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 « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Global ban for Abd?, Gotta stop that POV-pushing
Milton Roe
post Fri 17th June 2011, 5:18pm
Post #61


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 @ Fri 17th June 2011, 9:47am) *

I'm doing Landmark Education, taking the Advanced Course in a week.



biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

I can just imagine you after Landmark training. Yes I can.

Hey, Abd, right after that, you could perhaps notify Cirt that you're a Landmark graduate, and then ask for him to intercede for you with JzG. happy.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Fri 17th June 2011, 8:15pm
Post #62


Try spam today!
*******

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



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 12:47pm) *

People who attack whistleblowers frequently claim that the whistleblower is motivated by envy, revenge, or is otherwise "disgruntled" and "disturbed." So nu?


You've spent hours and days writing about JzGs and related items. No one needs to attack you. Your posts practically scream ***DISGRUNTLED****DISTURBED*****COO COO FOR COCONUTS!!!!!

It's almost like you're a double agent attempting to make real whistleblowers look like nutjobs.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 8:56pm
Post #63


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 @ Fri 17th June 2011, 1:18pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 9:47am) *
I'm doing Landmark Education, taking the Advanced Course in a week.
biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

I can just imagine you after Landmark training. Yes I can.
. Well, I'm considered a "graduate." I'm aware of at least one other super-banned editor who is also, but he took the Forum, like more than 20 years ago, and never followed up. It's good, but it's not magic. On the other hand, it sure can seem like it sometimes.
QUOTE
Hey, Abd, right after that, you could perhaps notify Cirt that you're a Landmark graduate, and then ask for him to intercede for you with JzG. happy.gif
"Graduate" is used in Landmark-speak, for anyone who has taken the Forum, and I did that in March. There is what they call the Curriculum for Living, which consists of the Forum, the Advanced Course, and the Self-Expression and Leadership Program, plus the Seminar Series. (Only the first two are moderately expensive, the seminars are cheap for value, perhaps because they are led by volunteers. I just completed the Forum in Action seminar, which was led by an Israeli psychiatrist, fantastic guy. Day job, psychiatrist, assistant department head at a major hospital, but gave hours upon hours of free coaching to seminar participants, we could call him up any time.

If Cirt is Landmark-connected, here is what I'd expect from him if I took this situation to him: he'd point to a particular Landmark distinction. It rhymes with this thing: [

And it was.

Intercede with JzG? Why? Is there something I want JzG to do? JzG is just JzG, he does what he does, it is what it is. Interesting question, though. What's the possibility here?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 9:11pm
Post #64


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, 4:15pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 12:47pm) *
People who attack whistleblowers frequently claim that the whistleblower is motivated by envy, revenge, or is otherwise "disgruntled" and "disturbed." So nu?
You've spent hours and days writing about JzGs and related items. No one needs to attack you. Your posts practically scream ***DISGRUNTLED****DISTURBED*****COO COO FOR COCONUTS!!!!!

It's almost like you're a double agent attempting to make real whistleblowers look like nutjobs.
Almost like that. Not quite, eh?

And your motive in writing, Emperor, Boss of Bosses? You have very close to the same post count here as I.

This is what I found over twenty years ago. A would attack B. B would respond, upset. People would read B and, seeing the upset, assume that it was unjustified, that B was deranged. Friends of A would also attack B, now for being a serious troll. Now comes C who sees this and realizes that this social situation is unlike past RL ones, now that what happened (what *actually happened*, the entire personal interaction) can now be seen, so C goes back over the history and finds that A did, indeed, attack B. B might be over-reacting, or not, but the incident was actually caused by A's incivility, and that's clearly visible. C reports this, citing the record.

The friends of B now begin to attack C, since he's obviously siding with a deranged troll. They do not look back at the record to correct possible errors of C. Why should they? They can tell that C is on the wrong side, it's obvious.

And anyone who would actually take the time to go through history like that must have an axe to grind, anyway. Block them both! "Now, A, I'm sorry you had to put up with that mess."

A then does it with someone else.

Is the solution to block A? I don't think so, not usually, anyway. A is not the problem. The problem is dysfunctional social structure, part of which is based on people believing that they can read minds from this skimpy text. Yes, skimpy, for if I write a tome, it's still tiny compared to the information you'd get in a face-to-face encounter. Text is very low bandwidth.

Emperor, you are believing that you can read my mind, that you can infer my emotional state from my writing. Maybe. Sometimes. And maybe not.

I can say this for sure: I write to learn, primarily. Others sometimes profit from it as well, and sometimes not.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Fri 17th June 2011, 10:52pm
Post #65


Try spam today!
*******

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



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 5:11pm) *

And your motive in writing, Emperor, Boss of Bosses? You have very close to the same post count here as I.


My motive is obviously very different than yours, as I've never revealed my original user name on Wikipedia. (It's still there but not used.)

My goals have evolved over the years and at this point I simply want people to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of wiki encyclopedias and why their use may be inappropriate for certain people and situations.

I've tried to create something better with Encyc, and it gets some decent traffic on certain topics. Occasionally by participating on WR I pick up a tip that I incorporate into Encyc.

Very few of my posts have been about the community on Wikipedia, mainly because that stuff just sounds like gibberish to the layperson and that's really who I care about.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 17th June 2011, 11:17pm
Post #66


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, 6:52pm) *
My motive is obviously very different than yours, as I've never revealed my original user name on Wikipedia. (It's still there but not used.)
I don't understand why that would reveal a difference in motive. But there is a difference, sure, that's likely.
QUOTE
My goals have evolved over the years and at this point I simply want people to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of wiki encyclopedias and why their use may be inappropriate for certain people and situations.
No problem with that.
QUOTE
I've tried to create something better with Encyc, and it gets some decent traffic on certain topics. Occasionally by participating on WR I pick up a tip that I incorporate into Encyc.
Again, no problem. Just because I know something about it, I looked at the Encyc article on cold fusion. Awful. Unsourced blather, giving prominence to someone with no credentials at all, a crackpot critic. Hmmmph. And I could waste a lot of time fixing it, or not. I think not. I'd rather work on wikiversity at this point, but who knows maybe, someday baby, I'll come and be crying to you.... Recognize that?
QUOTE
Very few of my posts have been about the community on Wikipedia, mainly because that stuff just sounds like gibberish to the layperson and that's really who I care about.
Well, an encyclopedia should care about the "layperson," for sure. However, it should connect them with expert opinion, real expert opinion; traditional encyclopedias did this by hiring experts. Wikipedia tended to ban them, imagining that lay editors could adequately interpret sources and maintain neutrality.

It often worked, which is part of the problem. When there was a real controversy among experts, neutrality would sometimes go out the window.

The community I came out of was one where unity was considered crucial, real unity, so true consensus process was used. If a project is to be both crowd-sourced and neutral, yet not controlled centrally by some publisher (as is typical with traditional encyclopedias), consensus process is essential. Wikipedia completely missed it, and has heavily resisted it, because consensus process is difficult and can be tedious. But what it builds persists, with little effort. When "consensus" really means "most of us," it creates outsiders, people who aren't "us," and who then have motivation to tear the place down or otherwise subvert it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikifan
post Sat 18th June 2011, 12:24am
Post #67


Member
***

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
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?


Okay, maybe I should clarify. You aren't crying, but you are melting down. I totally understand the rage of getting sandbagged by wikipedia's judicial process when you feel the process was unfair and prejudged, but how long has your community ban been in effect? weeks? months?

i spent a few days defending myself in my AE, lost. angry for a few hours, then moved on and went back to school and deal with RL issues.

venting is okay when you have time to kill, but clearly you are intelligent enough to do something else with your time than entertaining the banished wikipedia editors here.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 18th June 2011, 2:39am
Post #68


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 5:11pm) *

The friends of B now begin to attack C...


I think you mean the friends of A.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 18th June 2011, 3:01am
Post #69


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 @ Fri 17th June 2011, 8:24pm) *
QUOTE
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?
Okay, maybe I should clarify. You aren't crying, but you are melting down.
Really? How? I'm documenting and describing what happened. I'm not upset, I consider what has happened to be normal response for that community. Lots of people have experienced it. It's predictable from the structure.
QUOTE
I totally understand the rage of getting sandbagged by wikipedia's judicial process when you feel the process was unfair and prejudged, but how long has your community ban been in effect? weeks? months?
There were a series of bans. The longest-standing one was the so-called MYOB ban, passed as part of RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, in September, 2009, as a never-before-declared ban, invented for me. Indef. Originally, it passed with a mentor escape clause, it might not have passed without that, but then the mentor provision, another remedy, did not pass, and the offer of an arbitrator to mentor me was later rejected by the Arbitration Committee.

Look, Wikifan, it's Kafkaesque, the whole thing. You could think that I'm angry, because maybe you'd be angry if this happened to you. What I feel when I'm emotionally affected by this, as I've been on occasion, is more a sense of perplexity and hopelessness, it shows up as an obsession, an inability to sleep, for example, no matter what I tell myself. That's not common, though, I've only felt that a couple of times over the four years as an active Wikipedian.
QUOTE
i spent a few days defending myself in my AE, lost. angry for a few hours, then moved on and went back to school and deal with RL issues.
You are in a very different position in life than I. For starters, I'm 67 years old, I have seven children and six grandchildren, two of my children are very young and I'm involved in their care, but I'm also retired, mostly. My long-term interest is community structure and process, and what I'm doing at the present time with Wikipedia is demonstrating certain models that have transformative power, in my experience. I don't expect this to be understood at this point, most people, even those sympathetic, don't. But I'm not asking anyone to do anything unless it seems right to them....
QUOTE
venting is okay when you have time to kill, but clearly you are intelligent enough to do something else with your time than entertaining the banished wikipedia editors here.
Perhaps. It's something I frequently consider. But I also have the sense I'm not quite done with Wikipedia.

Look, it's fun to act and move outside the box. I don't have anything to lose here (other than my time), I'm already banned XXX. What more can they do? I'll admit something: it was a nuisance when all those files were MfD'd because I didn't want to lose them and I had to download them, and the attached talk pages, that was one huge MfD, it took hours, I was worried the MfD would snow, so I had to act quickly. There was nothing really unusual about this, I've seen a lot of user files deleted once the editor is banned.

In the end, some editors did save some of the files of obvious utility, but there were others that were missed. The only problem for me was due to my own lack of preparation. Any other problem is a loss to Wikipedia, not to me.

One thing that the MfD showed was that ArbComm was not interested in maintaining transparency, because they allowed evidence used in a significant case to be deleted (and they knew about it). (And another file that was deleted was accessory evidence in RfC/GoRight, and was also cited in the later RfAr as well, it was a study in mutual involvement, an issue that ArbComm has been as eager to take up as it would be to have multiple root canal operations. The file was not an attack page, at all. It is not a crime to be involved.)

I'm not surprised, but neither would I have predicted this. To me, it simply put another nail in the coffin of the respect I once had for ArbComm.

I'm open to being surprised, and there have been nifty surprises all along. For example, I just noticed that a month ago, some editor, never heard of him before, put a link to the Wikiversity Cold fusion/Energy Catalyzer resource in the WP Energy Catalyzer article.... those should be routine, in fact, and if there isn't a Wikiversity resource on a topic that someone wants to discuss, they should create one! This, just by itself, is a way to blow the lid off of Wikipedia....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 18th June 2011, 3:04am
Post #70


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(thekohser @ Fri 17th June 2011, 10:39pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 5:11pm) *
The friends of B now begin to attack C...
I think you mean the friends of A.
Gad, you can keep it that straight?

Yes, the friends of A attack the whistleblower, the only one who has actually reviewed the evidence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikifan
post Sat 18th June 2011, 3:50am
Post #71


Member
***

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
or starters, I'm 67 years old, I have seven children and six grandchildren, two of my children are very young and I'm involved in their care, but I'm also retired, mostly. My long-term interest is community structure and process, and what I'm doing at the present time with Wikipedia is demonstrating certain models that have transformative power, in my experience. I don't expect this to be understood at this point, most people, even those sympathetic, don't. But I'm not asking anyone to do anything unless it seems right to them....


67?? Geez. Go on a vacation or something. For a senior you seem way too interested in drama. If you're into "community structure" go on a jury or volunteer for animal rights.

something productive. you aren't doing shit here.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 18th June 2011, 4:01am
Post #72


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 11:01pm) *

In the end, some editors did save some of the files of obvious utility, but there were others that were missed. The only problem for me was due to my own lack of preparation. Any other problem is a loss to Wikipedia, not to me.


If you ask nicely, there are admins here who would happily give you the wikitext from any of the lost pages.


QUOTE(Wikifan @ Fri 17th June 2011, 11:50pm) *

something productive. you aren't doing shit here.


Oh, the irony.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 18th June 2011, 12:55pm
Post #73


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(thekohser @ Sat 18th June 2011, 12:01am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 11:01pm) *
In the end, some editors did save some of the files of obvious utility, but there were others that were missed. The only problem for me was due to my own lack of preparation. Any other problem is a loss to Wikipedia, not to me.
If you ask nicely, there are admins here who would happily give you the wikitext from any of the lost pages.
I know that, Greg, but thanks. However, that was a very long list of pages. I didn't want to trouble an admin.

I did get the text of a deleted revision, last month, when they were pulling that stunt (Using revision delete to conceal harmless/helpful edits) in history, going well beyond RBI.

Anyway, I think I saved it all. Just took me a couple of hours.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Wikifan @ Fri 17th June 2011, 11:50pm) *
something productive. you aren't doing shit here.
Oh, the irony.
Yeah. Am so doing shit!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 26th March 2015, 10:18pm
Post #74


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 @ Fri 17th June 2011, 12:18pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 9:47am) *
I'm doing Landmark Education, taking the Advanced Course in a week.
I can just imagine you after Landmark training. Yes I can.

Hey, Abd, right after that, you could perhaps notify Cirt that you're a Landmark graduate, and then ask for him to intercede for you with JzG. happy.gif
Because this discussion was linked on my enwiki user talk page, I came back to it. Ah, old times! Those were the days!

So some updates:

I created a resource on en.wikiversity on Landmark Education.. Cirt showed up, and I found out what Milton was talking about. However, Wikiversity is different from Wikipedia, very different, and Abd is not your average POV-pusher. I think Cirt may have been a tad surprised by what what I did, see the resource as linked. We use difference of opinion on Wikiversity to build resources. Fairly recently, I had extensive interaction with Cirt on en.Wikiquote, and, while some sparks flew, the result in the end was collaboration, again.

I never again socked on enwiki, I had stopped before the ban discussion. I could have, certainly, but basically, why bother? Meanwhile, I became more and more involved with cold fusion, real world. I just had a peer-reviewed paper published in Current Science That is a review of a crucial aspect of the field, long excluded from the Wikipedia article. I had tried to add information about this in 2009, based on the best book available at the time, academically published, Storms (2007). It started to be accepted, there was a majority supporting it, and the Hipocrite arrived, started revert warring, took the article back to an old version and got it protected there, and then his friend William M. Connolley banned us both. Wink, wink, nod, nod. There was no basis for banning me (at that point), and WMC lost his admin bit, but so many Wikipedians seem only to remember, Abd, that guy who had his fingers stuffed in his ears? Who wrote too much?

This review is part of a special section in Current Science, a major development, 34 papers, most of the reviews, in a major mainstream journal. The faction in enwiki that still controls that article was informed about the section, they quickly arranged a topic ban for the informant (talk page comment!), and they are shaking their heads. "Something strange is going on at Current Science." Sure. Strange to them, because none of them have actually read in the field. As is shown on wikiversity, there are many recent peer-reviewed reviews of the field, in mainstream journals, and *none* have been negative, none match the opinion of the pseudoskeptics who run the article.

So, anyway, I've come full circle, from Cal Tech in 1961, sitting with Richard P. Feynman, to working entirely outside the sciences (and I never graduated from college), to publication in a mainstream scientific journal. Peer review there was not easy. The reviewer, probably a physicist, was highly negative at first, with very standard opinions that I knew well. Instead of arguing with him, I concluded the article hadn't succeeded in communicating, so I addressed his misunderstandings in the article, which was thoroughly sourced, Wikipedian experience helped. He appears to have been amazed, himself, and he approved the article and even suggested part of the conclusion. Which the Wikipedian faction would think was crazy fringe nonsense.

Because they are ignorant and believe they know. All too human and all too common. A large collection of Randies from Boisies. Except some have degrees and think they know everything.

Let's see, what else. I was active on the "other" Wikipedia critic site. I confronted unfair criticism of Wikipedia editors there, and, predictably, was banned. The Other Site bans are much more insidious than what happens on Wikipedia, there is no notice, so other users were surprised. As with Wikipedia, if nobody stands up for a user, so what? The result is that I wasted less time there. Lucky me.

On Wikiversity, what I want to do, pretty much, I can do. I was attacked there by one user, a probationary custodian, because I managed a certain now-globally-banned user, stopping possible disruption, and that custodian believed this person was Evil Incarnate, and therefore I was, too. The result? He was desysopped. I made the request on meta, it had gone far, far too far, he was wheel-warring with a permanent custodian, blocking him, unblocking himself, completely rogue. And, of course, completely convinced he was right, even when a steward revision-deleted his comments because they violated privacy policy.

That kind of excitement on Wikiversity is rare. I have worked to rebuild the custodial structure there, it had fallen off. Users whom I rescued, years ago, from stuff that used to happen there, are now running the place. Abd is creating community and organization.

I'm now active on Commons, though hopefully only for a little while. A Wikiversity user needed help and was probably headed for a block there. I pulled him aside, and he got it. So I'm finding out what can and cannot be done on Commons. My biggest problem: I research a complex topic for a day and write about it. As before, some people really don't like that. They prefer grunts and Yes and No and don't rock the boat. This one has always been a struggle for me. This is what I've noticed, though. Those most likely to complain about length are those who would reject anyway if I were brief. I may file a brief request and they then argue against it, bringing up idea that can look good until one looks at it closely. So I look at it closely, and find evidence! However, length is still a problem with polemic.

Sometimes I happen upon a response that is both brief and highly effective. If I knew how to do that all the time, I'd be rich, rich, I tell you! As it is, I'm having a boatload of fun. And these are only wikis. Cold fusion? Well, it was claimed on Wikipedia that I believed cold fusion was the Energy Savior of the World, or something like that. No, it's a rare, cantankerous, difficult-to-control effect, that may never be practically useful, but as long as the experimental evidence is out-of-hand-rejected, as it was for a long time, it is very unlikely to be useful. There are activities afoot that might change all that. But none of it has changed it yet in such a way as to be confident. In the field, I'm known as a skeptic.

But I do get to hang out with a Nobel Prize winner and some other scientists with Wikipedia articles about them, some really brilliant people who have worked hard for decades, against tough odds.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 17th June 2011, 12:18pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 17th June 2011, 9:47am) *
I'm doing Landmark Education, taking the Advanced Course in a week.
I can just imagine you after Landmark training. Yes I can.

Hey, Abd, right after that, you could perhaps notify Cirt that you're a Landmark graduate, and then ask for him to intercede for you with JzG. happy.gif
Because this discussion was linked on my enwiki user talk page, I came back to it. Ah, old times! Those were the days!

So some updates:

I created a resource on en.wikiversity on Landmark Education.. Cirt showed up, and I found out what Milton was talking about. However, Wikiversity is different from Wikipedia, very different, and Abd is not your average POV-pusher. I think Cirt may have been a tad surprised by what what I did, see the resource as linked. We use difference of opinion on Wikiversity to build resources. Fairly recently, I had extensive interaction with Cirt on en.Wikiquote, and, while some sparks flew, the result in the end was collaboration, again.

I never again socked on enwiki, I had stopped before the ban discussion. I could have, certainly, but basically, why bother? Meanwhile, I became more and more involved with cold fusion, real world. I just had a peer-reviewed paper published in Current Science That is a review of a crucial aspect of the field, long excluded from the Wikipedia article. I had tried to add information about this in 2009, based on the best book available at the time, academically published, Storms (2007). It started to be accepted, there was a majority supporting it, and the Hipocrite arrived, started revert warring, took the article back to an old version and got it protected there, and then his friend William M. Connolley banned us both. Wink, wink, nod, nod. There was no basis for banning me (at that point), and WMC lost his admin bit, but so many Wikipedians seem only to remember, Abd, that guy who had his fingers stuffed in his ears? Who wrote too much?

This review is part of a special section in Current Science, a major development, 34 papers, most of the reviews, in a major mainstream journal. The faction in enwiki that still controls that article was informed about the section, they quickly arranged a topic ban for the informant (talk page comment!), and they are shaking their heads. "Something strange is going on at Current Science." Sure. Strange to them, because none of them have actually read in the field. As is shown on wikiversity, there are many recent peer-reviewed reviews of the field, in mainstream journals, and *none* have been negative, none match the opinion of the pseudoskeptics who run the article.

So, anyway, I've come full circle, from Cal Tech in 1961, sitting with Richard P. Feynman, to working entirely outside the sciences (and I never graduated from college), to publication in a mainstream scientific journal. Peer review there was not easy. The reviewer, probably a physicist, was highly negative at first, with very standard opinions that I knew well. Instead of arguing with him, I concluded the article hadn't succeeded in communicating, so I addressed his misunderstandings in the article, which was thoroughly sourced, Wikipedian experience helped. He appears to have been amazed, himself, and he approved the article and even suggested part of the conclusion. Which the Wikipedian faction would think was crazy fringe nonsense.

Because they are ignorant and believe they know. All too human and all too common. A large collection of Randies from Boisies. Except some have degrees and think they know everything.

Let's see, what else. I was active on the "other" Wikipedia critic site. I confronted unfair criticism of Wikipedia editors there, and, predictably, was banned. The Other Site bans are much more insidious than what happens on Wikipedia, there is no notice, so other users were surprised. As with Wikipedia, if nobody stands up for a user, so what? The result is that I wasted less time there. Lucky me.

On Wikiversity, what I want to do, pretty much, I can do. I was attacked there by one user, a probationary custodian, because I managed a certain now-globally-banned user, stopping possible disruption, and that custodian believed this person was Evil Incarnate, and therefore I was, too. The result? He was desysopped. I made the request on meta, it had gone far, far too far, he was wheel-warring with a permanent custodian, blocking him, unblocking himself, completely rogue. And, of course, completely convinced he was right, even when a steward revision-deleted his comments because they violated privacy policy.

That kind of excitement on Wikiversity is rare. I have worked to rebuild the custodial structure there, it had fallen off. Users whom I rescued, years ago, from stuff that used to happen there, are now running the place. Abd is creating community and organization.

I'm now active on Commons, though hopefully only for a little while. A Wikiversity user needed help and was probably headed for a block there. I pulled him aside, and he got it. So I'm finding out what can and cannot be done on Commons. My biggest problem: I research a complex topic for a day and write about it. As before, some people really don't like that. They prefer grunts and Yes and No and don't rock the boat. This one has always been a struggle for me. This is what I've noticed, though. Those most likely to complain about length are those who would reject anyway if I were brief. I may file a brief request and they then argue against it, bringing up idea that can look good until one looks at it closely. So I look at it closely, and find evidence! However, length is still a problem with polemic.

Sometimes I happen upon a response that is both brief and highly effective. If I knew how to do that all the time, I'd be rich, rich, I tell you! As it is, I'm having a boatload of fun. And these are only wikis. Cold fusion? Well, it was claimed on Wikipedia that I believed cold fusion was the Energy Savior of the World, or something like that. No, it's a rare, cantankerous, difficult-to-control effect, that may never be practically useful, but as long as the experimental evidence is out-of-hand-rejected, as it was for a long time, it is very unlikely to be useful. There are activities afoot that might change all that. But none of it has changed it yet in such a way as to be confident. In the field, I'm known as a skeptic.

But I do get to hang out with a Nobel Prize winner and some other scientists with Wikipedia articles about them, some really brilliant people who have worked hard for decades, against tough odds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jay
post Wed 15th July 2015, 7:32pm
Post #75


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 5:15pm
Member No.: 13,123



Is there an update on this?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 7 17, 4:48pm