Logic Museum, On spam list Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

The Logic Museum is now on the English Wikipedia 'spam blacklist' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=430645834 . Why so?

It is a quite harmless non-profit repository of primary sources on logic. It has useful references on where to find manuscripts, links to manuscripts on sophismata http://www.wikipediareview.com/Sophismata, a directory of medieval manuscripts, a scanned in and currently being spell-checked copy of Albert's commentary on the Metaphysics http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Logic_M...k_I/Tractatus_i . And the original version of Ockham's Summa Logicae http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Logic_M...gicae_III-I_5-8 (there are other versions now, including the one appropriated by Vandenberg.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

I think the "real reason" is pretty simple, seeing as this action comes only days after I asked the site-blacking admin to participate in an interview with me about how particular sites come to be blacklisted on Wikipedia. I own the domain upon which the Logic Museum resides. Therefore, it's another case of "punish those who get too close to the truth".

That's the WikiWay.

[Peter Damian]

That's the WikiWay.

Right. So I scan in and spell check a whole volume of work, post it on my bit of the site, which is non-profit, then Vandenberg and friends rip it off http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...e_Consequentiis , and then they block the original source. That's the WikiWay, and free culture for you too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[gomi]

File a DMCA takedown on them, just for grins. You could argue that you own a right in the scan and correction of the (public domain) text. One trick that is often used is to leave in a few "sentinel" misspellings or other tricks. This allows you to easily prove that they ripped it off from you, rather than the original source.

[Abd]

Ah, Ckatz

Some of you know I took a biased blacklisting all the way to ArbComm and supposedly prevailed. It then took almost two years to get the global blacklisting undone, and I was topic-banned again for the effort. These Guys are vicious.

So, first, for reference: the blacklisting edit. Privileged edit, requires an admin to edit that page. The edit summary:

There is a process, and admins are not supposed to add to the blacklist without a filed request and notice. First of all, did Ckatz log the action? At the top of the blacklist page is the warning: "All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...list/log." Okay, he did:

#Ckatz # block specific pages owned by banned user User:Peter Damian and IP sockpuppets
\bwikipediareview\.com/Directory:Logic_Museum\b

There was no discussion, no evidence of abusive addition of links. The listing reason betrays blatant policy violation. The spam blacklist was not intended to be used for content control, it was only intended for use to more efficiently stop spammers from adding sites, and isolated additions, even if improper, are not an approved application. But, as with Wikipedia in general, being right plus a quarter can get you a gumball.

I'd say that is an outrageous addition. If you were improperly adding the link, blocking is the remedy. The spam blacklist is not supposed to be used for any link where there might be a possible value, not this specific-page kind of blacklisting.

I think I agree with Greg, a DCMA takedown notice would be the most efficient remedy here.

That blacklist does not affect the other WMF sites, I assume you know. That would be at meta. There are no wikipediareview blacklistings at meta.

Ckatz is, of course, incorrect, the site is not owned by you, Peter.

This is another burned-out wikicop throwing his weight around. Block log. Of course, the "sock" is obvious. This Wikipedia trope does bother me. "Sock puppets" were originally pretend users, popping up to show phony additional support for a position....

That reference to an investigation page leads to nothing relating to this block.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[thekohser]

I think I agree with Greg, a DCMA takedown notice would be the most efficient remedy here.

That was Gomi's idea, not mine. Although, I will add that another "banned Wikipedian" e-mailed Peter and me today, reminding Peter that, unless noted otherwise by the author, the Directory-level pages on Wikipedia Review default to copyright ownership by the author, and licensed for use by Wikipedia Review.com... so if a Wikimedia site took his content, claiming that it's freely licensed, they're wrong.

Now, whether it's public domain or a work of significant personal interpretation, I cannot determine.

I seem to remember telling Peter a while ago that one of the better ways to exact revenge on the scoundrels at Wikipedia is just to do better than them at something. Like an article about Brandywine Springs, safely copyrighted and woefully inadequate on Wikipedia. Every once in a while, remind the boneheads over there that all of this luscious content could have been theirs, if they hadn't been so rude and power-hungry.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[EricBarbour]

I seem to remember telling Peter a while ago that one of the better ways to exact revenge on the scoundrels at Wikipedia is just to do better than them at something. Like an article about Brandywine Springs, safely copyrighted and woefully inadequate on Wikipedia. Every once in a while, remind the boneheads over there that all of this luscious content could have been theirs, if they hadn't been so rude and power-hungry.

That's what I've been telling experts in specialized fields to do. Put up their own wiki or other kind of online museum, and make it superior to Wikipedia.

Wanna see an example of my work? Look at rcaselectron.com.
Many years ago, Charlie asked me if he and the other TCA members should put the Selectron information on Wikipedia. I told him, no--it won't stay there, it will be constantly messed with, and nobody will protect it. Plus, any images or other information will automatically become "free-licensed", and there will be no effective copyright control. So he decided to put up his own website on the subject, he found hosting that costs less than $100/year. And the result is great. Far better than ANY textbook treatment of the device, in 1950 or since.

And needless to say, whoever created the miserable Wikipedia article about the Selectron stole most of the (meager) content from Charlie's site. They even stole the photo from rcaselectron.com. (A photo of the experimental 4096-bit Selectron, not the 256-bit device that was actually manufactured....)

Yes, Peter, I too think you should send them a DMCA takedown notice. They are trying to embarrass you, so you should reciprocate.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Peter Damian]

Thanks for the comments. Being entirely ignorant of these matters, what is a DMCA notice, and how to I apply it? At Wikisource? The ripped off version is here http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

It is easy to prove it is my version as there are still plenty of spelling mistakes. Also, The Logic Museum uses a standardised spelling (using 'v' instead of 'u') that other Wikisources do not.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

Thanks for the comments. Being entirely ignorant of these matters, what is a DMCA notice, and how to I apply it? At Wikisource? The ripped off version is here http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

It is easy to prove it is my version as there are still plenty of spelling mistakes. Also, The Logic Museum uses a standardised spelling (using 'v' instead of 'u') that other Wikisources do not.

Why don't you first ask Vandenburg if he would kindly remove the content from Wikisource? Then, use Google to learn what is a DMCA take-down notice.

[Peter Damian]

Thanks for the comments. Being entirely ignorant of these matters, what is a DMCA notice, and how to I apply it? At Wikisource? The ripped off version is here http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

It is easy to prove it is my version as there are still plenty of spelling mistakes. Also, The Logic Museum uses a standardised spelling (using 'v' instead of 'u') that other Wikisources do not.

Why don't you first ask Vandenburg if he would kindly remove the content from Wikisource? Then, use Google to learn what is a DMCA take-down notice.

Done http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...9&oldid=2838513 .

To add insult to injury, their description has it coming from Peter King's medieval website. A quick check easily proves it was not from there (King's remark "has anyone scanned in Part III yet?" is a giveaway). I corrected this http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...&action=history but of course my correction may hit the spam list if the blacklist is global.

How clever to think of using Google.

[EricBarbour]

First read this, and make sure they can't claim some wiggle room.
Also go thru everything you've got on Greg's site, to see if they have stolen anything else.....

I suggest you send a printed copy of your DMCA takedown notice, via the post. Some kind of registered mail would be advisable, in case they try to claim they never received it. That or a UPS or Fedex overnight service--it's costly but it leaves a delivery trail that no organization can deny. Emailing it is fine, but knowing those fools, they might claim they never got it, and they can't ignore a printed letter.

As you can see here, they get very few DMCA takedown letters--and always on paper.

The US law you need to cite is the DMCA, also called Section 512 of Title 17 of the US Code. You might also ask Greg to serve as your US liaison and as the return address, since he's hosting your copyrighted text.

Send copies to the "designated agent" address in the sample letter below,
and also to the WMF office at:
149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
Phone: +1-415-839-6885
Email: info(at)wikimedia.org
Fax: +1-415-882-0495

Send copies to each of the honchos. Sue Gardner, Erik Moeller, Michelle Paulson,
Christine Moellenberndt and especially Philippe Beaudette, the guy who's
supposed to handle DMCA issues for the WMF.

Here's a suggested text:

Re: Copyright Claim
To Sue Gardner, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885
Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495

I am the copyright owner of the text being infringed at:

(URL of original text)

Copies of the text being infringed are included to assist with their removal from the infringing Wikipedia pages.

This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512© of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the above-reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified postings and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its Web address, from posting the infringing text to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing text upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.

Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.

Sincerely, (your name)
(your US address/contact)

Damn.....I know at least 2 writers who should also do this. Because someone stole their content for WP.
I should send them copies of this. Can the mods make the DMCA process a sticky?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Gruntled]

Right. So I scan in and spell check a whole volume of work, post it on my bit of the site, which is non-profit, then Vandenberg and friends rip it off http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...e_Consequentiis , and then they block the original source. That's the WikiWay, and free culture for you too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

To be fair, it's only on the local EN:WP blacklist. I would strongly oppose any attempt to add it to the LA:WS list. I realise that given the relative prominence of the two sites, that's not much comfort.

[Abd]

To be fair, it's only on the local EN:WP blacklist. I would strongly oppose any attempt to add it to the LA:WS list. I realise that given the relative prominence of the two sites, that's not much comfort.

Here is my take on this. First of all, the local blacklisting is an out-of-process rogue action by a single administrator. There are other admins who would support this, but it would not survive, I believe, broad consideration. Any admin who thinks the blacklisting is inappropriate could reverse that blacklisting, and it would then require a discussion to blacklist -- or an admin relisting could be considered to be wheel-warring.

The blacklist was intended to make it easier to handle high-volume spamming. The guidelines suggest that all other avenues be explored first, such as warning, blocking, page protection, and an additional option has appeared: bot reversion of links added (which then allows any autoconfirmed editor to revert the link back in.) Blacklisting is an extreme option, which prevents *any editor* from adding a link that is blacklisted.

But admins like to have more tools to Do What They Want. The admin wants to Stop You. Da Rules, nothing personal, I'm sure. I started getting into serious trouble on Wikipedia over an abusive blacklisting, lenr-canr.org, blacklisted because it was "fringe." And then a host of charges were invented: alters documents, copyright violation, and, finally, "spamming." The alleged spamming was a low level of addition of links by many editors, i.e., normal linking. The spamming edits cited were the IP edits of the site owner, where he signed "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org." Just like that, no link. The blacklisting did not stop those edits!

The real reason was that Jed Rothwell had, with others, exposed the flatulent ignorance of JzG, years ago.

The problem here is the administrative system, where admins are supermajority elected (which filters for a certain kind of personality, which amplifies the incidence of that personality type, and which, with time, increasingly favors it), but which then cuts these admins loose, with no supervision or regular review process. The system works as well as it does because most administrators are fairly decent, and reasonably intelligent, but it breaks down as it does because it only takes one bad apple to wreck the work of non-admins, and there is institutional bias in favor of the admins. They circle the wagons and protect their own.

In theory, any editor has equal rights, but in practice, the deck is heavily stacked. If you are a non-admin, and you confront abuse, your behavior must be insanely perfect, I'm not convinced I've seen anyone manage it. There are exceptions, non-admins whose behavior is outrageously uncivil, and they get away with it because of popularity with the admin core, or at least a large faction in the core.

In spite of claims, Wikipedia is an experiment in a certain kind of democracy, and the experiment is demonstrating what has long been known: an adhocracy becomes mob rule, and oppressive, if there is no established deliberative structure.

When an organization reaches the scale of Wikipedia, representative "government" is also known to be necessary, and that's what ArbComm is supposed to be, but the election method is not one that actually leads to representation of the community, it leads to vastly biased representation in favor of "the majority of the active," to the extent that even very large minorities come to be utterly without representation. ArbComm represents only the largest faction in the administrative core, not the editorship in general.

There are solutions, but ArbComm isn't interested, nor is the WMF, apparently.

And they won't be interested until the current system becomes too painful, until it becomes too obvious.

DCMA, Peter. You have the option, I suggest taking it. How you have been treated is outrageous, the blacklisting should be the last straw. When an admin abuses others, it's necessary that there be consequences, or nothing will be done about it.

A sane Wikipedia administration, given such from you, would negotiate with you. Negotiation with "banned editors" is exactly what admins like our friend here consider prohibited. How does that work in the real world?

Remember, "We won't negotiate with terrorists?" As I recall, the man who most famously said that began his political career as the leader of an openly terrorist organization. Refusal to negotiate with "enemies" perpetuates conflict.

In the Wikipedia adhocratic system, any individual can refuse to engage in any conversation. It's when individuals like this try to stop *others* from engaging that it becomes utterly oppressive and repressive.

[thekohser]

Here's a tidbit.

I asked Dirk Beetstra, a Wikipedia blacklist specialist who has been rather level-headed in his discussions with me about Examiner.com URL blacklisting, to react to something he had earlier said. His response was to shut down the conversation on that front. Logic hurts, I guess. Here's how it went...

Beetstra commented about the Logic Museum blacklisting:

I know that having a domain on the blacklist makes the domain look bad, while actually it should be the editors who abused the domain who should be ashamed.

So, I pointed out to him (via e-mail) that if adding a link to Logic Museum is abusing the domain, then it follows:

So, this editor has abused the system and should be ashamed, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=430617515

Greg

To which Beetstra responded:

No, that is not what I said...

No further comments on this specific situation via this forum.

I guess I hit a soft nerve, having the audacity to point out that blacklisting Logic Museum is intended not to improve content management on Wikipedia, but to retaliate against an individual former editor.

[Abd]

O M G. The page log for User:Thekohser.. Criticism from "banned users" is not allowed, even confined to a user talk page.

It doesn't seem to be a majority position among administrators, but it doesn't matter, because all it takes is one admin who takes the hardest line, and it's done, and is left done.

That we, the great unwashed, cannot see what was in that edit, isn't considered a problem, because They Are The Community. Not us. Other administrators will see the edit, and few will be bold enough to restore it, even if it was harmless. For all I know, that was anti-Kohs vandalism.... I pointed out here, a few days ago, where "‎(RD3: Purely disruptive material)" was used to cover material that would have been allowed for any non-banned editor, that would even have been considered constructive, by itself. By allowing such uses, by not standing up to them, administrators, then, allow the public to believe that all uses of RD are suspect.

That is why the rules for RD, which are stated more strongly than any other rules I've seen, are so strict. Then admins like Kww and Timotheus Canens drive a truck through the loophole, and if other admins don't stand up to this -- which requires becoming aware of it! -- the loophole widens and demolishes transparency and trust.

I have no idea if NawlinWiki is a white hat or black hat admin. I'm pointing to a process flaw.

Anyway, this sequence is amusing, see history of User talk:Thekohser, etc.

11:26, 13 April 2011 Come gather around (talk | contribs) (edit summary removed)
11:27, 13 April 2011 SineBot (talk | contribs) m (4,590 bytes) (Signing comment by Come gather around - "Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed")
13:50, 13 April 2011 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs) blocked Come gather around (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
14:36, 13 April 2011 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "User talk:Thekohser": removed content, edit summary for 1 revision ‎ (RD3: Purely disruptive material)

The revision deletion did not remove the content, apparently, because of the signbot addition. This content still shows, it would be, at least, the last paragraph of the edit, but is probably the whole thing:

Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Come gather around (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

and the original edit summary is also shown in signbot's edit:

m (Signing comment by Come gather around - "Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed")

This is what NawlinWiki thinks should be Revision Deleted. Come gather around (T-C-L-K-R-D) was blocked, and as far as I can tell, just for this edit. But it's a "checkuserblock." There is an increasing trend for checkusers to use their tools and act independently. He's not disclosing what he knows. This could be legitimate, as what passes for legitimate on Wikipedia, if the user were evading a ban. Otherwise, remember, Wikipedia tolerates even gross vandalism, but tolerates criticism as little as possible. One strike and you are out.

11:26, 13 April 2011 Okay, two strikes, but no warning.

As with the other edit, signbot's edit allowed the edit to remain. My guess is that Tnxman307 simply saw that 844724m0n (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Come gather around were likely the same editor. The blocks are not really the big issue here, but revision deletion, which makes it all hidden. The loss of transparency is not worth the gain of hiding what we can see was being hidden. Speaking as a now-experienced troll, whenever they revision-delete, I win, since my goal is to smoke out the jackboots. RBI doesn't bother me, because it is, on the face, legitimate, and leaves in place the possibility that someone will see my edit and bring it back in, thus improving content. That, in fact, is the theory behind self-reversion.

(At least initially, I confined myself to good edits. I'm trolling with fresh fish, not rotten bait, to see who or what is panting to grab it and go into a frenzy. As a blocked editor, I certainly can't complain about being blocked for block evasion. But I may -- and am -- reporting excessive force, where damage results to innocent editors and to content. That is a piece of value that I can contribute as a blocked editor that I could not really contribute as an unblocked one, without setting up piles of argument and evidence -- precisely what got me banned by ArbComm and others. One demonstration is worth a thousand words.)

There was a warning for Come gather around, 13:15, 13 April 2011, but it was useless, the account was blocked anyway with no more edits. The warning was incorrect, the edit was not reverted. It is still there, courtesy of signbot.

NawlinWiki's block log. Wow.

NawlinWiki revision deletes the edits that are the basis for his blocks.

NawlinWiki's deletion log.

NawlinWiki (T-C-L-K-R-D)
According to his user, page, over 170,000 edits. He's in a category, "Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests." We've already seen an example of his discretion.

Tireless contributor or loose cannon? Or both?

[Abd]

Geez, I did get distracted there. Beetstra.

Beestra is unpredictable, as far as I've seen. He's apparently reasonable one day and throws a tantrum the next. We debated the blacklisting of lyrikline.org for over a year and a half. When I requested delisting of lenr-canr.org, I mentioned lyrikline, it's a poster boy for what can go badly wrong with the blacklist. He ended up granting the delisting of lenr-canr.org, and a couple of days later, without any request, delisted lyrikline (as should have been done years before). So I thanked him. He went over the edge.

Something is drastically wrong here.

By the way, this response, apparently terminating the discussion, is common with Beetstra, he's told me similar many times! The trigger is when one responds to him with a logical implication of what he's said. No, he didn't say that. And you can see that in the dialog above, between him and I (the objection "No, I did not say that.")

Beetstra will sometimes engage deeply with the issues, writing at great length, but seems vulnerable having his fuses blow over some implication that he doesn't like. If I call a blacklisting an error, even if it was clearly abusive, which it looks like the Logic blacklisting may have been, he takes that as an attack on the blacklisting administrator, with high umbrage. He converts criticism of an action into personal criticism, then responds that way.

It's probably part of the battleground mentality that easily pervades vandalism and spam patrol. It's encouraged. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, current revision. It's been that way a long time. Hey, if you have to demolish large swaths of content in order to stop those Evil Spammers, that's just natural collateral damage.

BTW, I'd have added this image, but the Help facility here doesn't give me any clue as to how to resize it, so, while I might like having this humungous explosion here, as it would display, raw, discretion is the better part of valor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...oadside_USN.jpg[/img]


This post has been edited by Abd:

[melloden]

Everything is always a wall of text with you, eh, Abd?

[Abd]

Here is a diagnostic discussion with Beetstra, where he accuses a steward -- along with me -- of "assuming bad faith."

Beetstra refers to a short period where I tried to set up a more efficient whitelisting process. The idea was for non-admins, from the other side, interested in content improvement, as distinct from spamming, to review whitelisting requests and make a recommendation regarding them. Just one or two regular editors doing this could radically shift how whitelisting requests would be handled. I also had other suggestions that would be a bit more involved, but this one was simple, and anyone could do it, but for it to work, the editors doing it would need administrative support, which could be any administrator, not just the blacklisting experts like Beetstra. A specific link, requested by a registered editor, for a particular usage, should not require a big process. Even if something is wrong with that link, a single reviewed addition is not going to break the wiki.

What happened? Well, even though I wasn't intervening in any conflicts, but was simply responding to a request from an editor, sometimes an IP, with a recommendation, and even though it was brief and functional and respected guidelines and certainly did no damage, it was considered to be a violation of my MYOB ban, which was *not* about this kind of thing at all, as far as anything I could tell. This betrayed to me the *real purpose of the ban*, which was to force Abd to Go Away, for He Makes Us Uncomfortable. It's one of the reasons I simply retired, for the most part, for the rest of the year.

Too Much Trouble, and No Support.

Everything is always a wall of text with you, eh, Abd?

No.

[EricBarbour]

Beestra is unpredictable, as far as I've seen. He's apparently reasonable one day and throws a tantrum the next.

Beestra is a fairly typical Juice-guzzler--he's sometimes reasonable, sometimes nuts.

As you pointed out yourself, NawlinWiki is "special".
He permablocks so many accounts, no one will ever figure out exactly what he was doing.
He's always, 100% crazy, riding the crazy horse, every single day.....

NawlinWiki's block log. Wow.

[Silver seren]

He's always, 100% crazy, riding the crazy horse, every single day.....

That made me laugh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)