Abd, blah, blah, blan. How long before indef? A day. A year? A lifetime? Options Rating

[Abd]

Abd has abandoned his fantasy that due process might work. Too hard, too many idiots per square arbitrator.

No more explanations. Just edits, with edit summary. Ah, yes, he's blocked. So? Ah, yes, he's banned from cold fusion. So?

Respecting blocks and bans was part of due process. I tried that for two years. If there isn't any due process, there isn't any obligation. So now I'm trying something else. It's more fun, I'm sure of that already.

I know exactly what responses are likely, been there, seen that, many times, even from the administrative side. I've watched experts at work, experts like ScienceApologist and William M. Connolley, and anyone remember Fredrick day? He taught me that truly blocking and banning a knowledgeable editor was impossible. All you can do is block them, block IP, and range block, and even then, the damn edits keep coming through, unless you block huge swaths of the internet, which gets the Office irritated and makes the troll happy. Really got you there!

I worked out how to deal with this years ago, but never got to test it myself.

See User talk:Abd#Edits under ban. The first five edits there merely evade a block, plus the sixth. The sixth is the first substantial edit, fixing a broken archive, MiszaBot II failed to save discussions because of a spam blacklisting added because of the discussion, during it! Brilliant, eh? Incompetent blacklist administrator, is the real story. He knew there were usages, and there still are. But this broke the 'bot, causing four discussions to vanish. Took me a while to figure it out.

What had happened? Had someone censored it? In fact, someone did censor *part* of it! The link that was being discussed. That was a use of the blacklist for content control, on the argument of "biased web site." Which it obviously is, not RS at all, idiotic question, really. But RS is not the only legitimate usage of links. This was one. And there is an article on the web site, which is notable. So a link to the site is proper there. Etc. Can be whitelisted, sure. But the blacklisting admin perhaps expected the complaining IP editor to do the work.... Right.

The blacklist is supposed to be for *spamming.* Massive addition of links that can't be handled by ordinary editorial process, or, say, COIBot. Not content control. That's what ArbComm decided, but... who cares? If I complained about this, I'd have been whacked even without the recent block. They'd think I was pushing Islamic Extremism, a terrorist web site. Some of the people behind that site might kill me first, they *hate* Muslims who will cooperate with non-Muslims. I used to get death threats for writing about Islam.

The seventh is a ban violation, the original reason self-reversion was invented, to allow harmless fixes by banned editors. It should not complicate ban enforcement, since, being self-reverted, nobody is obligated to pay attention to it at all. But, watch. What do people think will happen?

How long will I be allowed to edit my Talk page? Any guesses? And do I care? That one I can answer.

Here are the two substantial edits: RSN and Cold fusion.

Really, Fredrick day taught me this trick: make good edits by IP, as a honey pot for your opponents, and when they revert them as block/ban violations, they look like idiots. He sucked me into reverting an apparent BLP violation. (it wasn't, but it looked like it was, porn star articles, well, they do it upside down.) Except, since I'm not actually trying to make anyone look like an idiot, I revert myself. Nobody has to do anything.

Which then discriminates between those who actually care about content from those who use bans as punishment. Hey, I think it's brilliant, but even my friends shake their heads about self-reversion.

So it's time to stop talking and act. Talk will never get this across.

What about here? Well, this is the local bar and gorilla. It's for talk, right?

The most likely response, right now, is nothing. That's Wikipedia. Nothing. But ... long term, I don't know.

Thekohser might have a word about how self-reversion worked. It staved off his admin enemies for long enough that a record of good edits was built up, and it was then possible to find a 3/4 majority for unblock. Without that, maybe. Maybe not. It's a wiki, which is Hawaiian for "unpredictable Sisyphean waste of time." Right?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

indef blocked

I must say I didn't expect Future Perfect to do it, so quickly. After all, it was a two-week block already, what's the hurry? This makes the fourth time he's blocked me. If anyone cared, that would be way into recusal territory. Fact is, we had a personal dispute *before* his first block, I just never pursued the recusal failure.

I'm not appealing anything, except I might put up an unblock template, eventually. Average admin probably isn't smart enough to read the situation, so I'm not sure I'll bother.

It is *so* much easier to just edit, and if they make it hard, I'll know that I've made it hard for them. There is some satisfaction in that. I might be protecting some anonymous editor somewhere from getting involved in this cesspool. All by making some positive contributions, and respecting the right of the community to ban, but not to censor, eh?

That is an absolute delight to a passive-aggressive. It's called Malamati in my field of Sufism. I learned it by the time I was in high school, how to enrage and ultimately humiliate abusers, by turning their abuse into self-harm. If they aren't really abusers, it fails, as it should. Social Jujitsu.

Future Perfect, indeed!

Ah, Timothy Dog has revoked Talk page access. Excessive Defiance, apparently. Not properly subservient.

I am so happy. This is what I've needed to do for about two years. Now I use off-wiki communication. I can't notify them of my IP edits any more, so they'lll have to watch for them. If they escalate with range blocks, I escalate by not identifying at all. Check. Check. Check. Checkmate?

I don't think so, this is endless, there is no end to this game, except I've got a potentially fatal disease. As does everyone, really, it's called Life. Kills you every time, and as I heard Roger Smith say a month ago, then they throw dirt in your face.

But I don't have one disease any more, the disease of stuffing a gag in my own mouth because it's the polite thing to do. Fuck off, FP and TC and the rest of the punitive crowd!

And to the "nice" Wikipedians: this is what you have allowed. I tried. You didn't support my efforts, so you get what you tolerate. That is, also, Life.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Ah, another nice Wikipedian, JPGordon. They are like robots.

Must ... Stop ... Evasion ... Push ... Button ... Do Not Read ... Mind Will Rot.

This is so cool. Now I don't have to document the posts. It's much easier now.

So far, no IP blocks. I think they realize how useless those will be, so they aren't bothering. I doubt that this condition will continue, unless I don't edit for a while. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how I feel.

I prefer for my edits to be visible as mine, as long as I'm self-reverting. If the range blocks appear, then I stop identifying. Then they have to go to much more work, an increase of labor that will be well-deserved if it goes that way. Scibaby, how many socks? Did they stop counting at 500? Look at those SSP reports, think of how much editor time was wasted there. All to prevent some edits about cow farts and global warming, trivially reverted. The guy was abusively blocked and unilaterally banned by two of the most abusive administrators, he was never formally banned by the community, the offense was always "block evasion."

They get what they resist. It's kind of a law of nature. Reaction causes action.

On Wikipedia, the mole always wins whack-a-mole, because you can't actually whack the mole. You just close off a hole, he pops up in another. It's fun for a while, for the admins. Then it gets old, really old. They blame the mole. But the mole is just behaving like a healthy human being, in this sense: people detest being controlled. Enlist their cooperation, idiots!

Still the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_90&diff=426938182&oldid=426937964 self-reverted edit] to the archive hasn't been reverted back in. Apparently they vastly prefer a defective RSN archive than dignifying a blocked editor's contributions by accepting them. Even though it could easily be verified that there is a problem with that archive.

Normally, by the way, any edits to these archives are noticed and reverted, quickly, since almost all such edits are improper. So you'd think that someone would notice a self-reverted edit that explained why it was being self-reverted.

This was part of the theory of self-reversion: turn ban enforcement into good content editing. I understand, absolutely, why they wouldn't accept the edit to Cold fusion, they'd have to look at the source, a book which I have on my desk. But the edit to the RSN archive?

Look, WR patrons, most of you know that Wikipedia is a compleat looney bin. I'm just having fun demonstrating it, and improving the project at the same time! Maybe it's totally useless, the whole mess is going to collapse of its own weight, as a new encyclopedic form develops that has better structure, that shrugs off the old shell.

How far will they go?

Ah, right. No record of any bad edits to articles. I remember when they revoked rollbacker. No reason, no abuse. All they did was make it more difficult to handle spam, so I stopped doing recent changes. Like, if I'm indef blocked it makes a difference? It's worth spending the time to push the button?

Oh, that's right. Admins are normally people with way too much time on their hands. That's how they get the edit counts without being caught in some POV battle yet. I forgot. Never mind.


This post has been edited by Abd:

[melloden]

tl;dr

[Abd]

tl;dr

thanks, melloden. That is sooo useful. Now I know that you didn't read this along with almost seven billion other people. What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them. The cost/benefit ratio for that has to be enormous. Any ideas?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

To answer the question that this topic was started with, less than four hours, it took, to go from a two-week block to indef to indef/Talk page access prohibited.

With no harmful edits, with only positive edits, but open defiance. Used to be Wikipedia had a far longer fuse. You actually had to do some harm, off your talk page, more than telling an admin on the user's talk, that they were a broken dildo.

Those days are gone, though I think that for some editors they were eager to ban, it was always like this. So that's about what this shows. Eager to ban.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[thekohser]

Abd, let me know when you're ready to do some secret paid editing. I have some projects that will need more hands on deck.

[Peter Damian]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

[The Joy]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial. They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial. It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd. The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

What more can be said? What more can be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

[Somey]

Actually, I think the tl;dr thing might have contributed to their annoyance with him, and made them a little quicker to click that ban-button.

That's not to say they wouldn't have gotten around to it sooner or later, of course... Anyway, if I understand this correctly in spite of the enormous volume of verbiage involved, Mr. Abd's main point here seems to be that "self-reverting" under IP addresses doesn't help once a few admins have decided you're persona non grata - they're more concerned with maintaining the fiction that bans are actually meaningful. And yes, we did know that, we've known that for years, but Mr. Abd's point about self-reverting not helping is probably worth noting, nevertheless.

Abd, all I would ask is that you avoid making any of those lame-o auto-generated text-to-cartoon videos about your situation, unless you're willing to make a real effort to keep the dialogue to a minimum.

[Abd]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

Sure, thanks, Peter. This response, at least, has some semblance of helpfulness.

The people I'm writing for might be more likely to read it if it is shorter, but not enough more likely to be worth the very substantial time involved in making it so. I see this -- or at least some of it -- was read by at least one reader of value to me, maybe more.

I take that time when I'm writing pure polemic, when I truly have an axe that needs grinding. Just to spout off in the local bar? Come on!

[Abd]

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

Whether efforts for justice are in vain or not is a long-term judgment, eh? I've been aware of the difficulty -- it's generic -- since before I started editing Wikipedia. The Joy hits it:

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial.

Indeed. And that's why appeal courts aren't in the small town....

They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial.

They are admins and inherently prejudiced against non-admins who challenge admins. Supermajority election, which is what exists for admins and arbs, is structurally guaranteed to produce the effects we so know and love. What would be needed would be proportional representation from a defined population. Multiwinner-STV could do it, and Asset Voting would do it spectacularly and in real-time. And no recusal, then, because of being "involved." The only arbs who understood what I was doing consistently recused for exactly that reason. Leaving behind a warped ArbComm that didn't understand.

Notice this: supermajority election sounds great, but it's actually lousy. It means that any unpopular point of view will be excluded from the deliberations, instead of being represented according to its actual acceptability.Multi-winner elections, by approval-at-large (most votes), inherently create two-party systems, or, with a single district, one-party systems. It's a kind of democracy, but about the most dysfunctional and dangerous kind.

It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd.

JzG's acceptance by that community is the best demonstration Ii could arrange of the community's dysfunction. It's not his fault, he's insane. It's the community's fault, though, of course, they could be insane, too. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

That's accurate. Pisses me off, for sure, because of how many times I took up the case for others. But those others don't, my guess, know what's happening, it's lost in the noise for them. Most of them are relatively sane.

Looks to me like JzG's attempt to blacklist lenr-canr.org again is going nowhere fast. His unilateral blacklisting at en.wp flopped when DGG reverted it. The meta request has one positive comment from his claque, basically, "per nom." I rather doubt that this is going to be accepted. Beetstra is complaining about me on his meta Talk page, obsessed. Gee, I simply tried to thank him! Succinctly!

What more can be said? What more can be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

I'm not saying so much any more, except just some flapping here. On-wiki, I'm doing. Action research. Long-term project. I'll respond more to Somey. Thanks, Joy.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Actually, I think the tl;dr thing might have contributed to their annoyance with him, and made them a little quicker to click that ban-button.

Not "might," did. I've seen other editors, especially experts in their fields, banned for this, again and again. People with little to say have great difficulty understanding why someone else might have a lot to say. The dislike of lengthy discussion makes sense in face-to-face meetings, I can handle someone speaking, most of the time, for about five minutes, not much longer. But in writing? Where one can simply ignore it if it's not interesting? This was a conundrum I ran into on the [[w:W.E.L.L]] in the mid 1980s. It made a little sense when we were using 300 baud modems!

That's not to say they wouldn't have gotten around to it sooner or later, of course... Anyway, if I understand this correctly in spite of the enormous volume of verbiage involved, Mr. Abd's main point here seems to be that "self-reverting" under IP addresses doesn't help once a few admins have decided you're persona non grata - they're more concerned with maintaining the fiction that bans are actually meaningful. And yes, we did know that, we've known that for years, but Mr. Abd's point about self-reverting not helping is probably worth noting, nevertheless.

There is a reason for making the point. It teases out the protective function of banning and blocking from the punitive and censorship function. Self-reverted edits do not require enforcement, they are self-enforcing of bans, to use this sensibly, the editor must (1) explicitly recognize the ban, and (2) make positive edits, or he'll find himself spinning his wheels for no gain. If the editor errs and makes an actual bad edit, no problem. It's been reverted already. Just leave it alone! Or drop the editor a note. Big deal!

But those who really want to exclude anything from the editor, good or bad, are enraged by self-reversion.

The well-meaning among those opposed to self-reversion haven't thought it through. Self-reversion is far less disruptive, wastes far less time, than the usual approach to ban enforcement. All self-reversion is, is a possible exception to automatic block of IP or banned editor making edits under ban. It's like certain other self-reversions: if an editor makes an uncivil comment, for example, and makes a quick self-reversion, it's much less likely to result in a sanction. (If an editor repeats this, though, it will start to look like the editor is abusing self-reversion.) Highly contentious or controversial edits, under BRD, are not uncommonly self-reverted, pending discussion. 3RR violation is fixed by self-reversion, etc.

Somey, "doesn't work" is correct on Wikipedia, short-term. That is, positive contributions will be punished. Long-term, it remains to be seen, it has not been tested. What this will do, long-term, if I'm correct -- we don't need experimentation if we already know! -- is to expose, in a very easily documentable way, that might punch through the noise, how the core is abusive and punitive, not actually working for better content, but for personal psychological satisfaction, in ways that harm the project and the community.

I have no idea of the end of this, or, more accurately, no clear idea. I do have intuitions, and they are often right, or useful.

Abd, all I would ask is that you avoid making any of those lame-o auto-generated text-to-cartoon videos about your situation, unless you're willing to make a real effort to keep the dialogue to a minimum.

I'm not at all ready for something like that.

Look, to get ArbComm to reprimand JzG, I had to have crystal-clear evidence, and those who followed that might have noticed how it also took an arbitrator who took an interest and simply duplicated my evidence with a 'bot. That sequence, all by itself, demonstrated the dysfunction. Somey, you are right. In that case an arb took an interest, and independently developed the same evidence. In fact, that should not have been necessary, since it was the same evidence, and verifiable evidence doesn't depend on who collected it, as long as it's verified. The claim was made of cherry-picking, but no evidence of cherry-picking was shown, because I hadn't cherry-picked. My evidence consisted of *complete* records of his editing of cold-fusion related topics, to show his involvement. It was really open-and-shut.

With the next arbitration, it was *really complicated.* In order to get ArbComm to recognize the issue, I had to violate a basic principle: respect for an administrator warning. I had to defy WMC's illegitimate self-declared ban. When he blocked me during the case, for nothing but violating his ban, his say-so, that was something they could not ignore. So he lost his bit. Even though he'd threatened to block, a threat, also during the case, they could just dismiss, "Aw, he was just blowing off steam!"

I do understand how these people work and think. They punish for jaywalking by those they don't like, and ignore assault from those they do like.

Anyone who really cares about the encyclopedic project, as a human project, about "free knowledge," should understand that, as Thekohser says, "Wikipedia is evil."

[Text]

You have been banned?

And if you weren't banned, would something change about your ability to criticize, make people angry, and disrupt things over there?

Can you make a short account about why they don't want you?

[Abd]

You have been banned?

And if you weren't banned, would something change about your ability to criticize, make people angry, and disrupt things over there?

Can you make a short account about why they don't want you?

Well, I haven't been "banned" yet. Just indef blocked and my Talk page access cut off so I can't put up an unblock template. Not that it matters.

Short account? How short? I could probably make it any length. What do you want to read?

I can say what it wasn't for. It wasn't for disrupting things over there.

It was for making people angry, and for criticizing, sure. The making angry was mostly two years ago, though, not recent, not ongoing, except that I brought attention to it, by seeking clarification from ArbComm on my newer ban, and explaining the ban circumstances.

Any questions?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Abd]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

[melloden]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

[Abd]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

Which one?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any questions?

How much do you weigh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Every day, except when I don't.

How's the wife?

She's great!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Oh, sorry, you were asking Abd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Abd]

A more complete answer now.

You have been banned?

Indef blocked. Some whisper of "ban" arose in the RfAr/Amendment. But that was closed as moot because editor indef'd.

I'm indef'd and I'm ignoring it except as I actually experience. Like a lot of people before me, I've discovered this fact: if I reboot my modem, and don't log in, I'm perfectly able to edit. Of course, I already knew this. But I saw a 7-year-old discover this really nifty trick, he was clearly thrilled. Life is new.

Since my appeal was rejected without consideration, I've exhausted due process so I've revoked my implicit agreement to respect community process. I'm now playing Whack-a-Mole from the fun side. Because of my passive-aggressive stance of "Go ahead, try to whack the mole, you'll make yourself visible and your position clear," I can't lose.

I'm getting more good content work done this way, with my COI, banned topic, than I did when I wasn't blocked.

So far, the only block that was truly for a specific supposedly evading edit, wasn't. It was an edit by IP to my own talk page before access was cut off, acknowledged as mine. The actual block-evading edits were ignored by the admins, so far, as to blocks of IP. Yes, they blocked my account, that, of course, wasn't being used for evasion. All very predictable. But Kafka-esque, nevertheless.

This, by the way, is common: once they have decided to block an editor, they frequently do it improperly. Most of the truly competent administrators that I knew have retired, leaving behind ....

The errors they make are not my point. The point will be, in the end, that the ban and block accomplish nothing but a waste of time, compared to sensible due process. I've been blocked for "block evasion" consisting of only good edits, or edits that were completely harmless at worst. Like reverting my own comments that were considered, by the same people, as ban evasion. So, if it's ban evasion, why not allow me to revert them?

And if you weren't banned, would something change about your ability to criticize, make people angry, and disrupt things over there?

I can't imagine why a ban or not-ban would affect my ability to do a thing. What the events have demonstrated, to me, as similar events have demonstrated to many others in the past, is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are ideals, with the reality of the community falling far, far short of realizing them, and criticism continues to be punished, with the structure institutionalizing past abuse, so that it is continued, including by those who naively imagine that they are serving consensus.

Can you make a short account about why they don't want you?

I questioned their competence, some of them, and challenged obvious abuses. I typically prevailed in those challenges, at first, until the obvious consequence followed: I was attacked, being now considered a high-value target by a certain clique, I'd seriously damaged their control of the project through prevailing at ArbComm. So they massed, and ArbComm remains really helpless in the face of that, they are ... incompetent.

The arbitrators who weren't incompetent have retired, or recused, or, at least, remain silent.

And the system selects arbitrators for devotion to the project combined with lack of offensiveness, leading to a systemic and heavy bias toward group-think. It's an error that many volunteer organizations fall into, because the end of it is continued division and weakening of the organization. True consensus process is far more effective and powerful, but it takes work, and competent facilitation, which is a skill completely missing.

That is, ArbComm's lack of ability to actually resolve disputes (it "decides" them) is a product of the election method, which is "plurality at-large," a method which, in a 2-party system, completely eliminates all representation for minority views, and when it is single-district, results in complete 1-party domination.

(Suppose there were two "parties" on Wikipedia, call them Inclusionists and Deletionists. Election of, say, ten arbitrators. Suppose that every voter may vote Yes/No on each arbitrator. For single-winner elections, that's actually an advanced method, winner would be -- this is approval voting -- the candidate with the most votes. But it's a lousy multiwinner method, because, if voters do vote according to the factional affiliation, the faction in the majority gets all of the seats. In a volunteer organization, this often means that the supporters of those not elected are discouraged and stop volunteering. Far better to use a method that results in proportional representation, and there are ways to do that without "party-list," which would be a Bad Idea on Wikipedia. There is a method called Proportional Approval Voting which could do it, Asset Voting, a tweak on Single Transferable Vote, would do it spectacularly, creating many side-benefits. And elements of this were proposed over three years ago, and the proponent promptly banned.)

Supposedly I don't understand why they topic-banned me, but I understand very well, I could write a book on it. But suppose they are right, that I don't understand. Where did any one try to explain this to me, on-wiki or off? AbrComm certainly did not, in their decisions. The fact is that at least one other who attempted to carefully explain my views and actions to them was banned first. By the same people.

Short answer: It's a long-term war.

[Zoloft]

My query at T. Canens' page about removal of Abd's ability to discuss his situation on his own user page is here.

Not even an interesting response. Just mindless suppression.

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[RMHED]

My query at T. Canens' page about removal of Abd's ability to discuss his situation on his own user page is here.

Not even an interesting response. Just mindless suppression.

You were expecting something different?

Really?

Really?

His response was tantamount to sticking his fingers in his ears and going; HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM SORRY CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[Zoloft]

My query at T. Canens' page about removal of Abd's ability to discuss his situation on his own user page is here.

Not even an interesting response. Just mindless suppression.

You were expecting something different?

Really?

Really?

His response was tantamount to sticking his fingers in his ears and going; HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM SORRY CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Every once in a while I just take the temperature of the patient.

[EricBarbour]

My query at T. Canens' page about removal of Abd's ability to discuss his situation on his own user page is here.
Not even an interesting response. Just mindless suppression.

BFD. Just another small-time admin throwing his weight around.

You could always post an objection on his admin review......
I suggest you find some more examples of heavy-handedness on his part.

[Abd]

Much more rapid escalation than I'd expected: Revison deletion for block evasion.

02:01, 6 May 2011 Kww (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "Talk:Cold fusion": removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (ban evasion)

Nothing there that violated any policy, not even remotely, allowing revision deletion. The 2 revisions were my edit and my self-reversion.

I'd appreciate a copy of the wikitext for that section, as revision-deleted, from a WP admin, thanks, it can be sent by email from my WP account or my WV account.

The edits were helpful. There were two snippets in one edit. One mentioned the situation with self-reversion, in response to a comment from LeadSongDog, and pointed to a Wikiversity page if anyone wanted to discuss self-reversion.

The other responded with clear evidence regarding copyright violation at lenr-canr.org. Basically, Springer-Verlag, the second largest scientific publisher in the world, has a link to lenr-canr.org, prominently featured, in their preview of a recent cold fusion paper. Isn't that a tiny hint that they don't consider the site to be copyvio?

Not that they consider themselves bound by any policy, Revision deletion#Misuse has this:

RevisionDelete was introduced for administrators in 2010. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries.

Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact.

Obviously, someone failed to let Kww know about the "very strong consensus."

It's easily fixed by any admin.

I've been saying that they can't stop this process. However, they can, if they are willing to cause extensive collateral damage to prevent harmless edits. Self-reversion was designed to guarantee that the edits were harmless, it's very difficult to argue that what was, here, was worthy of even a block, not to mention revision deletion.

This was by IP, TenOfAllTrades blocked it for a month. Someone should tell him that I couldn't get that number back if I wanted to. A day would be fine. But, hey, if he wants to work himself into a froth, s'okay by me.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Timotheus Canens howled, with his sparkling logic, regarding his cutoff of my Talk page access.:

It makes clear that spitting on our community norms is unacceptable, and therefore deters incidents of future misconduct by other users, which wastes volunteer time.

It ain't gonna deter anything, it's encouraging me.

He's talking about exemplary punishment. It was a common trope that the wiki doesn't punish, it only protects. Punishment is a known dysfunctional method of behavior modification, it only works, and then badly, when you can actually control people.

I'm forcing the issue, they will either issue massive range blocks, causing collateral damage, or they will tolerate harmless, self-reverted edits. I win either way, but, the second way, the wiki and the community also win.

I don't think they understand what's going on. I can cause them far more trouble than it's worth, and if they want to damage the project to be right, to prove that they won't tolerate dissent, that's their privilege. My job is simply to make that condition visible, no longer deniable.

I was tempted to comment on his Talk page with "You think I'd waste spit on your community?" But I won't. See, that wouldn't be a constructive contribution, and the evil plot here is to only make constructive contributions. Period.

Bwaahaaa haaa haaa. Abd with fangs. Lock all your doors, shut the windows firmly. Be sure to check under your bed.

By the way, thanks, Zoloft. You were threatened the same way that I was threatened when I pinged William M. Connolley on an abusive use of tools. You know what that led to, I assume. Summary: he lost. Wikipedia won. Small battle, for sure, but for him it was a big one.

They haven't learned how stupid it is to abuse people with nothing to lose.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

Much more rapid escalation than I'd expected: Revison deletion for block evasion.

02:01, 6 May 2011 Kww (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "Talk:Cold fusion": removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (ban evasion)

Nothing there that violated any policy, not even remotely, allowing revision deletion. The 2 revisions were my edit and my self-reversion.

I don't understand why anyone thought it was necessary to hand out a second-rate oversight tool to all administrators. Were "oversighters" really that slow to respond?

It looks like Kww completely misused that tool here. Using revision deletion to hid edits by blocked users is definitely not condoned by policy. Sadly, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone on Wikipedia to criticize him for that. It is far easier, and more satisfying to a Wikipedia addict, to suck up to the power base there by backing up a clearly incorrect administrator.

[Abd]

It looks like Kww completely misused that tool here. Using revision deletion to hid edits by blocked users is definitely not condoned by policy. Sadly, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone on Wikipedia to criticize him for that. It is far easier, and more satisfying to a Wikipedia addict, to suck up to the power base there by backing up a clearly incorrect administrator.

Oh, he'll be criticized, I predict. It just takes time to get attention, sometimes you have to whack the donkey in the nose with a big stick. The policy on revision deletion was established precisely to maintain transparency, to prevent revision deletion from being used to censor, as distinct from protect, and even heavy drinkers of the Kool-Aid get this, when it comes up.

Logs..

The edits.

The contributions of the IP whose pair of edits was deleted. Notice one-week block of transient IP. They really don't have this RBI (Revert-Block-Ignore) thing down. I'm sitting on a huge IP range, several of them, with different ISPs, blocking single IPs is useless, and the more experienced admins who started hacking away at me didn't even bother, they know that. So far, no range blocks, and I suspect they realize what will happen if they do go for range blocks for harmless edits. It's been hard enough to justify massive range blocks for vandalism and worse. For harmless edits?

I've seen these empty contributions for IPs blocked for evasion, and never quite put it together. Admins had revision deleted and blocked, my guess. It could be hard to find, because they often suppress the logs when doing this. Any admin, though, could find this in a flash, just view the deleted contributions of the IP.

Action research is a highly efficient way to learn, beats discussion hands-down.

[thekohser]

Timotheus Canens howled, with his sparkling logic, regarding his cutoff of my Talk page access.:

It makes clear that spitting on our community norms is unacceptable, and therefore deters incidents of future misconduct by other users, which wastes volunteer time.

It ain't gonna deter anything, it's encouraging me.

You can say that again. For example, when I was blocked on Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, etc., I probably wasted at least 20 valuable person-hours of their time, trying to determine whether and how to unblock me. Once I was unblocked, I gave 'em a few pages of good content, then I got bored and moved on.

It's all a big game to them. The more you show them you CARE about editing, the more they want to keep you out. The more they tolerate your editing, the less you want to edit.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Somey]

I'm forcing the issue, they will either issue massive range blocks, causing collateral damage, or they will tolerate harmless, self-reverted edits. I win either way, but, the second way, the wiki and the community also win.

Okay, I have a question (though admittedly, this is at the risk of getting an answer I won't have time to read right away, not that I'm innocent of that myself or anything)...

So: In whatever discussions you've had on the concept/practice of "self-reversion," has anyone seriously brought up the objection that self-reverted edits still have to be checked, because you might be trying to "trick" them? In other words, in theory you could make a fairly complex edit, and then rather than completely revert it, you might only partially revert it, leaving in some key change or other that could be controversial, "improperly sourced," or whatever.

I'm not saying you would actually do that, but they might, and obviously other people might easily do something along those lines - so if they "enshrine" self-reversion as a guideline/policy/whatever, it could become just another annoyance to them, only now it's "within the rules."

This is putting aside the issue of WP'ers having to (in theory) read through your self-reverted revision and, if they approve of it, "take ownership" of that revision by making it the current version.

(I might just add that my asking this question doesn't mean that I don't still find traditional forms of publishing peer-review, flawed though it may be, waaay preferable to how Wikipedia operates.)

[Abd]

I'm forcing the issue, they will either issue massive range blocks, causing collateral damage, or they will tolerate harmless, self-reverted edits. I win either way, but, the second way, the wiki and the community also win.

Okay, I have a question (though admittedly, this is at the risk of getting an answer I won't have time to read right away, not that I'm innocent of that myself or anything)...

No problem, Somey. No rush, either.

So: In whatever discussions you've had on the concept/practice of "self-reversion," has anyone seriously brought up the objection that self-reverted edits still have to be checked, because you might be trying to "trick" them? In other words, in theory you could make a fairly complex edit, and then rather than completely revert it, you might only partially revert it, leaving in some key change or other that could be controversial, "improperly sourced," or whatever.

Well, people haven't brought that up, but it's obvious, and I considered it well. When I document self-reverted edits, I often put up a diff between the previous state and the self-reverted state, it shows instantly that the self-reversion was complete. In fact, self-reversion has been used by a few people and nobody has tried to game it. Eventually, someone would, I'm sure. But the editor would be shooting themselves in the foot. Somey, all edits have to be checked! Self-reverted edits happen to be extremely easy to check, compared to edits that leave behind stuff!

So someone makes a complex edit (not recommended for self-reversion, by the way, but possible), what is the first thing to do? *Look at the full result.* It takes seconds. This scam would be detected immediately.

Remember, someone editing through self-reversion must attract someone else to support the edit, or it's a waste of time. If it's complicated, that's difficult!

The self-reversion proposal is that *actually self-reverted edits* would not be considered ban violations, and would not be sanctioned. Someone leaving something behind would be defeating their own "self-reversion immunity."

(There is no such immunity now on Wikipedia, except in equity. Most self-reverted edits, though, are not receiving negative attention, but I can't tell that they aren't blocking because they don't mind the edits, or because they realize that a single IP block is worse than a waste of time, and they know that going to range blocks for what can easily be shown to be harmless edits could be politically uncomfortable. There is substantial resistance to range blocks for actual vandalism.)

I'm not saying you would actually do that, but they might, and obviously other people might easily do something along those lines - so if they "enshrine" self-reversion as a guideline/policy/whatever, it could become just another annoyance to them, only now it's "within the rules."

Except that the violation of the rules that you just noted would be obvious, and quite difficult to do accidentally. In the self-reversion, one does not monkey with the text *at all*, so how would a piece be "accidentally" left behind? I just hit Undo, then write "self revert per ban of Abd" in the edit summary and save.

You've missed some very important aspects of this. To make any sense for the banned editor, self-reverted edits have to be commonly useful, or people will stop looking at them. Self-reversion turns ban enforcement, then, into positive contributions, if the editors monitoring for ban enforcement actually look at the edits. This is partly why it's worked in the past. It actually creates good content, by design, making the simplified ban enforcement into positive value. Otherwise ban enforcement is only the prevention of a loss, it doesn't create good content.

This is putting aside the issue of WP'ers having to (in theory) read through your self-reverted revision and, if they approve of it, "take ownership" of that revision by making it the current version.

Right. That's work. However, it actually happens. People do that. You can see examples on the Wikiversity page, and I'll be documenting many more. Sometimes people only revert back in part. Sometimes they revert the whole thing back in and then work with it. There was a great example today. I'll describe it below.

(I might just add that my asking this question doesn't mean that I don't still find traditional forms of publishing peer-review, flawed though it may be, waaay preferable to how Wikipedia operates.)

Self-reversion is a technical trick for MediaWiki. Good software would incorporate this kind of process. Similar to flagged revisions, or moderation on a mailing list, where there are lots of moderators who can accept messages.

On Energy Catalyzer someone had wikilinked Andrea Rossi as Andrea Rossi (physicist). Well, he's not a physicist, he's an engineer and entrepreneur. This isn't controversial! So I took out "(physicist)", then self-reverted. It sat there for some time, I thought that maybe it wasn't going to be noticed. But then an editor -- SPA, not me -- replaced (physicist) with (cyclist), and then with (footballer), and a regular editor of the article finally caved and took the incorrect link out. Now, this is the question: should I be sanctioned with range blocks, and their latest trick, revision deletion, for suggesting, efficiently, a useful change?

All I'm saying is that self-reverted edits, on their face simplify ban enforcement compared to the more common evading practices, and that a quid pro quo should be offered for those willing to take this route: you tell us who you are, so we don't have to mess with sock puppet investigations, you create no mess that must be cleaned up, and we will then tolerate these edits, we will not try to prevent them beyond normal blocking. (Self-reversion was invented for *topic bans*, originally, so this would mean no blocking for self-reverted "ban violation." If it's not reverted, or is gamed in some way, then blocking becomes the obvious and justified response, normally.)

When this has been done, the result has been less conflict, not more.

But you know, Somey, the real reason why this is being opposed. It's not because someone might game it. It's because they don't want to allow any contributions from banned editors, no matter what, and because they punish and retaliate. The garbage about protection, not punishment, about IAR, is just that, garbage. Garbage that inspires editors to believe that Wikipedia will be fair, when it is far from that, should you run afoul of a cabal or entrenched community prejudice.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

And now, the correction of a blatant error in RfAr/Amendment archiving is not noticed, remains uncorrected because Future Perfect at Sunrise is far more interested in whacking the mole than in fixing the wiki.

He brilliantly identified Abd sock (T-C-L-K-R-D) as evading the block of Abd, and took swift action at this outrageous defiance of his Supreme Authority, while ignoring the substantial edit that immediately preceded the last edit of Abd sock, of course, which he reverted, so why not the next-to-last edit, which was easily verified as self-reversion of a correction of a blatant error. We know why.

add note A user noticed the edit, swiftly, and queried the archiving admin, an excellent response. He pointed to my self-revert, which would make it about two clicks to fix the problem.

Future Perfect is determined to put all this attention into preventing block evasion (this is block evasion, not ban evasion, it's evasion of his block, in substance), but no effort into understanding what the evasion is actually doing. It's classic Obtuse, and he's welcome to all the time he wastes.

It was a few minutes to set up that autoconfirmed account and make the required ten edits, and nobody noticed, even given the name. That's valuable information, eh?

Of course, the next accounts I use, should they be needed, won't be so obvious. I'll do most editing, though, by IP with self-reversion and self-identification, and only use socks for narrow purposes. They can waste their time with checkuser if they like. I don't think they will find these, except for throwaways. See, I played whack-a-mole on the other side, I have a pretty good idea of what can be done and what cannot be done. I do make mistakes, though.

Today, I forgot to log out from Abd sock before doing the RfAr archiving correction. Since I was reserving that sock for making an edit to Abd, I quickly made it. Easy-peasy.

The only thing they've done that wasn't easily predictable was the RevDel. Apparently, they have no compunctions about violating clear policy to enforce bans. That was a demonstration I didn't expect! Isn't that what experimentation is for?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

The plot thickens. I attempted the following edit to User talk:Hut 8.5

== suggestion re length of IP blocks for Abd ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Hut+8.5&page=User%3A96.236.125.125&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1] You can see the history here at [[v:User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits]], I'm not sitting on one IP for more than a day, regardless of blocks. So it would be enough, to minimize collateral damage, to block for one day. Please consider that all the IP edits are positive contributions, and are only a problem because of evasion. That careful respect for content policy is necessary for my agenda, a demonstration of self-reversion as a technique to simplify enforcement of bans, if self-reversion is respected as cooperation, while allowing positive contributions. Strict enforcement of bans for harmless edits -- and self-reversion is intrinsically harmless as long as RevDel isn't required -- causes unnecessary damage, but since my goal is a demonstration of the effects, please choose your responses in line with [[WP:IAR]]. As this may not be a welcome edit, I'm self-reverting. You may revert it back in if you wish to discuss it. Thanks, your consideration is appreciated. --[[User:Abd]] ~~~~~

It triggered the edit filter, the log shows Filter 407, Disruptive block evasion. My guess is that the filter is running on my user name, or the page name on Wikiversity, which they don't want to be seen. But the filter is more complex, and may be adaptive, such as "IP triggered filter before." I'll check it out. If so, this simply means that I stop identifying my user name! and stop pointing to the list of all edits. I'm spoiling the game of Whack the Sock by making it too easy!

But I don't need to do those things, under all conditions. I can adjust my responses.

I love it. I am getting so much attention. They can't stand the thought that I might actually give them helpful information, such as that they are causing collateral damage by blocking IP for more than a day. They don't care!

(I knew this before, because Raul654 was willing to block vast swaths of the internet to prevent Scibaby from making a few harmless edits about cow farts causing global CO2, or whatever. But Raul654 got troutslapped for that, eventually.)

[SB_Johnny]

I love it. I am getting so much attention.

Good for you, kiddo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

I imagine it won't be too long before they let you stay out until midnight, and bump up your allowance. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Abd]

All's well. I got a simpler edit through to Hut 8.5. He's been watching the edit filter, it may be only on his user talk page. If someone with the right to see edit filters sends me the filter information, privately, of course, I'd be indebted and would respect any restrictions set on that information.

Hut 8.5's logs. show that Hut made actions from 14:53, 7 May 2011 to 19:47, 7 May 2011, all about me. It's so many because he acted based on the edit filter reports.

Learn something new every day. I think he's obsessed about preventing editors he whacks from commenting on his user Talk page, he's set it up like a honey pot. In any case, once I knew that he was watching, and he reverted my edit, I had nothing more to say to him. This is an interesting situation, though: edit filter detects a IP user's attempt to edit his talk page, and then he immediately blocks the IP. So he can read the edit attempt, in the edit filter log, but nobody else will see it.

That's a tad iffy, don't you think? This is not how the edit filter was designed to be used.

He did get the message, I think. He's now blocking for 48 hours instead of a week. He'd have gone for 24 hours except that would have been too obvious. Can't have it look like he's kow-towing to Abd, eh?

It's very tempting to thank him, but, even though it would be genuine, it would be perceived as gratuitous provocation (as were all of my actions, though provocation, per se, is not my goal). He reverted the friendly edit from his talk page, so, unless there is necessity, more edits would simply amount to harassment.

(Other editors are explicitly accepting my edits.)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

I love it. I am getting so much attention.

Good for you, kiddo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

I imagine it won't be too long before they let you stay out until midnight, and bump up your allowance. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Especially the allowance part. I am learning so much, I can't say the half of it.

I'd pretty much stopped editing Wikipedia, it was too difficult. This is much easier (than playing it straight), and suppose they do apply massive range blocks -- which is what it would take -- I win again, and won't have to do anything. Making good edits takes work! Moulton, I'm not, but I do understand some of his approaches. (I suggested self-reversion to him, and if he'd accepted that, he'd have been editing WV much sooner, and if he got the concept that communities have a right to regulate conversation, then he'd still be editing WV.)

I now appear to be defying that right, but what I'm actually doing is teasing apart legitimate regulation from censorship and extreme exclusion. They actually used RevDel to hide good edits, merely because of the ban. I think that's revealing, and, eventually, this will be seen. Or not. You never know for sure.

[Abd]

Well, figured out the edit filter. It's on the edit summary. "Abd" will trigger it, content may not matter. Probably IP and "Abd" in the edit summary. They don't want me to identify my edits. Fine with me, I can be quite cooperative with that. I'll continue self-reversion for a while. If enforcement continues, I'll simply stop. Stop reverting, that is! Self-reversion is a voluntary cooperation with a ban. If they don't want voluntary cooperation, what will they get?

What they are used to. Which wastes enormous amounts of time for no value. They like it that way. It's comfortable, and gives them a sense of being in charge. Except, of course, that's an illusion, but, hey, you take what you can get.

The edit filter is number 407, 00:12, 7 May 2011 by Shirik. Details are hidden, but it's obvious what it does.

I couldn't resist this. It wouldn't save with the real section header, so .... Shirik is close to a Bad Word in Arabic.

My bad. And I can't self-revert edit summaries anyway. Really, they want to prohibit harmless edit summaries?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Well, figured out the edit filter. It's on the edit summary. "Abd" will trigger it, content may not matter. Probably IP and "Abd" in the edit summary. They don't want me to identify my edits. Fine with me, I can be quite cooperative with that. I'll continue self-reversion for a while. If enforcement continues, I'll simply stop. Stop reverting, that is! Self-reversion is a voluntary cooperation with a ban. If they don't want voluntary cooperation, what will they get?

What they are used to. Which wastes enormous amounts of time for no value. They like it that way. It's comfortable, and gives them a sense of being in charge. Except, of course, that's an illusion, but, hey, you take what you can get.

The edit filter is number 407, 00:12, 7 May 2011 by Shirik. Details are hidden, but it's obvious what it does.

I couldn't resist this. It wouldn't save with the real section header, so .... Shirik is close to a Bad Word in Arabic.

My bad. And I can't self-revert edit summaries anyway. Really, they want to prohibit harmless edit summaries?

[edit] I wish I'd saved a copy of the edit summary, I didn't. RevDel'd. I doubt that it deserved this by policy.

[Abd]

The only range block I've noticed so far is 74.106.64.0/19.

06:59, 8 May 2011 Timotheus Canens blocked 74.106.64.0/19 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Block evasion: Nothing but block evasion recently from this range)

Until a few minutes ago, I simply assumed he was right. Not so. Range Contributions

The edits from the range were a little suppressed for the first 8 days of May, but there were still three that were not me. You can see all my edits easily, practically every one was self-identified as me, except for some Sandbox edits where I was identifying how the edit filter worked in the Sandbox, and an edit to Abd sock (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Before, in March and April, however, it looks like roughly one edit per day from the range. None of these were me, of course, I didn't start IP editing until May 1, I think.

So there is definitely collateral damage, not to mention the damage caused by the edit filter, which has probably stopped now. Looks like filter 407 is now set for "no action," it's in report mode only. And it's not being triggered by anyone. Report mode will report if anyone uses "Abd" now, so Big Brother will be informed, be aware, but, hey, you can say whatever you like now!

[thekohser]

Between you and Moulton, I'm pretty sure you could get all of Massachusetts blocked from Wikipedia.

[Abd]

Between you and Moulton, I'm pretty sure you could get all of Massachusetts blocked from Wikipedia.

Only if We Are Powerful and can Make Them Do It.

Moulton pretty much forced it, with outing requiring revision deletion, at least that is a plausible position. But Moulton, I am not. None of the intemperate response to my "evasion" has been forced.

If there had been no enforcement action at all, none would have been necessary from "damage" requiring action. That's the point of self-reversion: no action required, therefore no need to "punish" the editor for "wasting the community's time."

(If I'd harassed anyone, outed, was grossly uncivil, etc., the situation would be quite different.)

Put it another way: the admin community's position of "we must stop all socking" is self-punishing.

I'm not editing today, not because I can't. Just because. Maybe later.

[Abd]

Came across this in the Deletion log:
# 20:50, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Abd Is Innocent!" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
# 20:50, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Abd Sehr Gut" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
# 20:49, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Abd is Innocent!!" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
# 20:49, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Abd for President" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
# 20:49, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Free abd" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
# 20:49, 12 May 2011 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Abd is innocent" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)

Somebody was busy! Yeah, that would be vandalism. I had no idea....

This would be FusedKalt (T-C-L-K-R-D) , from the timing of the block and the Talk page edit. Cold fusion. I looked at the name for a while before I got it. Must be getting old.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Since they have beaten the cat to death, no harm in letting him out of the bag.

EnergyNeutral (T-C-L-K-R-D) was indeed me. Checkuserblock by Coren, an arb. My,my, I must be important. No sign of any complaint have I see, so I have an arb checking me out. oooo it makes me soooo excited. My very first discovered sock. History in the making.

The account was being useful, negotiating compromises between factions that were, in fact, being accepted. No disruptive editing. This was, indeed, ban violation, specifically the cold fusion ban, but the MYOB ban was wikilawyered to death anyway, so might as well toss that in. No other socks were blocked. This one was obvious to check, because of the interest in cold fusion, but, in fact, anyone who edits cold fusion who knows the topic has been suspect for a long time. There are now at least four editors who are "banned." If one looks at what EnergyNeutral stirred up, especially JzG, you can see that there are editors on the other side who are totally outrageous, and who have been this way for years, and nothing is done. That's how Wikipedia gets warped, preferential treatment of factions.

VanishedUser314159 (T-C-L-K-R-D) nee Joshua P. Schroeder nee ScienceApologist finally did get banned, but his close accomplices are still Users In Good Standing. Reviewing the history of cold fusion, and the activities of Enric Naval, I decided to, again, retire EnergyNeutral. Enric is not interested in a neutral article, he displayed, as he always has, a clear POV and readiness to push it, and the others who showed up behaved as they had always behaved.

I came across an SSP report filed by Hipocrite on one of the banned editors, Nrcprm2026. The checkuser closed the report as "interesting," and chastised an unnamed editor participating (you know who you are) to stop the socking. It's obvious who it would be, Hipocrite. So ... why was that tolerated?

The answer is obvious. It depends on who your friends are.

Hipocrite is currently not editing under that name, claims to have been "harassed off," in his last edit. I was originally banned from cold fusion by William M. Connolley as a result of very clear harassment of me by Hipocrite, WMC then intervened "neutrally" to ban both Hipocrite and I, and rather quickly lifted the ban against Hipocrite, since Hipocrite didn't protest at all. Which was obviously because he didn't care at all about cold fusion, he was just there because he'd been sent by his friends.... (or had spontaneously gone to aid them; how I first encountered him, he was involved in a Machiavellian scheme with ScienceApologist).

Wikipedia is full of worms like this. Whatever decency there is in ArbComm gets rubbed off quickly.

I was fooled by the decision in RfAr/Abd and JzG, because it looked like ArbComm considered that fairly. No, it was simply such an open and shut case that the cabal stayed away. With RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, they saw their opportunity to strike back. And they did, and they know how to manipulate that crowd. JzG was "reprimanded" in the first RfAr. That meant nothing at all, he's repeated the very same behavior, and nobody has said "boo!" to him. The place is utterly corrupt and beyond recovery, so damaged has it been from years of mismanagement, so poisoned has become the nest. JzG is still at it, see

new attempt to blacklist cold fusion library
JzG's nice response to my comments on his meta talk page. This latter was posted because JzG basically collected a series of lies he'd told over the years, densely presented on the spam blacklist page, and I decided to actually respond to them, which would be very foolish on the blacklist page, it would simply irritate the blacklist administrators..... but they won't ding him for raising all those irrelevant arguments, that's the sad thing.

He will probably not be successful this time, but I do keep in mind that he carried the day in early 2009 with a request that was no better, with Mike.lifeguard ultimately "confirming" it. Based on no linkspam, just bullshit.

[Abd]

Hey, I've arrived! I must have done something right.

An impersonation account was created today, Dennis Abd Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Took Tnxman four hours to do something (thanks, Tnxman!). It's a "checkuser block," but he didn't say who the puppet master was. It sure wasn't me! I saw this because I have google searches set on Abd Lomax....

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Mathsci]

Hey, I've arrived! I must have done something right.

An impersonation account was created today, Dennis Abd Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Took Tnxman four hours to do something (thanks, Tnxman!). It's a "checkuser block," but he didn't say who the puppet master was. It sure wasn't me! I saw this because I have google searches set on Abd Lomax....

Also Bad Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . It did not look like you.

[Abd]

Also Bad Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . It did not look like you.

Yeah. Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) ???

Those "Lomax accounts" were reverting edits by AwesomeCoffee (T-C-L-K-R-D) who's been identified as a sock of Tyciol. See history of one of these pages.

Yeah, kinda doesn't look like me. Pure disruption, oddly based on reverting what look like good edits of a banned user. That's kinda anti-Abd. Awesome Coffee, indeed. Good work, Tyciol, if that's actually you. Boring as hell, to be sure, but to each his own.

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

[-DS-]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

[Abd]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

[jayvdb]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

You like to watch pedos? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Abd]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

You like to watch pedos? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Watch them what? Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence? It is impossible to keep them out of the wiki playground, so don't you think it would be safer if they can be watched, than if they can't?

You think like a typical Wikipedia administrator who imagines he has Real Power with those block buttons. It's a joke. Only incompetent noobs have any difficulty socking, if that's what they want to do. There is a purpose to block buttons, it's even legitimate, but there are limits to that, and collateral damage.

And I didn't describe what could actually be done, and in typical Wikipediot fashion, you are completely uninterested.

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

[jayvdb]

...It is impossible to keep them out of the wiki playground, so don't you think it would be safer if they can be watched, than if they can't?..

Report them to authorities and let them do the watching. We cant keep them out of the wiki playground, but we can eject anyone who acts inappropriately, whether they act inappropriate outside the playground or inside it.

And I didn't describe what could actually be done, and in typical Wikipediot fashion, you are completely uninterested.

Write an essay on how we should improve our approach to pedos, real world stalkers, self-harmers, identity thieves, etc. Be sure to include expert opinions on the matter.

This post has been edited by jayvdb:

[Somey]

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

Wikipedia is, unfortunately, in a no-win situation regarding pedophiles and pedophilia advocates. In theory, you'd actually be correct, in so far as such people could be "watched" - but in fact, they can't really "watch" them to anything even close to the necessary extent, given the limited capabilities they have. And you should never underestimate such people - they can be extremely clever at getting what they're after, and User:Tyciol is right up there among the cleverest. For one thing, he'll never admit to actually advocating pedophilia, much less being a pedophile himself, and might even deny both if pressed on the subject. If your site has an "Assume Good Faith" rule, that can be a serious (or at least time-consuming) problem.

It looks like what they've ultimately decided to do (generally speaking) on WP is assume they can monitor the high-value target articles indefinitely, and just revert whatever looks like pedo-advocacy immediately. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it is their rationale, I suppose. Who knows how long that will last, but in any event, it makes no sense to keep known pedophilia advocates unblocked just to "study them" - the PR hit alone easily overcomes that rationale.

But getting back to a nicer subject, I'm still sort of interested in your points earlier about self-reverting, though my complete silence on the subject over the past 3 months might suggest otherwise. You're right, of course, that they care much more about revenge and retaliation against "tendentious editors" than they do about improving article quality or anything of that nature... but I'll admit, I've been surprised - pleasantly, even - to see that some WPers are willing to restore these self-reverted edits. It's almost... heartwarming! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

I think you also may be right about self-reversion being an incentive to post high-quality material, but I'd still be surprised if they could find enough people to restore the self-reversions if the practice became really widespread. Then again, when you think about it, there's no reason why it should become really widespread, given the relatively small number of people who are banned but still want to post things there.

[Abd]

...It is impossible to keep them out of the wiki playground, so don't you think it would be safer if they can be watched, than if they can't?..

Report them to authorities and let them do the watching. We cant keep them out of the wiki playground, but we can eject anyone who acts inappropriately, whether they act inappropriate outside the playground or inside it.

And I didn't describe what could actually be done, and in typical Wikipediot fashion, you are completely uninterested.

Write an essay on how we should improve our approach to pedos, real world stalkers, self-harmers, identity thieves, etc. Be sure to include expert opinions on the matter.

I'll be doing that, quite likely, on Wikiversity. I can't do it on Wikipedia, you know why. It's really of greater import, it has to do with structure, structure that is consistent with the adhocracy that was set up. I.e., it would still allow the adhocracy to work, but would protect and cover for the rough edges.

Basically, Wikipedia came down against "bureaucracy," which was interpreted to mean any kind of structure, thus rejecting many centuries of human experience, in favor of an experiment. In a mature wiki, there would be structure, serving the positive functions that bureaucracies serve. Bureaucracies are typically built from the top, under central direction, but what's of interest to me is bottom-up structure, built from the bottom, founded in the freedom and independence of all the individual members of the community.

[A Horse With No Name]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I wish I could state with reasonable certainty that you're being unnecessarily cruel to Mr. Vandenberg.
Sadly, all the evidence I've seen to date has tended to support your thesis. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

If he were smarter, he either would have quit by now, or have started some kind of campaign to
reform its governance. But he's quite happy to let the freak-show grind onwards, replete with
the sports trivia/militarism bias of the database, the defamatory BLPs, the endless penis photos,
the barking craziness and backstabbing on AN/I and SPI every day, and Erik Moeller overseeing
it all. Plus, he seems to really enjoy calling himself "the president of Wikimedia Australia",
something I do not consider to be the act of someone who knows better.

(And oh, just by the by: did you know there's a photo section on Commons called
Modification_of_the_human_male_penis? Completely NSFW, or anyone....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Abd]

Aw Somey, you point to my favorite topic. Sorry, but now that I spent some valuable time writing this, I don't have time left to boil it down. Avert your eyes if allergic to Abd Wall-o-Text™. Dramamine might help.

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

Wikipedia is, unfortunately, in a no-win situation regarding pedophiles and pedophilia advocates. In theory, you'd actually be correct, in so far as such people could be "watched" - but in fact, they can't really "watch" them to anything even close to the necessary extent, given the limited capabilities they have.

That's correct. Given the assumption of "limited capabilities." That, indeed, is the core issue, the belief in limit. Effective watching would take structure so that watching is validated as occurring, so that it's fail-safe.

And you should never underestimate such people - they can be extremely clever at getting what they're after,

My, they are powerful! Of course "they" can be clever! So can "we!" As long as we conceptualize this situation as "us" vs. "them," we are stuck, and we have a battleground, forever.

and User:Tyciol is right up there among the cleverest. For one thing, he'll never admit to actually advocating pedophilia, much less being a pedophile himself, and might even deny both if pressed on the subject. If your site has an "Assume Good Faith" rule, that can be a serious (or at least time-consuming) problem.

I see no conflict between AGF (which is properly a behavioral principle, often neglected, not a "recipe for suicide" as claimed) and taking precautions to handle certain possibilities. The key would be in designing the precautions so that good-faith actions are rewarded and encouraged, while bad-faith actions tend to result in consequences undesirable to the actor. That is, specific actions result in consequences, and "bad faith" doesn't even need enter into the calculations. But Wikipedians, like many people, prefer to simplify their world by assuming "bad people" who have "bad faith," whatever that is. Real people are often far more complex, with complex motivations that they may not even understand themselves.

It looks like what they've ultimately decided to do (generally speaking) on WP is assume they can monitor the high-value target articles indefinitely, and just revert whatever looks like pedo-advocacy immediately. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it is their rationale, I suppose. Who knows how long that will last, but in any event, it makes no sense to keep known pedophilia advocates unblocked just to "study them" - the PR hit alone easily overcomes that rationale.

The goal would not be to 'study' them. The goal -- in the narrow consideration of my post -- would be to watch them, to channel their activities into what is harmless at worst. The fact is that, for the encyclopedia, any "advocacy" is a problem. Not just "pedo-advocacy." Indeed, anti-pedo advocacy is a problem. What's in reliable source?

But getting back to a nicer subject, I'm still sort of interested in your points earlier about self-reverting, though my complete silence on the subject over the past 3 months might suggest otherwise. You're right, of course, that they care much more about revenge and retaliation against "tendentious editors" than they do about improving article quality or anything of that nature... but I'll admit, I've been surprised - pleasantly, even - to see that some WPers are willing to restore these self-reverted edits. It's almost... heartwarming! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

It's actually normal. I saw this with self-reversion every time it's been tried. It doesn't work when there are not enough editors paying attention, i.e, the self-reversion breaks down when the edits are ignored, so the editor may eventually give up, and either stop editing entirely, or, more likely, stop self-reversion.

In theory, self-reversion could turn ban enforcement into positive contributions. I've seen that work, too.

What is ideally involved would be a quid pro quo. In return for the banned editor self-reverting, which acknowledges and respects the ban, making enforcement much easier, in fact, the wiki would not consider self-reverted edits to be ban violations. This was, in fact, old thinking, and it went out of favor almost precisely because I proposed it as applied to self-reversion. (The sense was that "harmless edits," like spelling corrections, shouldn't be considered ban violations. A self-reverted edit is almost completely harmless. Unless it is, and my definition of a harmful self-reverted edit would be gross incivility, possibly, or anything requiring revision deletion.)

If this were accepted, what would have happened, in effect, would be that "banned editors" would not be completely banned, but would rather be converted into editors whose contributions must be "seconded." Self-reverted edits are the simplest and easiest way to propose an edit. I often use it to propose complex edits to policies, for example. Spelling corrections are not worth the effort to describe them. Actually making the edit is quick and simple, and self-reversion -- which is only necessary in order not to complicate ban enforcement -- is also easy, as is the review and restoration of the edit.

For spelling corrections, someone who *really hates the editor* and who is therefore watching for edits, may still review the edit and bring it back in. Or not.

Consider this: if such an editor were to complain about a self-reverted edit, but didn't fix it, if it were obviously good, they would be exposing themselves as to having a personal agenda... that, in fact, is what happened with William M. Connolley, when he blocked me for a harmless edit that was self-reverted. He acknowledged it, that was his comment about "nailing his colors to the yard-arm." He knew what he was doing!

I think you also may be right about self-reversion being an incentive to post high-quality material, but I'd still be surprised if they could find enough people to restore the self-reversions if the practice became really widespread. Then again, when you think about it, there's no reason why it should become really widespread, given the relatively small number of people who are banned but still want to post things there.

Here is how it actually worked, in some cases: there is a cooperating unbanned editor, who agrees to review the edits. That editor may actually bring back in what is obviously good, or make a note of it on Talk, soliciting comment from those who know the subject. It's easy, and there are editors who will do this.

It's actually easy to do this. It generates more good content per minute than about anything I can imagine. It's also a voluntary relationship, and builds cooperation.

And if an editor has been so disruptive and so contentious that nobody will cooperate, well, he made his bed, and he could still try self-reversion, but he'll need to be patient, very patient.

Self-reversion is a kind of trick, that's all, that resulted inexorably, in my thinking, from considering multiple policies and principles. It has, in fact, been shown to work, and the only damage, so far, has been from senseless "ban enforcement." It's far less damage than from serious concealed socking. I did one concealed sock, and, that was also successful, i.e., it resulted in good content probably worth the minimal effort put into enforcement. Or not. I would not have gone there if self-reversion had not been so heavily sanctioned.

Demonstrating the dysfunctional response without actually *causing* it has been my purpose. Some Wikipedia administrators followed wp:RBI, and, while not ideal, this wasn't harmful. It was only proceeding into range blocks, revision deletion, and setting an edit filter, that collateral damage was caused. And that was actually violation of RBI, as well as of revision deletion policy, and the edit filter was downright stupid.

There are a series of stupid objections that are sometimes raised regarding self-reversion. I won't bother with those unless someone brings one up.

I'm not currently self-reverting, though I've thought of starting up again. Mostly it's that I have insufficient motivation to edit Wikipedia at all. My edits are rare, recently. I'm not bothering to sock, why waste a sock when I can just make an IP edit and nobody really knows it's me. I did try self-reversion, until the response escalated and the edit filter made the acknowledgment of the edits impossible.

Basically, natural consequences apply to the 'community' too! Punish cooperation, and it stops. Like, duh!

However, if someone wants to agree to review all my edits, I'd start it up again. I'd do what I was doing before, I'd document all the edits on a page, probably on Wikiversity, since the community decided to allow that page. This is not "meat puppetry," it would be completely open. There is no risk if the editor exercises due caution.

Obviously, if massive range blocks are used again, it would become difficult. But at least some more experience would be accumulated.

See, to my knowledge, nobody has tried this before, except for two prior, short experiments that I facilitated, that worked.

There is a variation, that I used with Moulton. Moulton was an editor who sometimes contributed valuable insights, but who also was highly disruptive, making edits that, by policy, required revision deletion. I suggested self-reversion to him, and he made a couple of edits, but he was really trying to find out what was wrong with it, not what would work.

But then what I did was to watch for Moulton edits. He cooperates to the extent that he always made them obvious, he'd sign them. I'd immediately revert them. He hated that, but what I was doing was pre-empting response. I'd list all these edits on a page for that, inviting objection. Some edits I immediately rejected myself, but most of his edits were actually okay. I'd leave them there for a decent time, then, with no objection, I'd revert them back in.

It worked. It broke down when an administrator who was "ban is a ban" finally set extensive range blocks. He's gone. Moulton was eventually unlocked and unblocked, but without any agreement or supervision, I'd never have done that with him. The predictable ensued, and he's now indef blocked again. He prefers it that way, obviously.

What was really interesting about this was that there was some flak over what I was doing, but only generally, and it was toothless. Nobody ever objected to the proposed edits. In one case, as I recall, an editor reverted my restoration, so I replaced it with a reference to history, and that stood.

These techniques work. They are not often tried. It does take some courage.

[jayvdb]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I wish I could state with reasonable certainty that you're being unnecessarily cruel to Mr. Vandenberg.
Sadly, all the evidence I've seen to date has tended to support your thesis. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

If he were smarter, he either would have quit by now, or have started some kind of campaign to
reform its governance. But he's quite happy to let the freak-show grind onwards, replete with
the sports trivia/militarism bias of the database, the defamatory BLPs, the endless penis photos,
the barking craziness and backstabbing on AN/I and SPI every day, and Erik Moeller overseeing
it all. Plus, he seems to really enjoy calling himself "the president of Wikimedia Australia",
something I do not consider to be the act of someone who knows better.

(And oh, just by the by: did you know there's a photo section on Commons called
Modification_of_the_human_male_penis? Completely NSFW, or anyone....)

I did try to promote reform in 2009. Many of those reforms were successful, and I am content with what was achieved in 2009.

This year I'm not putting nearly as much effort into reform of Wikipedia. I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

[RMHED]

I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. .

The Wikimedia movement splashed down in the toilet bowl some time ago, it's time to flush that turd.

Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006

Yadda, yadda, yadda, now where's those ruby slippers...

[A Horse With No Name]

This year I'm not putting nearly as much effort into reform of Wikipedia.

This year? 2011 is more than halfway over...what year are you living in? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Yadda, yadda, yadda, now where's those ruby slippers...

Oh, there's no place like home. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)