CKatz, Doing his job on the highway patrol Options

[Peter Damian]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia. He is trying to make the case to admin Ckatz that "The Logic Museum is scholarly work (kindly hosted by Wikipedia Review), of exceptional quality and utility to Wikipedia ... and shouldn't be treated any differently from any other website which provides scholarly work."

Haha. I predict this will get nowhere with the likes of robotic crazy patrollers like Katz. Look at the most recent complaint against Katz:

I will explain this only once: do not delete the information I post. Edit the information that you understand. You removed a link from an article written by Richard Posner on the Richard Posner's Wikipage, you removed a link to book summary written by Marco Iacoboni on the mirror neurons on the page of Mirror Neurons in Wiki. Please, be clever and intelligent: the fact that I contribute with links is not that I am a SPAM! Before you think like a robot, think like a human. Ask yourself: "Is the provided link valuable, how related to the topic it is, and what is its quality?" These are basic questions an editor should ask before crippling the text... I have no time to repair the mess you created, but take a note! It seems that you don't understand the subjects you edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.198.186 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=477475894

I looked at one of the links the IP is complaining about. Katz removed it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=476511770 with the comment reverting edits by IP whose only contributions are to add links to the MR site. Mate, that is the Montreal Review, one look at which http://www.themontrealreview.com tells you it is a critical review site, authentic, peer reviewed, high quality etc. The link was to an article by Richard Posner, currently unavailable on Wikipedia http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-...hard-Posner.php. Posner is wholly notable - the link was in the Wikipedia article about him. The Montreal Review is as respectable a publication as you could get. Katz simply doesn't understand this.

Vandenberg may get somewhere with this, and get the links replaced. But in no way is he addressing the root problem, which is uneducated and illiterate administrators like Katz who are now running the show. Katz will not be punished in any way. Indeed, he is esteemed and respected on Wikipedia for his vandal fighting and his 'contributions to Wikipedia articles' of which he boasts 58,000 contributions (mainly removal of what he thinks is 'spam' links, such as to the Montreal Review, or (cough) the Logic Museum).

I predict Vandenberg will do nothing about this. The dwindling number of 'good guys' on Wikipedia are no match for the likes of the highway patrollers with their shiny badges

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jayvdb]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia.

Blacklist entry removed.

What happened to this page on the old Logic Museum?

[HRIP7]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia.

Blacklist entry removed.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[jayvdb]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia.

Blacklist entry removed.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Another happy customer.

[Peter Damian]

John Vandenberg has kindly tried to intervene in the case of the links to my website being banned on Wikipedia.

Blacklist entry removed.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Another happy customer.

Thanks everyone.

However, if we look at the basic principles involved here, it is clear that nothing has really been resolved. The underlying problem is that you have people in charge of running an encyclopedia who have no idea how to run an encyclopedia. The Logic Museum was a prime candidate for outbound linking. It has no competitors, it has useful and encyclopedic content, etc etc. If you look at the spam and external link policies you nothing that would justify a blacklist. Yet it took the efforts of John and others for several days, against fierce resistance from two powerful administrators, before sense and logic prevailed.

And you still have Katz running around, deleting links to the Montreal Review and other respectable publications. Why has he not been called to account?

I do hope that the editors who've argued so passionately in favour of removal will demonstrate an equally passionate commitment to remove any instances where the banned user again evades his ban, since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he will continue to do so. I hope that they are not simply planning on walking away, otherwise the site will have to be returned to the list. --Ckatzchatspy 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And, with the agreement of John Vandenberg, a special page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...logicmuseum.com has been created. This means that if some evil user puts in a link, say, to this translation http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Bu...iora/Liber_1/Q7 of Jean Buridan's questions on the Prior Analytics, a great alarm bell will go off, and Wikipedians will scrurry around trying to prevent this danger to the wiki.

Perhaps a short article for the Times Higher Education Supplement, or the Chronicle of Higher Education?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jayvdb]

And, with the agreement of John Vandenberg, a special page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...logicmuseum.com has been created. This means that if some evil user puts in a link, say, to this translation http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Bu...iora/Liber_1/Q7 of Jean Buridan's questions on the Prior Analytics, a great alarm bell will go off, and Wikipedians will scrurry around trying to prevent this danger to the wiki.

Perhaps a short article for the Times Higher Education Supplement, or the Chronicle of Higher Education?

It was not with my agreement, or even my knowledge. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It was created on the 17th, probably soon after I first requested the removal of the entry from the spam blacklist.

[Peter Damian]

It was not with my agreement, or even my knowledge. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It was created on the 17th, probably soon after I first requested the removal of the entry from the spam blacklist.

I do hope that the editors who've argued so passionately in favour of removal will demonstrate an equally passionate commitment to remove any instances where the banned user again evades his ban, since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he will continue to do so. I hope that they are not simply planning on walking away, otherwise the site will have to be returned to the list. --Ckatzchatspy 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I did activate the other line of defense. That would at least give us an alert. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Beetstra. How does XLinkBot work; where can I find these alerts? (I've added a few links to logicmuseum.com, so hopefully there will be a few alerts generated) John Vandenberg (chat) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: