for being "cynical and bitter"; as it's unclear how you came to that conclusion from anything on wikipedia, I can only assume you are referring to discussions in the #wikipedia IRC channel. If I am cynical, it is because I often ask whether the Emperor in fact has new clothes, or no clothes at all: we are only made better by having our assumptions questioned and our decisions analyzed.

The one vote in which I was significantly in the minority (with eight joining me) was my reluctant vote against your Request for Adminship. The reason I voted against you was your "evidence against Avala", in which your criticize him and suggest he might be sanctioned for, among other things, voting against you, and nominating a candidate you did not support. It seemed as if you were claiming to know and speak for some soi-disant community standard when you unilaterally said that his nomination was against a policy which you did not cite, and that it was such a clear violation that it was a reason for seeking punitive action.

Prior to reading that evidence, I had every intention of voting for you for adminship and even for ArbCom. After reading it, I felt no choice but to question whether you are mature enough, open enough to voices and opinions not your own, to be able to able to distinguish between your own biases and the general good of Wikipedia.

The essence of freedom is -- must be -- that even minorities are given a voice. To say that someone can be sanctioned for not agreeing with you is amazingly, one might even say dangerously, presumptuous.

One thing that I hope you will come to value in the future, Snowspinner, is how our diversity makes us strong. Wikipedia values each voice equally, whether in the majority or not. Only by listening carefully to each other do we grow wiser. I always gain from reading the cogent arguments made by persons who disagree with me, and I always feel that I am a better person for having done so. I find the idea that I speak for "the community," or indeed that anyone does, abhorrent. If any one person ever does succeed in speaking for "the community," I believe Wikipedia will be a poorer and blander place than it is now.

Similarly, I feel very strongly that those who claim to speak for the majority are often trying to cover for their own insecurities by claiming authority from others. I should hope that none of us ever has occasion to make such specious and dangerous claims.

I'm sorry, but I do not recognize your authority to speak for the community or to tell me, even, what the community standards are. Inasmuch as I have been at Wikipedia -- working on articles, not running multiple times for multiple offices -- for three times longer than you, I believe I am already aware, and possibly more aware than you, of the habits and practices of the project.

I hope that you will continue working in good faith, and I wish you luck on your current path. However, I feel it was perhaps unwise and peremptory for you to have taken such a hectoring and presumptuous tone with me, and I certainly wish you would consider your words more carefully. In particular, I urge you -- as I mentioned when I voted against your Request for Administration -- to devote more attention to articles and information than to personalities and your own feelings.

I realize that you feel slighted, but I do not feel responsible for that. If this continues to be a problem for you, and you would like some advice, feel free to call on me.

Best wishes. -- orthogonal 04:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question... (ArisBranwin)

Alright as you've probably noticed I've been trying to find ANY and ALL information on Easter Bradford /James Warnock and actually DO have information to contribute, however due to some block and some hypothetical theory that Mr Bradford/Warnock sent an email to wikipedia [which legally can be proven that the email isn't a valid one and that the email stated in the post on the webpage could be considered false or accurately rewritten] has someone how called for the page to be blocked. I'm not sure why, and haven't been given ANY explination at all. If you're able to enlighten me with any information or would like any information on Mr Bradford/Warnock please let me know.

I'm afraid that I have absolutely no knowledge of Easter Bradford /James Warnock beyond what I've read in the pages of Wikipedia (and a few other webpages, such thedent.com). In particular, I have no idea where James Warnock might be now.

As to contributing information on Easter Bradford /James Warnock, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, dedicated to recording notable information; it was determined (rather conclusively) by the consensus of Wikipedia's contributors that information about Mr. Warnock, his various pseudonyms, and his efforts to break into the entertainment business do not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The page you've been posting to is the archive of that decision, and only contains that information about Mr. Warnock that justifies that decision; that is to say, it's not about Mr. Warnock per se, but about why he does not qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since the decision to not include Mr. Warnock in the encyclopedia has long since been made, adding additional information about him is not strictly necessary, nor is that page intended to be a continuing log about the current activities or whereabouts of Mr. Warnock, as interesting as that might (or might not) be as gossip.

Continuing to post on that page will be unhelpful to you, and unhelpful to Wikipedia.

My suspicion -- and it is only a suspicion -- is that the anonymous person who initially removed your information is likely Mr. Warnock himself, because of its tone (pretending to be an official act on the behalf of Wikipedia), because of its use of information -- specifically, your name -- likely deducible only by Mr. Warnock or a close mutual acquaintance of you and Mr. Warnock, and because few persons are likely to have any interest in Mr. Warnock other than Mr. Warnock himself.

This leads me to believe that Mr. Warnock is aware of your efforts to contact him, and is, for his own reasons, uninterested in such contact.

In any case, while I sympathize with your desire to come to some sort of closure by finding your former roommate, Wikipedia doesn't have the information you seek, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide such information. Perhaps Mr. Warnock has opened yet another blog, which might provide the answers you seek, or perhaps you would be better served by writing your own blog detailing your search. Given the internet these days, I'm sure you's soon find any number of persons willing to aid your search. -- orthogonal 22:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I'll do my best to try that 68.212.95.11 04:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definition of dedication

Creating new articles on a handheld, while in the bathtub?! LOL, now that is dedication! SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! It's that minor risk of electrocution that gives creating articles that, uh, spark! -- orthogonal 07:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your userpage

I would appreciate if you removed the "Read how Snowspinner feels about votes against him" link from your userpage. As a gross misrepresentation of my views, I find it offensive, and to border on being a personal attack, which is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially inappropriate as a prominant and permanant link from your userpage.

Thank you. Snowspinner 02:18, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

But what I link to is your own words, precisely as you put them on my talk page, and my response. Your complaint in the message you left on my talk page began "I notice that you seem to break with the 'crowd' on a lot of votes on Wikipedia."

As I noted in my response to your message, the one vote in which I was significantly in the minority was my vote against your nomination for adminship, so I don't think it's a mischaracterization to title the link "Read how Snowspinner feels about votes against him". But if it was actually some other vote of mine which prompted you to lecture me on my talk page, please tell me which vote it was and I will be happy to change the title of the link to identify that vote.

Incidentally, as I always do when someone leaves a message on my talk page, I coped your message and my response to your talk page as well. I do this as a courtesy so that anyone leaving a messages knows that I've responded promptly and has a chance to answer my response. Apparently, you were busy that night, as, well, I think the history of your talk page speaks for itself:

(cur) (last) 00:59, 2 Aug 2004 Snowspinner (Further archiving)
(cur) (last) 00:52, 2 Aug 2004 Snowspinner (Archiving June and some of July and later)
(cur) (last) 00:51, 2 Aug 2004 Snowspinner m
(cur) (last) 00:45, 2 Aug 2004 Orthogonal

Six minutes after I left the message, you deleted the courtesy copy of my response, and (I assume mistakenly) marked that as a minor. A minute later, you (I assume coincidently) decided to archive your page. Seven minutes later, you create the archive copies, but (I assume accidentally) neglected to copy your original lecture or my response to any of your archive pages. ('Apropos' of nothing, do I recall correctly that one your charges against Avala before the Arbitration Committee is that you claim he makes misleading edit summaries?)

So I understand that, in your haste to archive your Talk page, you perhaps missed my response, and were startled to see it linked from my User page. But as I feel that you must have put a lot of work into your message, and since as far I know you stand behind your remarks, I not have imagined that you'd think it "especially inappropriate as a prominant [sic] and permanant [sic] link from [my] userpage."

You write that linking to your own words "border[s] on being a personal attack". I note that this is not the first time you've asked that your own words be deleted. As I see that you have just recently authored a proposal to allow sysops to arbitrarily block users for what any sysop regards as a "personal attack", will that be your next step when I don't remove the link, or will you simply continue your habit of listing other peoples' Proposals and Talk pages on VfD?

To quote my response to your initial message, "I urge you -- as I mentioned when I voted against your Request for Administration -- to devote more attention to articles and information than to personalities and your own feelings."

Once again, as it my practice, I will copy this as a courtesy to your user page; hopefully this will allow you not to be surprised by seeing the link when you're grepping through my user page. And as always, best wishes. -- orthogonal 06:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond to this - I spent two days traveling in there and forgot I'd never responded. There was no specific vote that prompted the comment - it was a combination of several votes, but primarily, a commnet you made in IRC about wanting to be the voice of dissent. As for the borderlining of a personal attack, it has nothing to do with linking to an edit I've made and everything to do with the context - you are making untrue claims about me. The text of the link - "Read how Snowspinner feels about votes against him" is simply not true. Just as your latest link, about how quoting me is a borderline personal attack, is not true. It has nothing to do with quoting me, and everything to do with an untrue summary of the quote. If you want to link to the posts, be my guest. My objection is to your doing it with untrue summaries.

Also, there is no need to repost replies to my talk page - this page is on my watch list. Snowspinner 14:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.

I would like to thank you so much. From the deepnees of my soul. You wrote in such a simple but stunning and awesome way everything that wikipedia society should know about snowspinners behaviour. It is mostly about that he dissagrees with everybody who think differently. And thinks that they should be banned. The worst thing is that he goes on IRC with the story I am the worse than a worst.

I am really greatfull and I would like to thank you again

Neizmerna zahvalnost [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 19:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trio sonatas

<<Thanks, good compromise. -- orthogonal 06:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)>>

You are generous. I wasn't seeing the page clearly. I missed the little important fact that the signature that I copied in from the History file was the same as the signature on the vote that followed the insightful comment. ---Rednblu 06:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It happens -- especially when those votes get long, as when certain garrulous people make lengthy, multi-paragraph arguments. :) -- orthogonal 07:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks/blocking policy

Thanks orthogonal for making me aware of the Personal attacks/blocking policy. I think it would actually be a good policy if accountability checks on admins were in place. I really hope the Admin Accountability Policy will be approved. - pir 09:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning

I have no idea. Never used IRC. BTW, I can't see in your log which personal attacks are spoken about. Mikkalai 05:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's just the point. There are no personal attacks. Several of us in IRC, in a playful mood, over an hour earlier, had been changing nicks for the purpose of parody. I changed my nick to an obvious imitation of Snowspinner's nick (but took care to use a nick that wouldn't be actually mistaken for his own nick; under no circumstances would I wish my words to be misattributed to him or anyone else.

After doing so, I made some (gentle) parodies of Snowspinner -- well, actually, one line is parody; the other is just a report of what Snowspinner's actually been doing as regards re-writing failed policies as something he calls "Wikipedia:Semi-policy".

In any case,

I don't consider a parody a personal attack, especially in the context of multiple parodies by multiple persons, including a "jwales" offering a course in how to vandalize Wikipedia.
Even if it is a personal attack, I don't think there's any policy that allows IRC banning for personal attacks (an opinion the real jwales shares, incidentally).
And even if there were that policy, I don't think snowspinner or any other sysop should be banning for disputes they are themselves party to.

Here's a log of what (apparently) set him off: User:Orthogonal/What Snowspinner considers a personal attack in IRC. -- orthogonal 05:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IRC has no written policies that I know of. Furthermore, being an op in IRC has nothing to do with being an admin on Wikipedia. Lots of Wikipedia admins are not IRC ops, and, actually, I was an IRC op before I was a Wikipedia admin. But if you want to complain, the three people with the highest level of op status in IRC are Xirzon and Fire. That said, they've both been gone for more than two weeks. I think the next in command is Fennec - he's the freenode group contact. Snowspinner 05:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I checked up, and Fennec is definitely the guy who's actually in charge. So I'd talk to him. Snowspinner 05:54, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I'm delighted that you've abandoned your decision to "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". But if Fennec is, as you say, "the freenode group contact", then he's the contact for Wikipedia and therefore representing Wikipedia as its agent. In that capacity, his giving you "op" privileges is an act by wikipedia. Similarly, your use of those privileges to ban is a Wikipedia act.

Also, you appear to have visited the talk pages of the sysops here that I complained to, in order to explain you were "not amused". As I've tried to explain to you before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and whether or not you're amused, your opinion does not and should not carry more weight than any else -- despite your attempts to make unilateral changes to policy pages and to instruct other users about what you consider the beliefs of the Wikipedia community. In particular, your unilateral banning and threats to ban, on both Wikipedia and in IRC, are quite simply an abuse of power, no matter how you came by that power. -- orthogonal 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey-o. Read the text you left on my page; sorry to hear that your disagreement has come to this level, but IRC is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and I am only an "empowered-user" on the Arbitration-specific IRC channel, not on #wikipedia generally.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 14:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The decision not to deal with you has been temporarily set aside regarding this matter, because part of being an op in IRC is being willing to take responsibility for your actions. That said, what being the group contact means is that Fennec can ask Freenode to add or remove people from the access list. It doesn't mean that Fennec is the liason between the website and Freenode. At the moment, there is no such liason, and the IRC channel is an independent thing. At least, that's been the opinion of most of the arbcom - Fred disagrees, I know. And, admittedly, I personally agree with Fred. However, that's not the point - the point is that you asked what the "court of appeals" as it were was, and I told you. IRC sysophood and en.wikipedia.org sysophood are different matters.

As for the unilateral threats to ban, on both Wikipedia and in IRC, well, those don't fall under the topic of me taking responsibility for an IRC ban. Snowspinner 14:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Unbanned on IRC

As of a minute or three ago, I have removed your IRC ban in #wikipedia. Feel free to come back, but please do not harass or mock anybody in the channel. Thanks for your concern in this regard. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fennec, I appreciate that. I do. Thank you.

But I don't believe I've harassed anyone on IRC. I've asked questions, yes, and I know that some consider asking questions to be trolling. (And, yes, made fun of the channel's apparently perennial topics, Furries and autofellatio, in what I hope was a mostly gentle way.) And yes I've mocked people. Not only is it accepted by many that rules are and should be looser in IRC, but more generally, satire and parody have traditionally been a way to "speak truth to power". And unfortunately, Wikipedia has, in my opinion, strayed from its origins as a place with a flat hierarchy and community consensus to become a place increasing stratified in power -- as both sysop threats and the efforts of many users to put in place safeguards against such abuse abundantly testify to.

In the words of the Former (UK) Lord Chief Justice Halisham, "The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."

To be "free" to use IRC, but under the ever-present threat of being banned for mere "wrong" speech is only the freedom to toe the line of whomever is entrusted with the power to ban. I frankly would have been less perturbed if you yourself had banned me; allowing Snowspinner (or anyone else) to be a judge in his own cause cannot but create a chilling effect. This chill affects not only me, but everyone else in the IRC channel, because the message is clear: say something that an "op" finds distressing or contrary or "trolling", and lose any chance to say anything at all.

One can, of course, retort that IRC is a private association, that "ops" are not government agents, that one therefore has no "rights" in IRC, and that in any case any limits on "freedom" are to the general good. And these points are well-taken. But I think the larger issue is that we have -- so we claim -- certain values on Wikipedia, not least of which is Wikipedia's openness. We invite anyone who causally surfs to the web site to make changes to any (nearly) any article, and we don't even ask they state their names when they do so. Essential to that openness is that people must not only be allowed to speak their minds, but allowed to do so without fear of sanction.

My initial concern over Snowspinner's actions was his including in his evidence against another user at ArbCom, that that user had in Snowspinner's opinion, voted incorrectly (emphasis mine): "Avala also regularly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, policy, making spurious listings or votes[....] Examples of this include his opposition to User:Snowspinner’s nomination on RFA[....] Similarly, his nomination [...] demonstrated a lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator." Snowspinner was in fact claiming that Avala should be punished for voting his conscience, and I can think of few things more likely to undermine democratic consensus-building with fear.

As it happens, I learned of that evidence when Snowspinner asked in the #wikipedia IRC channel for those there to review his evidence. To claim that IRC has "nothing to do with Wikipedia" is perhaps true in a narrow technical sense, but it is clear that much Wikipedia business is conducted there. Indeed, Snowspinner himself is honest enough to admit that he thinks IRC conduct is regulable on Wikipedia, and even uses discussion on IRC to justify what he terms, somewhat incongruously, "semi-policy".

As banning in IRC prevents those discussions from even being audited, it seems to go against the openness and transparency which, we are told, characterizes Wikipedia. Are persons banned/blocked from Wikipedia only prevented from reading Wikipedia or the Wikipedia mailing lists (I honestly don't know the answer to this)?

Since it is possible for anyone in the IRC channel to "ignore" any other user's conversation purely through technical means, and given that it is also possible to prevent a user from adding to any conversation in a channel while still being able to audit it, it seems that banning entirely is more a way of punitively excluding a user from the community and transparency we hold up as an ideal, than anything else. (Don't misunderstand me -- while I certainly agree anyone can "ignore" whomever they wish in IRC, I don't think using technical means to prevent speech is all too much better than outright banning.)

So while the argument can be -- and is -- made that IRC is not part of Wikipedia, the fact that there is a #wikipedia channel at all suggests that the values we uphold on wikipedia should be upheld in IRC as well. Technical differences, to be sure, will mean minor differences in the way things are done, but we should not abandon core values "just because" we can justify it on narrow procedural grounds; to do so is to admit that we don't really hold the values we claim so long as we can "get by" by paying mere lip-service to them.

As long as speech in the IRC channel can be stifled by whomever happens to be an op (and apparently that's entirely at your, Fennec's, discretion -- I'd incorrectly assumed "ops" were given to all Wikipedia sysops), and as long as it's considered appropriate for "ops" to be judges in their own cause, I see little value in my using the IRC channel, unless I am willing to self-censor my speech for fear of being expelled from the community by whomever you've granted "op" powers to.

I prefer to spend my time where freedom means more than "you are free to agree with those in power". -- orthogonal 21:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Harry Caray

It was luck, I had linked to Harry Carey in Seventh-inning stretch, and then went to google to find his birth and death dates. That was when i realized that it was spelt with all "a"s. I just found out that Harry Carey was an actor, actually. —siro χ o 23:20, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the actor that (I think this is one of the few examples where I can correctly use "that" rather than "who") tripped me up: I took the precaution of googling on "Harry Carey", saw a bunch of hits, some mentioning baseball and Cubs, and went to town. I am embarrassed. Honestly, I never really knew about Caray until seeing Will Farrell's SNL impression, but those skits really gave me a sense of Harry Caray. -- orthogonal 23:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight

orthogonal, just wanted to give you a thumbs up on the selection of articles on your user page, as well as your efforts to more fully document what goes on behind the scenes of the Wikipedia experience.

A few of the selections on your user page elicited chuckles ("My Pet Goat"?), while others are crucial to expose activities that most folks never hear about ("Astroturfing"). It's also been a real eye opener to peruse your writeups on the sometimes ugly underbelly of Wikipedia itself (most of it depressing).

I hope that members of the Wikipedia community with more positive aspirations are able to overcome the potential for the behind-the-scenes ugliness to overshadow the freedom to contribute uncensored writing - that is only possible when anybody can edit the articles without fear of retribution.

You seem to be one of the few folks around here that isn't afraid of the group think concerning "how things should be".

My wife came from mainland China as an adult, and she is often afraid to "make trouble" because of the society she came from, so when I see folks like you pushing back, it motivates me to give you a virtual thumbs up and encourage you to stick with it.

By way of background, my original motivation for using Wikipedia was as a reference source to read up on subjects that I wanted to educate myself about, but I later found many articles that were written not only to educate, but also to shine a light on things that others might want to keep in the shadows.

I can't afford to contribute money, so I decided to try and contribute where I could, to try and repay the folks who have spent so much time on this fine service. (I'm a video poker expert, so I'm focusing on that, but I'm trying to contribute bits and pieces to other articles where possible.)

My parents could barely afford an encyclopedia when I was growing up, and when we finally bought one, it was very empowering to be able to learn about seemingly anything whenever I felt like it. Wikipedia promises to bring the same thing to anyone, regardless of anyone's ability to afford it. (There is still the problem of making computers more affordable, but web cafes are helping to work around that).

So I hope you'll agree that the eventual result of a full, uncensored Wikipedia, available to anyone for free, is worth slogging through some shit to get there, and don't let others pull you down.

And thanks again for shining a light where others might not want it shone.

Good luck.

--DV 15:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The IRC furore

I'm surprised to see that Fennec didn't feel like mentioning that those guys had to be scolded into getting rid of the ban. That was outrageous. We have freenode surfers in there all the time trying to troll, and it's no big deal, but a registered Wikipedian who contributes to the site gets a kickban? That's stupid. Anyway, I'm sorry I didn't do more, but last night I did take them to task over it. Fennec said "all it takes is for someone in here to change the mode." He then set the mode to -b something, and that was it. Well, if all it takes is "somebody," does that mean anybody? If so, could zocky or I have done it with no more words at all? I don't understand IRC at all. With every day that goes by, I think it's less and less savory a part of WP. Geogre 18:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Huh. I'd assumed Fennec did it because of his inherent sense of fairness. All it takes is somebody with "channel operator" ("op") powers in the IRC channel, but that's generally a restricted class of users (at one time long ago I was an "op" in the #c++ channel, but I only banned crap-flooders). I'd assumed that Snowspinner had channel ops by virtue of being a wikipedia sysop; apparently I was wrong. As I am told IRC has nothing to do with Wikipedia, it's unclear who gets "op" powers or why, but snowspinner indicates (see above) that Fennec is currently in charge. On the other hand, smowspinner himself thinks the IRC channel is reguable by Wikipedia; whether that means he thought he was acting in an official capacity or a personal one is unexplained. I'll expand on this in my reply to Fennec.

Thank you for your advocacy. -- orthogonal 20:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FennecFoxenFoe

Got some email from Slashdot today:

FooAtWFU (699187) has made you their foe.

http://slashdot.org/~FooAtWFU/

Hmm. Seems that FooAtWFU's homepage is fennec.homedns.org. Now where have I seen that before? I seem to recall a webcomic or something.

Oh! It's Fennec! Now that's what I call internet synergy!

User:Fennec has made me a "foe" on his Slashdot account!

I guess I'll be seeing some down mods next time Fennec gets Slashdot mod points.

Lemme see. At this point 33 Slashdot accounts have declared me a foe. But 428 call themselves my fans (one of them is Raul654; he's a fan of Fennec too, I hope that's not a social faux pas now that Fennec has named me his foe!). I guess it's time for Fennec to make some Slashdot Sockpuppets!

(For the record, I've declared no one a foe on Slashdot. Different people have different opinions, but I've never seen that an excuse for to call someone a "foe".) -- orthogonal 00:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/orthogonal Snowspinner 05:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal, in all fairness to yourself, I advise you to temporarily refrain from further comment on the Rfc page directed at you, as Snowspinner has already contaminated the jury pool by introducing unrelated and prejudicial evidence concerning "IRC".

Please see the comments I have posted on the Rfc page for a detailed explanation of my reasoning on this matter, but the short of it is, the proceedings are already unfair to you right out of the gate, and you only hurt yourself by attempting to respond in such an unfair forum.

(In other words, if the jury has already been negatively influenced to decide your fate, you only increase your sentence by attempting to argue the merits of your point of view, as the jury's vision is now too clouded by the prejudicial evidence to see things from your point of view.)

Once the record has been purged of the prejudicial and unrelated "IRC" stuff, the merits of the case can be cleanly argued.

I will continue to monitor this situation to look for a constructive way to resolve it. --DV 09:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

orthogonal, a "Sysop" by the name of Ambi stopped by and considered whether the prejudicial nature of the IRC issue justified its exclusion. I also raised the issue that even if the "IRC" issue is relevant, that it must still be entirely excluded as hearsay. Ambi agreed somewhat with the latter argument, but appears to be sticking to her guns that the "IRC" issue is not prejudicial, because in her judgment the particular "chat room" that is used for Wikipedia is considered part of the Wikipedia service itself. (Please see Ambi's comments on the main proceedings page to read her entire opinion.)

However, given that Ambi has declined to certify the proceedings, this entire case would appear to be in a state of limbo, and so it may be premature for anyone to rule on the merits of these procedural issues until the proceeding is officially underways.

For now, I will consider this to be a pending case that is not under formal review, and I advise that you treat it as such, as any additional comments posted on the case page risk providing de facto legitimacy without an official determination one way or the other.

In the big picture, I sense that there are agents and powers at work here that I do not yet fully comprehend.

All I do know is that Wikipedia must conduct a fair proceeding if it does not wish to alienate the voices of dissent and alternative points of view.

Wikipedia is a rare thing that is worth trying to save. --DV 12:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether I replied in the proper spot at all, but I've now written a longish comment. I also brought up the IRC bit. I didn't really push very hard on its being tangential, but I did point out that this is circular logic. Snowspinner did the ban and then uses it as evidence of there being bannable behavior. That doesn't work. If Fennec had done the ban, it would have been evidence, although with low credibility after the "foe" ranking (though that's arguable, since you may have been his enemy on Slashdot and not on Wikipedia). Unfortunately, legal procedures are only tangentially related to what goes on on an RfC. Geogre 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent and well-argued response on the RfC page; and I agree with you on most of it, including my being monomaniacal about opposing Snowspinner's power grabs.

For the record, as far as the "foe" ranking on Slashdot, I didn't even know Fennec had a Slashdot account, much less what his user name on Slashdot was. My username on slashdot is the same as my username here, orthgonal (incidentally, all lower case, Geogre! ;-) ), and I've not only referred to my Slashdot account in #wikipedia IRC, I've even posted urls to my Slashdot comments. Fennec's username on Slashdot, however, is "FooAtWFU" and his username in IRC is "FennecFoxen"; not until I got the automatic email notifying me he has listed me as a "foe", and looked at his Slashdot account and saw that he shows there his homepage as "fennec.homedns.org" did I make the connection. I'm pretty sure I've never down modded him on Slashdot, because in all the many times I've had mod points (including three occasions when I got five mod points in the last two weeks) I've only ever made three down mods, and in any case, the identity of modders is concealed from those who are being modded. Nor am I aware of any Slashdot post of his to which I have responded, ever. It seems most likely, therefore, that he listed me as a "foe" based on interactions here, not there. And of course he's got every right to list me as "friend" or "foe" on Slashdot; but seeing as how it seemed it must have been prompted by animus here, I thought it only sporting to acknowledge here that I'd noticed his so doing, and to mention that I have nearly thirteen times more "fans" than "foes" on Slashdot . -- orthogonal 15:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you might look at the discussion of IRC evidence that David Vasquez ("DV") has brought up on the rfc page, and his, ambi's, and my thoughts on it on the associated talk page. -- orthogonal 15:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not RfC

Hey, man. Let me publically urge you to change the layout and wording of your argument with Snowspinner. I know the RfC is pending and that you might want to keep things just the same while comments are being made, but, as soon as you feel that it's appropriate, I think it would be well to take down the tone a bit in the characterizations. Truthfully, the matter on the pages themselves says what you need to say. The characterization in the link text isn't really needed. Anyway, that's my advice, and it's worth every penny you paid for it. Geogre 03:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Suggestions? Since I'm inherently biased (as is Snowspinner) I'll accept suggestions from you or any third party who has read in full what's linked to. 03:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (To ensure those making suggestions have fully read the whole dialogue (it's long and not particularly exciting) I have inserted some give-aways into the text. ;-) Pop-quizzes may be given.) -- orthogonal 03:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only on the second one. The first one is ok, since your linktext is the first words of the comment. You should probably do the same with the second (first words of Snowspinner's text), as choosing words farther along could be seen as trying to make the linktext unflattering. I realize that you chose the text that was most illustrative of the content, but you're better off with just the first words of Snowspinner's and ("re: links to discussion on my user page") or something as a summary. As for the long summary of the dispute on your user page...I've got to think about it. Geogre 13:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ambi's first comment (ambi)

[Ambi's copmment restored from page history. See below ("I need your help here") for my way-too-uptight reasons. -- orthogonal 10:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

I just wanted to thank you for not necessarily trying to have the complaint dismissed on procedural grounds. My opinion of you just went up somewhat. ;) Ambi 09:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. And I always thought "ambivalentHysteria" was a cool and clever name. Wish we'd been able to get off on a better foot, especially as I've had a number of good conversations with your friend dysprosia (even if she is a heretical Objective-C user ;), what she knows about math just astounds and humbles me).

But down to cases: I think the RfC can be dismissed on procedural grounds, and I'm very sensitive to the need for procedural constraints, because they historically exist (by historical, I don't mean on WP, I mean on Earth) to protect the weaker from the (potential) depredations of the stronger. The Magna Carta is a procedural constraint (trail by jury of peers), so is the Fourteenth Amendment (due process of law), as are rules of evidence.

Indeed, I worry a bit that by not insisting on them, we (the defendents, collectively) make things more difficult for those who come after us, who might need them more than we do, but be denied by a precedent set by we who did not insist such procedures be followed.

I notice that you've voted against all measures of Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy, and I presume that's because you fear abuse of process by anti-admin persons with axes to grind ("trolls"), so I suspect you're essentially voting for a procedural constraint, that being that de-sysoping be limited to an ArbCom with established procedures rather than left to a plebiscite.

So please understand, I'm not (and David Vasquez, so far as I know, is not; I've limited discussion with him in view of his involvement in the on-going RfC to prevent any appearance of impropriety) bringing up procedural constraints to "game the system", but in order to preserve the sanctity of the system.

That said, I also understand that one big complaint about so-called "trolls" is that they use legalistic tactics to game the system. And as you pointed out to David, in so doing I'd attract much more opprobrium by relying on procedural constraints to get the RfC dismissed. So dismissing procedurally wouldn't really benefit me; many people would just point to that as "proof" I'm a troll. That's why I was very careful to state in my initial response that I planned to address the substantive complaints.

In a way I'm lucky: I think the substantive complaints in the RfC are pretty flimsy, so I'm not going to need to use the procedural arguments to "get out of" the RfC. I'm lucky, because I can easily refute the substantive complaints. But others may not be so lucky, or may not have the support I have here, or may have poorer English skills, and so I wanted to make the procedural point and make it strongly so that no precedent of ignoring it would be set.

Now that I've done so, I'll address the substantive complaints (but give me a bit of time, so that I can be thorough). -- orthogonal 10:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for Dysprosia's math knowledge, you're not the only one humbled. ;) Whenever she writes an article on here, I have to expect that it's going to be way over my head.

I voted against the policy because I'm concerned about it being abused, and I don't think it's healthy for sysops to be continually having to watch their back. I guess what spurred me on with this has been the increasing tactic of trying to hurt users who tackle controversial issues, but haven't been awfully hideous, on RfA and RfC. (example: Rex010704 found himself blocked from editing an article, so he's popped up and retaliated against those who took him to arbitration on practically *anything* that *any* of us have been up for). Thus, I just feel it opens up the opportunity of giving users with an axe to grind a chance to do so in bad faith.

That said, the policy still doesn't change the fact that if an administrator does step out of line, the Arbitration Committee is quite capable of dealing with them, as with any other user. Guanaco and Hephaestos have already run into trouble in that way.

And finally, thank you for being so polite about that - I do believe that you're not trying to game the system. Alas, I fear that the parade of troublesome users to come before you (and that will inevitably come afterwards) have poisoned the well in that regard. Ambi 13:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ambi's second comment (ambi)

I just caught your response on Avala's talk page. My response there wasn't about his complaints about Snowspinner - just his tone, which was going into the realm of personal attacks.

That said, I've seen the evidence (both at the time and since), and I must admit, my opinion of certain parties in this has gone down. I'm starting to wish I'd brought the RfA against Avala myself, because some of Snowspinner's evidence appears to be fairly dodgy - yet I believe that a fairly good case could have been made against him, without any of that.

I must admit that the impression I'd got of you so far is that I'd been surprised you hadn't joined Red Faction. But I respect the way you've handled this RfC so far. Kudos. :) Ambi 09:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think Avala's usage was a personal attack; in part that's because I tend to think a personal attack must cross a bright line.

That said, I have purposely not inquired into the facts of the Avala cased beyond what's in Snowspinner's own evidence. This is for two reasons: one, because the Avala "evidence", in my opinion, is so extraordinarily bad, in that it attacks Avala essentially for holding opinions that Snowspinner doesn't agree with, that were I the court I'd have thrown out the case based just on that -- and therefore, procedurally, it would be prejudicial to Avala to consider any other evidence.

(Prejudicial in two senses: that it would tars Avala with a far too broad brush, and in the sense that any real evidence commingled with it might be so contaminated it couldn't be used against Avala in a future trial. So to protect both Avala and Wikipedia, I'd have thrown the whole damn thing out -- and protected both Avala's reputation and the reputation of Wikipedia justice. But I ain't de judge.)

The other reason I haven't inquired into other facts in the case is related but different: in reading Snowspinner's evidence (some 62 diffs and links if I recall, and I'm sure I didn't even look at all of them) is that many reveal Snowspinner relentlessly baiting Avala and then (apparently) cooling noting down Avala's predictable anger as evidence against him.

(I say predicable anger not because I'm implying Avala has a short temper, but because some of Snowspinner's baiting would have tried the patience of a saint: I think Avala was honestly trying -- and trying hard and repeatedly -- to "be a part" of the FAC process, and at even turn, Snowspinner belittled his efforts. It's just terribly, terribly unpleasant. Perhaps I'm just reading into this a tone of voice, a muttered "dumbass!" under the breath by Snowspinner and a plaintiveness in Avala:

why don`t you give a support now?Avala 21:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter whether she does or not, since the real question is whether anyone opposes. So long as she's withdrawn her objections, you're in the same position whether she supports or not. Snowspinner 14:45, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

But every time he got shot down, Avala tried again. In his fractured English, he'd offer up another Featured Article Candidate, and he's get shot down again. And again.

I don't know, I wasn't there, and you were, and maybe Avala was a big jerk and Snowspinner was patient and nurturing. But that's not hop it looks from Snowspinner's evidence. Here's a verbatim copy from Snowspinner's "evidence". Just click the links, one after another, and think to yourself how it must have felt for Avala: [1], [2], [3], and [4].)

So at this point, I'm very sympathetic to Avala, not least because his English is sketchy and he was nevertheless trying to contribute in to what for him is a foreign tongue, and Snowspinner, with all the benefits of (I assume) a top-flight education and working in his native tongue, was tormenting him.

Please understand, when I came into this, I thought Snowspinner a slightly over-aggressive but basically decent admin (actually he wasn't an admin at the time, but from listening to him in IRC, he seemed to be, so I assumed he was) and I accepted his word and the words of others that Avala was a "troll" of the likes of Lir.

Personal aside: when I was in college, at one point I couldn't pay for a semester, and I ended up working in a warehouse, packaging cassette tapes (yeah, a long time ago) into boxes so they could be returned to the record labels for remaindering. It was a lot of sorting of odd lots of mixed tapes into boxes of all the same tape, or (if I recall correctly, I'm not sure) alphabetically. Place smelled of cardboard and plastic.

The workers were a diverse lot: middle-class but at loose ends me, some rather rural whites only a little older than me who'd never been in line for college, and some immigrants, including a middle-aged Chinese immigrant. One of the white guys could probably be fairly called a redneck, and while he wasn't a bad sort or a Kluxer, he wasn't a bleeding heart liberal either. The Chinese guy had next to no English, and I guess he mostly sorted the tapes by the design of their wrappers (dust jackets? whatever), and he was rather submissive, looking at the ground when you spoke to him and all that.

Anyway, the white guy liked to go up to the Chinese guy and say -- and this I remember plain as day -- "working hard or hardly working"? He'd say it real quickly too, running the words together: "workin'-hard-er-hardly-workin'?" Well, of course to those of us who speak English, that's not only easy to figure out, but it's a stock joke phrase; we know you don't even have to figure it out or give a real answer to it. You can just nod and say, "sure am" or "workin' hardly", and exchange a smile or a nod with your interlocutor.

But the Chinese guy didn't know much English. He seemed to know the word "work", but that was pretty much it. So when the white guy asked him this -- and he did it much more than once -- the Chinese guy would look up and look puzzled, and you could see him working it out, and then he'd get it, and grin and nod because he was happy he's worked it out, and he'd grin some more like he felt accepted by the white guy, like they were exchanging some secret lodge recognition signal.

And the white guy would grin back, but it was a more sarcastic grin, and you knew he was laughing at the Chinese guy who was just trying to make it through the day and collect the four bucks an hour we got paid. And he'd look over the Chinese guy's shoulder to us standing behind the Chinese guy, and his grin would get bigger like he was putting on a show for all of us. And you knew the white guy was thinking, "maybe I grew up poor in a rural county, and maybe I live in a trailer, and maybe I never went to college, but by damn! I can tangle up that Chinaman! And everybody sees what a slick cock-a-block I am, and they laugh along with me and at him! And everybody knows I'm making fun of that Chinaman but that Chinaman himself!"

And I just hated seeing that. Had the white guy travelled half-way around the globe to a foreign country where he didn't know the language just to get a dead-end job in his middle age? No! But he was willing to make fun of someone who did. And there was nothing I could do: the Chinese guy didn't know enough English for me to explain what was going on, and didn't know any Chinese. I tried once to explain, and it went nowhere. The Chinese guy just stared at me. How do you explain someone's making light of his lack of English without sounding like you're making light of his lack of English, when the guy speaks next to no English?

And I couldn't do anything about the white guy and he would have gotten pissed at me, the not-in-college college-boy, and made my life miserable, or made the Chinese guy's life more miserable and I was broke and trying to save money to go back to college out of four bucks an hour, and I didn't need to make an enemy on the warehouse floor. I gave the white guy some disapproving looks the first couple of times I saw him do it, and I didn't join in the laughter of some of the other co-workers. And I may even have broached it with him once, or maybe that's just what I want to remember.

But worst of all, this degrading and oft repeated joke -- it made the Chinese guy feel like the white guy liked him, that he was accepted by the people in his adopted country, because the Chinese guy didn't know any better. Stopping the white guy from making the joke would have stopped the degradation, but it would also have left the Chinese guy without the comfort he look in the joke because he didn't know it was joke at his expense. So I didn't do anything but stand there at the warehouse table and sort tapes into boxes.

When I saw what Snowspinner was doing to Avala, this memory didn't immediately come to mind, but at some point I realized why what Snowspinner was doing pissed me off so much. -- orthogonal 12:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Avala's no troll, and I don't think even Snowspinner has argued that. It's understandable, too, that he has some difficulty, considering that English is not his first language. However, he does have a tendency to be somewhat rude, and to react strongly when politely confronted about such behaviour. I don't think I was too harsh when I suggested that he should tone down his remarks on your RfC, but he responded with a "ambi's trying to silence me" statement.

Now, I haven't specifically gone through the evidence Snowspinner collected. From what you've shown me, it certainly seems as if some of it was very flimsy. However, I've had enough dealings with the guy to know that there's some issues that need to be resolved, which is why I argued strongly for the AC to take the case. He's been pretty difficult in regard to issues where his nationalism comes to play (i.e. he completely refuses to comprehend other viewpoints in regard to Kosovo, and I wasn't impressed by the time I had to have a great big debate with him to try and convince him not to replace a picture of Abraham Lincoln in the President article with Tito, because he liked the guy better).

He's also done some dubious things in the Wikipedia namespace, such as voting against that adminship nomination because the guy wouldn't condemn someone else. I don't know about you, but I think that's just not on, no matter who it is.

That said, Snowspinner certainly doesn't help his own cause in some of these cases. Out of curiosity, have you got an example you can point me to where he's baited Avala into a reaction, and then complained about it?

Finally, that story is heartbreaking. People can be so cruel. *sigh* Ambi 13:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I need your help here (orthogonal)

[orthogonal's plea copied from Ambi's talk page. -- orthogonal 10:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Ambi, I need your help with something. I was responding to your first note on my talk page when you edited over it with your note that's currently there. I have this long-standing -- call it a fetish for lack of a better name -- about not removing anything from my talk page, in the interests of openness and transparency.

I've made note of this in the header to my talk page for about 10 months: "The dialogues are preserved as written (except where repliers have interpolated their responses); not one word has been altered or omitted by orthogonal and [elide out-of-date date] orthogonal knows of no alterations by others (other than the aforementioned reply interpolation)."

So I'm in a quandary: if I leave your original comment edited over, I can't make this guarantee anymore. On the other hand, if I replace your comment, I may be mis-representing your intent.

My own practice is to note make any edits, even to correct typos, if another edit has since been made. You followed this, as I was still working on my response when you entered your new note, but now I have a response to something that's no longer there.

My first though was to replace your original comment, and in square braces explain what had happened, and then respond only to your second comment. But then I realized that might offend you, or seem as if I was saying "aha! here's what Ambi originally said and see how she changed it".

I'm probably wasting more sweat on this than is warranted, but I've never edited anything on my talk page except to archive it, and I'm always archived in strict chronological order.

Please advise. Thanks. -- orthogonal 09:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter either way. I'd just made a brief reply, when I saw your post, and incorporated what I originally said into that. Ambi 10:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks (Theresa Knott)

Replied on my talk page. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 22:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)