The Herschelkrustofsky ban revisited, SV and her posse at work Options

[Jon Awbrey]

I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them — he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned.

Was he the one who prompted the famous computer science paper, Go-To considered harmful?

In Wikipedia, Hell Go To You.

Ja Ja

[Herschelkrustofsky]

2. Admin tools were used on those articles by admins who were editing them *only with the consent of the ArbCom*.

Why would ArbCom allow administrators actively editing LaRouche articles to use their administrator tools on those articles? Administrators are not allowed to use administrator tools on articles they are actively editing. Even if ArbCom gave the unorthodox order to allow it, it's downright unethical. It gives the editors with administrator tools more power and control over the articles. Neutral administrators should have been called to watch the LaRouche articles, not administrators actively involved in the editing process.

Or have I misinterpreted something?

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions. This became, of course, a universal fig leaf for Slim and Will Beback to do anything they wanted. There was a topic ban for me on editing "LaRouche-related" articles, but soon any article I edited became "LaRouche-related" (see this extract from ANI.) Unethical? You betcha.

[Kelly Martin]

I guess you've confirmed that you have a personal stake in seeing that the content about LaRouche in Wikipedia is negative in nature. Do you see any problem with that?

There's no problem with that. You see, LaRouche is an anti-Semite. Since combating anti-Semitism is inherently good, any action taken in furtherance of combating anti-Semitism is also inherently good. It is therefore appropriate to take all possible measures to ensure that LaRouche's article contains as much negative content as possible, so as to ensure that his anti-Semitic views are discredited as much as possible.

That's why there's no conflict of interest. Zealots don't ignore that they have a conflict of interest; they are simply incapable of understanding that a conflict even exists. It's really something of a form of mental illness.

[Newyorkbrad]

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions.

(Cross-posted from another thread in a non-public section.)

For a long time, there was general disagreement as to whether arbitration remedies could be enforced by any administrator, or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. This issue split the committee in May 2007 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case (see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision]]), but to resolve the doubt, the remedies in subsequent cases have typically stated that blocks, discretionary sanctions, etc. may be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator."

[Jon Awbrey]

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions.

For a long time, there was general disagreement as to whether arbitration remedies could be enforced by any administrator, or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. This issue split the committee in May 2007 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case (see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision]]), but to resolve the doubt, the remedies in subsequent cases have typically stated that blocks, discretionary sanctions, etc. may be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator".

Accepted Interpretations of "Any Uninvolved Administrator" (WP:AUA):

1. Administrators who are not currently seeing anyone.
2. Tag-team members with one foot outside the ring.
3. Jayjg.

But I mock …

Ja Ja

[Newyorkbrad]

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions.

For a long time, there was general disagreement as to whether arbitration remedies could be enforced by any administrator, or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. This issue split the committee in May 2007 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case (see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision]]), but to resolve the doubt, the remedies in subsequent cases have typically stated that blocks, discretionary sanctions, etc. may be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator".

Accepted Interpretations of "Any Uninvolved Administrator" (WP:AUA):

1. Administrators who are not currently seeing anyone.
2. Tag-team members with one foot outside the ring.
3. Jayjg.

But I mock …

Indeed you do. But today you mock in English words, which can in some ways be reckoned as progress.

[Heat]

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions.

For a long time, there was general disagreement as to whether arbitration remedies could be enforced by any administrator, or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. This issue split the committee in May 2007 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case (see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision]]), but to resolve the doubt, the remedies in subsequent cases have typically stated that blocks, discretionary sanctions, etc. may be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator".

Accepted Interpretations of "Any Uninvolved Administrator" (WP:AUA):

1. Administrators who are not currently seeing anyone.
2. Tag-team members with one foot outside the ring.
3. Jayjg.

But I mock …

Indeed you do. But today you mock in English words, which can in some ways be reckoned as progress.

Why is mocking in English superior to mocking in any other language?

[Newyorkbrad]

Technically, the rules permit involved admins to use the tools if they are enforcing arbcom decisions.

For a long time, there was general disagreement as to whether arbitration remedies could be enforced by any administrator, or only by an "uninvolved" administrator. This issue split the committee in May 2007 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case (see, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed decision]]), but to resolve the doubt, the remedies in subsequent cases have typically stated that blocks, discretionary sanctions, etc. may be imposed by "any uninvolved administrator".

Accepted Interpretations of "Any Uninvolved Administrator" (WP:AUA):

1. Administrators who are not currently seeing anyone.
2. Tag-team members with one foot outside the ring.
3. Jayjg.

But I mock …

Indeed you do. But today you mock in English words, which can in some ways be reckoned as progress.

Why is mocking in English superior to mocking in any other language?

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

[Noroton]

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

Certainly a certified something. Probably also takes a certain committment.

[Heat]

According to Wikipedia's great proclamations, administrators are supposed should be impartial overseers of neutral content. But you started editing on LaRouche related topics within a month of editing. And you've obviously got serious personal issues with LaRouche as evidenced by this thread.

What on earth did you thing you were doing using admins tools on the LaRouche articles? What on earth did you think you were doing building up profiles of "LaRouche editors" in your private space? What on earth do you think you're doing still trying to justify the blatant disregard for tenets now?

If you still can't see the discrepancies in your conduct, and the obvious Conflicts of Interest problem caused by allowing Chip Berlet to cite himself on LaRouche articles, I can only conclude that you are simply deluded, and beyond reason.

Get your facts right, please.

1. I am discussing this only because Herschel started this thread about it. I'd be quite happy not to discuss it ever again, but I don't want his disinformation to stand uncorrected anymore. He has been doing it for several years here. It's time that someone gave another side of the story. None of you have ever tried to.

Interesting. This suggests that you concede other things you've been queried on in the past week and refused to address - eg your relationships with Jayjg, Proaby, FM, your use of sockpuppets etc are not disinformation and that you cannot "correct" them.

I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them — he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned.

Was he the one who prompted the famous computer science paper, Go-To considered harmful?

In Wikipedia, Hell Go To You.

Ja Ja

This is evidently true for WR as well. If you build it Hell will come - eventually.

This post has been edited by Heat: Thu 16th April 2009, 12:56am

[dtobias]

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

Or perhaps a secret decoder ring, which you get by sending in boxtops?

[Heat]

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

Or perhaps a secret decoder ring, which you get by sending in boxtops?

Nice to know someone's still buying Ovaltine.

[Milton Roe]

According to Wikipedia's great proclamations, administrators are supposed should be impartial overseers of neutral content. But you started editing on LaRouche related topics within a month of editing. And you've obviously got serious personal issues with LaRouche as evidenced by this thread.

What on earth did you thing you were doing using admins tools on the LaRouche articles? What on earth did you think you were doing building up profiles of "LaRouche editors" in your private space? What on earth do you think you're doing still trying to justify the blatant disregard for tenets now?

If you still can't see the discrepancies in your conduct, and the obvious Conflicts of Interest problem caused by allowing Chip Berlet to cite himself on LaRouche articles, I can only conclude that you are simply deluded, and beyond reason.

Get your facts right, please.

1. I am discussing this only because Herschel started this thread about it. I'd be quite happy not to discuss it ever again, but I don't want his disinformation to stand uncorrected anymore. He has been doing it for several years here. It's time that someone gave another side of the story. None of you have ever tried to.

Interesting. This suggests that you concede other things you've been queried on in the past week and refused to address - eg your relationships with Jayjg, Proaby, FM, your use of sockpuppets etc are not disinformation and that you cannot "correct" them.

I don't think Jayjg has ever edited them — he's just the "go-to" guy when you want somebody banned.

Was he the one who prompted the famous computer science paper, Go-To considered harmful?

In Wikipedia, Hell Go To You.

Ja Ja

This is evidently true for WR as well. If you build it Hell will come - eventually.

Will Hell actually come or just fake it? {{fact}} Where's WP:V and WP:RS on this.

Whose love is given over-well
Will look on Helen's face in Hell;
While they whose love is thin and wise
May view John Knox in Paradise.

Partial comfort.

[The Joy]

Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.

Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.

Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.

[Milton Roe]

Or, more generally:

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on [INSERT TOPIC HERE], yet remain impartial.

I take it that this is a rhetorical question.

The answer has been given over and over by Jon Awbrey. The only people with no point of view are dead people. The only editors on WP who think they edit without any point of view, are people with the self-awareness of wooden blocks. Of which, there seem to be quite a few.

I guess you've confirmed that you have a personal stake in seeing that the content about LaRouche in Wikipedia is negative in nature. Do you see any problem with that?

There's no problem with that. You see, LaRouche is an anti-Semite. Since combating anti-Semitism is inherently good, any action taken in furtherance of combating anti-Semitism is also inherently good. It is therefore appropriate to take all possible measures to ensure that LaRouche's article contains as much negative content as possible, so as to ensure that his anti-Semitic views are discredited as much as possible.

That's why there's no conflict of interest. Zealots don't ignore that they have a conflict of interest; they are simply incapable of understanding that a conflict even exists. It's really something of a form of mental illness.

Exactly.

Because decoding many of Jon's other posts requires the services of a certified Awbreyologist.

Certainly a certified something. Probably also takes a certain committment.

Perhaps even a certain institutional committment.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In Wikipedia, Hell Go To You.

Ja Ja

This is evidently true for WR as well. If you build it Hell will come - eventually.

Will Hell actually come or just fake it?

We've been over this before.

[Jon Awbrey]

Or, more generally:

I wonder how it would be possible to be a true expert on [INSERT TOPIC HERE], yet remain impartial.

I take it that this is a rhetorical question.

The answer has been given over and over by Jon Awbrey. The only people with no point of view are dead people. The only editors on WP who think they edit without any point of view, are people with the self-awareness of wooden blocks. Of which, there seem to be quite a few.

This is one of those Deja Vu to the N-th Power places for me — just about everything wrong with the Crypto-Randroid-Or-Whoever-The Hell-It-Is Uncritical Unreflective Perspective of the Sanger–Wales E-Pyre of Wikipedia and Citizendium is betrayed in the above few lines. It makes me feel like I'm back in the '50s. It's a POV that seems to predate about 60 years of Dialogue & Research on Methods of Inquiry, Learning How To Learn, Systems Thinking, Values Clarification, Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, Learning Organizations, Learning Communities — just to mention a few of the themes that I remember since I started paying attention. What sorts of attics, basements, closets, and dungholes have these bee-tles been moldering away in all these years? I have no idea. It's like they have a whole separate Cargo Cult Pidgin that makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with them.

At any rate, it makes me too tired to talk about now …

Jon Awbrey

[dtobias]

Dante's Inferno: Canto III

I'm in Dan T.'s Inferno myself!

[nobs]

By neutral, all we mean is that we publish the views of all reliable published sources.

Evidence presented by User:Cberlet

03:34 21 November 2005
Nobs01 suggests that I am complicit in murder: "The murder of Richard S. Welch was the entirely predictable result of the disclosure tactics chosen by certain American critics"[31]

Verbatim from the Washington Post, cited to both the Post & the original neutral and reliable source, the Wilcox Report. Not a word of this can be cited to me. Now let's look at the neutral & reliable smears directed at Mr. Brandt.

"Brandt defended Prouty and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing conspiracist groups, some of which Berlet considered anti-semitic or pro-fascist"

cited to Berlet and his own in house self publishing rag. Most importantly, put in the mainspace by Berlet himself. And t his is the crap that Jimbo Wales relied upon when he publicly smeared Brandt to Editor & Publisher magazine. How many violations of WP own policies can we find here?

Addendum

Chip Berlet and the article about him were attacked on Wikipedia by Nobs, HK, and friends, in a way that was absolutely deplorable.

Again, this claim is not supported even by Chip Berlet.

Evidence presented by User:Cberlet

August 2005
Nobs assists Sam Spade and Rangerdude in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet [18] [19] [20]

I see Rangerdude's name, and Sam Spade, but no allegation by Berlet that HK & myself acted in concert to insert deragotory information in Berlet's bio.

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 16th April 2009, 7:44pm

[Milton Roe]

This is one of those Deja Vu to the N-th Power places for me — just about everything wrong with the Crypto-Randroid-Or-Whoever-The Hell-It-Is Uncritical Unreflective Perspective of the Sanger–Wales E-Pyre of Wikipedia and Citizendium is betrayed in the above few lines. It makes me feel like I'm back in the '50s. It's a POV that seems to predate about 60 years of Dialogue & Research on Methods of Inquiry, Learning How To Learn, Systems Thinking, Values Clarification, Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, Learning Organizations, Learning Communities — just to mention a few of the themes that I remember since I started paying attention. What sorts of attics, basements, closets, and dungholes have these bee-tles been moldering away in all these years? I have no idea.

I do not know, either. I have mentioned the Randroid connection and the mad idea that it is in possible in principle to settle in on the SINGLE best theory which fits all the presently-known facts. Presuming that there EXISTS a set of black-and-white things you know as a hard 'fact," so that you don't have to wrestle with Bayesian methods-- which naturally spit out only probabilities, since probabilities are all that they were fed....

But the other obvious route to madness is this fresh-faced journalism students' view that one can fairly represent any topic by simply (neutrally) representing all the major viewpoints about it, in proportion to the fraction of people who hold them. They actually teach this as a goal in journalism. And I suppose it's better than nothing, so long as its limitations are recognized. We've talked about these over time at WR. In no particular order:

1) The fraction of people who hold a given view is drastically different depending on which group you poll. In particular, the mass view changes depending on what culture and socioeconomic group you look at. Israel, for example, has 10% of the population of Egypt, but publishes 10 TIMES the number of books each year. Which view of the world and politics do you think might be overrepresented, in a literary effort like Wikipedia? Is a cultural viewpoint less valid because that culture has fewer printing presses? Good culturally sensitive people would say "no" in the cause of Australian aboriginies. But it gets much more complicated in the Middle East, where the view tends to be "If they can't publish in English, fuck em."

Views also change depending on level of education and expertise. As we found out with anthropogenic global warming, and Darwinian evolution. This problem comes up every time they ask the experts what they should teach in public school texts, and the public doesn't like the answer. Wikipedia, a popularly written encyclopedia, is not going to fix this tension. If anything, Wikipedia is lucky if it doesn't come out like a biology textbook written by Texas preachers and their congregations.

2) The standard journalism problem of what fraction of expert people hold what views, cannot even be approached except by experts on a given subject-- if you're not an expert, how would you even guess approximately the answer? But Wikipedia tends to be written in drive-by edits by the general public, who learn some fact about X and then go and add it to Wikipedia if they can't find it there already. Wow, magnesium is used in Mag auto wheels! That tends to give the popular wisdom of people who use the internet, and it has enormous inertia. But it intrinsically lacks expertise, and the experts themselves have no extra traction.

3) The idea that one can judge what the expert view is, except by talking to lots of experts, is wrong. Even expert review articles tend to be biased toward the research that the expert did for his or her last grant proposal (in fact, this is where most of those articles come from). At least TV journalists know they should to talk to many experts and let them present directly (if edited). Print journalists often talk to experts, but garble the results, and the experts are lucky if they are read the snippets of how they are quoted, but don't get to read the entire article. And the product of this goes into Wikipedia sources.
The idea that one can judge the depth of a view by doing a Google search on it, has the problem that Google is self-amplifying, and interest and advertisement driven, not evidence-driven. As demonstrated by the fact that top Google result for most topics is the Wikipedia article. People keep seeing that without wanting to admit the meaning of it. If that's what Google does to the topic you're looking at, why would you trust it for the #2 entry, either (which is likely to be Answers.com ). Using Google Scholar helps some, but last I checked, WP didn't even encourage using that over regular Google, for scholarly subjects.

4) The above is why any field of human knowledge is subject to short term manipulation and advertising. There is a "theme" to most science conferences, and that theme may or may not survive as conventional wisdom to the conferences down the road. Often it does not. But meanwhile, journalists who write about the latest exciting results, make the same mistakes as the scientists themselves, but worse. If you read a newspaper science section about some (supposedly) new science result, you'd think it was just discovered, when most of the time it's been known for years, but the scientific paper being covered is one currently getting hype. There are far fewer shocking and genuinely new discoveries than you'd think, from reading the newspapers or science pop journal reporting. But there are a lot of scientists who would be happy for the grant review committees to think that they were actually the ones moving ahead an entire field.

Finally, the Bayes problem mentioned at the beginning, just won't go away. There is lots of evidence, but evaluating the quality of evidence is a full-time job, and takes experts. Knowing who these experts are, and why they believe as they do, takes savvy. People with something to sell, can sometimes generate huge amounts of "science" showing that their viewpoints are correct, and this takes years to sort out. If all that is "known" about treatment of a certain disease was discovered in drug-company funded trials, what are you going to do with that "knowledge"? Does it even count as "knowledge"? And so on.

Yikes, I'm getting weary, too.