Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ Inactive Wikipedia administrator survey hoax

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

<edit> looks like a hoax, see tarantino's post below

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dG51YWNNQ01pdF9ERzBEU3RuX2RoREE6MA

QUOTE
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=475674645#Granger_causality_test "

Looks like the survey is being run by Steven Walling and "a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous".

----

related thread; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35594

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Timeline of an inactive admin;
1- edits Wikipedia and finds it fun, creates a user account
2- creates content and feels good about a new hobby
3- becomes an administrator, but is troubled by a childish culture. thinks maybe he can improve it.
4- slowly realizes that the obvious path toward creating a quality encyclopedia will never happen (no quality system, no release system, no culture of competent editing, no meritocracy of project leadership, glorification and protection of all things obscene ...)
5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.
6- leaves in disgust once he's better acquainted with the company there.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 15th February 2012, 3:48pm) *

5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.

5- looks around and sees that those in leadership who are generally thoughtful and well-intentioned have no hope of bringing about meaningful change


Otherwise, +1

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 15th February 2012, 5:17pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 15th February 2012, 3:48pm) *

5- looks around and sees despicable worms of all types in positions of leadership, none of whom create content, few even capable of it.

5- looks around and sees that those in leadership who are generally thoughtful and well-intentioned have no hope of bringing about meaningful change


Otherwise, +1


I suppose that does sound better than "despicable worms". rolleyes.gif

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th February 2012, 4:44pm) *

I suppose that does sound better than "despicable worms". rolleyes.gif

I didn't mean to indicate that there aren't also despicable worms in leadership. Only that the good people are powerless against them.

If Wikipedia were important, it might be worth it to stay and fight the worms, even in a losing effort. (And if donuts were health food, I'd be a marathoner.)

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 15th February 2012, 2:49pm) *

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dG51YWNNQ01pdF9ERzBEU3RuX2RoREE6MA

QUOTE
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=475674645#Granger_causality_test "

Looks like the survey is being run by Steven Walling and "a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous".



The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477031630#Heads_up:_unapproved_survey_of_inactive_administrators.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJames+Salsman%2FInactive+administrators+survey "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th February 2012, 5:23pm) *
The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477031630#Heads_up:_unapproved_survey_of_inactive_administrators.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJames+Salsman%2FInactive+administrators+survey "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

laugh.gif - that's a funny hoax, someone went through a lot of effort to make it - thanks tarantino. Nrcprm2026 has been socking for over 5 years it look like. I wondered of he's a disgruntled ex-administrator.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 15th February 2012, 5:37pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th February 2012, 5:23pm) *
The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477031630#Heads_up:_unapproved_survey_of_inactive_administrators.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJames+Salsman%2FInactive+administrators+survey "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

laugh.gif - that's a funny hoax, someone went through a lot of effort to make it - thanks tarantino. Nrcprm2026 has been socking for over 5 years it look like. I wondered of he's a disgruntled ex-administrator.


Though he's been banned for years on enwp, he just ignores it. For whatever reason, he takes wikimedia and himself seriously and wasn't intending for this to be a hoax.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Case_for_a_California_Chapter.pdf
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=James+Salsman

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I will email Salsman and ask him if he would talk about any results he's obtained.

In case you didn't know, http://talknicer.com/about/ is a serious player in the educational software field.
How utterly typical of Wikipedia insiders to treat him like a common vandal.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 15th February 2012, 9:15pm) *
In case you didn't know, http://talknicer.com/about/ is a serious player in the educational software field.

in the email he invoked Walling's name in a way that implied it was a WMF survey.

QUOTE
"If you have questions, please reply by email to surveyrole@gmail.com or the Wikimedia Foundation Community editor retention point of contact for this survey, Steven Walling: swalling@wikimedia.org. ..."

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yes, and you should read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026/Archive. This is another example of how editing Wikipedia sometimes causes serious, experienced academic people to lose control and start editwars with others.

QUOTE
Denied. User:RadTek is using phrasing and quotations of banned user User:TDC a/k/a User:Hempbilly and is unlikely to "always" misspell the name of his alleged employer. There appears to be no interaction between James Salsman a/k/a User:Nrcprm2026 and anyone from Exelon on the RadSafe mailing list and no posts by James Salsman to RadSafe in the past year. RadTek is deleting secondary peer-reviewed sources from Depleted uranium (the only secondary sources in that entire article) and Uranium. KeepinReal (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Salsman, your harassing emails to my supervisor was a few years ago, late 2006. A coworker of mine and member of the RadSafe list informed of this truly sad charade you put on here.

I dont know who tdc or hempbilly are and frankly I could care less.

Normally I wouldn’t waste my time, but considering how widely used a reference Wikipedia has become, I cant sit back. Your continued antics both here and on other sites make you look positively pathetic. I suggest you seek professional help. RadTek (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of weird to have my name come up here. I have no idea who RadTek even is. To the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with him/her at all. I don't believe that I have ever edited any of the pages he/she lists above, nor their talk pages.

I also have no idea who User:Noren is below, but my one and only ever edit to Cold Fusion is here, [2], where I fix a problem with the bibliography. I have edited the talk page for Cold Fusion but never to address any significant content questions, although I may have weighed in on a few points here and there. My involvement there was mostly tangential at best and had to do with procedural issues related to the purported topic ban of User:JedRothwell, which I later described here: [3].

Feel free to run your checkuser on me if you wish and report the results back here. I have nothing to hide. --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Harassing emails to supervisor"? Another strange little inside story that we will never learn more about (probably, judging by past experience).

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 15th February 2012, 3:15pm) *

I will email Salsman and ask him if he would talk about any results he's obtained.

In case you didn't know, http://talknicer.com/about/ is a serious player in the educational software field.
How utterly typical of Wikipedia insiders to treat him like a common vandal.

See also this https://plus.google.com/113215976889659570939/posts/7cj1aE5VsvQ.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th February 2012, 1:52pm) *

See also this https://plus.google.com/113215976889659570939/posts/7cj1aE5VsvQ.

That bears repeating here.....
QUOTE

Pat Gunn - I left over the weakening of the consensus against advertising, in the wake of the VirginMedia donation and corrisponding "thank you" advert, although as I poke around now it looks like Erik Möller is the deputy director of the WMF. If I were to ever come back I would be high profile again, and there is no way I will consider going back until Erik is completely gone. I find it extraordinarily regrettable that GerardM escorted such a malignant person into power.
Feb 12, 2012

James Salsman - +Pat Gunn I share some of your concerns about +Erik Moeller because he has been absurdly contradictory in his communications to me and he seems to be very aggressive in some circumstances, E.g., lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-February/071769.html I know when I spoke with him at the 10th anniversary unconference he was very aggressive and unfriendly towards me. He also gave me his word that he would speak with +Jimmy Wales about admin attrition at the first Foundation Open House in San Francisco but I have been unable to determine whether he actually did.
Feb 12, 2012 (edited)

Pat Gunn
- When I was running for the board, I and several of the other candidates had very negative experiences with him (he was also running for the board); these continued with other community members and were very worrying.

While I think Jimbo's neglect of the community while retaining theoretical leadership is unfortunate, Erik is actively harmful to it, or at least he was when I knew him.

One of the best, most important community members, Danny Wool, was essentially driven from where he needed to be to keep things together. (I also think it's unfortunate that Wikipedia's actual founder is long since gone, but that ship sailed before most people were involved; I lurked on the NuPedia mailing lists way back when).
Feb 12, 2012

Even Sandifer admits Wikipedia has a real problem. Though as usual, he doesn't blame the admins for any of it.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

It should also be noted that Pat Gunn is Improv (T-C-L-K-R-D) , one of Wikipedia's early users and, significantly, a devoted (armchair) communist. He was a major importer of communist ideology into Wikipedia's early zeitgeist, and left when it became obvious that it would not continue to be a communist haven.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Salsman's been talking about WMF people on his Google+ for some time now. And we're supposed to sit here and pretend they don't know who he is? And even more disturbing, why is he still such a big Jimbo-juice drinker, even after being abused by Jimbo's BFFs for years and banned from Wikipedia?

Posted by: tarantino

Now in addition to the accounts he used to send 300 emails, his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Selery and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashir accounts are blocked on enwiki and meta, and his real name account is also blocked on meta.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information&oldid=3451307#James_Salsman

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 16th February 2012, 9:01pm) *

Now in addition to the accounts he used to send 300 emails, his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Selery and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashir accounts are blocked on enwiki and meta, and his real name account is also blocked on meta.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information&oldid=3451307#James_Salsman

What legal basis could they possibly have for http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman Salsman to delete the respondents' data off his hard disk? Surely none whatsoever?

Are they getting completely power-mad? Do tell me if I am missing some legal nicety here, but last time I looked, the law allowed people to e-mail other people, including Wikipedians, and to keep or delete any e-mail replies they received as they wished.

I honestly am beginning to wonder whether some Wikipedians have lost touch with reality. It's like they believe they have created an alternative universe where their rule is absolute, and society, the real world, and whatever laws might apply there, have ceased to exist.

Posted by: iii

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

The style of his accounts' interactions are a real throwback to the rough-and-tumble times of 2005 to 2006 when it looked for a while like Wikipedia might adopt something like Ed Poor/Fred Bauder vision of accommodating all comers and letting them have free reign of top-level articles. This guy is really the epitome of Randy in Boise and remains a hanger-on probably in hopes of getting himself ingratiated back into the fold so that he can make sure the world knows about those sword-wielding skeletons.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(iii @ Thu 16th February 2012, 4:12pm) *

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.

b) I am in contact with him, and I don't get the impression he's "obsessed" with Wikipedia. He tried a high-risk scheme, got blocked for it, but also elided some useful information.
(as usual, they are http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemo_bis&diff=3435350&oldid=3435179 the record.)

c) Tiptoety is still a slimy little bastard. In my personal opinion, mind you.

d) are we supposed to take an anonymous poster on WR seriously? How do we know YOU'RE not Philippe Beaudette, engaging in psy-ops warfare?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 17th February 2012, 12:47am) *

QUOTE(iii @ Thu 16th February 2012, 4:12pm) *

I don't know what's wrong with Mr. Salsman, but he's clearly obsessed with Wikipedia in a pretty destructive way. The contributions of his various accounts run the gambit from deranged and paranoid to obsessive to the point of lunacy. It looks to me like the fellow hasn't met an anti-establishment conspiracy theory he hasn't liked.

a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.

b) I am in contact with him, and I don't get the impression he's "obsessed" with Wikipedia. He tried a high-risk scheme, got blocked for it, but also elided some useful information.
(as usual, they are http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemo_bis&diff=3435350&oldid=3435179 the record.)

c) Tiptoety is still a slimy little bastard. In my personal opinion, mind you.

d) are we supposed to take an anonymous poster on WR seriously? How do we know YOU'RE not Philippe Beaudette, engaging in psy-ops warfare?


I keep trying to read up on this whole debacle but after a few paragraphs my eyes glaze over...

Salsman's email led the recipient to assume it was a WMF sanctioned survey. He tried to do right by keeping the WMF in the loop, and nudging them into participation, but the lazy slugs there don't like ideas unless they are their own.

Is that about right?

And then, while trying to read further, I stumbled across references to 'cold fusion' and gave up. bored.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.


Posted by: iii

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 16th February 2012, 7:47pm) *
a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.


The guy seems really taken by conspiracy theories involving, among other things, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=471895313, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depleted_uranium&diff=prev&oldid=135497502, proposals that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=136828508 ....

I'd go on, but you can do your own digging. He appears to hold these certain beliefs with a special kind of vehemence and apparently thinks of Wikipedia as a vehicle to be used for the promotion of these certain agendas. In the abstract, it's an attitude that is somewhat common on Wikipedia, but it doesn't strike me as all that stable.

It's mildly amusing that he's a thorn in the side of the WMF and the Wikipedia power system. The thing is, the community positively sweats obsessive types like this if they only sublimate their insanity into a blind adherence to the system. If Mr. Salsman dropped the thumbing his nose act, I'm sure they'd love to have him in their little guild. Just a little too difficult for them to control, that one.

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 16th February 2012, 8:30pm) *

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.


Really? I'm not that perplexed. The story goes like this: a bunch of admins are wondering who this person behind the survey is. Looks legitimate enough. Then they find out it's from a doubleplusungood nonperson.

Apoplexy.

This isn't the first and will not be the last time.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 17th February 2012, 2:05am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 16th February 2012, 8:30pm) *

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.


Really? I'm not that perplexed. The story goes like this: a bunch of admins are wondering who this person behind the survey is. Looks legitimate enough. Then they find out it's from a doubleplusungood nonperson.

Apoplexy.

This isn't the first and will not be the last time.


I liked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selery#Indefinitely_blocked he had with the young arbiter, Anthony G. Kelly of Glasgow.

QUOTE
I am most certainly not part of GNAA -- Those who coddle them should be ashamed of themselves for the predictable results. By indefinitely blocking me for this, I have become more powerful against them than you can possibly imagine. I swear by the beard of Ward Cunningham that in no more than one month's time, the GNAA article will be permanently deleted, in process. See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. I often attend Foundation events and I will enjoy the opportunity to discuss this matter face to face. Do you ask because the shame of coddling racist trolls makes you feel threatened by someone who is willing to do something about them? Selery (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take as much pride in blocking people who use Wikipedia for their own internet evangelism as I do in blocking abusive trolls. AGK [•] 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th February 2012, 8:05pm) *

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=67.117.145.9.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I'm beginning to think iii is right--he hasn't responded to me since our early email exchange, yet
he's running around on AN/I being a dick. Hope it's fun for him.....because it's not fun for me.

Posted by: jsalsman

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 20th February 2012, 6:59pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th February 2012, 8:05pm) *

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=67.117.145.9.

That's not me. I haven't been in the Bay Area since last September, although I probably will return pretty soon. Then off to an undisclosed location and a fancy proxy configuration for the mother of all fresh starts.

Eric, please be patient. I got another valid survey response just this morning so I'm holding it open until at least the weekend before I write up the data.

So far over a dozen formerly inactive admins have returned to editing enwiki after receiving the survey; some appear to be very active: ThaddeusB, C12H22O11, CBDunkerson, Cholmes75, Cobaltbluetony, EWS23, Enochlau, Firsfron, Guettarda, Hall_Monitor, James086, ReyBrujo, RobyWayne. This is a far better result than anyone had hoped.

Cheers,
Jim

P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 6:05pm) *
That's not me. I haven't been in the Bay Area since last September, although I probably will return pretty soon. Then off to an undisclosed location and a fancy proxy configuration for the mother of all fresh starts.

Eric, please be patient. I got another valid survey response just this morning so I'm holding it open until at least the weekend before I write up the data.

So far over a dozen formerly inactive admins have returned to editing enwiki after receiving the survey; some appear to be very active: ThaddeusB, C12H22O11, CBDunkerson, Cholmes75, Cobaltbluetony, EWS23, Enochlau, Firsfron, Guettarda, Hall_Monitor, James086, ReyBrujo, RobyWayne. This is a far better result than anyone had hoped.

Cheers,
Jim

P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.

Did you intentionally try to mislead people with your email into thinking it was a WMF sanctioned survey?

Was Walling cooperating with you prior to throwing you under the bus at wp:an?

Did you just ignore all the WMF foundation people after talking to them and run the survey your own way.

(sorry, i just don't have the patience to read through all the wikipedia bullshit and really do want to hear your side)

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 1:05pm) *

So far over a dozen formerly inactive admins have returned to editing enwiki after receiving the survey; some appear to be very active: ThaddeusB, C12H22O11, CBDunkerson, Cholmes75, Cobaltbluetony, EWS23, Enochlau, Firsfron, Guettarda, Hall_Monitor, James086, ReyBrujo, RobyWayne. This is a far better result than anyone had hoped.

Heh. Ask your survey questions here, and maybe I (or Kelly) will be nice enough to answer here. laugh.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Well, technically I'm not an inactive admin because I resigned my adminship when I left in 2006. And his questions aren't going to get me to reengage in Wikipedia, so he has no incentive to ask them of me.

Posted by: jsalsman

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 11:19am) *
Did you intentionally try to mislead people with your email into thinking it was a WMF sanctioned survey?

Was Walling cooperating with you prior to throwing you under the bus at wp:an?

Did you just ignore all the WMF foundation people after talking to them and run the survey your own way.

(sorry, i just don't have the patience to read through all the wikipedia bullshit and really do want to hear your side)

No, the email I sent is below; in particular, "The direct administration of this survey is being performed by a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous at this time."

I thought Walling was cooperating because of the Office Hour transcript also below, and I thought Philippe was on board with it per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Community_Advocacy&diff=3422337&oldid=3422334

The Foundation approved the survey back in September 2010 per http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Task_force/Community_Health/Former_administrators_survey/Status_update%3F/reply_(3) i.e. "The plan is still to do this...."

QUOTE
Dear Wikipedia Administrator:

Please respond to this survey: [url]

A few years ago, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning Task Force on Community Health noted the troubling decline in administrator participation in the English Wikipedia and resolved to survey inactive administrators to identify the reasons that admins leave the project, in hopes that would help improve the associated issues. By mid-2010 a survey was drafted but resourcing and other issues prevented action until recently when a statistical analysis revealed a 96% chance that administrator inactivity is causing the decline in active English Wikipedia editors as a whole. Therefore, this survey is being distributed to you so that the reasons for administrator attrition can be better understood and acted on. Individual responses will be kept anonymous, but aggregate summaries will be published as soon as they are available. The goal of this research is to get broad, qualitative information about why administrators have stopped contributing, in hopes that we can use it to revitalize both the administrator and editor community.

If you have questions, please reply by email to [email] or the Wikimedia Foundation Community editor retention point of contact for this survey, Steven Walling: [email]. The direct administration of this survey is being performed by a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous at this time.

Thank you very much for your service to the community and your help with this survey response.

Here is the Office Hour transcript excerpts in question from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-02-10

QUOTE
[09:41am] jsalsman okay, well I guess the first thing I need is to know who in Zack's department will be point of contact for editor recruitment efforts
[09:41am] Philippe jsalsman: that hasn't changed.
[09:41am] jsalsman who then?
[09:41am] StevenW jsalsman: you can talk to me and Maryana
[09:41am] jsalsman okay
...
[09:59am] jsalsman StevenW: I'm going to go ahead with the three-year old inactive admins survey and send you access to the results spreadsheet


Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 10:05am) *

So far over a dozen formerly inactive admins have returned to editing enwiki after receiving the survey; some appear to be very active: ThaddeusB, C12H22O11, CBDunkerson, Cholmes75, Cobaltbluetony, EWS23, Enochlau, Firsfron, Guettarda, Hall_Monitor, James086, ReyBrujo, RobyWayne. This is a far better result than anyone had hoped.

Good, you might actually get some information out of this. Please, write it up and get it published, somewhere.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 6:05pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 20th February 2012, 6:59pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=67.117.145.9.

That's not me.


My apologies, and welcome to The Review.

Posted by: jsalsman

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 9:09pm) *
My apologies, and welcome to The Review.


Don't apologize, you have always been my favorite fan on WR!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weltoners&diff=prev&oldid=478569721 lol

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 1:05pm) *
P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.


What's with the cold fusion obsession?

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 6:05pm) *

P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.

Is there not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR that improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules? For those too lazy to click on the link, I quote it:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Or do you believe in ignoring this policy? Does this not go round and round in a circle?


Posted by: jsalsman

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:07am) *
What's with the cold fusion obsession?


My arch-nemesis fellow serial sockpuppeteer Science Apologist and a handful of other less transgressive editors are constantly trying to remove any sources which suggest that cold fusion was anything other than a pseudoscientific scam. The problem is that there is plenty of peer reviewed secondary evidence that it's not a scam, just really hard to get right. Very few experimenters realized that they were losing hydrogen through their cathode power wiring.

I think it's a great article to work on because the hegemony is actively trying to suppress what has basically emerged as the dominant point of view in the peer reviewed literature for a decade now, because of the psychological association of the idea with scientific negligence. As the excuses get flimsier and flimsier over the years, it is great practice for spotting degenerate editing patterns. Arbcom has cast their lot in with the wrong side, and about five people have been banned for trying to accurately represent the peer reviewed secondary literature. No other article has come close to that situation, so of course I'm fascinated by the dynamics there.

I'm very excited about the Defkalion tests in Athens today. Supposedly the Greek government is involved in the validation, so win, lose, or draw it should hit the press hard enough that they'll probably let NASA's recent work back in to the article.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Fri 24th February 2012, 10:48am) *

I think it's a great article to work on because the hegemony is actively trying to suppress what has basically emerged as the dominant point of view in the peer reviewed literature for a decade now, because of the psychological association of the idea with scientific negligence.

And as I have already found, Wikipedia attracts some of the most incivil, arrogant scientists in the world.

People like Connolley and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris are responsible for this state of affairs--
pigheaded, intractable, abusive, manipulative and antisocial. They do this because Wikipedia facilitates
it, and disses actual expertise. If you want WP to handle cold fusion, or any other controversial
scientific area, neutrally---fix Wikipedia's culture first, not the bloody articles.

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(jsalsman @ Fri 24th February 2012, 1:48pm) *

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:07am) *
What's with the cold fusion obsession?
I think it's a great article to work on because the hegemony is actively trying to suppress what has basically emerged as the dominant point of view in the peer reviewed literature for a decade now, because of the psychological association of the idea with scientific negligence. As the excuses get flimsier and flimsier over the years, it is great practice for spotting degenerate editing patterns. Arbcom has cast their lot in with the wrong side, and about five people have been banned for trying to accurately represent the peer reviewed secondary literature. No other article has come close to that situation, so of course I'm fascinated by the dynamics there.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:57pm) *
If you want WP to handle cold fusion, or any other controversial
scientific area, neutrally---fix Wikipedia's culture first, not the bloody articles.


Your suggestion, Eric assumes fixability, of course.

After fighting to get recognition for these ideas "for a decade now", it must be really tantalizing for you, jsalsman, to have within your grasp what appears to be an easily usable mouthpiece "that anyone can edit" only to be thrown up against the deliberate inanity of Wikipedia bureaucracy. Indeed, there's something beautifully symmetric about angry-at-the-"hegemony" special-interest editors going toe-to-toe with angry-at-the-experts psychophants. Pitting the two against each posits an equivalence where by special-interest editors sees themselves as experts while psychophants see themselves as hegemony.