Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[Abd]

The stupid is strong in this one.

My, my, revert warring based on an error. Oops!

Yeah, Bkonrad failed to notice the question mark after the painter's name.

This is the kind of idiocy that editors fall into when they rely exclusively on primary sources.

When the question mark is pointed out, Bkonrad then attempts to explain it away. He gets even stupider. He thinks a question mark means "assumed to be true." No, no question mark means that! A question mark means there is some question, eh. Question mark. Get it? Apparently he doesn't.

Discussion by revert. Just going back and forth, no attempt to really understand the issue. He's assuming he's right and that the newbie (the claimed expert, or seriously interested person who consulted an expert) and Bali ultimate are wrong. He's not merely allowing questionable material in the article, he's *insisting* on it, as if it would be an emergency to temporarily allow the image to be removed. There are other images claimed to be self-portraits of Romney.

The mention of the controversy in the caption, though, is a bad idea. That's not the way to report a controversy.

[dogbiscuit]

The trouble with ABD's suggestion that experts could be adopted into Wikipedia is that Wikipedian rationality is now so far departed from the real world that you cannot engage in meaningful conversation about the topic.

We can accept that self-proclaimed experts are little better to a serious reference work than any other body editing - indeed it becomes clear that many Wikipedians are just that and we see the problems they cause.

The problem for Wikipedia, as ABD rightly asserts is that when someone who can reasonably be taken to know a thing or two about a subject, Wikipedians cannot accept that the real world criteria for assessing that expertise. Just a few quotes ago, we had the assertion that it was a total irrelevance as to who people were in the real world, all that matters is their Wiki-persona. If Wikipedia were to allow experts, then they would either have to erect massive Chinese Walls to allow some system of verification and yet retain the golden chalice of anonymity (because otherwise there would be an "unfair" advantage in revealing your identity on Wiki and boring little twats wouldn't get heard) or they would have to accept that the real world exists populated with human beings Who Know Things not just web pages or (God forbid) books. Then it still would not be fair, because an expert could trump your "everybody knows" edit.

[Abd]

The two alleged errors here are different in kind, as to our topic of interest here, Wikipedia and Wikipedia process. The fly images, sure, an "honest mistake." I didn't see any example of someone revert warring there, and the problem could simply be that the original uploader wasn't paying attention. There was some notice of the problem by a user with a trolling username, which might have caused it to be deprecated, or maybe it just escaped attention, that happens a lot. I'd fix it if I had time. This isn't affecting the encyclopedia, that was fixed long ago, apparently, it's just a misleading label on Commons that could cause more confusion down the line.

The alleged Romney "self-portrait," however, has triggered a revert war, for no good purpose. If it's questionable, and it obviously is questionable, then it should not be featured in the article, unless the controversy or issue is covered by reliable secondary source. But the Wikipediots commonly use primary sources when it serves them, and maybe that's okay, when it's not controversial. It has obviously become so among editors.

I have no idea what the real situation is here, but it's quite likely that the new editor and the expert allegedly consulted do know, and they should be asked, for backstory on Talk, if nothing else, and for possible annotation of the file. And maybe something encyclopedic will be developed out of that.

Instead we have a lazy Wikipedian demanding that the article be his way. 3RR, in a little over 24 hours. Obviously he cares a great deal, about being right. 1RR, my view, is bad enough, I only did even 1RR when I was expecting that it would be accepted, and more than that when I was already backed by consensus, and usually that wouldn't approach 3RR violation. There might have been a couple exceptions in my entire Wikipedia career, where I was flummoxed by some totally stupid, senseless reverts and kept thinking that sanity would prevail. Bad Idea. There are good reasons to back off and discuss, no matter how stupid it seems.

Meanwhile, a dedicated revert warrior, skilled at using RfPP to nail down his edits for a while, who deliberately did it to stir up trouble, suffered few or no sanctions for a long time, and is still making a great deal of trouble. Hipocrite. Interesting user name, eh?

[thekohser]

One thing I'm absolutely certain of, had I not been looking one last time at the MoodBar feed (thanks to having written about it for Examiner), Orrom's plight likely would not have been noticed by anyone with the gumption to even discuss the nature of the portrait.

How many of the other 15,000 MoodBar comments over the past 6 months that reported trouble with Wikipedia went ignored?

[DanMurphy]

One thing I'm absolutely certain of, had I not been looking one last time at the MoodBar feed (thanks to having written about it for Examiner), Orrom's plight likely would not have been noticed by anyone with the gumption to even discuss the nature of the portrait.

How many of the other 15,000 MoodBar comments over the past 6 months that reported trouble with Wikipedia went ignored?

Mr. Orrom is clearly more qualified to identify a Romney painting than "lol19" or whatever anonymous wikipedia editor uploaded the file. The reverter of my edit demonstrated he should be nowhere near a project dedicated to disseminating knowledge. And yes, the strange alchemy by which lol19s assertion about the provenance of a painting becomes "fact" and attempts to correct it from outside the bubble becomes unacceptable "original research" lies at the heart of the game. Who are these disruptive heathen outsiders meddling with the status quo!?

[Abd]

Ouch! Really, this is much longer than I'd like, and no time to boil it down. Please skip this if allergic to Abd's Walls-o-Text. Or read it or skim it if you like. Please do *not* quote the whole damn thing with tl;dr at the end. If it's too long, it's even more than too long in such a quoting post. I already assume that many or most people won't read my stuff. But some do.

The trouble with ABD's suggestion that experts could be adopted into Wikipedia is that Wikipedian rationality is now so far departed from the real world that you cannot engage in meaningful conversation about the topic.

Well, the suggestion was made long ago. Maybe it was still too late, but the suggestion would stand for anyone considering developing better structure, whether for Wikipedia or for a replacement. It's actually like what print encyclopedias do: they respect experts, but actual editorial decisions are made by the publisher. Sometimes the publisher has turned over all editorial decision-making to an expert, for some area of the project. Or so it might seem. In fact, there would always be the possibility of appeal to the publisher or managing editor or to a board.

We can accept that self-proclaimed experts are little better to a serious reference work than any other body editing - indeed it becomes clear that many Wikipedians are just that and we see the problems they cause.

I'm suggesting that there be a cost to claiming to be an expert. And a benefit. The benefit would be as should exist with any COI editor. Note: COI editors are almost always far more expert on the topic where they have a conflict than are general editors. That's part of the problem! It's true for POV-pushers in general, they tend to know more about the topic.

So, okay, let them know more, and let them express what they know, in the form of advice,but then treat them as COI. Welcome their (alleged) expertise, even encourage it, but then restrict how they can express it. Not through revert warring, not through incivility, not through article ownership. I was not, in fact, suggesting that COI editors (experts or not) be given *control* or the ability to assert control or ownership of articles. The opposite!

You may be right that it's impossible, because "Wikipedian rationality" is so far gone. So what? Impossible on Wikipedia, that is. If Wikipedia is indeed frozen into its dysfunction, sooner or later, it will be replaced, that's the natural order. But with what? What would be better?

The problem for Wikipedia, as ABD rightly asserts is that when someone who can reasonably be taken to know a thing or two about a subject, Wikipedians cannot accept that the real world criteria for assessing that expertise.

Garbled. I think it means that Wikipedia has no means of assessing the expertise. Hence I was proposing to make assessing it irrelevant. Let expertise demonstrate itself, as an ability to explain, to set up conditions for verifiability.

Experts also like to discuss their topic, typically. So send them to Wikiversity, where they could actually do this. And consult experts (self-identified or otherwise) about the article. And verify what they claim. Where there are conflicting experts, keep them from insulting each other, keep them civil, but set up process where discussions are *completed*. That takes facilitation. "Conflicting experts" are unlikely to be able to do it by themselves, they will tend to be highly attached to their positions. And that happens whether they are real experts or merely self-deluded. Real experts may disagree very strongly!

Just a few quotes ago, we had the assertion that it was a total irrelevance as to who people were in the real world, all that matters is their Wiki-persona.

I've never argued for that. I do think that, under some conditions, anonymity may be allowed, but I'm actually uncomfortable with a claim of expertise by someone anonymous. It's possible that in a mature system, non-anonymous and anonymous self-proclaimed experts would be treated differently. There should definitely be more protection for open experts with some kind of verifiable evidence of expertise, i.e., credentials, publications, official recognition, etc.

If the system is going to give any kind of authority to experts, beyond the right to suggest sources and review their implications, then it becomes essential that they be identified and credentialled. Some people may have few credentials, some experts are self-taught, etc., so credentials aren't everything. But they can be important.

If Wikipedia were to allow experts, then they would either have to erect massive Chinese Walls to allow some system of verification and yet retain the golden chalice of anonymity (because otherwise there would be an "unfair" advantage in revealing your identity on Wiki and boring little twats wouldn't get heard) or they would have to accept that the real world exists populated with human beings Who Know Things not just web pages or (God forbid) books. Then it still would not be fair, because an expert could trump your "everybody knows" edit.

You've missed the point. If Wikipedia routinely treated experts as being COI, they would then follow sensible COI rules, which are actually quite decent as written. Anonymity is a separate issue. I've seen editing from people who were obviously expert on cold fusion, and I've seen them blocked for this reason! I.e., because they presented information that had been provided previously by a blocked editor, who was also an expert, they were assumed to be socks. Even if the IP made no sense at all, even if it was obviously not the blocked editor. JzG was known for doing this.

It's the duck test, really. It assumes that a particular point of view is characteristic of an individual; JzG really believed this, and it might sometimes be true, but it obviously breaks down when the "particular point of view" is what is found in recent peer-reviewed literature. It's common knowledge, among the knowledgeable. Or maybe that point of view is a widespread, common error. Both would produce this apparent quacking, to someone who is firmly convinced that no sane person could express such.... only "believers" and "POV-pushers."

The problems with COI editors happen from two directions: first, they aren't identified, sometimes, yet act with COI bias. Second, even if they follow COI guidelines, they may be blocked based on "POV-pushing," which shouldn't ever be an offense at all. Tendentious argument, maybe, it depends on how and where!

All that, really, would be a matter for good facilitation, but Wikipedia never developed a respect for the need for this. It never developed standard procedures that would have lengthy discussions as subpages, only seen by those specifically interested, and sometimes linked from higher level discussions (i.e., that involve more users).

Basically, Wikipedia process was never actually designed, it just grew in place. Things that worked, reasonably well, when the scale was small, were simply kept long beyond their time. AN/I is completely insane, the editor who created it later concluded that. I've described what functional AN/I process would look like. You would *never* have lengthy discussions there, the purpose should only be to bring administrative attention to a situation, the situation would be discussed elsewhere. I've made the analogy with 911. There is no discussion in a 911 emergency call. An officer is despatched, and the investigation is by that officer. Executive decisions are never made on the 911 line. They are made, ad hoc, by investigating officers, and these results are never -- in theory -- punitive. Punishment or enduring sanction is never decided by the investigating officers, either, that's for an independent system.

So, imagine: you think there is something needing immediate admin attention. So you file a report on AN/I, which is only watched, for the most part, by administrators who are available to investigate and act. An admin responds, very quickly, with boilerplate, taking the case and affirming lack of conflict of interest and prejudgment, and links to a discussion started on the admin's own Talk page, which might be linked to a user subpage if it starts to become lengthy. The admin asks for evidence, if it's needed, and reviews it, reviews arguments, and makes a decision, implementing it if appropriate. Someone disagreeing with the decision can ask the administrator and attempt to negotiate a satisfactory solution. When the admin declines further review, and/or someone wants it, there is then an administrative review process.

Administrators are not expected to be perfect, or should not be, and a substantial number of later reversals would be fine, as long as it wasn't the norm. Recusal policies would become more detailed and explicit, so admins would know when they are expected to recuse, absent emergency. If they declare an emergency, it better really be one!

That's the idea, anyway. Nobody would ever be banned through an AN/I discussion, though there might be some indef blocks issued from an administrative investigation.

Here is why AN/I should never be used for that: beyond active administrators, only serious troublemakers and a few people with lots of time watch AN/I. I'd have it on my watchlist for a while because I'd comment on something, but it was always way too much traffic to keep there. It should be what it was originally intended to be, a place to gain neutral administrative attention. Not to hold a massive and highly contentious debate, creating enormous traffic, causing massive waste of time at best.

And then, when decisions are made based on "consensus" there, the making of decisions heavily influenced by participation bias. I saw this happen on meta, I was effectively banned there, through a discussion on the administrative requests page, and it wasn't clear what the offense was, except that I'd obviously come to be disliked by quite a few administrators. But one of the things I'd done was to discuss block requests there, and one of the admins who wanted me gone had objected to my discussion since that was a page for administrative requests, and I wasn't an adminstrator.

He'd acknowledge that this wasn't a place to decide bans based on general community input! Yet he was happy to decide what were effective ban decision there. Quickly. Michaelsuarez noticed, and objected, but, basically, there are way too few general community members who are willing to investigate and review administrative decisions. Further, if you do so, and if your comments are considered critical, you can then be blocked for disruption. That block request was by a steward, and I'd not been warned. I was suprrised, because I'd not been particularly critical of that steward. I began to suspect that his English was poor, that he literally didn't understand what I was writing, because his evidence absolutely made no sense. But those admins voting to block or ban, they didn't read the evidence, they didn't need evidence, they already knew what their position was. People like Raul654, for example.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Mr. Orrom is clearly more qualified to identify a Romney painting than "lol19" or whatever anonymous wikipedia editor uploaded the file. The reverter of my edit demonstrated he should be nowhere near a project dedicated to disseminating knowledge. And yes, the strange alchemy by which lol19s assertion about the provenance of a painting becomes "fact" and attempts to correct it from outside the bubble becomes unacceptable "original research" lies at the heart of the game. Who are these disruptive heathen outsiders meddling with the status quo!?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...l%27artiste.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162882270

"Guil2027" uploaded the image, and "Wetman" inserted it into the article.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 3rd February 2012, 8:01pm

[lilburne]

The two alleged errors here are different in kind, as to our topic of interest here, Wikipedia and Wikipedia process. The fly images, sure, an "honest mistake." I didn't see any example of someone revert warring there, and the problem could simply be that the original uploader wasn't paying attention. There was some notice of the problem by a user with a trolling username, which might have caused it to be deprecated, or maybe it just escaped attention, that happens a lot. I'd fix it if I had time. This isn't affecting the encyclopedia, that was fixed long ago, apparently, it's just a misleading label on Commons that could cause more confusion down the line.

Oy! My user name there is not trolling at all. It is a valid pseudonym for keeping track of images released under the BY-SA license rather than the BY-NC license. That some arsehole didn't like it on en.wp isn't my problem. Rather it is the problem of those that keep coming to my flickr account asking for changes in licenses from NC to SA.

Also its only in the last few months year that the change was made on the wiki, for 2 years they had that stupid photo on the wrong page. Some one that isn't familiar with organisms or can't damn well check the keys shouldn't be renaming stuff.

[lilburne]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...l%27artiste.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162882270

"Guil2027" uploaded the image, and "Wetman" inserted it into the article.

See none of the buggers have a clue what any of it means. They can't even cut and paste without ballsing it up.

while Calixtus II busied himself ineffectively with attempting a reconciliation between the brothers Henry I of England (1100–35) and Robert, duke of Normandy (1087–1106),
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=39321688

that crap lasted more than 5.5 years.

[SB_Johnny]

Just out of curiosity, I did some random sampling of Fae's deletion logs (to see what he was deleting), and there wasn't anything wrong there. One thing that stuck out, however, is that he does a lot of "revdeletions" of teenage-ish homophobic vandalism (i.e., vandal edits that involve inserting "<male person's full name> loves to suck cock" into random articles, and so on). I rolled back plenty of edits like that back in the day, but I wasn't aware that revdelete was used that way now (we didn't have it back when I did "RC patrolling").

The pattern was distinctive enough to give me the impression that the guy really does see himself living in a hostile and homophobic world, which might explain why he's so quick to conclude that people who oppose him are homophobic. In turn, that might explain why he always seems to jump into "fight or flight" mode when he's confronted.

Not that this necessarily excuses the rather shady way he does things, but maybe he deserves some slack when it comes to making assumptions about his motivations.

[thekohser]

...maybe he deserves some slack...

You mean when he responds to evidence of wrongdoing by lying some more (as in the Google Maps coastline case), we should extend him a break?

[EricBarbour]

Just out of curiosity, I did some random sampling of Fae's deletion logs (to see what he was deleting), and there wasn't anything wrong there. One thing that stuck out, however, is that he does a lot of "revdeletions" of teenage-ish homophobic vandalism (i.e., vandal edits that involve inserting "<male person's full name> loves to suck cock" into random articles, and so on). I rolled back plenty of edits like that back in the day, but I wasn't aware that revdelete was used that way now (we didn't have it back when I did "RC patrolling").

It's a routine practice by patrollers now. They're all slowly learning the tricks of the worst ones.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Ha! There is a photograph of a hoverfly on WP which the photographer correctly labelled as Leucozona glaucia, but someone argued that it was L. laternaria and got the damn fool ChristianBier to change the file name etc. So for two years the WP page had the wrong image, and even today Commons has the file miss identified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Leu..._laternaria.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=41555090

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t..._laternaria.jpg

Fixed.

[SB_Johnny]

...maybe he deserves some slack...

You mean when he responds to evidence of wrongdoing by lying some more (as in the Google Maps coastline case), we should extend him a break?

I meant about the "homophobic conspiracy" stuff. Up until now I thought that was purely smokescreen, but maybe it's only partly smokescreen.

[Vigilant]

...maybe he deserves some slack...

You mean when he responds to evidence of wrongdoing by lying some more (as in the Google Maps coastline case), we should extend him a break?

I meant about the "homophobic conspiracy" stuff. Up until now I thought that was purely smokescreen, but maybe it's only partly smokescreen.

It's a smokescreen. Permission to do anything he wants.

Some turd makes a nasty comment online and "OMG Persecution!"

He's a stereotypical drama queen looking to play the time honored victim card.

Just look at what he deems a 'threat'. 'Someone might send my own pictures to my husband.' Look at the way he hides behind that.

No slack for you!

[carbuncle]

Just out of curiosity, I did some random sampling of Fae's deletion logs (to see what he was deleting), and there wasn't anything wrong there. One thing that stuck out, however, is that he does a lot of "revdeletions" of teenage-ish homophobic vandalism (i.e., vandal edits that involve inserting "<male person's full name> loves to suck cock" into random articles, and so on). I rolled back plenty of edits like that back in the day, but I wasn't aware that revdelete was used that way now (we didn't have it back when I did "RC patrolling").

It's a routine practice by patrollers now. They're all slowly learning the tricks of the worst ones.

Recall that one of the issues with Ash and Benjiboi was that lists of awards for gay porn performers were pointing at the wrong articles. If John Smith won an award, they would happily type in [[John Smith]] thus linking it to the biography of some other John Smith who was now listed on one of the most popular websites in the world as an award-winning gay porn performer. They didn't see this as a serious problem.

Cut to 2012, that same person is now removing playground taunts from a place that is pretty much invisible to the general public. Selectively. I don't know how common this is. After a discussion on ANI where I requested permanent semi-protection of List of serial killers (or it might have been List of HIV-positive people), someone went through and revdeleted all the bogus additions from history. Sadly, even that example didn't make people take any notice of the problem.

Hey, did you know this?

In 2011 Veteren cum guzzler John Jones Recieved no less than five Grabby awards for "best ginger ball fro", "Gayest man on the planet", "most anal pundings" and two awards for best script and best scene in top selling adult film "keep it in the family" in which he co starred with his mother, veteren whore Kate Jones.

When asked if he was looking forward to 2012, John replied "as long as there are cocks to be sucked and turds to be fucked it's all good".

I guess Van Haeften isn't watching that article anymore....

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Sat 4th February 2012, 1:58pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

Hey, did you know this?

In 2011 Veteren cum guzzler John Jones Recieved no less than five Grabby awards for "best ginger ball fro", "Gayest man on the planet", "most anal pundings" and two awards for best script and best scene in top selling adult film "keep it in the family" in which he co starred with his mother, veteren whore Kate Jones.

When asked if he was looking forward to 2012, John replied "as long as there are cocks to be sucked and turds to be fucked it's all good".

I guess Van Haeften isn't watching that article anymore....

For those interested, here's the revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472767817

[Eppur si muove]

I've only just made sense of the Steffans business. Looking at the discussion in Talk:Karrine_Steffans/Archive_2#Blanking_of_contentious_material_from_a_BLP and the article talk page, I see that, shortly before Fae had his self-portraits suppressed, he was happily linking pictures Steffans did not like from WP. Complaining about the mention of his self-portraits here is pure hypocrisy.

[carbuncle]

I've only just made sense of the Steffans business. Looking at the discussion in Talk:Karrine_Steffans/Archive_2#Blanking_of_contentious_material_from_a_BLP and the article talk page, I see that, shortly before Fae had his self-portraits suppressed, he was happily linking pictures Steffans did not like from WP. Complaining about the mention of his self-portraits here is pure hypocrisy.

Well, he was able to cite the New York Daily news gossip section, so I don't see why people were complaining about the sourcing...

Ah, Wikipedia, you never fail me. Vivid Entertainment contains a reference to "Karrine Steffans Superhead", which is linked to her biography. It was put there by an IP who has preened the articles on Vivid and the company founder for years. Articles about porn companies are pretty much created and maintained by paid editors or company employees. I say this without any evidence but long experience on the topic.

[EricBarbour]

It was put there by an IP who has preened the articles on Vivid and the company founder for years. Articles about porn companies are pretty much created and maintained by paid editors or company employees. I say this without any evidence but long experience on the topic.

May I quote you? We haven't done much on paid editing, because most of it appears to be done by IPs in a sort-of sneaky fashion. As sneakily as it is possible to be on WP, anyway. Even making a rough estimate of the amount of it is impossible.

One would think the Wik-Nabobs would do something about this, if they're so opposed to paid editing. But of course, they won't, because they would have to implement changes that would keep THEM from using Wikipedia to defame people.....

Oh, yeah, wanna see a userpage that appears to defame someone, and has been sitting unchanged since June 2009?
Smashcraft.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 5th February 2012, 9:40pm