Abd, blah, blah, blan. How long before indef? A day. A year? A lifetime? Options Rating

[Abd]

Abd has abandoned his fantasy that due process might work. Too hard, too many idiots per square arbitrator.

No more explanations. Just edits, with edit summary. Ah, yes, he's blocked. So? Ah, yes, he's banned from cold fusion. So?

Respecting blocks and bans was part of due process. I tried that for two years. If there isn't any due process, there isn't any obligation. So now I'm trying something else. It's more fun, I'm sure of that already.

I know exactly what responses are likely, been there, seen that, many times, even from the administrative side. I've watched experts at work, experts like ScienceApologist and William M. Connolley, and anyone remember Fredrick day? He taught me that truly blocking and banning a knowledgeable editor was impossible. All you can do is block them, block IP, and range block, and even then, the damn edits keep coming through, unless you block huge swaths of the internet, which gets the Office irritated and makes the troll happy. Really got you there!

I worked out how to deal with this years ago, but never got to test it myself.

See User talk:Abd#Edits under ban. The first five edits there merely evade a block, plus the sixth. The sixth is the first substantial edit, fixing a broken archive, MiszaBot II failed to save discussions because of a spam blacklisting added because of the discussion, during it! Brilliant, eh? Incompetent blacklist administrator, is the real story. He knew there were usages, and there still are. But this broke the 'bot, causing four discussions to vanish. Took me a while to figure it out.

What had happened? Had someone censored it? In fact, someone did censor *part* of it! The link that was being discussed. That was a use of the blacklist for content control, on the argument of "biased web site." Which it obviously is, not RS at all, idiotic question, really. But RS is not the only legitimate usage of links. This was one. And there is an article on the web site, which is notable. So a link to the site is proper there. Etc. Can be whitelisted, sure. But the blacklisting admin perhaps expected the complaining IP editor to do the work.... Right.

The blacklist is supposed to be for *spamming.* Massive addition of links that can't be handled by ordinary editorial process, or, say, COIBot. Not content control. That's what ArbComm decided, but... who cares? If I complained about this, I'd have been whacked even without the recent block. They'd think I was pushing Islamic Extremism, a terrorist web site. Some of the people behind that site might kill me first, they *hate* Muslims who will cooperate with non-Muslims. I used to get death threats for writing about Islam.

The seventh is a ban violation, the original reason self-reversion was invented, to allow harmless fixes by banned editors. It should not complicate ban enforcement, since, being self-reverted, nobody is obligated to pay attention to it at all. But, watch. What do people think will happen?

How long will I be allowed to edit my Talk page? Any guesses? And do I care? That one I can answer.

Here are the two substantial edits: RSN and Cold fusion.

Really, Fredrick day taught me this trick: make good edits by IP, as a honey pot for your opponents, and when they revert them as block/ban violations, they look like idiots. He sucked me into reverting an apparent BLP violation. (it wasn't, but it looked like it was, porn star articles, well, they do it upside down.) Except, since I'm not actually trying to make anyone look like an idiot, I revert myself. Nobody has to do anything.

Which then discriminates between those who actually care about content from those who use bans as punishment. Hey, I think it's brilliant, but even my friends shake their heads about self-reversion.

So it's time to stop talking and act. Talk will never get this across.

What about here? Well, this is the local bar and gorilla. It's for talk, right?

The most likely response, right now, is nothing. That's Wikipedia. Nothing. But ... long term, I don't know.

Thekohser might have a word about how self-reversion worked. It staved off his admin enemies for long enough that a record of good edits was built up, and it was then possible to find a 3/4 majority for unblock. Without that, maybe. Maybe not. It's a wiki, which is Hawaiian for "unpredictable Sisyphean waste of time." Right?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

indef blocked

I must say I didn't expect Future Perfect to do it, so quickly. After all, it was a two-week block already, what's the hurry? This makes the fourth time he's blocked me. If anyone cared, that would be way into recusal territory. Fact is, we had a personal dispute *before* his first block, I just never pursued the recusal failure.

I'm not appealing anything, except I might put up an unblock template, eventually. Average admin probably isn't smart enough to read the situation, so I'm not sure I'll bother.

It is *so* much easier to just edit, and if they make it hard, I'll know that I've made it hard for them. There is some satisfaction in that. I might be protecting some anonymous editor somewhere from getting involved in this cesspool. All by making some positive contributions, and respecting the right of the community to ban, but not to censor, eh?

That is an absolute delight to a passive-aggressive. It's called Malamati in my field of Sufism. I learned it by the time I was in high school, how to enrage and ultimately humiliate abusers, by turning their abuse into self-harm. If they aren't really abusers, it fails, as it should. Social Jujitsu.

Future Perfect, indeed!

Ah, Timothy Dog has revoked Talk page access. Excessive Defiance, apparently. Not properly subservient.

I am so happy. This is what I've needed to do for about two years. Now I use off-wiki communication. I can't notify them of my IP edits any more, so they'lll have to watch for them. If they escalate with range blocks, I escalate by not identifying at all. Check. Check. Check. Checkmate?

I don't think so, this is endless, there is no end to this game, except I've got a potentially fatal disease. As does everyone, really, it's called Life. Kills you every time, and as I heard Roger Smith say a month ago, then they throw dirt in your face.

But I don't have one disease any more, the disease of stuffing a gag in my own mouth because it's the polite thing to do. Fuck off, FP and TC and the rest of the punitive crowd!

And to the "nice" Wikipedians: this is what you have allowed. I tried. You didn't support my efforts, so you get what you tolerate. That is, also, Life.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Ah, another nice Wikipedian, JPGordon. They are like robots.

Must ... Stop ... Evasion ... Push ... Button ... Do Not Read ... Mind Will Rot.

This is so cool. Now I don't have to document the posts. It's much easier now.

So far, no IP blocks. I think they realize how useless those will be, so they aren't bothering. I doubt that this condition will continue, unless I don't edit for a while. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how I feel.

I prefer for my edits to be visible as mine, as long as I'm self-reverting. If the range blocks appear, then I stop identifying. Then they have to go to much more work, an increase of labor that will be well-deserved if it goes that way. Scibaby, how many socks? Did they stop counting at 500? Look at those SSP reports, think of how much editor time was wasted there. All to prevent some edits about cow farts and global warming, trivially reverted. The guy was abusively blocked and unilaterally banned by two of the most abusive administrators, he was never formally banned by the community, the offense was always "block evasion."

They get what they resist. It's kind of a law of nature. Reaction causes action.

On Wikipedia, the mole always wins whack-a-mole, because you can't actually whack the mole. You just close off a hole, he pops up in another. It's fun for a while, for the admins. Then it gets old, really old. They blame the mole. But the mole is just behaving like a healthy human being, in this sense: people detest being controlled. Enlist their cooperation, idiots!

Still the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_90&diff=426938182&oldid=426937964 self-reverted edit] to the archive hasn't been reverted back in. Apparently they vastly prefer a defective RSN archive than dignifying a blocked editor's contributions by accepting them. Even though it could easily be verified that there is a problem with that archive.

Normally, by the way, any edits to these archives are noticed and reverted, quickly, since almost all such edits are improper. So you'd think that someone would notice a self-reverted edit that explained why it was being self-reverted.

This was part of the theory of self-reversion: turn ban enforcement into good content editing. I understand, absolutely, why they wouldn't accept the edit to Cold fusion, they'd have to look at the source, a book which I have on my desk. But the edit to the RSN archive?

Look, WR patrons, most of you know that Wikipedia is a compleat looney bin. I'm just having fun demonstrating it, and improving the project at the same time! Maybe it's totally useless, the whole mess is going to collapse of its own weight, as a new encyclopedic form develops that has better structure, that shrugs off the old shell.

How far will they go?

Ah, right. No record of any bad edits to articles. I remember when they revoked rollbacker. No reason, no abuse. All they did was make it more difficult to handle spam, so I stopped doing recent changes. Like, if I'm indef blocked it makes a difference? It's worth spending the time to push the button?

Oh, that's right. Admins are normally people with way too much time on their hands. That's how they get the edit counts without being caught in some POV battle yet. I forgot. Never mind.


This post has been edited by Abd:

[melloden]

tl;dr

[Abd]

tl;dr

thanks, melloden. That is sooo useful. Now I know that you didn't read this along with almost seven billion other people. What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them. The cost/benefit ratio for that has to be enormous. Any ideas?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

To answer the question that this topic was started with, less than four hours, it took, to go from a two-week block to indef to indef/Talk page access prohibited.

With no harmful edits, with only positive edits, but open defiance. Used to be Wikipedia had a far longer fuse. You actually had to do some harm, off your talk page, more than telling an admin on the user's talk, that they were a broken dildo.

Those days are gone, though I think that for some editors they were eager to ban, it was always like this. So that's about what this shows. Eager to ban.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[thekohser]

Abd, let me know when you're ready to do some secret paid editing. I have some projects that will need more hands on deck.

[Peter Damian]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

[The Joy]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial. They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial. It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd. The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

What more can be said? What more can be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

[Somey]

Actually, I think the tl;dr thing might have contributed to their annoyance with him, and made them a little quicker to click that ban-button.

That's not to say they wouldn't have gotten around to it sooner or later, of course... Anyway, if I understand this correctly in spite of the enormous volume of verbiage involved, Mr. Abd's main point here seems to be that "self-reverting" under IP addresses doesn't help once a few admins have decided you're persona non grata - they're more concerned with maintaining the fiction that bans are actually meaningful. And yes, we did know that, we've known that for years, but Mr. Abd's point about self-reverting not helping is probably worth noting, nevertheless.

Abd, all I would ask is that you avoid making any of those lame-o auto-generated text-to-cartoon videos about your situation, unless you're willing to make a real effort to keep the dialogue to a minimum.

[Abd]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

Sure, thanks, Peter. This response, at least, has some semblance of helpfulness.

The people I'm writing for might be more likely to read it if it is shorter, but not enough more likely to be worth the very substantial time involved in making it so. I see this -- or at least some of it -- was read by at least one reader of value to me, maybe more.

I take that time when I'm writing pure polemic, when I truly have an axe that needs grinding. Just to spout off in the local bar? Come on!

[Abd]

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

Whether efforts for justice are in vain or not is a long-term judgment, eh? I've been aware of the difficulty -- it's generic -- since before I started editing Wikipedia. The Joy hits it:

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial.

Indeed. And that's why appeal courts aren't in the small town....

They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial.

They are admins and inherently prejudiced against non-admins who challenge admins. Supermajority election, which is what exists for admins and arbs, is structurally guaranteed to produce the effects we so know and love. What would be needed would be proportional representation from a defined population. Multiwinner-STV could do it, and Asset Voting would do it spectacularly and in real-time. And no recusal, then, because of being "involved." The only arbs who understood what I was doing consistently recused for exactly that reason. Leaving behind a warped ArbComm that didn't understand.

Notice this: supermajority election sounds great, but it's actually lousy. It means that any unpopular point of view will be excluded from the deliberations, instead of being represented according to its actual acceptability.Multi-winner elections, by approval-at-large (most votes), inherently create two-party systems, or, with a single district, one-party systems. It's a kind of democracy, but about the most dysfunctional and dangerous kind.

It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd.

JzG's acceptance by that community is the best demonstration Ii could arrange of the community's dysfunction. It's not his fault, he's insane. It's the community's fault, though, of course, they could be insane, too. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

That's accurate. Pisses me off, for sure, because of how many times I took up the case for others. But those others don't, my guess, know what's happening, it's lost in the noise for them. Most of them are relatively sane.

Looks to me like JzG's attempt to blacklist lenr-canr.org again is going nowhere fast. His unilateral blacklisting at en.wp flopped when DGG reverted it. The meta request has one positive comment from his claque, basically, "per nom." I rather doubt that this is going to be accepted. Beetstra is complaining about me on his meta Talk page, obsessed. Gee, I simply tried to thank him! Succinctly!

What more can be said? What more can be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

I'm not saying so much any more, except just some flapping here. On-wiki, I'm doing. Action research. Long-term project. I'll respond more to Somey. Thanks, Joy.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Actually, I think the tl;dr thing might have contributed to their annoyance with him, and made them a little quicker to click that ban-button.

Not "might," did. I've seen other editors, especially experts in their fields, banned for this, again and again. People with little to say have great difficulty understanding why someone else might have a lot to say. The dislike of lengthy discussion makes sense in face-to-face meetings, I can handle someone speaking, most of the time, for about five minutes, not much longer. But in writing? Where one can simply ignore it if it's not interesting? This was a conundrum I ran into on the [[w:W.E.L.L]] in the mid 1980s. It made a little sense when we were using 300 baud modems!

That's not to say they wouldn't have gotten around to it sooner or later, of course... Anyway, if I understand this correctly in spite of the enormous volume of verbiage involved, Mr. Abd's main point here seems to be that "self-reverting" under IP addresses doesn't help once a few admins have decided you're persona non grata - they're more concerned with maintaining the fiction that bans are actually meaningful. And yes, we did know that, we've known that for years, but Mr. Abd's point about self-reverting not helping is probably worth noting, nevertheless.

There is a reason for making the point. It teases out the protective function of banning and blocking from the punitive and censorship function. Self-reverted edits do not require enforcement, they are self-enforcing of bans, to use this sensibly, the editor must (1) explicitly recognize the ban, and (2) make positive edits, or he'll find himself spinning his wheels for no gain. If the editor errs and makes an actual bad edit, no problem. It's been reverted already. Just leave it alone! Or drop the editor a note. Big deal!

But those who really want to exclude anything from the editor, good or bad, are enraged by self-reversion.

The well-meaning among those opposed to self-reversion haven't thought it through. Self-reversion is far less disruptive, wastes far less time, than the usual approach to ban enforcement. All self-reversion is, is a possible exception to automatic block of IP or banned editor making edits under ban. It's like certain other self-reversions: if an editor makes an uncivil comment, for example, and makes a quick self-reversion, it's much less likely to result in a sanction. (If an editor repeats this, though, it will start to look like the editor is abusing self-reversion.) Highly contentious or controversial edits, under BRD, are not uncommonly self-reverted, pending discussion. 3RR violation is fixed by self-reversion, etc.

Somey, "doesn't work" is correct on Wikipedia, short-term. That is, positive contributions will be punished. Long-term, it remains to be seen, it has not been tested. What this will do, long-term, if I'm correct -- we don't need experimentation if we already know! -- is to expose, in a very easily documentable way, that might punch through the noise, how the core is abusive and punitive, not actually working for better content, but for personal psychological satisfaction, in ways that harm the project and the community.

I have no idea of the end of this, or, more accurately, no clear idea. I do have intuitions, and they are often right, or useful.

Abd, all I would ask is that you avoid making any of those lame-o auto-generated text-to-cartoon videos about your situation, unless you're willing to make a real effort to keep the dialogue to a minimum.

I'm not at all ready for something like that.

Look, to get ArbComm to reprimand JzG, I had to have crystal-clear evidence, and those who followed that might have noticed how it also took an arbitrator who took an interest and simply duplicated my evidence with a 'bot. That sequence, all by itself, demonstrated the dysfunction. Somey, you are right. In that case an arb took an interest, and independently developed the same evidence. In fact, that should not have been necessary, since it was the same evidence, and verifiable evidence doesn't depend on who collected it, as long as it's verified. The claim was made of cherry-picking, but no evidence of cherry-picking was shown, because I hadn't cherry-picked. My evidence consisted of *complete* records of his editing of cold-fusion related topics, to show his involvement. It was really open-and-shut.

With the next arbitration, it was *really complicated.* In order to get ArbComm to recognize the issue, I had to violate a basic principle: respect for an administrator warning. I had to defy WMC's illegitimate self-declared ban. When he blocked me during the case, for nothing but violating his ban, his say-so, that was something they could not ignore. So he lost his bit. Even though he'd threatened to block, a threat, also during the case, they could just dismiss, "Aw, he was just blowing off steam!"

I do understand how these people work and think. They punish for jaywalking by those they don't like, and ignore assault from those they do like.

Anyone who really cares about the encyclopedic project, as a human project, about "free knowledge," should understand that, as Thekohser says, "Wikipedia is evil."

[Text]

You have been banned?

And if you weren't banned, would something change about your ability to criticize, make people angry, and disrupt things over there?

Can you make a short account about why they don't want you?

[Abd]

You have been banned?

And if you weren't banned, would something change about your ability to criticize, make people angry, and disrupt things over there?

Can you make a short account about why they don't want you?

Well, I haven't been "banned" yet. Just indef blocked and my Talk page access cut off so I can't put up an unblock template. Not that it matters.

Short account? How short? I could probably make it any length. What do you want to read?

I can say what it wasn't for. It wasn't for disrupting things over there.

It was for making people angry, and for criticizing, sure. The making angry was mostly two years ago, though, not recent, not ongoing, except that I brought attention to it, by seeking clarification from ArbComm on my newer ban, and explaining the ban circumstances.

Any questions?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Abd]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

[melloden]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

[Abd]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

Which one?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

She's great!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Oh, sorry, you were asking Abd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)