Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Abd

There isn't a lot here about FP. There is http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8352&hl=Future+Perfect, which never got to the supposed "sins," at least not much. There is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LukasPietsch&oldid=92168963, which gives hints about former WP identity. That's not important to what I'm doing yet. I'm not here to toss mud, but to find out more about this administrator who blocked me, because I'm preparing to go to RfAr, it being clear to me that he was involved and shouldn't have personally blocked, to say the least, and that FP isn't about to discuss the matter seriously, and he's got a coterie of supporters that will definitely disrupt any on-wiki process. If someone has allegations of administrative misbehavior (or other serious editorial behavior), I'd like to see it, but he's got a long history, and I assume anyone will have some gaffes in that time. I'm especially, but I'm not interested in editors simply describing how awful he is, unless they point to where actual evidence can be found. Nevertheless, this being Wikipedia Review, surely some of those might appear.

So far, no serious dirt have I found, glancing over older stuff. Some questionable use of tools with respect to, shall we say, personal interests, near the end of 2009, not enough for even a troutslap. But somebody doesn't like him, for sure, there is a spurious public profile at google. He looks like he's pushing forty, serious academic (professor). I've called him "stupid." Probably, instead, naive. Not paying enough attention, incautious. Happens to lots of adminstrators, they start to burn out and become impatient. I'll know more when I review block logs now and compare with older.

The RfAr could be pretty simple. He made some mistakes recently, but, hey, he's got a long and glorious history, and all that's needed is to point out the errors. What happens then would largely be up to him. Or maybe I'll find something else. I prefer the truth to any possible agenda.

Posted by: Abd

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, he acknowledged a former account, not openly disclosed for reasons of privacy.

He began editing as Future Perfect in April, 2006. He didn't stop editing as the old account until May, 2007. However, substantial contributions seem to have stopped in May, 2006. There is still some overlap in time. I haven't look at coincident articles edited yet. But given his disclosure, I'd assume lots of overlap in articles edited. Harmless, so far, the only thing a little worrisome is the RfA. He offered to email the identity on request. What actually happened? Was there anything to hide there, besides RL identity? My guess is that what we see is what we got: this stuff isn't a problem. I'm just starting with first things first.

Definitely, someone has been very pissed at him, there are posts all over the place using his real name and connecting it with Future Perfect, and claiming to admit serious editorial misbehavior. Some people definitely need to get a life. On the other hand, some admins get editors that pissed without necessity. I can understand it!

The rest of this is a bit of an essay on recusal rules.
What happened with FP is exactly why recusal rules are so important. If I'm blocked by an admin and I start screaming that the admin is involved, if the admin says,

I'm sorry you feel that way. Tell you what. I will withdraw any objection to your being unblocked, just put up a template [instructions] and ask a neutral admin to look at the record, *here* is my reason for blocking you in detail, and this new admin will decide if you should be allowed to edit. I'm waiving all right to object, since you claim I'm biased. Maybe I am! Happens to the best of us, and we can be the last to know.

By the way, raving about how biased the block was is a quite good way to solicit a decline. I suggest you focus on the good work you did or plan to do, and admit any mistakes that you can possibly admit, even if they were certainly unintentional and made in good faith. The reviewing admin will be mostly concerned with whether a problem might recur, not about punishing you for errors past. If you claim you did nothing wrong, that may worry the admin and the admin might decline. Good luck, and I hope I get to see your excellent work.

If you ever need any help, please feel free to contact me on my user talk page or email me.

This message was pure boilerplate, added identically to all Talk pages where the admin's neutrality is questioned. When Iridescent blocked me indef, she added, "indef as in 'until some other decision is made,' not as in 'infinite.'" Iridescent erred in the block, as could be shown by later events, but that never happened because it was moot. Admins have the right to make mistakes, and if they never make mistakes, they are too timid. Iridescent immediately withdrew the right to object to unblock. Basically, she left nothing behind for me to be pissed about, personally, with her. Had I held on to that, I'd have revealed a serious -- and stupid -- personal bias, the kind that is alleged about me all the time, that I just complain about bias when an admin doesn't agree with me. Nope. Maybe Iridescent will have something to say about that. In any case, by doing this, I wasn't facing her in seeking to be unblocked, I was facing the community.

The kind of response that I described would not avoid all serious attack agenda against an administrator who interrupts an editor's plan. Maybe ninety percent of it. But as important is how it looks to everyone else. Many people now believe that Wiikipedia administration is biased. It's even notable. Recusal rules won't prevent all forms of bias, but they will certainly help with the appearance of fairness. And reality tends to roughly track appearance, long-term.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

He's been on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#304 for almost three years now.

Posted by: Mathsci

Abd seems to have forgotten that before RfAr there is RfC/U.

It isn't clear whether Abd will be around long enough on wikipedia to participate in either.

Posted by: Abd

Uh, is there some connection between what Mathsci quoted and the response? This isn't Wikipedia, and it really wouldn't matter if I file RfAr or RfC/U.

No, I didn't forget. I was planning an RfC/U first. However, there is a discussion of the block at AN. This is what the cabal doesn't seem to realize; probably this is due to there being a lack of cabal organization, it is not a formal, secret, cabal in illicit collusion. It's right out in the open.

If it's shown that there is a disagreement that, because of factional division, cannot be resolved by the community, then the matter is ripe for ArbComm. It's not like I don't have experience with this.

With JzG, I filed RfC. You might notice, looking at RfC/JzG 3, who signed off on it. In the RfC, two thirds of editors !voting claimed that the charges were bogus and that I should be banned. A stunning loss for the good guys? Not exactly! The RfAr, filed by Jehochman pre-emptively -- I was starting to write it -- confirmed, quite completely, what I'd claimed.

With WMC, there had already been enough discussion to make it clear that an RfC would simply be a waste of time, so I went directly to ArbComm. They took the case. And they desysopped WMC, and quite for the reasons stated in my filing. They also sanctioned me, and why they sanctioned me is pretty obvious to WR regulars. I was being effective, doing something they don't like.

Most of the arbitrators aren't too swift, unfortunately, and don't, then, do the research, they react, knee-jerk, to appearances. If there are two dozen editors screaming at one, pretty obvious who is disruptive, eh?

Yes. Usually. But not always, and, in fact, that's what ArbComm is needed for, to examine the possible exceptions. The faction that was screaming at me is, in fact, a minority but highly active faction. It's losing, overall. WMC is quite clearly trolling to be banned. He just edited the block notice on his Talk page. He knows the significance of that. If he's off his block, he could delete it. But editing it as he did? That would normally result, given all the warnings he's had, in immediate indef, and possibly even in Talk page shutdown. WMC clearly believes the wiki has gone off the deep end, when, in fact, it has simply been washing back, a little, towards sanity, in one narrow area, his field of expertise.

He wants out. And I don't blame him. This is what the system does to people, by failing to seek real consensus.

Posted by: Enric_Naval

Abd should first ask Arbcom if he can file a RfC/U about FP, because such a RfC will be filled with stuff where he was not an originating party.

P.D.: hum...let's see.... if Abd restricts the focus of the RfC to only the two blocks performed on him, then there would be no problem.

Posted by: Spartaz

And the chance of that is???????

Posted by: Abd

Better than you might think. My issue with Future Perfect is not about those other editors, it's about Future Perfect.

The comments I made in the RfAr/Clarification were in response to repeated and disruptive edits made in that clarification by SamJohnston, and had nothing to do with any intervention between him and the other editor. SamJohnston was abusing Wikipedia, and he was doing it right there in the RfAr/Clarification, and so I pulled out what was already in that RfAr, from the collapse box, where it was peripheral, background as to why the clarification was needed, into the open, and gave an analogy.

This was a dispute between SamJohnston and myself, clearly, not between SamJohnston and LirazSiri, no matter what SamJohnston's motive might be. LirazSiri's alleged status as a spammer (JzG's position) is irrelevant. So the edit for which Future Perfect blocked me was not a violation, and if it's necessary to bring that out, it will be.

However, the filing need not even mention SJ and LS. They aren't relevant to the issue that ArbComm would be needed to address: the blocking of an editor by an admin who is already in established dispute with that editor, and, frosting on the cake, over the same issue as the admin previously blocked the editor for. I had already asserted a claim of involvement, and it was, in fact, asserted that it would be improper for Future Perfect to block me.

I did the same with WMC before he ever blocked me, by the way. I was right, and, when the matter reached ArbComm, the previously claimed consensus that whatever WMC did was fine mysteriously disappeared. Even his close friends started saying that, well, it shouldn't have been him who pushed the button. Damn straight! That had been my point from the beginning.

If his friends had told him that before, he might still have his bit. I asked TenOfAllTrades to help him get a clue. TenOfAllTrades responded as if I'd asked him to do something awful. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Spartaz, you're a basically good guy, able to see when you've made mistakes. I think you've made one here, based on your comment at AN. But I'm not expecting you to roll over and play dead, just to recognize that maybe the situation is deeper than you are going to grasp with a quick reaction. Most of the struggles I get involved in are like that, which is why my participation can look disruptive.

I've taken on some very difficult, long-term problems, and, quite obviously, if they were easy to resolve, they'd have been resolved already!

I'm not planning on going after Future Perfect's bit. I didn't request desysopping for either JzG or WMC. But JzG was unable to accept that he'd made a mistake, and even though ArbComm just admonished him, his ultimate response was to drop the bit. JzG simply disappeared during the RfAr, which also protected him. WMC very much participated, edit warring on RfAr pages, edit warring with another admin on the RfAr warnings -- the other admin retired over it! -- and ultimately blocked me during the case. And showed complete defiance, refusing to recognize that he'd made any mistakes. He'd actually been like this for years, but I was the first ordinary editor to persist in process.

And look what happened? If you want to understand what's wrong with Wikipedia, this history contains a lot of lessons! If you value your editing privileges, do not challenge beloved administrators. Even if you are sustained, you will be attacked by many, and that will almost always result in your being banned.

So what the RfAr will ask ArbComm to do is to look at the history of my interaction with Future Perfect. Were we involved in a dispute? If so, was it legitimate for him to block me? If not, should he be admonished, or what response is appropriate?

That would be the filing. If Future Perfect doesn't immediately admit that he was involved, then, should ArbComm take the case, other matters might be asserted in Evidence, specifically other possible inappropriate actions. I know of one, there might be others. But I'm not doing this alone, and whatever I file is going to be reviewed by others first. It is impossible to reform the wiki alone. I can trigger or seed process alone, sometimes, but at this level, it would be practically suicidal.

While it's quite tempting to commit wiki-suicide, by simply telling -- on occasion -- the community how I feel about it in general and telling administrators and arbitrators how I feel about them, in the end I am neither suicidal nor do I blame them for being, with everyone else, victims of an abusive system. My level of blame starts to rise for the editors who act, vigorously, to preserve what is abusive about the system, but I have not seen any that sufficiently understand the issues for this to be truly morally culpable, though when I see an admin clearly enjoying abusing an editor, it does raise the hackles!

Spartaz, I'd love to see you be a part of the solution. Let me know if you are interested. It could be very easy, not stressful. Otherwise, in keeping with the august traditions here, even though it's only March, go fuck yourself!

Posted by: Spartaz

Charming.

Posted by: Abd

Without the tendentious involvement of the cabal -- which includes Mathsci and Enric, cabal simply meaning "set of involved editors" -- it would be correct that RfC would come first. However, the cabal's activity shows that RfC would simply fail to find a consensus. I'd probably prefer RfC myself, first, but precedent is that when there is this level of prior community review (i.e., an AN report over the block that shows no resolution on the issue of involvement), ArbComm will accept the case.

As it was with JzG, I consider it an open and shut case. The cabal will try to confuse it, if history serves as a predictor, with hosts of irrelevant arguments. With WMC, I made the mistake of responding to this crap. I do try not to make the same mistake twice. (There was value in that response, in itself, but I still won't do it again.)

ArbComm, unless it prevents it, will be presented with a clear case of admin recusal failure, and while it hates to face these issues, historically it does finally and reluctantly say, yes, the admin shouldn't have blocked the editor, but should have gone to the appropriate noticeboard. FP is correct that going to the noticeboard is not a general requirement. It is if there is any hint of involvement. There is here much more than a hint, there was a big red flag waving.

Even Sandstein consulted the noticeboard over the AN filing, which I myself considered the most clearly arguable violation so far -- that is, I knew it would raise an enforcement issue, which is unlike all the other alleged violations. But I did it anyway under IAR, considering it necessary. Simply being blocked under the sanction, anyone following IAR is taking that risk, which is why I have the slogan I do, you'll see it below. I just saw Malleus' comment to Unitanode that he doesn't trust any editor who has not been blocked. That's the reason. When you ignore rules, people block you, it's part of the process. There is nothing wrong with being blocked. Short blocked.

But it's not necessary to make the IAR argument, which is moot now, because Sandstein closed that AE request. I was not ignoring rules or the sanction in what I did that FP blocked me for.

But that, as well, is irrelevant. Even if my action had been a sanction violation, FP should not have made the decision, he should have gone to AE and allowed someone else to make it. If the decision had been made by an admin without some clear involvement -- and there are plenty -- there would be nothing ready for ArbComm here. I'd still have a dispute with SamJohnston, and, because of the asserted clarifications, still a need to get clarification from ArbComm, etc., but nothing ripe for ArbComm, at all.

Recusal failure is highly disruptive, in many ways.

Posted by: Abd

Good start. Somey, pour my friend here a drink. I think he might need one, he's had a hard time lately. Spartaz, this isn't Wikipedia, it's the Review Bar and Grill. I recommend the shrimp appetizer, it's fabulous. Now, about the offer. It's serious. But it's your choice. I don't recommend the Baked Despair. It's dry and leads nowhere, I don't know why it's even on the menu, except Jon Aubrey seems to like it.

And the suggestion that some editors, whom Future Perfect might listen to, take a hint, stands. While I'm not going to try prior DR any more on my own initiative, others can, and I'll be happy to cooperate.

And another hint: "You're wrong!" is not what any mediator would do. The goal of a mediator is to make both parties, if possible, right, and to discover what they can agree on. If the mediator does not do this, the mediator has simply inflamed the dispute. Skillful mediation actually resolves disputes, ends them, and can actually make friends out of apparent enemies, and that's what I was able to do at times.

Is there anyone here who knows how to do this? Carcharoth was good at it, at one time. I was, myself, until I was banned from it. Weird. It wasn't disruptive, I have no idea why ArbComm decided to word the sanction they way it did. The sanction prevented the best and least disruptive -- counter-disruptive actually! -- part of my work, intervening in disputes between two other editors where I was actually neutral. That only became disruptive in a few situations where one of the editors truly had a deeper problem that was causing long-term disruption and major damage, and was thoroughly commited to Not Listening to Anyone. WMC was such a case, with respect to GoRight. (Generally, I support WMC's POV on global warming, and understand why he thinks it so important, and not GoRight's apparent POV, but I place NPOV policy above "truth.")

I do not at this point know if Future Perfect would be such a case. I only know he screwed up with me, in a way that should not be repeated with anyone, and I know of one other incident where he supported a clearly abusive ban, and should have known better. Nothing so far would require that he lose his tools unless he refuses to acknowledge the problem, and continues to argue against recusal policy.

And that has, really, very little to do with whether I violated my sanction or not!

Posted by: everyking

Abd, how did you end up getting blocked again? One paragraph, please.

Posted by: Milton Roe

First you have to give a summary of how you got de-sysopped, again. One paragraph also.

Posted by: Abd

Thanks, Milton. It's true, a one-paragraph description can be very, very difficult to write. But it's also a reasonable request. I'll try. Thanks for asking, Everyking.

I discovered JzG's crap and confronted it and he was eventually admonished and resigned in disgust, but in the process the cabal began screaming for me to be banned, and retaliation began. WMC topic banned me from Cold fusion, without providing cause. I'd previously confronted WMC's crap, but had seen that the time was not ripe to pursue it. With the occasion, now, I took WMC's ban to RfAr and WMC was desysopped, but my "style" offends the cabal and some others, and I was sanctioned with an MYOB sanction. It's been continually alleged that I violated the sanction, though I never intended that, and in some cases the violation was more or less confirmed and thus the sanction became a bit tighter, but in most cases the allegations were not confirmed. However, I came across a case of severe harassment, with immediate and ongoing disruption, Wikipedia process being abused to effect harm, and clear evidence. I commented at AN/I, not seeking to resolve the dispute between the editors (which would have violated the MYOB sanction), but seeking to stop the abuse of Wikipedia, and was taken to AE by the harasser, being cheered on by the cabal. In order to avoid disruption pending clarification by ArbComm, I agreed to stop all comment on the situation and I agreed to a very strict interpretation of the sanction, but not extending that to RfAr comment as necessary. Previously, Future Perfect had blocked me for an alleged violation that was a comment on GoRight talk, critical of Future Perfect. I began discussing this with FP, who denied that there was any dispute at all, and he could block me whenever he chose. Then, based on an edit to RfAr/Clarification that actually introduced nothing new, but only reformatted what was already there, as a response to the harasser's comments on the Clarification page, Future Perfect again blocked me, claiming sanction violation, personal attack, and wikilawyering.

An adequate paragraph? I'd say as to recusal policy, it's open and shut. As to other issues, it should be clear as well, but you know Wikipedia.

I have not found, in Future Perfect's ancient history, reason to think him a generally abusive admin. In any case, I don't go after admin bits; rather I seek to clarify policy and have generally suggested to ArbComm that they not desysop, but suspend, pending provision of adequate assurances that a violation, once clarified, will not be repeated. I've even argued that suspension should be automatic if ArbComm accepts a case, if it shows reasonable cause to suspect a problem. Suspension should not be a cloud in itself, but a mere exercise of prudence.

But admins burn out, and non-abusive admins turn into abusive ones, as they lose patience. And the community fails to provide support. It could be done. That's part of my project.

Posted by: Zoloft

I dunno. If I was slapped with your ban after achieving an abusive admin's de-sysop, I would lay low for a few months, and just happily edit articles.

Then I'd ask for the ban to be lifted, because obviously it was not needed.

But that's just me. (47 words)

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Posted a reply to you (Abd) on http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28734&st=40&p=224785&#entry224785, but it's just as relevant here. You're assuming that both WP and WR have an ethical code, and it's not the case for either.

Posted by: Abd

I make no such presumption. In general, I assume that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and ethics applies to individuals. As to whether any universal ethical code applies, I avoid religious arguments here. But surely some individuals behave ethically, some do not.

Posted by: Abd

Well, I was "slapped with" two bans. One was simple and easy to interpret, though just as abusive as the other, in fact, and probably causing more specific article damage. But because it's easy to follow, there has been (almost) no disruption: the topic ban on Cold fusion. I did edit Oppenheimer-Phillips process, I think, and this was claimed to be a ban violation, but nobody other than a cabal editor picked up on that (and, for sure, I wasn't thinking about cold fusion in that edit, and the edit was not about cold fusion at all).

The MYOB ban, though, was not nearly so easy to interpret. It allowed certain things specifically, but did not define the terms, so to interpret it required understanding the intention. And ArbComm, I suspect, didn't really agree on the intention. Plus, my contributions are tracked by a pile of editors intent on finding something wrong with them, so everything gets interpreted in the maximum possible negative way.

In only one of the edits did I actually expect that there would be a problem, and that's one that I wasn't blocked for, and it truly was, as well, an edit demanded by clear IAR necessity. I've been doing other work, but when this crap comes up, it goes to pot. However, this is the simple fact: I care much more about Wikipedia process, enabling other editors to work in peace and without molestation, than I do about personally working in that way. And, given my experience, I can be much more effective that way, and, in fact, it's not even necessary for me to be editing personally at all. My real agenda cannot be blocked. It may be necessary to demonstrate this.... I'm not trying to create that situation, but there are enough who are truly afraid of my real agenda that they will keep pushing for a ban, and that's how Wikipedia works: enough people push for something long enough, and without any restraining structures, they get what they want. It looks like consensus, even when it isn't. Participation bias.

Functional organizations have figured out how to stop this. Wikipedia hasn't. One real sadness here is that Newyorkbrad really should know better, but I think he's burned out. That's what the system does to people, it wears them down and they lose their patience.

Posted by: Mathsci

My guess is that Abd is going to be banned by the community on wikipedia very soon - the moment he tries to open another RfAr. It is Abd who should know better, not NYB.

Posted by: EricBarbour

It's always funny to watch Abd and Mathsci get into it here.

Abd tends to talk (a lot), but his commentary actually tends to make sense, and contains some useful content of some kind.

But when Mathsci posts, it's usually just a smug, brief putdown of Abd. Content-free.

Posted by: Abd

This demonstrates that Mathsci is what was called at Caltech a "warm body," which meant someone who can tell the difference between light and dark.

Mathsci could be correct, except for one thing. It probably won't happen "the moment" I open another RfAr. Might happen if it is clear that ArbComm is not going to accept the RfAr. I might be "exhausting the patience" of the community, for sure, but the real thing I'm doing is exhausting due process. Anyone familiar with law would know what comes after that.

In order to legitimately take the next step, I must nail down that simpler moves won't suffice, and it must be simple enough and clear enough, in this case, that I can make a case at the higher level and that it will be heard. That is far from easy. If I was attached to my personal editing privilege, I probably wouldn't even try.

As to knowing better, nobody knows better who doesn't base the knowledge on something more careful than knee-jerk emotional reactions. I'll file a case that Newyorkbrad will recognize as raising an important issue that has caused, and will continue to cause even if I'm banned, continual disruption. That is, he will recognize this if he reads it, and it will be very brief and to the point, not a wall-of-text, because the salient issue is crystal clear and simple. Others who read it will see this as well, including many not willing to read longer elaborations on the same point.

When I said that NYB "should know better," I meant that from his prior writing, he does have enough knowledge. It's not a comparison between him and me. And, in the end, it will be the arbitrators who decide, by majority vote, and their decision is important. Wise? Well, that's a judgment for future generations, so to speak. I'm working for the long term, I'm an eventualist as to Wikipedia, just not as sanguine about the ability of the community to naturally arrive at what it needs; that made sense when it was smaller and the original core was active and understood the process that allowed Wikipedia to grow so rapidly. But that core has long since burned out, and it did not know enough to build a process that would be sustainable and fully realize the ideals.

Mathsci is not going to like what will happen if I and others like me are banned. But he may never realize that it was his own doing. He'll blame it on everyone else. He's been a tireless contributor of excellent content, and he will watch as it's mangled and dumbed down and made unpalatable. He'll try to stem the tide, but the pressure will become overwhelming, until he, too, quits in disgust. I wouldn't wish this fate on him, but he's allowed to insist.

This is a very, very old story.





Thanks, Eric. Mathsci represents what quite a few editors, on-wiki, think. And how they think. These editors, though, have no clue as to how to solve the Wikipedia Problem; in fact, many of them think there is no problem, everything is fine, if we can just get rid of those disruptive editors. Eventually, as they notice that the disruptive editors are taking over the place no matter how many are banned, they start to think there is really a problem, but it's way too late; they burn out, and then quit or are banned themselves, as they become increasingly impatient and lash out, as is happening with WMC. Supporters of WMC like Short Brigade Harvester Boris advise him to be detached, but SBHB clearly thinks the insane are running the asylum, but we should make the best of it, maybe some shred of sanity can be preserved in this or that corner.