The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Global ban for Abd?, Gotta stop that POV-pushing
Zoloft
post Thu 9th June 2011, 4:59pm
Post #21


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 5:23pm
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Gruntled @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:55pm) *
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 9th June 2011, 9:12am) *
Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?
Abd manages to put something worth reading in nearly all his posts. That's more than quite a few people round here can say. (*cough* Scottish medical practitioner? *cough*)
Not only that, Abd collapses the quotes, removing extra space, so that his short posts don't take up a full screen. I just put that in so that this one might be worth reading also. Thanks, Gruntled.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 5:30pm
Post #23


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:59pm) *
I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.
Thanks, Zoloft. I write for today's outliers, generally. Not for everyone, and especially not for those who imagine that their own narrowness and incapacity is how everyone is.

Besides, I don't read most of what's posted on WR, only that which interests me or snags my eye, and I often just scan, rather than reading with great care. I wonder what would happen if I responded to all the posts that I don't read with "I didn't read this." But "too long" would never be a reason, the reason would be that what I saw didn't catch my attention, which has not much to do with length, and more to do with the first paragraph or what stands out to the eye.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 9th June 2011, 6:10pm
Post #24


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:52pm) *

...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...


I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Thu 9th June 2011, 6:27pm
Post #25


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 9th June 2011, 11:10am) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:52pm) *

...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...


I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.

Another good reason is that it's 'rule by whoever shows up.'
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 7:11pm
Post #26


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 9th June 2011, 2:27pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 9th June 2011, 11:10am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:52pm) *
...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...
I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.
Thanks, Greg. Of course, I hit on this in 2007, having predicted the phenomena years before, and have been trying to explain it and to show ways around it since then. You can see in the current ban discussion that some are still impressed by that. "Outsider trying to tell us about Wikipedia problems."
QUOTE
Another good reason is that it's 'rule by whoever shows up.'
Of course, that's just a restatement. The adhocracy is not the problem in itself, it works well usually. It's the lack of efficient and careful process (it has to be both efficient and careful) for dealing with where the adhocracy doesn't work, because of participation bias.

The reason why better process wasn't set up was the supermajority election method used to award adminship (highly subject to participation bias as well) and to elect ArbComm. ArbComm is elected by "Plurality at large," which, as a multiwinner method, is one of the worst, because, if we think in terms of factions (an oversimplification, to be sure, but still useful for thought), the largest faction will win all the seats. If there is a minority faction which is strongly opposed by others, it can't win *any* seats, meaning that its arguments will be completely unrepresented. Gradually, this snuffs out independent thinking, and it's devastating to expert participation, for experts in any field are outliers in the general population.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 8:22pm
Post #27


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
# Oppose, totally in agreement with Ëzhiki -- this is a disgusting spectacle. The accused "attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes." Was that lifted from a political "trial" in Maoist China? Go, team! Writegeist (talk)
# Oppose Not only for my basic belief that draconian solutions do not work, but for the idea that somehow not giving any diffs makes a case of some sort. I also regard participation in external sites to be an invalid rationale for such a ban. Lastly, "unpopularity contests" form an exceedingly bad means of governance for any organization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yay! At least someone is saying it!

The practical difference between an indef block, user page access not allowed, and a site ban is practically zero. JzG simply wanted to rub it in as deeply as he could, as quickly as he could, and he's got plenty of enablers, always has had them.

That a user can be site-banned with an evidence-free proposal is a symptom of a deep problem. JzG's done it many times, and if ArbComm were awake, they'd notice this. I tried. They didn't want to know. They think it's about me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 8:39pm
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



related: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Abd_user_pages, arbitrator comment:
QUOTE
Comment The arbitration committee has been privately notified of this discussion and we're not aware of any reason why these pages need to be kept for arbitration purposes.
Speaking only for myself regarding these arbitration evidence pages in userspace, the 2010 committee wrote a principle on similar user subpages in cases Race and intelligence and Climate change, and the 2011 committee incorporated a similar remedy into Longevity. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Guidance for future editors: if you submit evidence to ArbComm with user space pages, they can, and very possibly will, be later deleted, meaning that the basis and context for the case decision can disappear. I generally used user pages, but sometimes used, instead, reference to history, which can't so easily be deleted. Essentially, the position John takes is based on a technicality: the use of user space for extended evidence instead of ArbComm space or history.

I did notify the committee by email, very briefly. It's clear that John, at least, does not consider transparency of ArbComm decision-making to be "any reason." Solely for making decisions, perhaps, on a matter that they assume they will never revisit -- or they can all see deleted pages -- sure. They don't need to be kept for "arbitration purposes." They need to be kept for transparency, and they don't want transparency, so the position isn't surprising.

At least one of these pages was explicitly mentioned in the rationale for sanctions, I pointed to that. They don't care, confirming my view of ArbComm. There used to be arbitrators who did care, but .... Wikipedia is sliding inexorably into the shit, like a bad toilet dream.

I don't need these files, I have copies of all of them, and the proposed deletion (likely to succeed except for a few files that have been rescued) simply is one more demonstration of what Wikipedia is about.

Here is one of the findings that Vandenberg cites, case Race and intelligence :
QUOTE
Lengthy evidence and sub-pages

9) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
These pages were explicitly linked from my case evidence page: I was facing evidence from a pile of editors, with laundry lists of claims, and responding directly on that page would have made my evidence page totally cumbersome. These pages were all announced there, so the argument about other editors not knowing about them would not apply. In addition, only one editor had complained about the page responding to him, and that page had, indeed, been courtesy-blanked, by me. This finding does not indicate deletion, merely mentions it as a possibility, presumably for pages not actually used, and it wasn't mentioned in the finding that whether or not the page was actually used was even relevant. Vandenberg ignored the page where I stated my post-arbitration intentions, which was then used as an excuse to throw the book at me. (Those stated intentions assumed a mentor, by the way, who would have had to permit anything possibly contentious. What was beyond the pale was that I might even ask.)

They really don't like editors who are thorough and who actually respond to charges, in detail, with evidence. It creates too much work for them, and they never paid any attention to suggestions about how they could easily handle the load, real arbitration clerks, appointed by and responsible to each arbitrator. Structure, the kind of structure that any real-world organization develops naturally to handle the work load. Instead, arbitrators are overwhelmed, but they like it that way, or somebody does.

I'd expect some of the arbitrators, sitting at the time of the case, to actually want this evidence deleted, because it could be used to demonstrate their functional incompetence, should someone care to do that. In that case, RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, the drafting arbitrator came up with what seemed to me to be an excellent decision (I was happy with it, even if I disagreed with this or that.) He'd actually read the evidence, I think. Then this was abruptly shoved aside by an arbitrator who obviously Didn't Like It, and the whole tenor of the case shifted to Abd Bad.

This would represent, I believe, arbitrators who were frustrated by the volume of evidence I'd presented, even though there was at least as much evidence presented against me. They wanted to take a short-cut, a common one, and you can see this in the behavior of editors at the AN ban discussion: judge by the number of editors presenting evidence or argument or just opinion, in a certain direction. It's a short-cut that actually works, a lot of the time. But when it fails, it can be a doozy. In particular, this is highly vulnerable to factions, which is what I claimed in the RfAr, to the derision of the cabal I was identifying. That same cabal was later identified, in rough outlines, in the Climate Change arbitration.

This was one of the frustrating aspects of that RfAr for me. I'd explicitly stated that I was not claiming improper collusion, that "cabal," as I used the term, meant informal collaboration, common interest and mutual involvement. So that if A and B are in a conflict, if B and C are "cabal members," frequently backing each other up, C's action blocking A is not cleanly uninvolved. I didn't ask for any sanctions based on this, it would have been unfair, like an ex-post-facto law. But I was still dinged by ArbComm for making the cabal claim without proving improper collusion! All I was doing was pointing to the fact that the editors piling in, in this case, were involved in a host of prior decisions, documented, all on one side. Which happened to be a side contrary to ArbComm's prior decisions....

They simply ignored my disclaimer, and decided based on prior impressions, apparently.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 9th June 2011, 9:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Thu 9th June 2011, 8:56pm
Post #29


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:59pm) *

I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.

I can only read 2300 WPM, so I just read the parts other people happen to quote. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Thu 9th June 2011, 9:10pm
Post #30


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 9th June 2011, 9:12am) *

Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?


Wikipedians don't read, or if they do, rarely beyond the first paragraph ('lede').
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 9:19pm
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 9th June 2011, 4:56pm) *
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 9th June 2011, 12:59pm) *
I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.
I can only read 2300 WPM, so I just read the parts other people happen to quote. laugh.gif
I knew there must be some reason. By the way, that process, depending on others to filter what one reads, is perfectly sensible. You'll miss some stuff, sure, but it's efficient. You pay your money and take your choice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 9:28pm
Post #32


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Geez, I'm on a roll:
QUOTE
Oppose I wasn't going to vote, but I was just sitting here watching the ridiculous support reasons pile up and decided enough was enough. Dlohcierekim bogus support reason and then the inappropriate response to Ezhiki was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I still don't comprehend how referencing an RfA that ended with nearly 50% support is somehow a negative thing toward Abd. Unbelievable. Silverseren 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There was canvassing in that RfA by a tendentious editor I'd identified and confronted -- later indeffed --, who was blocked during it for that reason. If you discount the canvassed !votes by clueless users who had been selected for likely opposition, it comes out almost exactly at 50%.

But, Silverseren, surely you comprehend how it's a "negative thing." It was because I was suggesting changes or modifications to systems, and because I was openly revealing myself, instead of putting up pretense, which is what the community expects in an RfA. Some could tell that I was not drinking the Kool-Aid, that I didn't want to be an administrator, I was merely willing to serve, because I'd been nominated, and that's exactly what they fear. Others, at that time, liked this about me!
QUOTE

# Oppose, per Collect; the lack of diffs in the discussion of a community ban for an editor who contributed mostly productively since February 2005 is off-putting, and two of the rationales for a community ban ("placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes" and participation on external sites) seem invalid reasons for a community ban. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Oppose per Ëzhiki; this is indeed an unsavoury spectacle. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, okay, Wikipedia is not entirely dead. It's no longer quite so obvious how this will close. When I've considered closes, I always considered the later votes more than previous, because they reflect the earlier arguments and have had more time to read evidence and do independent investigation. Firsfron seems to actually have looked at my contributions. Heresy! And thanks, Malleus.

I do not take these comments as indicating I should hope for unblocking, nor as support for any possibly disruptive action. They simply show that there is some sense remaining in the community, and if RBI were followed, there would be paths open to and encouraging cooperation with anyone.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 9th June 2011, 9:38pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Thu 9th June 2011, 9:36pm
Post #33


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Two more now, so yes, you're on a "roll".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 9th June 2011, 10:42pm
Post #34


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 9th June 2011, 5:36pm) *
Two more now, so yes, you're on a "roll".
I'll admit to being surprised. One support, okay, two or three, not really expected, but now the first plus seven in a row?

What is being expressed by this string of editors is generally the position of long-term Wikipedians, people like JzG and Raul654 are outliers in that group.

And then Enric Naval shows up. I was wondering when he would.
QUOTE
* Support Please note that Abd POV-pushed in Cold fusion until he was banned, flooding the talk page with walls of text and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. That was his almost only activity in wikipedia during the last 2 years. Then he attempted several times to game his topic ban from cold fusion. Arbcom also banned him from entering disputes from where he was not one of the originators of the dispute here, due to he troubles he causes, and he also tried to game that. If you agree with him, then he is a reasonable editor. But, if you disagree with him, then he winds up insulting you, hand-waving away all arguments that you present, and flooding you with walls of text where one a couple of sentences are relevant to the question you asked. I'm tired of showing him a dozen of RS only to have him discarding all of them because they don't fit his personal opinion.

This is not a diff-less unfair ban of a poor innocent editor, this is the ban of a guy who has been wasting the time and patience of many editors with his relentless POV pushing. I already looked for dozens of diffs in the arb case. Anyways, in the last comments of Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_39#Banned_user he repeats the same behaviours: he hand waves all the sources and policies that I present to him, and at the end he insists again in making a biased POV-pushing edit to misrepresent the mainstream opinion of scientists. In other words, he is still pulling the same POV-pushing that he was pushing before being topic banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what Naval is talking about: I was behaving as a COI editor. The cold fusion article is based largely on relatively weak sources, as to anything in the last ten years. He'd present a dozen diffs from weak sources, they are RS indeed, but he was using them in opposition to -- and to the exclusion of -- recent peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream scientific journals. And he's completely missed the point. I wasn't editing the article in any contentious way, because of COI. Essentially, Enric doesn't want a contrary point of view to his own presented even on the Talk page. And he's been behind many of the topic bans. He thinks that what matters is whether or not I "discard" his sources. No, what matters, for the article, is the consensus of editors. "He insists again in making a biased POV-pushing edit to misrepresent the mainstream opinion of scientists." He has no example to show, as to anything with the article. Bottom line, his complaint is that I disagreed with him on the Talk page, while attempting to find consensus -- read the discussion! -- and that discussion uncovered a source that I'd been unaware of, very striking and very recent: Cook (2010). I recommend that anyone interested in what actually happened take a look at the discussion Enric cites. It shows his approach, very clearly, and it also shows how JzG, fast-archiving this discussion, misrepresented it, presenting it under a misleading collapse title. I didn't start that discussion.

The most recent behavior, as EnergyNeutral, I was cooperating with a Nobel laureate in physics, as well as all the editors of all the articles involved, and I know and am respected by real scientists. I have expressed the view that the scientific consensus is in movement on cold fusion, that it "turned the corner" sometime around 2005, but that's a (highly) informed opinion, you could call it original research. Experts have opinions like this, and, given my physics background, two years of intensive study does make me, to a degree, an expert. Two years ago, Enric Naval, in spite of contentiously editing Cold fusion for years, literally did not know a molecule from a nucleon, and when he was corrected, was pissed.

It's probably still true -- how could we tell? -- that "most scientists" still think that cold fusion is totally bogus. However, that's not what's been appearing in the journals! I never tried to put this in the article, the most I've ever done was to modify language that implies what the scientific consensus is today, based on what was written more than a decade ago, by using accurate tense and attribution. And we do have more recent sources, they simply reject them.

The behavior as Abd before the reinstatement of the topic ban last year, was fully compliant with COI guidelines, which require that a COI editor discuss issues on Talk, advising editors. The same people (JzG has been the ringleader) banned PCarbonn, who was doing the same. They never mentioned that all this "insistence" was simply pointing to sources on the Talk page, and explaining what they mean. (PCarbonn also became employed in the field during his one-year ArbComm topic ban, instigated by ... JzG. The ban then became a "community ban" as requested by .... JzG, and he even proposed the POV of PCarbonn as being the cause of the original ban -- which was a lie. ArbComm doesn't ban for POV, or at least didn't.)

These editors have used the common opinion about cold fusion to create an appearance of "fringe POV pushing." In fact, they are very determined POV pushers, and it's been obvious for a long time. They hold firmly to their POV, in spite of what's in the actual sources, and they follow this in their editing of the article, and they reject anyone who disagrees, and when they lose an argument by consensus, they simply bring it back later. What they claimed about me is far, far more true of them.

ArbComm placed Cold fusion under General Sanctions, but all enforcement has been aimed at me, none at what at least some arbitrators seemed to recognize, then, as problematic behavior by others, which would certainly include JzG and Enric Naval. ArbComm depends on knowledgeable editors to enforce its decisions, but it banned and allowed the further ban of the most knowledgeable editors, the ones who knew both the field and Wikipedia process and policies, and who actually followed these.

The results of this experiment were predictable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 9th June 2011, 11:30pm
Post #35


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 9th June 2011, 3:42pm) *

And then Enric Naval shows up. I was wondering when he would.

Stop Naval-gazing. wtf.gif

Do you want to go blind? fear.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Fri 10th June 2011, 12:01am
Post #36


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



But the navel is one of the best parts to lick. fear.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 10th June 2011, 2:55am
Post #37


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Something very unexpected happened today. I'd been watching the AN ban request and the MfD for my user pages, and it was all as might have been expected, based on the past two years. And then sensible users poured in to AN, and users started to rescue my essays and working pages, etc., at the MfD, with suggestions being made to move the RfAr evidence pages to arbcomm space, as should have been done long ago.

I don't know what will happen -- more Wikipediots have started commenting --, but it made me cry. Thanks, folks.

(I don't take the AN ban comments opposing ban as personal support, many of the comments seem to accept the claim of problem editing or whatever, rather it simply represents some common sense. But for people to express that there might be some value to the essays, etc., that affects me profoundly, after being so rejected for so long. I need to move on with my life, but I'll continue to work, I believe, at Wikiversity, and, in my view, Wikiversity could end up being the rescuer of Wikipedia, because consensus can actually be sought there, and, hopefully, I can help set up real consensus process in that environment. It's not a slam-dunk, by any means, but still possible.)

(I'm not the only one to think this possible for Wikiversity. The relationship of Wikiversity to Wikipedia could be like the relationship of academia to an encyclopedia. While Wikiversity is not "academia," because it's still a wiki, it has policies and practices that are inclusive, so expert opinion is valued and not crushed. So far. There are tendencies there as well as everywhere, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty....)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 10th June 2011, 3:08am
Post #38


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 9th June 2011, 5:01pm) *

But the navel is one of the best parts to lick. fear.gif

Not if you can't reach it. On Planet Wikipedia in the Self-Absorption Galaxy, they are too inflexible to accomplish it. Which is surprising, because the inhabitants are pretty spineless.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 10th June 2011, 3:22pm
Post #39


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Once upon a time, Enric Naval started a community ban discussion of me from cold fusion. When I saw the cabal pile in, I knew that consensus against a ban was impossible, and I also knew that if I asked my supporters to stop, a neutral admin would settle on a one-month ban, which was not a problem. So I did, and asked for a neutral close, and got it. Then I asked the closer to confirm the ban duration, he did, as one month, and they screamed.... The matter went to ArbComm later when WMC still insisted he could unilaterally ban me, after the month expired.

In this case, whether there is a ban or not is, AFAIK, completely moot. It will have no effect on my editing, compared to an indef block. Some seem to think that if there is a ban, there will be more freedom to revert my edits. Since they were already reverting everything, including restoring a BLP violation, with no inhibition, since they were already using revision deletion, what are they looking for? Permission to drop a nuke on Western Massachusetts?

New arguments keep coming in that just plain leave me puzzled. But first, an older one.
QUOTE
Support Some people know they are right, and a ban is the best way for the rest of us to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I.e., the rest of us don't know we are right? Unlike them? If someone is right and knows it, does this disqualify them from editing Wikipedia. And how do they know what I know? I don't know I'm right, I think that "right" is a story, an interpretation, not a fact, and doesn't belong to the realm of knowledge. Rather, I take stands, present evidence and arguments, and expect others to do the same. And they certainly do! Except some just say "You're wrong."
QUOTE
Support - Advocating COI material and blatant ignorance of anti-socking policy is inexcusable...and that guy had the nerve to seek adminship? No. and I tend to agree with those who correctly state that he is using Wikiversity to refight old vendettas, sound like beating dead horses.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Geez, Louise, I didn't seek adminship at all, I was nominated and accepted. That was way, way before I had a clue about cold fusion. And once I became COI, I followed COI restrictions rigorously. Eaglestorm demonstrates the obtuse misunderstanding underneath much Wikipedia drama: COI editors are *expected* to advocate, that's why they are prohibited from controversial editing of articles under COI, but they are *asked* to advise on the Talk page. And that's what I was topic banned for, by this brilliant "community," led by JzG. At what point is anyone going to notice that almost every disruptive process around cold fusion has been started by JzG? Ban this one, ban that one, delete these files, delete those, blacklist and revert war. They strain at a gnat and swallow horseflies.
QUOTE
But is he around now? I could name several administrators whose modus operandi is to lie low for a while and then creep back when the flak has cleared. In what way is this case different? Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Abd's WV page, June 3, which is pretty close to now. That is a unified account, so within the limits of MW software, it is the same person. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am registering accounts from various locations, just in case, perhaps making a few edits, normal and harmless ones at worst. These are laid up in store because of the history of range blocking. None of this would be necessary if normal RBI were followed, but I don't expect the logic of this to dawn on them. None of these will ever be used to actually damage the project. The last edit documented on the Wikiversity page was May 31, not June 3. Franamax is confused. I am not disclosing the Sekrit accounts, for obvious reasons, at this time. However, the whole Wikipedia obsession with socking is crazy, and demonstrating the insanity is part of my agenda. There are deep contradictions within the Kool-Aid that these people drink. Those contradictions eventually make people sick.

(Self-reversion was designed for an RBI environment, where further sanctions would be applied to an editor only if they made it necessary, and normal self-reverted edits are just suggestions and do no harm. But the Kool-Aid drinkers think of a ban as punishment and that "justice must be done," and "the community must be respected," as they proceed to ban it, one editor at a time, and where, part of what's being demonstrated, POV is banned (look at the bans JzG proposed!). I'm a strong believer in respecting consensus, which is why I took two years to conclude that this "community" wasn't a real community, that respecting its ad-hoc process was insane, and it was time to take a stand, instead of attempting to respect ever-tightening bans and restrictions, based on ... misinterpretations is a kind word.)
QUOTE
He's providing blow-by-blow commentary on this thread on Wikipedia Review so I don't think he can be fairly described as inactive. If he has another sock which we haven't spotted then he could be editing right now. Hut 8.5 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm inactive on Wikipedia, but it's moot. I was recently active, May 31. The real issue, raised by a few sane editors, would be the function of the ban request. It was raised by JzG, who was, many times, advised by ArbComm to lay off Abd. JzG is Bad News, but when someone raises the cry, they look where that person is pointing, not at the one pointing. Unless it was me, when I pointed out that WMC was violating recusal policy, well, he was their friend, so then they looked at me. But I hadn't asked for anyone to be banned, ever. They do it *frequently*, and I fully expect that some other editor is going to be accused of being an Abd sock. Look at this doozie. Want to know who caused the whole cold fusion flap that led WMC to topic-ban me? Hipocrite. Hipocrite was obviously a bad hand sock of someone, and J.delanoy knew who, and kept it quiet. (It's unlikely that Objectivist, V, is a sock -- naive and rather helpless -- and the person I'd suspect, who is indeed from Belgium, I think, is topic banned (community ban, JzG stirred it up), that editor explicitly refused help from me years ago, I very much doubt he'd sock -- and I doubt that J.delanoy would have concealed it. Hipocrite was a cabal supporter who went to cold fusion to stir up cause for Abd to be banned, that became obvious. They didn't care about cold fusion, they cared about the global warming agenda, and I'd dinged their limo. Somebody involved was heavily socking, that's clear.
QUOTE
Support This isn't a case of one sock: it's chronic editing through IP accounts, practicing block evasion on Wikipedia as a "research project". —Kww(talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Chronic editing" by IP was from the time of the block, April 30, until May 13. Two weeks. Yes, there is a research project, more accurately a demonstration project, investigation of community response to block evasion when the evasion isn't otherwise disruptive. You could also call it civil disobedience, ignoring unjust orders. As is common with civil disobedience, I'm not surprised when sanctioned for it, and don't blame the "officers" who "arrest me," but I do expect them to refrain from excessive force and the causing of harm.
QUOTE
Support a community ban per Enric Naval's links. Community members - especially certain arbitrators - who have abetted Abd's years of obnoxious filibustering need to reconsider the effect their refusal to sanction disruptive behavior has on the editors who actually have to deal with said disruption, and on article content. To those who are claiming that there has been only one sock, Abd has engaged in extensive IP editing before and after his block. Skinwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
He's confused. No IP editing by me before being blocked. There are many others who IP edit Cold fusion. My only influence on article content has been where consensus crystallized around a suggestion of mine, which was rare at cold fusion, because there has been a set of POV-pushing editors sitting on that article for years, long before I was involved. Before he was finally site-banned, ScienceApologist heavily edited that article, without any restraint. He was seriously disruptive for years, and his editing was only transiently opposed by me, and only on the Talk page. He renamed his account Joshua P. Schroeder, his real name, apparently, then to VanishedUser314159 (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look at the history of Cold fusion. Heavy POV-pusher. You can't find any behavior of mine that comes close to matching it. Try to find a bad edit to Cold fusion from me, in the short period between the expiration of my ArbComm ban and the new one that JzG prompted. What they point to is discussion, by an expert, now highly knowledgeable. CF is complex, it's a twenty-year-long scientific controversy, of a phenomenon that was extremely difficult to set up, that was rejected on theoretical grounds by those who did not ever demonstrate that the core finding of the original research, unexpected heat, was error. As the most recent review in a major mainstream scientific journal points out, though, evidence accumulated..... From the identified and measured product, and the ratio of energy release to product, it's fusion, all right, but the mechanism is still unknown. That's a big threat to those who believe we know everything.

If it were up to me, I'd put the claim in the article, attributed to the author, because it is obviously still controversial, even though no opposing reviews have appeared in the more than 8 months since it was published.
QUOTE
Support. I see no substantial difference between "many socks" and "one sock and many IPs". The claim that "it's only one sock" is plainly untrue, as Abd himself helpfully documented in Kww's link above. The standard justification for a community ban for a user in the present situation is that reverts of their edits made in violation of the ban will be exempt from xRR rules, which do appear to be needed given the persistent evasion. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This would only be true, maybe, if there had been sock revert warring over reversion of evading edits. That hasn't happened. This community ban will just give them more cover for what they were already doing. From past experience, then, if someone sees an edit of mine, checks it and reverts it back in, they will then call the person a "meat puppet" for a "banned editor." They do that anyway, even when editors aren't banned but only blocked. "Banned" just sounds more solid.
QUOTE
Support As a community member as and custodian at Wikiversity as well as a wikipedian. Abd's "experiment" on the wikipedia community causes disruption here, has been attracting vandals at WV. He is damaging both communities, and severing the cord completely seems the most likely way to get him to move on. In his Wikipedia Review posts about EnergyNeutral being blocked, Abd states that none of his other socks have been blocked. (The posting makes it sound as if the others are avoiding Cold Fusion). He finds playing whack-a-mole "soooo much fun". But most importantly, he literally delights in the collateral damage attempts to block him cause innocent editors because it proves he is right. Thenub314 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There were two short edits, not vandalism, but provocative, perhaps, by a user apparently more interested in Poetlister than me, but one of the edits was to my Talk page. This may be related to certain discussions here, but really is completely moot to the question of my ban from Wikipedia. Yes, I had some fun, but I did not delight in collateral damage, and took steps to correct it, which were very much not respected. The ones who don't care about collateral damage are the enforcing administrators who create massive range blocks to stop harmless editing and stupid edit filters that trap one of the most common Muslim names. And they have been doing this kind of thing fora long time, I didn't cause them to invent it.
QUOTE
Support Manifesto on his talk page is antithetic to the concepts of Wikipedia. --WGFinley (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
WTF is he talking about?
QUOTE
Support Yes, its high time. Abd is wasting the time of other users and we need to make our disapproval explicit. I'm astonished by how many people find his behaviour acceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't start the ban discussion, JzG did. What ever happened to RBI? Who is "we," in "our disapproval"? I know that Spartaz disapproves, he expressed that long ago, when I confronted his cabal friends. In any extensive discussion, at that time, as in RfC/JzG 3, I could count on it being about 2/3 Ban Abd, even though the RfC was based on open-and-shut evidence. They don't like that kind of evidence when they don't like the conclusion, so they blame the messenger.
QUOTE
Yes, indeed. Abd has made clear his intention to subvert this encyclopedia. In early 2010 Abd and GoRight wasted time on arbitration noticeboards in attempts to have GoRight act as Abd's official mentor (e.g. see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Abd, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Abd). With Abd's very recent sockpuppet account EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked a week ago by Coren,[3] walls of text continuing elsewhere and Lomax cold fusion kits now advertised on the web, there is no evidence that Abd is "down". Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Mathsci. Mathsci just put more energy into the GoRight mentorship proposal than the original proposal involved. (The real proposed mentor was Fritzpoll, told in 2009 that it wasn't needed, by an arbitrator, and then, when he was an arb, told that arbs could not mentor, even though Fritzpoll was already recusing on everything Abd.) EnergyNeutral was not a "wall of text" editor, that's just habitual accusation. There is something wrong with offering kits to make it cheap and easy, relatively speaking, to verify research published by the U.S. Navy? I declared the COI, after all, and followed those rules.
QUOTE
Comment I don't remember why I don't like him. But I will still hold my pitchfork high based on the AA stuff that used to be on his user page. Rabble rabble. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a great comment. But AA stuff? What's he talking about? Okay, I looked. Here, removed in 2009.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 10th June 2011, 5:16pm
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
* Oppose. If Abd is ignoring sanctions descended from ArbCom remedies, then ArbCom can ban him directly, without all this drama. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
* Abd's ban was reinstated via discretionary sanctions, then upheld in ANI here, he then appealed to Arbcom, and Arbcom saw no reason to lift the ban here. Arbcom doesn't intervene in cases where the community can already handle itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is some technical error here, but Enric is generally correct. The problem is not whether or not the community can "handle itself," the problem is that it can, and does, in ways that are evidence-free and without necessity. The technical error is that JzG began the community topic ban discussion, the admin who later closed it commented in it, then closed with a ban, so the ban reinstatement did not come first, the AN discussion (not ANI) came first. The ban involved is the topic ban from cold fusion, not a site ban. There was no site ban, obviously, even though a number of editors claimed there was. There was only an indef block, and that block had not been appealed. There is a theory under which the block and bans were not evaded (originally, this was the "self-reversion" period), but I fully recognize that this theory hasn't been accepted.

The wording "ArbComm saw no reason to lift the ban" is technically correct, but it implies that they looked at the reasons. There is no sign that they did, the rejection of the request completely ignored the filing, which was for clarification, not amendment. (A clerk moved the request to Amendments, as if I were trying to change an ArbComm ruling, which I was not doing.)

The AN ban discussion, linked in Enric's comment, bears looking at. At the end, possible misbehavior by JzG is brought up. And ignored. It became clear in that discussion, and elsewhere, that a major part of GWH's topic ban decision was the successful meta de-blacklisting request on lenr-canr.org. At the time he made his decision, it was a mess. Basically, it was a simple request when made (by me), but all the old arguments, previously decided by consensus in multiple venues, were brought up de novo. JzG does this. Supposedly I don't learn and beat dead horses, but he's a master at it. Issues were raised that required detailed examination, as the discussion proceeded. So I did that,and the result, determined after I'd been topic banned again, was delisting. But the discussion became a train wreck. "See what Abd does?" In fact, they do it, by raising complex issues with sound bites, it takes far more words to respond to these, and it was necessary, at that time, to respond. I doubt that the request would have been granted without it.

The same issue just came up in Talk cold fusion, before I started editing as EnergyNeutral, and JzG and others showed up, once again, to beat the dead "copyvio" horse. Eventually, Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate, took this to WP:ELN. In this case, the attempt -- initiated by Enric Naval! not me! -- is to link to the bibliography on lenr-canr.org, which is unique, the most complete bibliography on the topic anywhere, with hosted preprints of maybe a third of the papers, wherever they've been given permission. It appears that there may be an occasional paper where permissions are defective, but that's actually speculation, one example shows up where Josephson checked with the editor and publisher of the journal in question. There was permission. For all we know, that may be true for all suspected copyvio (pages where the document is as-published, including journal formatting, rather than preprint -- which can be the same text and illustrations!), the site does claim permission from authors and publishers.

This linking should have been done years ago, but was, every time, tendentiously opposed by JzG, who positively hates the site manager, and who used every tool at his disposal to assert the exclusion, including blacklisting on en.wiki (for which he was dinged by ArbComm at my request, if you wonder why he's pissed at me, there you go!), requesting and getting global blacklisting at meta (granted by Mike.lifeguard, in my first experience with that august personage -- and the blacklist admins almost never go back and fix errors), then, recently, during my request for ArbComm review of the topic ban, JzG locally blacklisted it again, and again went to meta for global blacklisting again, in a completely evidence-free request, which seems to be falling flat on its face.

JzG knows, though, that evidence-free requests for ban often fly on Wikipedia, and he's a master at it. One of his tricks was to point to an edit by Jed Rothwell, where he signs, "librarian, lenr-canr.org," and claim that this was "spamming the site." But it wasn't a link! It was just a signature, and when JzG blacklisted the site, those edits didn't stop. Jed was simply identifying himself, disclosing his identity and conflict of interest. He'd only edited Talk:Cold fusion for years.

DGG undid the local blacklisting.

I was blocked during my request for ArbComm clarification, based on alleged topic ban violations. See, I'd asked GWH, back in October, if the ban covered user talk pages for consenting users, and he never replied, but I'd assumed that it was allowed, so I'd made some occasional comments, it had caused no problem or disruption at all, and nobody had complained. Once I filed the request to consider the topic ban with ArbComm, FuturePerfectAtSunrise looked at those and said "topic ban violation" and blocked for two weeks without warning.

That was the last straw for me. FuturePerfect had blocked me many times, each time wikilawyering the various bans into stricter and stricter interpretations. The first block was after I'd criticized a comment of his where he threatened another user that they would be blocked for editing contrary to FP's opinion....

He was highly involved. "How dare you criticize me!" It's all so sordid and banal.

And these are the people who run free, "respected" by the "community." Sorry, if that's the community, I want nothing to do with it, but it's sitting on a world resource, "the sum of all human knowledge," asserting its exclusive right to control it. If the process actually represented the full community of editors, the matter would be different. But it does not, and the practice of banning people because they stand up for their point of view has demolished the neutrality policy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 9 17, 2:40am