On Sep 15, 2006, at 8:35 PM, geni wrote:

Then I must request that you resign your adminship.

Request denied. HTH. HAND.

-Phil

On 16/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

...

If it's against policy, it must be bad for some reason, so just explain to me what it does that's bad.

You wish to waste other people's time?

If your only argument is "it's against process", you have no argument.

...

I figure anything so complex an admin who's been editing for two and a half years can't do it is fundamentally broken.

You realise you've just claimed that our copyright policy is fundamentally broken? We've got enough problems with people ignoring it or trying to get around it we don't need any more.

Assume good faith. He's helping Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

- d.

On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:09 PM, geni wrote:

...

...

If I can't remember how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two warnings early, and call it a day.

This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.

As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police rather than the executive.

Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.

Unless I happened to guess wrong and two warnings is now the convention, I didn't say I was swearing off vandal warning. I said I'm not going to worry about going up from {{test}} to {{test500}} or whatever insane number has been cooked up - I'll warn once or twice, zap, and call it a day.

Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3 and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to a degree that people were objecting to.

In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.

If it's not obvious why it's bad, I don't really see it as a waste of time.

I don't see it as my job to continually educate people as to why certain things are bad (we will ignore the issue that I tend to end up doing this anyway)

Is our copyright policy that bad? We should probably fix it up then.

Really? Were you planning to run as a successful third party or go straight to armed revolution? In any case it won't help there are another 200 odd legal systems out there to worry about.

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

Look, lets not judge him on his intentions. It's just silly. If he does make a mistake, take him to task on it, but... lets not judge people *before they've actually done something wrong*, ok?

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we're actually -- or at any rate some sectors of the project are -- very very good at doing exactly that. For example, there was that big noisy case a week or two ago where a sysop was summarily desysopped and/or banned for saying he was thinking of handing out some deleted article text.

On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

Ironic that you're now commenting on it without adequately researching it...

Do we have some policy on that? :)

Phil Sandifer write:

On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:51 PM, Steve Summit wrote:

...

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

...

...lets not judge people *before they've actually done something wrong*, ok?

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we're actually -- or at any rate some sectors of the project are -- very very good at doing exactly that. For example, there was that big noisy case a week or two ago where a sysop was summarily desysopped and/or banned for saying he was thinking of handing out some deleted article text.

Actually, the big thing there was that he suggested he'd provide some deleted article text that contained personal information to a bunch of banned trolls, without adequately researching the situation first.

Yeah, that's about the way I remembered it. My point was that he said "I'm thinking of doing <horrible thing>", or "I'm going to do <horrible thing>", and instead of saying "No, you shouldn't do that" or "No, you shouldn't do that, or else we'll de-admin you", we just cut to the chase and de-adminned him. (As I understood it. No, I didn't research it thoroughly, because I don't have time for that, just as you don't have time for bureaucracy! :-) )

On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:32 PM, geni wrote:

Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3 and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to a degree that people were objecting to.

In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.

You do realize that the number two was picked arbitrarily, right? And that the meaning of it was "I will block after what seems like a fair number of warnings," not "I intend to reduce the number of warnings required by exactly two," right? That I honestly have no idea how many warnings are standard, what the available warning templates are, whether we're using {{subst}} these days, or how many fewer (or more) warnings I'm likely to give than the norm?

I mean, you're reading my declaration like it were a policy page or something.

-Phil

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 02:32:00 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3 and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to a degree that people were objecting to.

I think you might be missing the point. Vandalism is easily diagnosed, and rarely accidental. ~~~~

Guy (JzG)

On Sep 15, 2006, at 8:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:

On 16/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:

...

PS. Also remember to cite stuff, that policy isn't one you can just skip

The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia) aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted enough to tag policy.

And even the Big Six you can get by on the nutshells, I should think. No reason why anyone with half a brain needs to look at the exact parameters of what is and isn't a personal attack. Don't be mean to people, and you'll do just fine.

-Phil

On 9/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

On 16/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:

...

PS. Also remember to cite stuff, that policy isn't one you can just skip

The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia) aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted enough to tag policy.

You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really is the case.

You don't memorise every stub tag, do you? Neither do I. Those who can't live with inconsistency can fix the inconsistencies afterwards.

Aparently we are meant to be more focusing on expanding existing articles so this should be an issue.

You know, I still can't find where it tells me how to close an AFD the way AFD likes them closed. The guide for admins doesn't tell me either. I looked pretty closely too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletio...

It's linked to from WP:AFD. Yeah I know it's a pain but it was designed to a large degree for the convience of the user rather than of the closer.

On 9/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

On 16/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 9/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia) aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted enough to tag policy.

...

You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really is the case.

See, this is why you have trouble with people listening to you: you answer things with a one-liner that doesn't actually address the point.

Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?

Here's one to run past you:

When encountering an editor who seems to be displaying a flagrant disregard for process, check the process isn't flawed.

* Rewrite the process description to show how it follows as

directly as possible from core policies. Even if it isn't made official, this helps you explain it to others better. This is one of the best ways to resolve disputes over the value of a process.

None of our copyright policies come from those core policies.

* Reexamine the process. Does it follow obviously from the core

policies? Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering?

How were you suggesting I rewrite IAR to deal with this problem?

* Failing to follow or rejecting process is not, of itself, a

wrong act. The encyclopedia itself is more important than any process designed to protect it; both intent and results should be measured against the core content policies (NPOV, V and NOR) and core community policies (AGF and NPA).

So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off? You know working with the community and all that?

 ** If your only argument is "it's out of process" or "it violates

policy" (other than a core policy), you don't have an argument.

Cool so what happened to consensus?

* Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. An

editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make sure the documentation stays up to date.

It tends to.

* Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a dick. But don't

make that your first assumption.

I try to avoid making assumptions.

Now, a question for you:

Q. The above looks good to geni.

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:

It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community. The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.

IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than content.

On Sep 16, 2006, at 8:37 AM, geni wrote:

Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?

No. Do you want to tell me that everybody who uploads images needs to become copyright experts? Because I'm figuring we can get by pretty OK on people who are making a good faith effort to follow fair use. Which is, shockingly, not that hard a concept.

So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off? You know working with the community and all that?

Geni, it's clear that everybody in this conversation is not worried about pissing large numbers of people off, you least of all.

Cool so what happened to consensus?

Nothing happens to consensus. Something may happen to mob rule, but that's different.

...

* Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. An

editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make sure the documentation stays up to date.

It tends to.

No, it really doesn't. It tends to become a tangle of limit cases and exceptions for pathological cases. The only thing that makes the documentation stay vaguely accurate is the willingness of people to follow it without thinking.

It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community. The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.

Which isn't what I said I was going to do. IAR is not "cut the newbies some slack when they don't know the rules." That's BITE. IAR is "Look, try to understand the basic premises, then go ahead and act in a manner consistent with them, and odds are it'll work out fine." I'm counting on that actually being true. That's not "whatever seemed like a good idea at the time." That's "whatever seemed to an admin of two years like the thing most consistent with his ever-growing knowledge of how Wikipedia works."

I'd say it's a subtle difference, but honestly, it's not.

-Phil

On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:45, geni wrote:

...

...

Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?

No. Do you want to tell me that everybody who uploads images needs to become copyright experts?

Depends what they are uploading. Wish to adress the office point.

...

Because I'm figuring we can get by pretty OK on people who are making a good faith effort to follow fair use

Yeah we tried that. It doesn't work.

There is a difference between internal and external constraints. External constraints, such as copyright law, are hard constraints and must be enforced.

I think that soft constraints can be more flexible and adjust with time. It's worth mentioning that with such a rapidly growing readership, some written consensus guidelines are important to make sure we're all heading out in the same direction.

...

Which isn't what I said I was going to do. IAR is not "cut the newbies some slack when they don't know the rules." That's BITE. IAR is "Look, try to understand the basic premises, then go ahead and act in a manner consistent with them, and odds are it'll work out fine." I'm counting on that actually being true. That's not "whatever seemed like a good idea at the time." That's "whatever seemed to an admin of two years like the thing most consistent with his ever-growing knowledge of how Wikipedia works."

I'd say it's a subtle difference, but honestly, it's not.

Nice dodge.

It is possible to see that the system which Phil is trying to improve isn't perfect. Just because some aspects need detailed rules to reflect external constraints doesn't mean the whole system must be codified precisely.

I am happy for relatively few people with relevant experience to point new members in the right direction from time to time. This allows discussion and fluidity in the system over long time periods, while ensuring consistency on small time scales.

On 9/18/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

On 16/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

...

Quite a number of our policies were created by consensus.

And almost all of our processes are quick hacks someone thought would be a good idea at the time, and they're usually modified by putting hacks on hacks on hacks, building into a rococo fractal mosaic of prescriptions.

People see something quickly assembled out of gaffer tape and string and assume it's an immaculate stainless steel construction of well thought-out design. Then they follow it rigidly and unthinkingly.

My experience of managing policy suggests otherwise. You just need a few people who are prepared to try and kill any changes to policy. Anything that can get through that as well as any special interest groups tends to be fairly solid.

Look at your response to Phil's posts in this thread. You're zooming in on utterly insignificant details as if to completely ignore the point.

Perhaps but it was somewhat nicer than the full version.

Phil was attacking something he didn't know about. He doesn't block vandals so he is unlikely to know what the process is thus he produced an attack based on ignorance.

So what about other admin areas?

Deletion? other than a brief spell on the 14th not much and a total of less than 100 a year.

going back to that spell on the 14th something odd about it. Now the process is that you gave a reason for deletion normally something cryptic like A8 or CSD A8 or orphan fair use. I suspect even the "common sense" group would think that was something that should be done. However if we look at Phil's deletion log what do we see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=50&offse...

Well perhaps it is the protection policy he is having problems with but with only 21 protections/unprotections this year (including a rather non standard use on [[Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]) I doubt that is to big a burden.

Copyright then. Copyright is the ultimate policy/process nightmare which in theory requires you to know and understand ~200 different legal systems (in practice US plus the oddities of a few others is enough most of the time and even that can be simplified by taking images yourself). But other than a brief burst of zeal of deleting userboxes based on what we is probably best described as an interesting interpretation of policy I haven't seen much involvement in that area on en (could be active on commons I don't follow that too closely).

So that's the admin process areas out of the way.

Now one of the things process does is allow people to work together who really don't get on. So lets see how Phil does in that area. 3 RFCs and only 1% more support than sam spade in the arbcom elations suggest certain issues in this area. Perhaps he isn't the best candidate for avoiding process.

There is a time for IARs as and admin but it is important to know why the rules are and why they exist. Phil does not. That was why I requested his resignation as an admin.

If you wish to take that approach as an editor it is useful to be very good at getting on with people and the evidence suggests that Phil is no Linuxbeak.

Has it ever occurred to you that the people saying "outside process" are doing so in order to avoid have to launch direct attacks on people's actions?

On 9/18/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 18, 2006, at 9:28 AM, geni wrote:

...

Perhaps but it was somewhat nicer than the full version.

Geni, this may be news to you, but I'm a semi-active editor in all fields. I have a job and a life, and I don't have time to get involved with gaping idiocy that arises when one tries to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis.

Try editing a different bit of wikipedia.

To say that I haven't made a lot of use of my admin powers of late misses the larger point - the paralyzing force of process has driven me away from virtually all aspects of the site.

Weird. Click edit button, edit submit. I'm not seeing much in the way of process. There are vast areas of wikipedia you can have all to yourself (minor Olympic medal winners or events to start with). Of course if you choose to play wikipolics that may be somewhat different (and don't argue that this isn't possible. I know people who edit in various rather contiversal areas who for the most part manage to stay clear of wikipolictics.

A combination of the absurd idiocy that is the CVU and a small mob of process droids who were disinclined to expend any time actually thinking about an enormously subtle sourcing issue brought me to the point where, as I saw it, the sane options were to just give up or to just go back to editing in the way that worked quite nicely two years ago when I got my adminship.

It isn't two years ago. Trying to live in the past isn't really an option. Certain things don't scale. Walking away from certian areas is always an option.

Is the concept that enormous gunk of process that you appear to be so aware of might wear me down over the course of the last year or so that hard for you to understand?

Most process you only have to worry about if you deal with certain areas. At least some of the process we have talked about I didn't know what it was but I knew where to find it if I needed it. I didn't know it off the top of my head because it involved stuff I don't deal with much.

Or, for that matter, that offensive that you had to launch into such a bizarre attempt to smear me, including trying to re-air year old dirty laundry like when I blocked [[User:The Recycling Troll]], a user who turned out to be a sockpuppet the one person who was vocally complaining about that block?

I didn't mention the content of the RFCs (I assume that is what you are talking about). Weather you like it or not you don't have the greatest interpersonal skills on Wikipedia. Sure they are better than mine but that isn't a major achievement.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

Either your withdraw from your current position or your resignation as an admin. Doesn't have to be permanent. As soon as you feel that you are ready to consider what process is again I would not oppose you getting them back and I believe the general policy is to give back powers to anyone who voluntarily agrees to give them up.

On Sep 19, 2006, at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:

What is the imminent danger to the encyclopedia or its core policies of Phil keeping his ops?

You ask too many questions, citizen.

/me bans David Gerard

-Phil

I, for one, welcome our new rogue admin overlords.

On 9/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

On 19/09/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Sep 19, 2006, at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:

...

...

What is the imminent danger to the encyclopedia or its core policies of Phil keeping his ops?

...

You ask too many questions, citizen. /me bans David Gerard

OUT OF PORCESS ROUGE ADMNIN _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 9/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

See, this is the bit you've noticeably failed to convince anyone else of the need for.

Let's try asking a different question:

What is the imminent danger to the encyclopedia or its core policies of Phil keeping his ops?

If he continues to use them we have an admin acting not as a janitor but as part of the executive. Users have can have no real idea how he well use those powers. Thus he will be disruptive. He's already deleted a load of stuff without giving a reason we could probably do without that happening again.

Process has a tendency to exist for a reason. If an admin is not prepared to find out what that reason is then they should not be ignoring the process because they are very likely to make mistakes. Wikipedia is not anarchy. and admin who isn't going to bother with process is out of control of pretty much everyone. An admin who is out of control is a problem.

On 9/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

What load of stuff was this? With full references, you're making an accusation here that you consider serious enough to warrant desysopping - don't just say "I alluded to it in passing somewhere up there."

The stuff he deleted on the 14th

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Phil_Sandifer

I assume that is was the content of [[CAT:CSD]] (must have been unusaly empty). But from the logs that is rather hard to tell.

Yes, usually an ad-hoc one. That it hangs around well past then and is applied in situations it shouldn't be is a problem with that process and with process in general.

Then you need to agressive prune process. No one is stopping you. I killed an entire policy page (no one has complained yet) what have you been doing to reduce process of late?

Whose control are you or I in?

In theory the community through them telling us what they want cleaned up or whatever.

On 9/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

Indeed. Think the ArbCom will go for it?

Only if they have gone completely nuts which strikes me as somewhat unlikely.

I said "Then I must request that you resign your adminship." I did not say "I demand Arbcom/stewards/devs/whatever imediatly de-admin this person"

On 9/20/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:

You know, you *are* an admin.

Not everyone one is.

Rather than making wild claims and saying "oh noes, can't tell from the logs", you're more than welcome to look at the deleted articles and see which ones had some form of deletion marker on them.

I can most people can't

In the case of the few I sampled from that log, it was - try not to be shocked here - all of them.

I knew this was likely to be the case because I know the context under which the deletions were carried out. That is irelivant. Deletion logs are for more than admins. Non admins also need to be kept informed as much as posible.

On 9/21/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:

Out of control would, in my mind, only be a constructive notion if one actually made actions which were significantly distinguishable from those which they made when they were thought to be "in control". Do you have significant evidence?

I've delt with admins in the past who had steped outside process. I'm sure you can find the resulting arbcom cases.

(and just the fact that he is using the delete button doesn't count, the action has to be different from normal under that defintion)

here is a normal deletion log:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete

notice the difference?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Phil Sandifer stated for the record:

On Sep 20, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:

...

Out of control would, in my mind, only be a constructive notion if one actually made actions which were significantly distinguishable from those which they made when they were thought to be "in control". Do you have significant evidence? (and just the fact that he is using the delete button doesn't count, the action has to be different from normal under that defintion)

I DELETE J00!11!!!!1!!

-Philz0rz

ORLY? I ArbK0mmZ Jo00!11! PWND!

- -- Sean Barrett | Dear Santa, for Christmas I would like sean@epoptic.com | a copy of your list of naughty girls.

I haven't followed this whole thread, so this point may have been amply made already, but:

*Phil did not say he was going to violate policy.*

He said he was going to ignore process, and there's a crucial difference. The speculation is that simply doing the right thing, even in ignorance of process, will be in substantial accordance with it (or at least, with core policy) 90% of the time anyway. And for the other 10%, the possibility that the process is misguided or incomplete, and the existence of IAR, ought to about cover it.

(Phil didn't claim those 90/10 numbers; I just made them up.)

Or, for that matter, that offensive that you had to launch into such a bizarre attempt to smear me, including trying to re-air year old dirty laundry...

Is Phil getting smeared now? I can't say I'm surprised. To the process wonk, process is the most important thing there is, way more important than the goals of the project it's supposed to support. Denying or disavowing the sacred process is the most cardinal of sins.

I don't deny that Phil's declaration was provocative. It calls to mind Colonel Cathcart's objection to Yossarian's attitude: "What if everyone felt that way?" But Yossarian's retort is equally apt: "Then I'd certainly be a fool not to."

On 20/09/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:

Is Phil getting smeared now? I can't say I'm surprised. To the process wonk, process is the most important thing there is, way more important than the goals of the project it's supposed to support. Denying or disavowing the sacred process is the most cardinal of sins.

I don't deny that Phil's declaration was provocative. It calls to mind Colonel Cathcart's objection to Yossarian's attitude: "What if everyone felt that way?" But Yossarian's retort is equally apt: "Then I'd certainly be a fool not to."

So if he follows policy he will go insane and be nervous and have to ignore all rules anyway, and if he says he doesn't want to follow policy he is no longer sane enough to be an admin, as some are claiming in this thread.

Yossarian lives...

Peter Ansell

Actually, geni is actually has it right (well, not about the de-adminning thing, that's just silly). Look, there are tons and tons of editors that edit wikipedia everyday and that write fantastic articles without ever getting into much conflict, including me. I mean, when was the last time you heard about [[User:Lord Emsworth]] being critized on AN/I? The man has written 58 featured articles, fer chrissakes! Why isn't he continually complaining about flawed process on the mailing list?

Sure, some of wikipedias processes aren't perfact, in fact quite a few of them are flawed. But you have to realise that the reason you are burning out so much also has to do with your own behaviour, it's not just because of evil little process wonks. You have to accept some blame yourself. As I said, many, many of us don't feel the way you feel about processes and policy, and we don't get involved in these issues nearly as often.

I suggest you take geni's advice, and simply start editing a different part of wikipedia. Find an obscure author or some nice little wikiproject or something and just write. That's what I meant many a mails ago when I wrote "Infact, it is how many of us use wikipedia."

As geni said: click edit, write a great article, and press submit. It's really just that simple.

--Oskar

On 9/18/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 18, 2006, at 9:28 AM, geni wrote:

...

Perhaps but it was somewhat nicer than the full version.

Geni, this may be news to you, but I'm a semi-active editor in all fields. I have a job and a life, and I don't have time to get involved with gaping idiocy that arises when one tries to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis. To say that I haven't made a lot of use of my admin powers of late misses the larger point - the paralyzing force of process has driven me away from virtually all aspects of the site. A combination of the absurd idiocy that is the CVU and a small mob of process droids who were disinclined to expend any time actually thinking about an enormously subtle sourcing issue brought me to the point where, as I saw it, the sane options were to just give up or to just go back to editing in the way that worked quite nicely two years ago when I got my adminship. I picked option two.

Is the concept that enormous gunk of process that you appear to be so aware of might wear me down over the course of the last year or so that hard for you to understand? Or, for that matter, that offensive that you had to launch into such a bizarre attempt to smear me, including trying to re-air year old dirty laundry like when I blocked [[User:The Recycling Troll]], a user who turned out to be a sockpuppet the one person who was vocally complaining about that block?

What are you trying to accomplish here?

-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 16/09/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 15, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

...

Aslong as you don't go willy-nilly and do crazy stuff (there is a reason we let an anon make a few mistakes before we zap him), this is fine. Infact, it is how many (most?) of us use wikipedia.

I'd guess all of us - policy is long past the point where anyone can actually remember all of it.

Look at the end of my talk page. I just had someone demand to know why I'd dared violate the manual of style with a page move. They bothered looking up the precise reference, but they hadn't bothered looking at the move log (which contained the reason) or the resulting disambiguation page (which contained a use of the term of much greater current interest). I, frankly, boggled.

- d.

On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:

I'd like to see all the rules on a single page, with the extra rule that people should listen to each other and work together to resolve disagreements.

See [[Wikipedia:List of policies]]