More idiocy from Fram, Another long term content contributor banned Options

[victim of censorship]

Oh Peter, I don't quite know why I bother... this has all been said before.

That was a lot of work, Lar.

No 'free pass', how dare you.

Go back to your silly rules and policing. You clearly don't care about building a comprehensive reference work. And think hard before you call someone a 'prat'.

Where have I ever said you don't work hard? Where? That's not the point.

"No free pass" means that no amount of hard work, regardless of how extensive, how good, how suitable it is for inclusion, excuses indefinite amounts of prattishness. Good contributions give you some latitude, and there's some sort of trade off, make lots of good contributions and you get more leeway than if you've contributed nothing. But not a blank check.

As for calling your behavior prattish... hey, if the shoe fits ('look at me, I'm blocked, I'm blocked.... block me again, so I can make a big deal about how unfair WP is') wear it.

As for not caring about the project, and the goals, you are so wrong. If I didn't care, I would have quit in frustration long ago. The very real problems the project has drive me mad. It is my (perhaps futile) hope that by staying with it I could effect some small change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I 'don't care'? How dare you.

Go back to your silly prattish behavior and useless posturing. You really don't care about building a comprehensive reference work. And think hard before you accuse others of not caring.

Ass.

When does this Robot's battery run down?

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Fri 29th January 2010, 4:24pm

[A Horse With No Name]

"No free pass" means that no amount of hard work, regardless of how extensive, how good, how suitable it is for inclusion, excuses indefinite amounts of prattishness. Good contributions give you some latitude, and there's some sort of trade off, make lots of good contributions and you get more leeway than if you've contributed nothing. But not a blank check.

It might be helpful if there was some degree of consistency in the distribution of free passes. I can roll off the names of several editors who repeatedly violate policies and are far more prattish than Petey, yet they either receive no reprimand whatsoever or get away with a token warning. (And at least one of those fools appears to be using Wikipedia as a vehicle for staging a nervous breakdown, but we'll leave that for his psychiatrist to sort out.)

I can understand why some admins get pissed off at Petey -- he has talent and they don't. Unable to create anything, those admins like to credit themselves as being the guardians of Wiki-order. However, they wind up like the Keystone Kops, running about with their clubs swinging, trying to enforce order but usually crashing into walls or each other without actually accomplishing anything. They're good for a cheap laugh, but nothing more.

[TungstenCarbide]

Big bad mean encyclopedia doesn't want to let you carry on being a prat while also making some good contributions.

No free passes.

... Peter, if you had just published this stuff on Wikipedia Review and slapped a Google AdSense ad in the middle of it, you may have already earned enough to purchase a foot-long sandwich ...

this sounds like a pretty good deal.

[Kwork]

Oh Peter, I don't quite know why I bother... this has all been said before.

That was a lot of work, Lar.

No 'free pass', how dare you.

Go back to your silly rules and policing. You clearly don't care about building a comprehensive reference work. And think hard before you call someone a 'prat'.

Where have I ever said you don't work hard? Where? That's not the point.

"No free pass" means that no amount of hard work, regardless of how extensive, how good, how suitable it is for inclusion, excuses indefinite amounts of prattishness. Good contributions give you some latitude, and there's some sort of trade off, make lots of good contributions and you get more leeway than if you've contributed nothing. But not a blank check.

As for calling your behavior prattish... hey, if the shoe fits ('look at me, I'm blocked, I'm blocked.... block me again, so I can make a big deal about how unfair WP is') wear it.

As for not caring about the project, and the goals, you are so wrong. If I didn't care, I would have quit in frustration long ago. The very real problems the project has drive me mad. It is my (perhaps futile) hope that by staying with it I could effect some small change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I 'don't care'? How dare you.

Go back to your silly prattish behavior and useless posturing. You really don't care about building a comprehensive reference work. And think hard before you accuse others of not caring.

Ass.

Lar, I am trying to figure out your reply here, but there does not seem to be any actual content beyond the usual condescending attitude you typically fall back to when you have no real point to make. Perhaps we can clarify some WP problems with specifics. I would be quite willing to discuss some of the objections that I have to your administrative behavior, and the of a few other administrators, based, not on attitude, but personal experience. Are you up for that?

[Lar]

"No free pass" means that no amount of hard work, regardless of how extensive, how good, how suitable it is for inclusion, excuses indefinite amounts of prattishness. Good contributions give you some latitude, and there's some sort of trade off, make lots of good contributions and you get more leeway than if you've contributed nothing. But not a blank check.

It might be helpful if there was some degree of consistency in the distribution of free passes. I can roll off the names of several editors who repeatedly violate policies and are far more prattish than Petey, yet they either receive no reprimand whatsoever or get away with a token warning. (And at least one of those fools appears to be using Wikipedia as a vehicle for staging a nervous breakdown, but we'll leave that for his psychiatrist to sort out.)

I can understand why some admins get pissed off at Petey -- he has talent and they don't. Unable to create anything, those admins like to credit themselves as being the guardians of Wiki-order. However, they wind up like the Keystone Kops, running about with their clubs swinging, trying to enforce order but usually crashing into walls or each other without actually accomplishing anything. They're good for a cheap laugh, but nothing more.

Absolutely agree that there is huge inconsistency in the free (or reduced cost) pass distribution... there are some VestedContributors that apparently don't get censured unless Hell Freezes Over (and sometimes not even then). And that sucks. Further, there's a tendency for initial impressions to stick, even if they're invalid. Big problems.

But that doesn't invalidate my point.

[A Horse With No Name]

Big bad mean encyclopedia doesn't want to let you carry on being a prat while also making some good contributions.

No free passes.

... Peter, if you had just published this stuff on Wikipedia Review and slapped a Google AdSense ad in the middle of it, you may have already earned enough to purchase a foot-long sandwich ...

this sounds like a pretty good deal.

Mmmm, I could go for an oyster po' boy -- what's the deal?

[Lar]

Lar, I am trying to figure out your reply here, but there does not seem to be any actual content beyond the usual condescending attitude you typically fall back to when you have no real point to make. Perhaps we can clarify some WP problems with specifics. I would be quite willing to discuss some of the objections that I have to your administrative behavior, and the of a few other administrators, based, not on attitude, but personal experience. Are you up for that?

Perhaps. It depends on whether the relating of your personal experience you refer to will be "actual content" or whether it will be "the usual condescending attitude" that you so often emit.

But not here in any case. At least not in this thread.

[A Horse With No Name]

Absolutely agree that there is huge inconsistency in the free (or reduced cost) pass distribution... there are some VestedContributors that apparently don't get censured unless Hell Freezes Over (and sometimes not even then). And that sucks. Further, there's a tendency for initial impressions to stick, even if they're invalid. Big problems.

But that doesn't invalidate my point.

Actually, it blows your point to smithereens. You cannot have a judicial system (even a Wiki-facsimile) that enforces one level of punishment against certain people and one against another group.

By acknowledging there is a "huge inconsistency," you acknowledge this set-up is a fraud and a farce. No one here needs to argue Petey's case further.

Petey has proved that content is not king on Wikipedia, and that quality work will be rejected without debate in order to maintain a childish "we don't want you in our sandbox" environment.

It is no secret that "banning" doesn't work -- only an account is disabled. If there was a working brain cell circulating among the Arbcom crowd, they would address this fairly obvious failure in the Wikipedia rulebook and come up with a solution that is supportive of Wikipedia's original goals -- goals that put content first and administrative self-importance a very distant second.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Fri 29th January 2010, 5:20pm

[Peter Damian]

As for calling your behavior prattish... hey, if the shoe fits ('look at me, I'm blocked, I'm blocked.... block me again, so I can make a big deal about how unfair WP is') wear it.

If you read my post, and the link, all you see is a polite request to Julian Colton to help. This is your way of characterising the situation, and it is a parody. I would have thought that four months down the line, we could forget the foolishness and move on.

And as horsey says, it really does prove my point that content is not the objective of the present Wikipeida.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 29th January 2010, 5:23pm

[Lar]

Absolutely agree that there is huge inconsistency in the free (or reduced cost) pass distribution... there are some VestedContributors that apparently don't get censured unless Hell Freezes Over (and sometimes not even then). And that sucks. Further, there's a tendency for initial impressions to stick, even if they're invalid. Big problems.

But that doesn't invalidate my point.

Actually, it blows your point to smithereens. You cannot have a judicial system (even a Wiki-facsimile) that enforces one level of punishment against certain people and one against another group.

By acknowledging there is a "huge inconsistency," you acknowledge this set-up is a fraud and a farce. No one here needs to argue Petey's case further.

Petey has proved that content is not king on Wikipedia, and that quality work will be rejected without debate in order to maintain a childish "we don't want you in our sandbox" environment.

It is no secret that "banning" doesn't work -- only an account is disabled. If there was a working brain cell circulating among the Arbcom crowd, they would address this fairly obvious failure in the Wikipedia rulebook and come up with a solution that is supportive of Wikipedia's original goals -- goals that put content first and administrative self-importance a very distant second.

And yet... lots of good content contributors fly under the radar and don't get blocked indefinitely. Some even have strong opinions and manage to voice them.

Sure, banning doesn't work. The system to switch to is "Amazon quality level identity validation". But that's not going to happen. So then what?

[dogbiscuit]

Actually, it blows your point to smithereens. You cannot have a judicial system (even a Wiki-facsimile) that enforces one level of punishment against certain people and one against another group.

By acknowledging there is a "huge inconsistency," you acknowledge this set-up is a fraud and a farce. No one here needs to argue Petey's case further.

Petey has proved that content is not king on Wikipedia, and that quality work will be rejected without debate in order to maintain a childish "we don't want you in our sandbox" environment.

I understand exactly the point Lar is making and he is right that Peter carrying on posting when it has been made entirely obvious that he is not welcome - and then complaining has all the hallmarks of promoting banging your head against a brick wall as a worthy pass time.

Where I think the massive fail is that if Peter does not mention his activities, the articles go unnoticed, so it would tend to suggest that Peter, when writing articles, is not disruptive. That is the stupidity of the project, that Teh Community is so dysfunctional that it cannot differentiate between the behaviour that brought Peter into disrepute within the project (regardless of the rights and wrongs of that) and the other constructive behaviour. In the real world, the police in the UK know to leave people alone who are not causing any problems, even if they are being tweaked on the nose, as they don't like looking stupid and they don't like the paperwork.

When you follow that logic through, aside from being amazed at Peter's tenacity, it is interesting to consider that with the basic principle of anonymous editors where we are not really supposed to consider the editor, just the content. Given that these socks are not identified as having any disruptive tendencies, it shows that there are editors more interested in playing the game of Hunt the Sock than thinking about what they are doing.

However, Peter was banned, and I can see that within the walls of Wikipedia their action has a logic, so I don't see the point of protesting about it - it is like Greenham Common banning protesters against the Bomb. However morally right they were, they were banned and cannot act surprised when they are continually arrested for entering the grounds - especially if they wave at the guards every time they start to invade. That is not to say that as a form of performance art, continually pricking at the stupidity of Wikipedia, that it is not a worthwhile pursuit. I just wish he would not act so bemused and surprised about it. After all, we all know that Wikipedia does not do logic and balance.

[Lar]

As for calling your behavior prattish... hey, if the shoe fits ('look at me, I'm blocked, I'm blocked.... block me again, so I can make a big deal about how unfair WP is') wear it.

If you read my post, and the link, all you see is a polite request to Julian Colton to help. This is your way of characterising the situation, and it is a parody. I would have thought that four months down the line, we could forget the foolishness and move on.

And as horsey says, it really does prove my point that content is not the objective of the present Wikipeida.

I'm talking about your overall behaviour, not some particular posting.

My point isn't about the overall project, it's about you. "content is not the objective" of your work (any more, maybe it was once) which is why it doesn't matter how much content you contribute.

[Kwork]

Lar, I am trying to figure out your reply here, but there does not seem to be any actual content beyond the usual condescending attitude you typically fall back to when you have no real point to make. Perhaps we can clarify some WP problems with specifics. I would be quite willing to discuss some of the objections that I have to your administrative behavior, and the of a few other administrators, based, not on attitude, but personal experience. Are you up for that?

Perhaps. It depends on whether the relating of your personal experience you refer to will be "actual content" or whether it will be "the usual condescending attitude" that you so often emit.

But not here in any case. At least not in this thread.

Not here. Were then?

On Commons your replies to stuff you do not want to hear from me always started with "You were banned from en:wp ..." As though there is logically no need, and no point, in replying to a banned user because this person is a banned WP user. Why? Because.

[Peter Damian]

That is not to say that as a form of performance art, continually pricking at the stupidity of Wikipedia, that it is not a worthwhile pursuit. I just wish he would not act so bemused and surprised about it. After all, we all know that Wikipedia does not do logic and balance.

There is much truth in that. There are the people who post pictures of giant penises, or post obscene edits or just vandalise in an attempt to make their mark on Wikipedia. My form of vandalism is to write reasonably good quality articles, particularly in areas where you would be surprised that there weren't articles before.

But for it to work, it has to be 'signed' somehow. I am thinking of better ways to do this.

There are a whole collection of such articles there already, by the way. Perhaps Lar could amuse himself by finding them? I am going to pay special attention to linking them so that when Fram deletes all the links, Lar will have to go through re-linking them again.

[A Horse With No Name]

However, Peter was banned, and I can see that within the walls of Wikipedia their action has a logic, so I don't see the point of protesting about it - it is like Greenham Common banning protesters against the Bomb. However morally right they were, they were banned and cannot act surprised when they are continually arrested for entering the grounds - especially if they wave at the guards every time they start to invade. That is not to say that as a form of performance art, continually pricking at the stupidity of Wikipedia, that it is not a worthwhile pursuit. I just wish he would not act so bemused and surprised about it. After all, we all know that Wikipedia does not do logic and balance.

Yes, Petey is not welcome…the way Rosa Parks was not welcome to sit in the front of the bus. Of course, segregation was awful. But unless someone stood up (or, in this case, sat down) in protest, the southern half of the USA would still be home to mass transit where passengers are separated by color. I am not saying that Petey’s gesture is in the same league as Rosa Parks, but you get the broad idea of challenging a system that is dysfunctional.

There is going to come a time (hopefully very soon) when the Wikipedia power elite has to realize that their merry-go-round is out of control. The admin corps has already been infiltrated by “socks” – one got as far as Arbcom – and the work of Petey and Greg have clearly shown that the policy of “banning” is a complete and total failure. Everyone acknowledges the enforcement of order is wildly inconsistent, but no one has the testicular equipment to put forth change that would actually work.

Couple that with the BLP fiasco and the defection of an increased level of long-time editors, and you wind up with a web community that is careening towards an advanced state of intellectual poverty.

[dogbiscuit]

you wind up with a web community that is careening towards an advanced state of intellectual poverty.

That's not so bad considering the extreme intellectual poverty that spawned the project (hrrmph, Jmbo, hrmph).

[thekohser]

But for it to work, it has to be 'signed' somehow. I am thinking of better ways to do this.

There are a whole collection of such articles there already, by the way. Perhaps Lar could amuse himself by finding them? I am going to pay special attention to linking them so that when Fram deletes all the links, Lar will have to go through re-linking them again.

PD, while the spirit of your initiative is admirable, this is really a big waste of your time and effort. We already know how this will all turn out!

Let me put down the Rules of Wikipedia Editing for you, so that you'll understand. This is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is a rule, or "law", if you will.

1. Editors who are sycophantic to the Wikipedia paradigm and governance are almost always allowed to contribute content, no matter its level of quality. Their content may even be destructive to the mission of providing a free, unbiased, reputable encyclopedia to the masses. No matter. Their contributions are to be tolerated.

2. Editors who are not sycophantic to the Wikipedia paradigm and governance are allowed to contribute high-quality content.

3. Editors who are critical of the Wikipedia paradigm and governance have two options:
. . . Option A -- Identify the content as your own, and face its probable deletion or deliberate manipulation by sycophants (just to irritate you).
. . . Option B -- Never disclose the content, by which it will be handled under Rule #2, above.


Now, let me demonstrate how this works in practice.

Wikipedia Review did not author this article in exchange for payment. Obviously a POV creation, probably paid, by a blocked sockpuppet. But since they are not critical of the Wikipedia paradigm or governance, the content stays. Not to mention, it's obviously the same promotional author who's behind this account, as yet unblocked, and whose content is part of the permanence of Wikipedia.

However, I did author this article about a client of a firm in which I hold substantial shares of stock (valued at over $40,000). So, I certainly had a conflict of interest in writing about the subject, didn't I? Let's see how long that article lasts now.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 29th January 2010, 7:35pm

[Sxeptomaniac]

Petey has proved that content is not king on Wikipedia, and that quality work will be rejected without debate in order to maintain a childish "we don't want you in our sandbox" environment.

Ah, but if "content is king," does that mean a person can be as big an asshole as they want, provided their contributions are good? That works against the project in the long term, as such a person would easily drive away dozens of other good contributors over time. What about editors who produce good content in one area, but regular venture into others where their edits are POV-laden. Such a phrase is cute and pat, but is utterly useless in real-world application. Peter Damien has proven nothing in that regard.

He is pointing out the increasingly bureaucratic nature of the rules on WP, though. If I have followed along correctly, the rules regarding removing a banned user's contributions came out of issues with a particular nutcase who harassed women using WP. It was necessary to remove all of his edits because he would make edits that appeared innocuous on the surface but were actually part of his attempts to stalk/harass various women.

Obviously, Peter's edits do not have that problem. The issue is that admins are following rules without really considering what the point of those rules are. WP is getting weighed down more and more by its own bureaucracy. The number of editors who screamed "PROCESS" when admins started summarily deleting problematic BLPs is more evidence of this.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah, but if "content is king," does that mean a person can be as big an asshole as they want, provided their contributions are good?

You are familiar with the late J.D. Salinger?

In all seriousness, what is an "asshole" and how do we deal with them? Most people here assume the sleazy David Shankbone was an "asshole." But how long was Shankbone allowed to run amok before getting a very time-specific "block"? Why does he get six months while Petey is banned?

If I have followed along correctly, the rules regarding removing a banned user's contributions came out of issues with a particular nutcase who harassed women using WP. It was necessary to remove all of his edits because he would make edits that appeared innocuous on the surface but were actually part of his attempts to stalk/harass various women.

I don't know that story, but it is irrelevant to this particular case.

The issue is that admins are following rules without really considering what the point of those rules are.

No, they are not following rules -- they are picking and choosing which rules to follow. During the Law/TU fiasco, arbitrator Risker openly acknowledged that she allows some sock accounts to flourish without fear of being "blocked." Huh? If that is the case, why can't Petey's sock (which created excellent work) flourish? You can't have it both ways.

[Kelly Martin]

This is boring.

Peter has once again proven that Wikipedians will block him and remove his contributions without regard to merit. He's done this enough times that it's become boring. Replicating an experiment a few times is useful, but there's a point beyond which it becomes a poor use of resources, and Peter's gone way past that. It's plainly obvious that Peter's engaged in some form of performance art, and while that's arguably interesting in its own right, it is not meaningful criticism of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, we have the usual suspects arguing for or against strawman positions regarding project governance. None of these discussions add any light to the situation; they are not meaningful criticism of Wikipedia.

Tell me, what have we learned from this thread? Absolutely nothing. This thread belongs in the Annex, or deleted entirely.