Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Abd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Abd_user_pages

These include documents submitted to ArbComm in Arbitration hearings, and reviewed by arbitrators, in at least one case the page was prepared at the request of an arbitrator. It includes studies of blacklisting practice, and includes a page listing poets whose articles on Wikipedia could be improved with a link to lyrikline.org, because the poet has a page there (this was an old unfinished project). It includes essays such as the Rule 0 essay.

It includes pages that other users have worked on. Some of it is simple junk, it includes my Sandbox.

The cabal does this all the time. They don't like history. History is never favorable to them. The more of it they can erase, the better.

JzG has done this before, he managed to get the evidence page submitted to ArbComm, in a request he'd filed , deleted as being an "attack page." (ArbComm declined that request, and that page might have been a piece of the reason.) In that case, I simply went ahead and filed RfC/JzG 3, having kept the evidence which I then re-used.

The pages used in the RfAr cases don't necessarily show up in What links here, because much of RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley was "courtesy blanked," but the idea is that anyone who wants to read the case can look at it in history. Some of the pages in the list, at least the Response to Verbal, was also courtesy blanked. Verbal attempted, many times, to get that page deleted, to prevent any kind of neutral description of the content, and revert warred over it, so that it was protected. This is what JzG is referring to when he talks about me undoing changes.

It's his usual lies. But he often gets away with it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yes. And you should know by now that you can't win this argument. He's got backup--a bunch of flakes and lunatics, perhaps, but available to help him. How many long-time admins do you have, backing you up?

Posted by: gomi

Post it all here in the Annex. We've got the bits! Yeah, I know its not the same as "on-wiki", but you're indef'd -- get used to it.

Posted by: Abd

None. The ones that would have, at one time, have almost all retired, given up, turned to something more fruitful. The kind of position I represent will be at most, in casual society, about one-third, and it can only function through deliberative process.

What I'm looking at now is my own obsession. JzG acting up simply brought it all up. I'd given up on Wikipedia, concluding that it was way too far gone and that I'd gone too long with some idea that small changes might eventually produce a larger change. That idea became increasingly untenable, to the point that a month ago, I went outlaw, outlaw, that is, within the insane Wikipedia Wikiverse.

It's a world where liars are supported, neutrality is an illusion, merely a form of text that some follow and some don't, and only appearance counts, not substance. It's a world where truth, even totally verifiable, documentable, demonstrable truth, doesn't matter.

Verifiability not truth makes some sense, because we confuse points of view with truth, but when there is no process for verification, but only the mere possibility of it, when actual verification is improbable, the core project of human knowledge has broken down.

Bottom line, I got really, really pissed, at the evil of it all.

I saved my files, that was a no-brainer, though, in fact, those files are only useful for what?

For working on a project that is dead.

From all that work, I gained a poem, from one of the lyrikline.org poets. (One of the files is about the lyrikline.org blacklisting, a case study in the Utter Stupidity of the wikipedia system.)

http://lyrikline.org/index.php?id=163&L=1&author=cc00&poemId=3168&cHash=00a4a9e405


Thanks. Some stuff might come here, or elsewhere, but why? Why should I bother?

Good money after bad.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I may be dense here. What is the rationale for the proposed deletions?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

In order to preserve your work, opinions, and essays for the benefit of users interesting in learning about your experiences. It would also serve as a way for you to reflect on your past experiences. Your subpages are safer hosted outside of Wikipedia anyway.

Posted by: Abd

Yeah. But it will require a lot of work in formatting.

What I get when I reflect on my past experiences is angry and bitter, or at least those are the presenting emotions. I trusted the community, and I trusted ArbComm. I knew there were problems, but, damn, it seemed like such a good idea....

When I saw that users who lied and bullied were respected, and those whom they bullied and libeled were rejected and banned, when I saw that enormous work could be put into compiling evidence to show -- objectively! -- what had actually happened -- but it was disregarded as if it were mere pov-pushing, and when I saw that this disregard reached to the top, to the Arbitration Committee, which failed to establish careful review process but simply reproduced the lower-level problems at a higher level -- I finally gave up on this "community."

I have the wikitext for it all, I hope. Some of these pages had more participation by others, what the pages are has been misrepresented by JzG. There is, for example, a page where I mediated between a subject matter expert and a student-level editor, which resulted in their becoming cooperating editors instead of enemies about to both be blocked. I reminds me of my MYOB ban, what that ban interdicted. The best work I'd done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Dispute_over_thermoeconomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd/Dispute_over_thermoeconomics

If ArbComm knew what it was doing, then it was directly opposing real dispute resolution, and, indeed, there are forces that don't want that in society. If they didn't know what they were doing, that's almost as bad!

Most signs are that they don't know what they are doing.

Part of the Wikipedia problem is the deletion of history. Happens all the time. I eventually settled on using, for extended evidence, archiving to page history instead of creating pages elsewhere, because that takes a less-used tool to delete.

But it doesn't really matter, at least not in the short term. If people won't look at history, but will simply react based on quick impressions and what they like and don't like, what does it matter if history is preserved? Long term, yes, it can make a difference. Maybe.

Gad, I just noticed. JzG went through the cold fusion article and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=432283101&oldid=431899283 thus restoring a citation error that I'd corrected. I was really careful with those edits, they were straightforward improvements, and it would make no sense for me to do anything else. The only real controversy involved would be the single restoration of the edit by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. That's being tendentiously opposed, as it has for years. JzG doesn't mention that he was reprimanded by ArbComm for blacklisting lenr-canr.org, but, in the other direction, ArbComm seems to not care at all that he has repeated (abusive unilateral blacklisting, being highly involved) what they reprimanded him for. I brought it up. They rejected the case. That's when I went outlaw. Last straw.

(AnomieBOT fixed the error, but that error had been standing for a bit....)

Posted by: Detective

Move them all to Simplewiki; they'll be safe there. No admin there has a clue about what's going on elsewhere in WMF. In fact, not many of them have any sort of clue about anything.

Posted by: Abd

Oh, I'm sure they'd get some assistance. Some files may go to Wikiversity, those that have some relevance there. I see that some files were already moved by a user who wanted to save them. There are others of general utility, for example

User:Abd/Lyrikline poets

was a working list, and someone who wants to improve Wikipedia articles on those poets could use that list to find articles where the improvement is simple and obvious. I'll explain.

Lyrikline.org was blacklisted some years ago. A user from de.wikipedia, apparent home wiki, had been going around adding links in articles on poets to lyrikline.org. It seems that this user was affiliated with lyrikline.org, which is a web site created in collaboration between academic institutions and the German government, there is an article that was also created by this user, and deleted for similar reasons as the edits were reverted. Spam blacklist administrators and volunteers seem to feel free to engage in massive, often anonymous, vandalism!

(Later, the article was restored at my request, and edited to make it comply with guidelines, Lyrikline.org.)

In any case, the user clearly thought that he was making welcome improvements. When this was called spamming, he did stop, and he apologized, but he was still sanctioned. There is a detailed history of all this at User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org

This case showed both legitimate usage of the global blacklist -- to stop a global pattern of rapid addition of links without review, possibly by a COI editor -- and its failure to discriminate between legitimate additions and illegitimate ones. (I'd say there is a complete disinterest in that issue.) In my review of the links, I never found any that were not legitimate, at least arguably.

So the list page I've mentioned shows potential link additions, as well as the ones already added, mostly by me. Further, the red links show, probably, possible articles to be created, since these are all, practically by definition, notable poets. Recognition by lyrikline is recognition by an academic institution. The lyrikline pages on a poet include a biography. Until this was recently fixed, possibly as a result of my mention of it in the lenr-canr.org delisting request, the WMF was blacklisting a notable and reliable source. From prior requests of mine, the English language interface to lyrikline.org had been whitelisted at en.wp, by my request. (That's how I was able to add links.)

Beetstra was the admin who delisted, and see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beetstra&oldid=2636584#lyrikline.org which shows the hostility that dogged me, from some administrators.... Beetstra behaves as if his baby, the blacklist, is being attacked. What he doesn't notice is that, sure, a short-term blacklisting could make sense, but this one was maintained for years. There is no expiration on a blacklisting, and delisting was requested many times, and always denied on the grounds that there wasn't anything wrong with the original listing. What was wrong with it was that it, and associated process, immediately damaged content, simply because an editor was "COI." It's all backwards, and, folks, this is how the wiki crumbles.