The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> JzG now wants to delete massive ArbComm evidence
Abd
post Sat 4th June 2011, 3:13am
Post #1


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



JzG files MfD on all Abd user pages

These include documents submitted to ArbComm in Arbitration hearings, and reviewed by arbitrators, in at least one case the page was prepared at the request of an arbitrator. It includes studies of blacklisting practice, and includes a page listing poets whose articles on Wikipedia could be improved with a link to lyrikline.org, because the poet has a page there (this was an old unfinished project). It includes essays such as the Rule 0 essay.

It includes pages that other users have worked on. Some of it is simple junk, it includes my Sandbox.

The cabal does this all the time. They don't like history. History is never favorable to them. The more of it they can erase, the better.

JzG has done this before, he managed to get the evidence page submitted to ArbComm, in a request he'd filed , deleted as being an "attack page." (ArbComm declined that request, and that page might have been a piece of the reason.) In that case, I simply went ahead and filed RfC/JzG 3, having kept the evidence which I then re-used.

The pages used in the RfAr cases don't necessarily show up in What links here, because much of RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley was "courtesy blanked," but the idea is that anyone who wants to read the case can look at it in history. Some of the pages in the list, at least the Response to Verbal, was also courtesy blanked. Verbal attempted, many times, to get that page deleted, to prevent any kind of neutral description of the content, and revert warred over it, so that it was protected. This is what JzG is referring to when he talks about me undoing changes.

It's his usual lies. But he often gets away with it.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 4th June 2011, 3:17am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 4th June 2011, 4:35am
Post #2


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 8:13pm) *
It's his usual lies. But he often gets away with it.

Yes. And you should know by now that you can't win this argument. He's got backup--a bunch of flakes and lunatics, perhaps, but available to help him. How many long-time admins do you have, backing you up?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Sat 4th June 2011, 5:40am
Post #3


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



Post it all here in the Annex. We've got the bits! Yeah, I know its not the same as "on-wiki", but you're indef'd -- get used to it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 4th June 2011, 3:48pm
Post #4


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 4th June 2011, 12:35am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 8:13pm) *
It's his usual lies. But he often gets away with it.
Yes. And you should know by now that you can't win this argument. He's got backup--a bunch of flakes and lunatics, perhaps, but available to help him. How many long-time admins do you have, backing you up?
None. The ones that would have, at one time, have almost all retired, given up, turned to something more fruitful. The kind of position I represent will be at most, in casual society, about one-third, and it can only function through deliberative process.

What I'm looking at now is my own obsession. JzG acting up simply brought it all up. I'd given up on Wikipedia, concluding that it was way too far gone and that I'd gone too long with some idea that small changes might eventually produce a larger change. That idea became increasingly untenable, to the point that a month ago, I went outlaw, outlaw, that is, within the insane Wikipedia Wikiverse.

It's a world where liars are supported, neutrality is an illusion, merely a form of text that some follow and some don't, and only appearance counts, not substance. It's a world where truth, even totally verifiable, documentable, demonstrable truth, doesn't matter.

Verifiability not truth makes some sense, because we confuse points of view with truth, but when there is no process for verification, but only the mere possibility of it, when actual verification is improbable, the core project of human knowledge has broken down.

Bottom line, I got really, really pissed, at the evil of it all.

I saved my files, that was a no-brainer, though, in fact, those files are only useful for what?

For working on a project that is dead.

From all that work, I gained a poem, from one of the lyrikline.org poets. (One of the files is about the lyrikline.org blacklisting, a case study in the Utter Stupidity of the wikipedia system.)

We will not sleep.


QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 4th June 2011, 1:40am) *
Post it all here in the Annex. We've got the bits! Yeah, I know its not the same as "on-wiki", but you're indef'd -- get used to it.
Thanks. Some stuff might come here, or elsewhere, but why? Why should I bother?

Good money after bad.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sat 4th June 2011, 5:12pm
Post #5


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



I may be dense here. What is the rationale for the proposed deletions?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Sat 4th June 2011, 5:22pm
Post #6


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th June 2011, 11:48am) *
QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 4th June 2011, 1:40am) *
Post it all here in the Annex. We've got the bits! Yeah, I know its not the same as "on-wiki", but you're indef'd -- get used to it.
Thanks. Some stuff might come here, or elsewhere, but why? Why should I bother?


In order to preserve your work, opinions, and essays for the benefit of users interesting in learning about your experiences. It would also serve as a way for you to reflect on your past experiences. Your subpages are safer hosted outside of Wikipedia anyway.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 4th June 2011, 5:53pm
Post #7


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 4th June 2011, 1:22pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th June 2011, 11:48am) *
Some stuff might come here, or elsewhere, but why? Why should I bother?
In order to preserve your work, opinions, and essays for the benefit of users interesting in learning about your experiences. It would also serve as a way for you to reflect on your past experiences. Your subpages are safer hosted outside of Wikipedia anyway.
Yeah. But it will require a lot of work in formatting.

What I get when I reflect on my past experiences is angry and bitter, or at least those are the presenting emotions. I trusted the community, and I trusted ArbComm. I knew there were problems, but, damn, it seemed like such a good idea....

When I saw that users who lied and bullied were respected, and those whom they bullied and libeled were rejected and banned, when I saw that enormous work could be put into compiling evidence to show -- objectively! -- what had actually happened -- but it was disregarded as if it were mere pov-pushing, and when I saw that this disregard reached to the top, to the Arbitration Committee, which failed to establish careful review process but simply reproduced the lower-level problems at a higher level -- I finally gave up on this "community."

I have the wikitext for it all, I hope. Some of these pages had more participation by others, what the pages are has been misrepresented by JzG. There is, for example, a page where I mediated between a subject matter expert and a student-level editor, which resulted in their becoming cooperating editors instead of enemies about to both be blocked. I reminds me of my MYOB ban, what that ban interdicted. The best work I'd done.

Dispute over thermoeconomics
The talk page for the above

If ArbComm knew what it was doing, then it was directly opposing real dispute resolution, and, indeed, there are forces that don't want that in society. If they didn't know what they were doing, that's almost as bad!

Most signs are that they don't know what they are doing.

Part of the Wikipedia problem is the deletion of history. Happens all the time. I eventually settled on using, for extended evidence, archiving to page history instead of creating pages elsewhere, because that takes a less-used tool to delete.

But it doesn't really matter, at least not in the short term. If people won't look at history, but will simply react based on quick impressions and what they like and don't like, what does it matter if history is preserved? Long term, yes, it can make a difference. Maybe.

Gad, I just noticed. JzG went through the cold fusion article and reverted edits made by EnergyNeutral, thus restoring a citation error that I'd corrected. I was really careful with those edits, they were straightforward improvements, and it would make no sense for me to do anything else. The only real controversy involved would be the single restoration of the edit by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. That's being tendentiously opposed, as it has for years. JzG doesn't mention that he was reprimanded by ArbComm for blacklisting lenr-canr.org, but, in the other direction, ArbComm seems to not care at all that he has repeated (abusive unilateral blacklisting, being highly involved) what they reprimanded him for. I brought it up. They rejected the case. That's when I went outlaw. Last straw.

(AnomieBOT fixed the error, but that error had been standing for a bit....)

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 4th June 2011, 5:57pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Sat 4th June 2011, 9:32pm
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th June 2011, 6:53pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 4th June 2011, 1:22pm) *

Your subpages are safer hosted outside of Wikipedia anyway.
Yeah. But it will require a lot of work in formatting.

Move them all to Simplewiki; they'll be safe there. No admin there has a clue about what's going on elsewhere in WMF. In fact, not many of them have any sort of clue about anything.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sun 5th June 2011, 8:13pm
Post #9


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Detective @ Sat 4th June 2011, 5:32pm) *
Move them all to Simplewiki; they'll be safe there. No admin there has a clue about what's going on elsewhere in WMF. In fact, not many of them have any sort of clue about anything.
Oh, I'm sure they'd get some assistance. Some files may go to Wikiversity, those that have some relevance there. I see that some files were already moved by a user who wanted to save them. There are others of general utility, for example

User:Abd/Lyrikline poets

was a working list, and someone who wants to improve Wikipedia articles on those poets could use that list to find articles where the improvement is simple and obvious. I'll explain.

Lyrikline.org was blacklisted some years ago. A user from de.wikipedia, apparent home wiki, had been going around adding links in articles on poets to lyrikline.org. It seems that this user was affiliated with lyrikline.org, which is a web site created in collaboration between academic institutions and the German government, there is an article that was also created by this user, and deleted for similar reasons as the edits were reverted. Spam blacklist administrators and volunteers seem to feel free to engage in massive, often anonymous, vandalism!

(Later, the article was restored at my request, and edited to make it comply with guidelines, Lyrikline.org.)

In any case, the user clearly thought that he was making welcome improvements. When this was called spamming, he did stop, and he apologized, but he was still sanctioned. There is a detailed history of all this at User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org

This case showed both legitimate usage of the global blacklist -- to stop a global pattern of rapid addition of links without review, possibly by a COI editor -- and its failure to discriminate between legitimate additions and illegitimate ones. (I'd say there is a complete disinterest in that issue.) In my review of the links, I never found any that were not legitimate, at least arguably.

So the list page I've mentioned shows potential link additions, as well as the ones already added, mostly by me. Further, the red links show, probably, possible articles to be created, since these are all, practically by definition, notable poets. Recognition by lyrikline is recognition by an academic institution. The lyrikline pages on a poet include a biography. Until this was recently fixed, possibly as a result of my mention of it in the lenr-canr.org delisting request, the WMF was blacklisting a notable and reliable source. From prior requests of mine, the English language interface to lyrikline.org had been whitelisted at en.wp, by my request. (That's how I was able to add links.)

Beetstra was the admin who delisted, and see this meta discussion, which shows the hostility that dogged me, from some administrators.... Beetstra behaves as if his baby, the blacklist, is being attacked. What he doesn't notice is that, sure, a short-term blacklisting could make sense, but this one was maintained for years. There is no expiration on a blacklisting, and delisting was requested many times, and always denied on the grounds that there wasn't anything wrong with the original listing. What was wrong with it was that it, and associated process, immediately damaged content, simply because an editor was "COI." It's all backwards, and, folks, this is how the wiki crumbles.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st 9 14, 1:41pm