Future Perfect at Sunrise, what's he about? Options

[Abd]

There isn't a lot here about FP. There is In the Tar and Feather Barrel, which never got to the supposed "sins," at least not much. There is this checkuser request, which gives hints about former WP identity. That's not important to what I'm doing yet. I'm not here to toss mud, but to find out more about this administrator who blocked me, because I'm preparing to go to RfAr, it being clear to me that he was involved and shouldn't have personally blocked, to say the least, and that FP isn't about to discuss the matter seriously, and he's got a coterie of supporters that will definitely disrupt any on-wiki process. If someone has allegations of administrative misbehavior (or other serious editorial behavior), I'd like to see it, but he's got a long history, and I assume anyone will have some gaffes in that time. I'm especially, but I'm not interested in editors simply describing how awful he is, unless they point to where actual evidence can be found. Nevertheless, this being Wikipedia Review, surely some of those might appear.

So far, no serious dirt have I found, glancing over older stuff. Some questionable use of tools with respect to, shall we say, personal interests, near the end of 2009, not enough for even a troutslap. But somebody doesn't like him, for sure, there is a spurious public profile at google. He looks like he's pushing forty, serious academic (professor). I've called him "stupid." Probably, instead, naive. Not paying enough attention, incautious. Happens to lots of adminstrators, they start to burn out and become impatient. I'll know more when I review block logs now and compare with older.

The RfAr could be pretty simple. He made some mistakes recently, but, hey, he's got a long and glorious history, and all that's needed is to point out the errors. What happens then would largely be up to him. Or maybe I'll find something else. I prefer the truth to any possible agenda.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Zoloft]

I dunno. If I was slapped with your ban after achieving an abusive admin's de-sysop, I would lay low for a few months, and just happily edit articles.

Then I'd ask for the ban to be lifted, because obviously it was not needed.

But that's just me. (47 words)

[Abd]

I dunno. If I was slapped with your ban after achieving an abusive admin's de-sysop, I would lay low for a few months, and just happily edit articles.

Then I'd ask for the ban to be lifted, because obviously it was not needed.

But that's just me. (47 words)

Well, I was "slapped with" two bans. One was simple and easy to interpret, though just as abusive as the other, in fact, and probably causing more specific article damage. But because it's easy to follow, there has been (almost) no disruption: the topic ban on Cold fusion. I did edit Oppenheimer-Phillips process, I think, and this was claimed to be a ban violation, but nobody other than a cabal editor picked up on that (and, for sure, I wasn't thinking about cold fusion in that edit, and the edit was not about cold fusion at all).

The MYOB ban, though, was not nearly so easy to interpret. It allowed certain things specifically, but did not define the terms, so to interpret it required understanding the intention. And ArbComm, I suspect, didn't really agree on the intention. Plus, my contributions are tracked by a pile of editors intent on finding something wrong with them, so everything gets interpreted in the maximum possible negative way.

In only one of the edits did I actually expect that there would be a problem, and that's one that I wasn't blocked for, and it truly was, as well, an edit demanded by clear IAR necessity. I've been doing other work, but when this crap comes up, it goes to pot. However, this is the simple fact: I care much more about Wikipedia process, enabling other editors to work in peace and without molestation, than I do about personally working in that way. And, given my experience, I can be much more effective that way, and, in fact, it's not even necessary for me to be editing personally at all. My real agenda cannot be blocked. It may be necessary to demonstrate this.... I'm not trying to create that situation, but there are enough who are truly afraid of my real agenda that they will keep pushing for a ban, and that's how Wikipedia works: enough people push for something long enough, and without any restraining structures, they get what they want. It looks like consensus, even when it isn't. Participation bias.

Functional organizations have figured out how to stop this. Wikipedia hasn't. One real sadness here is that Newyorkbrad really should know better, but I think he's burned out. That's what the system does to people, it wears them down and they lose their patience.

[Mathsci]

I dunno. If I was slapped with your ban after achieving an abusive admin's de-sysop, I would lay low for a few months, and just happily edit articles.

Then I'd ask for the ban to be lifted, because obviously it was not needed.

But that's just me. (47 words)

Well, I was "slapped with" two bans. One was simple and easy to interpret, though just as abusive as the other, in fact, and probably causing more specific article damage. But because it's easy to follow, there has been (almost) no disruption: the topic ban on Cold fusion. I did edit Oppenheimer-Phillips process, I think, and this was claimed to be a ban violation, but nobody other than a cabal editor picked up on that (and, for sure, I wasn't thinking about cold fusion in that edit, and the edit was not about cold fusion at all).

The MYOB ban, though, was not nearly so easy to interpret. It allowed certain things specifically, but did not define the terms, so to interpret it required understanding the intention. And ArbComm, I suspect, didn't really agree on the intention. Plus, my contributions are tracked by a pile of editors intent on finding something wrong with them, so everything gets interpreted in the maximum possible negative way.

In only one of the edits did I actually expect that there would be a problem, and that's one that I wasn't blocked for, and it truly was, as well, an edit demanded by clear IAR necessity. I've been doing other work, but when this crap comes up, it goes to pot. However, this is the simple fact: I care much more about Wikipedia process, enabling other editors to work in peace and without molestation, than I do about personally working in that way. And, given my experience, I can be much more effective that way, and, in fact, it's not even necessary for me to be editing personally at all. My real agenda cannot be blocked. It may be necessary to demonstrate this.... I'm not trying to create that situation, but there are enough who are truly afraid of my real agenda that they will keep pushing for a ban, and that's how Wikipedia works: enough people push for something long enough, and without any restraining structures, they get what they want. It looks like consensus, even when it isn't. Participation bias.

Functional organizations have figured out how to stop this. Wikipedia hasn't. One real sadness here is that Newyorkbrad really should know better, but I think he's burned out. That's what the system does to people, it wears them down and they lose their patience.

My guess is that Abd is going to be banned by the community on wikipedia very soon - the moment he tries to open another RfAr. It is Abd who should know better, not NYB.