Guy Chapman, the Antidrug, How does he find all the www.bluelight cites?? Options

[Milton Roe]

Guy this morning has been going around removing every reference he can find in every article that uses a recreational drug discussion board/site called "bluelight" (www.bluelight.ru). He is doing this ostensibly per WP:RS and WP:EL which deprecates discussion boards as reliable references, but obviously Guy is not particularly interested in removing all discussion board references per se from WP-- only those that have to do with illegal drugs. And those from Bluelight in particular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

Apparently this was precipitated by Guy discovering that some illegal psychoactive or other was getting the most Google hits from Bluelight, rather than Wikipedia. But that some references in Wikipedia were to Bluelight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319079500

Now, here's my question: some of these Wikis aren't even about drugs, as for example the Bluelight ref removed from Acacia! How the hell does Guy find all these to remove them? I haven't checked to see if they were all added by the same source (perhaps Guy is merely following down somebody else's contrib list). The other possibility is that WP admins have some way of finding all refs which involve a website they don't like, so that they can go to WP as a whole and systematically remove them, as I see being done here.

Personally, I don't give a *&^% about Bluelight. But if there's some way of zapping all refs to some BBS some admin doesn't like, it would be interesting to know about it. I would be a powerful tool for POV-pushing: you just remove all links to BBS's or websites you don't like, while not bothering to do anything about those that agree with you.

[Guido den Broeder]

Next to the 'go' button the Wiki has a 'search' button. The search function is not great, but it works.

[Somey]

How the hell does Guy find all these to remove them?

Probably just enters "bluelight.ru" into the search box and clicks "Search," no?

I just checked, and a couple of references were still in the index. The one for Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (T-H-L-K-D), for example - in that case someone had cleverly tried to hide it by making it "bluelight. ru", adding a space before the "ru".... but Mr. Chapman apparently was more thorough than the person had bargained for, and it's there no longer.

[Milton Roe]

How the hell does Guy find all these to remove them?

Probably just enters "bluelight.ru" into the search box and clicks "Search," no?

Crap, I hadn't thought of that. The WP search feature searches for text inside reference-cites, too!




Color me in need of coffee.

[CharlotteWebb]

How the hell does Guy find all these to remove them? I haven't checked to see if they were all added by the same source (perhaps Guy is merely following down somebody else's contrib list). The other possibility is that WP admins have some way of finding all refs which involve a website they don't like, so that they can go to WP as a whole and systematically remove them, as I see being done here.

See for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...et=bluelight.ru

If this is empty by the time you read it, try searching for any other domain name.

[GlassBeadGame]

How the hell does Guy find all these to remove them?

Probably just enters "bluelight.ru" into the search box and clicks "Search," no?

I just checked, and a couple of references were still in the index. The one for Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (T-H-L-K-D), for example - in that case someone had cleverly tried to hide it by making it "bluelight. ru", adding a space before the "ru".... but Mr. Chapman apparently was more thorough than the person had bargained for, and it's there no longer.

Monkey Dust? I Googled "Penguin Dust" but only found references to Corso poem "Marriage" and no designer drugs. I guess if your old school enough for Corso its got to be Classic Heroin™.

[dtobias]

That's JzG's M.O. exactly... once he decides something is a BADSITE that needs to be suppressed, he goes on rampages removing it, and he's impossible to fight, because putting up any opposition basically amounts to trying to defend using a message board as a reference, which isn't really a good idea (even if JzG uses this very selectively to suppress only the things he wants to suppress).

[CharlotteWebb]

I just checked, and a couple of references were still in the index. The one for Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (T-H-L-K-D), for example - in that case someone had cleverly tried to hide it by making it "bluelight. ru", adding a space before the "ru"...

Huh, where do you see that?

Here is the text of the article immediately before he removed the bluelight urls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319042779

They all appear intact and normal here.

(note if you accidentally click "save page" at this point, it will have the effect of reverting JzG, so unless you want him to range-block all of Iowa...)

[Somey]

Huh, where do you see that?

I was doing a search for just "bluelight" as opposed to "bluelight.ru", and it was in the search results. Actually, I think this may be a feature I didn't know about - it looks like this is something MediaWiki does, specifically in Search Results pages. They've probably got it coded to add spaces after the dots, either because it thinks they're periods, or because it makes it easier to word-wrap the lines, or because they just don't like certain domain-name extensions.

I guess I don't really keep up with that kinda stuff...

[CharlotteWebb]

Huh, where do you see that?

I was doing a search for just "bluelight" as opposed to "bluelight.ru", and it was in the search results. Actually, I think this may be a feature I didn't know about - it looks like this is something MediaWiki does, specifically in Search Results pages. They've probably got it coded to add spaces after the dots, either because it thinks they're periods, or because it makes it easier to word-wrap the lines, or because they just don't like certain domain-name extensions.

Oh I see. That looks like one of many bugs associated with the built-in search engine which continues to blow goats.

There's a reason everyone I know relies mostly on Google to "find stuff" "on" "wiki" (as emesee would put it).

[dtobias]

There's a reason everyone I know relies mostly on Google to "find stuff" "on" "wiki" (as emesee would put it).

But it's popular for the WR crowd to join Daniel Brandt in blowing a gasket about this, and insist that WP go out of its way to exclude a good chunk of its stuff (or maybe all of it) from Google. If they did that, how would you guys find anything there to criticize?

[Milton Roe]

That's JzG's M.O. exactly... once he decides something is a BADSITE that needs to be suppressed, he goes on rampages removing it, and he's impossible to fight, because putting up any opposition basically amounts to trying to defend using a message board as a reference, which isn't really a good idea (even if JzG uses this very selectively to suppress only the things he wants to suppress).

And it's totally amazing that he does all this weeding by hand. The man is indeed seriously in need of either help, or a new hobby like knitting.

On the other hand, if he must spend time on wikipedia, at least removing cites to BBS's isn't the damage he could be doing by blocking the newbs and promoting the social drahmas. So there's that.

The Devil finds work for idle hands, and if the Devil doesn't, Jimbo Wales will. ™

[Cla68]

So, Charlotte, did Jimbo respond to your email with anything other than responding to your request with a question? If so, then count me surprised.

[CharlotteWebb]

So, Charlotte, did Jimbo respond to your email with anything other than responding to your request with a question? If so, then count me surprised.

Uh, what?

[Cla68]

So, Charlotte, did Jimbo respond to your email with anything other than responding to your request with a question? If so, then count me surprised.

Uh, what?

I thought you said that you emailed Jimbo Wales about what JzG was doing?

[CharlotteWebb]

I thought you said that you emailed Jimbo Wales about what JzG was doing?

Uhh, no...

I never said or implied anything like that. I'm certain of this because it is one tactic to which I would not stoop.

[Cla68]

I thought you said that you emailed Jimbo Wales about what JzG was doing?

Uhh, no...

I never said or implied anything like that. I'm certain of this because it is one tactic to which I would not stoop.

My bad. Believe me, he would not help anyway.

[Eva Destruction]

Huh, where do you see that?

I was doing a search for just "bluelight" as opposed to "bluelight.ru", and it was in the search results. Actually, I think this may be a feature I didn't know about - it looks like this is something MediaWiki does, specifically in Search Results pages. They've probably got it coded to add spaces after the dots, either because it thinks they're periods, or because it makes it easier to word-wrap the lines, or because they just don't like certain domain-name extensions.

I guess I don't really keep up with that kinda stuff...

The most reliable way (on any site running MediaWiki) is Special:LinkSearch.

[Abd]

Okay, here's where JzG fell off the boat. But first, the basic issue, the reliability of discussion forums. Discussion forums that have no process for filtering the dross from the gold, for determining what is consensus in a field and distinguishing it from mere assertion, possibly tendentious and therefore repetitive, aren't reliable source for fact. But it is possible for them to be reliable source under some conditions, with attribution, and this leads into the whole inclusionist/exclusionist debate. From an exclusionist position, it doesn't matter if a fact is verifiable, it must also be notable, by whatever standard has been established, and an apparent agreement on a discussion forum, which could establish, at least, that some fact is asserted or reported and not contradicted in an environment where contradiction of error is likely, isn't enough. It must be published in reliable source. Certainly JzG is within reason here in an exclusionist position; however, the actual decision in any article should be made by editors of the article. What's a bit problematic is the exclusion of this source from many articles, without discussion. It leaves unsourced text in place. JzG is imposing a top-down position on sourcing without participating in the articles.

But he also does something far less defensible: he removes bluelight.ru from external links, thus not only is he removing sourcing for facts, facts that are almost certainly true and roughly verifiable, he removes pointers to an external forum where the topic is discussed. He did this with respect to cold fusion and lenr-canr.org, and this kind of action is one which seriously damages the utility of the encyclopedia to readers. As near as I can tell, bluelight.ru doesn't violate external link policy, it seems to be, overall, neutral. JzG did not present any argument against the external link, he simply deleted every reference to bluelight.ru without discrimination, giving only the RS argument: "Not a WP:RS. Forums are not acceptable as sources."

There is no requirement that external links satisfy RS, and frequently the most valuable ones don't. For example, the web site of a political party isn't reliable source, in general (except for, with editorial consensus, covering an official position of a party as may be expressed there, and that's iffy, sometimes, for what's notable?). But certainly we'd want the site listed with ELs in an article on the party! If bluelight.ru is a good place to find discussion of the topic, and particularly if there aren't many better sites, it belongs. Tentatively, it looks like that to me, and that's why JzG's action without discussion is offensive.

This kind of massive removal without discussion, by an ordinary editor, might well result in a block. It's on the edge of vandalism, if not over the edge.

It is this that could be confronted, and that's what I might do, were I still editing Wikipedia. I'd probably prevail, I generally did. And that I indicated that, if my mentor permitted it, I might do exactly this kind of thing again, is clearly what caused ArbComm to suddenly shift from a mild reprimand to a three-month block.

If someone wants to do this, I advise being very careful. Perhaps question JzG about it, especially about the strongest part, the external links. Be civil, and avoid unnecessary accusations and irrelevancies. Don't argue tendentiously with him. Initiate brief discussions in the articles before doing any reversions. Get help. If JzG objects, initiate dispute resolution process, by the book. He's not been amenable, in the past, but he might change, and DR attempt, by more than one editor, can be a prerequisite to moving up the ladder. Avoid AN/I or AN, unless there is an actual emergency, but other noticeboards may be useful. Ask me for advice by email (though Wikipedia, my user email is enabled) or PM here. If you do, I'll watch the situation, and advise you privately, with evidence if I can. (Use nothing from me unless you personally verify it and can take full responsibility for it.) Be aware, though, that if you confront JzG, you may eventually attract the ire of the Cab, as I did, they came after me at Cold fusion, it wasn't a bizarre coincidence.

Relevant:
AfD/Bluelight.ru
WikiProject Pharmacology
WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants
User self-describes as "frequent contributor" at Bluelight.ru -- only two WP edits, none adding links. Unfortunately, email not enabled.
post claiming to be from admin at bluelight. Gives email address.

I saw some other references to bluelight in searching. My impression is that bluelight, as an open discussion forum that seems to include highly knowledgeable -- and sober! -- participants, is highly useful for further research on any drug topic covered. Such research, even where not usable in an article directly, can be quite valuable for background. I didn't see any reference to bluelight being blacklisted, which would have explained the removals, removing links is essential to blacklisting, because the presence of a blacklisted link can make a page or page section uneditable, until the link is removed.

If JzG attempts to blacklist bluelight.ru, that would be a violation of RfAr/Abd and JzG, where the use of the blacklist for content control was disapproved. His removal activity could be a preparation for such, or not.

Something I just noticed and don't have time to pursue: there are suspiciously few references to bluelight.ru in a global link search. There may have been a campaign to remove them globally. Or maybe that's just a reflection of bluelight.ru being an English-language site....

Also see JzG's removal of reference to bluelight.ru from Blue Light disambig page. No explanation given.

JzG filed AfD/Peakers. This page mentioned bluelight.ru, which JzG removed before nominating the article. My guess is that if this web site was as notable as the article claimed, there is plenty of reference for it, if sought, but who needs to look for references before nominating for AfD? Article stood for over two years, original editor probably long gone, no edits since 2007. To his credit, though, JzG did notify the creator, but it's unlikely anyone who is knowledgeable would notice. Article Rescue Squadron may be interested.

Possibly a move to stub the article, if any source at all can be found that's reasonable, would be successful. Someone who'd merely want to help, but who doesn't have the time to work on the article, could ask for userification, another approach that can allow some work on the article to proceed while it's temporarily deleted in mainspace, it preserves the work, keeping it accessible. Once the article is in user space, it's possible to solicit help with it from people who might be interested. Canvassing isn't a problem then. Once sourced, it can then go back, it's one way to sidestep the deletion spectre.

Someone might like to notify JzG of this thread. I thought of doing it, but the last time I emailed JzG, with a friendly notice about some sock puppetry, I got a fair amount of flack for allegedly harassing him.... He didn't seem to mind, he actually took the information to AN/I, where it was roundly ignored. He did pass it on, he didn't ignore it, it wasn't his fault that the community yawned. The sock has become even more blatant than when I first ID'd it. But, unless it's your ox being gored, who cares? Only really big oxen attract serious ownership and therefore protection, little cattle, the runts, are only of interest to small landowners, most of whom, the real editors who just added content they knew because they were interested in it, or happened across it, mostly years ago, don't watch, long-term. If a wildcat like Durova, or certain other admins (maybe even a majority, but with millions of articles, they are spread way too thin), doesn't notice, nothing happens....

By Wikipedia standards, BTW, I don't think JzG's behavior in this is particularly outrageous, and the only problem would be if he should tendentiously hold on to all of these edits; as far as I've seen, nobody has challenged him on-wiki over any of this, and, as long as he's unopposed, his actions are within reasonable practice except maybe he should have peeped on Talk pages. But if the day comes that editors are expected to be perfect, the wiki is doomed. I discuss a lot, JzG discusses very little, and it takes all kinds.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 11th October 2009, 8:41pm