CKatz, Doing his job on the highway patrol Options

[Peter Damian]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia. He is trying to make the case to admin Ckatz that "The Logic Museum is scholarly work (kindly hosted by Wikipedia Review), of exceptional quality and utility to Wikipedia ... and shouldn't be treated any differently from any other website which provides scholarly work."

Haha. I predict this will get nowhere with the likes of robotic crazy patrollers like Katz. Look at the most recent complaint against Katz:

I will explain this only once: do not delete the information I post. Edit the information that you understand. You removed a link from an article written by Richard Posner on the Richard Posner's Wikipage, you removed a link to book summary written by Marco Iacoboni on the mirror neurons on the page of Mirror Neurons in Wiki. Please, be clever and intelligent: the fact that I contribute with links is not that I am a SPAM! Before you think like a robot, think like a human. Ask yourself: "Is the provided link valuable, how related to the topic it is, and what is its quality?" These are basic questions an editor should ask before crippling the text... I have no time to repair the mess you created, but take a note! It seems that you don't understand the subjects you edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.198.186 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=477475894

I looked at one of the links the IP is complaining about. Katz removed it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=476511770 with the comment reverting edits by IP whose only contributions are to add links to the MR site. Mate, that is the Montreal Review, one look at which http://www.themontrealreview.com tells you it is a critical review site, authentic, peer reviewed, high quality etc. The link was to an article by Richard Posner, currently unavailable on Wikipedia http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-...hard-Posner.php. Posner is wholly notable - the link was in the Wikipedia article about him. The Montreal Review is as respectable a publication as you could get. Katz simply doesn't understand this.

Vandenberg may get somewhere with this, and get the links replaced. But in no way is he addressing the root problem, which is uneducated and illiterate administrators like Katz who are now running the show. Katz will not be punished in any way. Indeed, he is esteemed and respected on Wikipedia for his vandal fighting and his 'contributions to Wikipedia articles' of which he boasts 58,000 contributions (mainly removal of what he thinks is 'spam' links, such as to the Montreal Review, or (cough) the Logic Museum).

I predict Vandenberg will do nothing about this. The dwindling number of 'good guys' on Wikipedia are no match for the likes of the highway patrollers with their shiny badges

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 18th February 2012, 10:42am

[lilburne]

I looked at one of the links the IP is complaining about. Katz removed it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=476511770 with the comment reverting edits by IP whose only contributions are to add links to the MR site. Mate, that is the Montreal Review, one look at which http://www.themontrealreview.com tells you it is a critical review site, authentic, peer reviewed, high quality etc. The link was to an article by Richard Posner, currently unavailable on Wikipedia http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-...hard-Posner.php. Posner is wholly notable - the link was in the Wikipedia article about him. The Montreal Review is as respectable a publication as you could get. Katz simply doesn't understand this.

A few years ago I added links to wikipedia from my site. Yes I was ignorant and naive back then. Now I do believe that I've purged them all.

[tarantino]

A few years ago I added links to wikipedia from my site. Yes I was ignorant and naive back then. Now I do believe that I've purged them all.

Years ago, Russavia added several links to his perfume business, and they're still there today. It probably depends on who you know or how sneaky you are whether they are deleted or not.

For more info on this business, see their aboutus wiki page and whois results.

[EricBarbour]

Years ago, Russavia added several links to his perfume business, and they're still there today. It probably depends on who you know or how sneaky you are whether they are deleted or not.

And here he is, sockpuppeting on a forum to rave about his own business.....

[lilburne]

A few years ago I added links to wikipedia from my site. Yes I was ignorant and naive back then. Now I do believe that I've purged them all.

Years ago, Russavia added several links to his perfume business, and they're still there today. It probably depends on who you know or how sneaky you are whether they are deleted or not.

Ah I can see how that could read the wrong way. I'v enever added links to WP that go top my site.

What I meant is that years ago, before I realised the awfulness of wikipedia articles, I edited my site to link to wikipedia articles, as of now I don't believe my site has any links that go to wikipedia, they all go elsewhere.

[tarantino]

A few years ago I added links to wikipedia from my site. Yes I was ignorant and naive back then. Now I do believe that I've purged them all.

Years ago, Russavia added several links to his perfume business, and they're still there today. It probably depends on who you know or how sneaky you are whether they are deleted or not.

Ah I can see how that could read the wrong way. I'v enever added links to WP that go top my site.

What I meant is that years ago, before I realised the awfulness of wikipedia articles, I edited my site to link to wikipedia articles, as of now I don't believe my site has any links that go to wikipedia, they all go elsewhere.

Whoops, my mistake. I misread you.

[jd turk]

Nothing further to add, other than to throw out mad props for the thread title.

[SB_Johnny]

I predict Vandenberg will do nothing about this. The dwindling number of 'good guys' on Wikipedia are no match for the likes of the highway patrollers with their shiny badges

Well, he is "doing something" in the sense that wikipedians can be said to be "doing something", it's just that he's unlikely to be successful. CKatz and those like him will prevail because they apparently have unlimited amounts of time to apply rule by rote, and since they're always consistent (hah!), they're beyond reproach.

Ah I can see how that could read the wrong way. I'v enever added links to WP that go top my site.

What I meant is that years ago, before I realised the awfulness of wikipedia articles, I edited my site to link to wikipedia articles, as of now I don't believe my site has any links that go to wikipedia, they all go elsewhere.

Non sequiturs can get you in trouble around here.

[thekohser]

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website, which makes the accusation of "spammer" all the easier to apply. At least I gave up years ago even bothering to suggest links to Wikipedia Review.

[Peter Damian]

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website

Not even that is true http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163190184

[thekohser]

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website

Not even that is true http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163190184

Sigh... Edward, the fact that others have put links to your site doesn't dismiss the (apparent) fact that you were putting in links to your site, too. Were the several diffs that CKatz pointed to *not* your doing?

[Peter Damian]

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website

Not even that is true http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163190184

Sigh... Edward, the fact that others have put links to your site doesn't dismiss the (apparent) fact that you were putting in links to your site, too. Were the several diffs that CKatz pointed to *not* your doing?

Those links were inserted by someone called ‘Johnny the Vandal’ who is entirely unrelated to my account and who is a regular contributor at WR, I believe. In any case he is merely re-inserting links that have been there for years. Vandenberg concedes this, by the way.

This confuses the issue of whether it is OK to insert links to your own site in the first place. I believe it’s Ok if that is the only place where the material is available, and if it is genuinely useful (as Vandenberg also concedes).

The one case where the material is available elsewhere is Ockham’s Summa Logicae, which I worked extensively on, correcting Latin spelling, re-scanning and so on. Someone then copied this material from the Logic Museum onto Wikisource, deleted the link on the Wikipedia article, and replaced it with a link to Wikisource.

I think Logic Museum wins the moral case hands down. However, Wikipedians point to the public domain argument. I am simply making corrections to a 700 year old text for which there is no copyright, the author having died around 1347, so tough. The issue is too complicated for Mr Ckatz in any case.

[Zoloft]

From the vantage point of the Wikipediot, it's fairly clear that Edward has attempted to put into Wikipedia links to his own website

Not even that is true http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163190184

Sigh... Edward, the fact that others have put links to your site doesn't dismiss the (apparent) fact that you were putting in links to your site, too. Were the several diffs that CKatz pointed to *not* your doing?

Those links were inserted by someone called ‘Johnny the Vandal’ who is entirely unrelated to my account and who is a regular contributor at WR, I believe. In any case he is merely re-inserting links that have been there for years. Vandenberg concedes this, by the way.

This confuses the issue of whether it is OK to insert links to your own site in the first place. I believe it’s Ok if that is the only place where the material is available, and if it is genuinely useful (as Vandenberg also concedes).

The one case where the material is available elsewhere is Ockham’s Summa Logicae, which I worked extensively on, correcting Latin spelling, re-scanning and so on. Someone then copied this material from the Logic Museum onto Wikisource, deleted the link on the Wikipedia article, and replaced it with a link to Wikisource.

I think Logic Museum wins the moral case hands down. However, Wikipedians point to the public domain argument. I am simply making corrections to a 700 year old text for which there is no copyright, the author having died around 1347, so tough. The issue is too complicated for Mr Ckatz in any case.

I just searched for Ockham and Summa Logicae on Wikisource, and came up dry.

Link.

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Mon 20th February 2012, 10:19am

[Peter Damian]

I just searched for Ockham and Summa Logicae on Wikisource, and came up dry.

Link.

Correct. The wikisource version is here http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...I_:_De_terminis , the corresponding LM version is here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Oc..._Logicae/Book_I . Let’s look at the differences and see whether Wikipedia ought to be linking to the Wikisource version, or the LM version.

1. the first thing you notice is that the LM version is split up into the 77 chapters of book I. The Wikisource version by contrast is a single big unmanageable file.

2. The LM version also has sub section headings to give the reader an overall sense of the navigation of this enormous work.

3. Looking a level above http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae the LM version has precise details of which edition the text is taken from, without which the text is useless for serious scholarly purposes.

4. Looking a level below to chapter 10 http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Oc...ok_I/Chapter_10 , you notice immediately there is a parallel English translation (mine) for the 99.99% of English readers who won’t understand medieval Latin

5. Notice also that because the work is broken up, it is possible to link to parts of this large work. It is a basic principle of LM that every source is ‘anchored’ using some form of indexing, and wherever possible the method used (such as Bekker number) before the advent of computing. This means that if you are reading a 19th century work about Aristotle and a reference is given, you will be able to find it in LM. Wikisource has no such concept, AFAICS

6. To find the corresponding chapter in Wikisource, go to their page http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...I_:_De_terminis, and do a control-F search on “1.10”.

7. The first difference you notice is the spelling difference. LM has “Postquam de nominibus concretis”, Wikisource has “Postquam de nomiuibus concretis”. This is because the original scan had many OCR-related spelling mistakes. Most of these have been corrected by hand, as there is still no good Latin spell-checker built yet. Since Wikipedians don’t understand any kind of spelling check other than by a ‘bot’, the Wikisource version is riddled with all kinds of errors.

8. You also notice another difference – LM has “de alia divisione nominum”, WS has “de alia diuisione nominum”. This is not a spelling error, but reflects one of the many recognised differences in Latin spelling. Latin is thousands of years old and there are many variants of the standard vocabulary. LM has deliberately adopted a standardised spelling, consistent with the major critical editions, so that a Google search using that spelling will be consistent. Wikisource has no consistent spelling standard, AFAICS.

9. Finally, there are notes http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Oc..._10#cite_note-1 in the LM version, whereas there is no help at all in the WS one.

So, all in all, which version should Wikipedia be linking to? Answer, the wikisource version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=477868719 . The proprietor of the site is a wicked banned user who has used sockpuppets. “If the material is so valuable, upload it to Wikisource”. So speaks an administrator who has over 80,000 edits, in particular has contributed to many Dr Who articles.

[thekohser]

Those links were inserted by someone called ‘Johnny the Vandal’ who is entirely unrelated to my account and who is a regular contributor at WR, I believe. In any case he is merely re-inserting links that have been there for years. Vandenberg concedes this, by the way.

Ah, then my apologies for having taken the word of "CKatz", a serial defamer who impugned you on Wikipedia, at face value. I really should have known better.

[Peter Damian]

The thread continues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...logicmuseum.com and descends to deeper levels of absurdity.

I loved this

... there is not much spamming in Medieval Latin these days. Blacklisting valuable resources on the basis of personal animosities is an abuse of the spam blacklist. --JN466 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you HRIP 7.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 25th February 2012, 8:31am

[EricBarbour]

If anyone cared, they'd do something about Ckatz. He's completely off-base, not to mention obsessed.

Perhaps this "discussion" should be saved in the private area, as a case study of a crazed Wikifan
fighting a losing battle, as foolishly as he possibly could. Because I would not put it past Ckatz to
get it all revdeleted after everyone has "forgotten".

[Selina]

[Peter Damian]

Actually the one crazy thing missing from that discussion is that none of the administrators seem to have spotted that many of the objectors to the blacklist are coming from Wikipedia Review. Why has nobody objected about offsite canvassing in support of links to medieval Latin? Absurd, and get in there now, defenders of the Wiki.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 25th February 2012, 1:36pm

[lilburne]

Meanwhile they can be made to look stupid by gathering together a group of Academics, adding in the valid links and letting them experience that WTF moment as they get rejected.