Checkuser and Oversight appointments

I just realised that the proposal to allow the Community to give proper input into who gets the most "big deal" rights is strikingly similar to a proposal I tried to push through almost a year ago, but failed when ArbCom vetoed it. Mine was slightly different at first, because it didn't involve ArbCom unnecessarily. Apart from that though, it is essentially the same. Why has it taken a year for this to get going? And why did people like Mackensen, Sam Korn and FloNight dislike the idea so much in January 2008, claiming all sorts of things: such as it was illegitimate, it would never work, the current system worked fine, the appointing was ArbCom's "gift", and an RFA-style process would not work because it's a popularity contest. And yet... it's going to happen, thanks to the 2009 Committee, who have so far impressed me immensely. 2008 was an extremely disappointing year arb-wise, which is probably why they caused my proposal to fail. But it won't now, which is good. But it's a year late, thanks to the 2008 arbcom who were pretty poor if I'm honest.

Enigmaman's RFA

The latest drama to hit enwiki RFA is Enigmaman's RFA. It's his second RFA, that was apparently going well. Very well actually, at 46/0/1 when it was put "on hold". Last month, a record 12 admins resigned, as well as two bots, so I'm not exactly sure if we do have enough admins at the moment. Anyway, Deskana put the RFA on hold, and posted the following message to the talk page:

I have placed this RFA on hold.

During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry if it belonged to a user that was editing while logged out, it became apparent that this IP was infact owned by Enigmaman.

I strongly suspected that many of the supports in this RFA would be retracted if they could see the edits in question, but the privacy policy prevents me from disclosing the IP without the permission of Enigmaman. It does not seem appropriate for me, as a bureaucrat, to allow this RFA to continue when many of the supporters were unaware of the entire situation regarding Enigmaman. Therefore, I see two options.

1. Enigmaman refuses to allow me to disclose his IP. This means that I restart the RFA with a note that the user has been making inappropriate edits while logged out, but am unable to provide diffs due to the privacy policy.
2. Enigmaman allows me to disclose his IP, meaning the RFA can be restarted with the diffs in question in plain view for people to review.

The edits themselves aren't actually that bad, but I know the RFA crowd can be quite scrutinous when it comes to incivility. I actually think option 2 would work out better for Enigmaman, but that's just my opinion. The edits themselves were probably not blockable, but I imagine people would oppose his RFA for the edits. I probably would.

I hope people understand my actions here. They're not normal bureaucrat actions, but desperate times...

--Deskana (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He actually took a while to post this, so people were fairly curious at to what the issue was. On IRC I asked Deskana jokingly if this was going to cause drama, he said "maybe". I think that was an understatement.

I was fairly surprised when I saw what was written. It was then revealed that Deskana had not contacted Enigmaman in private first, before posting this statement. This is similar to an incident I was involved with in 2007, when Deskana publicly pointed someone out as a sockpuppeteer, without discussing with them in private. While Deskana has not revealed any private information himself, this whole fiasco has indirectly lead the IPs to be revealed by others, through pressure, something which is explicitly forbidden in the checkuser policy. It is my firm belief that checkuser is most certainly a big deal, unlike adminship, and even oversight. Oversight is mostly random phone numbers, addresses, and libellous information about people. Nothing about the actual editors, for the most part, and when it is there is trouble (think Zoophilia). Checkuser is for making catching sockpuppets easier, not publicly humiliating good editors. Deskana's post suggests that many people would switch to oppose if they could see the edits made. This is not the case, at least so far. Several have stated they will be switching from support to strong support (as I shall be). I had a look at the edits, of course. I certainly do not see them as problematic in a way to make me oppose. They aren't Enigmaman's greatest moment, but then who am I to say anything? :-)

The whole thing was handled extremely poorly. It is obvious to all that Deskana should have contacted Enigmaman in private before publicly humiliating him on the RFA. I do not believe Deskana has the integrity skills required for the checkuser role. Tiptoety comments, asking "You feel he should resign because of this single incident? I see no pattern of mistakes or breaches of policy by Deskana, let's not get ahead of ourselves". Yes, I do. Checkuser is not like adminship or bureaucratship, where a few mistakes may be tolerated. I'm afraid this one mistake could have cost EM adminship, which he was easily on the way to getting at the time the RFA was paused. He was put under a lot of pressure, basically forced to reveal his IP, and has been unnecessarily embarrassed and humiliated on-wiki, in a situation that could have been solved without the general wiki population knowing about it. Surprising as it may seem, I agree with Jennavecia's post. The whole thing was a lot of shit-stirring for very little benefit indeed - and it looks like it'll have the opposite affect of what Deskana intended, because people will support because of how poorly Deskana handled this, and how well EM handled it. The whole thing was biased, as Deskana holds both checkuser and bureaucrat right, and apparently used both to unilaterally put a stop to EM's RFA, merely because he "suspected" a lot of people would switch if they saw the edits. I've seen the edits. My opinion has not changed at all. Well, it has - of Enigmaman, my opinion of him is higher. Of Deskana, he's a nice person with good intentions, but I feel he is not suited to continue with Checkuser.

New leaf

Well it's nearly the end of 2008. It's been a tough year for me, both on and off wiki. Off has seen three deaths in my family, one especially close to me. I had been fortunate to never have experienced the death of a loved one until May 2007 when my friend died suddenly at the age of 16. Along with three family members passing away this year, a lot of work, personal problems, and stress IRL, I let myself go on the wiki, possibly around that time. I said a lot of stupid things. I did a lot of stupid things. I was angry at life, and sometimes took my anger out on people who didn't really deserve it. Things didn't help when my home was burgled recently, and my laptop was taken. I don't wish to excuse my behaviour, but these are simply some likely reasons why I might have changed from a highly respected editor to someone who many consider a troll.

So I shall be turning over a new leaf for 2009. I apologise for all comments and actions I made that were unconstructive, ever. I do not consider myself a "bad person" or a "troll", and I wish to regain the respect I lost from people over the past year. I wish for forgiveness, and put the past behind me.

Majorly RfC

So I created an RfC on myself. Following a rather disasterous RfA that I nominated, it was felt by some people that my actions on, and surrounding that RfA were inappropriate, or in some people's word's "despicable". Now, I offered to nominate Jamie months ago, after noticing her good work on articles on Christian Music. I started to talk to her on IRC, and after much persuasion she accepted a nomination. I regret very much that I did this. If I'd known how vicious the RfA crowd were this week, I'd have kept well away. As it happens, I didn't. Jamie unfortunately had the kind of username that gives away age. It seems the age crowd only like coming out at certain times: just a couple of months ago, another editor passed his third RfA without a big problem. And of course, we all know of Anonymous Dissident, who passed with 165 supports and a single oppose, in 2007. The age crowd must have been on vacation that week. I wonder if they'd have opposed if they had seen it, or knew his real age? I can only guess yes. Looking at some of the age opposes, some of them are well-reasoned, but others are just really awful. Consider oppose #1: "Kid admins have generally poor judgement". This shows that this particular opposer is already biased before they voted. OK, we all have our standards. This editor has made it clear they never support teenagers. But my issue here is not the fact they have their standards, or their opinion. It's the blatant abuse of the process. When voting, you are supposed to review the candidate yourself for a good idea of what they're like. It's rather clear that this editor, and others neglected this important part of the process. It's all very well them saying they did afterwards, but the fact is, they have generalised, and stereotyped this editor without giving them a fair analysis.

So, since my candidate is getting this rather poor treatment, I am naturally angry. I make a few comments, to the point of proposing that people don't actually have to look at contributions anymore, but can oppose for whatever reason they like (it's a vote after all). I start "badgering" a few people. Such people would not need badgering if they gave the candidate a fair review. You don't see me questioning the user who had issues with Jamie's AfD votes do you? That's because it's a completely fair oppose, and shows the user took the time to review her fairly. I'll "badger" votes that do not do this. It's incredibly easy to vote on an RfA. You can vote with "per above", "Not enough experience", "needs more time" etc - all are more acceptable that someone stating "Kid admins generally are immature". The funny thing is, I've not seen one smidgen of evidence proving that statement is true. Judging by some of the voters on the RfA, and the behaviour I've seen of some adult admins, I'd say the opposite is true. Jamie's conduct through the RfA was pretty exceptional. Obviously, hardly anyone noticed this under the dust cloud.

What is now really irritating me, is that some of the opposers are using me as the scapegoat for causing her RfA to go downhill! The only people causing her RfA to go anywhere are the opposers. If they want to make frankly ridiculous votes saying "The nominator's behaviour is less than satisfactory", that's their lookout. I would hope such votes are discounted in the end - even the age ones are better than that. Really, these people are that desperate to oppose someone, that when they find nothing wrong with the candidate, they move to the nominator! Actually I've seen similar - where people oppose per whoever is supporting, and their contributions. It's so unbelievably negative. And to think that if she had simply left the fact she's in school of her userpage, she'd probably be doing so much better now! It really sucks.

And now on to me. An admin by the name of Jennavecia, probably better known as LaraLove has decided I should be desysopped. This is following from nearly 9 months of particularly unpleasant encounters with this woman - I had, for a while been considering to create a requests for comments page on myself - I know I'm controversial, and have done some stupid things. She told me that an RfC was in the works. However I have grown impatient, and wish to get this thing out in the open, so I created it myself. Soon after its creation, Giggy whom I nominated for bureaucrat on Commons, spewed out a load of diffs, dating back to late 2007. There were so many! I went through each and every one. There was, perhaps, fewer than 5 really serious incidents. Each I admitted to and apologised for as necessary. There were a great many where he presented the evidence in a skewed manner, apparently deliberately linking to logs in such a way to make me look worse than I was. There were cases where I did minor things like endorse the block of someone, expressed my feelings about the BAG process and protected a page, which I began discussion on a mere 19 days later. Others were more major, but I don't need to discuss those here. I admitted I was wrong there and then, and no more needs to be said there.

Anyway, a bunch of people have turned up, and if I wasn't all too awake this morning, I could have sworn I most of those people somewhere else - wait, I remember - RfA! Yes, it's every chronic opposer on the block, from Iridescent to Kojidude, to Malleus Fatuorum to Friday! They're all there, and they're all agreeing. I don't know what to think of this. I really don't.

Then Jenna, aka Lara showed up, and proposed I be desysopped. Unlike the other people who made statements or proposals, Lara had nothing pleasant to say about me. This doesn't surprise me. She has told me before that she doesn't like me, and the feeling is mutual. What I don't understand, is why does she dislike me so much? I mean, I don't think Friday and I will ever agree on anything, but at least he had something positive to say, along with a lot of negative. Her description of me sounds like that of a vandal, or banned user. Now, as someone who has been on this site for over 2 years, and dedicated a hell of a lot of time to various aspects of the site, I am pretty offended to be described so harshly. Perhaps it's all true, but still, it's not nice to read. Then again, with my experience of Lara, she does say exactly what she thinks, though on-wiki she's mild compared to off (and where she thinks I can't see).

Anyway, I was given the choice - RfA or ArbCom? It was an easy choice. Just looking at the shithole I threw poor Jamie into, I'd go for ArbCom any day. If they desysop me, so be it. If not, I'll take the points from the RfC into account, and step back from RfA for a while. I actually want to do something else for a bit anyway, so it works out well either way for me.

Stuff that happens on Wikipedia but rarely in real life

Some words and phrases

1. non notable
2. has good judgement
3. I echo the above
4. Per
5. Per above
6. As nominator
7. drama (when referring to arguing)
8. trolling
9. do you have a reference? A reliable one?
10. RFA spam
11. mass welcoming
12. machine editing
13. thought process

There are plenty more, please leave them in the comments. You know you want to.

Stuff you do but would never in real life:

1. Warn a vandal (for smashing up your car)
2. Sign your name with ~~~
3. Click edit to talk
4. Click edit to do anything
5. Rollback any mistakes you make
6. Ban people you don't like from your house/land/office/school/workplace
7. Punish vandals by blocking them for 24 hours (block being down in a police cell)
8. Ensure that when you're writing, Section Headers Do Not Have Capital Letters
9. Make italics with two apostrophies (and bold with three)
10. Always write vote with a pointless exclamation mark before it. It really makes all the difference.

Can you think of anymore?

Commons is not mellow

Some people say they love Commons. I have slowly started to hate it. I have found the community to be unfriendly and hostile. Most of my activity there recently is voting on RfAs, where the ridiculous strictness from enwiki has been gradually seeping through. There was a recent poll where the community were essentially planning to ban any new editor from voting on RfAs because they didn't have the necessary edit count. How friendly and welcoming from this supposedly "mellow" community. As well as this, some were trying to prevent people running because they didn't have 500 edits - editcountitis, editcountitis, editcountitis. There's so much more to experience than edits. Not according to Herbythyme, whose joke of an RfB is passing as a popularity contest. Those supporting cannot have looked at the way he hypocritically opposes people who had more experience than he did, people who have more experience than some of his candidates, and of course his friends. It's just really unfair. Frequent opposes on RfA for such poor reasoning makes me ill frankly. It is people like Herbythyme and Marcus Cyron (another frequent opposer, whose opposes are normally in all caps and with several exclamation marks) who put me off editing Commons more, and probably put off good potential admins with their "must... oppose... not got x edits..." attitude. They seriously need to chill out a bit on these requests, lighten up a little and remember it's just a website. And it is not a big deal, especially if the editor is an admin on another project. You can go and promote the "mellow" essay all you like - Commons' most regular editors are the least mellow people I've ever encountered.

Board election candidates

So the submission time for candidates for the Board is up. I thought I'd give my opinions on the candidates running. I'm aware the voting system isn't a support/oppose one, but I've put whether I'd support or not to give some idea of how I'd vote:

Ad Huikeshoven (Dedalus) - who? I haven't heard of this guy, though he apparently is part of the Audit Committee. His credentials seem good, and he has good experience on the project. Depending on answers, I'd probably support.

Alex Bakharev - I only recognise the name from English Wikipedia. While his statement isn't bad, I don't think it's particularly good either. It seems to be concentrated solely on English Wikipedia - while it is by far our biggest project, it is not the only one and I think that point is missed somewhere. Unless the answers are substantially better, I'd have to say no.

Craig Spurrier (Cspurrier) - someone I recognise. He has a lot of jobs on the projects - particularly on Wikinews, as an ArbCom member, bureaucrat and checkuser. I wonder if he'll find the time for this. He was recently desysopped on Meta for lack of activity. I agree Wikipedia is considered by many as "the only" or "most important" project, and the others can be overlooked. I also agree the foundation has issues with PR. I would hope that should he be elected, he'd ensure to make board work a priority over anything like Wikinews arbcom. Depending on answers, I'd probably support.

Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester) - another I know. He has good experience and I like his statement - a lot. There are some recent issues though, on English Wikipedia that I'd like to see addressed though. If these aren't brought up in questions, I probably will bring them up. If the answers are good, I'll definitely support.

Gregory Kohs (Thekohser) - a pretty controversial candidate really. I believe his intentions are good, but again, I feel his issues are with English Wikipedia and not the project as a whole. I agree that the foundation has seen some pretty embarrassing events recently, but it's improving all the time, and a lot of the stuff is exaggerated and fabricated in any case. Unless he answers the questions really well, I'd have to say no.

Harel Cain (Harel) - who? He's a bureaucrat/checkuser on Hebrew Wikipedia, and that seems to be about it. Apart from helping found the Israel chapter, I see a lack in activity anywhere else. His statement is good however, I'm agreeing with most of his points. Depending on answers, I'd probably support.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro) - I know him from *cough* IRC mostly. His statement is pretty much based on the technical side of things - not really what I'm looking for I'm afraid. Unless answers are better, I'll have to say no.

Kurt M. Weber (Kmweber) - just no. Need I say more?

Matthew Bisanz (MBisanz) - know from English Wikipedia/IRC (again). He doesn't have the right experience for me, I don't think. Again, a concentration on English Wikipedia, and not much in the way of what he'll actually do. Unless answers are better, I'll have to say no.

Paul Williams (Skenmy) - know from IRC. Though he's mostly active on Wikinews, there's that English Wikipedia feeling again here. However, he does refer to the "sister projects" which is something. I also agree with the other comments in his statement. I'll also note he's the youngest candidate (younger than myself, so pretty young), but having spoken to him I'm confident he'll do a good job. Depending on the answers, I'll probably support.

Ray Saintonge (Eclecticology) - most familiar with his posts on Foundation-l. He has a wealth of experience and is clearly dedicated and familiar with many aspects of the foundation. His statement is good as well. Depending on answers, I'll probably support.

Ryan Postlethwaite - probably most familiar with this candidate, and the only one I've ever met in person. His statement is sadly a little rushed, however it's a good one, and I agree with the points he makes. He has good experience in a lot of areas, though perhaps a little limited to English Wikipedia. Despite this, depending on answers I'll probably support.

Samuel Klein (Sj) - seen around, mostly on Meta. He's very experienced - editor for four years, having various jobs such as steward and organiser of Wikimania 2006. His statement reads well too. Depending on answers, I'll probably support.

Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist) - not too familiar with him. He's also fairly new, having only joined in February 2007. He appears to have a lot of real world experience. He's starting law school in September - I wonder if that will affect his time that he can concentrate on the board. I agree with all of his points except #4. He has already answered one of the questions, and I am unsatisfied with his answer, where he agrees with the board appointing people instead of the community. I'd probably say no based just on that, but we'll see.

Ting Chen (Wing) - unfamiliar with him. He's an admin and bureaucrat on zh.wp, but I'm not sure his experience is enough. His statement isn't really bad, but it's not that good either and doesn't stand out. Unless his answers are good, I'll probably have to say no.