User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Dec 2007

The Troubles

Hi Major Bonkers,

I'm afraid I don't have a lot of spare time to monitor wide-ranging disputes like this one, but I will try to do what I can. Probably we need more uninvolved administrators to pay attention, but eveyone's busy doing their own thing... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Batavia

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away from WP. Annabel Warburg is now very curious to know your real name! Mikedash 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ONiH

The warning was to both of you that the discussion was descending once again into an unpleasant tit-for-tat. ONiH was far closer to beraching WP:CIVIL than you were, but by engaging in a dispute like that you were simply furthering the argument fruitlessly. You did the right thing to raise these concerns on the talk page and not the article, but before they can be represented in the article, better sources are required. Thankyou for stepping back, ONiH has likewise agreed to do so and hopefully this will not become more inflamed. If you do turn up reliable secondary sources to support your concerns on the talk page then please do add them to the article (but as it is a GA make strenuous efforts to adhere to MoS). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for yours. (I hope this is the end of the matter!)--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As a result of reading this I turned to 1993 Bishopsgate bombing. It is clear to me that ONIH does not understand insurance and reinsurance. You are wholly correct in your statements. The discussion is a good example of the way in which Wikipedia gets things wrong. Wikipolicy is preferred over facts. I dare say it will be sorted out over time. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand insurance all too well. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, therefore when having to pay out £350million they tend to regard it as an absolute fucking catastrophe, no matter what spin apologists like to put on it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not interested.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The MBTI can teach some (unintentional) things (about people)

Hola, your talk page is a bit empty.

Couldn't agree more about the pseudoscientific nature of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests. I had to take one as part of the general BS first day of work getting to know everyone activities. I was amazed at how amazed everyone seemed to be with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, "Wow, it's like I'm reading my life story..." someone said. (I have to admit I was initially impressed, until I got to read the other "types" and realized how any of them could also apply to me. When I pointed this out, people still seemed to think it was great. It taught me how easy it is to make the general public believe something, especially if it is something they want to believe. (Not very deep I know, but not many people can say that's what they got out of the MBTI though) Anynobody 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the MBTI Userbox was added by my old colleague Kittybrewster, when I invited him to use his superior computer skills to prettify my User page. Unfortunately, his first attempt was to post a User box saying how much I approved of the MBTI, to which I objected, so he posted the new one, saying that I disapproved of it. I'm afraid that it falls into the category of 'I couldn't really care less', although he's very keen on that sort of thing!

I meant to reply to your observation about Henry VIII; I'm afraid the dissolution of the monasteries was primarily motivated by money rather than any great religious conviction. He was really just a Renaissance version of the prophet Elron!

Do you have any thoughts on the election of the gentlemen scholars of Wikipedia? I believe that you came across Durova during your own ArbCom and, keeping a weather eye on things, there seems to be some excitement involving her (?) at the moment. I'm afraid that having looked at three of the candidates, whom I've crossed paths with to a greater or lesser extent, none seem particularly inspiring. Thanks for your other edit, by the way - the things people come up with!--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed aware of VIII's financial motivations, but had forgotten them at the time of that post. If I remember correctly he made the public issue about religion though, because citing expense as a reason to split would have been perceived as showing a lack of "God"(or something?).

Well, umm, before I discuss Durova it seems more appropriate to outline my view of the arbcom. I've been thinking a lot about it lately and believe there is a serious problem which traces back to a fundamental flaw with the entire site.

Flaw

The rules are worded so that they may be interpreted in several conflicting ways, which causes a lot of argument about issues like WP:NPOV and so forth.

Problem

Because of the above flaw, lack of any real qualifications/measurements, and standard human related issues; Admins and arbcom members may not actually understand the rules they are enforcing any more than a newbie, so we end up with strange rulings, blocks, and problems that never seem to get solved. (Unless we go to Jimbo, which I am loathe to do.)

To illustrate these two factors working together, there is the poor editor who was topic banned from Robert Prechter articles. In the arbcom case, it was found that Smallbones was POV pushing by comparing one of his/her revisions against another editor's. In comparing the versions myself, indeed Smallbones' article was more "negative" but also more sourced. I compared the two article's reflists. The proposal found to be "better" by the arbcom actually excluded references from The Wall Street Journal. (My understanding of NPOV is that we let the reliable sources determine the overall positive/negative tone of our articles.) The really rich part is that the other editor, whom the committee felt wrote a more "neutral" version, evidently is an employee of Robert Prechter. I'm not saying he/she is perfect, but essentially Smallbones has been topic banned (without prior warning) for following the rules, citing sources, and pointing out an editor with a clear WP:COI by the arbcom.

Given the outcomes of both the case you were involved with and mine, plus Smallbones experience, I think the arbcom could be a poster case of SNAFU. That being said, Durova is for the most part a good admin, but I could have cause to withhold a vote for her if the arbcom wasn't such a mess. Given what it is, I don't think she'd be any better or worse than what we have now. Anynobody 02:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying (bit of a work crisis). Actually, since logging back on I've been having a look at the all the Durova stuff again. I found a whole lot of cryptic comments about 'WR', which I couldn't make head or tail of until someone helpfully spelled it out as Wikipedia Review. Following that link gave me a good laugh (whoever knew that one - apparently retired - Admin took such a close interest in 'chesty charmers' and, for those who are enthusiastic about such matters, on an admirably non-racial basis too. It makes me proud that he's a fellow Englishman)!

The overwhelming conclusion that I come to is that some people: (1) have far too much time on their hands, and, perhaps as a corollary of that; (2) can't see the wood for the trees, getting caught up in their own overblown little dramas which are of absolutely no interest to anyone with a life outside Wikipedia. The problem with choosing ArbCom candidates is that it is precisely these blinkered introverts who put themselves forward when what's wanted is actually someone who can spare one day a week and, other than a knowledge of Wikipedia protocol, has no other involvement in 'the project'. As an aside, most of these prolific editors/ Admins also have WP:OWN-ership issues with 'the project'; as I posted on Kittybrewster's Talk page: The problem occurs when editors start to WP:OWN not just 'their' articles, but also the User space pages of their friends, and, indeed, the whole project, laying down the law, helpfully or not, to everyone else. (Personal opinion - doesn't call for a reply!)

Almost everyone who has posted on the Durova subject comes across badly; the Fürher can find time to support Durova and brand Giano 'a troll', but he can't find time to post an apology or statement of regret on !!'s Talk page. Durova's 'evidence' is just one remove from moronic (and demonstrates, yet again, the wrongness of blocking without prior warning), and those drama-kings ^{this stupid term coined to avoid potential problems; see: [1]} Giano and Swatjester kick the political football for all it's worth. These are allegedly mature adults - the only reason for voting them on to ArbCom would be to increase the general hilarity of the proceedings. Having said that, redacting 'the evidence' from Giano's Talk page and slapping a ban on him was probably the stupidest decision of all: Wikipedia: the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit.

Presumably completely uninfluenced by the current fund-raising drive?

Staying on Durova, I take it that Lsi john was also involved in the CoS ArbCom as 'an ally' of yours?

Regarding 'the Troubles' ArbCom, from my involvement in it, the problem that I identify is that: (1) those Admins who had been involved in 'the Troubles' prior to the ArbCom were added to the proceedings as 'involved parties'; and (2) when they subsequently tried to enforce the ArbCom judgment, the fact that they were involved parties was used to slur them as being biased (see Rockpocket's Talk page). QED the way ahead was to get an 'univolved Admin' to enforce the ArbCom ruling: only there don't seem any willing to get involved; result: an ArbCom judgment being ignored with impunity six weeks after it was handed down. Pathetic.

Whilst on the subject, I am beginning to develop an allergic reaction to the term 'banhammer' or - worse - 'banhamma'.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning WR, I too had wondered about it as well as ED, which turns out to be www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ Encyclopedia Dramitica another fun wiki, which discusses some prominent admins/editors in less than flattering terms. (And is blacklisted, try creating an actual link to the site for a demonstration).

In my opinion, your opinion is dead on. Factoring in the ownership issues you mentioned has helped explain the seeming randomness of blocks/bans/punishment and helps flesh out my theory of misunderstood rules, for example the situation where I came to know you. After commenting on the behavior of another editor, you got nailed by an admin who found it especially upsetting and simply blocked you without warning or really even investigating why the comment was made to begin with. (Almost as if to say, "Not on my encylopedia bub! Comment on content not contributors...")

I'm kind of short on time at the moment, but I'll comment more about Durova/Lsi john in the near future. The short story is that they both have big egos, Durova really pissed Lsi off in the lead up to the arbcom, but doing that isn't very hard. Anynobody 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

God, it all goes to show how much of a newbie I am. [www.encyclopediadramatica.com Encyclopedia Dramatica] ^{you're right - I can't link to it!} led me to Wikipedia Watch. Oddly none of these sites so far seem to include Durova's 'evidence' (which, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, is easily accessible by typing 'ripened sock' into Google and then clicking on the 'cached' version of the first result - Giano's Talk page. Moral: once something is posted on the Web, it's there, somewhere, forever. Something I'd have expected the savants of Wikipedia to realise.)

Looking back to my brief starring role at WP:AN/I, one of the things that amused me, then as now, was Bishonen's own posting:

People have been known to suggest that I have no regard for WP:CIV and that I make a point of defending incivil users. I don't think that's true (but then I wouldn't). Anyway, I've blocked Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for this disgusting attack, aimed at One Night In Hackney. Anybody got an opinion, please comment here. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC). (Archive 251 No. 8).

Or, parsing it: Me. Me. Him. You.

Since then I've become more familiar with the bad habit of blocking somebody and then boasting about it on WP:AN/I; this one's the worst: first wind up the editor with a 'Fuck Off' on his Talk page [2]; then, after the victim remonstrates about this 'unprovoked obscenity' [3]; tell him to 'Fuck Off' again [4] and block him for a month. And this exemplar of WP:CIVIL-ity is now lecturing others on the subject! Really, why does anybody bother contributing when there's this much fun to be had watching the children at play?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

PS: I also meant to say earlier that some of the most eccentrically brilliant Britons have been interested in Arabia in a way, I suspect, that the equivalent Americans have not been. Certainly, and rather unfortunately, there has been no comparable interest in the Jews or Judaism. Apart, of course, from Lawrence of Arabia, there's the bizarre Doughty (who believed that all English literature after Chaucer was basically worthless - I read Arabia Deserta (in a good edited version by Penguin) about 20 years ago) and also Richard Burton (who first translated and published the Thousand and One Nights in an almost unreadably bad translation that (apparently!) is only notable for his deliberate exaggeration of the pornographic sections of the Tales). --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned this, and I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. I completely agree with your point that how literature/entertainment portrays/doesn't portray another culture affects how the audience perceives it. I tend to support Israel, but usually not for the same reasons as most people I know. However I admire several Arab countries, despite the cultural void here, simply by virtue of being interested in history. For example, when people start talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis I like to point out how we did the same thing to the Soviets thanks to Turkey. (Actually, now that I think about it, my Dad was stationed in Turkey for a time in the USAF and also had good things to say about the country.) Then there's countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan to name a few which are also important allies. Anynobody 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I forgot, Bishonen did mention her "rep" in the block notice. (To those who think I support incivility look at this!)...
Almost anytime a statement like that is made, it's safe to assume
The double standard is quite amusing, I haven't laughed at anything like that since an uncle of mine scolded us kids about our word choice one time by saying Hey! Watch your fuckin language! and meaning it.
Indeed watching "people be people" here is great fun, but the contributions are where the fun starts. Without editors to decry the UVF as a government run killing squad and the IRA as simple terrorists, there could be no fun.

Here's what I was going to mention about Durova in my last post. It's a fairly typical example of "normal" behavior which might give me pause to endorse a candidate. During the Scientology meat-puppetry/My harassment of <CENSORED> case she suggested I ask someone to adopt me. I realize that being human, I could indeed have been screwing up so I was open to the idea pending the answer to a fair question, why? She never said what I needed coaching on, just that I needed it. Anyway, the best summary of the discussion here is:

Me: Hi, do I need mentoring?
Adopter: Why?
Me: I don't know.Anynobody 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Durova past: It's not really a very enlightening conversation - I liked your quotation of Homer Simpson at the end of it. I think that it's a valid point that new editors might need help when they first encounter an unpleasant established editor because it's too easy for them to bite back without being aware of where the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA boundaries lie (and these seem fairly movable goalposts - after all, many of Guy's more enthusiastic responses have been documented by his external fan sites (links above), and any one of which would have earned anyone else less-exalted a lengthy block). Having said all that, I can't really see what you were supposed to gain from the procedure. It looks a bit like a rather school-mistressy demonstration of superiority to me.

Re. Durova present: You may have missed the fact that Guy was an original recipient of the 'secret evidence'. Just reading through the 'Fuck Off' diffs, above, is enough to make me doubt his judgment. Put his judgment and that of Durova together, and the result is the cretinous situation that we have at the moment. Some of the other members of the 'secret evidence' WP:CABAL are listed here on the ArbCom evidence page (and, incidentally, all seem to have been active in defending the 'Wiki-sleuthing'). Perhaps you have to genuflect before Jimbo's mug of hot chocolate before you are allowed on the list! --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What, Jell-O isn't solid enough for you? J/k, I've been looking over the evidence and couldn't help noticing; A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup. and B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the banhammer later on. E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor. Damn, she might think I'm a sock of someone because I:

A.

Read a good chunk of the Help section

B.

Fix little problems as I come across them.

E.

Get comfortable editing over time.

The worst is this gem: F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes extremist positions for no apparent reason. Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but generally a sock puppet has a reason for its extremist position. (Like the Hubbardian meaty-men supporting each other when a block is issued.) I'm sure there are the occasional trolls who might, but it's more likely that there are just many people out there with "extremist positions" (I also think I remember her giving me an Occam's Razor message at some point.) Anynobody 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

However, as much as I agree there is a lot to criticize, I think the community beat down has been a tad extreme, considering that we all do screw up now and then and sometimes things can appear more sinister than they are. I'd like to see Durova apologize to her mis-identified sock, admit the evidence was flawed, and move on. (I've noticed that people like my over reacting old "friend" appear to be enjoying the train wreck a bit too much. Anynobody 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's the rush to instant judgment. Having said that, had Durova been a bit more politically aware (eg. by voluntarily de-systop-ing herself pending 'a full investigation') I feel that she might have got away with it. I see that you left a kind note on her Talk page which was a humane gesture.

Of course, some of the dreaded vandalism is actually quite amusing: [www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html] ^{Can't link to this one. Anyway, it's the edit about eating President Kennedy.}

As for the other main protagonist, whilst he deserves credit for an obviously principled (and correct) stand in this case, he's involved himself in three ArbComs in little more than a year (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman). It's a bit like saying that because someone's a vexatious litigant that they should be made a judge.

By the way, you might be interested in Swatjester's 'shoot on sight' removal of the Wedding party massacre from the List of massacres: some interesting points made here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a boldish (just thought of this as an edit intending to be WP:BOLD but ended up foolish) edit on his part. Though as a sort of devil's advocate, I kind of understand his logic. When I think of a massacre images of up close and personal murder, like when ancient armies sacked a city or the Malmedy massacre, come to mind. Aerial warfare is, different, and it's easier to explain with visual aids(I apologize if I've linked this before): Here, you will see what the pilot of a F-16 saw when responding to ground intelligence of a group of insurgents. If the intel was wrong, then a 500lb LGB landed in the middle of people walking down the street. (It's eerie, they don't appear to be running, for all we know it could have been a movie letting out or something.) Hopefully it was a group of insurgents, but if not, it doesn't seem like what the video depicts is as much of a massacre as larger instances of violence during the Rwandan Genocide. I'd argue that it takes a special kind of person to slaughter people with a machete in the name of ethnic cleansing than it does to press the pickle button in a bomber. (In case it isn't obvious, I think many people gave Bomber Harris a raw deal.) Anynobody 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To expand a bit further on what I think a massacre is, events like the Boston Massacre I would not count as a "massacre". Anynobody 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's odd, but people don't realise the power of even quite small amounts of explosive. One of my school-masters had his house demolished by the Balcombe Street gang, who used between 2-3 lbs. of explosive (just to complete the story, it was a mistake on their part and they apologised afterwards, which I think is a nice gesture). A Blockbuster bomb, 3-4,000 lbs., was so called because it would destroy a city-block. So I don't suppose that there was much left of those pedestrians after the 500 lbs. bomb arrived.

Whereas a 'list of massacres' is good idea in an ideal world, in Wikipedia, with its competing nationalisms and petty politics, it just seems to be a recipe for disaster. I was half thinking of adding the Kitos War (massacres by the Jews, which makes a change) and the sad list at Institute of National Remembrance#Research (mostly of Jews), but I thought that someone or other would take offense. Let alone adding fictional massacres; the Nazi destruction of the Great Synagogue (Białystok) - they locked the Jews inside, fired the building, and shot anyone trying to escape (2,000 dead) - was cleverly appropriated by Melvin Gibson for his excellent movie The Patriot, with those evil redcoats doing the same to an American church. But, as I said to you before, one of the few beneficial side-effects of the great War on Terror © ™ has been a sudden stop to Melvin's films and an appreciation of the real enemy!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose the man behind the curtain imagined such cultural problems, which are difficult to resolve. I think the word has been misappropriated by people emotionally impacted by incidents where many people die for no reason, and it's totally understandable. (By the way, do you happen to remember the Israeli dude's name who went nuts with an assault rifle at a tourist attraction? Circa 1994 I think.) The misappropriation can be traced to a basic lack of a word in English to convey the idea of a tragic, bloody, accident like the wedding massacre (I can easily imagine the party firing into the air in celebration, as people there do, and passing American aircraft thinking the shooting was meant for them.)

Don't get me wrong though, removing an article that has the word "massacre" in its title from a category of the very same word, is not exactly demonstrating a good knowledge of WP:NPOV. (I hate situations where I agree in theory with someone, but can't agree with their methods, so I'm glad I wasn't editing that list-since I'd have to replace the article. Boldish BS) Anynobody 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And how will Giano's application for an arbcom seat be affected by [5] ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By this, I suppose, Kittybrewster, which seems to amount to a 'win the election and take a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card'. It seems a rather bizarre 'remedy'. I'd have thought it fairly obvious that he's going to win his vote now, simply because in this case (only) he's obviously right and the ludicrous manner in which the opposition to him has made him look like the victim of bullying. I find it both astonishing and distasteful that there seems to be a clear conflict of interest with certain individuals on the ArbCom also being recipients of the original Durova missive (whether by e-mail or by posting) and a whole load of relevant evidence either not being posted or suppressed. In addition, someone (Guy?) seems to be blanking/ 'oversighting' comments, which make it very hard to follow the relevant threads.

Having said all that, I think Giano would be a fairly disasterous member of the ArbCom. I first came across him here. He seems to have considerable WP:OWN-ership issues, in particular treating everyone who disagreed with him as some sort of enemy, and in the needlessly aggressive way in which he approached his self-identified problem. His approach in the The Troubles arbitration was also excessively aggressive, with him and one of the Irish editors chasing anyone whom they disagreed with off the Workshop page and both posted their own attack pages during that process. His approach in that case was so obviously partisan as actually to render his contributions almost worthless: there were a few minor acknowledgments of bad behaviour on 'the Irish' side and whole heaps of odure heaped on the other side (which, of course, included both of us). It is, in my view, pointless to argue with someone like this: you're not going to change his mind and he's going to try his best to misinterpret what you post. Does he, therefore, bring an objective, open, mind to ArbCom? Not on past evidence. I've always tried to be civil with him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good! I suspected, when he announced his ArbCom campaign, that he had used that arbitration as a political springboard, and I dare say that he will pick up a whole load of votes from the Irish side. I doubt that he'll pick up that many from the Admins involved, though.

One other point; leafing through his Talk page archives, the two constant refrains are his in-WP:CIVIL-ity and people posting urging him to stop tilting at windmills and do something constructive. In response to the WP:CIVIL points, he excuses his lapses from this core policy as being of no big deal and a result of his being tired. But what's he supposed to do if he's on the ArbCom - recuse himself from any case involving in-WP:CIVIL-ity? Wouldn't that be most of them?

Turning to Anynobody I'm afraid I can't remember who the Israeli running amok was, although I have a vague memory of the event. Perhaps that could be the second massacre (that we've identified) committed by the Jews rather than against them. It seems rather noticeable, too, how (with the exception of the Armenian and Jewish genocides) the number of victims required for a massacre has decreased since antiquity.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't think of any historical situation where being elected to office excuses someone from wrong doing. It's stupefying actually, because the basic concept of it seems so wrong. (Incidentally, the guy's name was Baruch Goldstein.) Anynobody 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just my take on the situation. I see that the ArbCom has given him a slap on the wrist and it's back to business as usual with the voting taking place. On your other point, how bizarre (and sad) to see that people dress up in lab coats to commemorate Baruch Goldstein; not much chance for peaceful co-existence there.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right on target about Giano, but I also think he'll probably make it in anyway.

It is pathetic that people idolize someone like Goldstein, what he and Ami Popper did is just senseless murder. If any of their admirers were to form a group to continue what either started they'd be terrorists in the truest sense of the word. However it's been my observation that Israeli extremists tend to be lone wolf types who just flip out one day and murder innocents or politicians they feel are too soft. Anynobody 06:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've voted. There's a useful chart here which shows how the candidates are squaring up: only another 12 days to go! --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How many people are we electing? The bottom four should withdraw. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering that as well. So far as I understand it, we're also not electing these people but recommending them to He whose mug of Hot Chocolate must be obeyed. I take it that you've seen this (further comment superfluous)?

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

On canvassing, I can't think it matters if one of those three wrote off-wiki to the other two. So what? But they deny it and I believe them. Giano seems extraordinarily controversial. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Giano has behaved quite decently in that little debate (although quite why he feels it necessary to comment on absolutely everything is beyond me). You only have to look at the length of this discussion (which I expect is being looked at by many more than contribute) to see how enthusiastic all we peasants are to exercise our feeble democratic franchise. My own take on it is that David Lauder is the only person amongst our little coterie who uses (what I take to be) his real name, so I expect he's a bit more careful about naughtiness than some anonymous teenage vandal. It's a right he's waived even as others insist on it (here) and (here): as, of course, do I myself!--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Moving on, I've been looking at this, which reminds me of the present habit of abbreviating bodies such as Ofcom.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Links for anyone lurking: The Register (whatever that is) and the on-Wiki rubber-hose treatment here--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gracias :) Rubber hose-ing, haven't heard that in a while. Anynobody 03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I particularly liked the satisfied reference to 'senior Wikipedians' - not like the rest of us peons, then!--Major Bonkers (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Jimmy"

And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Yep, he really did say that. Anynobody 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This one's also entertaining: [6] ^{(you now have to type 'Wikibestia' into Google and go from there)}; after which see here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now a newspaper article: [7].--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian article is interesting, both because I didn't realize !! was a "highly regarded editor", and its description of The Jimmy and Larry Sanger's history. Sadly, Wikibestia seems to have been purged from the net. (Don't get me wrong, he/she seems like a quality editor, but I can't help but notice the tendency of the press to inflate aspects ((perhaps unintentionally)) of their stories. Long story.)

(Not to change the subject, but I recently read a great article by a guy named Ronson from the Guardian about Sylvia Browne. They do good work.) Anynobody 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sadly funny - pathetic, in the correct use of the word - (albeit rather lightweight) article. When my Godfather was dying of cancer, he similarly attracted a whole load of expensive charlatans. I think the trouble with newspapers today is that they simply don't employ the journalists, especially subject experts, to make them worthwhile as dispassionate reporters of facts. Certainly in areas that I know about, in particular insurance, I can tell that a lot of the stuff written is simply copied out from press releases or from news agency wires and a lot of the 'analysis' is simply ignorant. When I compare the quality of journalism of the 1970s with today, there has been a marked decrease, just as there has been a vast increase in quantity. I'm afraid that we probably have Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch to blame for this trivialisation. No-one nowadays seems to employ expensive investigative journalists (other than the News of the World, who each Sunday regularly expose another poor girl working as a prostitute. How difficult is it to do this? And how cruel).

In addition, of course, you've got the problems of deadlines, non-specialists writing about a specialist subject, fear of libel (which can easily be exploited), the search for a human angle, simplification, tendency to hyperbole, enthusiasm to stoke the fires by quoting extremist exponents from both sides, and the moulding of facts to fit the bias of the newspaper. The story of the 'Lloyd's crisis' in the early 1990s was a fine example of this; the real story, of gross negligence and fraud, was trivialised into a 'toffs don't want to pay for their lost bets' characterisation.

I came across an interesting User page here: I have to agree with the analysis.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have taken so long to respond, I got distracted trying to help solve a problem. I couldn't agree more with journalistic ignorance of specialized topics. Not only do they usually fail to be "fair and balanced", but they also tend to add a bit of dramatic flair in order to keep everyone's attention. When I was about 15 the local news reported about a minor house fire which my 13 year old brother and his friend escaped from. It made the news, and here is reality compared to what they reported:

The facts:
In the garage leaking propane set nearby rags, and stacked cardboard boxes on fire producing dark black smoke visible from a nearby six lane road about 60.96 meters (200 ft) to the south. Burned cardboard doesn't support anything, so the boxes stacked above topled into the fire making a loud racket. This was heard by my brother and friend, who noticed smoke in the laundry room (which led to the flaming garage). They wisely chose to evacuate through the front door, as they did a guy who was driving by and noticed the smoke was running up to tell whoever might be home about the fire. Being the only two in the house at the time, this turned out to be unnecessary (but still one must give kudos to the dude for acting quickly). We live less than 402 meters from a fire station and about 200 m from a hospital, so help arrived before anyone called. The fire was put out and the house saved.

The news:
Two small children were rescued from a serious house fire when a hero driving by at the time saw smoke. When asked about his heroism, the man said he was just doing what anyone should have.

Reality:
A fire truck pulled up less than a minute after my brother and his friend had ran from the house. I don't think the guy overstated his role, in fact as I watched them tape his recount of the events he told everything as I recounted it and finished by saying he was just doing what anyone should have. The news only broadcast the last part.

I'm going to have to finish this in a little while. Anynobody 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ever since then it's made me aware that we (the viewers) may not be getting the straight story for reasons ranging from ignorance, bias, or simple interest.

I guess the reason psychics and people like them bother me is that they tend to "prey" upon people during times of severe trauma and/or uncertainty as illustrated by your Godfather's experience with them. They also illustrate a point about the media ignoring stories the average person should know, the lightweight Guardian article is the only comprehensive reliable source about the subject, whom has been bilking people here in the states for decades. Anynobody 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your view

Might I ask what your view is on the Arbuthnot articles, notably, at present, James Arbuthnot, the MP. Despite The Troubles ArbCom the usual suspects are in there with a vengeance and it seems to me it must be upsetting Kitty as it is clearly more than obviously his sphere of interest. It seems no-one is properly policing these ArbCom decisions. I note also, by chance, that the article on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet has been deliberately deleted some months back (usual suspects) regardless of the fact that it survived the AfD. It seems whoever is the most determined wins on WP. Do you think this should be raised again? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help noticing your question, ArbCom doesn't seem to actively follow up cases despite what they say in some places. As a result you might consider bringing it to their attention at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Anynobody 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for yours, David. I see that the matter is currently under discussion on WP:AN/I, here as well as Kittybrewster's Talk page, and a lot of comment has been posted after your note to me which has, I hope, resolved the situation. At the time of writing an unambiguous warning has been issued which ends both discussions, and Sir Fozzie has closed off the Talk page discussion (an under-appreciated Admin, that one, I've always thought). Frankly, I think it's best to maintain a 'watching brief', as the lawyers say; I think that if you or I get involved now we'd risk inflaming the situation. Look on the bright side, though: thank goodness Giano is away canvassing, otherwise he'd be sticking his oar in as well!

Regarding the AfD and redirection of the Arbuthnot articles, I think that Iridescent (an Admin) was probably involved in that as part of the great witch-hunt of Arbuthnot articles earlier in the year. Again, I think that it's probably best to keep a distance until either the excitement dies down or Hell freezes over (whichever comes first). It is extraordinary how much time and effort is wasted on these juvenile controversies - who'd ever want to be an Admin?!

In conclusion, the Admins seem to be all over the situation - best to leave well alone, I think, at least pro tem. (Thank you also Anynobody - but as you see, I think the situation is resolving itself.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Don't make personal attacks that you can't justify evidence and diffs of canvassing please. Giano (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a twit - canvassing for an election, not breaching WP:CANVAS.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Major, but it is extremely difficult to restrain oneself when cases of chronic injustice appear. It is surely no surprise that Kitty and articles in his areas of interest are plagued. In addition, if we are not to support calls for policing of this sort of thing then we could all foul foul (again) of the usual suspects. So I have left my comments on WP:AN/I, here. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, David, I agree with the broad principle of what you write - we needs must love the highest when we see it, and all that - but I really do think that letting the Admins sort it all out would be a better course. (As seems to have happened - the thread is now archived - Sir Fozzie seems to have dealt with it;) it's difficult to see this manufactured controversy as anything more than a wind-up and I think that Kittybrewster has the right idea - ignore it and it'll go away. The last thing we want is this whole palaver blowing up again. And finally, I'm always astonished that you-know-who-I-mean gets away with his incivility - he lives to fight another day, I suppose!

(Actually, finally finally, if you come across any of his other articles being targeted, please let me know.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to find them by accident rather than design, my interests being elsewhere! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)