User talk:Derex

tally ho

you're gone for a while to come back to start shit on an RfC? I guess we're all conflict-junkies here. ;) --kizzle 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

no, i actually do find nuclear funny these days; i think he's a performance artist. i've got other conflicts aplenty though, see above. Derex 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want something like this again? (shakes head, "oh, the young people today) Guettarda 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

too cool, or too dangerous? [1] Derex 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must file a citation against you as Acting Deputy Director of the Liberal Cabal (JML is in absentia), as you have let the public see your utter contempt for families, freedom, and the American Dream, a.k.a Liberalism, of which public disclosure is expressly forbidden within Cabal rules. This DailyKos link has exposed you for the partisan we all know you to be...one more slip-up and I'm demoting you to the Zionist Cabal with Ms. Freisling and the rest of the wannabes. --kizzle 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, "in absentia"? What is this, a coup attempt? All disciplinary matters against members of the Liberal Cabal must be submitted to the full Politburo for review. And don't you try to ease me out prematurely, you young whippersnapper. JamesMLane t c 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good trick, you fooled him into thinking you were a liberal by hiding the evidence for people to find and think that it was hidden to stop them from finding, rather than the true reason (that it was hidden for them to find). But I was actually talking about your edits to Kizzle's user page... Guettarda 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you fooled Kizzle too...oh, wait a minute, who was it that claimed to own a ferret (and almost broke poor Ryan's heart?) Guettarda 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

'Almost'? *sob* -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

holy shit! is there a citation for that or was that someone's drunk night in isla vista? --kizzle 06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

seems to be real [2] [3] Derex 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Australia? So how did I get the impression Japan? Guettarda 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

dunno. never been there. Derex 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about it at length, I believe that the most probable conclusion is that you are mistaken about that, since the alternative, that I might have been wrong, is impossible. Guettarda 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like a true admin. Derex 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We aim to serve. You should become one. Resistance is futile. Guettarda 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm more inclined towards bar fights than cups of tea. Still plenty of Mississippi redneck left in this good ole boy. Derex 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard the admin process is brutal...uh... from a friend of mine. --kizzle 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Data

I don't know offhand, but I have some idea of where to look, (at least for Trinidad and Puerto Rico), if the info exists. I'll email you. Guettarda 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Jimbo...there's a reason Wikipedia holds together, and it isn't simply the fact that it's a good idea. A good manager makes all the difference. I read something on fair process a couple weeks ago...I think Jimbo has the right skill set for the job; even when he makes a bad call, he is able to defuse it pretty well. As for my email - yeah, I realise I haven't sent it yet. Guettarda 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply in all the hubbub.

I agree that Jimbo has extraordinary leadership skills. While he clearly made an error in not investigating further, we all make mistakes. I don't fault him overly much for it. I would, however, have been very upset had he not revised his opinion based on new information. It looks to me like he's back on track, and I hope he uses this as opportunity to reform and improve certain aspects of Wikipedia. For the record, I don't think it was necessary for Essjay to resign sysop, and I think the 'strawpoll' format would have affirmed that had it been allowed.

No rush at all on the data. It's a long-term project, and I appreciate whatever you might find without going to too much trouble. Chances are, there's nothing publicly available. But, you seemed a likely person to know. Derex 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

The al gore controversy page has been moved to controversy and criticism by Jazel without discussion. Could you move it back? I don't personally know how and I am trying to stay away from Jazel. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out but please keep an eye on it. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: close

You are right. I'm going to make an amendment. Thanks, that's a great idea. Teke ^(talk) 08:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock

This edit is disgusting. What purpose can it serve other than to stir things up? It wouldn't matter if it was a sock, but if it isn't, you've upset another editor by making out they're imaginary. Just because Essjay has done wrong, which no doubt he has, you are not licensed to fling the shit where you choose. I urge you to remove the edit. Grace Note 10:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting? What a strange thing to say. There has indeed been widespread speculation both on and off Wikipedia about Robbie31. Is it so dreadful to tell the person "there is speculation you are a sockpuppet"? Better that everyone yammer on behind Robbie's back? It then asks a straightforward question: "Can you clear this up"? If Robbie is not a sock, then all he has to do is say so. Or he can ignore it. But, you have a very strange standard of disgust if a neutral observation and straightforward question disgust you. Now, if it was a sock, you say it doesn't matter. I take a very different view of that. Voting with a sockpuppet in your own election for bureaucrat seems just a wee tad bit unethical and problematic to me. You may not think so, and that's ok, because I'm the disgusting one here after all. Now, had Jimbo already made his announcement at that time, I would have just left it alone. But since he hadn't, and me being a disgusting shit-flinger, I chose to ask a simple question. Have a great night/morning as appropriate to your time-zone. Derex 10:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Well, luckily I don't expect decency from my fellow editors, but thanks for the reply all the same. I apologise for not feeling I have the time to explain to you why your comment was thoroughly unpleasant. Perhaps on mellow consideration, you'll figure it out for yourself. I'll give you a clue though. On principle, one assumes Robbie is a human being. Grace Note 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why assume when you can easily ask? Given that Essjay fabricated almost his entire background, I think it's asking a bit much for us to assume that whatever he didn't explicitly disavow must be true. The degree of AGF required being so great that it is offensive to even ask about specifics he didn't mention in his confession about the rest of his background. I suppose I could have asked on Essjay's page. However, it seemed somehow less intrusive to ask Robbie. Assume Robbie is a sock. Then Essjay can just ignore a message there. Assume Robbie is not a sock. Then the message informs them that there is such speculation, and it would be helpful to deny it. I'm not trying to harass, quite the reverse really. Anyway, thanks for your good-humored follow-up. Derex 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this was a very valid question to ask. Unfortunately, this situation has opened a can of worms and there is now an atmosphere of mistrust. If Robbie31 were a sockpuppet of Essjay then that would call into question any future edits made by Robbie. This is especialy the case when you see that robbie has made only 7 edits [4]], all made to talk pages and the third edit as support for bureaucratship. I understand AGF comes into question and that it may not be right that this question is asked. However, it would give Robbie31 the chance to clear the air. Don't worry - I'm not going to revert but I just wanted to put another side to the argument. Regards. Munta 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I went ahead and deleted at the time, based on Grace's request. Though I think the question was reasonable, it no longer served a purpose since Essjay has left. Derex 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it up

Yeah, woodworking or something simpler than that, like brain surgery. Anyway I answered on my talk page. Gwen Gale 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always want to be a rocket surgeon. Derex 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh that's what I was grasping for! Gwen Gale 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

knowledge and sway

Hey, you know I agree with what you said here on JW's page. Editors who are willing to reveal their (true, verifiable) credentials on a topic should get a bit more sway on a topic, if only for their wonted knowledge of what to cite in support of the content they write. Truth be told, depending on the topic, sometimes they do (which is one of the reasons why the Essjay thing brought up worries, blah blah). Anyway I don't think the Citezendium model will work cuz it's at once too closed and yet still too open to abuse. In the end, one can only wait 'n see what Wales does about it and he's got stuff on his mind other than steadfast content. The pith is, for it to be successful in terms of traffic and visibility, I think he's found that one can't run an encyclopedia like an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's a social network and a MUD which throws off more or less helpful encyclopedia articles. He tweaks as he goes but without the mega traffic and all those editors working for free, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to support itself and he's known all that since the beginning, when the wiki side of Nupedia unexpectedly took off. Gwen Gale 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think Citizendium will come to little. Partly because the model is wrong, and partly because Larry is a terrible leader.[5] The miracle of wikipedia is, as you note, that Jimbo got the social participation incentives reasonably right. However, incentives for participation and for constructing quality content are not the same thing. I think it would not be so difficult to introduce some expert quality control, while still staying Wikipedia. However, Jimbo has never displayed the slightest interest in that, so far as I am aware. I think the view is that Wikipedia works, so why change it? My view is it works only because of the massive human resources flung at it with gross inefficiency; it's like a Russian infantry charge in WWI. If this place were run just a bit smarter, I think it could be an order of magnitude higher quality. Even the most rudimentary peer-based reputation system would go a long way. Reputation is the only reason to use a name rather than an ip address anyway; but that approach doesn't scale well to many thousands of editors like we have now. Derex 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Spot on. I long ago had to accept that editors provide free "labour," hence these looming inefficiencies can be carried for the price of some bandwidth and server disk space. The mega traffic is brought in by the social engineering aspects. I think he stumbled onto it by accident (after struggling with Bomis and Nupedia) and combined with his "nerd charisma" and some innate smarts about human behaviour, has nurtured it along by selling the dream but doing as little as possible with the model. Agreed Sanger seems to have neither the leadership instinct nor the charisma and sales smarts (people skills) to make Citizendium work. Lots of folks think, like you, that a few tweaks to the model could (more or less) bring on a more helpful Wikipedia by an order of magnitude. I think it may be true, but truth be told Wales is conservative about change (you know the saying, "if it ain't broke..."), not wanting to accidently kill the goose. Mind, it's brought him almost 15 million in investment capital so far on the Wikia side. His incentives to do anything other than react to wide publicity seem kinda low. Agreed though, Wikipedia's likely reached its quality peak, without further systemic tweaks. Gwen Gale 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your explanatory note. I am aware of some of the history of the katefan harassment and certainly know about the Essjay debacle. I have gone back and forth on the Brandt article debate and finally decided to vote "Keep" although I can understand persons holding the opposite view. Let me briefly outline the thinking that guidede me:
If the discussion was on whether wikipedia editors should be safe from real life harassment caused by their (good-faith) on-wiki actions, I would certainly have joined in and voted a strong yes. Even if I believed that deleting the Brandt's article would effectively mean the same thing, I would have put process-scruples aside and voted to delete the article. Unfortunately, however, I don't believe that will be the case; instead I believe Brandt will simply count the deletion of his bio article as a victory and pick up another cause on wikipedia to focus his attentions on and use as an excuse to "expose" wikipedia admins. I rush to add, that I certainly don't hold the view that we should keep the article simply to prevent him from counting it as a victory.
Rather, in my view, since there is little that we can do here to effect Brandt's off-wiki conduct - the best course of action may be go about our editing business addressing each of these issues thoughtfully on their own merits. Judging by that standard, I came to the conclusion that the article deserves a place on wikipedia since it met the notability and bio guidelines.
Aside: Personally, the lesson I draw from the katefan/Essjay cases, is that while we may value our on-wiki anonymity as a convenience, the anonymity is somewhat of a chimera and therefore we should make sure that our conduct here is such that we can stand by it if someday our actual names are associated with our actions. Regards. Abecedare 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As you wrote, "Katefan did choose not to ever edit the article. Didn't matter."; and the Essjay incident is only peripherally related to Brandt. Also I understand that Brandt has said that he will continue his crusade to expose "admins" even if the bio is deleted. I also concur with SlimVirgin when she writes: "The subject says he wants it to be deleted. I don't believe he does, because when he first requested deletion in or around October 2005, I deleted it, and it would have stayed that way if he hadn't started posting about it on various blogs, causing one of the bloggers to recreate it." Doesn't all this mean that we won't really avoid all the trouble by deleting the article, just shift the venue ? Note: I am not trying to start yet another debate (!) on this issue on your user-page; simply wish to explain the reasons for my vote. Abecedare 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your comment on Jimbo's page, "I very seldom edit in my area of expertise, ever since spending 3 days struggling with some very well-intentioned but fundamentally uninformed person on a game-theory topic years ago." and wanted to say that that has paralleled my experience. I too try to keep away from topics of my technical expertise since I find dealing with, as you put it, "well-intentioned but fundamentally uninformed" editors there aggravating. Instead I focus on topics that are of my general interest where my level of knowledge matches that of (most) other editors. Can't say if this is an simply the cost that we need to pay in order to maintain wikipedia's egalitarian structure, which has its own benefits ... Abecedare 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Horse pucky

I never said degrees are horse pucky. I was saying that there are many fake assertions of degrees on this wiki and that those bogus degrees, which exist only on user pages, are indeed horse pucky. I guess it was an honest reading comprehension mistake on your part and I assume good faith but I thought I'd let you know. Gwen Gale 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the "or". Sorry. Translated appropriately, I stand by my point though. Derex 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to thwart them. Gwen Gale 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Any advice on handling fools is always welcome. Honestly, though, I don't have any personal stake in this debate. I'm unlikely to edit non-technical economics articles, and so unlikely to submit credentials. I find editing them simply annoying. I sort of enjoy debating and arguing on other topics where I'm just an informed layman. Part of the psychological reward is coming out on top, being proven right. There is absolutely no satisfaction of that sort where I know I am unquestionably right. It's just a pain in the ass. And it's just not true that you can pull out your citation and that's the end of the story. Do you have any idea how many nutty books on economics there are being read by nuts and believed by nuts and pushed by nuts? It's not quite infinite, but it's lots. Maybe economics is unusually afflicted with this by its nature. At any rate, there is absolutely no social or psychological reward to debating a noob when you are unquestionably the expert, and generally recognized as such elsewhere. Derex 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Economics is as yet a rather poorly described science and I dare say, a topic which bears much in common with religion. There are no authorities in economics, only authorities in sundry schools of economics (and whilst I'd say some schools are handier than others that's another tale). So far as pyschological rewards for "coming out on top" go, personally I'm more motivated by getting the odd bit of truth (as currently supported by peer review) into articles. Where any truth to be had is slim, or speculation and controversy run rampant, I'm happy with a thoroughly documented narrative of the little that can be agreed upon, followed by a quiet, pithily written discussion of the PoVs. That said, one reason WP's IT and science articles tend to be more steadfast is they deal with quantifiable stuff, whereas humanities articles so often rely on qualitative assessments gleaned from the literature. Gwen Gale 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the public perception. There are plenty of cranks out there pushing every brand of nuttiness conceivable. It's also absolute crap. I assure you, the economics I know has zero to do with religion and plenty to do with razor-sharp people doing statistically unimpeachable and theoretically rigorous work. It's pure myth that modern economics is some big mystery. The 'schools of thought' are more nuances of style and focus these days than fundamental disagreements like the huge Keynesian - Monetarist debates of yore. I wish I could give you a guided tour of some of the better recent work — there's a lot of really clever, exciting, practical, policy-relevant stuff out there — far beyond stere-typical fare such as interest rates & unemployment. This stuff matters, and we actually do know what we're doing. But, to talk to the average Wikipedia economics editor, you'd think we're debating angels on the head of a pin. I'm just not interested. Derex 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if that's the public perception but I agree it matters. I agree it's reductable as a science. I agree the field is saturated with cranks (the way you mentioned Keynes gives me hope). Meanwhile lots of economists (never mind laypeople) confuse science and the very definition of economics with their political goals. Gwen Gale 13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think academic economics is saturated with cranks, though there are surely many. I think that there are a lot of cranks who are promoted as economists by various politically motivated "think tanks" and such. This is the problem, you can find someone out there who will say anything. These people get cited by Wikipedia. I know, because this is my world, that no serious economists believe half that crap. But, it's not like we get paid to sit around and de-bunk whatever nut of the week writes a book. We get paid to do research on real problems. So, it's often hard to find a reference that says so-and-so is full of crap. I know they are. I know the work that implies they are. But, I don't have a reference that spells it out in a matter suitable for Wikipedia, because no one bothers to de-bunk clearly idiotic things. So, then you're in a position of arguing that this set of references if considered logically implies that X is crap. Yes, I can win that game. But, it's a long drawn-out pain in the ass. Derex 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to isolate and thwart that stuff :) Gwen Gale 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me Obi-Wan! Derex 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Erm, I mean, uhoh. I hope I can help! First thing, if you like, pls show me an article with an NPoV sore. Gwen Gale 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll call in the cavalry next time I tangle with a Coaseian zealot or a gold bug. Derex 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)