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

[Abd]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Zoloft]

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

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

But that's just me. (47 words)

[Abd]

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

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

But that's just me. (47 words)

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

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

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

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

[Mathsci]

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

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

But that's just me. (47 words)

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

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

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

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

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

[Abd]

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

This demonstrates that Mathsci is what was called at Caltech a "warm body," which meant someone who can tell the difference between light and dark.

Mathsci could be correct, except for one thing. It probably won't happen "the moment" I open another RfAr. Might happen if it is clear that ArbComm is not going to accept the RfAr. I might be "exhausting the patience" of the community, for sure, but the real thing I'm doing is exhausting due process. Anyone familiar with law would know what comes after that.

In order to legitimately take the next step, I must nail down that simpler moves won't suffice, and it must be simple enough and clear enough, in this case, that I can make a case at the higher level and that it will be heard. That is far from easy. If I was attached to my personal editing privilege, I probably wouldn't even try.

As to knowing better, nobody knows better who doesn't base the knowledge on something more careful than knee-jerk emotional reactions. I'll file a case that Newyorkbrad will recognize as raising an important issue that has caused, and will continue to cause even if I'm banned, continual disruption. That is, he will recognize this if he reads it, and it will be very brief and to the point, not a wall-of-text, because the salient issue is crystal clear and simple. Others who read it will see this as well, including many not willing to read longer elaborations on the same point.

When I said that NYB "should know better," I meant that from his prior writing, he does have enough knowledge. It's not a comparison between him and me. And, in the end, it will be the arbitrators who decide, by majority vote, and their decision is important. Wise? Well, that's a judgment for future generations, so to speak. I'm working for the long term, I'm an eventualist as to Wikipedia, just not as sanguine about the ability of the community to naturally arrive at what it needs; that made sense when it was smaller and the original core was active and understood the process that allowed Wikipedia to grow so rapidly. But that core has long since burned out, and it did not know enough to build a process that would be sustainable and fully realize the ideals.

Mathsci is not going to like what will happen if I and others like me are banned. But he may never realize that it was his own doing. He'll blame it on everyone else. He's been a tireless contributor of excellent content, and he will watch as it's mangled and dumbed down and made unpalatable. He'll try to stem the tide, but the pressure will become overwhelming, until he, too, quits in disgust. I wouldn't wish this fate on him, but he's allowed to insist.

This is a very, very old story.

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

This demonstrates that Mathsci is what was called at Caltech a "warm body," which meant someone who can tell the difference between light and dark.

Mathsci could be correct, except for one thing. It probably won't happen "the moment" I open another RfAr. Might happen if it is clear that ArbComm is not going to accept the RfAr. I might be "exhausting the patience" of the community, for sure, but the real thing I'm doing is exhausting due process. Anyone familiar with law would know what comes after that.

In order to legitimately take the next step, I must nail down that simpler moves won't suffice, and it must be simple enough and clear enough, in this case, that I can make a case at the higher level and that it will be heard. That is far from easy. If I was attached to my personal editing privilege, I probably wouldn't even try.

As to knowing better, nobody knows better who doesn't base the knowledge on something more careful than knee-jerk emotional reactions. I'll file a case that Newyorkbrad will recognize as raising an important issue that has caused, and will continue to cause even if I'm banned, continual disruption. That is, he will recognize this if he reads it, and it will be very brief and to the point, not a wall-of-text, because the salient issue is crystal clear and simple. Others who read it will see this as well, including many not willing to read longer elaborations on the same point.

When I said that NYB "should know better," I meant that from his prior writing, he does have enough knowledge. It's not a comparison between him and me. And, in the end, it will be the arbitrators who decide, by majority vote, and their decision is important. Wise? Well, that's a judgment for future generations, so to speak. I'm working for the long term, I'm an eventualist as to Wikipedia, just not as sanguine about the ability of the community to naturally arrive at what it needs; that made sense when it was smaller and the original core was active and understood the process that allowed Wikipedia to grow so rapidly. But that core has long since burned out, and it did not know enough to build a process that would be sustainable and fully realize the ideals.

Mathsci is not going to like what will happen if I and others like me continue to be banned. But he may never realize that it was his own doing. He'll blame it on everyone else. He's been a tireless contributor of excellent content, and he will watch as it's mangled and dumbed down and made unpalatable. He'll try to stem the tide, but the pressure will become overwhelming, until he, too, quits in disgust. I wouldn't wish this fate on him, but he's allowed to insist.

This is a very, very old story.

It's always funny to watch Abd and Mathsci get into it here.

Abd tends to talk (a lot), but his commentary actually tends to make sense, and contains some useful content of some kind.

But when Mathsci posts, it's usually just a smug, brief putdown of Abd. Content-free.

Thanks, Eric. Mathsci represents what quite a few editors, on-wiki, think. And how they think. These editors, though, have no clue as to how to solve the Wikipedia Problem; in fact, many of them think there is no problem, everything is fine, if we can just get rid of those disruptive editors. Eventually, as they notice that the disruptive editors are taking over the place no matter how many are banned, they start to think there is really a problem, but it's way too late; they burn out, and then quit or are banned themselves, as they become increasingly impatient and lash out, as is happening with WMC. Supporters of WMC like Short Brigade Harvester Boris advise him to be detached, but SBHB clearly thinks the insane are running the asylum, but we should make the best of it, maybe some shred of sanity can be preserved in this or that corner.