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
Malleus
post Fri 10th June 2011, 9:23pm
Post #41


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th June 2011, 6:16pm) *

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.

I somewhat agree with that point of view. How anyone with Jimbo Wales' grandiose vision can allow the project to be run largely by children and in the way that it is will very likely forever remain a mystery to me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 11th June 2011, 1:51am
Post #42


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



This is just plain too long, and I don't have time to cut it down. It seemed worth writing at the time! I end up noticing what happened later with an old piece of mediation work, where the mediation pages are currently under RfD (most of the editing of those pages was not by me).

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 10th June 2011, 5:23pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th June 2011, 6:16pm) *
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.
I somewhat agree with that point of view. How anyone with Jimbo Wales' grandiose vision can allow the project to be run largely by children and in the way that it is will very likely forever remain a mystery to me.
There are conspiracy theories, for sure. But it's most likely because he doesn't know what else to do. The problem is that it worked, to a degree, and spectacularly, a huge edifice was built, quickly, and almost totally by volunteers.That's addictive! But the ad-hoc structure wasn't reliable, and it was unreliable in a way that institutionalizes itself, not in the way that wiki content is unreliable. That is, built-in bias appears, enforced by the core community, which, as is typical, has difficulty seeing its own bias.

The meme of "civil POV-pusher" came up in the ban discussion for me last year. That says it all. "Civil POV-pushers" are people taking a stand on some issue, often working to remove what they see as bias against their position. Civil POV-pushers respect civility guidelines, which also includes behavioral details like honesty, avoiding deliberate deception. I got the term from an essay by Raul654.

Who opposes them? It's telling! Civil NPOV-pushers? No, it's usually MPOV-pushers, people attached to the majority point of view, which can be quite distinct from NPOV. Civil POV-pushers make these people uncomfortable, because they rely on arguments and evidence, whereas the MPOV-pusher relies on a smug assumption of being in the majority.

"NPOV-pusher, that's what ScienceApologist called himself. In fact, he was an uncivil "MPOV" pusher, enforcing with his editing what has also been called "SPOV," scientific point of view. It's a misunderstanding of science, because science is not a point of view, though scientists have points of view, like everyone else.

Wait? What about due weight? Well, due weight is based, in ArbComm theory, on the balance of reliable sources, and in science articles, that would be with emphasis on peer-reviewed secondary sources. However, if a fact is notable, found in PR secondary source, it should be in the project somewhere, no matter what POV it seems to support. Balance is found by how facts are arranged in articles. The problem with cold fusion was that the weight of peer-reviewed literature is heavily on the side of the reality of cold fusion, the balance the other way tipped after about three years from the initial discovery. But the balance of "general scientific opinion" is *probably* in the other direction. So, easily, the majority of Wikipedia editors with an interest in science, and education in science, are likely to have negative opinions about cold fusion, they don't read the relevant literature, necessarily.

Cold fusion was a kind of test case, demonstrating how editorial balance, instead of being based on the balance of the sources, came to be based on the balance of numbers of editors, with bans being preferentially placed on editors who seemed to support cold fusion. Only one anti-cold fusion editor, ScienceApologist, was banned, and his treatment actually shows the enormous disparity. He was not banned from cold fusion, but from all fringe science topics, initially. But he wasn't banned from Talk, only from the article. And the ban was only for three months. The far more civil and behaviorally correct PCarbonn was banned from both the article and the Talk page for a year. And when he came back, and only made suggestions on Talk, his ban was renewed at the request of JzG. ScienceApologist returned to cold fusion and edited furiously. Much of the editing was good, by the way. But some was truly POV-pushing, excluding reliably sourced material because of his own opinions. When he was finally banned, it was for behavior elsewhere.

Real consensus process involves people taking a stand on the involved issues. And random people don't necessarily know how to do it, when conflict appears, it takes skilled facilitators. What Wikipedia calls "dispute resolution" is just a decision-making process that escalates, but does so unreliably, and it's easily manipulable by people with buttons or skill at persuasion, if banning is readily on the table. The game becomes convincing others that so-and-so is incorrigible, uncooperative, tendentious, and the reality does not matter, it's about appearance in a social structure that is averse to depth.

This can be typical of what happens: an editor is banned based on what the editor knows is false, accusations about his intentions, etc. Because the editor knows the basis was false, the editor does not accept the legitimacy of the ban, and protests. Obviously, "he didn't learn his lesson," he "believes he was right," etc. Editors may have made the accusations "in good faith," i.e, they believed that what they were saying was "true," but I have some trouble applying the term "good faith" to actions intended to exclude others from participation.... And so the editor and the community are increasingly alienated.

All from lack of skilled facilitation, which would obviously be an absolute necessity if Wikipedia is to be neutral and based on consensus. One of the pages under MfD (probably about to close) was User:Abd/Dispute_over_thermoeconomics. That was an apparently successful attempt to mediate a dispute between a professor-editor and an amateur-editor. It's not been noticed that the bulk of the edits of that page and attached talk were not from me. Looks like I never did the clean-up I said I'd do. But the dispute between them was resolved, AFAIK. Rtol, the expert, is still editing. Looking at Skipsievert (T-C-L-K-R-D) , however, I see an indef blocked user, a suspected sock tag, but SSP investigations that were negative. I see a deleted User Talk page. WTF? Can of worms. Rtol is still editing. The ban discussions I found for Skipsievert were the same old, same old. So-and-So is Bad. Get rid of So-and-So, we'll all be much better off.

I can see why he was difficult, from my own facilitation of his discussion with Rtol. But he was not impossible.

(About the page. Too late. Deleted. Maybe I'll put it somewhere. Quite a few pages were rescued. However, at least one page that had obvious usage, and a user seemed to have intended to save it, was deleted, the Lyrikline poets page. I'll ask the user. What was there was heavily misrepresented in the MfD filing by JzG. So nu?)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 13th June 2011, 12:50pm
Post #43


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



AN discussion closed with community ban of Abd. No surprise here. I have no complaint about the close, as such, the closer, Courcelles, appears neutral to me, the close is correct, given the structure and normal process and core process-active community.

It's those givens, of course, that are taking Wikipedia down a rat-hole.

Detailed discussion of the close:
QUOTE
In balancing any discussion, the closers job is to assess consensus.
Well, that's part of the Wikipedia confusion. Courcelles is at least partially aware of the problem. Since Wikipedia allegedly does not vote, the job of a closer is to neutrally assess the arguments and decide on the weight of argument, not based on the numbers of editors arranged on sides. One might resolve this by assessing "consensus of arguments," but that is a consensus which exists in the mind of the closer. It's always been a knotty problem on occasion.
QUOTE
What we have here is strong support for a community ban of Abd, with opposition that varies from informative commentary, to some actual opposition to the ban, to opposition of the time this ban discussion consumed, to a desire for ArbCom to handle this user. Opposing a discussion's burden of time is not taken as opposition to the action proposed.
He's correct in that. The opposition to the discussion was a red herring, as far as making any decision is concerned. However, there is a long-term problem that Wikipedia hasn't addressed, whereas legal systems have. When a discussion is out-of-process, going ahead and deciding, based on it, rewards the initiation of out-of-process discussions. This is related to the trope that it's the encyclopedic result that matters, not the manner of getting there. The project, as long as it is a live project, depends on continual maintenance process that also governs improvement (or degradation). If that process is defective, the product will be defective. By focusing only on each individual result, process defects are allowed to grow and ultimately damage the project deeply.
QUOTE
We, as a community, hold the power to ban users, and I place little weight, correspondingly, in a desire to have the Arbitration Committee handle this, a course of action that will, without doubt, consume even more time of users and Arbitrators.
Only if ArbComm process is initiated. Courcelles seems to be assuming that, if not for the community ban, there would be such process. In fact, this ban has no effect either way. The impediment to ArbComm process at this point is the utter disinterest on the part of ArbComm of anything to do with Abd. Since Courcelles mentions ArbComm process as being "without doubt," he apparently is laboring under four misunderstandings:

1. That the community has any power to act at all. The appearance of community action takes place through the sum of individual editor actions. And individuals have no power to ban, some of them have the power to block, but not a user, rather, an account, IP address,or IP range. The community "power" is an illusion, an appearance, that does not become a reality merely because many believe it.

2. That some users wanted "ArbComm" to handle this. No, they wanted the community to leave it to ArbComm, should ArbComm wish to act. There were no users claiming that ArbComm should act. Why should ArbComm act when there is no action to be taken with any practical effect?

3. That ArbComm process would be avoided by a ban close. Grounds do exist for appeal to ArbComm, and what is stopping that is not this ban; rather, what's stopping that is the obvious position of ArbComm, writing an ArbComm appeal with any hope of success is a time-consuming task, and the political environment is unfavorable.

4. A closer, however, may declare a ban. This is not a ban based on "the community" which is not a coherent entity, but an interpretive fantasy. If we pick different samples from the community, presented with the same evidence, they would decide differently. Rather, the discussion represents those who show up to comment, excluding those who have been prevented from such, plus only a certain subclass of editors take any interest in AN discussions at all. AN, is, after all, a noticeboard intended to be read by administrators, so the "community" commenting on proposed decisions at AN is heavily biased toward administrators, who are not representative of the general editorial community, and my sense is that people who would better represent the full community would not generally, if they become experienced (and thus visible), be elected as administrators, since administrators themselves vote heavily in RfAs.

Procedurally, though, Courcelles is correct. The close should be based on the arguments presented, in theory, and, in practice, closes are really much more based on numbers, with possible closers who have distaste for what the numbers expressed generally abstaining, and closers who are sympathetic to the result desired by the greatest number being more likely to decide to close.
QUOTE
Even if I wasn't willing to partially discount some comments here, we remain with a strong consensus that Abd should be banned from the English Wikipedia indefinitely, that only becomes stronger when the strength of arguments is considered.
Now, "strength of arguments." What arguments? There are arguments, but as a number pointed out, they are evidence-free. That is, they assume that Abd is a disruptive editor, the cause of the obvious disruption and long-term upset, but they do so without any examination of the actions.

This is the fact: Abd took two administrators to ArbComm, which decided, in the end, to reprimand the first and to remove the privileges of the second. Any non-administrator who does this is not going to be popular with administrators! In the first case, ArbComm admonished Abd, but the nature of the admonishment seems to have been forgotten. He was admonished for taking so long to bring the case!

In the second case, the constellation of users and administrators that he called the "cabal" piled in (and he wouldn't have named them if not for this pile-in). This was roughly the same faction later called a "clique" by Lar, in the RfAr on climate change, and it had been predicted by William M. Connolley that Abd would end up banned. Why? Because Abd had pointed out WMC's use of tools while involved.

The administrator reprimanded in the first Abd RfAr was JzG. Who started the ban discussion? JzG. Who started the previous ban discussion that reinstated the cold fusion topic ban? JzG. And JzG has continued to act, using tools in an attempt to blacklist, and requesting bans of users, ArbComm's reprimand had no effect at all. And all of this is blatantly clear to anyone who examines the evidence. Hence the reliance of the administrative cabal on process that is evidence-free. If evidentiary process were initiated, they'd lose.
QUOTE
Therefore, Abd is banned from the English Wikipedia by a consensus of the editing community. Courcelles 06:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Abd is banned, the account. The user is quite free. The ban was declared by Courcelles, based on a process before a subset of the community, a biased sample. That such discussions represent "consensus of the editing community," which is enormous by comparison with participation in even truly high-participation RfCs, is part of the Wikipedia myth.

The vast bulk of the community is not even aware of the ban, much less in support of it, or responsible for it.

It's possible to imagine process which would, in fact, represent that extended community, and my proposals for exactly that can be seen to underlie the long-term suspicion and rejection, it came up in the ban discussion (re delegable proxy, WP:PRX). Those proposals, if implemented, would lessen the relative power of the core administrative cabal, and, in the view of this cabal, they would damage the project, as power passes more evenly to those whom they would consider less-informed. While that is their imagination, not a reality, it's a powerful one, and this kind of imagination is what most deeply fuels what's been called, elsewhere, the "Lomax effect," the persistence of inequitable power in organizations.


This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 13th June 2011, 2:35pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Mon 13th June 2011, 8:07pm
Post #44


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



I count 39 editors voting. How is that "community consensus?" dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 15th June 2011, 10:19pm
Post #45


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(The Joy @ Mon 13th June 2011, 4:07pm) *
I count 39 editors voting. How is that "community consensus?" dry.gif
It's Wikispeak for "whatever the closer wants, believing that his or her opinion is that of a community majority."

The contradiction is blatant, but if you have drunk enough Kool-Aid, you don't notice.

Let's look at the comments.

I'll roughly classify editors into those who are involved, AFAIK, based simply on memory, and those not.

No editors opposed the ban on substance, so there is already a strong bias, some of those who would have supported me on substance have been banned themselves, others have given up in disgust, and some simply don't read AN, nor do they read Wikipedia Review, and I made no attempt to attract these users to comment. The normal way that those who support an editor find a ban discussion is the notice on the user Talk page. No notice was placed on my User talk page.

The original instigator of the ban discussion, JzG, is truly disruptive, has been admonished by ArbComm, and continues to be senselessly provocative. That is, A proposes that B be banned, when A is the real long-term problem, but A manages to focus the attention on B, based on this or that unpopular cheap-shot characteristic. And A has done this to many editors. And "the community" looks the other way, including ArbComm.

Support ban:

1. Franamax (proposer)
x. Raul654 -- heavily involved.
x. Badger Drink -- prior conflict.
2. Will Beback
x. Dlohcierekim -- apparent long-term prejudice (see RfA/Abd 2).
x. Mathsci -- heavily involved.
3. Johnuniq
x. Hut 8.5 -- involved.
4. bobrayner
x. Stephan Schulz -- heavily involved
5. Eaglestorm
6. Resolute
7. Crazytales
x. Atmoz -- involved in the past (see RfC/GoRight), though some of the evidence just got deleted.
8. Captain panda
x. Enric Naval -- very heavily involved
x. Kww -- involved
9. Skinwalker
x. T. Canens -- involved
10. chaos5023
x. Thenub314 -- prior conflict, long story.
11. Beyond My Ken
12. WGFinley
x. Spartaz -- heavily involved
13. MuZemike
14. Night Ranger
15. Saddhiyama
16. Courcelles (closer)

Oppose:
1. Ëzhiki
2. Writegeist
3. Collect
4. Silverseren
5. Firsfron of Ronchester
6. Malleus Fatuorum
7. LessHeard vanU
8. Vecrumba
9. Alpha Quadrant
10. Piotrus
11. Titoxd
12. Guerillero

Cptnono made a sarcastic comment, probably opposed to ban.

It's closer than I thought. However, one or two of the editors opposed to the ban might be considered to have prior positive involvement with me. What's really a problem is that decisions are supposedly made by evidence and arguments, and the proposal was explicitly evidence-free, so it invited editors to vote based on prior or knee-jerk impressions, not on specifically reviewed evidence. Initial editors may vote based on AGF of the proposer, or previous bias, and once some critical mass of editors in favor of a ban has assembled, additional editors will vote based on supporting what they see as an emerging consensus, they have no idea about prior involvement in conflict, and I was an editor who successfully confronted administrative recusal failure, twice (with JzG and William M. Connolley) and those admins and their friends never forget.

The process makes no difference whatever in my behavior, nor in how the community will respond to it. There is only one practical difference that the "community ban" makes -- in spite of some claims to the contrary in the discussion: should I decide to request unblock, which I never did this time, and am extremely unlikely to do, an admin, in theory, cannot unblock without taking the matter back to the community -- or to ArbComm --, which is why I'm generally opposed to community bans like this. It increases disruption rather than decreasing it, both in the present, to discuss and declare the ban, and in the future.

Meanwhile, JzG is not content: On Wikiversity, and on Meta, see the collapse at the end of JzG's blacklisting request.

The difference between Meta and Wikipedia: on Meta, JzG's deceptions are not immediately believed. Only one user supported JzG's evidence-free blacklisting request, and that user also supported the January 2009 original blacklisting, based on the same false claims. I always wonder what to think about WP users with over 100,000 contributions. This one is an administrator.

This post has been edited by Abd: Wed 15th June 2011, 10:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 15th June 2011, 11:58pm
Post #46


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(Abd @ Wed 15th June 2011, 6:19pm) *

The process makes no difference whatever in my behavior, nor in how the community will respond to it. There is only one practical difference that the "community ban" makes -- in spite of some claims to the contrary in the discussion: should I decide to request unblock, which I never did this time, and am extremely unlikely to do, an admin, in theory, cannot unblock without taking the matter back to the community -- or to ArbComm --, which is why I'm generally opposed to community bans like this. It increases disruption rather than decreasing it, both in the present, to discuss and declare the ban, and in the future.

Is that actually written in stone somewhere? Not that I would unblock you (because I can see the wisdom behind you being escorted out of the building), but if I decided to pull out the AGF card just for the heck of it, I'd be trout slapped or something?
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th June 2011, 6:19pm) *

Meanwhile, JzG is not content: On Wikiversity, and on Meta, see the collapse at the end of JzG's blacklisting request.

Saw that... I thought maybe he was trying to make peace for some unfathomable reason. Was it some sort of inside joke-ish slight?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikifan
post Thu 16th June 2011, 12:15am
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat 28th Aug 2010, 2:58pm
Member No.: 26,203

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



why were you banned again?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 16th June 2011, 1:14am
Post #48


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 @ Wed 15th June 2011, 7:58pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th June 2011, 6:19pm) *
The process makes no difference whatever in my behavior, nor in how the community will respond to it. There is only one practical difference that the "community ban" makes -- in spite of some claims to the contrary in the discussion: should I decide to request unblock, which I never did this time, and am extremely unlikely to do, an admin, in theory, cannot unblock without taking the matter back to the community -- or to ArbComm --, which is why I'm generally opposed to community bans like this. It increases disruption rather than decreasing it, both in the present, to discuss and declare the ban, and in the future.
Is that actually written in stone somewhere? Not that I would unblock you (because I can see the wisdom behind you being escorted out of the building), but if I decided to pull out the AGF card just for the heck of it, I'd be trout slapped or something?
Nothing is written in stone on a wiki, but .... yeah, unblocking an editor who has been community banned is considered to be contrary to consensus.

They claimed some sort of increased facility to reverting my edits, but that would only matter if mindless 3RR rules are being applied. Say a blocked editor edits by IP, an editor reverts on the basis that the editor is blocked and should not be editing. If it's known that the editor is banned, does it make any difference? Neither one, in theory, have any right to edit. In both cases a non-blocked editor may revert the material back in on their own responsibility. The only issue arises when the blocked editor revert wars, or uses multiple IPs, and in either case, actual practice is to prefer editors who are registered, using their account, and it's easy to get RfPP when there are a lot of IPs editing contentiously.

No, the only utility that I can see is a discouragement to admins to unblock. And that's why a community ban should be reserved for truly egregious behavior, such that a naive unblock could damage the wiki. Since my ban -- and other bans promoted by JzG -- were not based on such damaging behavior, but on claims of POV-pushing that were not substantiated, merely alleged, neglecting, for example, that I'd followed COI rules, it stands as an examle of how Wikipedia process is manipulated by certain insiders for their own POV purposes.

Basically, should an admin unblock, one of the admins behind this ban would simply reblock immediately, citing the ban. They would have cover for it from the discussion.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th June 2011, 6:19pm) *

Meanwhile, JzG is not content: On Wikiversity, and on Meta, see the collapse at the end of JzG's blacklisting request.
Saw that... I thought maybe he was trying to make peace for some unfathomable reason. Was it some sort of inside joke-ish slight?
SBJ is referring to the edit to my Wikiversity user talk page. Not very inside, because he's clueless about what I'm actually doing. He's just poking.

JzG believes that cold fusion is bogus because he has a friend, an electrochemist, who told him several years ago that the Wikipedia article was decent. I don't know how he got "bogus" from that, because the article has always had some shred of neutrality, and it used to be better when Pcarbonn was active. Then JzG got him banned by making false claims about him that ArbComm bought. And when Pcarbonn came back, JzG got him banned again by claiming that ArbComm had banned his POV, which was another lie. Pcarbonn was only making sourced suggestions on the article Talk page.

No, he's not trying to make peace, the Meta page shows that. When JzG came back after a rather lengthy retirement, after RfAr/Abd and JzG had troutslapped him, I edited his talk page, welcoming him back. (I was about to be site-banned for three months by ArbComm.) He removed the edit with a rather strange comment: (→Welcome back.: You need to read up more: I am not a drug addict.).

That showed me that he had utterly no sense of collaboration, that disagreement was a matter of right (him) and wrong (others, especially me), and that any acknowledgment of a friendly comment would be seen as a weakness.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 16th June 2011, 2:04am
Post #49


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(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 8:15pm) *
why were you banned again?
Not "again." This is the first indef site ban. I was previously banned by ArbComm, for one year, from cold fusion, and indefinitely from not minding my own business, i.e., intervening in any dispute where I wasn't a primary party, and site-banned for three months. Don't get me started on that. The Cold fusion ban was based on the claims of Enric Naval that I'd ... well, it wasn't clear at all. ArbComm referred to his evidence, and it looks like they didn't actually check it, because part of it that they cited was Enric Naval quoting himself in RfAr/Fringe science, where he argued against what they later concluded. Enric was just trying to make the same point again. I think they thought he was quoting me!

The cold fusion ban expired, but meanwhile I'd started a small business involving cold fusion replication kits, designed for high school students (one is being tested right now, which is pretty exciting), so I declared the COI and behaved according to COI guidelines, which allow editing the Talk page. COI editors are *expected* to have a POV bias, that's why there are COI rules!

But JzG requested a renewed topic ban, on AN, as he'd done before with Pcarbonn when Pcarbonn's ban ran out. It was closed with a ban, largely based on my successful removal of lenr-canr.org from the meta blacklist. The closing admin, who claimed that he was enforcing General Sanctions on cold fusion, didn't like how much I'd written there, even though that had been made necessary by the farrago of arguments JzG and others raised. Answering brief false charges takes a lot more words if evidence is supplied than, "Lies!" If I'd just told that truth, simply, the delisting request would have been ignored, I'm sure of it. I had to prove the case.

So then I was topic banned again. I planned to take this to ArbComm, but I do have Other Stuff to do. Eventually I did file, at the end of April. ArbComm rejected the request for clarification. Too long, I suppose. You'd think that at least one arbitrator would have read it and commented on the content, it was not that long! During that request, I was blocked for allegedly violating the cold fusion topic ban. The edits behind that were old, to user talk pages, and I'd asked the banning admin about them. He hadn't replied, but I'd made many such edits for many months, and there had been no complaints. So I thought they were okay. After all, why should I be prohibited from communicating with consenting editors? These comments were welcome, apparently.

At this point I gave up on Wikipedia due process. The system was thoroughly and irremediably corrupt, I concluded, so I proceeded to operate on that assumption. I started by making self-reverted edits, "self-revert per ban" the reversions said. I documented them on my Talk page. All those edits were reasonable, non-disruptive edits -- except for being block violations. (Actually, some of them were *removing* the alleged ban violations!) This was a demonstration of self-reversion under ban, which can work, if there is any local support. It both respects the ban and the possible contributions of the editor. However, no big surprise, each IP was blocked and my talk page access was cut off. This was still during the RfAr/Clarification request (later changed, improperly, by a clerk, to an Amendment request).

So I started doing the documentation on Wikiversity.. I'd say the process has been useful. Some good content was generated on Wikipedia, some problems with enforcement were revealed, etc.

It's true that it takes up the time of administrators who, being free, choose to waste their time blocking editors who make harmless edits, and, being self-reverted, and without complaint about egregious content, this truly is a waste of time. Collateral damage is only caused when administrators choose to move to range blocks, and damage was also done through setting an unnecessary edit filter (now turned off for server load reasons).

This is intolerable to the Kool-Aid drinkers, lese majeste. They do not accept WP:RBI (self-reversion works if RBI is followed, and works spectacularly if self-reverted edits are not considered to be ban or block evasion. It breaks down if even harmless edits result in range blocks, revision deletion, and the edit filter was applied to keep me from identifying myself in the edit summaries! That was brilliant, I must say, since my response was simple: I stopped identifying myself, thus turning self-reversion, practically guaranteed to be harmless, into socking. They create what they hate. I can still edit any time I choose to do so, and if you don't see any edits, it's because I don't choose to make them visible.

Hence EnergyNeutral was created, and ultimately the record of EnergyNeutral will be examined. EN was cooperating with a Nobel laureate, and was rigorously neutral in article editing. At the Energy Catalyzer article, I think that EN was seen as anti-cold fusion.... All the edits of EN remain at this point,except for an issue that is still being debated.

The single true ban-violating sock, EN, was a collaborative editor, see especially the work of EN at the article on Brian David Josephson, where 2over0 restored EN's edit after JzG reverted it. 2over0 is an admin I'd have expected to be hostile to me....

Wikipedia, as a community, has no shame. No individual can be considered responsible, it's part of the problem. Even Jimbo seems to be afraid of the community, he knows it can turn on him in a flash -- and has, frequently.

What's been learned through the Wikipedia experiment?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Thu 16th June 2011, 4:35am
Post #50


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *

increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.


The same could be said for you, you know? dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikifan
post Thu 16th June 2011, 5:28am
Post #51


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat 28th Aug 2010, 2:58pm
Member No.: 26,203

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 16th June 2011, 4:35am) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *

increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.


The same could be said for you, you know? dry.gif


like how?

you dont see me crying to wikipedia review over a community ban. jesus. this guy clearly has issues he needs to deal with - emotionally that is.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Thu 16th June 2011, 6:21am
Post #52


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(The Joy @ Wed 15th June 2011, 9:35pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *

increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.


The same could be said for you, you know? dry.gif

DNFT(Z)T
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 16th June 2011, 2:43pm
Post #53


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(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *
QUOTE
What's been learned through the Wikipedia experiment?
increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.
I'll admit it. I ran out of Ritalin.

Need to give up what? Yes, it's only the internet, it is what it is. So?

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 16th June 2011, 2:21am) *
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 15th June 2011, 9:35pm) *
QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *
increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.
The same could be said for you, you know? dry.gif
DNFT(Z)T
But zey are so cute!


This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 16th June 2011, 2:42pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 16th June 2011, 10:57pm
Post #54


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I will say this: during this "process" of "convincing" the "community" to "ban" you,
Abd, it's been worth the trouble to wade thru your lengthy posts.

Because you are undoubtedly driving JzG up the wall and down the other side.
I have a mental image of him, reading your commentary, then screaming with rage,
tearing the remains of his hair out, throwing his chair across the room, etc.
Very much worth it. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 16th June 2011, 10:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 2:07am
Post #55


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(EricBarbour @ Thu 16th June 2011, 6:57pm) *
I will say this: during this "process" of "convincing" the "community" to "ban" you, Abd, it's been worth the trouble to wade thru your lengthy posts.

Because you are undoubtedly driving JzG up the wall and down the other side. I have a mental image of him, reading your commentary, then screaming with rage, tearing the remains of his hair out, throwing his chair across the room, etc. Very much worth it. biggrin.gif
He does seem to have gotten a tad upset. He wrote this, November 9, 2009, at a point when I'd been site-banned from Wikipedia for three months. I remembered JzG as having made a similar comment on Wikipedia, but I looked and couldn't find it.

Now I know why. He deleted his User talk page, 1 Sept, 2009. MZMcBride restored it in December, with a bit of a troutslap. Since then, JzG has hidden many revisions to his user page. I'd call that recusal failure, actually. Looks like he stopped doing this in October, 2010. Others have done it for him since then. Looking back over his talk page, ah, such memories! Here an editor confronts him on his removal of a link that consensus had established at Martin Fleischmann. Despite a number of such attempts, that link is still there today. (by the way, the other paper is also on lenr-canr.org, and it's a better paper....)

JzG story, that he tells himself and everyone else, is that Abd never learns, never responds, just keeps saying the same thing. Maybe. But Geez, Louise.... Here he is on meta, with the same old same old: an evidence-free request, beating the same horse though the blood doesn't even splatter any more, it's all dried up and gone....

Don't you just hate it when someone totally demolishes your carefully typed and spell-checked arguments? And then when you repeat them, does it again? "Why is eveybody always pickin on me?" Can't they just leave me in peace? I only blacklist a few web sites any more! No fair! No fun!

I guess I am repeating myself. I promise, I'll stop.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 17th June 2011, 2:45am
Post #56


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(Zoloft @ Wed 15th June 2011, 11:21pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 15th June 2011, 9:35pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 15th June 2011, 10:38pm) *

increase dose of meds perhaps? sometimes you just need to give up. it's only the internet.


The same could be said for you, you know? dry.gif

DNFT(Z)T

Zealot Trolls? biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 17th June 2011, 3:02am
Post #57


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 16th June 2011, 7:07pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 16th June 2011, 6:57pm) *
I will say this: during this "process" of "convincing" the "community" to "ban" you, Abd, it's been worth the trouble to wade thru your lengthy posts.

Because you are undoubtedly driving JzG up the wall and down the other side. I have a mental image of him, reading your commentary, then screaming with rage, tearing the remains of his hair out, throwing his chair across the room, etc. Very much worth it. biggrin.gif
He does seem to have gotten a tad upset.


But my mental image of JzG is some wanker on a bicycle in the UK, doing nothing much of anything. Why on Earth would he have a bug up his bum about cold fusion? Mr. Burns, owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, I could understand. But what's Guy Chapman's beef?

Milton

Which reminds me-- what are the überEcoFriendly Die Grünen Germans going to do when they run out of electricity in a few years hence? Buy it from the French? ohmy.gif Burn some coal? blink.gif Invade Russia and Romania, with drive toward Ploieşti? popcorn.gif Inquiring minds want to know.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 12:20pm
Post #58


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(Milton Roe @ Thu 16th June 2011, 11:02pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 16th June 2011, 7:07pm) *
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 16th June 2011, 6:57pm) *
I will say this: during this "process" of "convincing" the "community" to "ban" you, Abd, it's been worth the trouble to wade thru your lengthy posts.

Because you are undoubtedly driving JzG up the wall and down the other side. I have a mental image of him, reading your commentary, then screaming with rage, tearing the remains of his hair out, throwing his chair across the room, etc. Very much worth it. biggrin.gif
He does seem to have gotten a tad upset.
But my mental image of JzG is some wanker on a bicycle in the UK, doing nothing much of anything. Why on Earth would he have a bug up his bum about cold fusion? Mr. Burns, owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, I could understand. But what's Guy Chapman's beef?
To steal a phrase from Moulton, it's retaliation for narcissistic wounding. I covered this in RfAr/Abd and JzG. With his first edit to Cold fusion, he stuck his foot in his mouth, and Pcarbonn pointed it out. JzG actually repeated this kind of error, over and over -- even this very one --, was reverted, and apparently concluded that fringe fanatics were owning the article....

JzG should have been contained or banned (I'm not big on bans!) long ago. He was famous for gross incivility, worse than I've ever seen from any administrator, but Jehochman told me he also did a lot of work, apparently, with OTRS, and the political reality is that the powers that be are very reluctant to kill the goose that lays the golden egg of massive free labor.

It's a trap.
QUOTE
Which reminds me-- what are the überEcoFriendly Die Grünen Germans going to do when they run out of electricity in a few years hence? Buy it from the French? ohmy.gif Burn some coal? blink.gif Invade Russia and Romania, with drive toward Ploieşti? popcorn.gif Inquiring minds want to know.
If they are lucky, Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer is real and the Greeks will save them. Note: skepticism about Rossi is likely being encouraged by Rossi himself, it's become rather obvious, for sound business reasons given the patent situation. Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is very little way to tell the difference between this strategy and an actual con. Make sure you have plenty of popcorn, this is getting interesting.

For a little inside background, lots of people are working on NiH. Previous NiH effects in the literature were sketchy and there was a lot of skepticism even from those firmly convinced that cold fusion, of the PdD variety, was real. Same problem, though: WTF is going on? I.e., no clear explanatory theory.

Defkalion has a press conference scheduled for June 23.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Fri 17th June 2011, 3:58pm
Post #59


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,867
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(Wikifan @ Thu 16th June 2011, 1:28am) *

you dont see me crying to wikipedia review over a community ban. jesus. this guy clearly has issues he needs to deal with - emotionally that is.


Abd, spend your time better and write down everything you want the world to know about Cold Fusion and clearly explain on what points Wikipedia is wrong on the subject.

Then post it to Google Knol, Facebook, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review, and any other open website that will let you post this information. You will feel better.

What you are doing here is not helping yourself and is sad to watch. Of course the gang on WR will happily encourage you because that's what they do. I believe Wikifan was actually trying to be a friend.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 4:47pm
Post #60


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(Emperor @ Fri 17th June 2011, 11:58am) *
QUOTE(Wikifan @ Thu 16th June 2011, 1:28am) *
you dont see me crying to wikipedia review over a community ban. jesus. this guy clearly has issues he needs to deal with - emotionally that is.
Abd, spend your time better and write down everything you want the world to know about Cold Fusion and clearly explain on what points Wikipedia is wrong on the subject.
My long-term interest is community and community process. Cold fusion is just something I happened upon as part of working with Wikipedia, and it became a (very small) business interest.

While certainly I could spend my time better, it's also a long term issue for me, I've already done what has been suggested ("write down everything" I "want the world to know") and, since I keep learning, I keep writing. I just wrote a paper on a piece of cold fusion history that has a good chance of being published in a journal, we'll see. There are pages on Wikiversity where I do point out the problems with the Wikipedia article, but only a small fraction of them. So?
QUOTE
Then post it to Google Knol, Facebook, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review, and any other open website that will let you post this information. You will feel better.
I don't need a new place to publish what I write. If I publish on Wikipedia Review, it would be more to help Greg than because I need hosting. My issues with Wikipedia don't have to do with personal expression, they have to do with the structural problems, and my own situation is just one example among many. It just happens to be one that I can conveniently and thoroughly document, when that's appropriate.

What's offensive about Wikifan's comment is "crying to wikipedia review." Last I noticed, I wasn't crying. Why should I cry when I set up a situation to test and demonstrate, should the test turn out that way, Wikipedia dysfunction? As well as what I expect to eventually do, show how what this experience implies could lead to better function?

In addition, "this guy clearly has issues he needs to deal with - emotionally that is."

When the day comes that I don't have "issues," that's the day my lovers and kids will be crying, because I'll be dead. My hope is that their tears will be, at least in part, tears of joy, because of what I accomplished, with them and with the world.

QUOTE
What you are doing here is not helping yourself and is sad to watch.
That's the story you tell, about yourself and your own reaction. It's not about me. Don't be sad for me, I'm happy, full of joy, actually, and that joy increased when I decided to give the "collective" the finger, so to speak. I was, without realizing it, trying to please them by being "good." It was a shackle, and I dropped it, because it was imaginary, self-imposed. Long story.

QUOTE
Of course the gang on WR will happily encourage you because that's what they do. I believe Wikifan was actually trying to be a friend.
Maybe somewhere in his distorted perception, same with you. People vastly overrate their ability to perceive the emotional states of others through on-line text. I've seen this for about twenty-five years, beginning with the :W.E.L.L.

I'm doing Landmark Education, taking the Advanced Course in a week. In Landmark terms, even though it was with a degree of sophistication, I was running a huge racket of the "I'm right" -> "You're wrong" variety. I'd fallen for an old story, a belief that to take a stand I had to be right. No, we choose stands, and I can stand for everyone taking a stand, I don't have to make them wrong, and this is far more consistent with my original social theories than any belief in my own rightness. Consensus becomes possible when everyone with an interest takes a stand and communicates openly.

However, if I describe "what happened," i.e., show diffs, etc., is that making them wrong? Does, for example, my Wikiversity page on self-reversion make anyone wrong? Who and how?

Now, this is WR, the local bar, and swagger is expected here, academic disinterest is boring. So I do. If I believe the swagger, I'm sunk.

People who attack whistleblowers frequently claim that the whistleblower is motivated by envy, revenge, or is otherwise "disgruntled" and "disturbed." So nu?
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
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 7 17, 4:56am