Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Jimbo Phenomenon _ Jimbo calls for global ban on Thekohser

Posted by: thekohser

Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1119137&oldid=1119124. I wonder what the specific crime was, to call for this today? It's gotta be the trailer park, right?

QUOTE
Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Posted by: Larry Sanger

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:36pm) *

Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1119137&oldid=1119124. I wonder what the specific crime was, to call for this today? It's gotta be the trailer park, right?

QUOTE
Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)



How about that. I didn't know that Wales still presumed to have the authority to declare someone banned permanently throughout the projects.

I'm sure you're utterly devastated, Greg.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE
Hi. Please enforce the global ban on Thekohser declared by Jimbo Wales in http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&action=historysubmit&diff=548143&oldid=548142. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is a proper venue; while I personally support this idea, why not globallock the account instead of ask for enforcement to each local community? --Aphaia 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And as far as I understand Jimmy has no special privilege to declare such a global ban unless he speaks on behalf of the Board. Thus your request is declined currently. Thanks. --Aphaia 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responses. — Jeff G. ツ 03:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--Jimbo Wales 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. This reminds me of King Henry crying, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 4th May 2010, 1:46am) *
QUOTE
Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--Jimbo Wales 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. This reminds me of King Henry crying, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

I must say, this ban is utterly unfair ... I have put in just as much effort and energy and yet am only able to elicit a non-committal "indef ban" out of them.

I demand to be globally banned immediately and without having to establish a Yahoo Questions account.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 6:36pm) *

Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1119137&oldid=1119124. I wonder what the specific crime was, to call for this today? It's gotta be the trailer park, right?

QUOTE
Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Awesome. blink.gif Only the solar system and galactic bans are more awesome, Ms. Universe. Gotta be the trailer park. What else?

Full-Width Image

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:41pm) *
I didn't know that Wales still presumed to have the authority to declare someone banned permanently throughout the projects.

He did the same to me a year and a half ago. That was when he first threatened to shut down Wikiversity, declaring study materials there on "The Ethical Management of the English Wikipedia" to be "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects.

So this newest occasion would be the third time in a year and a half when Jimbo has invoked the same dictat to silence people who have investigated ethical lapses in his projects.

Posted by: Ottava

Didn't he declare that two months ago? I guess this is now just followup.

Posted by: thekohser

Here is http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg who shopped around my banning from Wikimedia project to Wikimedia project.

Jeff Guinzburg of Elmwood Park, New Jersey, you are DA MAN!

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Honor is due, Greg.

I think Jimbo is inside the trailer, because Killerchihuahua is guarding access. Image

Posted by: Moulton

Small dog. Big bite.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:46pm) *
Jeff Guinzburg of Elmwood Park, New Jersey, you are DA MAN!

Huzzah! smile.gif

So I take it the idea here was for Mr. Guinzburg & Co. to get rid of the Rachel Marsden sex-chat quote from Jimbo's Wikiquote page, which they'd only just noticed?

I hate to say this, but Ms. Marsden's log of the sex chat probably wouldn't meet whatever sourcing guidelines are analagous to (and hopefully more stringent than) "WP:RS" for a professionally-produced encyclopedia, putting aside the question of whether or not Jimbo has admitted to their being substantially correct... ermm.gif That's not to say the quote is inaccurate, or that Jimbo wouldn't have typed the line(s) in question; in fact, I'd say the quote's likelihood-of-accuracy is at least 90 percent. But sex-chat logs can be easily falsified, as my own experiences with at least two members of http://www.terribleinformation.org/zane/Shaggs/index.html will attest.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:46am) *
http://identi.ca/jeffgent1?page=2, you are DA MAN!

QUOTE
JeffGent

This person has protected their tweets.

I tawt I taw a Putty Tat ... I did! I did! ... Tweety Pie Jeff.

Does not seem to be on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html yet.

Posted by: thekohser

Phew, I can see why they'd want to ban me from Wikimedia Commons! Look at that line-up of contributions -- practically http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Thekohser&namespace=6&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 fixated on tormenting Jimbo Wales.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:46pm) *

Interesting. This reminds me of King Henry crying, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"


I can hardly wait for King Jimbo's Wiki-Penance …

bash.gif
   tearinghairout.gif

Jon popcorn.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 10:54pm) *

So I take it the idea here was for Mr. Guinzburg & Co. to get rid of the Rachel Marsden sex-chat quote from Jimbo's Wikiquote page, which they'd only just noticed?

I hate to say this, but Ms. Marsden's log of the sex chat probably wouldn't meet whatever sourcing guidelines are analagous to (and hopefully more stringent than) "WP:RS" for a professionally-produced encyclopedia...


I don't know... it was sourced to The Globe & Mail. Is that a disreputable source?

Anyway, you're right that this was a little mission of Jimbo's today -- what else could "http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1119500" mean?

Jimbo loves the Truth, except when the subject is Jimbo.

Posted by: thekohser

Oooh, now this is interesting. It would appear that a few members of the English Wikisource community http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1869934#Global_ban_enforcement. They even have the presence of mind to discover that maybe this all has to do with Jimbo's idiotic behavior on Wikiversity.

Alas, I have a feeling they will be beaten into submission by the drone bees.

Posted by: thekohser

I'm afraid that consensus is http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1870397&oldid=1870066, even on Wikisource.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 10:53am) *

I'm afraid that consensus is http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1870397&oldid=1870066, even on Wikisource.


Quite obversely, you are your own versed enmity …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 10:53am) *
I'm afraid that consensus is http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1870397&oldid=1870066, even on Wikisource.

QUOTE(Wikisource)
I have to agree emphatically with Charles Matthews. Thekohser is such a master of words and images, he is an utter danger to all that Wikisource stands for. His every move is a puzzle, within a cryptogram, within an acrostic. Indeed, he could strike anywhere, so we must be ever vigilant against his threat. -- Reshokeht (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reshokeht?

TheKohser is back(wards) at it again?

Posted by: Theanima

I would like to congratulate Kohser on this achievement. He has managed to piss off Wales so much that he was banned from Wikimedia completely, per Wales' decree. Isn't Kohs now only like the second person to ever be banned across every project?

I don't know who to feel sorry for more: Kohs, who seems to live and breathe Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales, or Wales, who acts so completely clueless in pretty much everything he does.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 8:34pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:46pm) *

Interesting. This reminds me of King Henry crying, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"


I can hardly wait for King Jimbo's Wiki-Penance …

bash.gif
   tearinghairout.gif

Jon popcorn.gif

Randroids don't do "penance." That's for people who feel guilt.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 4th May 2010, 12:28pm) *
Randroids don't do "penance." That's for people who feel guilt.

Milton is correct. But while there is good evidence that Wales doesn't feel remorse, there is some evidence that he does feel bruised or wounded by negative characterizations, insults, and similar expressions of disrespect.

If that analysis is correct, then one possible gambit that (as far as I know) hasn't been tried in these pages is to sincerely pray for Jimmy -- pray that he finds his remorse.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 4th May 2010, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 8:34pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:46pm) *

Interesting. This reminds me of King Henry crying, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"


I can hardly wait for King Jimbo's Wiki-Penance …

bash.gif
   tearinghairout.gif

Jon popcorn.gif


Randroids don't do "penance". That's for people who feel guilt.


Sometimes penance is imposed by a Higher Power …

QUOTE

The death of Becket unnerved the king. The knights who did the deed to curry the king's favor, fell into disgrace. Several miracles were said to occur at the tomb of the martyr and he was soon canonized. Hordes of pilgrims transformed Canterbury Cathedral into a shrine. Four years later, in an act of penance, the king donned a sack-cloth walking barefoot through the streets of Canterbury while eighty monks flogged him with branches. Henry capped his atonement by spending the night in the martyr's crypt. St. Thomas continued as a popular cultist figure for the remainder of the Middle Ages.

— http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/becket.htm


Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: everyking

It's unremarkable that Jimbo wants Kohs banned. What really disgusts me is the way some people are stepping up to justify and enforce Jimbo's edict, knowing perfectly well that it represents nothing more than a petty personality feud. Actually, Kohs has contributed far more Wikipedia content than Jimbo. Jimbo offers the project nothing more than tired platitudes on a good day and tiresome threats on a bad one.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th May 2010, 1:35pm) *

It's unremarkable that Jimbo wants Kohs banned. What really disgusts me is the way some people are stepping up to justify and enforce Jimbo's edict, knowing perfectly well that it represents nothing more than a petty personality feud. Actually, Kohs has contributed far more Wikipedia content than Jimbo. Jimbo offers the project nothing more than tired platitudes on a good day and tiresome threats on a bad one.

Remarkable that you'd continue to embrace a community and project that disgusts you so.

But, thanks for stating what should be the obvious.


Posted by: Abd

I http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1870626 in the Wikisource discussion. Fools rush in....

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 7:23pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th May 2010, 1:35pm) *

It's unremarkable that Jimbo wants Kohs banned. What really disgusts me is the way some people are stepping up to justify and enforce Jimbo's edict, knowing perfectly well that it represents nothing more than a petty personality feud. Actually, Kohs has contributed far more Wikipedia content than Jimbo. Jimbo offers the project nothing more than tired platitudes on a good day and tiresome threats on a bad one.

Remarkable that you'd continue to embrace a community and project that disgusts you so.

But, thanks for stating what should be the obvious.


I don't think the project is defined by the dishonesty of its worst members. It's important to differentiate between the patient and the illness.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 7:23pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th May 2010, 1:35pm) *

It's unremarkable that Jimbo wants Kohs banned. What really disgusts me is the way some people are stepping up to justify and enforce Jimbo's edict, knowing perfectly well that it represents nothing more than a petty personality feud. Actually, Kohs has contributed far more Wikipedia content than Jimbo. Jimbo offers the project nothing more than tired platitudes on a good day and tiresome threats on a bad one.

Remarkable that you'd continue to embrace a community and project that disgusts you so.

But, thanks for stating what should be the obvious.


I don't think the project is defined by the dishonesty of its worst members. It's important to differentiate between the patient and the illness.


When it comes to social diseases, they are in fact defined by the condition of their worst member.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:38pm) *

When it comes to social diseases, they are in fact defined by the condition of their worst member.


Calling Jimbo a "member" is correct in regard to medical terminology, but rather opaque in regard to genital-related epithets. ermm.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:28pm) *

I http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1870626 in the Wikisource discussion. Fools rush in....


I know it's only been a couple of hours, but you seem to have stunned them into silence, Abd. Well done. Now what? Can a bunch of sheep be transformed into mighty lions, merely by reading your prose?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th May 2010, 5:35pm) *
What really disgusts me is the way some people are stepping up to justify and enforce Jimbo's edict, knowing perfectly well that it represents nothing more than a petty personality feud.

Actually, Kohs has contributed far more Wikipedia content than Jimbo. Jimbo offers the project nothing more than tired platitudes on a good day and tiresome threats on a bad one.

Yes, I never understood that part of human behavior.

Going back to the discussion of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29416&hl=, at what stage is the Wales relationship? Is he giving in or taking out more? How does it break down financially?

I always thought that it is was wrong to take all those five figure speaking fees and corporate endorsements as a personal benefit. Especially wrong if does not pay, or even chuck a $20 tip at, one of his unpaid serfs for doing the dirty on someone like TheKohser.

It is abuse of the system which is meant to be a 501 c registered trust.

What other leaders of a world renown "charity" uses charitable volunteers to go around stuffing and obstructing his personal critics ... especially where the criticism has some validity?


... and public interest value.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 4th May 2010, 3:50pm) *
What other leaders of a world renown "charity" uses charitable volunteers to go around stuffing and obstructing his personal critics ... especially where the criticism has some validity?[/b]
That's actually pretty common. Look up David Miscavige, Sun Myung Moon, and that guy that Jossi used to shill for, for starters.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 4:40pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:28pm) *
I http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1870626 in the Wikisource discussion. Fools rush in....
I know it's only been a couple of hours, but you seem to have stunned them into silence, Abd. Well done. Now what? Can a bunch of sheep be transformed into mighty lions, merely by reading your prose?
Doesn't seem terribly likely, does it?

A couple of thoughts. I've done something there that, if I valued my account, I'd never do. I told the community that if there are problems, they are the community's fault. It's not Jimbo's fault, it's not Kohs' fault, it's a collective fault. It's our fault. Most people will do almost anything rather than accept responsibility. It is much easier to blame others, and then imagine that if just these others can be excluded, desysopped, forced to stop exerting authority, or just shamed into silence, all will be well.

Once in a while, though, a community will recognize and accept a message like that, and act on it. More commonly, if they can reach the whistle-blower, they will tear him to shreds.

The wiki system that developed, with an administrative cabal, Jimbo called it, that was advised by the general community, depends on a coherent community, but the community is rarely coherent. It does tend to develop a general consensus, that slowly improves -- sometimes -- over time. When elements in the community slavishly follow the cabal, a loop is set up, the restraint that the community would exert over the cabal disappears.

When a group of people are volunteers, when their activity cannot be coerced, and when they are the largest contributor of value, collectively, to some project, they have the real power, unless their contributions are replaceable. However, typically, large volunteer groups working in an organization aren't organized, they depend on the organization for that.

If the editorial community were to self-organize, there would be no power that could prevent it from finding, on the one hand, internal consensus and thus coherence, an ability to act with one mind, or, on the other hand, to identify coherent subgroups that cannot agree, or which are not ready to agree, and which could therefore fission, partially or fully, both becoming, through this, freer and more efficient. When there is no critical property involved, fission can enhance the overall function of an organization. There are then two organizations which can sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete, and the sum of this can be greater.

There is no critical property involved in Wikipedia. If half the editors went one way and half the other, both halves could survive quite well. Well, there is one piece of critical property, I lied. The name, which then means the nameservers.

In the end, this must be faced, as a Foundation issue. Should there be one repository of "the sum of all human knowledge," or should there be many, each operating independently, developing different systems? All evolution teaches us that a single centralized asset is highly vulnerable and will ultimately be corrupted.

Fission, though, isn't possible without coherence, we've seen again and again that spin-off projects started by no more than a handful of editors discontented with Wikipedia dysfunction, don't have the support, generally, to survive.

If the community became coherent, it might not need to fission! There is no way to know in advance.

The mission of Wikipedia requires methods of finding consensus, but finding consensus is notoriously difficult, and facilitating consensus is a special skill, a profession. Wiki process for consensus-building was never created in a way that would allow efficient and reliable operation.

And those who understand how precarious the whole project is becoming, and who are attached to its success, are terrified at losing valuable administrators, whom they imagine are crucial to continued operation. When the cabal is looking at a dispute between an admin with 100,000 edits, considered crucial for the operation of certain areas of activity, and an editor, perhaps an SPA, with maybe a thousand edits, whom will they avoid offending?

The problem, of course, is that by becoming dependent upon that admin, the cabal has sacrificed neutrality, which was mission-critical. There would be ways to far more widely distribute the tasks that maintain the wiki, to make its operation far more efficient and sustainable, but ... trying to implement these typically runs into fierce resistance, most of all from the cabal, for its value to the project is dependent upon project inefficiency, and they believe that distributing power more widely would wreck the place.

Yes, it's stupid. It burns out the cabal admins and editors. But mostly they don't realize that until it's too late. When they burn out, they blame, on the one hand, the "trolls" and "vandals" and "pov-pushers" who, they think, made their work hell. And, on the other, they blame the rest of the community for not seeing things their way, for not always crushing these enemies of the wiki, i.e., whomever they are upset with at the moment.

WMC, having dominated for years, is now bitter and contemptuous of the powers-that-be on Wikipedia. He's far from the only one to go through this cycle.



Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 9:18pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 4:40pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:28pm) *

I http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1870626 in the Wikisource discussion. Fools rush in ……


I know it's only been a couple of hours, but you seem to have stunned them into silence, Abd. Well done. Now what? Can a bunch of sheep be transformed into mighty lions, merely by reading your prose?


Doesn't seem terribly likely, does it?

…



Speaking of sheep …

sleep.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 4:40pm) *

I know it's only been a couple of hours, but you seem to have stunned them into silence, Abd. Well done. Now what? Can a bunch of sheep be transformed into mighty lions, merely by reading your prose?
I just checked. My edit of 18:21, 4 May 2010, is still the latest revision of the Wikisource Administrators' Noticeboard. It is now 01:37, 5 May 2010. This page had been quite active.

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=history

Out of curiosity, this is a list of editors of that section (issue) and their status during that period of silence.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jeff_G. no edits.
(bug report here. Period in URL is not presented to browser).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sherurcij no edits.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cygnis_insignis very active. Blocked Reshokeht (Blocked Thekohser earlier).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Billinghurst not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ResidentScholar not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bookofjude not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JeepdaySock not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spangineer edits
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prosfilaes not active
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Darkoneko not active. Steward.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Charles_Matthews many edits
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reshokeht blocked, of course.

Reading over this, I'm getting a sense of Thekohser's biggest offense: he obviously doesn't take this matter SERIOUSLY. Here they are, discussing blocking him, and he comes in with this blatant sock, hilarious. Muggles, my conclusion. How dare he show such contempt of our Serious Process? Who does he think he is? Somebody special? I bet he thinks he's smart!

There are, in fact, serious issues here, and maybe someone will pick up on that. But meanwhile, a peer community which cannot tolerate jesters and clowns is on its way down, it's dying and it's just a matter of time. Sure, if a jester interrupts every process, it should stop, and usually it's enough to ask, politely. If not, okay, then some action is called for. But this is Thekohser himself, surely he has some rights on this page, he didn't start this mess. He'd behaved on Wikisource.


QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 4th May 2010, 9:23pm) *
Speaking of sheep …
sleep.gif
Glad to be of service. Any time.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 5th May 2010, 1:18am) *
The wiki system that developed, with an administrative cabal, Jimbo called it, that was advised by the general community, depends on a coherent community, but the community is rarely coherent. It does tend to develop a general consensus, that slowly improves -- sometimes -- over time.

Fission, though, isn't possible without coherence, we've seen again and again that spin-off projects started by no more than a handful of editors discontented with Wikipedia dysfunction, don't have the support, generally, to survive.

Rather than use simple nuclear fission as an analogy ... I think a biosphere model is more applicable.

The Wikipedia as a Serengeti national park with various species adapting different survival methods from out and out big toothed carnivores, to plodding immovables (with big tusks), to herds of non-confrontational herbivores, to tiny poisonous blood sucking insects.

What exactly is WR in relationship to that ... poachers turned gamekeepers?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 4th May 2010, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 5th May 2010, 1:18am) *
The wiki system that developed, with an administrative cabal, Jimbo called it, that was advised by the general community, depends on a coherent community, but the community is rarely coherent. It does tend to develop a general consensus, that slowly improves -- sometimes -- over time.

Fission, though, isn't possible without coherence, we've seen again and again that spin-off projects started by no more than a handful of editors discontented with Wikipedia dysfunction, don't have the support, generally, to survive.

Rather than use simple nuclear fission as an analogy ... I think a biosphere model is more applicable.

The Wikipedia as a Serengeti national park with various species adapting different survival methods from out and out big toothed carnivores, to plodding immovables (with big tusks), to herds of non-confrontational herbivores, to tiny poisonous blood sucking insects.

What exactly is WR in relationship to that ... poachers turned gamekeepers?



Is there something about the shear size of the elephant graveyard that will be needed to build Sanger's Ivory Tower? unsure.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 4th May 2010, 11:48pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 4th May 2010, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 5th May 2010, 1:18am) *

The wiki system that developed, with an administrative cabal, Jimbo called it, that was advised by the general community, depends on a coherent community, but the community is rarely coherent. It does tend to develop a general consensus, that slowly improves — sometimes — over time.

Fission, though, isn't possible without coherence, we've seen again and again that spin-off projects started by no more than a handful of editors discontented with Wikipedia dysfunction, don't have the support, generally, to survive.


Rather than use simple nuclear fission as an analogy … I think a biosphere model is more applicable.

The Wikipedia as a Serengeti national park with various species adapting different survival methods from out and out big toothed carnivores, to plodding immovables (with big tusks), to herds of non-confrontational herbivores, to tiny poisonous blood sucking insects.

What exactly is WR in relationship to that … poachers turned gamekeepers?


Is there something about the shear size of the elephant graveyard that will needed to build Sanger's Ivory Tower? unsure.gif


The Latitude of the Platitude is Inversely Proportional to the Incisiveness of the Attitude.

And Dat … sometimes … generally … Is Dat, Eh, Dude —

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 5th May 2010, 2:28am) *
I just checked. My edit of 18:21, 4 May 2010, is still the latest revision of the Wikisource Administrators' Noticeboard. It is now 01:37, 5 May 2010. This page had been quite active.

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=history

Out of curiosity, this is a list of editors of that section (issue) and their status during that period of silence.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jeff_G. no edits.
(bug report here. Period in URL is not presented to browser).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sherurcij no edits.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cygnis_insignis very active. Blocked Reshokeht (Blocked Thekohser earlier).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Billinghurst not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ResidentScholar not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bookofjude not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JeepdaySock not active.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spangineer edits
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prosfilaes not active
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Darkoneko not active. Steward.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Charles_Matthews many edits
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reshokeht blocked, of course.


Most of these people are English Wikisource admins, where we have yearly reconfirmations. JeepdaySock is admin Jeepday.
Jeff G and Darkoneko are the only people who are not regular contributors to Wikisource.
The "silence" that you encountered is quite typical for Wikisource.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser

¡ http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm !

Jon Image

Posted by: HRIP7

&oldid

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 4:57am) *

Oooh, now this is interesting. It would appear that a few members of the English Wikisource community http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1869934#Global_ban_enforcement. They even have the presence of mind to discover that maybe this all has to do with Jimbo's idiotic behavior on Wikiversity.

Alas, I have a feeling they will be beaten into submission by the drone bees.


Current status seems to be "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=1871175=1871172"

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 5th May 2010, 7:38am) *

Current status seems to be "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=1871175=1871172"


Interesting exchange off of Jimbo's EN talkpage :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=359836154

QUOTE
Please don't put us on akward situations. I don't know if you're aware, buf [[User:Jeff G.]] has been going wiki by wiki asking for local blocks of Thekohser linking a couple of threads on some village pumps where you mention you consider him globally banned. [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismo_en_curso#Thekohser] [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Global_ban_enforcement...


After the obligatory reference to "WR Trolls"...which includes people like NYBrad, CHL, and Alison, we then get :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=359836565

QUOTE
:Hi Drini, I apologize for that. I didn't know there was a tool on meta for global lock. I appreciate you letting me know. I thought the only way was local blocks, and figured it best not to go on any big campaign to do it (why bother?) but just let it be known and be taken care of as necessary. But if there's a global lock, that's obviously the right tool to use.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


So, that would seem to suggest that not only did Jimbo actually get one of his minions to go around all WMF wikis and do this "burn the witch" schtick, but that he was completely unaware that there was a global ban button on his own servers...

...words fail....

On meta, the global block has http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&page=User%3AThekohser%40global :

QUOTE
# 04:41, 5 May 2010 Pathoschild (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Thekohser@global": Set (none); Unset locked ‎ (converted to local blocks after discussing with drini)


....which remains "clear as mud"...but what else is new?


Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE

If there are any further infractions, it may be necessary for us to confiscate the man's computer and prohibit him from using the internet for a matter of years, or perhaps even for the rest of his life. So I hope he will learn his lesson now. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Every user has the right to fork. It's my understanding that this user has already created a wiki of his own, so he's welcome to copy material under the GFDL and edit there. Will Beback talk 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Some people have no sense of humor.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 5th May 2010, 1:34am) *
So, that would seem to suggest that not only did Jimbo actually get one of his minions to go around all WMF wikis and do this "burn the witch" schtick, but that he was completely unaware that there was a global ban button on his own servers...
...words fail....

Heh heh. Why am I not surprised? Jimbo is no different than any number of abusive, shallow corporate minions that I have seen over the years. He doesn't know what he's doing, and flaunts his ignorance at every opportunity, yet enjoys the trappings of whatever miserable little power he has over other people.

Every time he posts something on his talkpage or on AN, he looks more and more like a Dilbert character.

Wikipedia is like World of Warcraft, with one major difference: in Warcraft, it's routine to recommend that people quit a guild http://warcraftstarter.com/category/warcraft. That phrase is so commonplace in Warcraft group websites, it's almost an official rule. But Wikipedia's leader has been proven to be an idiot, time and time again.......and yet they continue to follow him!

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 10:28pm) *
There are, in fact, serious issues here, and maybe someone will pick up on that. But meanwhile, a peer community which cannot tolerate jesters and clowns is on its way down, it's dying and it's just a matter of time.

Because the issues are serious, it requires a jester to elevate them to general attention, in a way that (eventually) makes people stop and think.

There are serious absurdities in WikiCulture, and Greg is doing a fine job pointing them out.

Also, kudos to Milton Roe for his wonderful song parodies.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 5th May 2010, 6:53am) *

There are serious absurdities in WikiCulture, and Greg is doing a fine job pointing them out.


For those keeping score at home, Kohs has just http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser, but there's one out, and Manager Jimbo is coming out to the mound. He may be making a pitching change.

P.S. I could see how Wikisource, if it is as it appears, to be a true and authentic effort to dutifully reproduce public domain works, without agenda or personality tainting the effort, could really be an addictive environment for someone like me. However, it being under the umbrella of a corrupt regime, I couldn't possibly bring myself to complete work on more than just perhaps the one work that I'm interested personally in completing. (In other words, even if I score a run in this inning, there's only a couple more innings left, and it will probably be my last game with this team.)

Posted by: Moulton

Oh, a baseball analogy. This must be a game between the Clubs and the Socks.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Kevin @ Wed 5th May 2010, 4:52am) *
QUOTE
If there are any further infractions, it may be necessary for us to confiscate the man's computer and prohibit him from using the internet for a matter of years, or perhaps even for the rest of his life. So I hope he will learn his lesson now. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Every user has the right to fork. It's my understanding that this user has already created a wiki of his own, so he's welcome to copy material under the GFDL and edit there. Will Beback talk 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Some people have no sense of humor.
Yeah, we should draw and quarter them. (No, not take out the pastels or make up a bed for the guest. Or maybe we should. Some of these people seem to need some serious human company, i.e., smiling and laughing. That comment by Everyking was great. The global lock was lifted today. Well see if that holds.... I have now pointed out the obvious on Wikiquote. I have to be careful about this, I'm legitimately seen as an outsider on these wikis.

Anyway, I'm now an official Wikiquote editor, as of today. We'll see how long that lasts... See, I noticed that Koh's edits to the quotes for Jimmy Wales were all reverted, though almost all of them were fine, and he wasn't blocked when he made them. One edit was a tad, shall we say, http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=1109550&oldid=1109548 If I get a mail from Mr. Wales saying that he'd like it quoted, fine. Frankly, those were mighty fine words, if he actually said them, my congratulations to him, but I wouldn't want to upset the muggles without a very good reason. I was tempted.

I did listen to his 2005 TED speech a bit. He said that he was trying to encourage more testing of Wikipedia quality. Apparently that message hasn't gotten out to the troops yet. Or was that then and this is now? I'm really not sure.


Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:31am) *
I did listen to his 2005 TED speech a bit. He said that he was trying to encourage more testing of Wikipedia quality. Apparently that message hasn't gotten out to the troops yet. Or was that then and this is now? I'm really not sure.

Wasn't it just bollocks?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 5th May 2010, 4:34am) *
QUOTE
:Hi Drini, I apologize for that. I didn't know there was a tool on meta for global lock. I appreciate you letting me know. I thought the only way was local blocks, and figured it best not to go on any big campaign to do it (why bother?) but just let it be known and be taken care of as necessary. But if there's a global lock, that's obviously the right tool to use.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So, that would seem to suggest that not only did Jimbo actually get one of his minions to go around all WMF wikis and do this "burn the witch" schtick, but that he was completely unaware that there was a global ban button on his own servers...
Jimbo was responding there to Jeff G. (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I very much doubt that Jimbo instigated this. Jeff G. has been so outrageous that I have suspicions. Kohs, that isn't you, is it?

My sense is that Jimbo would just like the whole thing to quietly go away, and here comes Jeff G. stirring the pot. Using the global lock facility to block someone everywhere for reasons like this was probably not the intended use, and what then happens with local socks? Bad idea. If Jimbo wants a user blocked, he can do it himself, or ask a steward to do it, but he's not doing that because he knows how much damage it causes.

Notice: just let it be known and be taken care of as necessary. What is "necessary?" Pretty obvious, I'd say. That Kohs has an account does not create a necessity. If he uses it for disruption (which, by the way, would includes shouting "you are a bunch of stupid idiots" to a crowd of stupid idiots), that is when each account could be addressed, and the local community will take care of it, with Jimbo or stewards intervening when they see sufficient local support. If there is local consensus not to block, as there was at Wikisource and Wikiquote, no block. He's not stupid, or at least, tip o the hat to Greg, not that stupid.

Steward intervention will come when the wikigods see that a local community is divided and can't, in their view, find consensus.

What are the odds that Jeff G. is dinged soon? If he stops now, probably not, but if he keeps pushing this? I see that Kohs was also unblocked at de.wikipedia, where Jeff G had convinced them (or was that already there?) to block him based on this "global ban."

Kohs got away with http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1871447&oldid=1871176 at Wikisource, I think he was counting on one free because of the whole flap there. That kind of pushing the edge is what got him banned. I can admire it at the same time as I see why he's banned. Ever see Hero (2002 film)? The Wikipedia article does it no justice at all. Amazing film.

On Wikiquote Kohs was gratuitously libeled. That's the community. It will ban Kohs for less uncivil but more cogent criticism, then tolerate unnecessary libel. Or will it? We'll see. However, Wikiquote refused to block Kohs, at least, so far.

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 5th May 2010, 7:33pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:31am) *
I did listen to his 2005 TED speech a bit. He said that he was trying to encourage more testing of Wikipedia quality. Apparently that message hasn't gotten out to the troops yet. Or was that then and this is now? I'm really not sure.
Wasn't it just bollocks?
No, it was a good speech. The reality that resulted is mixed.

His pronunciation of "Wikipedia" drives me nuts. I guess he has a right to establish the pronunciation, but I've always pronounced wiki as "wikee," but have made the i short in "Wikipedia," and that's what I've heard from many other people. Didn't realize that until I figured out what was irritating me about his pronunciation.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:29am) *
His pronunciation of "Wikipedia" drives me nuts. I guess he has a right to establish the pronunciation, but I've always pronounced wiki as "wikee," but have made the i short in "Wikipedia," and that's what I've heard from many other people. Didn't realize that until I figured out what was irritating me about his pronunciation.

His pronunciation is the least of the problems I have with Wales. His mad stare just freaks me out.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:29am) *

I very much doubt that Jimbo instigated this. Jeff G. has been so outrageous that I have suspicions. Kohs, that isn't you, is it?


No, Jeff G. is http://www.facebook.com/jeff.gent, and he's special. He's an administrator on Test Wikipedia, on the Admin Tools Wiki and he's one of the few people that knows how to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_massaged_by_User:Jeff_G%2E. He even has his own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.218.222.8.

edit: fixed link

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 5th May 2010, 8:34pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:29am) *
His pronunciation of "Wikipedia" drives me nuts. I guess he has a right to establish the pronunciation, but I've always pronounced wiki as "wikee," but have made the i short in "Wikipedia," and that's what I've heard from many other people. Didn't realize that until I figured out what was irritating me about his pronunciation.
His pronunciation is the least of the problems I have with Wales. His mad stare just freaks me out.
You really should lay off of the Jimson weed.

Actually, that could explain a lot.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 5th May 2010, 9:28pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:29am) *
I very much doubt that Jimbo instigated this. Jeff G. has been so outrageous that I have suspicions. Kohs, that isn't you, is it?

No, Jeff G. is http://www.facebook.com/jeff.gent, and he's special. He's an administrator on Test Wikipedia, on the Admin Tools Wiki and he's one of the few people that knows how to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_massaged_by_User:Jeff_G... He even has his own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.218.222.8.
Clever, that Kohs. Nobody would believe it.

I know how to massage photos, it's getting the photos to massage me that's not so easy.

Once again, a terminal period in a URL appears to not be presented to the browser for links. The "massage photos" link must have a period added at the end, in the browser, to work.

Was it the photo of Kelly Madison that was "hand massaged" or something else? Those photos creep me out, I thought the photo of Jeff on facebook was a bit strange, but... it gets worse.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

#46 → .

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_massaged_by_User:Jeff_G.

Posted by: Moulton

In a URL string, use %2E for the "." character if the forum software doesn't handle it correctly.

For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_massaged_by_User:Jeff_G%2E

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:31am) *

Anyway, I'm now an official Wikiquote editor, as of today.

You can't make up this sort of irony. Abd was warmly welcomed to Wikiquote by none other than Cirt.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Thu 6th May 2010, 8:37am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:31am) *
Anyway, I'm now an official Wikiquote editor, as of today.
You can't make up this sort of irony. Abd was warmly welcomed to Wikiquote by none other than Cirt.
I have nothing against Cirt, and I hope Cirt has nothing against me. I don't hold grudges and one of the blessings of getting older is that I don't remember who did what and said what unless it gets repeated a lot. Seems to me that I criticized Cirt strongly at one point, but, first of all, he's young, and one of the blessings of being young is that you get to change a lot, if you are willing. Compared to many others I've criticized, his response was moderate and thus hopeful.

(If you stay willing to admit error or at least to leave it behind and change when you are older, you can be young and old at the same time. Mazel tov.)

The routine welcomes at the various projects are a good thing, though, indeed, sometimes ironic. I remember seeing that an editor on Wikiversity, blocked by an admin, pointed out, it seemed bitterly, that he had been the one to welcome the blocking admin. Yes. So? I'd ask, "Did you welcome this new editor to gain an ally in your various causes?"

I was welcomed to Wikipedia, years after my first edit, by a sock puppet of someone who was, at that point, pretty much out to get me banned, due to off-wiki political agenda. Harmless, and, yes, ironic. Part of the game. Interestingly, the puppet master, later, became a bit of an ally, and some of his socks were actually easy to work with even in the "battleground" articles. There were others far worse. Wikipedia has often banned the wrong people.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

My edits restoring most of Koh's work on http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales still stand, fingers crossed, but I don't really care that much. That page is bloated, but bloated without all the bold is better than bloated with, unless one really does want to make the page look ridiculous. Greg had, overall, improved it, and even the outrageous quotation of Jimmy's words by a somewhat biased reporter, Rachel Marsden, was funny. I'll remember that one, and memorability is, in fact, a reason to have a quotation at Wikiquote, but putting that one in without consensus would simply be asking for trouble.

You aren't asking for trouble, are you, Greg? (Rhetorical question.)

Posted by: Moulton

Greg is more likely to answer the troubled than to ask for troubles of his own.

Posted by: thekohser

I have submitted unblock requests on various Wikimedia projects where I have been blocked. So we'll see how that goes. Tried my first "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kohs-Block-Design_tests-1920.pdf/12&diff=1872372&oldid=1530658" in Wikisource today. That was cool.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 11:40am) *

Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).


Ah yes, the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201004/Public_speakers public speakers list. I knew they'd be taking a few shots at that in the next couple of days. So predictable!

Guido, for fun, point them to my Wikisource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 6th May 2010, 10:15am) *
Greg is more likely to answer the troubled than to ask for troubles of his own.
Don't you know how provocative it is to be right? (rhetorical question).

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:43pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 11:40am) *

Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).


Ah yes, the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201004/Public_speakers public speakers list. I knew they'd be taking a few shots at that in the next couple of days. So predictable!

Guido, for fun, point them to my Wikisource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.


Whoops -- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_speakers&diff=1961340&oldid=1961339!

QUOTE
Current revision as of 17:13, 6 May 2010 (view source)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abigor (talk | contribs)
m (Protected "Public speakers": Counter-productive edit warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))


(Just a "minor" edit.)

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 6:43pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 11:40am) *

Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).


Ah yes, the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201004/Public_speakers public speakers list. I knew they'd be taking a few shots at that in the next couple of days. So predictable!

Guido, for fun, point them to my Wikisource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.

Naturally, Abigor (the mentally disturbed guy who previously hacked my website and tried to destroy my database, and was granted the keys to the wikipedia database as a reward) immediately stepped in and blocked me as well. He is now editwarring on my talk page.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:37pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 6:43pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 11:40am) *

Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).


Ah yes, the http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/201004/Public_speakers public speakers list. I knew they'd be taking a few shots at that in the next couple of days. So predictable!

Guido, for fun, point them to my Wikisource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.

Naturally, Abigor (the mentally disturbed guy who previously hacked my website and tried to destroy my database, and was granted the keys to the wikipedia database as a reward) immediately stepped in and blocked me as well.


But, wait! How could that be? Abigor has the following Userboxes on his page:

*This user believes in assuming good faith and civility.*

*This user wants to be your friend.*

What if we don't want to be your friend, Huib Laurens?

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

I am not aware of anyone who is his friend or would want to be, but he is allowed to dream on. smile.gif

Ah. He has now fixed his filth by disallowing me to edit my own talk page.


Posted by: thekohser

What bugs me is that the decent Wikimedians on here at Wikipedia Review should jump to our aid, Guido. But, you just don't see that happen. I don't know if it's that they agree that I shouldn't be on the Public Speakers list, or that they don't care, or that they rather enjoy to the dramatic trauma that the battle delivers (entertainment value).

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 11:40am) *
Meanwhile, you place on the Public Speakers list and you meta user page are once again under siege (sigh).
It used to be that meta was a bit of a refuge, and a quite free place, frequented by many who understood the wiki vision and who supported and maintained it.

However, I noticed about two years ago that some meta administrators seemed to believe that they owned the place. Today, Abigor twice reverted the meta Public speakers list to a preferred version, once reverting Guido and then reverting IP (Kohs?), then full-protected it because of "edit warring."

Guido was preserving the status quo on that page from people who seemed to think that the Public Speaker page was for "speakers from the Foundation." The disclaimer standing on the page that contradicts that was added a few months ago by JzG, not exactly a supporter of Kohs, but JzG got it right that time.

On Wikipedia, that action by Abigor would be likely desysop, except for the reluctance of ArbComm to act against administrators who edit war with ordinary editors, it tends to consider the admin cabal to be "Wikipedia" and ordinary editors to be slaves, who are free to leave if they don't like it. On meta, Abigor didn't even discuss it. The Talk page has been quiet. The speaker page had likewise been quiet since March, when an IP removed Guido's name as "retired" and Guido restored that as "irrelevant," and certainly someone retired from an organization might often be an appropriate speaker about that.

In this case, Abigor http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=1961349 for supporting what had been a standing consensus for some time, as "trolling." Guido removed the notice as a "pa," i.e., a personal attack, which it was. Abigor reverted, and asked Guido not to remove the notice. Guido removed it. Butter on the popcorn, please!

Abigor shouldn't touch the Guido talk page with a ten-foot-pole, nor Guido, but he might. Now, do I warn him or does someone else? I'm watching the page now. Does the meta community tolerate administrative bullying? Abigor clearly had a content position here, and enforced it by protecting into favored version and blocking the editor he was reverting. This is on Abigor's meta talk page:

Some people will say I am the Great Duke of Hell, ruling 60 legions of demons, but that is only when you make me mad.

Guido was mildly out of line, shouldn't have done that second revert without discussion, but Abigor is an admin and should know better. Someone should tell him. Or meta is toast as well. My guess at this point is that sensibility will prevail, Abigor will back down or at least stop acting, likely Kohs will be back on the speaker list. Or will we see the "60 legions of demons"?

I see, looking at the history of the Speaker list, that quite a few well-known Wikipedians supported Kohs' being listed, fairly recently. Abigor is acting against consensus, my guess, but one can never tell if the subterranean currents have shifted.

Hey, should I put my name on the speaker list? I'm currently in good standing on all the wikis, just some trifling topic bans on Wikipedia. I'm also an experienced public speaker.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Well, if anyone jumps to my aid it is a near certainty that they will get blocked as well, or worse, so I wouldn't recommend it.

It doesn't really matter much, meta is only about closing projects these days. On that note, I still have a watchlist of several hundreds of articles on nl:wikipedia and in two years time not a single non-bot edit has happened in any of them.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:55pm) *

What bugs me is that the decent Wikimedians on here at Wikipedia Review should jump to our aid, Guido. But, you just don't see that happen. I don't know if it's that they agree that I shouldn't be on the Public Speakers list, or that they don't care, or that they rather enjoy to the dramatic trauma that the battle delivers (entertainment value).
Oh, give it some time, Kohs.

The place is falling apart, payroll has been late, so the room service is spotty. Still, the power is on, and I can make you some tea. Your preferences?

Guido, you should not have reverted more than once in this sequence, but definitely Abigor should not have done what he did. If you simply do nothing now, watch what happens. If nothing happens, you can know that the place has gone completely to hell and you might as well stop bothering to even watch.

You had off-wiki conflict with Abigor? Tsk, tsk. Can you document that? I do see he blocked you before.

(Given that you defied Abigor on your Talk page, Abigor then had an excuse to disable Talk access. However, tsk tsk, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Abigor&page=User%3AGuido+den+Broeder&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= in doing that. And still hasn't discussed this with anyone else, at least not visibly. I am ... so ... tempted ..., but I'm going to see if a regular jumps in first.)



QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:08pm) *
Well, if anyone jumps to my aid it is a near certainty that they will get blocked as well, or worse, so I wouldn't recommend it.
Really? I'd like to find out. Guido, there are editors who WP:DGAF, and some of them are administrators. I'm not, but if I'm going to get blocked on meta for warning an administrator -- you can be sure I'll do it politely -- I should find out as soon as possible so that I can avoid wasting more of my time.
QUOTE
It doesn't really matter much, meta is only about closing projects these days. On that note, I still have a watchlist of several hundreds of articles on nl:wikipedia and in two years time not a single non-bot edit has happened in any of them.
Wow. Bad sign, actually, though in a mature project it would be a good sign. Somehow I doubt that it's mature.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 8:17pm) *
You had off-wiki conflict with Abigor? Tsk, tsk. Can you document that?
Yes. There is actually a police file on him.

QUOTE
I do see he blocked you before.
The guy, who in real life is the same nutcase as on-wiki, has blocked me on various wiki's at every opportunity. He keeps stalking, using dozens of IP addresses (in addition to a great variety of wiki-socks) and has also threatened me on various occasions.

Posted by: Abd

Meta, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&action=history on User:Thekohser. These actions were purely provocative. Trolling? The trolling here was from Abigor and Herbythyme. Quiet pages, till they came along. It's similar to Jeff G.'s actions.

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:27pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 8:17pm) *
You had off-wiki conflict with Abigor? Tsk, tsk. Can you document that?
Yes. There is actually a police file on him.
QUOTE
I do see he blocked you before.
The guy, who in real life is the same nutcase as on-wiki, has blocked me on various wiki's at every opportunity. He keeps stalking, using dozens of IP addresses (in addition to a great variety of wiki-socks) and has also threatened me on various occasions.


Prove it. It's not that I don't believe you, but that it's useless if there isn't proof or at least strong evidence.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:21pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 6th May 2010, 10:15am) *
Greg is more likely to answer the troubled than to ask for troubles of his own.
Don't you know how provocative it is to be right?

No doubt you are quite right about that.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

I think this marks the long awaited manifestation of the http://community.livejournal.com/wp_fnord/25975.html:

Rampaging Trailer Trash!

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:03pm) *

...and then reverting IP (Kohs?)...

That wasn't me.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:35pm) *
QUOTE
Current revision as of 17:13, 6 May 2010 (view source)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abigor (talk | contribs)
m (Protected "Public speakers": Counter-productive edit warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))


(Just a "minor" edit.)


Without commenting on the merits of his action, I just want to note that the protection is automatically marked as minor by the software, and there is no way to override it.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:31pm) *

Meta, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&action=history on User:Thekohser. These actions were purely provocative. Trolling? The trolling here was from Abigor and Herbythyme. Quiet pages, till they came along. It's similar to Jeff G.'s actions.

Messing with my User page that documents my contributions to the wiki world, is just utterly tasteless and juvenile.

I'll be in San Francisco later this summer. I have some ideas.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 8:31pm) *
Prove it. It's not that I don't believe you, but that it's useless if there isn't proof or at least strong evidence.

Been there already. Nobody cared.


QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 6th May 2010, 8:53pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:21pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 6th May 2010, 10:15am) *
Greg is more likely to answer the troubled than to ask for troubles of his own.
Don't you know how provocative it is to be right?

No doubt you are quite right about that.

I usually offer to teach them to be always right themselves, which is quite easy actually. That tends to frighten them. tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:31pm) *

Meta, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&action=history on User:Thekohser. These actions were purely provocative. Trolling? The trolling here was from Abigor and Herbythyme. Quiet pages, till they came along. It's similar to Jeff G.'s actions.


And then there's the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abigor&diff=1961570&oldid=1931420.

So, where are the pro-Wikimedians to explain how altering an out-of-process blocked user's User page, long after they're gone, is somehow beneficial to the non-profit mission of the Wikimedia Foundation? Where are you guys?

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

The place looks abandoned. smile.gif

Posted by: thekohser

And the purge continues now http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1387137, where I've been notified that my block there is "indefinite", but that I am "welcome to come back after the block expires".

hmmm.gif

I guess Wikibooks found http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser to be too provocative for their community (one which Whiteknight lamented doesn't have "a huge volume of editors here").

I guess they're helping that "huge volume of editors" issue by instituting carry-over blocks from spurious Wikiversity blocks by a Foundation co-founder.

Similar to my call out to the Wikisource folks, I ask, is there anybody with a spine on Wikibooks? (Pardon the pun.)

Posted by: thekohser

The discussion about me is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_%26_protections&oldid=38875738#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29, too.

Will JzG's claim that I perpetrate off-wiki "harassment" rule the day, or will he be asked to provide evidence that I "harass" people? Will JzG specifically be asked to substantiate how http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser "amount to a breaching experiment at some level or another", as he says?

Are there spines on Commons, or are they lackeys of Jimbo and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12274?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 7th May 2010, 9:43am) *

And the purge continues now http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1387137, where I've been notified that my block there is "indefinite", but that I am "welcome to come back after the block expires".

hmmm.gif

I guess Wikibooks found http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser to be too provocative for their community (one which Whiteknight lamented doesn't have "a huge volume of editors here").

I guess they're helping that "huge volume of editors" issue by instituting carry-over blocks from spurious Wikiversity blocks by a Foundation co-founder.

Similar to my call out to the Wikisource folks, I ask, is there anybody with a spine on Wikibooks? (Pardon the pun.)


QUOTE

Through and through th' inspir'd leaves,
          Ye maggots, make your windings;
But O, respect his lordship's taste,
          And spare the golden bindings!


— Robert Burns, “The Book Worms”


Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Look upon this as a handy way to take stock of which projects still have some honest participants. smile.gif


Posted by: Moulton

I feel sorry for Diogenes.

Posted by: thekohser

It would appear that http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1789901 of my activity on Wikisource and my (recent) unblocking on Wikinews. Perhaps someone should educate him on the meaning of the word "all".

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 6:36pm) *

QUOTE
Kohs is permanently and globally banned from all Wikimedia projects.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


http://www.bartleby.com/101/592.html

Jimbo banned me when we fought
Jumping from the site he stays at
So, WR weenies and your rot--
That’s a bigger rise than games YOU play at!
Say I’m silly, say I’m bad
Say I irritate as much as CAN be
Say I’ve COI, but add
Jimbo banned me.



tongue.gif

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Blocked again, now for a week, and the vandalizing user threatening me with an indef block.

Still nobody else around.



Also note that Mr. Abigor http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1963063&oldid=1962844 Ottava's request to desysop him on Commons.

Posted by: thekohser

This http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_speakers&diff=1966465&oldid=1966463 speaks volumes. (Note the edit summary just prior):

QUOTE
(We'll not censor vaginal fisting, but we will censor speakers with intimate knowledge about wikis? What does that say about our ability to tolerate criticism?)


I guess there are http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drini.jpg who don't mind at all being made to look foolish and blind.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 9th May 2010, 8:03am) *
Blocked again, now for a week, and the vandalizing user threatening me with an indef block.

Still nobody else around.

Also note that Mr. Abigor http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1963063&oldid=1962844 Ottava's request to desysop him on Commons.
Brilliant. But, at Commons, I don't have the contribution history to be anything other than an outsider. Or I'd dive in and point that out. I can act on meta, I have some history there, and it's meta, after all, where activity on "lower level" wikis is quite relevant. I'm waiting, both for reasons of lack of time, personally, and to let the smoke clear.

Guido, if you had not attempted to push your point, you'd be in a better situation. By edit warring on your talk page on meta, to remove the block notice, you set yourself up to look senselessly contentious. If you hadn't done that, the issue would be much clearer.

You must understand the politics of the wikis. People will look at a conflict between two editors and more or less wish for a "pox on both your houses." They won't get involved. But if they see an admin, for example, clearly abusing an editor who doesn't "fight back" except to calmly address the situation, they are far more likely to intervene themselves, or, later, to !vote in a discussion, in some sensible manner.

There is an effect I've seen for well over twenty years, on-line, with flame wars. It would happen that editor A abused editor B, grossly. Editor B complains loudly that he was abused. Other editors would jump in, taking sides, based on prior affiliation. Very few would look back at the history, and if someone did, pointing out how A had actually abused B, even giving evidence, this new writer would readily be identified as a partisan of B. It's how people tend to look at disputes. You could say they are lazy, but, in fact, people only have so much time.

So to address abuse is tricky. One of the best approaches is to give the abuser plenty of rope, let him or her build up the evidence. True abusers will take this freedom as a sign that the community approves what they are doing, and their behavior will often become even more abusive. And *then*, it can be confronted, and the house of cards they have built collapses on them.

In the meantime, privately console the abused person. Let them know that you see what happened, that it was wrong, but that it will take time to address it. Offer to help that person in whatever they were trying to do that was legitimate. I find they generally appreciate it. Indeed, Ottava, if you are reading this, do you remember?

On meta, Guido, you very correctly stood up for apparent consensus at the Speaker page. But that consensus is weak, distributed, many people aren't watching. To maintain that kind of consensus takes patience, and you were too quick to assert your position and to insist upon it. Being right is truly irritating to some. Abigor was out of line, for sure, but to do something about it, you'd need support. By being so assertive without that support, you exposed yourself as someone not patient enough to seek true consensus, or that's how it would look at first.

The wikis have not been set up to allow rapid and efficient dispute resolution, especially when an administrator becomes abusive. In the absence of that, to work for overall neutrality and fairness takes great patience. Probably too much patience, lots of people who are, indeed, fair-minded, are simply bailing, a long-term loss.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:15am) *
Look upon this as a handy way to take stock of which projects still have some honest participants. smile.gif
Not an effective test unless you look over a much longer time span.

Guido and Greg, you are postponing the resolution at the Speakers page. I certainly know your position, but edit warring isn't the way to get it. Both of you now have made multiple edits to that page asserting the same content. I will allow myself one edit, and only one edit, and I'm not ready to assert it, because if I'm the only one (plus the two of you), it's a lost cause.

I don't think it's a lost cause. I think you are appropriate as a speaker, Greg, provided that it's known that you are a critic. And I think many others will agree. But the time to assert this is critical, the way the wikis work.

Look at the defrocking of Jimbo. What was really the same issue took place two months earlier, that RfC was started over Wikiversity. But who cared enough about Wikiversity?

I argued, then, that the Wikiversity community should organize itself, off-wiki, and make that organization inclusive, and design it to seek consensus, as well as to measure it. It would then be known if it was practical to challenge Jimbo or not, and, indeed, if the majority actually would support a challenge. The crucial issue would have been if there were enough editors willing to support a challenge who would also be willing to make a fork work. Because if you aren't prepared to fork, you don't have any real negotiating power except for a threat to abandon Wikiversity, which made most yawn.

But when an issue of, shall we say, broad interest, or interest in broads, or something like that, came up, lots of people looked at it and realized there was an issue of abuse of power. It wasn't just the porn, for sure, it was a very visible process of Jimbo trying to push a community around, and threatening admins, etc. Many wikis were affected, because of links to the deleted images from them. Did his apparent "success" at Wikiversity embolden Jimbo? I don't know. But in March, when Tango claimed that Jimbo wasn't foolish enough to defy an actual community consensus, Jimbo wrote that he was mistaken. He was, at that point, ready to fight.

Why did he change his mind? I'm sure there was a lot of back-channel communication, particularly between Jimbo and the Board. The Board was, I suspect, less than thrilled. They supported the "clean-up," but, well, I can imagine the reaction if some politician locally, here in the U.S., decided to "clean up" the city, and went into people's houses and confiscated whatever they thought was porn. If that's going to happen, it can't be done on a large scale. (It does happen, but on a much more modest scale, typically with actual child porn, found through due process search warrants. Not the Mayor of the town barging into homes.... Such a mayor would be quickly removed.)

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

I have no desire to play the wikipedia game.

There is nonetheless plenty of room for others to jump in. If nobody does, we will have a clear picture of meta's current status and can then act accordingly.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Unblock request filed. Any bets as to who will show up? smile.gif

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Guess what. My unblock request was promptly deleted from history. Then fortunately restored by DerHexer.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Mon 10th May 2010, 3:26pm) *

I have no desire to play the wikipedia game.


Eppur ti muove …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Mon 10th May 2010, 3:26pm) *

I have no desire to play the wikipedia game.


But it appears to be the only game in town. ermm.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Well, Book You Too !!!

QUOTE

From: WikiAdmin <wiki@wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 04:49:15 +0000
Subject: Wikibooks page User talk:Thekohser has been changed by Mike.lifeguard
To: Thekohser <thekohser@gmail.com>

Dear Thekohser,

The Wikibooks page User talk:Thekohser has been changed on 12 May 2010 by Mike.lifeguard, see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Thekohser for the current revision.

See http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1791802 for all changes since your last visit.

Editor's summary: /* Unblock request */ Nope. Nice try though.

Contact the editor:

mail: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Mike.lifeguard
wiki: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Mike.lifeguard

There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you visit this page.
You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.

Your friendly Wikibooks notification system


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE
* Reason for denying the request was: You're globally banned. You're globally banned for good reason. I refuse to allow Wikibooks to be damaged or have the time of the community be wasted by your trolling.

— mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:~$ 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


I guess Mike Lifeguard speaks for Wikibooks. At least he actually http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000&target=Mike.lifeguard there. The same can't be said for http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=World_History&action=historysubmit&diff=1008&oldid=896.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 12th May 2010, 7:22am) *
Guess what. My unblock request was promptly deleted from history. Then fortunately restored by DerHexer.
What's going on here?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guido_den_Broeder
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGuido+den+Broeder
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&action=history
DerHexer is steward, oversight, and sysop on meta. Who deleted the revisions? It looks like it was DerHexer who removed "libelous information."
This is what DerHexer restored:
QUOTE
Request reason: "It doesn't seem proper to repeatedly damage a page and then block and threaten a user, or have a buddy do that, who repairs that damage, while declining to discuss the matter. Please note that Public speakers is a living-persons page, not a club of wiki users.
The first thing that Herbythyme did when he got his tool backs was to annoy Gregory Kohs, a competitor banned by mr. Wales, by deleting his entry on the Public speakers page and removing real-life info from his user page. Abigor, otherwise known for wheelwarring on Commons to [removed libellous information], is all over the WMF bothering the same person.
In addition to the unblock, I ask for a CU on the new user Choosan who vandalized my user space during this episode. I find it strange that this was their first action on meta and also that they were not even spoken to, so it is likely someone's second account with others knowing whose. Both Abigor and Fram, an administrator from en:Wikipedia who previously damaged the Public speakers page, have a history of such actions."
Guido makes the situation more politically difficult by pushing the point. But, of course, he's right. Abigor shouldn't be touching him with blocks, and herbythyme was revert warring with him and threatening to block. But meta doesn't seem to have such clear recusal policy, or does it?

Guido, you got it wrong. It's not "fortunate" that DerHexer found it necessary to remove "libelous information." What he left behind was bad enough.

You've said you don't want to play the "Wikipedia game," but you are playing it. Playing it badly.

I restored Kohs as speaker, the excuse for this whole affair, and it still sticks, so far, fingers crossed. I didn't have to revert war, and I wouldn't revert war. I'll escalate if needed. Accusing others of misbehavior is generally a serious political error. Describe what you must to inform others of a situation, but let them make the judgments. You brought in irrelevant misbehavior (i.e., actions on another wiki that weren't related to the immediate situation.)

It's hard enough to get through if you don't make accusations! -- because if you provide diffs that someone was, say, revert warring, or blocking you when engaged in a revert war with you, some will assume that this is an accusation anyway.... and react to you as if you are a raving lunatic. It's better, if possible, to let others defend you, even if it takes time.

Posted by: thekohser

It would appear that http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=38854753 clearly that Wikimedia Commons is a community of Jimbo sycophants, choosing the line of "global ban means global ban".

Note that Wikisource and Wikinews have expressed their independence from Jimbo's antics by choosing to leave Thekohser free to edit.

Thanks to our thought-leader and his lackey Abigor, Commons will get no more photographic content like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_cottage_in_Enchanted_Forest_at_Winterthur.jpg, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Lure.jpg from me.


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 13th May 2010, 11:30am) *

It would appear that http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=38854753 clearly that Wikimedia Commons is a community of Jimbo sycophants, choosing the line of "global ban means global ban".
Greg, you're not helping. Abigor/Huib is not the Commons community. AFBorchert is closer to it. See the commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:AN/B#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29 he started and cited on your talk page. Abigor is an idiot and is clearly taking disputes from other wikis to Commons. He should be desysopped, from what I've seen, but wikis are pretty reluctant to do that. Nevertheless what he's doing should be made obvious. I'm not going to do much, I'm very new there, my concern is "cross-wiki issues," to be sure. It looks to me like the Commons community will handle this, though the tide could turn if you or one of your supporters get nasty.

Who is supporting the idea that "global ban means global ban"?

At that AN page, it's possibles: NW and Ottava Rima (though I wouldn't lock either one into that position). And definite support for blocking from Herbythyme and JzG (need I say more? Any surprises here?).

Apparently on the side of unblocking are AFBorchert (who was the blocking admin and is simply consulting the community), billinghurst, Erik Warmelink, and Guido den Broeder. EW has 7000 Commons edits, JzG has under ninety. AB and Billinghurst are Commons admins, as is Herbythyme.

NW is a Commons admin; Ottava is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AOttava+Rima&type=block on Commons.http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=39176453#User:Ottava_Rima Ottava is a modest contributor at Commons.

What is certainly clear is that there is no consensus for a block, which will normally carry result in unblock, but not necessarily. My guess, though, is that AFB will unblock after a pause, or someone else will. Unless you really do want to be banned -- it might serve your purposes, possibly -- don't give the ones who want such a ban an excuse by being uncivil or socking.



Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 1:17pm) *
What is certainly clear is that there is no consensus for a block, which will normally carry result in unblock, but not necessarily. My guess, though, is that AFB will unblock after a pause, or someone else will. Unless you really do want to be banned -- it might serve your purposes, possibly -- don't give the ones who want such a ban an excuse by being uncivil or socking.

It has been my experience that when there is no consensus (as is typically the case), no action is taken. Usually what happens is that some admin either boldy affirms or boldy reverses the situation and hopes to survive any backlash.

I can supply details of the example I'm most familiar with, if you require it.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 5:17pm) *
At that AN page, it's possibles: NW and Ottava Rima (though I wouldn't lock either one into that position).


I have already resolved to not get involved with either Mr. Kohs' unblock request or Sexual Content. Plenty of better things to do that don't involve locking up several hours of my life responding to posts.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 13th May 2010, 12:06pm) *
I have already resolved to not get involved with ... Sexual Content.

Ja, ja. Es ist besser, ein guter Deutscher. Gotta preserve time for that valuable Wikipedia admin work. After all, Arbeit macht frei.

Or, you could take the view that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." How's "nothing" working out for you?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 13th May 2010, 3:06pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 5:17pm) *
At that AN page, it's possibles: NW and Ottava Rima (though I wouldn't lock either one into that position).
I have already resolved to not get involved with either Mr. Kohs' unblock request or Sexual Content. Plenty of better things to do that don't involve locking up several hours of my life responding to posts.
I fully understand. That was my suspicion from your comment. It was a quick affirmation of an impression you had, not a comment evincing some particular attachment to outcome. It was a possible support of the block, that was all. Same with Ottava's comment. Ottava seems to have totally flamed out at Commons, he has a way of doing that, it seems.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 13th May 2010, 3:22pm) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 13th May 2010, 12:06pm) *
I have already resolved to not get involved with ... Sexual Content.
Or, you could take the view that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." How's "nothing" working out for you?
That's a bit much to infer from not being interested in (1) a troll, and Kohs is a troll, in fact. I just don't think people should be blocked for being trolls, per se, especially if they aren't trolling on the wiki in question, and (2) a flap about sexual content that ended up affirming what was actually an important principle: local autonomy for the WikiMedia wikis. That doesn't mean that they can get away with murder, so to speak, but that central control is, shall we say, deprecated.

Now, about that meta blacklist.... it's actually not a terrible problem, because local wikis can override it with the whitelist, and most of what ends up on the meta blacklist is genuine spam, but there are some serious exceptions, and they do impact editors who don't know how to request a whitelisting, or who run into opinionated admins, this seems to happen the most on Wikipedia, who have their own opinions about what is useful as an external links, say, so that they do deny, and routinely, good-faith requests on the basis that a site "isn't reliable," though that is, in fact, a page-by-page decision, properly. But give an admin some power, it cries out to be used....

NW, the issue about this block of Kohs is that he was a non-disruptive contributor there on Commons. And the general principle is that no matter what you have done elsewhere (on a WikiMedia site or elsewhere, with very few exceptions, little matters like death threats or the like, if you behave on a wiki, you can stay on the wiki. This provides a path to return to grace, so to speak (I'm aware of the irony), and it's one of the few ones that's been kept open for unpopular editors. What happens, though, is that the enemies of these editors follow them around and hassle them on the other wikis, and this is then "disruption." Yeah, it is indeed disruption, but not caused by that elsewhere banned or blocked editor. I'd say that a newcomer to a wiki, even if an established editor or even an admin at another wiki, who tries to get a nondisruptive editor blocked, is definitely being disruptive and should be warned and/or blocked. Not banned, and certainly not globally banned.


QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 13th May 2010, 2:38pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 1:17pm) *
What is certainly clear is that there is no consensus for a block, which will normally carry result in unblock, but not necessarily. My guess, though, is that AFB will unblock after a pause, or someone else will. Unless you really do want to be banned -- it might serve your purposes, possibly -- don't give the ones who want such a ban an excuse by being uncivil or socking.
It has been my experience that when there is no consensus (as in typically the case), no action is taken. Usually what happens is that some admin either boldy affirms or boldy reverses the situation and hopes to survive any backlash.

I can supply details of the example I'm most familiar with, if you require it.
Practice varies, and it's a political decision. Right now, on Commons, there is an appearance of a sense that the block wasn't right, but there isn't a whole lot of comment from neutral editors. I get the sense that the blocking admin, taking this to Commons AN, is looking for cover to unblock, and may have received enough, we'll see. If he wanted Kohs to stay unblocked, he could simply have sat on it.

I've mentioned that Kohs is a troll. He's the kind of troll who gets abusive administrators into a snit. He therefore serves a useful purpose, if sufficiently contained. (Sometimes the only way to bring attention to abuse is to show just how crazy the abuser is.) I have no idea if he'd stay contained, I don't see that there was enough available patience to try it. The central question is whether or not he would follow reasonable constraints. Some gadflies can do it, some not. If he would usually follow such constraints, and if he did make useful contributions (and by that I do not only include "content"), he might make a mistake now and then, it's the balance that matters.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 12th May 2010, 7:41pm) *
It's hard enough to get through if you don't make accusations! -- because if you provide diffs that someone was, say, revert warring, or blocking you when engaged in a revert war with you, some will assume that this is an accusation anyway.... and react to you as if you are a raving lunatic. It's better, if possible, to let others defend you, even if it takes time.

We are way beyond the point where it matters what approach I take, so I might as well say what I want to say. There isn't much they can do to me, after all.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 13th May 2010, 6:43pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 12th May 2010, 7:41pm) *
It's hard enough to get through if you don't make accusations! -- because if you provide diffs that someone was, say, revert warring, or blocking you when engaged in a revert war with you, some will assume that this is an accusation anyway.... and react to you as if you are a raving lunatic. It's better, if possible, to let others defend you, even if it takes time.
We are way beyond the point where it matters what approach I take, so I might as well say what I want to say. There isn't much they can do to me, after all.
Since you are only thinking about yourself, should I reciprocate?

You create a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will help. Tell me, why should someone go out of their way, risk their own account and deal with the hassle, to help an editor who has "retired"?

I've been watching developments on meta and elsewhere. I restored what you had revert warred to restore, there was a clear basis for it. Next step would probably have been to start asking the blocking admin about your block. Never mind! I do have other things to do, for sure.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 13th May 2010, 11:30am) *
Thanks to our thought-leader and his lackey Abigor, Commons will get no more photographic content like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_cottage_in_Enchanted_Forest_at_Winterthur.jpg, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Lure.jpg from me.
By the way, nice photos. I hope you didn't upload them for the WikiMedia Foundation, but for the readers. Makes me realize that I have piles of photos I've taken in various parks, museums, etc. For some reason I never thought of those. Not that I'm chomping at the bit to beautify the 'pedias, but .... what else am I going to do with them? If I give them to Commons I'm really giving them to the world, not to the 'pedias. It's actually the same with all the content, it's not owned by the WMF and the assorted assholes (and mixed-in and mixed-up nice people) who think they are the gods there.

I'm kind of liking Wikiversity. We'll see what happens. It's a wiki, I don't expect it, or my work there, to necessarily survive. The vicious administrators there are nothing compared to the vicious admins at Wikipedia. Nice, by comparison, and it seems that some kind of precedent is being set that the angry gods won't descend from meta any more. Or not. Never can tell, except for what it looks like now.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 6:33pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 13th May 2010, 6:43pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 12th May 2010, 7:41pm) *
It's hard enough to get through if you don't make accusations! -- because if you provide diffs that someone was, say, revert warring, or blocking you when engaged in a revert war with you, some will assume that this is an accusation anyway.... and react to you as if you are a raving lunatic. It's better, if possible, to let others defend you, even if it takes time.
We are way beyond the point where it matters what approach I take, so I might as well say what I want to say. There isn't much they can do to me, after all.
Since you are only thinking about yourself, should I reciprocate?

You create a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will help. Tell me, why should someone go out of their way, risk their own account and deal with the hassle, to help an editor who has "retired"?

I've been watching developments on meta and elsewhere. I restored what you had revert warred to restore, there was a clear basis for it. Next step would probably have been to start asking the blocking admin about your block. Never mind! I do have other things to do, for sure.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 13th May 2010, 11:30am) *
Thanks to our thought-leader and his lackey Abigor, Commons will get no more photographic content like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_cottage_in_Enchanted_Forest_at_Winterthur.jpg, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Lure.jpg from me.
By the way, nice photos. I hope you didn't upload them for the WikiMedia Foundation, but for the readers. Makes me realize that I have piles of photos I've taken in various parks, museums, etc. For some reason I never thought of those. Not that I'm chomping at the bit to beautify the 'pedias, but .... what else am I going to do with them? If I give them to Commons I'm really giving them to the world, not to the 'pedias. It's actually the same with all the content, it's not owned by the WMF and the assorted assholes (and mixed-in and mixed-up nice people) who think they are the gods there.

I'm kind of liking Wikiversity. We'll see what happens. It's a wiki, I don't expect it, or my work there, to necessarily survive. The vicious administrators there are nothing compared to the vicious admins at Wikipedia. Nice, by comparison, and it seems that some kind of precedent is being set that the angry gods won't descend from meta any more. Or not. Never can tell, except for what it looks like now.



Any photos that you "contribute" to commons, or anywhere with a free license should be first seen in your minds eye with penis vandalism, as is perfectly appropriate with the license. In fact a good project for the bored would be to 'shop photos on commons of influential persons, replacing a penis for their noses than send to them with an explanatory note that this is a perfectly permissible use under the license their photographer has place their image for public use. Just thank goodness that their highly educational penis face didn't wind-up back on commons for further use and public display.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Note that Herbythyme, who vandalized Greg's entry and user page, is now also harassing Ottava Rima on Commons.

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 14th May 2010, 1:33am) *
You create a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will help. (...)

You seem to have the wrong impression that I care about the block or my account over there. I do not.


Posted by: Moulton

It might be helpful to disclose your objectives, or otherwise say what you do care about.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Mods,

GdB and Abd, and a cast of Moultons, appear to have appropriated this thread to their own chatter, far and away from the the topic of Jimbo's attempt to enforce a global ban on Thekohser, and what it says about the pressing issue of Wikimedia's Central Controll Freekdom.

Could some nice Mod please sort the off-topic stuff to another thread?

Thanks,

Jon Image

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:18am) *
Mods,

GdB and Abd, and a cast of Moultons, appear to have appropriated this thread to their own chatter, far and away from the the topic of Jimbo's attempt to enforce a global ban on Thekohser, and what it says about the pressing issue of Wikimedia's Central Controll Freekdom.

Could some nice Mod please sort the off-topic stuff to another thread?

Thanks,

Jon Image
I've been discussing fallout from the "global ban," so has GdB (he was blocked over his attempt to restore the Kohs speaker listing), this is all relevant. Jimbo's actions contrary to consensus would have been confronted much sooner if not for local admins who have supported them, and there was retaliation, for sure, on meta, against GdB. The basic issue is admin abuse, actually, not Jimbo per se, who is simply pushing his own vision for Wikipedia, and who simply had too much unrestrained personal power. He'll be fine when he actually functions as a leader (as well as spokesperson), instead of as God-king, with a Divine Right of Buttons. Those days may be over.


QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 14th May 2010, 5:30am) *
Note that Herbythyme, who vandalized Greg's entry and user page, is now also harassing Ottava Rima on Commons.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 14th May 2010, 1:33am) *
You create a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will help. (...)
You seem to have the wrong impression that I care about the block or my account over there. I do not.
What makes Guido think that I have that impression? Seems entirely projected to me.

Guido, you confused the issue on meta, though your action there with Koh's speaker listing did call attention to the removal. What was your purpose, though? From what you've been saying here, it was one which could properly be blocked. Whether or not it was wise to actually block is another issue, and certainly it was not wise for Abigor to block you while engaged in an edit war with you, and Abigor also harassed Ottava Rima. Naughty. What's the meta process for reviewing admin abuse?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 7:33pm) *

I'm kind of liking Wikiversity.


I'm glad you're liking it. Did you know that it was through the sacrifices of trailblazers such as myself, perishing at the hands of an ugly, jackbooted thug from the Wikimedia Foundation, that your freedom to edit there is sustained?

By the way... isn't it about time somebody unblocked my account on Wikiversity? Jimbo's clearly gone now, and the kids have come out from their hiding spaces. Let's do it.


QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 14th May 2010, 11:41am) *

...though your action there with Koh's speaker listing...


That is really annoying. Do I look Korean or something?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 4:12pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 7:33pm) *

I'm kind of liking Wikiversity.


I'm glad you're liking it. Did you know that it was through the sacrifices of trailblazers such as myself, perishing at the hands of an ugly, jackbooted thug from the Wikimedia Foundation, that your freedom to edit there is sustained?

By the way … isn't it about time somebody unblocked my account on Wikiversity? Jimbo's clearly gone now, and the kids have come out from their hiding spaces. Let's do it.


If I were into nominating people for awards, Abd would get the Uriah Heep Memorial Prize (WR:UHMP) for sure. He has the most convoluted way of saying nothing at all, nothing that might be taken by anyone as taking a stand, nothing of substance that he doesn't stealthily mince to death with a thousand more weasel words laid on top of it.

So don't be looking to the likes of him to take a stand on any matter of principle. Speaking blather to the disempowered is all he knows.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 14th May 2010, 5:41pm) *
What was your purpose, though?

You are still too much of a Wikipedian to get it.

My purpose was to undo the damage to the Public speakers page. There was no gaming goal hidden behind that.

This is, by the way, a page about living persons, not about Wikipedia users. That's another thing you haven't noticed yet.


QUOTE
What's the meta process for reviewing admin abuse?

None that I am aware of. There may not be a non-abusing admin or higher-up left to do such a review, anyway.

Posted by: thekohser

I see that the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_speakers&diff=1978003&oldid=1977995 continues unabated by this "Aphaia" (or "Britty") (or "Naoko Kizu"), the esthetician from Japan.

Even though I have had correspondence with the WMF and the Stewards list about this editor's libel, they have told me that oversight of this is not within the remit of Stewards with the "oversight" tool.

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st May 2010, 8:16pm) *

I see that the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_speakers&diff=1978003&oldid=1977995 continues unabated by this "Aphaia" (or "Britty") (or "Naoko Kizu"), the esthetician from Japan.

Even though I have had correspondence with the WMF and the Stewards list about this editor's libel, they have told me that oversight of this is not within the remit of Stewards with the "oversight" tool.


That's rich stuff, considering JIMMY WALES IS A known Pornographer and his project is responsible in spreading Child porn, though the schools with wiki/internet access.

The Wikipedians are despicable scum for enabling this travesty.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st May 2010, 4:16pm) *
I see that the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_speakers&diff=1978003&oldid=1977995 continues unabated by this "Aphaia" (or "Britty") (or "Naoko Kizu"), the esthetician from Japan.

Even though I have had correspondence with the WMF and the Stewards list about this editor's libel, they have told me that oversight of this is not within the remit of Stewards with the "oversight" tool.
Greg, you might ask Guido to tone it down. Looking back, he continually poked the coals in this fire, "defending" you.

As to the oversighters, odd, isn't it?, that Moulton's comments describing what users had done on various wikis were considered so horrible that Jimbo himself deleted the pages, but actual libel, without necessity, is somehow to be ignored.

You were generally reasonable there, looking at the discussion, though sometimes you said more than was necessary... it makes the natives restless. It looks to me like there was a consensus to keep you listed as a speaker, which is why I've intervened. But what could be controversial still would be noting that you are blocked from some projects. "Banned" is a wikispeak construct that really means little more than indef blocked. If there were clear formal process for banning that showed true consensus, it might be different. But there isn't. Sometimes it's clear that genuine consensus exists, but when the "ban' comes from On High, that is sidestepped and cannot be discerned. And often a "ban" is just a handful of editors agreeing with no admin caring enough to disagree and unblock, risking the conflict.

Lar, and I think others, have argued that mentioning your block/ban status is acceptable if it is done evenly for all volunteer speakers. It's a simple, verifiable fact, and, I'd say, relevant, basic information. That's the kind of compromise that might be necessary to keep your listing. Do you have a suggestion for wording? You can email me or PM here.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:34am) *

Greg, you might ask Guido to tone it down. Looking back, he continually poked the coals in this fire, "defending" you.


He don't know you vewwwy well, do he !?

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 14th May 2010, 4:32pm) *
If I were into nominating people for awards, Abd would get the Uriah Heep Memorial Prize (WR:UHMP) for sure. He has the most convoluted way of saying nothing at all, nothing that might be taken by anyone as taking a stand, nothing of substance that he doesn't stealthily mince to death with a thousand more weasel words laid on top of it.
Only a thousand? Must be losing my touch.
QUOTE
So don't be looking to the likes of him to take a stand on any matter of principle. Speaking blather to the disempowered is all he knows.
Awbrey does seem to have taken up a dose of dislike for me, eh? Jon, you have written some cogent comment on Wikipedia, in places, but you have become little more than a crotchety whiner, useless. I'm working slowly, one step at a time. I have a record which speaks for itself, as to standing up for principles, i.e., with JzG, where I was utterly uninvolved (at first) and with WMC, the same until he came after me. You? Why should I bother? What harm is being done by your raving here? It's probably entertaining for some.


QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:38am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:34am) *
Greg, you might ask Guido to tone it down. Looking back, he continually poked the coals in this fire, "defending" you.
He don't know you vewwwy well, do he!?
I do not permanently stuff people into boxes based on assumptions regarding their past behavior. If Greg wants continual disruption, which is what those who want him banned (and removed from the speaker list) believe, well, he'll be banned and unlisted and there will be little I can do about it. But if he wants to be listed as a speaker, and he's probably a good one, if a group wants some cogent criticism of Wikipedia, then he might, at least, not only avoid gratuitous disruption at meta, but help calm it down.

Posted by: Moulton

Uh oh. I fear a round or two of mutually antagonizing narcissistic wounding is about to erupt.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 4:18pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 13th May 2010, 7:33pm) *
I'm kind of liking Wikiversity.
I'm glad you're liking it. Did you know that it was through the sacrifices of trailblazers such as myself, perishing at the hands of an ugly, jackbooted thug from the Wikimedia Foundation, that your freedom to edit there is sustained?
Sure. I'm grateful for the service.
QUOTE
By the way... isn't it about time somebody unblocked my account on Wikiversity? Jimbo's clearly gone now, and the kids have come out from their hiding spaces. Let's do it.
I'll look into it. I don't know if you can edit your user page there. If you can't, that's what I'd start with. Would you promise to "behave," or would you give me cause to regret intervening?

"Behave," for the moment, would mean sticking to local issues, not pushing the boundaries (including illegitimate boundaries), not taking the opportunity of being unblocked to rake the idiots over the coals. It pisses them off.

If your user talk page is open to you, I'd ask you to compose a request for unblock, and send it to me first so I can review it and make suggestions. This isn't any kind of actual restriction on you, just the "price" of my effort to unblock you there. I think you would be useful to Wikiversity, as long as you don't encourage shouting matches in the faculty club, so to speak. If someone starts shouting at you, just sit down and let others defend you. We will. And if we don't, then the place isn't worth saving, you'd be wasting your time anyway. One of the reasons my Wikipedia participation went almost to zero is that the only editor who consistently defended me got indeffed, largely for it. It used to be that I could count on roughly one-third of the active core to help me. Most of those people are gone.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 14th May 2010, 11:41am) *
...though your action there with Koh's speaker listing...
That is really annoying. Do I look Korean or something?
Sorry. Misplaced apostrophe. Kohs' speaker listing. Hey, you'll have more peace of mind if you don't get flapped by typographical errors.


QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:48am) *
Uh oh. I fear a round or two of mutually antagonizing narcissistic wounding is about to erupt.
Nah, I'm done. I'm not reading much here at this point. Kohs has asked, it seems, for help getting unblocked on Wikiversity, and I might take that on, and there is this little detail called real life, an annoying distraction, which I tend to avoid as much as possible.

Posted by: thekohser

I don't have time for formal requests and submissions and promises to "behave". I'm an adult human being with a steady job at a Fortune 100 media company, a dad, a husband, a website operator, and the corporate secretary for my church. I'm a fairly decent writer and researcher. If you want me to be a part of Meta or of Wikiversity, I am happy to participate in those projects where I see my skills fitting. If you're asking me to promise not to say "ouch" when somebody raps me over the head with a wooden mallet while I'm writing a historical narrative or fixing some grammar errors, I'm afraid I can't make that sort of promise.

As for the Meta issue of "this speaker is blocked on several/most/nearly all Wikimedia Foundation projects"... I think the best way to convey that fact (for my own personal delight, since nobody's really reading that speakers list, anyway) would be:

"Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."

I think that has a nice ring to it, and you certainly can't say it's not factual.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:29pm) *

“Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects.”


No “,”

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:35pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:29pm) *

"Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."


No Comma

Jon tongue.gif


"Ouch!"

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 4:18pm) *

I'm glad you're liking it. Did you know that it was through the sacrifices of trailblazers such as myself, perishing at the hands of an ugly, jackbooted thug from the Wikimedia Foundation, that your freedom to edit there is sustained?

I don't look in all that often these days, but as far as I know the only active admins there are Ottava and Adambro (Jimbophants), Jtneill (who wouldn't touch it), and Darklama (who is trying to stay out of trouble after seeing what Jimbo did to me). Ottava and Adambro might be your best bets, if they think that unblocking you might help repair their reputations as Jimbo yes-men, but they'll want something in return.

"Freedom to edit" on WV has some serious boundaries, BTW. But I'm sure you know that.


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:29pm) *
I don't have time for formal requests and submissions and promises to "behave". I'm an adult human being with a steady job at a Fortune 100 media company, a dad, a husband, a website operator, and the corporate secretary for my church. I'm a fairly decent writer and researcher. If you want me to be a part of Meta or of Wikiversity, I am happy to participate in those projects where I see my skills fitting. If you're asking me to promise not to say "ouch" when somebody raps me over the head with a wooden mallet while I'm writing a historical narrative or fixing some grammar errors, I'm afraid I can't make that sort of promise.
Oh, you could say ouch, for sure. The problem is when you say a great deal more than ouch. It's when you say or imply the equivalent of "You're a bunch of idiots." Doesn't matter if it's true or not. It gets people riled up.

Look, you don't have to agree to anything, but if I'm going to go out on a limb for this, I don't want to get covered with collateral damage from your spit.
QUOTE
As for the Meta issue of "this speaker is blocked on several/most/nearly all Wikimedia Foundation projects"... I think the best way to convey that fact (for my own personal delight, since nobody's really reading that speakers list, anyway) would be:

"Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."

I think that has a nice ring to it, and you certainly can't say it's not factual.
Well, I'd quibble with "from nearly all," but maybe it's true if they went around and ran blocks on all the language pedias. I forget how to look at the global account status page. Your global account lock is gone, I believe. I can suggest that this statement be in the listing, as coming from you, and would attempt to put it there unless consensus appears otherwise. Is this the language you want? I'd put in something like "...that he believes is so antithetical .... something clearly attributing the statement, just for insurance. I don't think you are actually that antithetical to the true community, just to the cabal, i.e., the defacto ad-hoc governance structure, which can present a appearance of control for a time, until it turns around and eats them too.

Personally, though, I'd prefer that the statement be more specific and, indeed, more neutral. As it is, it's confrontational and provocative, but, on the other hand, you are substantially correct. (What is the "sensibility" of the community, and how does a governance structure have this sensibility thing? It's individuals which have sensibilities, and where a group is involved, typically some might have it and some don't.)

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:59pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 4:18pm) *
I'm glad you're liking it. Did you know that it was through the sacrifices of trailblazers such as myself, perishing at the hands of an ugly, jackbooted thug from the Wikimedia Foundation, that your freedom to edit there is sustained?
I don't look in all that often these days, but as far as I know the only active admins there are Ottava and Adambro (Jimbophants), Jtneill (who wouldn't touch it), and Darklama (who is trying to stay out of trouble after seeing what Jimbo did to me). Ottava and Adambro might be your best bets, if they think that unblocking you might help repair their reputations as Jimbo yes-men, but they'll want something in return.

"Freedom to edit" on WV has some serious boundaries, BTW. But I'm sure you know that.
Yeah. I'll be careful. I've pushed one or two limits, but just a little. Mostly it was pointing out, when it was hot, just how disruptive certain long-time editors at WV were being in the Jimbo intervention flap, even though I'm sympathetic to them. The way I see it, we need to discipline our own before trying to fix everyone else.

Why, SB, you don't think they would be cooperative just for the welfare of the community? My, such cynicism! However, if they want a piece of LR-115 solid state nuclear track detector, perhaps I could get a donation from somewhere to send one to them. I'd give a discount, just $25 postpaid anywhere in the world. Cool stuff. But possibly not their cup of tea. Perhaps a can of Darjeeling or something? Not a bribe, of course, I wouldn't dream of asking them to do something they thought was wrong. Just a friendly gesture.

Your support, SB, would be helpful. Jimbo was not in a mood, then, to be confronted. Now, he went too far on Commons and got troutslapped, effectively. I think he'll be more careful ongoing, and I'm not about to allow interference with his legitimate and critical interests, not if I have anything to do with it. I had positive email from him during the WV flap, by the way. If you don't mind, I'll email you if anything is up. Wikiversity can be slow as hell.

You know, we even have an active page, sort of, currently under the Ethics?Response testing umbrella, on the Newbie testing project. The trick is, I believe, to be so rigorously neutral and non-judgmental that someone complaining about is basically complaining about their own history. It's not necessarily easy, it is .... sooooo tempting .... to come right out and describe the behavior as utter idiocy. But, you know, it's best to trust the readers. And if someone doesn't like their history being exposed, perhaps they could ask, nicely, to have it removed, apologizing for it? And then it could become a footnote, with the apology the most prominent part, and apologies make people look good.

It's the opposite of what too many of the juveniles (literally or figuratively) who run Wikipedia think, that apologizing for an error would involve "losing face" or something like that. In the Newby treatment at Speedy deletion project, one of the admins caught in the "trap," right at the start, wrote, "Thanks! I sure screwed up, thanks for showing me that I was not being careful enough." Others complained up and down about these disruptive editors violating [[WP:POINT]], though the activity was clearly constructive in sum, resulting in positive growth of articles, with the only real disruption being from the complainers. So who ends up looking good and who ends up looking like a vindictive, careless idiot who can't take criticism even when it isn't directly critical, it just exposes what they do?

Hint: nah, you don't need any hints.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:36am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:35pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:29pm) *

"Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."


No Comma

Jon tongue.gif


"Ouch!"

A comma's perfectly fine, as normal people on reading that sentence, pause at that point. Of course, you could remove the two commas in my previous sentence also, but it cuts down on the readability. The real problem is that the thing just has just too many long descriptive clauses. Removing fluff gets you:

"Kohs offers a point of view that is so antithetical to the community that his user account is banned." This still benefits from a comma after "community."

If you want such an ornate sentence to be understood at first pass, you need even more commas, actually.

"Kohs offers a point of view, and way of expressing it, that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Sorry, it's, still, just, plain, bad, grammar, and, bad, rhetoric, too.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 4:20pm) *

Look, you don't have to agree to anything, but if I'm going to go out on a limb for this, I don't want to get covered with collateral damage from your spit.


I think you're overthinking this, Abd. Indeed, if we didn't know this was your m.o., one might conclude that you're the drama-monger here.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:34pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 4:20pm) *

Look, you don't have to agree to anything, but if I'm going to go out on a limb for this, I don't want to get covered with collateral damage from your spit.


I think you're overthinking this, Abd. Indeed, if we didn't know this was your m.o., one might conclude that you're the drama-monger here.


Long had I wondered why the Land between the Ribbers, the unholy land that we call Wikiputia, is so rifely overrun with the tribe of the Hyper-Active Mega-Messiah (HAMM) — not to be confused with the kissing cousin clan of the LawMacGyver — but then it dawned on my befuddled mind one day that it's all because the station of a martyr is so blessedly easy to attain there.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

Jon is right---this whole business resembles a (very damn bizarre) Warner Bros. cartoon.
I doubt even geniuses like Isidore Freleng or Chuck Jones could have anticipated
a freakish madhouse like Commons, or Wikiversity.

And Greg wants to go back in there........ bored.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 11:35pm) *

Jon is right — this whole business resembles a (very damn bizarre) Warner Bros. cartoon.
I doubt even geniuses like Isidore Freleng or Chuck Jones could have anticipated
a freakish madhouse like Commons, or Wikiversity.

And Greg wants to go back in there …… bored.gif


Well, not to give the game away, or anything like that, because I'd never, ever, want to do a thing like that, since Wikipediots, perhaps by “virtue” of their very nature, but more likely by dint of their long-inured, hidebound habits, can't tell the name of any game afoot without the aid of an 8×10, glossy programme, okay, not even then, but my guess would be that poking the system is nothing more, and nothing less, than a really good way of bringing its true character to light.

Jon Image

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 11:35pm) *

And Greg wants to go back in there........ bored.gif


Ehh... I'm unblocked on Wikinews. Look at the http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser there!

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 10:34pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 4:20pm) *
Look, you don't have to agree to anything, but if I'm going to go out on a limb for this, I don't want to get covered with collateral damage from your spit.
I think you're overthinking this, Abd. Indeed, if we didn't know this was your m.o., one might conclude that you're the drama-monger here.
Okay, never mind. Maybe another time.

I might have done more on meta today but I was so distracted by the scene between Guido and Hillgentleman, the latter is going around obsessively finding occurrences of "director" and changing it to "trustee," and Guido, who has a big RETIRED sign on his user page, has apparently decided that he must save the wiki from this terrible "trustee" usage, and taken this blatant vandalism to the request page for admin assistance. I'd made a comment on usage on HG's Talk yesterday, but after realizing how much drama was developing over this, I yanked my comment. Who cares if the usage is perfect? It's not even an encyclopedia! Is it the phase of the moon, or what?

I decided that they were both trolling, and that the more distance I put between myself and the two of them, the safer I was. With Kohs, there is some real value. There. I used the word "troll." I must be losing it. I'll go away now.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 12:43am) *
Ehh... I'm unblocked on Wikinews. Look at the http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser there!
You edited Talk:Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon, noting that a sentence had an unnecessary comma. Unforgivable.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 1:51am) *
Unforgivable.

It's a comman error.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 12:14pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 1:51am) *

Unforgivable.


It's a comman error.


, , ↓ doo bee ↓ ↓ ↓

Posted by: Moulton

Moar Song Parodies!

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 7:51am) *
Who cares if the usage is perfect?

I expect the people whose position is described, for starters. They wouldn't want the readers to get the wrong impression of their responsibbilities.

QUOTE
I decided that they were both trolling, (...)

As I said before, you are still too much a Wikipedian. You are obviously not helping anyone but are just rummaging around with extra fuel for whatever bonfire may be lit.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 6:28pm) *

As I said before, you are still too much a Wikipedian. You are obviously not helping anyone but are just rummaging around with extra fuel for whatever bonfire may be lit.


Well, I have a bag of marshmellows -- grab some sticks and let's have a roast! smile.gif

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 12:14pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 1:51am) *

Unforgivable.


It's a comman error.


, , ↓ doo bee ↓ ↓ ↓


Needs juan moar 'doo.'

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 7:23pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 12:14pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 1:51am) *

Unforgivable.


It's a comman error.


, , ↓ doo bee ↓ ↓ ↓



Needs juan moar 'doo.'


http://volokh.com/posts/1141231770.shtml#70153 …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

Doo bee doo bee doo bee doo,
I want to sodomize you!


(Isn't this thread ever going to fade out?)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 7:44pm) *

Doo bee doo bee doo bee doo,
I want to sodomize you!


(Isn't this thread ever going to fade out?)


QUOTE

Go Morons !
Go Morons !
Go Go Go !!!


Posted by: Moulton

This weekend on those NPR affiliates that carry http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35, you can http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127043815 over those very lyrics (including a "musical button" of it at the end of the segment). And yes, there is one more "doo" (and one less "down" at the end).

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 23rd May 2010, 7:53pm) *

This weekend on those NPR affiliates that carry http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35, you can http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127043815 over those very lyrics (including a "musical button" of it at the end of the segment). And yes, there is one more "doo" (and one less "down" at the end).


Oops, musta bin a fawlty parody check.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

It would appear that JzG and Herby http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/Blocks_%26_protections_5#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29 at Wikimedia Commons.

JzG is convinced that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg is a breaching experiment, and his believers all fall into line.

Seems strange that JzG would also point out a "lengthy history of block and ban evasion" as a good reason to maintain a block (that doesn't work). Blocks really only inspire me to do things http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12274. (And why isn't that page searchable on Google? I guess the Editors forum is privatized?)

Posted by: thekohser

I would also appreciate if http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=39758674&oldid=39197200 got some attention on Commons. Thanks!

Posted by: thekohser

Am I seriously still blocked on http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser? Not only that -- but no e-mail access rights, no Talk page rights, and I can't edit my User page to look the way I want it to?

Does Adambro run that joint?

Wikiversity really has a problem.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 2:19pm) *
Wikiversity really has a problem.

Oh, you noticed. smile.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 2:19pm) *
Am I seriously still blocked on http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser? Not only that -- but no e-mail access rights, no Talk page rights, and I can't edit my User page to look the way I want it to?

Does Adambro run that joint?

Wikiversity really has a problem.
Sure. So new?

Greg, I asked you if you wanted intervention, and suggested that, for me to attempt it, I'd want some assurances about your behavior, at least short-term. I am not accusing you of misbehavior, but if I stick out my neck to seek your unblock, I'd not want to see you take the opportunity to, basically, get yourself blocked again, in short order. If you don't push the edges and they go after you anyway, I'd stand behind you, that much I don't mind at all, and we owe it to each other.

You might notice that you are still listed as a speaker on Wikipedia, on the meta speaker page. They may try to take it out again, possibly, but I don't think it will be difficult to maintain relative consensus there. I've been busy so I haven't even responded to some of the flak.

You didn't really answer me, or you answered me with, more or less, a refusal to comply with what I'd need. No harm, and, in a way, I don't blame you, but ... I would trust your assurances, it's up to you.

Hey, what do you want to do on Wikiversity? Why do you care about access rights? Give me some reason to think -- and to argue -- that you'd be good for the place. Simply being right, often, isn't enough!

And if an ugly user page is the problem, send me some wikitext. I'll put it up if I don't consider it disruptive. If you want email access to a WV user or administrator, send me an email to forward and I'll forward it or tell you why I'm not. Greg, I absolutely don't approve of the way you have been treated, but that doesn't mean that I think all your behavior was wise or useful.

I've asked for adminship there, Ottava has agreed to sponsor/mentor me, but I doubt I would use it in this matter, because I'm probably too involved. I'd rather work for consensus, anyway.

Your comment above about Adambro, if it's typical of what you'd write on wikiversity, doesn't make me hopeful, though. But I do realize this is the Review.

As to consensus, timing is a huge part of it. Jimbo came down on Wikiversity (and you), and, in response, there was the meta proposal to remove the founder flag from Jimbo. It was going nowhere, running about two to one against. Then came the Commons incident. The issue was really the same, but the nature of the immediate conflict raised a lot more attention. So it's now four to one for removal. My guess is that the flag won't be removed, because the essential tools that could be used to make the same mistakes he made at Wikiversity and on Commons have been removed. But one never can tell.

I'm hoping that Jimbo starts to use his influence, what's left of it (it's probably still considerable), to push for better governance, true consensus process. I think it's possible. Meanwhile, many dream that the problems will just go away if they can only get rid of those bad guys. False hope, even if you do get rid of one set of bad guys, with enormous effort and huge wasted time, more will take their place. The system creates the bad guys out of the material fed to it and according to the structure that exists.

It may fix itself, if given a hundred years. Maybe.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *

You didn't really answer me, or you answered me with, more or less, a refusal to comply with what I'd need. No harm, and, in a way, I don't blame you, but ... I would trust your assurances, it's up to you.
You make it sound like Abd is the only human who could possibly get my account unblocked on Wikiversity.


QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
Hey, what do you want to do on Wikiversity? Why do you care about access rights?
I don't know! Maybe it's just the principle of defying the irrational acts of a tyrant. Who knows where the human imagination will take me? Have you seen some of my recent http://www.netknowledge.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser on NetKnowledge.org? How disruptive have I been there? Many of my peers there are Wikiversity veterans. We seem to be getting along.


QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
And if an ugly user page is the problem, send me some wikitext. I'll put it up if I don't consider it disruptive.
Do you consider http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&oldid=1894613 disruptive? If not, put it up on my Wikiversity User page. Then, get it back in place on Meta.


QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
Your comment above about Adambro, if it's typical of what you'd write on wikiversity, doesn't make me hopeful, though. But I do realize this is the Review.
I'm finding that Adambro's contribution history is little different than that of a bot designed to welcome new users, revert vandalism, create new categories, and move pages from place to place. Why does a bot have rule over the entire project?


QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
I'm hoping that Jimbo starts to use his influence, what's left of it (it's probably still considerable), to push for better governance, true consensus process. I think it's possible.
I'm hoping to win the Powerball Lottery, then devote a month's worth of training to run a 4-minute mile, and then I seek to become a licensed neurosurgeon. I think it's more possible than what you think is possible.

Posted by: Moulton

Abd, it occurs to me that what you are asking of Greg amounts to a 2-person social contract.

As you may be aware, I'm generally an advocate in favor of social contracts, but not a bunch of separate 2-person social contracts. Imagine an N-person community, with N(N-1)/2 separately negotiated 2-person social contracts. It would be a nightmare.

What WV needs is a single N-person social contract that everyone subscribes to (including the would-be tyrants).

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 6:19pm) *

Am I seriously still blocked on http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser? Not only that -- but no e-mail access rights, no Talk page rights, and I can't edit my User page to look the way I want it to?

Does Adambro run that joint?

Wikiversity really has a problem.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22adam+brookes%22++tamsworth|huddersfield is an eccentric 22 year old college student. He's eminently qualified by wikimedia standards to lord over learning projects and decide what type of porn is the most educational for children.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:03pm) *

Adambro[/url] is an eccentric 22 year old college student. He's eminently qualified by wikimedia standards to lord over learning projects and decide what type of porn is the most educational for children.

I wish he would actually adambrate or adumbrate or whatever those standards, because I can't find them anywhere. I suppose you just have to know it when you see it.


Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th May 2010, 2:17pm) *

It would appear that JzG and Herby http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/Blocks_%26_protections_5#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29 at Wikimedia Commons.

That is an odd type of consensus. I've unblocked.

QUOTE

JzG is convinced that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg is a breaching experiment, and his believers all fall into line.

Where was that image discussed?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th May 2010, 11:57pm) *
Abd, it occurs to me that what you are asking of Greg amounts to a 2-person social contract.

As you may be aware, I'm generally an advocate in favor of social contracts, but not a bunch of separate 2-person social contracts. Imagine an N-person community, with N(N-1)/2 separately negotiated 2-person social contracts. It would be a nightmare.

What WV needs is a single N-person social contract that everyone subscribes to (including the would-be tyrants).
Sure. However, notice that this ""2-person contract" is solely between the 2 persons involved, and is only enforceable by mutual consent. "A bunch of negotated 2-person social contracts" is nothing other than people cooperating by mutual agreement. There is no coercion involved. Greg cannot force me to act on his behalf, and what I'm asking of him as a condition for that specific action is only what I need to be able to take it. Indeed, such voluntary contracts could very efficiently improve Wikipedia, and administrators often enter into these agreements with editors, sometimes even with editors they do not necessarily trust to keep up the agreement. But when the editor violates the agreement, as seen by the administrator, there goes that admin's unblocking support, if that's what was involved. This is basic Wikipedia structure in fact, when it works, and is not a sign of failure. I agree that broader social contracts are useful and even necessary, but it all starts with simple, direct cooperation, and cooperation is fostered, not inhibited, by agreements.

Moulton, your mathematical argument is preposterous. If it were required for everyone to have a contract with everyone else, negotiated, you'd be correct. But that is far, far, from the situation you are looking at here. Kohs effectively suggested that someone support his unblock (or unblock directly, there are those who might see this who do have the tools). I said, "Okay, if...." That's all. Very simple.

And there are other things I can and will do that might please Kohs, without him needing to make any promise at all. I support civil and careful criticism of Wikipedia. That places me in some kind of intermediate position with him, because his criticism is often cogent but is sometimes uncivil or unnecessarily disruptive. Kohs is Kohs, and I have no right to expect him to change.

Unless he agrees to it.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 4:06am) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th May 2010, 2:17pm) *
It would appear that JzG and Herby http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/Blocks_%26_protections_5#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29 at Wikimedia Commons.
That is an odd type of consensus. I've unblocked.
Thanks, Jayvdb. I've been restrained with Commons, because I'm not active there and will be seen as a meddling outsider, with some justification. But Commons, in particular, affects all the other projects....
QUOTE
QUOTE
JzG is convinced that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg is a breaching experiment, and his believers all fall into line.
Where was that image discussed?
I think he was being sarcastic. The reference would be to claims that his very participation is a breaching experiment. Thus every positive contribution can be viewed as some kind of trick. My comment: but who is being tricked? What if GRAWP tried making useful edits with his IP before putting up his vandalism? From my point of view, this would be an improvement, and causes no harm, compared to pure vandalism. We could say that, then, GRAWP would have been tricked into making positive contributions. Nice Azaleas, Greg. To trick you into making more positive contributions, Jayvdb has unblocked you. It's up to you how far you go before you start tossing chairs and food in the cafeteria. If you start. I kind of doubt you will, and a certain level of useless incivility is certainly tolerated from idiots like JzG and Herby, in fact, more incivility than you toss up, so.... if they are allowed to continue because of the value of their positive contributions, so should you.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 11:25pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
You didn't really answer me, or you answered me with, more or less, a refusal to comply with what I'd need. No harm, and, in a way, I don't blame you, but ... I would trust your assurances, it's up to you.
You make it sound like Abd is the only human who could possibly get my account unblocked on Wikiversity.
Probably not, I don't see why you say, "you make it sound" that way. I'm one person offering assistance and asking for something as a condition. Were I an admin there, as it looks like I might become, I would do the same, unless I saw the block as purely disruptive. There is an argument for that, but there is are arguments in the other direction. I'm trying to respect both sides of this, plus the welfare of the project itself. Overall, I suspect, it will benefit from your restrained participation.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
Hey, what do you want to do on Wikiversity? Why do you care about access rights?
I don't know! Maybe it's just the principle of defying the irrational acts of a tyrant.
Pardon me if I make sure I'm not standing next to you when the guards notice your defiance. If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss! I appreciate your comment, and well understand it, but it doesn't make me feel particularly safe, thinking of suggesting unblock. Are you capable of restraining this impulse? Not suppressing it, that's different, but being careful about where you place and express your defiance. Just being back as an editor at Wikiversity would be a kind of defiance and victory, but if you then act in a way that justifies the block, you'd undo much of that or more.
QUOTE
Who knows where the human imagination will take me? Have you seen some of my recent http://www.netknowledge.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser on NetKnowledge.org? How disruptive have I been there? Many of my peers there are Wikiversity veterans. We seem to be getting along.
Good sign. Why don't they support your unblock on Wikiversity? Surely that would help. Or is only one faction represented there? (I haven't looked, don't have time yet). Problem is, Greg, those who would support you on Wikiversity, disappeared, abandoned the field. It wasn't just that they were blocked, mostly they are not blocked. But, probably, they got tired of the endless controversy. Hence my caution.

Take a look at the promise I made today at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Abd#Custodians_willing_to_mentor. What if you made a promise like that, for some probationary period? I.e., "If you support my unblock, and during a set probationary period, I consent to reversion by you, I promise to stop any on-wiki activity if you object to it during the probationary period, and, if I violate this promise, and you request it, I consent to a block by any administrator who has supported or implemented this unblock request, with the administrator only allowing a violation of the promise if the administrator agrees that the welfare of the project required the violating action."

Or something like that. Your words. A promise you could keep and that protects those who support you and that might even mollify those who would rather see you drop dead. In fact, they may believe that you would be unable to keep the promise, so they will assume that, next time, you'll really be in the wiki-grave, truly banned by local consensus. They may try to stop the unblock anyway, out of habit, but not with great vigor, the rug having been pulled out from under their argument. Only those who approve your unblock get the promise, as I wrote it, which means that they are voluntarily willing to take the risk that they'd have to object....

You would have set up conditions that would not only make serious disruption quite unlikely, you would also have effectively solicited support by possible fence-sitters. Of course, if you really just want to be able to complain about the idiot administrators who block you, you may not want to do this.

I think there is valuable work you could do at Wikiversity, and I disagree that Wikiversity is not a place for criticism of Wikimedia projects. But such criticism should be done with the highest standards, and there is a problem at Wikiversity with inadequate supervision, so a resource there can readily become, shall we say, excessive. Or can be seen that way by those criticized. In order for this to not be disruptive, then, the criticism must be handled so that self-serving objection to it becomes visible as such. Which means giving those criticized no excuse. And that probably requires a community, not just one individual.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
And if an ugly user page is the problem, send me some wikitext. I'll put it up if I don't consider it disruptive.
Do you consider http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thekohser&oldid=1894613 disruptive? If not, put it up on my Wikiversity User page. Then, get it back in place on Meta.
I'll look and do what I can, or tell you why not.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
Your comment above about Adambro, if it's typical of what you'd write on wikiversity, doesn't make me hopeful, though. But I do realize this is the Review.
I'm finding that Adambro's contribution history is little different than that of a bot designed to welcome new users, revert vandalism, create new categories, and move pages from place to place. Why does a bot have rule over the entire project?
Oh, come on! Wikiversity is very short of contributors. He helps, and maybe he did something less than helpful. It can be undone. It's a wiki. Do you think that you help the cause of unblocking you by criticizing Adambro? You know how far that argument goes, on Wikipedia, i.e., "I should be unblocked because the blocking admin is a biased robot of no intellligence." The editor might as well write [declined] himself.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 27th May 2010, 10:44pm) *
I'm hoping that Jimbo starts to use his influence, what's left of it (it's probably still considerable), to push for better governance, true consensus process. I think it's possible.
I'm hoping to win the Powerball Lottery, then devote a month's worth of training to run a 4-minute mile, and then I seek to become a licensed neurosurgeon. I think it's more possible than what you think is possible.
Good luck. I'm about the same, except I WP:DGAF about the license. I noticed that you can buy scalpels without a license. Mostly, I haven't tried directly to influence Jimbo. I haven't felt ready. Just like I'm not doing any neurosurgery yet. Maybe tomorrow.

Posted by: Moulton

My experience with people in power, who reject the notion of a community-wide social contract, is that they try to negotiate private backroom deals (like http://hardnews1.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/MediaEthics.EthicalConundrum.html) which they can then misrepresent, abrogate, or otherwise weasel out of.

Posted by: Abd

I added the material to the Wikiversity user page for Thekohser, and, to boot, restored the version at meta. There has clearly been a vendetta against Thekohser, it should be rare for the same names to pop up again and again in block logs. Adambro took it upon himself to decline an unblock request on WV. He could simply have left it. These are bad signs about local process. The same people who have been trying to remove Thekohser from the Public Speakers list at meta were involved in blanking the page and in blocking. Sucks.

Eventually, I predict, Kohs, you will be unblocked in places where you have not been seriously disruptive, and this is no judgment of your activity even there. I have not reviewed your block at Wikipedia, and have no opinion about it. But "Get Kohs!" seems to have become a bit of an obsession with some, and that will cause endless disruption, it should be nipped in the bud.

Many experienced editors will back off for a while, eventualists. Then you'll see an intervention, when the smoke has cleared, as John just did at Commons. But if you rant and rave, and especially if you sock, as you often do, it gets harder.

And note that when someone is very bright and sees a lot that others don't see, a sober commentary can look like ranting and raving!

The proper and effective grounds for an unblock request are to (1) promise not to continue any disruption that you could possibly, by some stretch even, admit to, and (2) show that your unblock will not cause serious harm, often by showing that you didn't cause harm.

Attacking the blocking administrator and the block as improper almost never works, because the blocking administrator could be a terrible biased monster, and yet right about you. Agreeing to reasonable restrictions is a commonly effective tactic in an unblock. Assuming that the community will look everything over and vindicate you is generally a foolish hope, most administrators simply don't have time, and too often there is nobody in the community with both the inclination and time to investigate. This is all part of standard Wikipedia dysfunction, I'm describing what works as it is, not what should work.

By the way, another often-effective tactic with a block is to negotiate with the blocking admin. It's probably where most unblock activity should start. It will create a record that, even if the blocking admin doesn't consent, will facilitate a neutral administrator in noticing that the block was improper or excessive and the blocking admin unreasonable or worse. You want the reviewing administrator to come up with that conclusion independently, it backfires if you push it. Let others defend you, basic wikipolitical principle. And if there aren't any others, start looking for the ropes tying the ship to the dock, it may be about to go down. On the other hand, there may be others, but it will, like lots of things on a wiki, take a lot of time. "Wiki" means 'quick"? Hah!

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:50pm) *
And note that when someone is very bright and sees a lot that others don't see, a sober commentary can look like ranting and raving!

As near as I can tell, Wikipedians are allergic to sober commentary. Then again, they don't like song parodies either.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:39pm) *
My experience with people in power, who reject the notion of a community-wide social contract, is that they try to negotiate private backroom deals (like http://hardnews1.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/MediaEthics.EthicalConundrum.html) which they can then misrepresent, abrogate, or otherwise weasel out of.
Well, power corrupts. Yet even in well-structured communities, natural oligarchies develop that cause some level of corruption. (It's corruption when individual interest trumps social interest; and the most subtle and difficult to prevent corruption is where the oligarchy sees its own interests as being the social interest.)

To be successful, long-term, without this kind of corruption taking over, I only know of one strategy that's been seen to work: massive decentralization with central coordination necessarily dependent upon continued voluntary cooperation. Most people probably believe that it's impossible. It isn't.

However, the one major example of maintained success was unique in that one of the founders got the necessity, and incorporated safeguards into the central structure. To some extent that was forced, to try to get everyone on the same page with a powerful central structure would have been like herding cats, it would, all by itself, have torn the organization apart.

This was Alcoholics Anonymous, and the founder in question was Bill Wilson.

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 28th May 2010, 2:01pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:50pm) *
And note that when someone is very bright and sees a lot that others don't see, a sober commentary can look like ranting and raving!
As near as I can tell, Wikipedians are allergic to sober commentary. Then again, then don't like song parodies either.
How many Wikipedians are there, anyway, and how is it that you can say something sensible about "most" of them?

Indeed, my basic observation about Wikipedia, in 2007, was that there was no means of knowing what "most Wikipedians" think. We only know, and that only to a degree, what the active core thinks. There would be a way to gather, at least with a kind of anticipatory approximation, this. It would be efficient.

But it scares the shit out of the active core.

Meanwhile, the activity of that core has been driving away massive chunks of the larger user base, doing damage that may be impossible to undo. So the core is shooting itself in the foot, making the project more and more difficult to maintain.

Another way to put this is that a very high percentage of the sane users have left, leaving behind a warped sample. Some remain who are sane, to some degree (how do you feel, Lar?), but it becomes increasingly difficult for them. Progess is made in one area, while another is backsliding....

Posted by: Moulton

Maybe someone can work up a self-help group called Wikipedians Anonymous.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:02pm) *

Pardon me if I make sure I'm not standing next to you when the guards notice your defiance. If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss! I appreciate your comment, and well understand it, but it doesn't make me feel particularly safe, thinking of suggesting unblock. Are you capable of restraining this impulse? Not suppressing it, that's different, but being careful about where you place and express your defiance. Just being back as an editor at Wikiversity would be a kind of defiance and victory, but if you then act in a way that justifies the block, you'd undo much of that or more.

What I meant was that the mere click of the "Unblock" tab by an admin, any admin, would be the act of rebellion. All this negotiation about what I will promise to do or, more specifically, not do once unblocked is rather beside the point. Jimmy Wales' block of me on Wikiversity was wrong, unsupported by community process there. People who have ethical marrow would restore my account at Wikiversity, no strings, free of conditions. What you're doing, Abd, is grandstanding. Which is fine. But, good gravy, man. Just look at everything you typed and typed and typed above. Then compare what Jayvdb did.

He saw something stupid and unjust, and he overturned it. No 600-word essays.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 29th May 2010, 1:30am) *

... Then compare what Jayvdb did.

He saw something stupid and unjust, and he overturned it. No 600-word essays.

I do have the advantage of being able to do something about it, while Abd can only wax lyrical, and he is well versed in this.

I wouldn't describe the block action as 'stupid' or 'unjust', but the process was a bit of both.

Based on only a little reading, it seems the block was justified by your "wikisins" on (and around) English Wikipedia, and I can appreciate that some administrators on other projects feel that this is either sufficient to warrant a global ban, or that it is expedient to take preventative action. Jimbo could have performed a global ban using the tools he had at his disposal at the time, or he could have initiated a global ban request/discussion on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global, but instead we have a mess, with blocks that use circular logic, or references to overturned decisions.

More importantly, I don't like other projects being subjugated to English Wikipedia; their administration methodology and decisions are a consequence of the make up of their community, and the "pace" at which the en.wp community wants to push the project, which can be very dysfunctional at times.
The other projects need to able to make their own mistakes.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 11:49pm) *
I don't like other projects being subjugated to English Wikipedia; their administration methodology and decisions are a consequence of the make up of their community, and the "pace" at which the en.wp community wants to push the project, which can be very dysfunctional at times. The other projects need to able to make their own mistakes.

As far as I know, the the precedent for power cliques on the English Wikipedia invading and subverting Wikiversity first occurred two summers ago, when Greg, WAS 4.250, PrivateMusings, TheFieryAngel and I started a workshop there on Managerial Ethics. At that time IDCab, JzG, Cary, and Jimbo intervened there to shut it down. They got away with it then, so Jimbo pulled the same stunt, single-handed, a couple of months ago. And he got away with it again.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 3:58am) *

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 11:49pm) *
I don't like other projects being subjugated to English Wikipedia; their administration methodology and decisions are a consequence of the make up of their community, and the "pace" at which the en.wp community wants to push the project, which can be very dysfunctional at times. The other projects need to able to make their own mistakes.

As far as I know, the the precedent for power cliques on the English Wikipedia invading and subverting Wikiversity first occurred two summers ago, when Greg, WAS 4.250, PrivateMusings, TheFieryAngel and I started a workshop there on Managerial Ethics. At that time IDCab, JzG, Cary, and Jimbo intervened there to shut it down. They got away with it then, so Jimbo pulled the same stunt, single-handed, a couple of months ago. And he got away with it again.

To be fair, as English Wikipedia was the subject of the Wikiversity project, and Wikipedians were the subject, it was the Wikiversity project which imported the English Wikipedia politics. This Wikiversity project, and probably many others, have a human ethics problem which still concern me. Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:37am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 29th May 2010, 3:58am) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 11:49pm) *
I don't like other projects being subjugated to English Wikipedia; their administration methodology and decisions are a consequence of the make up of their community, and the "pace" at which the en.wp community wants to push the project, which can be very dysfunctional at times. The other projects need to able to make their own mistakes.
As far as I know, the the precedent for power cliques on the English Wikipedia invading and subverting Wikiversity first occurred two summers ago, when Greg, WAS 4.250, PrivateMusings, TheFieryAngel and I started a workshop there on Managerial Ethics. At that time IDCab, JzG, Cary, and Jimbo intervened there to shut it down. They got away with it then, so Jimbo pulled the same stunt, single-handed, a couple of months ago. And he got away with it again.
To be fair, as English Wikipedia was the subject of the Wikiversity project, and Wikipedians were the subject, it was the Wikiversity project which imported the English Wikipedia politics. This Wikiversity project, and probably many others, have a human ethics problem which still concern me. Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.

I agree that all WMF projects (especially the English Wikipedia with its thousands of BLPs) needs to embrace appropriate standards of journalistic ethics. We started the workshop on Managerial Ethics precisely because of the appalling lack of ethics on the English Wikipedia. Initially, we had no case studies at all -- just abstract theory. Then PrivateMusings constructed some synthetic case studies, loosely inspired by his personal experiences on the English Wikipedia. At that point, Hillgentleman urged us to use real cases, not fictionalized or synthetic ones. And so we did. The rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by: Abd

Sheesh! Way too long, and no time to cut it down. Ah, well, skip it if ye choose.

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:37am) *
To be fair, as English Wikipedia was the subject of the Wikiversity project, and Wikipedians were the subject, it was the Wikiversity project which imported the English Wikipedia politics. This Wikiversity project, and probably many others, have a human ethics problem which still concern me. Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.
Fascinating. It's allowed to write whatever garbage one wants on, say, a Wikipedia noticeboard, raking a person over the coals, describing their contributions using the most abusive language, but a simple set of diffs with relatively neutral language is an ethics violation on Wikiversity? Does perhaps it matter whose ox is being gored?

Precisely why is it allowed to have a BLP on Wikipedia, but not a BWA (biography of a Wikipedia account) on Wikiversity? The concept that this is "human research" is quite a stretch. It's studying what happens, the dynamics of a public web site, where the history is all open. But I didn't review the content at the deleted WV project. Perhaps there were specific violations there, going beyond the pale, such as outing editors, libel -- as distinct from simply looking at documentation of behavior --, or other offenses. Which could presumably have been dealt with directly.

I helped start a WV project -- in spite of the dire predictions of some that the JimBolt would flash down from the sky, incinerating the entire project -- looking into the Treatment of Newbies at Speedy Deletion. Because it's sensitive, I've been very careful about what's there, maybe even too careful, I'd even hidden actual user names -- you had to look underneath, at an actual link or diff to see them -- but that was changed by another. So far, no problem.

My view is that the research should be done, but should be carefully conducted, and should have an educational purpose, and we might ask editors who were involved in some affair, instead of directly editing the resource page, to be interviewed. And the interviewer would put up material and take responsibility for it. It would not just be raw and possibly inappropriate content. Some of the objections obviously came from people who simply don't want to allow criticism, but other objections had, at least, some basis. We know the difference when we answer whatever might possibly be legitimate. If objections persist and insist, it's likely coming from something else.

I have my own history with Wikipedia conflict, and would not use a WV project to "attack" editors involved. It's a simple understanding of conflict of interest, and a recognition that when I'm personally involved, I'm less likely to be objective. It's certainly tempting to use my own experience with Wikipedia, and I do when discussing issues, but that's not appropriate in a learning resource on Wikiversity. Maybe on a Talk page, sometimes. With caution.

I put the material Greg wanted on his WV user page. No problem, so far. I reverted Greg's speaker listing on meta, back in. So far, some objections from the usual suspects, but no real problem. We'll see if this lasts. But I'm seeing the repressive oligarchy losing power, losing this battle and that, including some big ones. That doesn't, by any means, indicate that the WP problem is solved, because that oligarchy was just a set of players filling roles defined by the system. They are not the problem, so I expect it to pop up in new forms. But in some areas, things may get better.

I made http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&oldid=573375#Material_added_to_user_page_per_request on Greg's WV user talk page. On WV, no response may mean nobody has an objection, but it can also mean that nobody saw it. It's a tad slow there. However, I see that vandalism is being reverted, consistently. So it's not completely dead.

I'm not yet requesting that Greg be unblocked on WV, because I'm personally not satisfied that he won't use the opportunity to make more sarcastic remarks about the idiots, which just irritates them (whether they are idiots or not, certainly some of them are, metaphorically) for no good cause. I've applied for adminship, but I certainly would not use it to unblock him unless it were clearly acceptable to community consensus, in which case, I wouldn't be needed.

On the other hand, I can still do whatever seems reasonable as an ordinary editor. Perhaps there will be an occasion, as an example suggested above, to interview him and write it up for a research report relevant to some project on WV. I do believe that criticism of Wikipedia, conducted in a way consistent with reasonable academic standards, is appropriate for Wikiversity. But I'd also want to interview others as well. Because of the sensitivity, I put an NPOV tag on the Newbie project, to encourage that page to not become a repository for anti-Wikipedia opinion, or, in the other direction, to discourage opposition from expectation that this is what it would be.

Greg is not blocked, now, on a number of WikiMedia projects. My prediction is that the only projects he will be blocked on when the smoke clears will be en.wiki and maybe some others if he actually caused problems there. There was some socking, which complicated things. Greg, didja rolly needta do that, reshokeht? Yeah, in a sane community we would just laugh. But the community isn't sane, not yet, anyway.

Communities that cannot integrate and handle people like Greg and Moulton are in trouble, in my view. None of this means that blocks were necessarily inappropriate, but this whole ban thing strays way too far into punishing disagreement. I'm uncomfortable with the paid editing of Wikipedia thing, but it would actually be dependent on details. What if everything Greg did followed policy? Except, of course, for being paid, i.e., having a conflict of interest? If he were unblocked, could he disclose such conflict and suggest articles, full-blown?

Why not?

There is often a way to resolve legitimate conflicts. I think it's completely silly to disallow paid editing, partly because it's utterly unenforceable. But also paid editing would normally be good content, there is a reason why the media use press releases so much, written by professionals.

Good editing, then, means carefully fact-checking the "press release," and making sure that it's neutral, but it would be stupid to forbid companies from sending them to you! And a skilled Wikipedia editor could write content that was clearly acceptable. Once in a while a paid article would be misleading, but that would be unlikely to last, it's like anything else, and there is no way to prevent all misleading content.... I'd say it's safer if it's openly disclosed, much safer. It will be carefully examined, then.

And I bet that Greg would disclose his paid articles if he were confident that they, and he, would be treated fairly. After all, if he does good work, he can then sell more article work.

What if this was part of the path to the Wikipedia future, paid article editing? Paid editors would have an investment in the project having a reputation for neutrality and accuracy and interest, and they would restrain each other, and be motivated to contribute good free content.... Just an idea.

But the idiots, so to speak, want to coerce everyone into running the project the way they think best, which is often pretty bad, with boring articles fully of silly details that nobody cares about being perfectly okay, and really interesting content sometimes getting deleted because someone didn't like the sourcing and Wikipedia has no regular way to solicit expert review and correction....

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 11:37pm) *
Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.
Of course, Wikipedia itself needs a functional Ethics Committee before it permits people to write articles about people, especially living people, on public pages. To say nothing of the rampant idiocy of Wikipedia's public dispute "resolution" process, which is also conducted on public pages without any evident regard to ethical concepts.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *

And I bet that Greg would disclose his paid articles if he were confident that they, and he, would be treated fairly. After all, if he does good work, he can then sell more article work.

What if this was part of the path to the Wikipedia future, paid article editing? Paid editors would have an investment in the project having a reputation for neutrality and accuracy and interest, and they would restrain each other, and be motivated to contribute good free content.... Just an idea.


Yes, this idea is familiar to anyone who knows me and my history. You're essentially quoting me, circa August 2006. Nice to see that you've evolved your thinking to the point where I was more than three years ago.

QUOTE
I have such confidence that Wikipedia Review.com's activity within Wikipedia will be seen by most admins as a positive benefit to the encyclopedia, I will proudly sign our articles' Discussion pages. Competitors who wish to offer similar services will be obliged to submit to this same level of scrutiny (or face doubt as customers ask to see their accredited work), and the competition thus engendered will keep all "paid for edit" services on their best behavior. -- [[User:Wikipedia Review|Wikipedia Review]] 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 29th May 2010, 12:37am) *
To be fair, as English Wikipedia was the subject of the Wikiversity project, and Wikipedians were the subject, it was the Wikiversity project which imported the English Wikipedia politics. This Wikiversity project, and probably many others, have a human ethics problem which still concern me. Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.
Fascinating. It's allowed to write whatever garbage one wants on, say, a Wikipedia noticeboard, raking a person over the coals, describing their contributions using the most abusive language, but a simple set of diffs with relatively neutral language is an ethics violation on Wikiversity? Does perhaps it matter whose ox is being gored?

The appalling lack of ethics on the English Wikipedia is what prompted us to start an educational project on Wikiversity to introduce the fundamental concepts of managerial ethics, as they apply to online media such as those operated under the WMF umbrella. I would have been content to limit the scope of the project to a presentation of the abstract theory of media ethics (as taught, for example, in college courses in media ethics). But as I have noted here on several occasions, the resident scholars on Wikiversity (notably Hillgentleman) urged us to include case studies against which the abstract theory could be applied in practice, so as to better appreciate the process of crafting ethical best practices in the face of the ill winds of systemic corruption.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
Precisely why is it allowed to have a BLP on Wikipedia, but not a BWA (biography of a Wikipedia account) on Wikiversity? The concept that this is "human research" is quite a stretch. It's studying what happens, the dynamics of a public web site, where the history is all open. But I didn't review the content at the deleted WV project. Perhaps there were specific violations there, going beyond the pale, such as outing editors, libel -- as distinct from simply looking at documentation of behavior --, or other offenses. Which could presumably have been dealt with directly.

Whenever anyone called into question the propriety of the WV workshop on managerial ethics, I invited them to discuss their concerns within the scope of the project, to put questions to those involved in the project, or to submit their own independent accounts or analyses of the episodes under review. Instead, they sought to edit or redact the signed contributions of others or to otherwise disrupt and shut down the project.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
My view is that the research should be done, but should be carefully conducted, and should have an educational purpose, and we might ask editors who were involved in some affair, instead of directly editing the resource page, to be interviewed. And the interviewer would put up material and take responsibility for it. It would not just be raw and possibly inappropriate content. Some of the objections obviously came from people who simply don't want to allow criticism, but other objections had, at least, some basis. We know the difference when we answer whatever might possibly be legitimate. If objections persist and insist, it's likely coming from something else.

The workshop on managerial ethics clearly had a valid educational purpose -- to introduce the fundamentals of media ethics into the culture of the Wikisphere, and discover how best to apply those fundamental principles to problematic situations at hand. For example, John Schmidt, a resident scholar and co-founder of Wikiversity interviewed me at length regarding my experiences at the English Wikipedia. He conducted his own independent research, examining the pages and logs on the English Wikipedia, and wrote up his own study, leaving a space for each of the involved parties to contribute, comment, or respond to his analysis and findings. After I wrote up and signed the section reserved for me, one of the IDCab editors showed up not to craft to the section reserved for her, but to edit and redact the section which I had written and signed.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
Communities that cannot integrate and handle people like Greg and Moulton are in trouble, in my view. None of this means that blocks were necessarily inappropriate, but this whole ban thing strays way too far into punishing disagreement.

Yes, I concur that WMF-sponsored projects are in trouble. The world is full of seasoned academics and scholars, many of whom have reported experiences similar to mine. One of my first http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/banning-the-wikipedia-bans-as-a-governance-tool/2008/11/21 examined the fundamental problems of the governance structure of Wikipedia and concluded that blocks and bans were a dysfunctional aspect of that governance structure.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
There is often a way to resolve legitimate conflicts.

Of course there is a way. There is an entire literature, theory, and practice of conflict resolution, including literature on conflict resolution in online communities. A portion of the WV workshop on managerial ethics cited and reviewed that literature.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:44pm) *
But the idiots, so to speak, want to coerce everyone into running the project the way they think best, which is often pretty bad, with boring articles fully of silly details that nobody cares about being perfectly okay, and really interesting content sometimes getting deleted because someone didn't like the sourcing and Wikipedia has no regular way to solicit expert review and correction....

I am all in favor of best practices. But best practices most assuredly do not include bullying and coercion. When Jimbo came galumphing into Wikiversity a few months ago, he engaged in bullying and coercion, whereupon SB_Johnny resigned and left the project, starting up a new site free from the machinations of Jimbo Wales. But Wales was undaunted, and came galumphing into Commons with the same domineering tactics a month ago. Bullying and coercion are simply not a sustainable managerial practice.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:51pm) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 11:37pm) *
Wikiversity needs a Human Research Ethics Committee before it should permit any research or case studies about people (esp. living people) to be conducted on public pages.
Of course, Wikipedia itself needs a functional Ethics Committee before it permits people to write articles about people, especially living people, on public pages. To say nothing of the rampant idiocy of Wikipedia's public dispute "resolution" process, which is also conducted on public pages without any evident regard to ethical concepts.

Precisely so. Which leaves us exactly where I was two summers ago. There is manifestly an appalling lack of ethics in the English Wikipedia, and no apparent avenue for introducing the theory and practice of good managerial ethics into WikiCulture.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulder @ Tue 1st June 2010, 5:29am) *

Which leaves us exactly where I was X summers ago. There is manifestly an appalling lack of ethics in Three Card Jimbo, and no apparent avenue for introducing the theory and practice of good managerial ethics into Three Card Jimbo.



Posted by: thekohser

For those who are still fitting the puzzle pieces together, a good question is...

Who deleted this image, which used to adorn my WMF Board of Trustees election candidate page?

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st June 2010, 9:44pm) *

For those who are still fitting the puzzle pieces together, a good question is...

Who deleted this image, which used to adorn my WMF Board of Trustees election candidate page?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter=

Herbythyme. He's decided it's "‎Off topic for Meta/Unlicensed".

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I went to take a look at this but the internal search engine failure was too amusing:

Image

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 1st June 2010, 5:05pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st June 2010, 9:44pm) *

For those who are still fitting the puzzle pieces together, a good question is...

Who deleted this image, which used to adorn my WMF Board of Trustees election candidate page?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter=

Herbythyme. He's decided it's "‎Off topic for Meta/Unlicensed".


If the image was "off topic", why did it persist for http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en#Gregory_Kohs_.28Thekohser.29 on a page that was viewed http://stats.grok.se/meta.m/200907/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en?

This would be a good spot for Abd to give his view of matters, how Herbythyme is conflicted, carrying out a personal vendetta, but I should restrain myself from calling Herby a moron, because that will just upset him.

I also contend that the image was not "Unlicensed", but I can't argue to that point, what with the image being deleted.

On Herby's user page on Meta, he says:

"I have a major failing - I'm human, I make mistakes, when I do point them out to me please, thanks."

Perhaps some brave soul could point this one out to him, as well as help him punctuate the sentence on his user page, so that it's more coherent.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:23pm) *

Perhaps some brave soul could point this one out to him, as well as help him punctuate the sentence on his user page, so that it's more coherent.


Well, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&diff=1992188&oldid=1991227 ain't bad. Thanks, MZ.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:23pm) *
On Herby's user page on Meta, he says:

"I have a major failing - I'm human, I make mistakes, when I do point them out to me please, thanks."

Perhaps some brave soul could point this one out to him, as well as help him punctuate the sentence on his user page, so that it's more coherent.
That sentence needs much more than punctuation. If I had the slightest hope that he'd get it, I'd point out:

Okay, you have a major failing, almost certainly. But you did not say what it is.

Being human is not a failing.

And mistakes aren't failings either, if we learn from them. Indeed, making mistakes can be the fastest way to learn, and a wiki is perfect for that, because it can all be fixed.

So what's the major failing? Could it have anything to do with pursuing what certainly looks like a vendetta against Greg Kohs?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st June 2010, 9:27pm) *
Well, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&diff=1992188&oldid=1991227 ain't bad. Thanks, MZ.
Yeah, I'm cheering. Really, that deletion was stupid and vindictive. Didn't he look at "where used"? Herby is utterly unqualified to be an admin, unless we fix the adminship system so that all he can do is use a mop on uncontroversial stuff. He might screw up even that though.

I've been getting ideas, discussing adminship on enwiki-l. But that's for another day.

Greg, I fully understand why you'd not want to make any special agreements to secure an unblock at Wikiversity, because it appears you didn't do anything wrong. I can understand why you would expect some upstanding admin to unblock you on the sheer justice of it.

But I'm not an administrator, and if I become one, I'll be on probation, and my own view of adminship is not as becoming some kind of avenging angel. I can probably help you much better as an ordinary editor, and if ordinary editors realized the power they have and used it, admin abuse would be a thing of the past. But they don't, so abusive admins still have power.

Nevertheless, what I'd do even as an admin is the same as what I'd do -- and will eventually do if someone doesn't beat me to it -- as an ordinary editor, i.e., negotiate consensus. If I can do that, who actually unblocks doesn't matter, and that should be true for any administrative action. As a new editor there, though, I need to lay a foundation with the community. There are others in a position to directly unblock, and one may eventually come to that. If you have actually managed to alienate all the admins, well, that's hard to recover from. There are a lot of inactive admins on WV.

I very much appreciate it when an admin reading here notices a situation like that and does something about it. MZM was simple and clear. Yay!!!

Posted by: Moulton

Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process.

And Wikiversity doesn't do Justice.

And nobody does Ethics.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:20am) *

Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process.

And Wikiversity doesn't do Justice.

And nobody does Ethics.

Ok, we get it. sleep.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Well, not only is my image not restored (yet), but Herby is http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&diff=prev&oldid=1993037 for a related affront to his practice of deleting images upon request, but leaving no clue that the image's deletion was requested.

Meanwhile, perhaps someone could ask Herby what he thinks of the following non-deleted images stored on Wikimedia/Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aus_img_small.jpg
(A very similar "promotional" pose as mine)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gumax-3-2-1.png
(Another seemingly "promotional" image)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kennisnet_Wikipedia_serverroom.jpg
(Another seemingly "promotional" image)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Popedotting4.gif
(A strangely "promotional" image)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Promotional_maid.jpg
(A literally "promotional" image)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2008_Alexandria_-_Wikimedians_-_2.jpg
(A "promotional" image for Dell Computer)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikia_Girl_9.jpg
(A "Wikia girl"? Actually, please don't delete that one. Me likey.)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikia_Party_guests.jpg
(A "promotional" image for Wikia)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbo_Wikimania_2007_Wikia_presentation.jpg
(The granddaddy of all "promotional" images)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/archive/e/e8/20050826092251!Angela.jpg
(NSFW - That's Angela??)


Now, Herbythyme has assured us, he "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&diff=next&oldid=1993084." Somebody point him to this list, and then let's see whether Herby is a man of his word or not.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 12:39am) *

Greg, I fully understand why you'd not want to make any special agreements to secure an unblock at Wikiversity, because it appears you didn't do anything wrong. I can understand why you would expect some upstanding admin to unblock you on the sheer justice of it.


Oh, yes. Tell me more. Tell me more!

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:59am) *

Well, not only is my image not restored (yet), but Herby is http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&diff=prev&oldid=1993037 for a related affront to his practice of deleting images upon request, but leaving no clue that the image's deletion was requested.
Aw, quit it! Herby's a jerk, no doubt about it, and seems utterly unqualified to be an administrator, doesn't know how to back off and at least appear neutral! So what else is new?

Perhaps the user emailed him! Or he's blowing smoke. To address stuff like this takes time, Greg, you should know that. Otherwise those who address it become quite like the abusive admins. Sure, this time the cause might be noble. But one gets in the habit....

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 12:15pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 12:39am) *
Greg, I fully understand why you'd not want to make any special agreements to secure an unblock at Wikiversity, because it appears you didn't do anything wrong. I can understand why you would expect some upstanding admin to unblock you on the sheer justice of it.
Oh, yes. Tell me more. Tell me more!
Okay, what else do you want confirmation on?

Wikiversity is a few breaths short of dead. The active admins are very few, no bureaucrat seems to be active enough to notice the requests for custodianship/bureaucratship that have been outstanding for months. Jimbo really whacked it hard in March. But it's been weak for a long time, and maybe the Moulton affair earlier sapped some of the spirit of the place. I'm sure it didn't help. Wiki people tend to strongly dislike being bossed around. Most just go away.

So, who, specifically, would you suggest might unblock you? My goal would be to get Adambro to do it, if possible. You never know. But I'm not ready to try. Discretion is the better part of valor, eh? Later, maybe. Time wounds all heels. Or is that wheels all hounds? Or something like that?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:57pm) *
Wikiversity is a few breaths short of dead. The active admins are very few, no bureaucrat seems to be active enough to notice the requests for custodianship/bureaucratship that have been outstanding for months. Jimbo really whacked it hard in March. But it's been weak for a long time, and maybe the Moulton affair earlier sapped some of the spirit of the place. I'm sure it didn't help. Wiki people tend to strongly dislike being bossed around. Most just go away.

Yes, Jimbo, Cary, JzG, IDCab, et al dealt it a sequence of death blows over the past two years. And yes, people found it easier to migrate away from WMF than to waste their time fighting with Jimbo.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 28th May 2010, 3:38am) *
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:03am) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 6:19pm) *
Am I seriously still blocked on http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser? Not only that -- but no e-mail access rights, no Talk page rights, and I can't edit my User page to look the way I want it to?

Does Adambro run that joint? Wikiversity really has a problem.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22adam+brookes%22++tamsworth|huddersfield is an eccentric 22 year old college student. He's eminently qualified by wikimedia standards to lord over learning projects and decide what type of porn is the most educational for children.
I wish he would actually adambrate or adumbrate or whatever those standards, because I can't find them anywhere. I suppose you just have to know it when you see it.

I now have enough evidence to adumbrate Adambro's current policies and practices regarding acceptable content on Wikiversity.

As of today, he is no longer executing 1-year rangeblocks on 32,000 addresses at a clip.

This is his new practice, as of this morning:

1. He now only blocks a single IP at a time, and for just a week.

2. He quickly reverts any edits by the blocked IP, putting a ludicrously specious reason in the blocking log.

3. He semi-protects the page edited by the blocked IP.

His intention, near as I can tell, is to systematically deny the rights of his fellow scholars at WV the freedom to peaceably assemble and study the subjects of their choice with the collaborating scholars of their choice.

In this manner, he is systematically disabling Wikiversity and rendering it dysfunctional and unusable as a collegial and congenial learning community of collaborating scholars.

I reckon the likely result of this clearly visible policy and practice will be to drive veteran scholars like Geoff Plourde, PrivateMusings, JWSchmidt, and Abd away from Wikiversity and over to alternate venues like http://www.netknowledge.org, where they will not be encumbered and impeded by Adambro's oppressive thumb.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:47pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:57pm) *
Wikiversity is a few breaths short of dead. The active admins are very few, no bureaucrat seems to be active enough to notice the requests for custodianship/bureaucratship that have been outstanding for months. Jimbo really whacked it hard in March. But it's been weak for a long time, and maybe the Moulton affair earlier sapped some of the spirit of the place. I'm sure it didn't help. Wiki people tend to strongly dislike being bossed around. Most just go away.

Yes, Jimbo, Cary, JzG, IDCab, et al dealt it a sequence of death blows over the past two years. And yes, people found it easier to migrate away from WMF than to waste their time fighting with Jimbo.
Just to follow up, I requested crat action at meta and it was quickly done. While a great deal of damage was done, and it will take time to recover, I don't think these were "death blows." Maybe I'm wrong, but ... I see an open path, and I'm taking it, seeing where it leads. And I seem to be finding support in that. The hardest part, now, is the flopping about some of the casualties demanding immediate justice. Not the ones who went away, but those who continue hanging about complaining about how Terrible it all was, but don't seem to be terribly willing to rebuild in the right way.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 9:55am) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 28th May 2010, 3:38am) *
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 28th May 2010, 1:03am) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 6:19pm) *
Am I seriously still blocked on http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser? Not only that -- but no e-mail access rights, no Talk page rights, and I can't edit my User page to look the way I want it to?

Does Adambro run that joint? Wikiversity really has a problem.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22adam+brookes%22++tamsworth|huddersfield is an eccentric 22 year old college student. He's eminently qualified by wikimedia standards to lord over learning projects and decide what type of porn is the most educational for children.
I wish he would actually adambrate or adumbrate or whatever those standards, because I can't find them anywhere. I suppose you just have to know it when you see it.

I now have enough evidence to adumbrate Adambro's current policies and practices regarding acceptable content on Wikiversity.

As of today, he is no longer executing 1-year rangeblocks on 32,000 addresses at a clip.

This is his new practice, as of this morning:

1. He now only blocks a single IP at a time, and for just a week.

2. He quickly reverts any edits by the blocked IP, putting a ludicrously specious reason in the blocking log.

3. He semi-protects the page edited by the blocked IP.

His intention, near as I can tell, is to systematically deny the rights of his fellow scholars at WV the freedom to peaceably assemble and study the subjects of their choice with the collaborating scholars of their choice.
No, he's simply, now, taking minimal action to enforce what he believes to be a ban, which is a somewhat reasonable belief. He's willing to allow due process to truly find out if there is a ban or not, so he's actually, where it counts, on the right side.

He's not wheel-warring, and I won't tempt him into it. His range block was excessive, I reversed it, and he backed off. If however, you continue pushing it, I'll point out that I won't wheel-war myself, and you may convince someone else to go ahead and range-block, and I'd be powerless to fix that directly.

His lesser actions are within his normal rights and responsibilities and discretion.

If disruption continues -- which means disregard for due process and community rights (and wiki due process includes wide admin discretion, short-term) -- then I will start to move for more effective and less disruptive means of dealing with it, that might even make the "disruption" useful. Moulton, you are succeeding in convincing most of those who would be your friends that the block should remain.
QUOTE
In this manner, he is systematically disabling Wikiversity and rendering it dysfunctional and unusable as a collegial and congenial learning community of collaborating scholars.
That's a rather narrow view, Moulton. He's just continuing, to some degree, the status quo, and is being relatively restrained. He is certainly not increasing disability or dysfunction, and by being willing to consider such things as the unblock of Thekohser and perhaps even you -- unless you continue as you have been acting -- he's becoming part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. If you don't see him as an improvement over certain others, well, I can only shake my head in wonder.
QUOTE
I reckon the likely result of this clearly visible policy and practice will be to drive veteran scholars like Geoff Plourde, PrivateMusings, JWSchmidt, and Abd away from Wikiversity and over to alternate venues like http://www.netknowledge.org, where they will not be encumbered and impeded by Adambro's oppressive thumb.
Ah, preposterous! Adambro is not creating new damage, he is taking actions within what is reasonable, given all the preconditions. It is not him who is stopping you from contributing to Wikiversity, it's the adversarial relationship between you and "those on high," which is then transferred to anyone you see as cooperating with them. And you've been told this for something approaching two years, and those who attempted, in the past, to help resolve this situation, frequently ended up with egg on their face.

Adambro isn't even close to driving me away, I see him as welcoming. As to Netknowledge, great! The more the merrier. Diversity is essential to academic freedom and depth.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:09pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:47pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:57pm) *
Wikiversity is a few breaths short of dead. The active admins are very few, no bureaucrat seems to be active enough to notice the requests for custodianship/bureaucratship that have been outstanding for months. Jimbo really whacked it hard in March. But it's been weak for a long time, and maybe the Moulton affair earlier sapped some of the spirit of the place. I'm sure it didn't help. Wiki people tend to strongly dislike being bossed around. Most just go away.
Yes, Jimbo, Cary, JzG, IDCab, et al dealt it a sequence of death blows over the past two years. And yes, people found it easier to migrate away from WMF than to waste their time fighting with Jimbo.
Just to follow up, I requested crat action at meta and it was quickly done. While a great deal of damage was done, and it will take time to recover, I don't think these were "death blows." Maybe I'm wrong, but ... I see an open path, and I'm taking it, seeing where it leads. And I seem to be finding support in that. The hardest part, now, is the flopping about some of the casualties demanding immediate justice. Not the ones who went away, but those who continue hanging about complaining about how Terrible it all was, but don't seem to be terribly willing to rebuild in the right way.

I missed that. What action did you request, of whom, and who executed it? The last thing I saw was Mike.lifeguard giving you the runaround regarding Jimbo's edict to keep Greg's SUL globally locked.

Anyway, here we are, two prophets, one predicting a slow agonizing death and another holding out a glimmer of hope to save the dying patient.

I dunno what your imagined treatment regime is, but everything I've tried turned out to be iatrogenic.

How does that mantra go?

"No peace, no justice."

Or is it: "If you want peace, work for justice."

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 2:07pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:09pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:47pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:57pm) *
Wikiversity is a few breaths short of dead. The active admins are very few, no bureaucrat seems to be active enough to notice the requests for custodianship/bureaucratship that have been outstanding for months. Jimbo really whacked it hard in March. But it's been weak for a long time, and maybe the Moulton affair earlier sapped some of the spirit of the place. I'm sure it didn't help. Wiki people tend to strongly dislike being bossed around. Most just go away.
Yes, Jimbo, Cary, JzG, IDCab, et al dealt it a sequence of death blows over the past two years. And yes, people found it easier to migrate away from WMF than to waste their time fighting with Jimbo.
Just to follow up, I requested crat action at meta and it was quickly done. While a great deal of damage was done, and it will take time to recover, I don't think these were "death blows." Maybe I'm wrong, but ... I see an open path, and I'm taking it, seeing where it leads. And I seem to be finding support in that. The hardest part, now, is the flopping about some of the casualties demanding immediate justice. Not the ones who went away, but those who continue hanging about complaining about how Terrible it all was, but don't seem to be terribly willing to rebuild in the right way.

I missed that. What action did you request, of whom, and who executed it? The last thing I saw was Mike.lifeguard giving you the runaround regarding Jimbo's edict to keep Greg's SUL globally locked.
I requested steward action to create a new crat at Wikiversity to break the logjam. And it was immediately granted, and that, Moulton, is how I came to be a probationary admin there, and to be seen as being usefully skillful, which is about what it takes to be an admin at Wikiversity, if I don't blow it by trying to resolve this long term controversy.
QUOTE
Anyway, here we are, two prophets, one predicting a slow agonizing death and another holding out a glimmer of hope to save the dying patient.
No, I'm not a prophet except in one sense, which I won't go into. I'm a physician, rather, trying to save the patient with means at my disposal. What would you suggest for a physician with a seriously ill patient? To make the "slow agonizing death" prediction and to abandon efforts or even hasten the death? Remind me not to ask them to call you if I'm seriously ill....
QUOTE

I dunno what your imagined treatment regime is, but everything I've tried turned out to be iatrogenic.

How does that mantra go?

"No peace, no justice."

Or is it: "If you want peace, work for justice."
Of course. To maintain peace, justice must be maintained. But when peace is disturbed and there is no justice, justice becomes impossible until peace is restored. That can sometimes involve addressing certain immediate and ongoing injustices, but if there is no general seeking of peace, even that can be impossible. I already wrote about this at length. Did you read it?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 9:55am) *
Adambro's intention, near as I can tell, is to systematically deny the rights of his fellow scholars at WV the freedom to peaceably assemble and study the subjects of their choice with the collaborating scholars of their choice.
No, he's simply, now, taking minimal action to enforce what he believes to be a ban, which is a somewhat reasonable belief. He's willing to allow due process to truly find out if there is a ban or not, so he's actually, where it counts, on the right side.

It's a reasonable belief for someone who is living on Cloud Cuckoo Land. It's not a reasonable belief for anyone who is a well-grounded scholar.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
He's not wheel-warring, and I won't tempt him into it. His range block was excessive, I reversed it, and he backed off. If however, you continue pushing it, I'll point out that I won't wheel-war myself, and you may convince someone else to go ahead and range-block, and I'd be powerless to fix that directly.

I dunno who taught him those obscure technical range blocks. It would have had to be Ottava or one of the two Mikes. No one else would have known the parameters without taking the time to do the research. And we all know that Adam never does any research, full stop.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
His lesser actions are within his normal rights and responsibilities and discretion.

Baloney. He demonstrating why JWSchmidt was right to question his qualifications.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
If disruption continues -- which means disregard for due process and community rights (and wiki due process includes wide admin discretion, short-term) -- then I will start to move for more effective and less disruptive means of dealing with it, that might even make the "disruption" useful. Moulton, you are succeeding in convincing most of those who would be your friends that the block should remain.

You know my attitude about the role of blocks and bans in the context of an authentic learning community.

If people there insist on adopting that anachronistic governance model and practice, then they necessarily abdicate any credible claim to being an authentic learning community, full stop. (And doubly so if they don't even have a concept of due process, evidence-based reasoning, etc.)

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 9:55am) *
In this manner, he is systematically disabling Wikiversity and rendering it dysfunctional and unusable as a collegial and congenial learning community of collaborating scholars.
That's a rather narrow view, Moulton. He's just continuing, to some degree, the status quo, and is being relatively restrained. He is certainly not increasing disability or dysfunction, and by being willing to consider such things as the unblock of Thekohser and perhaps even you -- unless you continue as you have been acting -- he's becoming part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. If you don't see him as an improvement over certain others, well, I can only shake my head in wonder.

The status quo is that the thugs who invaded WV two years ago morphed it into a post-modern theater of the absurd. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that Javert is anywhere close to having the epiphany that would avert his suicide at the end of the drama.

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 5th July 2010, 9:55am) *
I reckon the likely result of this clearly visible policy and practice will be to drive veteran scholars like Geoff Plourde, PrivateMusings, JWSchmidt, and Abd away from Wikiversity and over to alternate venues like http://www.netknowledge.org, where they will not be encumbered and impeded by Adambro's oppressive thumb.
Ah, preposterous! Adambro is not creating new damage, he is taking actions within what is reasonable, given all the preconditions. It is not him who is stopping you from contributing to Wikiversity, it's the adversarial relationship between you and "those on high," which is then transferred to anyone you see as cooperating with them. And you've been told this for something approaching two years, and those who attempted, in the past, to help resolve this situation, frequently ended up with egg on their face.

Like Richard Daley said, "Adambro isn't there to cause disorder. Adambro is there to preserve disorder."

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 5th July 2010, 1:56pm) *
Adambro isn't even close to driving me away, I see him as welcoming. As to Netknowledge, great! The more the merrier. Diversity is essential to academic freedom and depth.

Did you just jump aboard Cloud Cuckoo Land, too?

Posted by: thekohser

Abd, could you give me a brief run-down on where I stand on Wikimedia projects? When I attempt on Tuesday to continue some of my good work on Wikisource, what is going to happen when I try to sign in with my account?

It http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike.lifeguard&diff=next&oldid=2030009 that the going policy is "Jimbo banned him from all WMF projects."

That's not something that will stand, as far as I'm concerned... because I'm clearly not banned -- I've been quite active on several WMF projects over the past month, which has unnecessarily occupied a bunch of time of people slavishly trying to enforce an unenforceable rule. Why are they so afraid of what my "named" account might do, might say?

Posted by: Moulton

It's pretty clear that people like Mike.lifeguard and MaxSem were executing these global SUL locks at Jimbo's express direction, without being concerned about the sentiments of the communities on the various projects. There was no doubt that these were out-of-process usurpations of local governance and local autonomy, unencumbered by such niceties as Due Process, Evidence Based Reasoning, etc. In the recent case, it clearly sundered the already fragile community at Wikiversity. It's unclear what the repercussions may have been on other projects.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:27pm) *

Abd, could you give me a brief run-down on where I stand on Wikimedia projects? When I attempt on Tuesday to continue some of my good work on Wikisource, what is going to happen when I try to sign in with my account?

It http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike.lifeguard&diff=next&oldid=2030009 that the going policy is "Jimbo banned him from all WMF projects."

That's not something that will stand, as far as I'm concerned... because I'm clearly not banned -- I've been quite active on several WMF projects over the past month, which has unnecessarily occupied a bunch of time of people slavishly trying to enforce an unenforceable rule. Why are they so afraid of what my "named" account might do, might say?


Your SUL account Thekohser is globally locked. This means that, in spite of the fact that you have been unblocked on various wikis, you cannot log in. All WMF wikis are linked in this way, they all use the same global blacklist and global lock process. Interestingly, there are local whitelists and a local block whitelist -- global blocks are IP ranges -- but no local unlock list.

On wikiversity, if you will create an account with a non-obvious name, if you can manage this, and if you tell me (send me email or PM me here), I will block it but allow Talk page access and will post to the Talk page explaining, at that point, who you are and what is being done, and that it is being done with consensus at Wikiversity.

Don't use the account, just register it! -- until I've blocked it, leaving the Talk page open. By the way, this very action will show cooperation.

Trying to get a steward to unlock is more fuss than may be necessary at this point. If we are able to negotiate unblock on Wikiversity, then the basis will exist to dump the global lock, and I think it will fly. Overall, I believe, the community doesn't like meta interference in local projects, they see the role of stewards as to serve and assist, not to control.

The WMF is represented by staff accounts, and my opinion is that the WMF should never direct stewards, who serve the community, unless they do so publicly.

I suspect that we have is a single steward -- it is not clear that there is more than that -- who believes that he is serving the projects by serving his idea of what Jimbo would want. Right now, I prefer to avoid a direct confrontation with that. He's not the problem, in the end, the problem is always lack of clear, efficient, and fair process.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:24am) *
Trying to get a steward to unlock is more fuss than may be necessary at this point.

In other words, once a corrupt bureaucracy has put its stamp of approval on a mistake (i.e. a deliberate miscarriage of justice) it really really really can't be fixed. Evar.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:24am) *
I suspect that we have is a single steward -- it is not clear that there is more than that -- who believes that he is serving the projects by serving his idea of what Jimbo would want.

You won't name him, but I will. He is Mike.lifeguard and in my opinion he's as much a part of the core problem as Jimbo himself.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 6th July 2010, 1:24am) *
Right now, I prefer to avoid a direct confrontation with that. He's not the problem, in the end, the problem is always lack of clear, efficient, and fair process.

Mike.lifeguard is entirely uninterested in promoting fair process, just process, or due process. He is interested in protecting Jimbo from being exposed as an erratic, bumbling, tyrannical jerk.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 5:09am) *

Mike.lifeguard is entirely uninterested in promoting fair process, just process, or due process. He is interested in protecting Jimbo from being exposed as an erratic, bumbling, tyrannical jerk.


It is also quite interesting to note that Mike.lifeguard applied a global lock on my "Thekohser" accounts, just a few short days after the exchange that led to http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnHWi4IQ2cbKgaFWhh8.U9cs5XNG;_ylv=3?qid=20100706063804AA9usIo:

QUOTE
Who is covering something up in this Wikipedia discussion?
I get the sense that Ting "Wing" Chen is trying desperately (but ultimately failing) to conceal the fact that an unethical lease agreement was carried out by the Wikimedia Foundation, on whose Board of Trustees Chen sits.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Wing#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikia_.2F_WMF_office_rental

It would be nice to get an independent assessment of what average people think happened that day when the Wikimedia Foundation board discussed renting office space from one of the co-founder's side businesses, but somehow failed to include that discussion in the board minutes, and somehow failed to ask the co-founder to excuse himself from the discussion, as the foundation by-laws dictate.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 5th July 2010, 6:27pm) *

When I attempt on Tuesday to continue some of my good work on Wikisource, what is going to happen when I try to sign in with my account?


Hmm... I http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kohs-Block-Design_tests-1920.pdf/15&diff=prev&oldid=1951177 not to be blocked or banned, in fact I'm free to contribute, on Wikisource. How has that particular project found immunity from Mike.lifeguard's supposedly uber-powerful "global lock"?

As a reward, one Wikisource page went from looking like http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kohs-Block-Design_tests-1920.pdf/15&oldid=1530665, to http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kohs-Block-Design_tests-1920.pdf/15&direction=next&oldid=1951206. Good for you, Wikisource!

Posted by: Moulton

You need a MediaWiki Gnome to explain anomalies like that.

Can you tell if that account is SUL?

Posted by: thekohser

I don't know SUL from my SUV, but http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Thekohser seems to show that Wikisource and Commons may be taking an "adult swim" in Mike.lifeguard's wiki-swimming pool.

I'm happily contributing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hasbro_Inchworm_riding_toy.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rody_Horse_toy.jpg content to Commons today, as well.

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 5:21pm) *

You need a MediaWiki Gnome to explain anomalies like that.

Can you tell if that account is SUL?

Indeed, for some reason the Commons and WS accounts are unattached to the SUL. That means that a global lock has no effect on them.

Actually, the Usabilitywiki account is also unattached. However, it is locally blocked. Three guesses who blocked it.

http://usability.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThekohser

It looks like you can edit your talk page there, though.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:18pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 5:21pm) *
You need a MediaWiki Gnome to explain anomalies like that. Can you tell if that account is SUL?
Indeed, for some reason the Commons and WS accounts are unattached to the SUL. That means that a global lock has no effect on them.

Does that mean that logging in to Commons or Wikisource first and then going over to Wikversity would leave him logged back out upon arrival there?

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 9:26pm) *

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:18pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 5:21pm) *
You need a MediaWiki Gnome to explain anomalies like that. Can you tell if that account is SUL?
Indeed, for some reason the Commons and WS accounts are unattached to the SUL. That means that a global lock has no effect on them.

Does that mean that logging in to Commons or Wikisource first and then going over to Wikversity would leave him logged back out upon arrival there?

I don't know. However, I guess that logging in to Commons or Wikisource and then going to Wikiversity wouldn't have any effect. Wikiversity couldn't recognise it as the same account.


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 6th July 2010, 10:45am) *
It is also quite interesting to note that Mike.lifeguard applied a global lock on my "Thekohser" accounts, just a few short days after the exchange that led to http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnHWi4IQ2cbKgaFWhh8.U9cs5XNG;_ylv=3?qid=20100706063804AA9usIo:

QUOTE
Who is covering something up in this Wikipedia discussion?
I get the sense that Ting "Wing" Chen is trying desperately (but ultimately failing) to conceal the fact that an unethical lease agreement was carried out by the Wikimedia Foundation, on whose Board of Trustees Chen sits.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Wing#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikia_.2F_WMF_office_rental

It would be nice to get an independent assessment of what average people think happened that day when the Wikimedia Foundation board discussed renting office space from one of the co-founder's side businesses, but somehow failed to include that discussion in the board minutes, and somehow failed to ask the co-founder to excuse himself from the discussion, as the foundation by-laws dictate.
I'm not thrilled by the muck-raking, myself. So there was a violation of the by-laws. If so, what then? A fantastically effective and brilliantly democratic leader might violate a bylaw, and so might a tyrant.

However, I do find the timing suspicious. What it seems to me is that you were, there, active on de.wikipedia, conversing with Wing. De.wikipedia had declined to allow your block to stand, as had some other wikis. So to Mike.lifequard, it looked like the plan of allowing the individual wikis to decide the block wasn't working, because some were deciding to unblock. Can't have that, can we? I do not see evidence that the initiative here came from Jimbo, and I'm going to mention that quite a lot, because my goal is not to humiliate or "expose" Jimbo, that's an effective way to create enemies or to inflame and intensify enmity. My goal is that the wiki communities be empowered, and establishing the norm of non-interference from "outsiders" is important. When a noob at Wikipedia takes a sudden and strong interest in policy, the noob is often quickly blocked. That's an over-reaction, for sure, but neither should a community allow outsiders (newbies or experienced editors from other wikis with no history of contributions to the community wiki) to take over.

Stewards exist to serve the communities. If a true confllict arises, where the interests of one community conflict with those of another, stewards should proceed with extreme caution, and should not impose their own views. When a steward acts with an expectation that the action will be controversial, it's very important that it be discussed, or else stewards become divisive and disruptive, the very opposite of their intended function.

Pathoschild acted to preserve local autonomy, by dropping the lock and going around and creating local blocks. I understand that you may not like the block part, but that was necessary to respect the intentions behind the original block by Drini. Had Mike.lifeguard simply let it stand, we would have had to stand on our heads at Wikiversity to start to consider making our own decision. And now, it seems, this has been extended to Moulton.

Fingers crossed.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:26pm) *

Does that mean that logging in to Commons or Wikisource first and then going over to Wikversity would leave him logged back out upon arrival there?
Not to my understanding.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 7th July 2010, 4:15am) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:26pm) *

Does that mean that logging in to Commons or Wikisource first and then going over to Wikversity would leave him logged back out upon arrival there?
Not to my understanding.

Depends partly upon whether one's browser is configured to allow "third-party cookies". Mine isn't.

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14736

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 7th July 2010, 12:15am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 6th July 2010, 4:26pm) *
Does that mean that logging in to Commons or Wikisource first and then going over to Wikversity would leave him logged back out upon arrival there?
Not to my understanding.

Really? Doesn't that amount to a general defeat, then, of the global SUL lock? Just log in first to one of the sites not in the SUL matrix, and then surf the rest of the sites from there.

Perhaps that's why Mike.lifeguard began using such bizarre entries in the Titleblacklist. As Diego Grez discovered yesterday, there is no known local override, despite the MediaWiki documentation on that extension.

I think this should be raised as an abuse of home rule. Here is Mike.lifeguard, acting on his own, behind the scenes in the bowels of the MediaWiki code, locking out talk pages for blatantly political reasons. He does so without notification, discussion, consensus, or the consent of the local admins on dozens of affected sites, and there is no local option to override his backstage out-of-process machinations.

Posted by: Moulton

Over at Wikiversity, Ottava poses this question to Greg Kohs (who has requested an unblock)...

QUOTE(Ottava Rima)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ethical_Accountability#Question

When I think about unblocking, I don't care about the merits of the previous case as I believe that there can be a clean break from the past if there is something worth while in the future. If you wish to be unblocked, here are some questions that I would like answers to as part of any personal consideration of the matter: how would you contribute here to Wikipedia? Would you continue past disputes or bring them up again? What is a greater priority, the idea of justice or the idea of creating educational content? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume Ottava meant Wikiversity, not Wikipedia.

But what about adding educational content on the Theory of Justice?

After all, Ethical Accountability includes Rawl's Theory of Justice.

As I understand it, almost all past disputes involve unjust actions that were never corrected.

Posted by: thekohser

Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser-v.2 on sites like Wikibooks.


Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:42am) *
Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser-v.2 on sites like Wikibooks.

An alternate method (if you have a friendly local admin on a site) is to rename the globally locked account, then rename it back. This breaks the SUL lock. The local admin may also need to put in a local MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist entry to neutralize a global MediaWiki:Titleblacklist entry (if it exists).

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 5th August 2010, 4:38pm) *

if you have a friendly local admin on a site

Yes, I shook hands with a friendly admin once. To prove it, I still have all the fingers on my right hand. tongue.gif

But an ordinary admin can't do that of course. You need a friendly bureaucrat. They're thin on the ground on most wikis.

Posted by: Moulton

Did the joke buzzer burn a hole in your palm?

Posted by: Adrignola

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th August 2010, 8:42am) *

Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser-v.2 on sites like Wikibooks.

Wikibooks flies under the radar of most Wikimedians. Not much drama, but not much going on period.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 5th August 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th August 2010, 8:42am) *

Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser-v.2 on sites like Wikibooks.

Wikibooks flies under the radar of most Wikimedians. Not much drama, but not much going on period.


Well, there is http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=&page=&year=2010&month=8&tagfilter=, of course, which you kindly pointed out to me privately:

QUOTE
00:58, 6 August 2010 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jyothis (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralAuth&target=Thekohser-v.2": Set locked; Unset (none) ‎ (Sock of a banned user)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Thu 5th August 2010, 8:38pm) *

Yes, I shook hands with a friendly admin once. To prove it, I still have all the fingers on my right hand. tongue.gif

But an ordinary admin can't do that of course. You need a friendly bureaucrat. They're thin on the ground on most wikis.

Even Wikiquote?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th August 2010, 9:57am) *

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 5th August 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th August 2010, 8:42am) *

Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser-v.2 on sites like Wikibooks.

Wikibooks flies under the radar of most Wikimedians. Not much drama, but not much going on period.


Well, there is http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=&page=&year=2010&month=8&tagfilter=, of course, which you kindly pointed out to me privately:

QUOTE
00:58, 6 August 2010 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jyothis (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralAuth&target=Thekohser-v.2": Set locked; Unset (none) ‎ (Sock of a banned user)



If a local wiki wants Thekohser unblocked, it can and should establish this by consensus, and then request the global unlock. If stewards continue to globally lock accepted accounts at local wikis, meta process can and should be started to examine this. This is nothing but the attempts of individual stewards, without public discussion, to implement the rejected actions of Jimbo. I did not see that a steward attempted to interdict efforts to open up Thekohser access on Wikiversity, the obstacle to that remains, AFAIK, purely local and can be addressed locally. The local obstacles are Adambro, who apparently believes that community consensus should precede unblock actions, and that the unlock should come first, so the original account is used, which is a weak position, in my view, and Ottava, who is out to blast everything that interferes with his own image of himself as Mr. Wikiversity.

Adambro's position is reasonable, except that it doesn't really follow policy, because there was no community ban of Thekohser. I think he will come around. Ottava may not, from his history. So Ottava may have to go. We'll see if the community recognizes the problem, wikis can be very slow to wake up.

He is practically committing wiki-suicide on Wikiversity at this point, personally insisting on utterly unjustifiable incivility ("liar!" "hypocrite") and he has filed a Community Review over minor bullshit. Apparently, he believes that he's bullet-proof, he can do whatever he wants, le wiki c'est Ottava. This is a http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Jtneill, perhaps the gentlest 'crat I can imagine, and the charges Ottava made up are clearly invented to harass. The real reason is utterly and blatantly obvious: Jtneill, after reading my tome, http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd/Custodian_actions&diff=595279&oldid=595273 in a cogent and coherent comment, and then proceeded to http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=595289&oldid=594229

"Warn me? Who does he think he is?"

If anyone here wants to be supportive of Ottava, review the discussion on http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Civility_and_transparency and elsewhere and help him to have a clue. I have a history of taking down abusive administrators, when I tried. That's not personal power, actually, it is rather an ability to anticipate consensus if the wiki ever manages to actually discuss a matter in a deliberative fashion. Short of that, I tend to have something like two-thirds of a community thinking I should stuff it. It's classic, I'm sure Moulton understands this.

Posted by: Moulton

There was a chap who lived about 2000 years ago who was being beaten up by a Roman Centurion. He said to the Centurion, "If my words are false, why do you heed them? If my words are true, why do you strike me?"

Who has said that Greg is banned? Whosoever said that, did he speak the ground truth?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 7th August 2010, 8:38pm) *

There was a chap who lived about 2000 years ago who was being beaten up by a Roman Centurion. He said to the Centurion, "If my words are false, why do you heed them? If my words are true, why do you strike me?"

Who has said that Greg is banned? Whosoever said that, did he speak the ground truth?


You're laying it on increasingly thick.

Posted by: trenton

I'd be curious to know how Mr. Jyothis got involved (suckered?) into this situation. Was one of Jimbeau's minions whispering in his ear, or was there some sort of official decree from the lord master himself...

Posted by: thekohser

It does appear that the Wikibooks leadership community http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Thekohser-v.2 to have a http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#On_the_subject_of_the_block_of_Thekohser_and_the_implications_to_our_local_community.2Fproject on what's really going on than did the Wikiversity rump leadership clique.

What will be interesting to me is to watch which of the Wikimedia impresarios with little prior experience on Wikibooks will swoop in to "correct" everyone's thinking about global lock-block-bans.

One thing is for sure, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mike.lifeguard will have solid ground to claim that he's very much a part of the Wikibooks community, so his rule will be law.

Posted by: Moulton

Are we going to have to repeat, yet another time, the basic civics lesson on why http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/liminal-social-drama-is-what-occurs-in.html over two centuries ago?

Posted by: Adrignola

For those interested, Mike.lifeguard has http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=next&oldid=1908211 a response (as well as JWSchmdt).

Posted by: thekohser

I'm curious, how is the user supposed to himself request an unblock, if the person http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1906581 has blocked access by the user to his Talk page?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 9th August 2010, 1:58pm) *

I'm curious, how is the user supposed to himself request an unblock, if the person http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1906581 has blocked access by the user to his Talk page?

You could send a letter to Godwin. I hear he reads WR. tongue.gif

Posted by: Adrignola

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 9th August 2010, 3:58pm) *

I'm curious, how is the user supposed to himself request an unblock, if the person http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1906581 has blocked access by the user to his Talk page?

The reblock was intended to enable email and talk. Looks like it only enabled email. It has since been corrected to allow email and talk. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 9th August 2010, 4:58pm) *
I'm curious, how is the user supposed to himself request an unblock, if the person http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=0&oldid=1906581 has blocked access by the user to his Talk page?

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&oldid=1908991#Unblock_request_-_2nd_attempt.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(trenton @ Sat 7th August 2010, 11:12pm) *

I'd be curious to know how Mr. Jyothis got involved (suckered?) into this situation. Was one of Jimbeau's minions whispering in his ear, or was there some sort of official decree from the lord master himself...
I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. What to do about this depends on the local situation at various wikis. If a WMF wiki has explicitly unblocked Thekohser or an acknowledged Thekohser sock, with a showing of consensus, there are then grounds to go to meta and request any relevant global locks be lifted. And to squawk if it isn't done. The consensus in early May was to allow the local wikis to make the decision, and the global lock on Thekohser was lifted, with various stewards going around to the individual wikis and setting local blocks, which local admins could then undo, I suppose if they dared. With local consensus and no clear guidance from the Foundation to the contrary, it should be safe. This was merely setting a global "default" condition, not attempting to rob local wikis of discretion.

But May 30, Mike.lifeguard reinstated the global lock based on "discussions." I asked him what discussions. He didn't specify. So I consider that the global lock is weak, basically the opinion of a small number of stewards, getting away with it because they can get away with it until it is confronted with a real local consensus.

At Wikiversity, I predict local consensus to unblock Thekohser in short order. There is too much obvious and good evidence to show it's proper and safe. It hasn't happened yet because of the current flap over Ottava Rima and, to a lesser extent, Adambro. Adambro is simply demanding a local consensus first, which he will get when the process has been set up. I can only do so much at a time. If someone wants to help ... SB_Johnny, you could get your tools back in a flash. You would not be obligated to do much of anything, but you could be a great help in resolving the issues there. It would take practically no work. (If someone raises a great flap, let them raise a great flap, they will just show their colors all the more, hastening the day....)

By the way, I've written policy that would have prohibited you from reversing Jimbo, explicitly, without first having a local consensus. I don't think that the events with you really had much effect, but a due-process approach might have resolved the problems much more rapidly. Jimbo isn't coming back, I'm sure, but stewards might still show up if we don't keep our neighborhood clean. "Clean" means that ethical standards are established and followed, when, say, WMF wikis and the activities of users are studied. And whatever can't be studied locally under those standards, necessary to keep the WMF family of wikis from fighting with each other, there is always netknowledge, which should have its own standards that don't have to consider the ownership by the WMF.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sun 8th August 2010, 7:07pm) *

For those interested, Mike.lifeguard has http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=next&oldid=1908211 a response (as well as JWSchmdt).
Okay, this is what a local editor with cojones will do: Warn Mike.Lifeguard for incivility based on the "troll" comment. It's blatant, and it is inconsistent -- and disruptive -- to allow privileged users to be uncivil while demanding it of ordinary users.

And if anyone warned of incivility disregards the warning, they should be short blocked (at first) just like anyone else will be, by a neutral sysop. They do have the technical ability to unblock themselves, but that is widely recognized as abuse. These things test the system, they are not POINT violations, because they are amply justified by policy.

Jimbo short-blocked Bishonen for incivility on Wikipedia, and I was cheering, even though I like Bishonen. It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law." What ensued displayed how much Bishonen believed herself to be a "vested contributor," a concept that is long-term extremely destructive. Jimbo himself should have been warned when he called users "trolls."

It is not a useless exercise, it will establish precedent. My personal guess is that if Jimbo were warned about specific incivility, he would heed the warning and not repeat it. If he repeated it and was short-blocked, there is a good chance he'd respect the block, thus establishing clear leadership for others to follow. He was once blocked for disregard of consensus on Wikipedia. It was very short, one second, I think, but a point was made. He did nothing to retaliate, he didn't even mention it (he could have done better, but he certainly didn't do badly with this). Bishonen, on the other hand, screamed bloody murder, which saddened me. She missed such an opportunity. She could have said, "Thanks for pointing out that I'd become angry and was uncivil." It would have been a victory for everyone, including herself. But she did not. She had not even experienced the block, I think it was two hours while she slept. No, it was the Very Idea, that She, the Very Center of the Wikiverse, might have to follow standards set for ordinary mortals.

And, of course, this is the situation on Wikiversity with Ottava, who came unglued when I blocked him for two hours for blatant incivility. And who then again came unglued when Jtneill, the most active Wikiversity bureaucrat, finally got around to examining the history of this affair, confirmed that the block was within my custodial discretion, and proceeded to again warn Ottava himself. Ottava immediately filed a Community Review on Jtneill, over three other BS complaints, it was blatantly retaliation. Ottava somehow thinks that Wikiversitiy would never dare desysop him; after all, the place would fall apart without his rejection of trolls and disruptive users and out-of-process deletions. He doesn't seem to notice that his actions are not being approved, that users are rejecting them, that he has practically no support. Hence, I think, I'm looking at maybe two weeks for what has become an inevitable Community Review, based on Ottava's failure to respond to the Custodian feedback report over the first mess, his out-of-process desysop request on me at meta. (He didn't mention that I'd blocked him, and he told the stewards that the request was merely routine, which was totally bogus, it was far from routine. There was routine practice described in policy which he was bypassing. He was my mentor, and thus he could request desysop if he withdrew his support, but only after giving me 48 hours to find another mentor, policy was explicit on this.)

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 9th August 2010, 8:57pm) *
It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law."

Not if it's an unjust law. If you look at the cases when Thoreau, Gandhi, or King engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, it was to openly flout an unjust law.

By the way, there was an occasion when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_12#My_Dear_Bish_Do_Shame, after Jimbo had site-banned me. The robotic admins automatically reverted it, but Bishonen asked that they leave my contribution alone, as it was a "tonic" to her.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 9th August 2010, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 9th August 2010, 8:57pm) *
It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law."

Not if it's an unjust law. If you look at the cases when Thoreau, Gandhi, or King engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, it was to openly flout an unjust law.

Except that they weren't above the law: they were all imprisoned at one time or another.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 10th August 2010, 4:41am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 9th August 2010, 9:08pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 9th August 2010, 8:57pm) *
It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law."
Not if it's an unjust law. If you look at the cases when Thoreau, Gandhi, or King engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, it was to openly flout an unjust law.
Except that they weren't above the law: they were all imprisoned at one time or another.

True enough. They were castigated, ostracized, excommunicated, marginalized, scapegoated, arrested, jailed, blocked, gagged, banned, boot-kicked, and even locked up in the janitor's hall closet for a week.

You don't have to be a masochist to engage in Civil Disobedience, but it helps.

Crafting a just society, like any worthwhile goal, will not always be a fargenigen.

Posted by: thekohser

Okay, http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=1909188&oldid=1908991 if the measured and rational likes of Adrignola and Geoff Plourde prevail, or whether whimsical and privately-agreed bans by Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard prevail.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 10th August 2010, 4:41am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 9th August 2010, 9:08pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 9th August 2010, 8:57pm) *
It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law."
Not if it's an unjust law. If you look at the cases when Thoreau, Gandhi, or King engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, it was to openly flout an unjust law.
Except that they weren't above the law: they were all imprisoned at one time or another.
That's quite right, SBJ. Moulton has missed that these great reformers did not consider themselves above the law. They did serve higher law, which means that they were willing to violate an unjust law, but they also were quite willing to accept the judgment of the law.

You can look further back to Socrates, who amazed everyone by accepting the judgment of the demos that he should drink the poison hemlock. His friends and enemies expected that he'd simply escape, he had sufficient support and I'm sure they didn't make it difficult.

When I review the history of Moulton on Wikiversity, I see that he was willing to flout, not only unjust law, but the collective judgment of the community. That was going too far, in my opinion. He's entitled to his, but by flouting his disrespect of this judgment, he created enemies that need not have been created. Imagine a Gandhi who pissed on his jail guards. Imagine a Martin Luther King who railed against the oppressive honkies.

Kinda hard to imagine, eh? But that's more like what Moulton did.

The issue that came up over and over was the use of real names on Wikiversity. There were complainers, like Ottava, who objected to Moulton "outing" them in emails or on Wikipedia Review. That would not have impressed the Wikiversity community. By denying the right of the community to object to such usage on-wiki, the right to prohibit it when it was unwelcome and in the presence of objections, Moulton was defying the very right of the community to regulate itself, and that is fundamentally disruptive.

I understand his educational purpose, but to move on from the statemate that developed, Moulton would have to be willing to acknowledge and respect the right of the community to self-regulation. Even when the self-regulation is "wrong." When we see a community consensus (or, obviously, a near-consensus -- it isn't full consensus if we disagree!) that we think is wrong, our general social duty is to both respect the consensus, as to regulating our interactions with others, and to protest it, in non-disruptive ways. Protest in disruptive ways may be justified by a consensus that is seriously oppressive, but ... avoiding the use of real names is seriously oppressive! Hello?

It was pure defiance of the community, hence the effective ban and a fair number of people burned by prior efforts at reconciliation. But there are ways to move beyond this, and, my sense, it was happening. Because banning is contrary to the fundamental wiki vision, and should only happen in the extreme, as Moulton backs off from the extreme, if anyone is willing to negotiate a return and is willing to put in the effort to supervise it on behalf of the community, the community should allow this.

Communities, being collections of people, can develop a collective anger that persists in memory. That should be acknowledged and respected, but only to a degree. Our memory of prior trauma can prevent us from moving on when circumstances change.

Briefly, I unblocked Caprice, the acknowledged and managed Moulton sock, opened up to allow identified communication with Moulton in a carefully-controlled "sandbox," so to speak, that user's Talk page. At this point, the Moulton account was also unblocked, so I was not violating "consensus," I was making the two blocks match. (The Moulton account was, and is, under global lock, making it impossible for Moulton to log in, and changing that won't happen until there is a community consensus at Wikiversity to unblock, which is not going to happen until there is some history of nondisruptive Moulton contributions, a chicken and egg problem. Hence the alternative path of a carefully watched experiment, to see if the time is ripe. Moulton is going to edit IP anyway, that can't be stopped, so why not open up an account that is easier to watch -- stable! can use a single contributions list! -- and see what happens?)

This tested the waters. Caprice made, in this trial, one edit. It was not disruptive. The account was blocked. So, at this point, the resistance to healing the rift is coming from within the community. The situation had shifted, though. The Moulton account was reblocked, in an apparent attempt to close off the loophole I'd used. So, now, Moulton is *not* blocked on Wikiversity by Jimbo. It's been done locally, so there are local custodians responsible for it.

On Wikiversity and elsewhere, the excuse has been given, "Jimbo did it." It's time that the wikis take responsibility for what is done in their community. Jimbo is not in charge of these wikis, the communities are, in theory and in fact. Stewards can and will intervene on behalf of critical WMF interests. but they are not collectively stupid, they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, the enthusiastic volunteer community that contributes, by far, most of the value of the WMF wikis. They will not generally defy local consensus unless the WMF interest is truly critical.

The case of Thekohser is much easier to resolve, in my opinion. Thekohser is clearly willing to be cooperative, and the situation at Wikiversity (and probably Wikibooks) is such that unblock is a near certainty if he is patient. It may take removing certain obstacles first, and conditions have been set up that may make this fairly easy. But it takes time. Wikis can be like silly putty. Push hard and fast, and they strongly resist change. Push slowly, respecting the material, and you can make them assume practically any shape, and if the shape is the natural one, if one is pushing toward homeostasis and sustainability, it will stay that way.

I tend to push too quickly, in one way. Tomes, reams of text. It irritates people. Increasingly, I'm putting the tomes in collapse boxes, so that reading them is clearly voluntary.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Dontcha just love the way some people project their http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/flash/hom.html to the horizon and call it “The Community”?

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:22am) *
Okay, http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&diff=1909188&oldid=1908991 if the measured and rational likes of Adrignola and Geoff Plourde prevail, or whether whimsical and privately-agreed bans by Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard prevail.
That's the way to proceed. There are also alternate pathways, explored on Wikiversity. Thekohser could use them on Wikibooks also, if the unblock is denied. Self-reverted edits by IP, the original edit summary says "Will self-revert per block of Thekohser," and then the revert summary says the same when it reverts, except drop the "will."

If this is used only for positive contributions, it will turn block or ban enforcement into positive content. It does not complicate enforcement of a block, and ultimately the community will not support "punishing" the editor by blocking IP that is only used for positive contributions. In theory, this could also be used for negative content, but I'd avoid pushing it!

What self-reversion, if used, does is to demonstrate cooperation with a block. It's quite different from defiance. It helps the block enforcing administrators by eliminating the reversion work that they do, by doing it for them, in advance.

It worked on Wikiversity, and, my belief, Adambro will ultimately stop blocking the IP that he did not block during the main experiment, and only started blocking because he concluded that there had been "enough" proof that Thekohser could make positive contributions. He will not be sustained in that by the community when it is clearly brought before them. What is "enough positive contributions"? Hello? What's the goal of the community, the purpose of allowing IP editing, etc.? Isn't it continued positive contributions?

Adambro is doubly off because he reversed an unblock for a user who was not blocked by community consensus, and without any basis in current disruptive contributions. The only reason this situation has continued is the continued hegemony of Ottava and Adambro. Ottava will probably be history quickly, he's started his self-destructive countdown, and I don't see that he has it in him to stop that ticking clock. He is ignoring all the warning signs. Adambro is not like Ottava, I suspect. He'll back off when the community speaks, as it will, I predict. It already is, here and there.

I'm recommending the use of self-reverted edits to all blocked users on any wiki. Make positive contributions, if you care to (I can understand why you might not care to), by IP. If you want to continue railing against the machine, do it with self-reverted edits, as I've described. They will be reverted anyway, so make it simple.

If you only "evade your block" with self-reverted edits, there really is no basis for the oft-repeated objection to unblock, "evaded his block." You could already make contributions by proxy and pre-arrangement, or just by making suggestions to any unblocked editor, who implements them on his or her own responsibility. Self-reversion simply makes this efficient and transparent. Your "railing against the machine" may not get reverted back in, but so what? It's there in the database, anyone can read it if they look for it, you've said your piece.

For a time, until this becomes consensus, you may be blocked anyway.

I made a self-reverted edit to an ArbComm case because I had highly relevant evidence to present. It is not at all clear that ArbComm intended to prevent me from doing this. I could certainly have done it directly by email to ArbComm. But I used self-reversion, partly to demonstrate the technique. I reverted "per ban of Abd from cold fusion." I was blocked for a week. Piffle! This was a demonstration of pig-headed adherence to formal rules while forgetting about the purpose of it all. It's not that closing admin's fault, he was just doing what he saw as his job. It's the fault of the community for not seriously considering the "self-reverted" issue when it came up and was proposed as a revision of WP:BAN. In reality, self-reversion was shot down only because it conflicted with the goals of the cabal, not because it was deeply considered.

And self-reversion is impossible to stop. Call it civil disobedience if you will. A demonstration that the "machine" will punish users for making helpful edits, or at worst, harmless ones.

What if GRAWP self-reverted? The guy was a vandal because he created constant mess that needed to be cleaned up. If he self-reverted, he'd be making his statement, which might be offensive in itself, but there would be less mess to clean up. As a vandal, though, he wants, probably, to create that mess.

Self-reversion is not going to be used by vandals. It's going to be used by people who want to make positive contributions, and who are willing to respect and cooperate with the decision of the community or an individual administrator to block them.

Really, it's brilliant, and Thekohser has helped to prove that on Wikiversity, I very much appreciate his cooperation with the experiment. If Moulton adopted it, I'd predict fairly rapid unblock, a few months at most. As long as he isn't self-reverting content that would get him legitimately blocked again (i.e., with community consensus.)

In the comparison with nonviolent protests, self-reverted edits are like the demonstrators who hold up their hands so they can be handcuffed and taken to jail. Who are polite and friendly to the police who arrest them. Who demonstrate their harmlessness as they are hauled off. Who are polite to the judge who considers their case, while still asserting the importance of their cause. Who allow unjust laws to be exposed by their willingness to take on the consequences of violating them. In this case, the unjust law is the rule that all edits while banned are cause for further blocking.

This was the remarkable fact about my sequence with WMC. I first proposed self-reversion for ScienceApologist when he was under a ban from editing articles about fringe science. He was making "harmless" spelling corrections. They were being ignored. Hipocrite therefore started raising Arbitration Enforcement requests. Why? Hipocrite was cooperating with SA's plan, which was to tempt an enforcing admin into blocking him for making a harmless edit.

But they were not harmless. They complicated ban enforcement. The suggestion was made that SA suggest the spelling corrections on Talk (he was permitted to do that, Talk page edits did not violate the ban. By the way, this was grossly unfair. Editors who had been battling with SA were not allowed to comment on Talk, and they were, in some ways, more expert on the topics than he.) SA rejected this as cumbersome, and he was right. A self-reverted edit, though, is easy to cite, if needed, review and revert if it's a good edit. It is the most efficient way to propose an edit of any kind without making the change.

I proposed this to Carcharoth, who thought it a great idea. SA rejected it. Why? It's obvious. His purpose wasn't to make spelling corrections, it was to incite a questionable block. When this plan became obvious, he was site-banned for three months.

During the discussion of these "harmless edits," WMC opined that it was "stupid" to block someone for a spelling correction. That is, in fact, the general consensus when it comes up for review, except for the matter of ban enforcement! Self-reversion directly addressed this.

But when I made an attempt to fix a formatting error on the Cold fusion article, which WMC had banned me from (and then the cabal arranged that ban to become a community ban for a month), WMC promptly blocked me. Previous to that, Verbal (very much on the "other side") had reverted my edit back in. He really should have checked the effect first, my edit made that very easy, just look at the revision I'd created before reversion. I'd not done it right, but, as a result of the edit, someone fixed it promptly. Self-reversion worked as planned, to encourage cooperation between previously competing factions.

This was an opportunity for the community to review self-reversion. It was brought up at AN, not by me, but by another editor regarding a different topic ban of PJHaseldine, where I'd suggested self-reversion as a more efficient way to make a contribution under ban. It had worked, and the very editor who had asked for PJH to be banned was the one who reviewed the edit and brought it (mostly) back in. What did the community say on AN?

It didn't look at the details, it did not look at the proposed revision to WP:BAN, it just said, mostly, "a ban is a ban is a ban." I.e., those who were watching AN and commented were the "Follow All The Rules" faction. Those who actually reject Rule Number One, IAR. These people tend to take over, in time, if better structure is not put into place. This is part of the process by which a wiki dies. Ossification.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 10:21am) *

It worked on Wikiversity, and, my belief, Adambro will ultimately stop blocking the IP that he did not block during the main experiment, and only started blocking because he concluded that there had been "enough" proof that Thekohser could make positive contributions.

...

I'm recommending the use of self-reverted edits to all blocked users on any wiki. Make positive contributions, if you care to (I can understand why you might not care to), by IP.

...

Really, it's brilliant, and Thekohser has helped to prove that on Wikiversity, I very much appreciate his cooperation with the experiment.


Okay, Sherlock, what's next? I tried your "brilliant" theory, and Adambro blocked the IP for 7 days. After that block expired, I http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.87.42.110, and it took about 4 minutes for Adambro to swoop in and block the IP again -- this time for 30 days.

Explain to me again what you think the word "brilliant" means?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 10th August 2010, 4:41am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 9th August 2010, 9:08pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 9th August 2010, 8:57pm) *
It is extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be "above the law."
Not if it's an unjust law. If you look at the cases when Thoreau, Gandhi, or King engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, it was to openly flout an unjust law.
Except that they weren't above the law: they were all imprisoned at one time or another.
That's quite right, SBJ. Moulton has missed that these great reformers did not consider themselves above the law. They did serve higher law, which means that they were willing to violate an unjust law, but they also were quite willing to accept the judgment of the law.

Abd, http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Babel#User:Moulton.2FUser:JWSchmidt, please.

QUOTE
You can look further back to Socrates, who amazed everyone by accepting the judgment of the demos that he should drink the poison hemlock. His friends and enemies expected that he'd simply escape, he had sufficient support and I'm sure they didn't make it difficult.

It's interesting to compare Socrates to Aristotle on that point. Socrates, being an old man, and near the end of his days, anyway, understood that his greatest teachings would be remembered if he drank the hemlock. Aristotle decided not to allow the new regime in Athens to "http://www.google.com/search?q=Aristotle+%22twice+against+philosophy%22+Chalcis+Macedonia" and he did flee back to his home in Macedonia, where at the age of 63, he died of melancholy and a broken heart not long after.

Compare, also, to Galileo who "recanted" to appease the Inquisition of Pope Urban, but then stage-whispered, "And yet it moves."

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
When I review the history of Moulton on Wikiversity, I see that he was willing to flout, not only unjust law, but the collective judgment of the community. That was going too far, in my opinion. He's entitled to his, but by flouting his disrespect of this judgment, he created enemies that need not have been created. Imagine a Gandhi who pissed on his jail guards. Imagine a Martin Luther King who railed against the oppressive honkies.

The "collective judgment of the community" was divided almost exactly in half. That's not an accident. To the best of my ability, I try to raise issues that are at the "tipping point" and ripe for overthrow. Generally speaking, those in power (who invariably manage to tip the balance against me) are on the wrong side of history. That's no accident either, since I am using the lessons of history as my guide.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
Kinda hard to imagine, eh? But that's more like what Moulton did.

It's not so hard to imagine if you read the liner notes. I'm not making this stuff up, Abd. I'm simply re-enacting famous passages from history, as best I can (keeping in mind that I have less than zero skill as a thespian).

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
The issue that came up over and over was the use of real names on Wikiversity. There were complainers, like Ottava, who objected to Moulton "outing" them in emails or on Wikipedia Review. That would not have impressed the Wikiversity community. By denying the right of the community to object to such usage on-wiki, the right to prohibit it when it was unwelcome and in the presence of objections, Moulton was defying the very right of the community to regulate itself, and that is fundamentally disruptive.

The practice of calling scholars by their real name had been commonplace at Wikiversity since its inception. Prior to the arrival of IDCab there, it had never been an isssue.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
I understand his educational purpose, but to move on from the stalemate that developed, Moulton would have to be willing to acknowledge and respect the right of the community to self-regulation. Even when the self-regulation is "wrong." When we see a community consensus (or, obviously, a near-consensus -- it isn't full consensus if we disagree!) that we think is wrong, our general social duty is to both respect the consensus, as to regulating our interactions with others, and to protest it, in non-disruptive ways. Protest in disruptive ways may be justified by a consensus that is seriously oppressive, but ... avoiding the use of real names is seriously oppressive! Hello?

Were you aware that I had proposed a model of local self-governance two years ago? It's the same model that SB_Johnny decided to implement at NetKnowledge. You can also ask Geoff Plourde about http://knol.google.com/k/geoffrey-plourde/wv-community-agreement/k5z7qd2y8za1/2#.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
It was pure defiance of the community, hence the effective ban and a fair number of people burned by prior efforts at reconciliation. But there are ways to move beyond this, and, my sense, it was happening. Because banning is contrary to the fundamental wiki vision, and should only happen in the extreme, as Moulton backs off from the extreme, if anyone is willing to negotiate a return and is willing to put in the effort to supervise it on behalf of the community, the community should allow this.

Was I defying Geoff when I worked with him to construct a Model Community Agreement? Was I defying JWSchmidt when I collaborated with him to review the ethical lapses of the IDCab editors at Wikipedia? Was I defying Hillgentleman when I responded to his request to construct actual case studies? Was I defying Privatemusings when I collaborated with him on multiple occasions and venues (including the roundtable discussion he hosted on Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast)? Was I defying Ottava Rima when I collaborated with him on http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project?

Shall I go on (and on and on the way JWS does) or is that enough to dispel your thesis?

Incidentally, Abd, you are more than welcome to participate in that http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project which Ottava set up two years ago.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
Communities, being collections of people, can develop a collective anger that persists in memory. That should be acknowledged and respected, but only to a degree. Our memory of prior trauma can prevent us from moving on when circumstances change.

To quote Mohandas K. Gandhi, "I have received your anger."

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
Briefly, I unblocked Caprice, the acknowledged and managed Moulton sock, opened up to allow identified communication with Moulton in a carefully-controlled "sandbox," so to speak, that user's Talk page. At this point, the Moulton account was also unblocked, so I was not violating "consensus," I was making the two blocks match. (The Moulton account was, and is, under global lock, making it impossible for Moulton to log in, and changing that won't happen until there is a community consensus at Wikiversity to unblock, which is not going to happen until there is some history of non-disruptive Moulton contributions, a chicken and egg problem. Hence the alternative path of a carefully watched experiment, to see if the time is ripe. Moulton is going to edit IP anyway, that can't be stopped, so why not open up an account that is easier to watch -- stable! can use a single contributions list! -- and see what happens?)

In fact, a few months ago, Jon Awbrey created an account using my real name, and sent me the password to it. I haven't used it yet. The time is not yet ripe.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
This tested the waters. Caprice made, in this trial, one edit. It was not disruptive. The account was blocked. So, at this point, the resistance to healing the rift is coming from within the community. The situation had shifted, though. The Moulton account was reblocked, in an apparent attempt to close off the loophole I'd used. So, now, Moulton is *not* blocked on Wikiversity by Jimbo. It's been done locally, so there are local custodians responsible for it.

At this point, the twists and turns in the drama become too hard for most people to follow without an http://encyc.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Caprice.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
On Wikiversity and elsewhere, the excuse has been given, "Jimbo did it." It's time that the wikis take responsibility for what is done in their community. Jimbo is not in charge of these wikis, the communities are, in theory and in fact. Stewards can and will intervene on behalf of critical WMF interests. but they are not collectively stupid, they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, the enthusiastic volunteer community that contributes, by far, most of the value of the WMF wikis. They will not generally defy local consensus unless the WMF interest is truly critical.

It's true that http://hardnews1.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/MediaEthics.EthicalConundrum.html#Jackass, "I will just personally block you at wikiversity and that will be that."

Was that an accurate prediction on Jimbo's part?

Could it be that Jimbo was acting from an unreliable mental model of what would actually happen?

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
The case of Thekohser is much easier to resolve, in my opinion. Thekohser is clearly willing to be cooperative, and the situation at Wikiversity (and probably Wikibooks) is such that unblock is a near certainty if he is patient. It may take removing certain obstacles first, and conditions have been set up that may make this fairly easy. But it takes time. Wikis can be like silly putty. Push hard and fast, and they strongly resist change. Push slowly, respecting the material, and you can make them assume practically any shape, and if the shape is the natural one, if one is pushing toward homeostasis and sustainability, it will stay that way.

Greg and I intentionally chose divergent methods. He did one experiment and I did another. That way we learn twice as much in the same amount of time. Greg's experiment is to see if obsequious compliance is an effective strategy. My experiment is to see if Civil Disobedience is an effective strategy.

My http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30228&st=0&p=244973&#entry244973 was that we would both fail. Very likely, my failure would be more spectacular.

But you are more than welcome to falsify my prediction, Abd.

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:40am) *
I tend to push too quickly, in one way. Tomes, reams of text. It irritates people. Increasingly, I'm putting the tomes in collapse boxes, so that reading them is clearly voluntary.

Make sure they are searchable from Google. Salt each one with an uncommon but memorable phrase that you can use as a reliable search key.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 10:21am) *
I'm recommending the use of self-reverted edits to all blocked users on any wiki.

Even if I decided to run an experiment to test that idea, I wouldn't be able to.

If you look at the RecentChanges, you can see that my IP edits are often reverted within seconds. Adambro is not just Javert on the Job, he's Jiffy Javert on the Job.

On some occasions, he had the edits reverted before my browser had reloaded the page.

That's not too surprising if you appreciate that editing through proxy IPs is excruciatingly slow. One of the edits I made a day or two ago was only a brief paragraph. But it took me an hour to make the edit. And Adam had it reverted (and the IP blocked) faster than I could refresh the page view.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 10th August 2010, 12:02pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 10:21am) *
I'm recommending the use of self-reverted edits to all blocked users on any wiki.
Even if I decided to run an experiment to test that idea, I wouldn't be able to.
Just not true. You do the essential thing with your identification of the edit as one from a banned editor and the declaration of intention to self-revert.
QUOTE
If you look at the RecentChanges, you can see that my IP edits are often reverted within seconds. Adambro is not just Javert on the Job, he's Jiffy Javert on the Job.

On some occasions, he had the edits reverted before my browser had reloaded the page.
In which case he's done your job for you, and it's quite visible. It's not worth the effort, but an appropriate response could be to thank him. Drives these people crazy when you thank them for what they think you should be pissed off for.
QUOTE

That's not too surprising if you appreciate that editing through proxy IPs is excruciatingly slow. One of the edits I made a day or two ago was only a brief paragraph. But it took me an hour to make the edit. And Adam had it reverted (and the IP blocked) faster than I could refresh the page view.
This is the quid pro quo: in return for self-reverting, you get the ability to edit without standing on your head.

The original edit summary shows intention. The rapid revert by Adambro shows that you did not have time to self-revert. The original edit summary shows that he's wasting his time.

Sure, with the proxy situation, it will be difficult at first. However, if you were to declare an intention to only do self-reverted edits until you are unblocked, and stick with this, with, then, even a few edits and no exceptions, it would be pretty easy to get the range blocks lifted, I suspect.

It is not an unblock. It is not a decision that you can be allowed to edit. They cannot stop you from editing without causing massive collateral damage, you can find a way around all their attempts to stop you. Scibaby. What, about 600 socks and counting?

You know what you can do, you have described it.

You would be pulling the rug out from under the "reasonable objections." I know you may not think there are any reasonable objections. Maybe you are right, even, but others are entitled to their opinion as well. Treat them with respect, they will be far more likely to treat you with respect.

And, in fact, you'd be setting up conditions where there isn't any problem, only some minor inconvenience, probably leading to a total no-problem situation as to your participation, unless you really prefer to be blocked, that's okay, too.

I can imagine a headline at some point in the future: Blocked editor has contributed half of Wikiversity content.

Probably not, but .... by avoiding all the controversy over blocked/not blocked, enough energy might be freed up to actually do it, and you'd be pioneering an effort to get rid of this ban nonsense. Blocks would still exist, a block, viewed this way, is simply a decision by someone or by the community that your edits should be "seconded." In mature wikis, that might even be necessary for everyone, certainly on a process wiki, this might be required....

And then, the ban becoming almost moot, everyone can move on and start dealing with the other problems. There are plenty.

Or does this make too much sense?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 1:09pm) *
Or does this make too much sense?

I regret to say it makes no sense to me at all. I am unable to see how it harmonizes with Ethical Best Practices.

Posted by: thekohser

Anyone for some side-betting on the date whereby Thekohser is free to edit on Wikiversity, versus the date the account is free to edit on Wikibooks?

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 10th August 2010, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 1:09pm) *
Or does this make too much sense?

I regret to say it makes no sense to me at all. I am unable to see how it harmonizes with Ethical Best Practices.
So watch. Maybe you will see something. Nothing has been suggested that conflicts with Ethical Best Practices. Indeed, the opposite.

Moulton, I think you have applied Ethical Best Practices to "them," and not as deeply as needed to "yourself."

In that you are like them. That's an important realization, if you can come to it.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th August 2010, 3:09pm) *
Anyone for some side-betting on the date whereby Thekohser is free to edit on Wikiversity, versus the date the account is free to edit on Wikibooks?
I don't know when, but http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action&oldid=596794#Ethical_Accountability.2C_aka_Thekohser.2C_request_unblock. has been filed. Wikiversity tends to move slowly, it's been really damaged by the interventions and fallout. Wikibooks looks like unblock is imminent, to me. Wikiversity could happen at any moment if another custodian seizes the day, or it might take deeper process. Could take weeks.

Could totally fail, I could get blocked, booed at, hissed at. Or lauded, praised, and promoted. Damn if I can tell, really. So far, though, there has been sufficient encouragement to keep me going. I'll notice that Ottava has hitched his star to defending and repeating his own gross incivility, attacking me, and attacking the bureaucrat who may be the most popular user on Wikiversity, and claiming that recusal policy is completely impractical on Wikiversity.

I'd call that quite auspicious, I didn't expect such deep cooperation. I thought it might be much more difficult.

But there are some zany elements I can't predict.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 7:50pm) *
Moulton, I think you have applied Ethical Best Practices to "them," and not as deeply as needed to "yourself."

Have you responded yet to my invitation to you to participate in http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

I have no idea what this is all about ... but should not they try have a global amnesty every now and again?

I doubt the world would fall on their heads.

It is funny how individual with blocks in their personal want to project them outwards onto reality and create a reality equally full of blocks.

They really need to try some radical solutions from time to time to break the staleness of it all and make it more fun.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 10th August 2010, 10:44pm) *
They really need to try some radical solutions from time to time to break the staleness of it all and make it more fun.

What the hell do you think I'm failing so spectacularly at?

You think I'm in this for my health?

Posted by: thekohser

My account on Wikinews is not blocked; however, I am unable to edit there due to the global "lock". How would I go about requesting the re-name-a-roo process to get my "Thekohser" account unlocked?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th August 2010, 9:42am) *
My account on Wikinews is not blocked; however, I am unable to edit there due to the global "lock". How would I go about requesting the re-name-a-roo process to get my "Thekohser" account unlocked?

JWSchmidt did this for me on Beta.Wikiversity.

First, he renamed User:Moulton to User:Barsoom. Then he renamed User:Barsoom back to User:Moulton. That broke the SUL lock.

Then he edited http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist to neutralize the http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_blacklist&diff=2033191&oldid=2033118 in the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist.

Voila, Moulton is out of global prison and his userspace pages are unlocked, too..

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:49pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 7:50pm) *
Moulton, I think you have applied Ethical Best Practices to "them," and not as deeply as needed to "yourself."
Have you responded yet to my invitation to you to participate in http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project?
No. Did you invite me before? Silly me, I must have it in the pile on my desk somewhere, or maybe the pile in the kitchen. Or on the floor of the office. Somewhere around here. I'm a lot more organized on-wiki.

Look, that looks like a great idea. When things simmer down, let's do it. But, please, no diffs showing where BigFoot Admin did it all Really Badly. Okay? We can do just about anything if we stay on the theoretical level, developing responses, with perhaps general references to experience, staying away from what can easily be seen as personal criticism. Leave the personal criticism for due process on the wiki involved. okay? Eventually, maybe some level of personal reference may be okay, but only with strong ethical standards in place protecting both those criticized and those criticizing. (If we are following ethical standards established by consensus, what we do will be relatively safe.)


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th August 2010, 9:42am) *

My account on Wikinews is not blocked; however, I am unable to edit there due to the global "lock". How would I go about requesting the re-name-a-roo process to get my "Thekohser" account unlocked?
There is a way. Look, my suggestion is wait a little bit. You are very likely to be unblocked in short order on Wikibooks, that's the obvious consensus at this point, not likely to shift, my guess. On Wikiversity, you currently have a majority of those commenting apparently supporting unblock. Don't push it on another wiki until you have some precedent established. Assuming that this goes well, as I think it will, you will have an easier time on other wikis.

Don't give those who want to exclude you any excuses by socking without permission . You IP socked on Wikiversity with permission and encouragement, and carefully confined this to purely positive contributions. That was certainly okay. Your earlier sarcastic socking was not a monstrous thing, but it hurt the cause of your return, it's about the only thing Adambro could pull up that was negative in appearance.

As long as you don't use the opportunity to use these wikis as a platform for criticism of the WMF, Jimbo, etc., your return should be stable. If you do this, outside of carefully formulated and followed ethical guidelines, you'll be toast, and quickly, and I'll be part of the toaster, even though I don't have sysop tools at this point. I don't need them.

By all means, criticize the WMF off-wiki. No problem. I've been able, so far, to help keep your listing on the speakers list on meta. Wikiversity can indeed be a place where ethical standards are researched and discussed, with appropriate caution. What you can't do there, you can do on Your Own Damn Wiki or on netknowledge.org. Again, with appropriate caution, these resources can be linked, it will depend on each case. Proceed with caution and respect for each community. Don't allow the people who help you to get burned for it by abusing the opportunity.

Ethical guidelines, my opinion, have been violated in sanctioning you, and the appearance certainly sucks. But let's move on, all of us. It's time for the communities to take responsibility for themselves, and for all of us to do the same.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

I suppose I should have asked first, but I assume you don't mind http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ARequest_custodian_action&action=historysubmit&diff=597320&oldid=597316, Greg. I know how hard you work to keep yourself anonymous! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

It will be interesting to see if the few remaining non-lunatics manage to get some balls and take over the asylum. I'd give it 50/50 now.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 11th August 2010, 7:13pm) *
I suppose I should have asked first, but I assume you don't mind http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ARequest_custodian_action&action=historysubmit&diff=597320&oldid=597316, Greg. I know how hard you work to keep yourself anonymous! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

It will be interesting to see if the few remaining non-lunatics manage to get some balls and take over the asylum. I'd give it 50/50 now.
Well, Adambro, as I predicted, noticed that there was coffee brewing and apparently drank some. He'll keep his bit, though I'd suggest to him that he be a bit more careful about recusal policy, particularly if it becomes explicit. He should be careful about standing with Ottava against making this policy clear. It would have prevented some of these problems, for sure.

Ottava, on the other hand, hasn't learned a basic organizational lesson, one I learned early on. How to lose gracefully. It's especially important if you want to be a leader. Know when to accept a decision contrary to your opinion. Be careful about nailing yourself to that cross. It's unseemly.

SB_Johnny requested his tools back, possibly flipping the balance. I think we'd still have seen TheKohser unblocked in short order anyway, Jtneill had supported it, clearly, in spite of Ottava's screams, but Jtneill is very, very careful. That's why I had the EA unblock option in front. It didn't need 'crat tools. SBJ finally figured out that what he was demanding someone else do, because it was "simple," he could do.... I did know that was a possibility.

Ottava tried, last-ditch, to protest the return of tools to SB_Johnny. He's become a pure whiner, since Mike, the 'crat who granted the request, has no power to change his mind. That happens at meta. Ottava already made a bit of a mess at meta by requesting my desysop out of process, misleading the stewards as to Wikiversity policy, which didn't allow what he was asking for. Will he dare show his face there again? Asking them to do what they would almost certainly refuse to do?

Popcorn?

Wikibooks is in a bit of a holding pattern, but zero opposition to unblocking has appeared, beyond Mike.lifeguard, who is starting to look like the Lone Steward. Perhaps he should read the manual.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 4:50pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:49pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 10th August 2010, 7:50pm) *
Moulton, I think you have applied Ethical Best Practices to "them," and not as deeply as needed to "yourself."
Have you responded yet to my invitation to you to participate in http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project?
No. Did you invite me before?

Yes. if memory serves (about 80% of the time, on average) it's in one of those infinitely long PMs we exchanged two or three days ago. But it might also be on-wiki (in which case Adam might have reverted it).

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 4:50pm) *
Silly me, I must have it in the pile on my desk somewhere, or maybe the pile in the kitchen. Or on the floor of the office. Somewhere around here. I'm a lot more organized on-wiki.

Check your PM folder here. I distinctly recall inviting you (and Privatemusings) a few days ago, but I am foggy on where I posted that.

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 4:50pm) *
Look, that looks like a great idea. When things simmer down, let's do it. But, please, no diffs showing where BigFoot Admin did it all Really Badly. Okay?

My portion of http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Moulton.27s_three-day_trial_research_project is completed. It was completed two years ago. What's still missing is commentary from others. Privatemusings started to comment, but the whole exercise was unceremoniously disrupted before he finished his commentary.

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 4:50pm) *
We can do just about anything if we stay on the theoretical level, developing responses, with perhaps general references to experience, staying away from what can easily be seen as personal criticism. Leave the personal criticism for due process on the wiki involved. okay?

I'll accept your criticism, above, with good grace, as I know you are sincere.

It's just amusing to note the irony, eh? wink.gif

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 4:50pm) *
Eventually, maybe some level of personal reference may be okay, but only with strong ethical standards in place protecting both those criticized and those criticizing. (If we are following ethical standards established by consensus, what we do will be relatively safe.)

I am all in favor of Ethical Best Practices, and toward that end I still favor a Learning Project on Managerial Ethics and Best Practices, such as we started two summers ago.

And I am still somewhat unclear on why that effort was aborted so violently.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 11th August 2010, 10:13pm) *
Be careful about nailing yourself to that cross. It's unseemly.

Never mind unseemly. Have you ever tried to use a hammer to http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/Hammer-Nail.jpg?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE
It would certainly be the neatest solution, allowing Thekohser to have his edits under one account. I don't believe there are any title blacklist issues here but I am an admin on Meta so can deal with such issues. If there is "rough consensus" to unblock Ethical Accountability as you suggest then it shouldn't be too great a leap for a 'crat act here since I, for example, whilst opposing an unblock of EA have expressed support for the unblocking of User:Thekohser (rather than EA) if Thekohser is to be unblocked. Sure, there isn't overwhelming consensus in favour but that also means there isn't overwhelming consensus in opposition. A 'crat should just bite the bullet and sort out User:Thekohser global lock. Adambro 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


What's this? Adambro being a bro? Way to go, Adam!

Posted by: Moulton

Or perhaps he's uncomfortable being a minority of one.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 7:20am) *
I am all in favor of Ethical Best Practices, and toward that end I still favor a Learning Project on Managerial Ethics and Best Practices, such as we started two summers ago.

And I am still somewhat unclear on why that effort was aborted so violently.
It was aborted because

(1) They could abort it.
(2) Sufficient cover was provided by your intransigence. If you had immediately backed up and backed down, patiently seeking cover in consensus, it would not have happened that way, or, if it happened, it would have fairly quickly been undone.

Current projects are under way, and guidelines are being developed that will allow a "freeze" on request, basically total assurance that if someone want to stop it, it will be stopped until consensus is found. More sophisticated rules would provide an issuance of a "freeze" on request, for a very short time, and the freeze would have to be seconded, or it would drop. A Freeze is like a privileged motion. It interrupts debate. The basic procedures all exist in rules of parliamentary procedure, but they need to be adapted to the special conditions of on-line deliberation. The point is to provide rules that respect the rights of all users, but that also avoid continued useless and fruitless debate over how to proceed.

I'm promoting the Silly Putty model of wiki reform. It's related to Eventualism on Wikipedia.

I predict that we will get the project in question, and it will be well done, and it will help guide the WMF. That's the payoff for doing it right.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 8:55am) *

Or perhaps he's uncomfortable being a minority of one.
I think he's definitely uncomfortable being so blatantly allied with Ottava, a sinking ship.

But he then went and !voted No on the unblock, repeating the party line of the cabal that is in a minority about everywhere, the argument being rejected when explicitly and carefully and openly considered, though there is still cabal control in some places.

With the cited argument (supporting Yes!), while still voting No, he can look like he's sane, without blatantly defying the cabal he may think is still powerful.

Might work. Might not. Bottom line, and basic issue, it is looking now like about 95% that Thekohser is unblocked on Wikiversity. Is this a victory for Greg over Jimbo?

Well, not actually. Jimbo was making a point, and he made the point. Local wikis will be careful about allowing themselves to be used as a platform to attack the WMF or Jimbo or any other employee or functionary or privileged or ordinary user. I don't think he really cares if Thekohser is blocked or not, I strongly suspect he is over trying to maintain that kind of control.

His would-be toadies, of course, will fall all over themselves trying to give him what he doesn't care about. I hope he doesn't encourage them, because they will still do some damage that will be referred back to him, even if he didn't support it. At some point, I hope he will come out with some clear and forcefully stated "suggestion" that, with proper restraint and guidelines, criticism of the WMF is welcome and even needed.

I think that he's waiting for the guidelines to be developed and in place before he's willing to sign on to this. He knows how hard this is on wikis, particularly once they have begun the ossification process. But it remains possible on the small wikis, and especially on WV.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 7:20am) *
I am all in favor of Ethical Best Practices, and toward that end I still favor a Learning Project on Managerial Ethics and Best Practices, such as we started two summers ago.

And I am still somewhat unclear on why that effort was aborted so violently.
It was aborted because

(1) They could abort it.

(2) Sufficient cover was provided by your intransigence. If you had immediately backed up and backed down, patiently seeking cover in consensus, it would not have happened that way, or, if it happened, it would have fairly quickly been undone.

It was halted by outsiders, over the objections of the local resident scholars.

By the way, Abd, do you now know who Centaur of Attention and Salmon of Doubt were?

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
Current projects are under way, and guidelines are being developed that will allow a "freeze" on request, basically total assurance that if someone want to stop it, it will be stopped until consensus is found. More sophisticated rules would provide an issuance of a "freeze" on request, for a very short time, and the freeze would have to be seconded, or it would drop. A Freeze is like a privileged motion. It interrupts debate. The basic procedures all exist in rules of parliamentary procedure, but they need to be adapted to the special conditions of on-line deliberation. The point is to provide rules that respect the rights of all users, but that also avoid continued useless and fruitless debate over how to proceed.

About 75 years ago, a journalist in Germany asked Albert Einstein if the pace of research in physics had slowed down in Germany since the rise to power of a new regime.

"No," replied Einstein, "The pace of research in physics has not slowed down. It has come to a complete halt."

Yes, a tyrannical regime can put a freeze on scholarly research. Is that what you want?

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
I'm promoting the Silly Putty model of wiki reform. It's related to Eventualism on Wikipedia.

I predict that we will get the project in question, and it will be well done, and it will help guide the WMF. That's the payoff for doing it right.

I'm exploiting Silliness, too. It was not my idea to transform Wikiversity from an authentic learning community into a dramaturgy workshop featuring a post-modern theater of the absurd. But given that's what it became, I am prepared to work with that.

After all, I do have an express learning agenda relating to dramaturgy and the bardic arts. It's a learning agenda I set forth over a decade ago, and which the NSF is very interested in.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 12:09pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 8:55am) *
Or perhaps he's uncomfortable being a minority of one.
I think he's definitely uncomfortable being so blatantly allied with Ottava, http://wc5.musenet.org/webx/?224@785.HZ9iaMA5kW6@11f36d5e@.1ddf34e6/14.

Somewhere, someone once observed that the civilized world abandoned Monarchial Bill of Attainder over two centuries ago, having recognized that it's a corrosive and corrupt tool of government that inevitably sinks any regime that comes to rely on it.

Posted by: Adrignola

I've been corrected in that a globally locked user can log in. I based my previous view that they couldn't on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locked_global_account. I point this out because I think the people here will get a kick out of the original author of the page and how it hasn't been updated.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 12:20pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 7:20am) *
I am all in favor of Ethical Best Practices, and toward that end I still favor a Learning Project on Managerial Ethics and Best Practices, such as we started two summers ago.

And I am still somewhat unclear on why that effort was aborted so violently.
It was aborted because

(1) They could abort it.

(2) Sufficient cover was provided by your intransigence. If you had immediately backed up and backed down, patiently seeking cover in consensus, it would not have happened that way, or, if it happened, it would have fairly quickly been undone.

It was halted by outsiders, over the objections of the local resident scholars.

By the way, Abd, do you now know who Centaur of Attention and Salmon of Doubt were?
I have at least one strong suspicion, and it's really irrelevant, because it is moot. You can tell me if you like, I'm a-itching to know. But I strongly suspect that the information will do me very little good. If it's who I think it might be (for Salmon of Doubt), I already know the guy is Very Bad News. And so? With that, total proof of severely disruptive contributions, and a month of work, I could get him blocked on Wikipedia. Maybe. And I could already do this, and have concluded that it absolutely is not worth the effort.

So, outsiders come in and "halt the project." What do you do? Best answer: for a time, nothing. You certainly do not insist on continuing. You start to develop community support, and slowly and carefully. You find out -- ask them! -- what specifically they object to . You allow them to remove anything they like without revert warring. Silly putty, Moulton. You apply pressure for what benefits the project and education, but slowly, very slowly, very carefully.

Sure, you can do the drama disruption thing. That may have some value, but, long-term, tell me, does it work? As to education, some people, naturally inclined toward defiance of authority, may become radicalized. But most people will go the other way, including some who would be responsive -- very responsive -- to a better-paced approach. You understand this with individuals (you've given me an example of a person you do it with). It's true about communities as well.

If you respond immediately to every warning, but then deconstruct the warning, finding consensus on what's appropriate about it and what is not, you would become very difficult to block. They may still try, but, then, their agenda will become blatantly obvious. At that point the community itself is tested. Do they have any cojones left? Sometimes not, Moulton, in which case the community and the project is probably not worth saving. It's just a damn wiki, you can set up something independent much more easily than trying to drag along a lot of dead weight.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
Current projects are under way, and guidelines are being developed that will allow a "freeze" on request, basically total assurance that if someone want to stop it, it will be stopped until consensus is found. More sophisticated rules would provide an issuance of a "freeze" on request, for a very short time, and the freeze would have to be seconded, or it would drop. A Freeze is like a privileged motion. It interrupts debate. The basic procedures all exist in rules of parliamentary procedure, but they need to be adapted to the special conditions of on-line deliberation. The point is to provide rules that respect the rights of all users, but that also avoid continued useless and fruitless debate over how to proceed.

About 75 years ago, a journalist in Germany asked Albert Einstein if the pace of research in physics had slowed down in Germany since the rise to power of a new regime.

"No," replied Einstein, "The pace of research in physics has not slowed down. It has come to a complete halt."

Yes, a tyrannical regime can put a freeze on scholarly research. Is that what you want?
No. If you are trying to compare a few control freaks arriving on Wikiversity with a fascist regime that viciously murdered people, you've lost your mind. "Freeze" here means a temporary halt on a specific piece of research, and, in fact, this is a common legal practice in democracies. When a court orders it, it is called an injunction.

The point here is to put process in place that will satisfy possibly legitimate complaints, while not allowing illegitimate ones to do anything more than slow a process down a bit. And each time they slow it down, the ethical guidelines become more detailed to address the complaint raised. (This kind of step is often missing on wikis, because of the dislike of "instruction creep," but this dislike is one of the reasons why the boulder has to be rolled up the same hill over and over. The point of better guidelines is to make it easier to anticipate problems and head them off, as well as to prevent phony assertion of problems when the real motive is to prevent people from seeing what actually happened.)
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:59am) *
I'm promoting the Silly Putty model of wiki reform. It's related to Eventualism on Wikipedia.

I predict that we will get the project in question, and it will be well done, and it will help guide the WMF. That's the payoff for doing it right.

I'm exploiting Silliness, too.
Not "Silliness," though that's cool too, some very good teachers use it well. "Silly putty," i.e, a material that is rigid under high pressure, but which flows easily when its natural flow rate is respected. Press hard on it, it won't budge. Press slowly, it flows.

Maximum flow rate would be just the right sustained pressure. Some (possibly professional) POV-pushers on Wikipedia know this trick, in fact. They can be hard to interdict, they just keep plugging away, and if they keep their activity slow and don't revert war, it can take years to stop them.
QUOTE
It was not my idea to transform Wikiversity from an authentic learning community into a dramaturgy workshop featuring a post-modern theater of the absurd. But given that's what it became, I am prepared to work with that.

After all, I do have an express learning agenda relating to dramaturgy and the bardic arts. It's a learning agenda I set forth over a decade ago, and which the NSF is very interested in.
Sure. Welcome. The role I play will depend a little on which roles you choose. One of the possible approaches, in fact, would involve establishing a partition between accounts. If you could, in fact, establish a clear partition with an acknowledged sock, it might be possible to arrange that a "behaving" sock is unblocked, and the "bad boy" sock is not. That's possible from theory. In practice, the communities have largely adopted a more punitive model.

Quite a trick if I could get Wikiversity to go for that one. But it's not utterly impossible, and one device would involve the self-reversion trick that really does pull out the teeth of reasons to block, it would remove all reason to block the IP. Indeed, it would allow most blocks of good-faith users to be converted to "topic bans," of small scope or even full wiki scope.

This self-reversion thing, I hope to explore on the WV policy pages. Basic would be a policy establishing that IP is not to be blocked if it is only being used for self-reverted edits that don't require revision deletion. I.e., thoroughly non-disruptive edits, compared to crap that is routinely allowed and that is work to revert or respond to.

Don't want to cooperate with that, fine, your choice. But then the insistent unreverted IP editing while blocked it does make the IP blocks legitimate.


Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 12th August 2010, 3:57pm) *
I've been corrected in that a globally locked user can log in. I based my previous view that they couldn't on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locked_global_account. I point this out because I think the people here will get a kick out of the original author of the page and how it hasn't been updated.

Let's go to the video tape...

QUOTE(History page)
14:14, 18 October 2009 Cbrown1023 (talk | contribs) (548 bytes) (parallel syntax)
12:23, 18 October 2009 Manticore (talk | contribs) m (553 bytes) (wording)
00:49, 18 September 2009 Newyorkmets2000 (talk | contribs) (545 bytes)
16:07, 6 April 2009 Dferg (talk | contribs) (544 bytes) (proof)
16:06, 6 April 2009 86.94.36.40 (talk) (563 bytes) (Undo revision 1223095 by 71.224.11.211 (talk))
01:28, 10 October 2008 71.224.11.211 (talk) (544 bytes) (grammar...) (
01:25, 10 October 2008 Cometstyles (talk | contribs) m (544 bytes) (+moar)
00:30, 10 October 2008 Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) m (511 bytes) (wf)
00:29, 10 October 2008 Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) (432 bytes) (create)

Soo... What does the page say?

QUOTE(Locked global account)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locked_global_account

Locked accounts are unified accounts which have been locked by a Steward. This is done to stop abuse such as spamming, vandalizing, or creating malicious account names. Locked users may not log in to their account - this means that they cannot perform any actions on any wikimedia wiki (like a blocked user). Furthermore, they cannot edit their preferences, or view or change their watchlist.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Greg nor I have ever been accused of spamming, vandalizing, or creating malicious account names. What we have done is criticize the practices of Wikipedia and its sister projects when those practices deviated so far from Ethical Best Practices to veer into the realm of corrupt practices.

And most of those criticisms were published off-wiki.

Moreover, http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/search?q=ArbCom.

Posted by: JWSchmidt

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 12th August 2010, 12:57pm) *

....get a kick out of the original author of the page.....

I'd prefer fewer kicks, accusations of trolling, blocks, page deletions, edit reverts and bans and more time spent creating educational resources and participating in learning projects.

Posted by: Abd

Well, I really did not anticipate that Mike.lifeguard would be this stupid. He's probably burning out.

Wikibooks User:Mike.lifeguard

This user is an administrator, bureaucrat, and checkuser on governor of the English Wikibooks.

He's claiming, with his http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=prev&oldid=1910418 (at this moment), that he hasn't had to IAR yet. Right. He didn't ignore the rules, he trampled on them, tore them up, and spat on them.

Too long have the wikis looked the other way when this happened. I've seen signs for a while that Mike's days are numbered. They get this way toward the end.

Mike is in total denial about the page that is in front of him. He's ascribing it to trolls. Okay

report started by Panic2k4. User, reviewer. Active since 2004.
support from Adrignola to review this. Bureaucrat, Administrator. Renamed the account to delink it from the SUL. Unblocked Thekohser, finally, from the discussion.
support from JWSchmidt. Well, okay. One troll. (Schmidt has clearly been being as disruptive as possible, practically daring Wikiversity to block him. I think it fits the classic definition of troll. Durova has some cute troll sock puppets. Trolls serve a purpose too.) earliest Wikibooks edits: 2004. I notice something strange about JWS's comment here. It's like it's a different person from what I've seen on Wikiversity. So maybe he's not trolling on WB at all.
and then dissent from Mike.lifeguard. (Governor. You'd think from the comments.)
I (Abd) commented to let them know about the parallel effort on Wikiversity.
Arlen22 couldn't find anything Thekohser had done wrong. User since July 2009, about 1500 edits roughly.

Mike.lifeguard denied he was acting as a steward. Mike wheel-warred with Adrignola.

Popcorn?




Posted by: Abd

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=2075549#Mike.lifeguard.40enwikibooks

Mike.lifeguard http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=2075549#Mike.lifeguard.40enwikibooks from himself and Adrignola today, and it was promptly done. No reason given. Coincidence? I think not.

If I'm correct, Mike still has checkuser as a steward. So basically he used this maneuver to remove it from Adrignola, who was not being properly subservient to the Governor.

Did somebody fart?

Posted by: thekohser

Mike http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=next&oldid=1910386:

QUOTE
Sorry, it is you who fails to realize that the user is banned. From all WMF wikis. End of story.


Such a bossy man! He must really be a catch for the ladies, all that testosterone raging. I'll bet he drives a Lotus or a Porsche.

Anyway, has Mikey not noticed that I've been working the past couple of months on both English Wikisource and the Wikimedia Commons (and lordy, lordy, have you seen the disruption I've caused?!), or is he working his way over to those projects tonight, too?

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th August 2010, 4:02am) *

Such a bossy man! He must really be a catch for the ladies http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Wikimedians&diff=1442079&oldid=1417594, all that testosterone raging. I'll bet he drives a Lotus or a Porsche.

There, I fixed that for you.

Posted by: Moulton

Hoof-Hearted

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:29pm) *
Did somebody fart?

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&oldid=1910490#An_Outside_View_on_Bills_of_Attainder

Source: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Moulton#Comments_on_Cormaggio.27s_Reflections

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yeah, this will end well. yecch.gif

Just curious, how does one determine if a Wikibooks user is checkuser or bureaucrat?
I can't see any evidence that Mike's request to pull Adrignola's CU power actually went thru.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 13th August 2010, 6:41am) *

Yeah, this will end well. yecch.gif

Just curious, how does one determine if a Wikibooks user is checkuser or bureaucrat?
I can't see any evidence that Mike's request to pull Adrignola's CU power actually went thru.

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Adrignola

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 13th August 2010, 6:41am) *
How does one determine if a Wikibooks user is checkuser or bureaucrat?

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=bureaucrat&limit=50
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50

Posted by: SB_Johnny

And isn't http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=prev&oldid=1910509 interesting!

QUOTE
The discussion, for me, is TL;DR. My only opinion on the issue is, we are not a bureaucracy. A globally blocked troll can turn good, and become a valuable member of any community. In real life, people sentenced to prison for life sometimes get released after years in jail, because it is evident that they have turned good. A person who is banned from some place is not necessarily evil, like Magwitch from Great Expectations. I'm sure everyone believes that if British authorities let Magwitch back into the coutry and Magwitch is not too weak, he could still continue to contribute to the country in a positive way. If after Kohs is unblocked, he contributes to the project in a positive way, then he should be unblocked. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


This is, of course, the same young man who Greg and Allison recently advised on the subject of putting pix of one's underpants on commons. Jimbo's "useless troll" theory is getting harder to uphold by the day.

Posted by: Moulton

Yes indeed. Magwitch. Jean Valjean. Aslan. Thoreau. Gandhi. King. Mandela.

Who else was imprisoned for a time?

Let's see.

Oh yes...

Socrates. Galileo. Jesus.

Seems to me there are plenty of examples from literature, from history, from myth and legend.

And then let us not forget http://www.innocenceproject.org/.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 5:02am) *
Hoof-Hearted
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 12th August 2010, 11:29pm) *
Did somebody fart?

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&oldid=1910490#An_Outside_View_on_Bills_of_Attainder

Source: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Moulton#Comments_on_Cormaggio.27s_Reflections
Then more than one person did, because the stink was evident before you posted that.

On most wikis, even if people don't like the blocks and reverts, they don't seem to realize that they can revert the edits back in if they think them positive or at least harmless contributions. Most editors aren't even aware of this activity, but I always do wonder about those who are.

"Troll" is grossly uncivil, even when there is a possible "disruptive" intention. If a community allows a sysop to make gratuitous edit summaries like that, the foot of community disintegration is in the door. "Rv per block of Moulton" would be quite adequate and legitimate, and that Mike.lifeguard feels safe in going beyond that, with the rest of his comments on Wikibooks, shows that he firmly believes, le wiki c'est moi. He is firmly in control and nobody is going to challenge that and get away with it.

So, he yanked Adrignola's checkuser privileges, using an undocumented, as far as I could find, privilege, i.e., he requested his own be withdrawn (apparently he doesn't need it, because he's a steward, he has it already) plus Adrignola's. No reason given. Mike.lifeguard does not need reasons to issue executive orders, he's in charge.

Right? Now, the question has been raised in the Wikibooks Reading Room, as to how strong the local community is. Mike apparently claims and believes that it is not strong enough to "resist trolling," i.e., requests from long-time local users, and actions in support of apparent consensus by a 'crat. So, indeed, is the community strong enough to resist domination and control by a single privileged user?

Wikipedia was strong enough for that, where it fell down was with factions of privileged users, the system prohibiting wheel-warring resists single-user domination, but two or three administrators can wreak havoc, and, if there is a substantial faction (still small compared to the administrative community size), it can take months of wrangling before ArbComm to get even a weak response.

Change policy? A relatively small but determined faction can successfully resist that by preventing consensus from forming. Consider the request at meta to remove the Founder flag from Jimbo. At first, this was only based on the actions at Wikiversity, and the !vote was running 2:1 against it, with a relatively small -- but still significant -- number of participants, with frequent claims from those opposed that this was just trolling and that it was preposterous and why was it even being permitted?

Then Jimbo cleverly called wider attention to the problem by deleting images out-of-process on Commons, the !votes flipped fairly rapidly, to 4:1 for removal, with about 500 !votes. On the removal side were many long-time WMF volunteers. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory. Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools, which was enough of a compromise that it took the wind out of the sails of the Remove faction. Even though there was a clear consensus for "remove." (I agree, by the way, with that compromise. Unless he clearly abuses it, Jimbo should have the ability to watch what is going on, at all levels. I proposed, by the way, that the Founder flag also be given to Sanger, as a courtesy, and it is now safe, Sanger could not now start blocking people, etc.)

Now, apparently, Mike.lifeguard is taking Jimbo's earllier bluster, dicta in a Wikiversity discussion, as holy writ ("global ban!"), and is setting himself up as the religious governor of Wikibooks, pursuing the clear teachings (he thinks) of his Master. Except the Master is still around, and I rather doubt he's pushing Mike into this. Jimbo has, thus far, avoided comment, if he's aware of the developing situation.

Mike is causing major damage at Wikibooks. People read stuff like that discussion and simply leave, when they realize that the uncivil domination is coming from someone who, on the face, is highly privileged and respected. It's only a few who will stick around and poke sticks at the bear, to demonstrate how dangerous the bear is. "Trolls." God bless them.

By all means, if the trolls violate policy, block them. But don't curse them, don't insult them, and, all too often, what is called "trolling" is simply cogent criticism that the Defender of the Wiki (i.e., himself) does not want to trouble himself to address.

Problem? Moi? But that is an Intrinsic Contradiction, because I am the Definition of Morality and Ethics.

Posted by: Moulton

Care to revert http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=1910553&oldid=1910510 back in?

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 10:15pm) *

Yes indeed. Magwitch. Jean Valjean. Aslan. Thoreau. Gandhi. King. Mandela.

Who else was imprisoned for a time?

Let's see.

Oh yes...

Socrates. Galileo. Jesus.

Seems to me there are plenty of examples from literature, from history, from myth and legend.

And then let us not forget http://www.innocenceproject.org/.


Also Hitler was imprisoned at Landsberg, though he would look the odd-one out with the above.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 13th August 2010, 11:06am) *

So, he yanked Adrignola's checkuser privileges, using an undocumented, as far as I could find, privilege, i.e., he requested his own be withdrawn (apparently he doesn't need it, because he's a steward, he has it already) plus Adrignola's. No reason given. Mike.lifeguard does not need reasons to issue executive orders, he's in charge.


I may be wrong, but I believe the gambit there is that no project is allowed to have only one CheckUser. The idea being that the second or third CheckUser is a "check" (pun intended) on the other one(s). So, when Mike withdrew as CheckUser, that just left one CheckUser, which isn't permitted. Checkmate. (Pun again intended.)

It makes it even more clear that Mike is just playing political games that actually hurt the independence of the various smaller projects.

Posted by: Moulton

I agree with the view that Mike is "gaming the system."

Posted by: thekohser

Mike.lifeguard is also a repetitive http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=prev&oldid=1910671.

QUOTE
No, Thekohser won't be unblocked. He's banned from all WMF wikis.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Route_11.jpg&oldid=42550299, Mike. You're http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kohs-Block-Design_tests-1920.pdf/20&diff=prev&oldid=2006772.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 13th August 2010, 8:06am) *

Now, apparently, Mike.lifeguard is taking Jimbo's earllier bluster, dicta in a Wikiversity discussion, as holy writ ("global ban!"), and is setting himself up as the religious governor of Wikibooks, pursuing the clear teachings (he thinks) of his Master. Except the Master is still around, and I rather doubt he's pushing Mike into this. Jimbo has, thus far, avoided comment, if he's aware of the developing situation.


Well, Mr Burns Jimbo probably is, but he knows that Smithers Mike.lifeguard is watching his ass back. Loyalty is such a wonderful thing. smile.gif

Image
Image

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 12:07pm) *

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50

So presumably there are no checkusers left on Wikibooks.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 13th August 2010, 12:14pm) *

This is, of course, the same young man who Greg and Allison recently advised on the subject of putting pix of one's underpants on commons.

So does that mean that he is an exceptionally intelligent and perspicacious young man whose views are worthy of particular respect?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Fri 13th August 2010, 5:21pm) *

So does that mean that he is an exceptionally intelligent and perspicacious young man whose views are worthy of particular respect?

Perhaps it means he is a fast learner.

And that is worthy of respect.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 7:06pm) *

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Fri 13th August 2010, 5:21pm) *

So does that mean that he is an exceptionally intelligent and perspicacious young man whose views are worthy of particular respect?

Perhaps it means he is a fast learner.

And that is worthy of respect.

Yup, that was half of the implication. The other half had to do with the potential value in Greg's "trolling".

Pretty sad when Moulton has to explain something, non-Ulster man. laugh.gif

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Fri 13th August 2010, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 12:07pm) *

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50

So presumably there are no checkusers left on Wikibooks.


The stewards who don't edit Wikibooks are now allowed to run checkusers on the project.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey


I just want to say how unconscionable I think Greg's behavior has been in all this. It used to be that a simple banning was enough to get a body a minimum of respect around here — but now a dude don't hardly rate without getting himself banned from the whole damn wiki-planet.
Nobody likes a curve-buster, Greg
!!!

Jon mad.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 13th August 2010, 2:37pm) *

Full-Width Image




Posted by: trenton

Looks like mike is giving Gerard a run for the biggest jackass in wikiland.

Next he'll be telling everybody that he's in discussion with the board to close wikibooks if he doesn't get his way rolleyes.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Fri 13th August 2010, 9:21pm) *

So does that mean that he is an exceptionally intelligent and perspicacious young man whose views are worthy of particular respect?
Nohttp://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=61029 but that's a very interesting word.

Posted by: Adrignola

I won't be resigning, as that would leave the project with Mike as the only bureaucrat. Unlike CheckUser, there is no rule that a project can only have a single bureaucrat. Mike would then have sole determination on who can become an administrator.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 14th August 2010, 8:37am) *

I won't be resigning, as that would leave the project with Mike as the only bureaucrat. Unlike CheckUser, there is no rule that a project can only have a single bureaucrat. Mike would then have sole determination on who can become an administrator.


I don't want to sound pushy, but I think you could be doing a bit more than simply "not resigning".

You're being pushed around by a bully who claims that there is some back-room deal with the WMF to keep me off all WMF projects. I edited Commons and Wikisource just yesterday, though. (You will also note that there's not been one peep of trouble with either of those projects, for months on end. The only projects where there's trouble regarding me are those where Jimbo and Mike Lifeguard have elected to make blocking me a Big Issue.)

Anyhow, if I may recommend... simply call Lifeguard's bluff. If this is truly an "OFFICE"-backed pogrom, then let them publicly announce that condition and give their rationale. I'm sure it will be sufficiently defamatory and wrongful that my attorney can handle it from there.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 14th August 2010, 12:37pm) *

I won't be resigning, as that would leave the project with Mike as the only bureaucrat. Unlike CheckUser, there is no rule that a project can only have a single bureaucrat. Mike would then have sole determination on who can become an administrator.

You really can't find a third person? I'm sure poet-guy's around somewhere.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th August 2010, 2:01pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 13th August 2010, 11:06am) *
So, he yanked Adrignola's checkuser privileges, using an undocumented, as far as I could find, privilege, i.e., he requested his own be withdrawn (apparently he doesn't need it, because he's a steward, he has it already) plus Adrignola's. No reason given. Mike.lifeguard does not need reasons to issue executive orders, he's in charge.
I may be wrong, but I believe the gambit there is that no project is allowed to have only one CheckUser. The idea being that the second or third CheckUser is a "check" (pun intended) on the other one(s). So, when Mike withdrew as CheckUser, that just left one CheckUser, which isn't permitted. Checkmate. (Pun again intended.)

It makes it even more clear that Mike is just playing political games that actually hurt the independence of the various smaller projects.
It's a weird rule, because how do you get the first checkuser? From the http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Administrators#Timeline_of_positions, indeed, there were always two.

Here is what I suspect, in addition to a sheer fit of pique. Mike didn't want Adrignola looking over his shoulder. Mike has been asked if he would use his ability as a steward to use checkuser. He said "he didn't have any plans to," a classic CYA comment to defuse a question without actually promising anything.

However, ... SB_Johnny could fix this situation, but asking, together with Adrignola, for the ops back. I hestitate to ask, he practically bit my head off for suggesting that he return to Wikiversity. But he did it. The current !vote to unblock is 8:2.

There remain people, here and there, worried that somehow stewards will toss lightning bolts from the clouds if anyone dares unblock Thekohser, but the bold (and highly experienced) Wikibooks user who led the discussion on Wikibooks asked Pathoschild, the steward who had actually set the block there, for comment. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pathoschild&oldid=2072611#Unblock_proceedings_at_Wikibooks

De.wikipedia unblocked Thekohser back in May. They probably haven't noticed that the global lock was replaced. Who knew? Mike.lifeguard does not appear to have notified anybody, and he never mentions that the one setting the global lock was him. He just asserts, but blunt vehemence, "He's banned, and that's final."

Will Wikibooks take this lying down? What I'm getting is, no, they won't. They are just taking it slowly and carefully (which is what I advised, not that these were grasshoppers). If Mike doesn't back down, proceedings will start to yank his bits, and this could end up reaching up to meta. Conduct unbecoming of a steward, leading to disruption and conflict between WMF wikis and meta, etc.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 11:21am) *
Care to revert http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/General&diff=1910553&oldid=1910510 back in?
Not I, said the fly. If there are no Wikibooks users with cojones, they will not have the benefit of your comments unless they read them in history.

Speaking of this, I need to bring up, on Wikiversity, Adambro's more or less threat to block me for reverting back in acceptable Moulton posts.... He won't have a shred of support from the community, I predict, except maybe Ottava. Or maybe not. Ottava sometimes gets it right, when he's had some time to simmer down.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 14th August 2010, 8:37am) *
I won't be resigning, as that would leave the project with Mike as the only bureaucrat. Unlike CheckUser, there is no rule that a project can only have a single bureaucrat. Mike would then have sole determination on who can become an administrator.
Please don't resign.... There is no need, just because Mike is a bully. That's been known for a long time....

He's hardly active on Wikibooks at all.

You have the support of the community there, such as it is. Communities are almost always slow to address stuff like this. Mike is out on a limb, busy sawing it off. Give him some time to cut further through the branch. He's gotten confused about which side of the branch Thekohser is on.

Key fact: Pathoschild's explicit statement on meta, when asked, of "no objection" to local action to unblock on Wikibooks. That's a steward, and that shows that Mike is certainly not representing the Foundation or the consensus of stewards.