FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Jimbo calls for global ban on Thekohser -
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of pent up anger. 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)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined:
Member No.: 19,790
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 9:36pm)
Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of pent up anger. 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE
Hi. Please enforce the global ban on Thekohser declared by Jimbo Wales in this edit. 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?"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
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.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 6:36pm)
Jimbo must not like living in a trailer park. Seems he has a lot of pent up anger. 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Only the solar system and galactic bans are more awesome, Ms. Universe. Gotta be the trailer park. What else?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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 The Shaggs will attest.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Phew, I can see why they'd want to ban me from Wikimedia Commons! Look at that line-up of contributions -- practically all of them fixated on tormenting Jimbo Wales.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 "per request" mean?
Jimbo loves the Truth, except when the subject is Jimbo.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Oooh, now this is interesting. It would appear that a few members of the English Wikisource community retain a spine of their own. 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.
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)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:28pm)
I commented 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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
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 Wikipedia and social entropy, 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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th May 2010, 4:40pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 4th May 2010, 2:28pm)
I commented 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.
I commented 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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
The Latitude of the Platitude is Inversely Proportional to the Incisiveness of the Attitude.
And Dat … sometimes … generally … Is Dat, Eh, Dude —
Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined:
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
&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 retain a spine of their own. 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.
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 :
: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...
# 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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 10,522
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)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
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 "if the leader is an idiot". 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!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 hit a double for the Wikisource team, 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.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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, provocative? 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 a jab at Jimbo et al 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
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 Jeff Guinzburg, 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 massage photos. He even has his own fan club.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 Jeff Guinzburg, 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 massage photos... He even has his own fan club.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 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.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I have submitted unblock requests on various Wikimedia projects where I have been blocked. So we'll see how that goes. Tried my first "table conversion" in Wikisource today. That was cool.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 all important 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 contributions page and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 all important 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 contributions page and note that I'm obviously not "permanently blocked" from Wikimedia projects if I was just editing this morning.
Current revision as of 17:13, 6 May 2010 (view source) Abigor (talk | contribs) m (Protected "Public speakers": Counter-productive edit warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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 all important 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 contributions page 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 all important 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 contributions page 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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 blocked Guido 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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, Abigor extended the block 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Meta, edit warring 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:35pm)
QUOTE
Current revision as of 17:13, 6 May 2010 (view source) 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:31pm)
Meta, edit warring 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 6th May 2010, 2:31pm)
Meta, edit warring 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.
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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
And the purge continues now to Wikibooks, where I've been notified that my block there is "indefinite", but that I am "welcome to come back after the block expires".
I guess Wikibooks found my contributions 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.)
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 these Wikisource contributions "amount to a breaching experiment at some level or another", as he says?
And the purge continues now to Wikibooks, where I've been notified that my block there is "indefinite", but that I am "welcome to come back after the block expires".
I guess Wikibooks found my contributions 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, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Ye maggots, make your windings; But O, respect his lordship's taste, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â And spare the golden bindings!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It would appear that Mike Lifeguard is unaware of my activity on Wikisource and my (recent) unblocking on Wikinews. Perhaps someone should educate him on the meaning of the word "all".
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
This particular edit 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 certain Wikipediots who don't mind at all being made to look foolish and blind.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 personally removed 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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.
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>
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 contributes there. The same can't be said for his master.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It would appear that Abigor/Huib has demonstrated 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 this, this, or this from me.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 13th May 2010, 11:30am)
It would appear that Abigor/Huib has demonstrated 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 AN discussion 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 currently blocked on Commons. Mess. 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this, this, or this 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
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 this, this, or this 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.
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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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?
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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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?
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I see that the libel of my character 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.
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st May 2010, 8:16pm)
I see that the libel of my character 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st May 2010, 4:16pm)
I see that the libel of my character 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
“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.â€
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
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."
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."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
You edited Talk:Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon, noting that a sentence had an unnecessary comma. Unforgivable.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
This weekend on those NPR affiliates that carry Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, you can hear host Peter Sagal rib Neil Sedaka 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).
This weekend on those NPR affiliates that carry Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, you can hear host Peter Sagal rib Neil Sedaka 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).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It would appear that JzG and Herby rule the roost at Wikimedia Commons.
JzG is convinced that this 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 like this. (And why isn't that page searchable on Google? I guess the Editors forum is privatized?)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Am I seriously still blocked on English Wikiversity? 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?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 2:19pm)
Am I seriously still blocked on English Wikiversity? 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 efforts 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 this 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 27th May 2010, 6:19pm)
Am I seriously still blocked on English Wikiversity? 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.
Adambro 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 28th May 2010, 4:06am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th May 2010, 2:17pm)
It would appear that JzG and Herby rule the roost 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 this 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 efforts 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 My RfA. 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 this 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 this one) which they can then misrepresent, abrogate, or otherwise weasel out of.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this one) 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....
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined:
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039
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 meta, 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined:
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this comment 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....
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 peer-reviewed reports 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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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?
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!!!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Well, not only is my image not restored (yet), but Herby is looking for an apology 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:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 10:59am)
Well, not only is my image not restored (yet), but Herby is looking for an apology 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....
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 English Wikiversity? 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.
Adambro 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 NetKnowledge, where they will not be encumbered and impeded by Adambro's oppressive thumb.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 English Wikiversity? 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.
Adambro 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 NetKnowledge, 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 NetKnowledge, 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 appears 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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 appears 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 this Yahoo! Answers inquiry:
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 appear 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 this, to this. Good for you, Wikisource!
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this Yahoo! Answers inquiry:
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.
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 5th August 2010, 9:42am)
Apparently, Jimbo's global ban does not have the strength to halt "version 2" accounts 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).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 "version 2" accounts on sites like Wikibooks.
Wikibooks flies under the radar of most Wikimedians. Not much drama, but not much going on period.
Well, there is this, of course, which you kindly pointed out to me privately:
QUOTE
00:58, 6 August 2010 Jyothis (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Thekohser-v.2@global": Set locked; Unset (none) ‎ (Sock of a banned user)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 "version 2" accounts on sites like Wikibooks.
Wikibooks flies under the radar of most Wikimedians. Not much drama, but not much going on period.
Well, there is this, of course, which you kindly pointed out to me privately:
QUOTE
00:58, 6 August 2010 Jyothis (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Thekohser-v.2@global": 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 Community Review on 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, confirmed that my block of Ottava had been proper, in a cogent and coherent comment, and then proceeded to warn Ottava.
"Warn me? Who does he think he is?"
If anyone here wants to be supportive of Ottava, review the discussion on his talk page 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined:
Member No.: 8,237
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...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
It does appear that the Wikibooks leadership community seems to have a better read 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, one particular culprit will have solid ground to claim that he's very much a part of the Wikibooks community, so his rule will be law.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 9th August 2010, 3:58pm)
I'm curious, how is the user supposed to himself request an unblock, if the person saying that 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sun 8th August 2010, 7:07pm)
For those interested, Mike.lifeguard has posted 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.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 I posted on Bishonen's WP talk page, 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Okay, we'll see 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th August 2010, 9:22am)
Okay, we'll see 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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 continued your "brilliant" theory, 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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
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 "sin twice against Philosophy" 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 his role in crafting the language of a Model Community Agreement.
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 this exercise in self-examination?
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 examination 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 annotated libretto.
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 Jimbo did declare, "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 prediction 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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this. 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 this exercise?
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.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 this exercise?
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 Ottava's Exercise 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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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, a sinking ship.
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
I've been corrected in that a globally locked user can log in. I based my previous view that they couldn't on this page. 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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 this page. 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)
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 last edit (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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
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!!!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined:
Member No.: 8,237
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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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 history chart, 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. No objection to following local consensus.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
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.
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.
I forget what the license is. Is it CC by SA? Whatever it is, those posts of mine, which simply present a view based on my interpretation of lessons from American history, may be reproduced by anyone, per the terms of the applicable license.
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 14th August 2010, 8:36pm)
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.
Same story. The contributions which I posted on WV (including an estimated 447 deleted revisions for 20 deleted pages*) are similarly reproducible by anyone per the same CC by SA license. Most of the deleted pages have been restored, variously on Beta.Wikiversity or on NetKnowledge.
* This is User:darklama's "rough count," as reported in IRC yesterday (#wikiversity-en at 2:35 PM EDT).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 14th August 2010, 6:42pm)
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.
Well, just as a reminder, Mike is just doing the sort of "consensus manufacturing" that WP insiders have done before. One powerful bureaucrat, who isn't even a participant on Wikibooks, is successfully bullying the Wikibooks "community". The guy is a robot. An insane liar who cannot be reasoned with.
QUOTE
........As I said before: He's banned. On all WMF wikis. For good reason. Now, let's all go do something productive instead of continuing this nonsense. – mike@en.wb:~$ 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
.......That said, there actually is an end to the community's forgiveness. Thekohser is well beyond it, and he's been asked to leave. That won't be changing. So, please, let's find something useful to spend our energies on. – mike@en.wb:~$ 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.........Obviously he can't be unblocked if that's the case, so I've undone that action. – mike@en.wb:~$ 01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
.........Sorry, it is you who fails to realize that the user is banned. From all WMF wikis. End of story. – mike@en.wb:~$ 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
..........Is the Wikibooks community so weak that anyone can waltz in and tell us to unblock a notorious troll and we actually listen to them instead of blocking them too? We must be in worse shape than I imagined! – mike@en.wb:~$ 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
..........No, Thekohser won't be unblocked. He's banned from all WMF wikis. – mike@en.wb:~$ 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If Adrignola and the other WB admins just stood up to him, this idiocy would end.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
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.
How did that happen? There were 5 just a little while ago!
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 14th August 2010, 9:30pm)
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.
Like Commons, Wikibooks has a "minimum activity level" for sysops (pushed through by ML and a few others a couple years ago), so I wouldn't qualify even if I wanted to do that.
Sorry for biting your head off. I was already tired of the WV drama 2 years ago, and am not too pleased about being drafted to counterbalance the madman who has taken it over.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Mafia Wars on Facebook vs Tribal Warfare of Wikibooks
During the year that I tuned out of WikiLand, I spent some time playing Mafia Wars on Facebook. It's not a terribly fun MMPORG, but I was curious to understand what the attraction was. Turns out it's a bit like playing the slot machines. It's just a banal Dopamine-Driven Addiction. The problem with such games is that that they are fairly mindless. Like playing the slots, you just pull the levers (or push the mouse buttons) and there is almost no strategy involved.
What's interesting about the Game of Tribal Warfare in Wikiland is that it's not just a Dopamine Driven Addiction. Like Chess, Checkers, or Go, there is a certain amount of strategy involved in Gaming the System. One can be creative and devise new gambits, and occasionally win an Endorphin High.
Yes, I thought so. The guy can't get away with lying in public, so he sends email to hoodwink another editor. Who then repeats what s/he's been told, as if it were fact.
If it were fact, it could be represented on-wiki, with evidence.
It's just blarney, at best. Too bad for Arlen. Sad case.
"Foul play on the part of Jimbo" shows that this editor does not at all understand the issues. There is no need to determine "foul play" on Jimbo's part, and a block that might have been appropriate, say, five months ago, perhaps to make a point, might not be appropriate today. "Jimbo" is really completely irrelevant now. The issue is the welfare of Wikibooks, and that should not be terribly difficult to understand. If Thekohser is unblocked there, it is not going to damage the other wikis or the WMF, unless he is both totally unsupervised -- nobody watching -- and he decides to abuse the privilege, which would actually defeat his "evil plan," i.e., to thumb his nose at Jimbo by ...
are you ready, this is really awful!
Are you sure you are ready? Brace yourself!
... making useful edits.
My God, no wonder they want to block him. The guy will make positive contributions, thus absolutely humiliating Jimbo! He will die of shame!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th August 2010, 5:42am)
Like Commons, Wikibooks has a "minimum activity level" for sysops (pushed through by ML and a few others a couple years ago), so I wouldn't qualify even if I wanted to do that.
That is colossally stupid. The community then loses its most experienced servants, just because they do something else for a while. Was there some problem with senile servants returning and trashing the place? On the other hand, this policy favors the insane but currently active, because then the senior servants can't return and restore some sanity.
QUOTE
Sorry for biting your head off. I was already tired of the WV drama 2 years ago, and am not too pleased about being drafted to counterbalance the madman who has taken it over.
He hasn't actually taken over, it has just seemed that way because nobody was willing to do what it takes to confront him.
Frankly, I was quite surprised to find myself in that position. He'd been helpful to me. But ... enough is enough. He's betraying the trust that the community placed in him. The minor trust he placed in me is nothing compared to that.
Now he's threatening to block me, repeatedly, for using collapse boxes to make my long comments look short.... i.e., respecting that some people may not want to read them. He just doesn't get it, does he?
I've asked Geoff Plourde to talk some sense into him if he has rapport. I don't know if anyone does, though. If Ottava blocks me for what I've done, I'd say I get a nice little rest and he loses his bit. What do you think? I've advised him against it, but I also advised William M. Connolley on Wikipedia against what he did. I think the presumptuousness of the advice infuriated him. What, him tell me what I can and can't do?
I also begged a friend of WMC, TenOfAllTrades to advise WMC that he was headed off a cliff. The friend screamed that I was grandstanding for ArbComm. Okay, so what if I was? What an idiot! The result, his friend lost his bit.
Sometimes I don't follow up on stuff, I have a life. But I don't make empty threats or give empty warnings.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Sitting on the Fence: Thrust or Parry?
QUOTE(Arlen22)
I oppose the ban of User:Thekohser since no evidence for a block has been brought forth. Nor does there appear to be any. Arlen22 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Meanwhile, on Wikibooks, does anyone find it interesting that Mike.lifeguard's user page and user talk page are the most linked-to user and user talk pages on that entire wiki? He receives more links than even the pages:
Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines ‎(3,405 links)
Wikibooks:Welcome ‎(3,356 links)
Wikibooks:Reading room ‎(2,833 links)
What does this say about the importance to Wikibooks of Mike.lifeguard? May we speculate whether this is by Mike's design, or by the design of the Wikibooks community, or both, or neither?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th August 2010, 6:42am)
I some political environments, a 72.7% share of the electorate would be considered a landslide. At Wikiversity, it's more like a mudslide, I guess.
You can't just count votes. Look at the "reasons" for not unblocking:
"I am personally against the notion of taking active aims to unblock a globally banned user until the reasons for the global ban are fully understood....My opinion will have to stand as exactly that, my opinion."
"No. Thekohser has not agreed to solid behavioral guidelines and terms of editing...various instances of mischief to prove that there are problems with the system...cross wiki abuse...Stewards only lock and unlock based on the Foundation...If you want, I can provide multiple diffs...Mike.lifeguard is still given the privilege of his local custodian status",
"Thekohser has done harm...Thekohser was being critical of Jimbo....I could provide diffs if anyone doubted what I've said...My concerns are more to do with his behaviour and attitude than his ability to make useful contribs. No thanks."
In short, Thekohser was critical of Jimbo, the Foundation (Jimbo) requested the lock, which everyone knows is treated as a "global ban" that cannot be questioned.
I saw some physics nonsense on the Common Misunderstandings article on Wikipedia, I forget exactly what that article is called. Common Errors? Whatever.
There was one about why a hose squirts further when you restrict the opening. It was total nonsense, supposedly it is caused by friction in the hose, but ... hey, it was sourced to a popular book of common misunderstandings....
Eventually, I actually took a hose and demonstrated, totally to my satisfaction (and conclusively to anyone who followed it and understood it, it was very simple and easy to do), that my analysis was correct. The editor promoting that piece of nonsense was not impressed, he presented complex equations to prove I was wrong.
I sat with Feynman in freshman/sophomore physics, and skewering that kind of reliance on theory when there was experiment staring you in the face was one of his favorite activities.... Of course, this theory was totally bogus as applied in the situation. As the flow rate approaches zero, the pressure rises to the source pressure.
On Wikipedia, hey, Reliable Source. No matter how preposterous. In fact, there was just some guy's theory that he'd managed to get published without being carefully reviewed. There were not multiple independent sources, and even if there had been, anyone who actually knew physics would see through the error. But people who actually know a subject are helpless if Randy from Boise has friends in high places. Or is sitting in such a high place.
The solution is counter-intuitive. Allow editors to declare expert status (it's not necessary to verify it, though any verifiable claims should be true and not misleading). And then consider these editors COI, not allowed to edit the article contentiously (except perhaps with self-reversion, to suggest edits efficiently), but protect them from claims of POV-pushing in Talk. Allow non-abusive refactoring of what they write (experts will often write at length, irritating non-experts who aren't really interested in the topic), but never, ever, block them for POV-pushing. After all, they have a strong POV, which is quite what we expect from anyone with detailed knowledge of a subject. They will be biased.
They may be, if their expertise is genuine, biased toward the truth.... but it is their job, on Wikipedia, to establish their positions with reliable sources and reasoned argument. Just like any COI editor. Not by revert-warring.
But who wants solutions? That expert claim -> COI editor was rejected when I proposed it before ArbComm as part of RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, as preposterous, because "COI" is most often used as a way to try to get an editor blocked or banned. No, restricted to Talk is the proper response to COI. "COI" is not a badge of shame to be stuck on someone. Where did they ever get that idea?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 16th August 2010, 10:15am)
"I am personally against the notion of taking active aims to unblock a globally banned user until the reasons for the global ban are fully understood....My opinion will have to stand as exactly that, my opinion."
Yeah, wasn't that brilliant? The steward who set the most local blocks, if I'm correct, and the block summary, stated explicitly that local wikis were allowed to unblock.
"Fully understood" is beautiful when the global lock was set by a different steward, who has seriously and obviously avoided giving any clear reasons, and no reason has been given that this globally locked (not "blocked") user is harmful to the specific wikis where his unblock is being considered, and he's been unblocked on other wikis, with no harmful consequences.
The issue is local autonomy, really, and there is quite obviously some serious disagreement on this issue at meta and possibly above, at the Board level. This is why we aren't seeing guidance from the Board or from meta one way or the other. If there is truly a Foundation issue, it would be trivial for the Foundation to establish that, and it would be their way or the highway. But they also don't want us to take that highway, so .... some are probably hoping that the local wikis will simply forget about the issue, and they won't have to make a statement.
Just like they wish, on Wikipedia, that Scibaby will just get tired of playing his Whack-a-mole game, and they wished that Raul654 would just stop being obsessed about it, and they wished that William M. Connolley would just straighten up and fly right, like JzG before him. And they wish that critics would just shut up and go away.
Hint: they won't. People do not take well to repression, when they are free. And we are free.
And if we want to build enduring projects that require collaboration on a large scale, we must start to recognize the basic rules of large-scale voluntary cooperation. Another hint: those rules are contrary to actual practice on Wikipedia and sometimes the other wikis. It's amazingly obvious.
(By the way, to Moulton: the term "rules" does not mean, in this context, rigid law that must be strictly followed. It refers to general principles of how people interact, what is effective and what is not, normally, it is not in conflict with IAR and operation by consensus.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th August 2010, 9:42am)
For those keeping score, I currently count in answer to the question, "Should TheKohser be unblocked?" on English Wikiversity:
Yes - 8 votes
No - 3 votes
In some political environments, a 72.7% share of the electorate would be considered a landslide. At Wikiversity, it's more like a mudslide, I guess.
Nah, give it a bit more time. There are political realities, and it's up to the custodians and 'crats to make a decision in their own time.
If it becomes clear that no custodian will act, then it will have to wait, probably until Community Review removes those acting against that obvious consensus, making it quite safe for those who remain. And if no 'crat will act upon an obvious community consensus, perhaps because of some recusal consideration, then we'll go to meta and present evidence of the local consensus and the problem and request a steward fix the thing.
And if Mike.lifeguard attempts to sit on it, without consensus, he'll find teeth marks in his ass.
And there will be lots of people applauding. Mike is not really popular at meta, he's been pushing it for a long time. But he's a very active volunteer, or has been, and the powers that be are reluctant to push that away.... Standard WP and WMF problem/dilemma. Fear-based.
In fact, by tolerating abuse, they are constantly bleeding volunteers.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th August 2010, 5:42am)
Sorry for biting your head off. I was already tired of the WV drama 2 years ago, and am not too pleased about being drafted to counterbalance the madman who has taken it over.
But it's your own damned fault, SBJ. You left without providing an opportunity for the situation to stabilize, which took a few months. Ottava simply jumped into the power vacuum. Nevertheless, it's probably, in the end, a good thing that you left and that Ottava showed his colors. Better a few months of obvious difficulty than long-term bias and more subtle damage.
What we've got is a supposed university being basically run by some kids. Nothing against kids, but ... when they are exercising power over others, it's out of balance. With good structure, kids can actually do well running activities, that's not the problem. The problem is that the good structure wasn't there, and the good kids were driven away and the acting-out kids ended up running the place, control freaks and narcissists, who have no understanding of how to build true collaboration.
I saw some physics nonsense on the Common Misunderstandings article on Wikipedia, I forget exactly what that article is called. Common Errors? Whatever.
There was one about why a hose squirts further when you restrict the opening. It was total nonsense, supposedly it is caused by friction in the hose, but ... hey, it was sourced to a popular book of common misunderstandings....
The explanation may have been poorly written, but it's essentially the same mathematics as Ohm's Law. The pressure drop in a hose is proportional to the length of the hose times the impedance to longitudinal flow (essentially a result of Coulomb friction, which is in turn inversely related to the diameter of the hose) times volumetric flow of water coming out the nozzle. As the nozzle constricts the aperture of the exit, the rate of flow decreases, and so the pressure drop along the hose is correspondingly diminished. The difference between the pressure at the nozzle and the barometric pressure of the air determines the net force on the column of water as it exits the nozzle. The greater the force, the farther the jet will travel.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:01am)
Eventually, I actually took a hose and demonstrated, totally to my satisfaction (and conclusively to anyone who followed it and understood it, it was very simple and easy to do), that my analysis was correct. The editor promoting that piece of nonsense was not impressed, he presented complex equations to prove I was wrong.
You haven't exhibited your final analysis here, but if it was mathematically correct, then it would have been analogous to the Ohm's law analogy. From what I (briefly) read of your analysis on the cited talk page, it's not correct.
When you did your experiment, did you do one experiment with a very short length of hose, and a second experiment with a very long length of the same hose? Did you do experiments with hoses of different diameters? There is a reason garden hoses are sold in more than one diameter. If you want more flowage for a given length of hose, you have to use a larger diameter hose.
If you seriously care to diagnose the errors in your analysis, Abd, I'll take the time to do that with you. But only if you care to understand how your thinking went awry. If it's a matter of religious conviction (rather than mathematical science), then you are entitled to your religious convictions, whether they are accurate analytical beliefs or not.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:01am)
I sat with Feynman in freshman/sophomore physics, and skewering that kind of reliance on theory when there was experiment staring you in the face was one of his favorite activities.... Of course, this theory was totally bogus as applied in the situation. As the flow rate approaches zero, the pressure rises to the source pressure.
That part is true. But why does the pressure drop along the length of the hose as the rate of flow increases? Can you write down the analog of Ohm's Law for the case of a water hose? Can you parameterize the impedance as a function of the diameter of the hose?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:26am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th August 2010, 5:42am)
Sorry for biting your head off. I was already tired of the WV drama 2 years ago, and am not too pleased about being drafted to counterbalance the madman who has taken it over.
But it's your own damned fault, SBJ. You left without providing an opportunity for the situation to stabilize, which took a few months. Ottava simply jumped into the power vacuum. Nevertheless, it's probably, in the end, a good thing that you left and that Ottava showed his colors. Better a few months of obvious difficulty than long-term bias and more subtle damage.
What we've got is a supposed university being basically run by some kids. Nothing against kids, but ... when they are exercising power over others, it's out of balance. With good structure, kids can actually do well running activities, that's not the problem. The problem is that the good structure wasn't there, and the good kids were driven away and the acting-out kids ended up running the place, control freaks and narcissists, who have no understanding of how to build true collaboration.
Right. I was operating on the (badly mistaken) assumption that Ottava was capable of standing up to a responsibility and wiping his ass when it got poopy. I also had no idea that people would see him as some sort of community leader and give up on wiping their own asses.
It's not "my damned fault". I blame their parents, nannies, and kindergarten teachers. If you want me to take responsibility, you need to pay me (a lot) to do so. And yes, I want the dental plan.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 16th August 2010, 12:26pm)
There is a reason garden hoses are sold in more than one diameter. If you want more flowage for a given length of hose, you have to use a larger diameter hose.
Where the hell do you shop, Barry? Could you point me to these various diameter garden hoses available to me? And, can you show that the reason for this variation is "flowage" and not "durability" and "no kink" dynamics?
I seriously wonder if I am a consumer on the same planet as some of you dudes.
I saw some physics nonsense on the Common Misunderstandings article on Wikipedia, I forget exactly what that article is called. Common Errors? Whatever.
Thanks for the link. Yeah. That post was not the first, that was after I did the actual experiment.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:01am)
There was one about why a hose squirts further when you restrict the opening. It was total nonsense, supposedly it is caused by friction in the hose, but ... hey, it was sourced to a popular book of common misunderstandings....
The explanation may have been poorly written, but it's essentially the same mathematics as Ohm's Law. The pressure drop in a hose is proportional to the length of the hose times the impedance to longitudinal flow (essentially a result of Coulomb friction, which is in turn inversely related to the diameter of the hose) times volumetric flow of water coming out the nozzle. As the nozzle constricts the aperture of the exit, the rate of flow decreases, and so the pressure drop along the hose is correspondingly diminished. The difference between the pressure at the nozzle and the barometric pressure of the air determines the net force on the column of water as it exits the nozzle. The greater the force, the farther the jet will travel.
Sure, but you have neglected something. What is the "pressure drop along the hose"? It is practically zero. The resistance of a hose, along its length, is practically zero, compared to the other controlling resistances to flow. Non-viscous flow, Barry.
I have to remember that you have been associated with MIT. I was at Cal Tech, remember? We ate people like you for lunch. Heh! Hard to remember thinking like that! But we did.
Consider the electricity analogy. There is a circuit with high-resistance conductors and low-resistance conductors. The hose is very low resistance. The high resistance is probably in two places: where the main water line is connected to the house, possibly some additional constriction in the house piping, the valve from the house plumbing to the hose, and, then, if the end is constricted, the end of the hose with, say, your thumb over it. Reduction of pressure along the hose is practically zero, compared to the other high-resistance points.
The original question was whether or not the increase in pressure at the end of the hose, when you put your thumb over it, is due to the reduction of friction in the hose, i.e., reduction of pressure loss due to work being done in moving the water through the hose, or is it due to some cause. It is the latter. Mostly, it is, because the constriction moves the point of controlling resistance to flow to the end of the hose, from the prior position somewhere back in the line, such as the faucet. When the flow is reduced, the loss of pressure at the earlier constriction declines. If the flow is reduced to zero, the pressure at the end of the hose will be equal to the pressure in the pipes of the house.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:01am)
Eventually, I actually took a hose and demonstrated, totally to my satisfaction (and conclusively to anyone who followed it and understood it, it was very simple and easy to do), that my analysis was correct. The editor promoting that piece of nonsense was not impressed, he presented complex equations to prove I was wrong.
You haven't exhibited your final analysis here, but if it was mathematically correct, then it would have been analogous to the Ohm's law analogy. From what I (briefly) read of your analysis on the cited talk page, it's not correct.
I didn't use math, though I always had Ohm's law in mind.
QUOTE
When you did your experiment, did you do one experiment with a very short length of hose, and a second experiment with a very long length of the same hose?
I described the experiment adequately. Yes. Not a "very short length," 25 feet. Compared then with 50 feet, i.e., an additional length of hose of the same kind.
QUOTE
Did you do experiments with hoses of different diameters?
No. Not necessary, and a red herring.
QUOTE
There is a reason garden hoses are sold in more than one diameter. If you want more flowage for a given length of hose, you have to use a larger diameter hose.
Whether or not this is true depends on the setting and size of the pipes leading to the faucet and the faucet itself. If the hose is as large as the pipes leading to the valve, and larger (cross-sectional area) than the point of maximum constriction in the valve when it is fully open, then increasing the hose beyond that size will have little effect, unless the hose gets very long, in which case ... maybe. I did not try to analyze every case, it was not necessary.
QUOTE
If you seriously care to diagnose the errors in your analysis, Abd, I'll take the time to do that with you. But only if you care to understand how your thinking went awry. If it's a matter of religious conviction (rather than mathematical science), then you are entitled to your religious convictions, whether they are accurate analytical beliefs or not.
Insufferably arrogant, you are, Moulton. Maybe I am too, though. I made a prediction from theory, and then tested it with experiment, which matched the theory. You have? What?
It is really easy to get this one wrong. Of course I care to discover errors in my thinking. I just don't particularly expect it to come from you, here, even though you are a science educator.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 16th August 2010, 11:01am)
I sat with Feynman in freshman/sophomore physics, and skewering that kind of reliance on theory when there was experiment staring you in the face was one of his favorite activities.... Of course, this theory was totally bogus as applied in the situation. As the flow rate approaches zero, the pressure rises to the source pressure.
That part is true. But why does the pressure drop along the length of the hose as the rate of flow increases?
It doesn't. Not significantly, anyway. That's the point! You are assuming that it does! The "hose" is a cylinder of a certain diameter, with no internal impediments to motion. (Constrict it, and that's another story). Neglecting the elasticity of the hose, whatever enters one end of the hose must exit the other end. While I'm sure there is frictional resistance, it's very low, and it does not control the rate of flow in practice. What does?
The valve, dummy! (I think I would have said "Dork" as an undergrad at CIT, and we used to talk about "warm bodies." Know what a warm body is?
Consider this: water is effectively incompressible. The hose creates a column of water, and if the hose is horizontal along the ground, the pressure must be the same everywhere in the hose! If the end of the hose is open, what is the pressure there, before the column of water exits the confinement of the hose?
It's close to zero. Not zero, obviously, but so close to it that you probably wouldn't see the pressure on a pressure gauge. The pressure "pushing" the water through the hose is everywhere the same, i.e., it is a force acting on a column of water of a certain length. It is, as it were, a single object ,that column, assuming, again, no constrictions.
It's necessary to look at what happens at constrictions to understand the dynamics of this system. The constrictions control the flow rate, almost entirely, not the wider open lengths of pipe or hose. Once we are into a hose with an open end, no further constriction, we could open up the top of the hose and make it into a trough. The water would not fly up over the edges!
If we constrict the flow at the end of the hose, so that it becomes the controlling limitation on flow, the pressure will rise there, until a complete restriction will give us the full water pressure from the pipe beyond the open faucet.
In my experiment, I set the faucet about about half of full force, with a 25 foot length of hose, and I then timed how long it took to fill a bucket. It took 101 seconds. I added another 25 feet of hose, and the fill time was? What would you predict with your "friction" theory?
QUOTE
Can you write down the analog of Ohm's Law for the case of a water hose? Can you parameterize the impedance as a function of the diameter of the hose?
Yes, I could and I would have when I was sitting in the physics exam, having skipped many of the lectures. Though this problem would be a bit trivial for one of those exams, I suspect. (I did not take full advantage of having Feynman for a professor, I regret to remember. I was starting to get interested in Other Stuff besides science.) Let's see.
Hoses probably don't respond linearly to changes in flow rate, but I'll assume that they do, it will be a decent first approximation within limits, I expect.
Ohm's law, voltage -> pressure current -> flow rate resistance is not just friction, and friction is apparently, for non-viscous flow, largely negligible. That's the basic error that was made. The "resistance" is, in fact, the pressure divided by the flow rate.
So how does resistance vary with diameter of the hose? The problem is misleading. Rather, the issue is more easily understood by imagining a tank, with pressure in the tank varying with the depth of the liquid. Now, we have a hole in the side of the tank. We know the pressure at a certain depth. And we know the diameter of the hole. The pressure will accelerate a unit area, cross sectional, of water out the hole. Beyond the hole, the acceleration ceases, the pressure will be constant (and zero in the stream of water coming out). The cross sectional flow rate, then, varies directly with the pressure, for a given liquid, and it will also vary directly with the area of the hole. Edge effects at the hole which is where friction would be acting, are negligible for a non-viscous liquid; they would slightly reduce the effective cross-sectional area of the hole, that's all. They cannot effect the behavior of the liquid far from the edge, the water has no shear strength.
Now, connect a hose of equal diameter to the hole in the side of the tank. Perhaps this is a pipe welded to the tank, there is no restriction. Steady state (after the pipe/hose fills), how does this affect the flow rate? This analysis predicts that there will be no change in flow rate. The pipe could be of any length (provided that it's level, i.e., we can neglect hydrostatic pressure in the pipe.)
The flow rate, for a given pressure, depends on the cross-sectional area of the smallest restriction in the flow path. The larger regions are irrelevant. I'm assuming that all elements in the path length are at the same elevation, or else hydrostatics become involved.
Indeed, this analysis neglects friction, friction will not be totally zero. But with ordinary water, it is very, very low.
And I could go at this from the point of view of the laws of thermodynamics as well, looking at the potential energy of the water....
Now, there is one aspect of my experience that might not match these predictions. I have a length of hose with water flowing, the end of the hose is open. The hose is nowhere constricted more than the constriction at the faucet. I have the faucet turned on full blast. If the hose fitting is a bit loose, water will squirt out of the loose fitting, indicating pressure, instead of the very low pressure I predict. What's happening?
I think I know: at full blast, the valve has a larger cross-sectional area than the hose. The fitting also is a bit larger. So the point of maximum constriction is actually at the hose itself, so back of the hose, where the fitting is, on the faucet side, there is water pressure. And the water will squirt. This could be tested further, but the hypothesis, remember, was that in a hose, there was friction that caused a loss of pressure from full pressure at the faucet to zero pressure at the end. If this were true, then, for the same flow rate, the loss of pressure should be double for a hose twice as long. How would the water/hose "know" what the length of the hose is?
This alone shows how preposterous the hypothesis is, since, if pressure drop is caused by friction, for a hose of given length the pressure drop is obviously full pressure across the length of the hose, and thus the pressure drop would double for double the length. So for a hose twice as long, it would yield negative pressure?
The experimental result shows that the flow rate does not depend on the length of the hose. (I doubled the length and the fill time went from 101 seconds to 100 seconds, i.e., within time measurement error. That, right there, is a huge clue! There is no significant frictional effect. And friction is not responsible for the shift in pressure at a valve. It is purely the effect of constricting the flow path, as with the hole in the side of the tank. Half the cross-sectional area, half the flow rate, with constant pressure.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th August 2010, 6:13pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 16th August 2010, 12:26pm)
There is a reason garden hoses are sold in more than one diameter. If you want more flowage for a given length of hose, you have to use a larger diameter hose.
Where the hell do you shop, Barry? Could you point me to these various diameter garden hoses available to me? And, can you show that the reason for this variation is "flowage" and not "durability" and "no kink" dynamics?
I seriously wonder if I am a consumer on the same planet as some of you dudes.
I think the last time I bought a garden hose was about 20 years ago at a home center that may no longer be in business, since Home Depot put a lot of the smaller home centers out of business.
You can also buy garden hoses where, independent of the inside diameter, the thickness of the hose wall varies from "flimsy" to "durable." If you want one that doesn't kink, you have to buy one with fairly thick and sturdy walls.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 16th August 2010, 6:13pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 16th August 2010, 12:26pm)
There is a reason garden hoses are sold in more than one diameter. If you want more flowage for a given length of hose, you have to use a larger diameter hose.
Where the hell do you shop, Barry? Could you point me to these various diameter garden hoses available to me? And, can you show that the reason for this variation is "flowage" and not "durability" and "no kink" dynamics?
I seriously wonder if I am a consumer on the same planet as some of you dudes.
Barry is right about different diameters: 1/2 inch and 5/8 inch are most common (if there are any others!). But I doubt that it has much effect on flow rate; unlike Barry, I'm not prepared to make a blanket assertion; from the theory of this that I developed, it would depend on what a full-open valve has as a cross-sectional area of the constriction. If the hose has a cross-sectional area greater than that, I'd expect no increase in flow rate.
Considering the hose fittings and from my visual memory, a 5/8 inch hose may indeed increase the cross-sectional area available for flow over a 1/2 inch hose, so he might be right that it will increase the flow. But it has nothing to do with the length of the hose. It's purely a question of the diameter, which will affect the flow rate right at the faucet. Cut the hose right past there, same flow rate as if you have 50 feet of hose.
Look, it is really, really easy to get an analysis wrong: Barry showed that, by his assumption that the pressure declines along the hose. Once he made that assumption without evidence or specific analysis, the rest fell into place. That's why we depend on experiment to validate the predictions of theory.
I'm reading Feynman's book on QED right now. Way cool. Stunning predictions from the theory, accurate to like less than a hair's breadth in the distance from Los Angeles to New York.
By the way, there are QED (or, more accurately, quantum field theory) predictions of collapse to a Bose-Einstein condensate and fusion within one femtosecond, 100%, from the confinement in a lattice of four deuterons, with their electrons, i.e., two deuterium molecules, in a particular tetrahedral configuration. The assumptions of impossibility were based on assumptions that did not consider the range of conditions possible in condensed matter. The math is horrific, and nobody wanted to do that math, and they didn't expect what they might need to do the math on, so they didn't. They just assumed that the conditions of plasma physics were close enough to condensed matter conditions, and then they applied two-body physics to what is a far more complex problem. What I learned directly from Fenyman was that we really couldn't do the math for condensed matter, it was too hard.
So experimental results, in 1989, and later (a huge number of peer-reviewed papers later), were discarded and discounted because of a theory that had never actually been tested. Based on assumptions that the reaction taking place would be a familiar one. It wasn't, that's quite clear. It is very much unlike standard deuterium fusion. 4-body fusion? Perhaps! Who would have thought?
By the way, this is just another theory, really. Nobody knows for sure, no theory has been adequately confirmed to be truly predominant. It's just one (Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory) that happens to explain the major mysteries. Why the primary product is helium and not, say, tritium and a proton, or the other major branch, He-3 and a neutron. Why there is helium found (commensurate with excess heat measured! At the same ratio as with deuterium fusion.) but no gamma rays, as would be expected from d + d -> He-4 fusion. And other stuff.
(It's 4d -> Be-8* -> photon emission for some portion of the energy -> 2 He-4. Total energy released: 23.8 MeV/He-4. Experimental value (Storms) 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4.)
I was at a Colloquium at MIT a few weeks ago, and met Hagelstein and some others in the field, first time in person. I got some very practical tips from Mitchell Schwartz, leading me to think that, though I have to follow the SPAWAR protocol for my first work, it's really not the most efficient approach, it wastes way too much heavy water (which is expensive!).
It's been sad to watch the Cold fusion article for the last year. A bunch of quite clueless people, bumbling around, neither side knowing the literature or understanding the issues. Meanwhile, I've been having serious fun! Looks like my name will be in Naturwissenschaften soon, I've seen the preprint of what I'm told is an accepted article. That's the journal that Einstein published in.
Which would you rather edit: primary or secondary sources in real science (this is a major review article), or a tertiary source where you have to establish everything with Randy from Boise, or, maybe even worse, a bunch of weak scientists who specialize in other fields, like, er Climate research. And who don't give a fig about neutrality, they just want to Save The Planet, the hell with policies! And if I threatened their hegemony, everything I do must be Bad, POV-pushing.... Besides, JzG had a friend who is an electrochemist, and he once talked to his friend about Cold fusion, so he was, and is, certain that this is all bogus. I really wonder how long it has been since he talked to his friend....
And which would you rather do, real science or editing articles? I'm not going to be a "professional scientist," I spent way too much time doing that Other Stuff, but this is pretty close, a return to my roots. No telling what I'll end up finding, it is a truly exciting field, opening up rapidly as the publication floodgates have been opened and institutions are starting to fund and support research again. I'm just working on the science, not "limitless energy" or any of that speculative stuff. This may never produce practical levels of energy, and I don't really care, or, that is, it's not my concern. The science is.
I'm watching the sky for signs of rapid descent. I don't expect it, but ya never can tell fur sure.
Took how long?
Next time we need to do something like this, if there is a next time, perhaps it will be easier, now that a track has been beaten through this overgrown jungle.
After we recover from the party and hangover, a debriefing will be scheduled. Representatives of the Foundation are invited, I assume.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I'm taking suggestions for topics to pursue at Wikiversity.
Obviously, I can finish my correlation analysis of the Survey about Wikipedia. But then what? Would I continue on some (copied) work that I had started on NetKnowledge?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
Many people have been sent copies so far, but Mikelifeguard made it really clear that he was willing to stand up against Thekohser being unblocked on Wikibooks but not Wikiversity because he believes that Wikiversity is a failed project that should be shut down as soon as possible.
So, Greg, how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them? Basically, you are giving an excuse to the worse people at Wiki to remove any opposition.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:04am)
Many people have been sent copies so far, but Mikelifeguard made it really clear that he was willing to stand up against Thekohser being unblocked on Wikibooks but not Wikiversity because he believes that Wikiversity is a failed project that should be shut down as soon as possible.
So, Greg, how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them? Basically, you are giving an excuse to the worse people at Wiki to remove any opposition.
Oh, that is sooooo stupid. Nobody is going to shut down Wikiversity, that's your fantasy, Ottava
Mike.lifeguard is laying his bits on the line, and I'm afraid they just might get scooped up.
It becomes quite clear that Mike is lobbying like crazy behind the scenes for this and that, sending people misleading "evidence" that they swallow and then repeat as fact, as happened with one unfortunate user on Wikibooks. This is far worse than anything that happened with the Eastern European Mailing List on Wikipedia.
His on-wiki contributions and actions have gone almost to zero.
The day of reckoning is coming. Off-wiki collusion, used to improperly influence on-wiki process. Conduct radically unbecoming of a steward. For what Mike just did on Wikibooks, Jimbo lost his intrusive Founder bits. So somehow Mike.lifeguard is bulletproof?
No, Mike acted at Wikibooks because he could, he's got adminship there. Not for long, I suspect. He didn't act at Wikiversity because he would have to regain the bit, and it might not be that easy, and he'd lose it quickly if he tried, both Ottava and, to a lesser extent, Adambro are already at risk for massive disregard of consensus. Adambro has managed to cooperate enough that his bit is probably safe. Ottava's, by this time, I'd say, is toast, it's all over but the shouting.
Mike could also act as a steward, but those who think his reign should be over are hoping he will, because that would do it quickly. Stewards don't barge in to upset local consensus unless they have the WMF behind them, and Mike doesn't. Actions like his are damaging the WMF far more than Thekohser ever could, and some functionaries know it, and some Board members, too.
When you ain't got nothing you got nothin' to lose. Sometimes it takes people who "ain't got nothin" to make some changes, let in some fresh air.
Wikibooks has a shortage of administrators with cojones, though it has a 'crat with them. But that's fine. It doesn't take admins with guts as much as it takes ordinary users with guts, and especially those who are familiar with process and can present a case, cooly and civilly. Two or three users like that, any wiki can be transformed. They can only do this if they really represent a forming consensus, don't try this trick to pursue some private agenda, you can get slaughtered if you run up against an establishment.
The same conditions that make wikis vulnerable to take-over by factions make them vulnerable to recovery by a few users who care and who will work for it.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:04pm)
...how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them?
Assuming there's some validity to this idea, have you seen anything that might indicate how these "stewards" are likely to go about getting rid of Wikiversity? Considering what happened the last time a formal request was made to do this (by User:Raul654, as I recall), I would assume they'd try a different approach this time.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:31pm)
The same conditions that make wikis vulnerable to take-over by factions make them vulnerable to recovery by a few users who care and who will work for it.
That reminds me - didn't I ask you once for contact information on the person who supplies whatever it is you're smokin'?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 17th August 2010, 10:09pm)
I'm taking suggestions for topics to pursue at Wikiversity.
Obviously, I can finish my correlation analysis of the Survey about Wikipedia. But then what? Would I continue on some (copied) work that I had started on NetKnowledge?
Or something else altogether?
Whatever, Greg. You are not under any particular restrictions. Just, my suggestion, pay attention to any warnings that arrive on your Talk page. A warning from anyone, stop. That doesn't mean lay down and play dead. It means, really, slow down, proceed with consideration and caution. You sometimes deal with hot stuff. We want people who deal with hot stuff to be careful, people and projects can get burned.
I didn't do all that work to wreck Wikiversity by allowing it to be abused. By anyone. SB_Johnny wrote that it was safe to allow you back because you fight fair. You've been dealing with some people who don't, that's all. Wikiversity has just levelled the playing field. I'm confident you won't go for fouls.
The main thing I want you to work on, long term, is ... wiki ethics. It will need its own ethical guidelines first, before turning to anything that could cause disruption. This is going to put you into an interesting role, figuring out how to protect, say, Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard and the gang of Wikipediots, while at the same time allowing useful and important research to take place. It can be done, I'm sure, and we'll need all the brains and talent we can gather for the task, and this is precisely why your return to WV was so important.
Wikibooks? Not needed until it's time to write the book! (But, of course, you should be unblocked there, and I predict it. Please, no socking unless it is arranged with local sysop cooperation, as we did on Wikiversity. Or there is another path, but we'll discuss that later.)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:46pm)
This is going to put you into an interesting role, figuring out how to protect, say, Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard and the gang of Wikipediots, while at the same time allowing useful and important research to take place. It can be done, I'm sure, and we'll need all the brains and talent we can gather for the task, and this is precisely why your return to WV was so important.
Also, I'm interested in getting my hands on anything you've been ingesting orally or injecting directly into your bloodstream.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:04am)
Many people have been sent copies so far, but Mikelifeguard made it really clear that he was willing to stand up against Thekohser being unblocked on Wikibooks but not Wikiversity because he believes that Wikiversity is a failed project that should be shut down as soon as possible.
So, Greg, how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them? Basically, you are giving an excuse to the worse people at Wiki to remove any opposition.
So Wikimedia stewards have become proverbial Death Stars destroying wikis they despise? Does that mean that Beta Wikiversity will be deleted eventually because Moulton is free there and has profaned that wiki with his presence!?!
This is just like a few years ago when English Wikipedians were suggesting on the mailing list to go over and "fix" (i.e. seize control of) Commons. I feel like I'm trapped in a military strategy game. Thankfully, none of the Wikimedians in this whole fiasco is a Napoleon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:39am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:31pm)
The same conditions that make wikis vulnerable to take-over by factions make them vulnerable to recovery by a few users who care and who will work for it.
That reminds me - didn't I ask you once for contact information on the person who supplies whatever it is you're smokin'?
You don't want to know.
It ain't easy bein' me.
Most of the time I think that I'm completely crazy. Then something happens. Like taking out William M. Connolley's admin bit.
You know, if I'd been more ... er.... succinct before ArbComm, he might not have been so cocky and it might have been much harder.....
Now, let's see. Mike.lifeguard. What to do? Drop a tome on his Talk page? Thud!
Nah. I stopped doing that one, it just irritates people, I only do it where there is permission or some special purpose. Usually!
Now that Tisane is off for a vacation (I hope that's all it is!), maybe I can go borrow the image of an upraised finger that he used to induce Jehochman to block him. He knew what it would do. Do you think that Mike would block me if I dropped an image of a finger on his Talk page?
It's risky. Someone else might see it first and block me. Damn. That's not going to do it. Meta isn't Wikipedia. There isn't an ArbComm.
I know! I can review his spamlist decisions. He's been using the spamlist to control content for a long time. He kept the ban of lyrikline.org up long after it was clear that this was a major poetry website, supported by the German government, and the alleged "spamming" may have been someone with a conflict of interest, but those links were all good and added in good faith. He blocked lenr-canr.org merely as a favor to JzG, there was no sense to it, and it definitely was an abuse of the global spam blacklist. (And ArbComm found against such abuse, but has no authority over meta and Mike.)
I believe I saw others. Yeah. That'll do it. Choke him in his own vomit.
Or maybe someone will talk some sense into the boy. Maybe I won't have to do anything. I'm not out for justice, really, just peace so that justice can be established. What's done is done, and wikis should never punish. Not even Mike.lifeguard.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:51am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:46pm)
This is going to put you into an interesting role, figuring out how to protect, say, Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard and the gang of Wikipediots, while at the same time allowing useful and important research to take place. It can be done, I'm sure, and we'll need all the brains and talent we can gather for the task, and this is precisely why your return to WV was so important.
Also, I'm interested in getting my hands on anything you've been ingesting orally or injecting directly into your bloodstream.
It's pretty simple. It's oral only, don't like needles.
20 mg methylphenidate SR, 1x a day 150 mg. bupropion SR, 1x a day 50 mg. niacin coffee heavy cream sometimes some food, mostly steak, eggs, cheese. low-carb diet, running on ketone bodies instead of glucose, definitely has psychic effects.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 18th August 2010, 1:08am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:51am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:46pm)
This is going to put you into an interesting role, figuring out how to protect, say, Jimbo and Mike.lifeguard and the gang of Wikipediots, while at the same time allowing useful and important research to take place. It can be done, I'm sure, and we'll need all the brains and talent we can gather for the task, and this is precisely why your return to WV was so important.
Also, I'm interested in getting my hands on anything you've been ingesting orally or injecting directly into your bloodstream.
It's pretty simple. It's oral only, don't like needles.
20 mg methylphenidate SR, 1x a day 150 mg. bupropion SR, 1x a day 50 mg. niacin coffee heavy cream sometimes some food, mostly steak, eggs, cheese. low-carb diet, running on ketone bodies instead of glucose, definitely has psychic effects.
The drugs are controlled substances, but they are pretty easy to get prescriptions for. The bupropion is optional, perhaps I take it because with it I'm less likely to get quickly angry and slap a kid or something. The methylphenidate is prescribed for ADHD.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 87
Joined:
Member No.: 22,979
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 18th August 2010, 3:09am)
I'm taking suggestions for topics to pursue at Wikiversity.
Obviously, I can finish my correlation analysis of the Survey about Wikipedia. But then what? Would I continue on some (copied) work that I had started on NetKnowledge?
I'm taking suggestions for topics to pursue at Wikiversity.
Obviously, I can finish my correlation analysis of the Survey about Wikipedia. But then what? Would I continue on some (copied) work that I had started on NetKnowledge?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:35am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:04pm)
...how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them?
Assuming there's some validity to this idea, have you seen anything that might indicate how these "stewards" are likely to go about getting rid of Wikiversity? Considering what happened the last time a formal request was made to do this (by User:Raul654, as I recall), I would assume they'd try a different approach this time.
Board vote.
From my past count, we had a simple majority and one dropped out. Jimbo will be out by the end of the year, so looks like we have far less than a simple majority.
Greg already has his own Wiki.
Moulton already has his own.
Wikiversity probably wont exist if both are allowed to roam.
Does it really make sense for Wikiversity people to basically destroy Wikiversity in giving access to people that have comfortable alternatives to do whatever they want with?
Does it really make sense for Wikiversity people to basically destroy Wikiversity in giving access to people that have comfortable alternatives to do whatever they want with?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
This turns into a Manifesto that, developed in itself, would become a call for mass action.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 10:30am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 12:35am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 17th August 2010, 11:04pm)
...how does it feel to be a pawn in a game among stewards to get rid of projects that they hate and feel that foster a negative view on them?
Assuming there's some validity to this idea, have you seen anything that might indicate how these "stewards" are likely to go about getting rid of Wikiversity? Considering what happened the last time a formal request was made to do this (by User:Raul654, as I recall), I would assume they'd try a different approach this time.
Board vote.
From my past count, we had a simple majority and one dropped out. Jimbo will be out by the end of the year, so looks like we have far less than a simple majority.
Assumptions. If there is solid evidence for this, Ottava should provide it, because we cannot depend on his presentation of evidence, that's been shown. I don't think he lies, but his ability to put together facts he knows and comprehend them, then state them for others, is horribly impaired, and the effect is that he lies, i.e., if he knew what he was doing, the statements would be lies. They are, however, almost certainly, simply erroneous and believed because of his personal attachment.
In this case, he's attached to his being the Savior of Wikiversity from Doom. And he's desperately trying to assert control, I've been shown, now, chat logs. He's a bully. And he's being confronted on this, and he's stomping up and down, shaking his fists, "You'll be sorry!"
I'm being told that if I don't stop my "trolling," I'll be blocked. Really? By whom? Ottava? Threats are more effective when made by someone with the power to carry them out. By one of the people Ottava tries to conspire with in chat? Maybe. I don't think so, though.
And for how long would I be blocked? Ottava threatened Adambro with desysop if he reblocked JWS for more than 24 hours. As many 24 hour blocks, individually, as Adambro made, would be fine. Apparently, since I noted on-wiki that Adambro was "involved" and shouldn't have blocked at all, Ottava thought that I would support desysop. And thinks that everyone else would, too.
He's delusional. Here is what I expect if I do something actually and illegitimately disruptive, in the opinion of a sysop: I'll be warned about the action. If I continue, I'll be short-blocked. If I come back and continue, I might be blocked for longer, even indef, but by someone different, not the same sysop. And anyone who wants to can start a discussion, and community consensus can and should prevail.
Now, are there any warnings on my Talk page? Quite few. The strongest has been from Adambro, who has objected to my restoration of certain non-offensive Moulton edits. Adambro seems not to understand the principle, but I very much doubt that he will block me. I've become very careful how I do that review and restoration, and I see no sign of any consensus behind Adambro's warning. Was it really a warning? It was worded as a polite request. So I asked Adambro if it was a warning, i.e., if he'd block me if I continued. He still has not answered.
Now, Adambro is not stupid. He knows that procedurally, a warning by a sysop with threat to block is the same as a block, as far as recusal policy would be concerned. No, he's not warning me, he's just trying to get me to stop. I've put steps in place so that he can actually object to any edit, and if he reverted one of my restorations, this would not be Community Review time, we'd discuss it.
I'm not only opening a door, I'm opening a highway and building traffic control into it. I'm setting up procedures to solicit and obtain good content from blocked users. Efficiently.
I'm being told to concentrate on mainspace, by some people with good intentions. Politically, that might be advisable. However, my work has always been, more importantly, to facilitate other people doing good work. And I've returned people to editing on Wikipedia, previously, who have collectively contributed far more than I'd have ever been able to do myself. It's leverage.
I was about to try to bring in as many as a few hundred people involved, in schools and in academia, in alternative education, free schools, "unschooling" (John Gatto), and the like. Then I realized that Wikiversity still was not safe, underneath a placid surface was a whole lot of unfinished business, personal intrigues, power being exerted over others.... the usual unrestrained wiki stuff.
Worse than Wikipedia, once clearly seen.
So, if I can finish the business of making Wikiversity safe for real people, real academics, which, of course, includes the kind of people who often make enemies fast in less sophisticated environments run by poorly socialized kids, I can then leverage the contributions of perhaps hundreds of people.
By myself, as one editor, and no sysop tools, how much can I do? I can develop the course on Cold fusion, for sure, and I really want to do that. But the other work has taken precedence.
QUOTE
Greg already has his own Wiki.
Moulton already has his own.
Wikiversity probably wont exist if both are allowed to roam.
Wikiversity won't exist as a real wiki-academic community, if Ottava is allowed to be Emperor. Or hasn't Wikademia taken that title already? Okay, King. Sovereign.
Ethicist, self-described, who clearly hasn't got a clue about ethics. Weird. Does he have credentials? He's claimed he was "brought in" to Wikipedia to help develop ethical policy.
Boy, do you think he should put that on his resume? "Helped Wikipedia to develop ethical policies and procedures."
I'd love to see some examples.
QUOTE
Does it really make sense for Wikiversity people to basically destroy Wikiversity in giving access to people that have comfortable alternatives to do whatever they want with?
It just seems like lunacy.
Not one example of a destructive edit allowed by the "Wikiversity people." And if some appear, there is this magic tool. It is not only the property of administrators.
Edit.
Ottava imagines that Wikiversity will be unresponsive to Foundation concerns. He has an image of the Foundation which is horribly oppressive, that makes secret decisions and then just dumps them on people unexpectedly.
People and institutions are complicated. They can do things like that sometimes. But if they are dealing with intelligent people and if some players in the institution are intelligent, they can work it out. It starts by straight dealing, by open exchange.
If the Foundation wants Thekohser banned, it can tell us. It is quite that simple. But I'm not going to pretend that it would be *my decision.* It would be theirs, and they would implement it through those responsible to them. I wanted it to be very clear, that's all. If Thekohser is to be blocked on Wikiversity, and if the Foundation is going to tell us that it is our decision, it is our decision.
And if it is their decision, it is theirs, and they are responsible for making it. These are the simple rules of respectful peer relationships. They are not the rules of dysfunctional societies, and if you put a bunch of dysfunctional people together, without restraining structure, what will you get?
Hint. More of the same.
But with a little structure, a bunch of dysfunctional people can be a brilliant community.
That's the theory. Now, how about we test it?
Moulton is vigorously attempting to explicate and demonstration his HOLE theory. He's basically correct, but as often happens with very bright people, he doesn't see the whole picture. At least I think he doesn't! That's something we are working out!
The solution is not simply rules, that's where he is quite correct. The solution is a hybrid between rules and consensus and structure that efficiently negotiates consensus. The same structure can function, I believe, as an advisory network in a more traditional power structure with executives with discretion in position to make local decision efficiently, and it can function with the wiki adhocracy, using it for efficiency on a small scale, but preserving efficiency when the scale becomes large.
This is important stuff, the issue is not just the WMF wikis. Demonstrating good large-scale process is a venture that could transform humanity. It's worth a little trouble and sweat. Well worth it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
What Abd doesn't understand is that Wikiversity has a chat room with anywhere from 7 to 13 members of the community participating in discussions and with many more in private.
He keeps mouthing off and making proclamations about others but hasn't a clue, hasn't spent any time with any of them, or the rest.
Wikiversity is a small town and a small family. You have to treat it as such. Abd has no clue how to interact with any of it.
What Abd doesn't understand is that Wikiversity has a chat room with anywhere from 7 to 13 members of the community participating in discussions and with many more in private.
He keeps mouthing off and making proclamations about others but hasn't a clue, hasn't spent any time with any of them, or the rest.
Wikiversity is a small town and a small family. You have to treat it as such. Abd has no clue how to interact with any of it.
As clueless as Abd generally proves himself to be, I think most folks at The Wikipedia Review, even Abd, understand all about Self-Anointed Wiki-Posses and their Best Fascist Foursquare chumitudes.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 4:27pm)
What Abd doesn't understand is that Wikiversity has a chat room with anywhere from 7 to 13 members of the community participating in discussions and with many more in private.
He keeps mouthing off and making proclamations about others but hasn't a clue, hasn't spent any time with any of them, or the rest.
Wikiversity is a small town and a small family. You have to treat it as such. Abd has no clue how to interact with any of it.
Hey, he could be right. Look, the community has stated guidelines and policies. Doesn't "Mafia" mean "family"? Ottava doesn't realize it, but he has been laying out, with practically every attempt he's made to intimidate me, the problem, making it more and more clear. It's right there.
I've only seen those chat logs today, but it had already become visible. Ottava is acknowledging that there is a small group, at least in his imagination, that controls Wikiversity. In the chat logs, I can see, Ottava has an inflated view of his own position; in terms of dealing with people, he is mostly dealing with his own fantasies, he just reads what confirms his view and ignores what doesn't. With that trick, you can confirm your belief in anything.
If Ottava really has such wide support, and I so little, why was there so little support on-wki for his positions? (like about zero). Were people hiding their true feelings so that they could appear to be on my side, then pull the plug when they get the opportunity? I rather doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.
Ottava doesn't know how to deal with me because I'm from another planet, as Moulton, the anthropologist from Mars, likes to say. I don't live on his planet, so to speak, in his world, where people behave the way he expects. In fact, they don't, his world is a fantasy, but it's still real to him.
In the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book, there is a passage, describing "...men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. There are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."
That was written something like seventy years ago. We'd put it differently today. But it remains a fact that an inability to be honest with oneself is one of the largest disabilities that could be wished on anyone. "May you always believe that you are right" sounds like some new-agey affirmation for confidence, but it's not. It's a terrible curse.
(Courage of convictions is something quite different.)
I just got a mail from Ottava. I'd previously warned him that email from me was not private, *possibly* excepting mail with a request for privacy at the top. I'd pointed out the semantics of "lie" and "liar." Here is how he replied:
QUOTE
I'll call you a liar on Wikiversity and everyone will agree.
You just don't get it. No one really cares what you have to say and you tried everyone's patience. You are an ass hole. You really are. You are pompous, egotistical, and out of touch with reality.
You make up things. You accuse others of wikilawyering while you are the worse possible wikilawyer there has ever been?
Are you insane? Do you belong in a mental institute? Who let you out of one? You are probably one of the most messed up people I've ever known, and others have seen these emails so I'm not the only one who feels that way.
After his thoughtful and, I'm sure, carefully considered affirmations (they must be carefully considered because I'd been asking him to be careful and think before reacting, and, naturally, he'd take good advice like that, wouldn't you?), he asks some questions I'll try to answer, but here, since I already told him that I'm not answering his emails, so the above was a kind of parting shot, so to speak. Or gift. Depends on intention, doesn't it? Like "lie."
Are you insane? Yes, compared to some, and No, compared to others. Do you belong in a mental institute?Who's paying? Which one? Who let you out of one?That would be Joseph Karesh, God rest his soul, in about 1968.
I've spent a lot of time at San Quentin State Prison, does that qualify?
And I was also a Wikipedia Editor. I was let out for a while, but now I can visit whenever I like, so I can be reminded of what it was like to be Really Crazy.
There is also a sort-of-question.
you are the worse possible wikilawyer there has ever been? I doubt it. My personal favorite was Tony Sidaway, who removed the bolding of "support" and "oppose" from a series of comments on a WP noticeboard, approving or rejecting a block, so that Future Perfect could then claim that it wasn't a "poll." Unfortunately, Tony wasn't so bold as to revision delete the edit summaries which had words like "!vote oppose."
See, I was not allowed to "intervene" in disputes where I wasn't an "originating party," but I could "vote" in "polls."
(Brilliant remedy, ArbComm, this MYOB thing, it could be wikilawyered six ways till Sunday, and it was, until the final interpretation, as applied, bore little resemblance to the original language, and to the original intent, except to the extent that the original intent was Go Away, We Don't Like You. Which was probably about half of the majority, the other part making a compromise. The thing was impossible to interpret clearly because the occasion, the violation behind it, was never specified by ArbComm. I'd been quite successful intervening in "other disputes," with ArbComm confirming my position, but a lot of interventions never got to ArbComm because they were resolved short of that.)
(While the whole flap that led to RfAr/Abd and JzG could have been interpreted as "intervening in a dispute," because that's where it started, I noticed an abusive blacklisting and questioned JzG about it and he blew me off, ArbComm fully confirmed my position, starting with the blacklisting and up to other admin actions,
This was really used to block me, by Future Perfect. Boy did I have a case there! What had I just done? I'd criticized Future Perfect threatening a user on my talk page that he'd block the user if the user again reverted FP's removal of my !vote. My talk page, so I warned him. There. I did make a reference to this later on Talk for GoRight, which was the immediate excuse.
There is almost no understanding of recusal policy among the current highly active administrators, as far as I can see. And it's obvious why. ArbComm doesn't enforce it, unless someone goes through the nightmare of preparing and filing a case, jumping through the hoops, with something actually coming out of it worth the effort being very low. People don't follow unenforced policies. The policy is there, but there isn't clarification of what it means from examples being seen by people, except for a very few. Further, if a non-admin files a case, the chances are extremely high that the user will be banned.
I was warned, before jumping into RfC/JzG 3, that led to the RfAr, that if I went ahead with this, I'd be banned. Long-time, experienced user, widely respected (and sometimes widely hated) told me that. It was friendly advice, it was not at all a threat. The user believed I was completely correct. I would be banned because I, an "outsider," was insisting that an admin be reminded of policy by ArbComm. I actually wasn't banned immediately. Rather, the cabal came after me, charges were trumped up by Hipocrite and a ban declared by WMC, and eventually I appealed to ArbComm. Which confirmed that WMC had acted improperly, desysopped him, then banned me without any careful examination of what I'd done. The FoF behind it was a reference to evidence presented by Enric Naval, wherein he actually cited his own opinion filed before ArbComm in RfAr/Fringe science where he disagreed with the final finding. But the way it was presented made it look to someone who didn't check it all out that I'd been advocating what Enric Naval had said. At the time of that statement, I hadn't started to even edit on the topic.... It was one of the sloppiest pieces of work I'd seen done by ArbComm. Until I started looking more closely at other cases!
The story is very familiar here. Wikipedia sucks, big time. So why do we even care? For me, it's probably because of the vision, and because I do believe that the vision could actually be realized, and that the Wikipedia experiment was almost right. The difference to make it real would be amazingly small. But it won't happen until people sit down and really study what works and what doesn't work about Wikipedia. Wiki studies. Where? Most likely place, where local policies would theoretically allow it: Wikiversity. Hence what I've been doing. At least that's why I think it's important. I really didn't go there for that at first, I just stumbled across the abuse and the need to fix it.
As to Future Perfect's block of me, by this time, filing process on Wikipedia just wasn't worth the effort. I asked here, and nobody seemed to think that Future Perfect was abusive enough to make it worthwhile for me to put out the effort. Mere stupidity is not enough. Lots of stupid people, it's not a crime. So I didn't go ahead. FP did go on to greater things, abusing other people, and I came to wish I'd done it.
In any case, Ottava is on the same track. He'll try to ban me because I, an "outsider," someone not a member of the "family," has reminded him of civility policy. And a few other policies, as well. Living in Ottava's Kingdom isn't safe, unless you are willing to kiss the ring, or maybe something else.
Ottava doesn't understand this: I've been warned for incivility on Wikiversity, by one probationary custodian. If I got a short block from that custodian, for even mild incivility (i.e, unfairly defined compared to what is being allowed to routinely pass), I'll thank the custodian for enforcing civility policy, maybe not put up an unblock template, enjoy the vacation. Or I'll put up a template if the situation warrants it. Compare that to what Ottava did when blocked for two hours (by me) or when my warning and block in that case were confirmed by Jtneill, a 'crat. Fireworks.
If I'm blocked for "disruption," particularly based on a series of actions where I was clearly enforcing policy and pursuing the welfare of the wiki, well, the sysop better be ready and have a good excuse. I halfway hope Ottava makes good on his threats, because it would make things very simple. But I'm not going to give him an excuse. Geoff Plourde is a bit of a wild card here. He is a long-term Wikiversitan, very long. But long-term given what WV went through is not necessarily a recommendation. The old guard was unable to deal with crises in 2008 and March of this year. But they will be somewhat cozy with the oligarchy, if not in it. I'm still considering whether or not to approve him when he comes up for permanent custodianship. I've now got several reasons not to (not having to do with how he's treated me), but it's always a question of balance. There is only one current custodian I see as a real problem, Ottava. And he's set it up for that to end.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 4:45pm)
As clueless as Abd generally proves himself to be, I think most folks at The Wikipedia Review, even Abd, understand all about Self-Anointed Wiki-Posses and their Best Fascist Foursquare chumitudes.
Indeed I do. So, Jon, haven't you just contradicted yourself? Okay, so colloquially, "clueless" means "relatively clueless," not "completely clueless," which is what you contradicted.
Now, having gotten this semantic bullshit out of the way, "relatively clueless" implies a standard to which I'm compared. What's the standard? Let me list some possibilities:
(groups represent average unless otherwise stated)
1. Zero point energy. 2. A lump of coal. 3. A warm body (Caltechese term). 4. A slime mold. 5. Mike.lifeguard (Definitely, Mike has more clue than a slime mold. Anyone disagree?) 6. Jimbo Wales on a bad day 7. A Wikipedia administrator 8. Jimbo Wales on a good day. 7. Greg Kohs (had to get him in somewhere, this is his thread). 6. The average Wikipedian. 5. Durova 4. Somey 3. Obama 2. God 1. Jon Aubrey
Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined:
Member No.: 18,067
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 1:27pm)
What Abd doesn't understand is that Wikiversity has a chat room
Maybe Ottava and Geoff can start a Wikiversity learning project about how to use IRC chat. Some of the learning resources are already online. Topics include how to count votes for desysop. Apparently the IRC chat vote count for a ban on Abd is already available. Yesterday a topic in #wikiversity-en was how to hang Abd.
Jon, you missed a golden opportunity here to refer to posses by their full Latin name, Posse Vomitatus (literally, Power of the Vomit).
No, it's just that I had a bad experience one time — way before Wikipedia existed — when I referred to a fairly innocuous volunteer group as a posse comitatus, and people got all upset because the only referent they knew for that term was some modern day white racist group.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Shameless Promotion
Really great shew
Wikiversity, the Drama
Look, folks, consider the priceless opportunity. We have been staging a show at Wikiversity, wherein we have cooperation from all players, presenting demonstrations of highly educational activity, quite aside from the content.
Participants and audience members will be divided, somewhat arbitrarily or according to how you look to an usher or custodian, into three groups: Insiders, Outsiders, and Rejects. "The Rejects" sound pretty bad, but they get to have the most fun, except for Insiders and Outsiders who want to or don't care if they are reclassified as Rejects, because these can have just as much fun.
Only Insiders can promote an Outsider to a Reject.
The Chorus, consisting of Insiders and Outsiders, can demote any Outsider to an Insider, if enough sing together to impress a special Insider, a "bureaucrat," and 'crats are chosen by the same process. Being a bureaucrat is the lowest level of the game, because the bureaucrat, if the bureaucrat has any fun, is likely to be promptly promoted, sometimes to ordinary insider, or directly to Outsider, or, once in a long while, directly to Reject from a particularly spectacular bit of play.
Usually, being a 'crat is so deadening to the senses that 'crats cannot muster this, and must gain practice before further promotions.Best of all, on Wikiversity, any Outsider may become an Insider immediately by accepting the tag of another Insider. This is only temporary, it allows the new probationary Insider to see the game from a different perspective. Being backstage provides a whole different view. It mostly allows you to see the backside of those acting on the stage. Whether that is more or less fun, I'll leave to you!
If, however, as a temporary Insider, you have bored the audience sufficiently, they will demote you to Insider. Insiders, including most probationary Insiders, take a special drug that does not allow them to understand their situation, that makes them feel special that they are allowed to pick up the cigarette butts and promote Outsiders to Rejects, because the drug makes them think that black is white and white is black. And being a Reject is a Fate Worse Than Death. It is very confusing to be an Insider, it's not recommended for long periods of time. However, there is a consolation. By playing this role, you are providing many others with priceless entertainment! And helping build Content. Sometimes. The drug has some negative effects on content, we are working on the formula.
The current cooperating and willing players, they will be seen frequently on stage:
The Chorus (the community). Insiders and Outsiders with a still, small voice from a Reject. Greg Kohs.Reject Outsider Barry Kort. Reject Myself (Abd). Currently an Outsider, has played Insider for a short time. Wannabe Reject. SB_Johnny Insider and quite a few others are Outsiders, and a few other Insiders are bit players at present. There are few, if any, notable Rejects at this time other than Greg and Barry. Oops! I keep forgetting. Greg is now an Outsider. Shall we propose Barry for Insider? I think that would be lovely, the role reversals on Wikiversity can be stunning. I don't think Barry would accept, though, he's too smart. So, right now, there is only one Reject you are likely to see. He's really fun, though.
Scapegoats. Scapegoats have taken the drug and are therefore not completely capable of informed consent. But they consented at some time in the past:
Ottava Rima Star scapegoat, also the King. The King is responsible for everything that's wrong. At least that's what the script says. Part of the fun is figuring out if the script is accurate and is being followed. If the King does a good thing, do we boo anyway? If we don't, the King is not really a scapegoat, but is an Insider or Outsider pretending to be King. We will always boo the King. This is a modern drama. Adambro Other Insiders, particularly the one called "nobody." As in "will nobody rid me of this troublesome Outsider Abd?" or "we held a Community Review, and nobody came" or, "Abd asked for Custodian Action, and nobody responded." The suspense: what will Abd do now to get attention to his Legitimate Complaint? Vandalize the Main Page? Drop a tome or turd on User talk:Ottava Rima? I can't stand the suspense myself, and I'm Abd. I have no fucking idea what I'll do. This is one cool game. (Jimbo Wales is a subtext, an ambiguous, shadow figure, a mystery, present in the legendary past, present whereabouts unknown, intentions unknown, which adds spice and suspense to the story. Some players think he's the leader of the scapegoats, others think he's God, others think he's merely asleep, doesn't care, or maybe is even sitting quietly in the audience, enjoying the show himself. I favor the latter interpretation, which also holds quite well if he's God.)
So, folks, come and watch, it's intermission at the moment, great time to show up, you can read up on the history, folks will show you around and welcome you if you scribble on the program, or on any page, and you can take your seat in your favorite topic or resource. Always something to do.
Find a subject that you know about or are interested and learning about, and write something about it. Even if it is just a list of questions. Put together some materials as a teacher, student, or just for fun.. Wikiversity may seem boring if you just look at Random Page, but it has a freedom that you won't find on any other WMF wiki. Just, please, don't dump rotting garbage and attract flies. Don't worry, your contributions won't be considered garbage unless it really offends someone, positively, like by stinking badly, and you'll be asked to please not dump that on Wikiversity property again. But you won't be blocked unless you totally insist and make a huge fuss, screaming and yelling, and even then, it will just be temporary, and you can still contribute even if blocked, it's just a bit of "audience participation," a modern theatrical technique. You should see how many months a request for deletion has been sitting for some "Incomprehensible Physics Pages," and they still aren't deleted. Really, folks, this is a content-tolerant community.
You can contribute when blocked? Sure. It's easy, and this technique alone is worth the price of admission. Nobody can stop you from contributing. Moulton is our specialist in this field, take a bow, Moulton! But Abd and Greg, as Insider and Reject working in collaboration, and continued even when Abd was promoted to Outsider, pioneered the newest version of this, not so hard on the ears, allowing everyone to have more fun. There are experts standing by to give technical assistance if needed.
Sorry to say, when Greg only contributed good content and no drama, he was demoted to Outsider.
But, then, won't Wikiversity be shut down? Don't be silly! I didn't say that offensive contributions will stand in the current text, only that they will be there, and if not grossly offensive, will be accessible to those who want to see them. A Reject will accomplish better play if the Reject has a cooperating Insider, but if played too closely, the cooperating Insider may become an Outsider,shifting the possibilities. While this is threatened by Insiders who imagine that being a Reject is a Bad Thing, it has not actually happened for more than 24 hours or so, and Jimbo had to rappel down from a black copter. It just adds spice. So if you want a fast path to Reject, you will have to exercise more creativity than simply cooperating with a Reject. Unless you arrange with the reject for the Reject to poop on a page, then, when it's reverted, you bring it back in. That might do it. By the way, folks, the poop in this game is not real, it is simulated. It doesn't even stink. It's just more like a picture of poop, if that. Like the "steaming pile" of Wikipedia desysop fame. Hint: the sysop who wrote "steaming pile" was not promoted to ordinary user, the one who promoted the sysop to Reject was. ArbComm did not consider writing "steaming pile" to be adequate to promote, but the sysop who blocked for it had accomplish a fantastic piece of drama, a whole month of fun at RfAr, so that sysop was promoted to Outsider. I think it takes a while for the drug to wear off, so he was dejected for a while.
Audience members help not only by contributing content, but also by reverting edits of Rejects, blocking IP if they are Insiders, or by reviewing and reverting back in edits of Rejects to improve Content, the magic goal of all play. Well, magic goal for the WMF. For the players, the proper magic goal is Fun. And the golden goose of the WMF, it's been taking advantage of this for years, but many forgot it, is to convert Fun to useful Content.
Insiders and Outsiders are supposed to have equally good seating, but they don't. Rejects can see whatever the Outsiders can see, but probably have more time to analyze it. Nobody really understands this game unless they have spent some time as a Reject watching it. However, any Outsider or Reject can find a friendly Insider and see whatever. If you can't find a friendly Insider, you are not looking hard enough. Try again, and be nice. You can catch more flies with honey than with whining. Or something like that.
The current active Reject is a friendly one and will cooperate when it doesn't spoil the fun. Hey, Barry, take a bow again! We need more people like you! We also need more Insiders and Scapegoats, anyone want to volunteer? Wikiversity makes it easy to become an Insider, you can just about show up and ask for it, and it will be given. Warning, though: Wikiversity Insiders don't get as much opportunity to lord it over other players as they do on Wikipedia, it's much more a job like usher or ... they call it "Custodian." Clean up the cigarette butts and show people where to sit. Insiders sit in uncomfortable seats backstage, Outsiders on the main floor, Rejects up in the balcony, or in the bar.
You know where the bar is, right? All are welcome: Outsiders, Rejects, even Insiders, though the latter may come up for some hazing. Hey, Ottava, have you blocked your mother yet? Have you made sure that all the porn that Jimbo deleted from Commons was actually porn, by testing to see the effect it had on you? Any favorites? Are you still pretending to be King? And, why are you such a douche? Now, Somey, a round for everyone, especially Ottava, he's been having a hard time lately, that drug makes the world look upside-down. I think he really should stop taking it.
Find a favorite player or set of favorite players and watch their contributions. The play happens in real-time, but there is no hurry, because it is all in History. It will all be there tomorrow except for a few odd oversighted edits, and there have been fewer of those lately, because the players have all realized that there is little value in putting up stuff that only one or two can read. It's like taking your turn and passing. You can write SHIT FUCK PISS anywhere and it won't be oversighted. But if you write JEFF = ASSWIPE DOUCHEBAG, maybe, you can get promoted, t's a fast way to enter the Reject group, though, if you prefer to be seated there. You get some free credits in the bar. To each his own. To guarantee fast entry, put this ... nah, I won't tell you, I'm not ready to be promoted yet. Some assbag douchewipe might think it off-wiki harassment, one of the few ways to gain points from something off-stage.
Rejects only get to make one move or a few moves per day, because their IP will be blocked, or they use the trick that will be demonstrated, and the Insiders playing on that particular day have a shred of sense and care about content. A major part of the game is identifying Insiders who don't care about Content. The most stupid rule in the game is that such Insiders can be promoted to Outsider, the main content contributors. I can't figure that one out, but perhaps someone can explain it to me. The Outsiders provide most of the content, so ... why promote Insiders who don't care about content, and who prevent Outsiders and Rejects from improving content, to Outsider?
Ah, I get it. I think Barry has given us the reason before. Being an insider keeps them out of mischief, so that they contribute less content, content which would be Boring. Some have thought that Boring Content was a WMF goal, but that's not true. It just looks that way.
Rejects may also prepare for a burst of edits if they have sleeper socks. Be prepared for boos if you try this. I was tempted to tell you how, but you will have to ask the technical experts privately. I'm somewhere in the Insider/Outsider group, that is, I've been an Insider who was thought to be an Outsider by an Insider, and who promoted me accordingly, who is trying to classify me as a Reject, and even though I'd love to be a Reject, I'm not yet qualified, I have not accumulated enough hit points. It just would not be fair, to classify me with Moulton, who has worked so hard for the honor. How about a round of applause for Moulton!
Barry, sorry, you are a mere Outsider now. You get to create content without the drama. Did you think this would be better? Hah! Don't you love this game?
To become a Reject, you have to accumulate hit points from many other players. It's not so easy on Wikiversity. On Wikipedia, all you have to do is sneeze at the wrong time, you're immediately in the Reject group for getting snot all over an Insider's favorite page. Or over their POV. Come on over to Wikiversity and learn how to play this game the new way, and then, as a Reject, you'll have a path to the other groups if you decide to return as an Outsider (return to being an Insider is rare as a direct step), to try to work your way back up again to Reject, even on Wikipedia. This game can be played over and over, even after the chorus is screaming "Enough! We have no patience left!" Or is it Patients? Never did get that straight. It is truly fun to be a Reject and then be seated as an Outsider, surrounded by jealous admirers. But it's a trap. Don't get stuck there.
Wikpediia has this really cool rule: If you aren't yet a Reject, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project. Okay, so it's stated a little differently, but that's the logical consequence. Break enough rules, you will offend enough people who believe that All People Should Follow The Rules, i.e., they reject the really cool rule, that places Content first, hence you are sure to be blocked. But it's so easy to become a Reject on Wikipedia that it's Boring. You have to work really hard on Wikiversity, in spite of what the King has said.
King? Yes, Wikiverstiy has a King. At least that's the role he's playing, his courtiers and subjects aren't cooperating. Happens to Kings all the time, you'd think they'd learn. But this is the drama, Shakespeare played on this and so are we.
Come join the Fun! Truly, The more, the merrier. Don't be square, I'll see you there! If I make it into the Reject group, my fingers are crossed, you'll be able to identify my edits by the summary, which will always include the phrase "self-revert per block of Abd."
Anonymous Reject editing is totally stupid. Well, not totally. It's for juveniles who find Whack-a-Mole the peak of entertainment. I shouldn't be judgmental of what is normal for children.
There are complicated rules by which Insiders try to hide from Outsiders, and other Insiders, contributions from Rejects and to prevent Rejects from playing, but the real rules are stacked against the Insiders, who end up playing Whack-a-Mole with Rejects who have no fear of the mallet, since it's totally invisible to them, they don't even flinch, and they can't feel a thing from it. Insiders forget this, the role takes over their thinking -- this is Method acting -- so when the Reject just keeps playing, they can get more and more frustrated.. "Damn it! Doesn't he realize we don't want his crap!" This the most fun when the contribution was valuable and useful, because it makes the Insider look like an Idiot. ScienceApologist knew that game on Wikipedia. This is enormous fun to watch as a Reject, Outsider, and even a few Insiders realize the nature of the game, and play it for fun, and then join the Reject in the bar afterwards. I.e., here on the Review. Great game today! Eh?
Just remember: If you are not having Fun, Something is Wrong. Change the way you play. Jump from one group to another, vary your strategies, watch others who are Having Fun, and RTFM. you fucking retard.
Sorry, no offense intended against retarded people. Nor against fucking. For sure not against fucking. So if you are a retard, and you enjoy fucking, you may consider the above as a compliment, but I warn: playing this game too much will quite surely result in less fucking. To have more fucking, you'll have to meet some Real People. That doesn't happen very much in the wiki shadow world. And when I went to WikiConference New York last year it was mostly like being with a bunch of zombies, eyes glazed over. There were a few exceptions. That and the free pizza were not enough to draw me to drive to New York again. I'll drive to Boston, it's closer. I've been offered a walk at Walden Pond. Now that's an incentive!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 10:08pm)
20 mg methylphenidate SR, 1x a day
I wish I could get an Rx for methylphenidate. Doctors around here refuse to let me having anything that might "make me happy, or want to work". But they'll give me a medical marijuana card. I don't want that crap, I want SPEED.
You lucky bastard.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 7:30am)
Greg already has his own Wiki. Moulton already has his own. Wikiversity probably wont exist if both are allowed to roam.
Maybe. I haven't been looking at chat logs. That's kinda deliberate. It was a little surprising to see who wrote that. But maybe he'll come around. It wasn't Ottava.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 18th August 2010, 6:41pm)
Welcome back to Wikiversity. Your arrogant stupidity is an improvement over the place without you.
I thought you'd appreciate that. Now, I'll know that Wikiversity has become safe when I can say that there without anything more than a warning.
Once upon a time it might have been. Do you recall you telling a user that he could cooperate or fuck off?
And, yes, if I said that on-wiki, I'd expect to be warned. Being funny isn't enough. Being warned is a small price to pay for a little frank comment or fun. We just shouldn't be doing that every day. Sets a bad example, eh?
The linguistic subtlety of your comment seemed to evade everyone else. But it was uncivil, I had to grant them that, reading it.
It's bizarre what's going on, though. I mentioned on Talk Diego Grez that I'd been "thinking of dinging" Adambro for a wheel-warring reversal of Diego's unblock of Adambro's block. Geoff promptly dinged me for the "incivility." Hello? Does this word have some meaning I'm not aware of?
By the way, that is almost the only real warning I've gotten, and it wasn't a warning, it was a friendly reminder. Adambro has also dinged me about reverting in contributions of that banned user, the Monster Moulton, Menace and Mountebank. I asked him if this was a warning or just his opinion and desire. He hasn't responded to the question. He's been active. Therefore it wasn't a warning, it was just his opinion, which I pretty much already knew. However, I became more careful. I've made a list of Moulton contributions to revert back in. Most of them I reverted out myself, on sight, don't you all think that's a clever trick? I do. I think Moulton is also beginning to appreciate it. Or not, he keeps trying to trap me into a paradox, one of his favorite games. I agree, it's fun.
So far, not one objection to any specific restoration I've made. Just a general objection about the practice. Bad. Encourages block evasion. Naughty!
Sure. But it only encourages the kind of block evasion we'd want. Positive contributions. Concept seems to evade the understanding of some. Must be an evasive concept.... Ban it! Quickly, before it gets away! Wait a minute, don't we want it to go away, that's why we ban it? I'm horribly confused.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:04am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 10:08pm)
20 mg methylphenidate SR, 1x a day
I wish I could get an Rx for methylphenidate. Doctors around here refuse to let me having anything that might "make me happy, or want to work". But they'll give me a medical marijuana card. I don't want that crap, I want SPEED.
You lucky bastard.
I think so. Where do you live, Eric, and can you see a different doctor? What kind of doctor have you been seeing? GP? Psychiatrist? Diagnosis? The drug is a highly controlled substance because it is, in fact, dangerous. I'm taking a tiny dose, really. That I responded so well to a small does is a kind of confirmation of my diagnosis. Larger doses make me feel GREAT!, GREAT! I TELL YOU! (AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM TELLING YOU!) But.... definitely goes too far, and there are side effects. No side effects with the small dose, or few.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 18th August 2010, 7:30am)
Greg already has his own Wiki. Moulton already has his own. Wikiversity probably wont exist if both are allowed to roam.
WV is already non-existent, according to the Jimbo-Lovers anyway.
This isn't about Jimbo, never was. It is somewhat about the "Jimbo-lovers," the kind of "friends" who, I suspect, he'd really like to see go away but he doesn't know how to tell them. If he likes being surrounded by these people, he's far worse off than I've thought. But it's also about people who want their nice community but won't do any heavy lifting for it.
Ottava thinks I'm completely oblivious, that everyone hates me, but I just won't see it. Pretty funny, eh?
They are all against me, they must be voting the way I suggest because they are just trying to give me enough rope so I can hang myself. Yeah, that's it. That's how they can explain it to Ottava to keep him from figuring out what is really happening. "We are just letting him think that he's successful so that he'll become arrogant and then, bang! we can ban him."
Brilliant plan! Wikiversity is a collaborative community. How can I cooperate with this?
I've got it! When I bring up a Community Review for Ottava, vote to ban him. I won't propose it, I'll just propose desysop. (By the way, I've never done that before. I suggested that ArbComm suspend WMC's bit until they had assurances that he wouldn't use the tools while involved again. But who listened to me?)
And then, when he's banned, Wikiversity can see, really, what an arrogant asshole I truly am when I think I'm in charge. Ottava, in on this clever plan, will be gloating. Until he realizes, wait a minute! I'm blocked and he's not? And when he asks for unblock, on IRC they will tell him, Not Yet, Ottava, we're not yet Done with Abd. On-wiki, they will say, Abd, please tell us what to do, oh wise one. Hoping that I'll make some mistake so they can blame everything wrong on me instead of on Ottava.
Isn't this how it works? No?
I guess I'll just have to find out by living it out. And maybe people are !voting how they think. What a concept!
Now, about that IRC log. Ottava really did not understand what was happening. I was not against the block, I'd warned JWS and he'd continued. I was against Adambro being the one to block, he was obviously involved, and it's a terrible practice to allow an appearance of bias to fester like that. But I'm far, far more against the kind of bullying that Ottava was engaging in, mentioning my name in vain.
Adambro needs some guidance, and the community has not provided it. That's the community's fault. Given that, what Adambro has done is just not that awful. It's getting tighter for him, the standards are rising, but I think he'll meet the challenge. Ottava? I see no sign of hope at all. I'd love to be wrong, I'm not into punishment at all, it's stupid. It's an effing volunteer site. Protection of the volunteers, though, yes. And allowing bullies the tools to intimidate and threaten, no. not to be allowed.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 18th August 2010, 11:37pm)
Sure. But it only encourages the kind of block evasion we'd want. Positive contributions. Concept seems to evade the understanding of some. Must be an evasive concept.... Ban it! Quickly, before it gets away! Wait a minute, don't we want it to go away, that's why we ban it? I'm horribly confused.
It's always darkest before the dawn, Abd... You're almost there! One more short conceptual leap and you'll have it sussed!
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 19th August 2010, 6:04am)
It would be in the best interests of the project if Adam resigned as Custodian and began crafting academic content instead.
I can't find any Wikiversity rule that forbits Custodians from crafting academic content. Adambro doesn't actually need to resign. Of course, as with a WP admin, doing Custodian work must detract from the free time he has available.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
For reasons not entirely clear to those puzzling over it,* the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse have produced negligible academic content, compared to their copious levels of political chatterings at Wikiversity.
* Both User:Sj and User:Jtneill have noted and lamented this remarkable lopsidedness.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 19th August 2010, 2:04pm)
For reasons not entirely clear to those puzzling over it,* the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse have produced negligible academic content, compared to their copious levels of political chatterings at Wikiversity.
* Both User:Sj and User:Jtneill have noted and lamented this remarkable lopsidedness.
On my accounts, I've probably added about 500k worth of information.
Minus the welcome templates, I think it is about balance for what I've posted everywhere else. My user talk page has 190k worth of work linked and a lot more unlinked.
I still have 8 more pages waiting for formatting, which takes a while to get through.
Looking back at Moulton's stuff, that is more than what he produced.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 18th August 2010, 9:04pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 17th August 2010, 10:08pm)
20 mg methylphenidate SR, 1x a day
I wish I could get an Rx for methylphenidate. Doctors around here refuse to let me having anything that might "make me happy, or want to work". But they'll give me a medical marijuana card. I don't want that crap, I want SPEED.
You lucky bastard.
Speed is wonderful if it doesn't make you cranky. Which it does in many people. Or anxious. Or increase your paranoia or your inner-assholeness. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Or make you write overlong mypomaniacal intricate rants on the internet. There's a reason why every person isn't personally tuned to be "speedied," if that was the best way to be all the time.
There a certain amount of hypocrisy that we have this massive drug war on crystal meth, whereas if you go to your doc and do a good enough song and dance about your concentration problems, you can get something about as good. And the same stuff that gets diverted to 1/3rd of college students to be used as "mental steroids." Since it's completely a myth that it has the oppostite effect on ADHD people as it does on "normal people."
I'm so tired of the "war on drugs." It would be so completely in W. Bush's character to put all those people in jail while taking speed himself, that I have to believe it's true.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 19th August 2010, 7:31pm)
There a certain amount of hypocrisy that we have this massive drug war on crystal meth, whereas if you go to your doc and do a good enough song and dance about your concentration problems, you can get something about as good. And the same stuff that gets diverted to 1/3rd of college students to be used as "mental steroids." Since it's completely a myth that it has the oppostite effect on ADHD people as it does on "normal people."
I'm so tired of the "war on drugs." It would be so completely in W. Bush's character to put all those people in jail while taking speed himself, that I have to believe it's true.
Doctors want to keep their patients happy, and they acknowledge the power and embrace the use of placebos. So if a patient wants some good drugs and the doctor feels those drugs are not too dangerous, she'll usually write a script. That's why half the fucking country tinkers with antidepressants, prescribed by GPs with next to no clinical psychology training.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:04am)
I wish I could get an Rx for methylphenidate. Doctors around here refuse to let me having anything that might "make me happy, or want to work". But they'll give me a medical marijuana card. I don't want that crap, I want SPEED.
You lucky bastard.
On the other hand, Doctors get all kinds of wackos seeking dangerous and highly addictive drugs.
Have you tried coffee Eric? How about wheat grass juice with a couple of shots of espresso, and maybe some yerba mate thrown in for good measure? In my experience the latter has significant oomph. You have to grow the sprouts yourself though - the stuff sold in the stores is a joke.
OK, here we go Eric. From the Wikipedia article; "[methylphenidate] shouldn't be prescribed to patients who demonstrate drug-seeking behavior, pronounced agitation or bat-shit insanity."
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 19th August 2010, 8:03pm)
On my accounts, I've probably added about 500k worth of information. ... Looking back at Moulton's stuff, that is more than what he produced.
I don't want to put words in Moulton's mouth. Still, he has an obvious comeback. He said "negligible academic content". He can claim that your work, while voluminous, is not academic.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 19th August 2010, 8:50pm)
How can people look back on all that first class material on the foundations of ethics which Jimbo arranged to have deleted?
People with admin powers can view deleted articles.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:43pm)
So if a patient wants some good drugs and the doctor feels those drugs are not too dangerous, she'll usually write a script. That's why half the fucking country tinkers with antidepressants, prescribed by GPs with next to no clinical psychology training.
Heh, heh. Like they could get those drugs from an actual clinical psychologist. Not.
Everybody knows combos of drugs and talk therapy work best (and those plus lots of fish oil maybe even better). But talk is not cheap, so medicine turns to drugs and machines. Which is why we've run out of money to pay for talk. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
One of these days you might see a few antidepressants over-the-counter. At least the old, off patent, long half-life ones, like fluoxetine and citalopram. The more dangeous ones seem to be the ones that are "activating" (like Abd's Wellbutrin) or the short half-life ones that bonk people over the head with that lead-in where the drug isn't working and the patient actually probably feels worse. The older drugs tend to "sneak up on you" so that doensn't happen.
Hey, there aren't many antidepressant-abusers. If the DEA doesn't care, and the things are off patent so the drug companies don't care, the government doesn't care. Your stomach could rot out like with the NSAIDS, or your liver go on the fritz like with Tylenol. So what? So long as it's not a narcotic or antibiotic, you'll probably see it on the shelves eventually.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 1:02am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 18th August 2010, 11:37pm)
Sure. But it only encourages the kind of block evasion we'd want. Positive contributions. Concept seems to evade the understanding of some. Must be an evasive concept.... Ban it! Quickly, before it gets away! Wait a minute, don't we want it to go away, that's why we ban it? I'm horribly confused.
It's always darkest before the dawn, Abd... You're almost there! One more short conceptual leap and you'll have it sussed!
Okay, I lept. Now what? I should have asked first.
It would be in the best interests of the project if Adam resigned as Custodian and began crafting academic content instead.
I disagree. I don't see any sign that he is ready.
I'm becoming fond of my classification of editors into Insider, Outsider, and Reject. Adambro is an Insider, which means he's got his head stuck in the Inside. You know where that is, right?
Outsiders may be able to handle academic content based on reading about what others have done, but Rejects do it.
I.e., Ordinary editor is a higher, more respected classification than Custodian. Like, shouldn't that be obvious from the name? Who is higher status in a University, the custodian or campus police -- JWS seems to have some confusion about what a custodian is, they are hybrid clean-up servants and police -- or the students, teachers, and other staff? Hello?
And who would imagine it would be a good thing if the custodians or police at a university controlled the content of courses, and who could speak and who could not?
Anyway, Adam may well have been given good advice by some individuals, but the community hasn't given him good advice, and if the community gives him good advice and then he ignores it, then there is something else the community can do. Easily.
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th August 2010, 8:59pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 19th August 2010, 1:04am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 19th August 2010, 12:58am)
Adambro needs some guidance, and the community has not provided it
It would be in the best interests of the project if Adam resigned as Custodian and began crafting academic content instead.
I diaagree. I don't see any sign that he is ready.
I'm becoming fond of my classification of editors into Insider, Outsider, and Reject. Adambro is an Insider, which means he's got his head stuck in the Inside. You know where that is, right?
Outsiders may be able to handle academic content based on reading about what others have done, but Rejects do it.
I.e., Ordinary editor is a higher, more respected classification than Custodian. Like, shouldn't that be obvious from the name? Who is higher status in a University, the custodian or campus police -- JWS seems to have some confusion about what a custodian is, they are hybrid clean-up servants and police -- or the students, teachers, and other staff? Hello?
And who would imagine it would be a good thing if the custodians or police at a university controlled the content of courses, and who could speak and who could not?
Anyway, Adam may well have been given good advice by some individuals, but the community hasn't given him good advice, and if the community gives him good advice and then he ignores it, then there is something else the community can do. Easily.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:09pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 18th August 2010, 11:36pm)
Doesn't "Mafia" mean "family"?
No
It's amazing how few people will give us such simple informative corrections. Thanks, Peter.
Peter is correct. However, there is a connection with "family." The Mafia is also known as "Cosa Nostra," or "our thing," and it was (is?) literally a "family thing."
"Family" is a nice word, eh? But not when it represents a division of the world into "us" -- our happy family, the people who run Wikiversity -- and "them," or the trolls, critics, anybody who doesn't go along with what "we," the "family" want.
Ottava was using the word "family" with me as meaning a group that excluded me and others. That group may theoretically be open, but not to people with "outside" ideas.
At a site that styles itself as some kind of open university, this is poison.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 20th August 2010, 11:16pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 20th August 2010, 9:10pm)
Source: Wm Connolley's blog, "Wiki Madness" June 29, 2008.
You don't have to provide a citation when the quote is from one of your own comments... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)
Sure I do. Otherwise, how would I ever have raised this to your attention...
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 20th August 2010, 11:26pm)
I noticed that on Connolley's blog, he's edited a significant number of comments by appending his own parenthetical statement on at the end, always with "-W." at the end.
I guess he figured if it was OK to do it on his own site, why not his own talk page? Surely the admins would all know about his blog-comment-editing habit and not think it was such a big deal.
I rather doubt anyone would have known of Connollley's comment-editing proclivities had I neglected to cite my sources.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 21st August 2010, 10:08am)
Sure I do. Otherwise, how would I ever have raised this to your attention...
I'll admit, that is indeed what brought that to my attention. However, you could have posted that observation yourself - OTOH, if you were subtly trying to get me to do it so as to give me the opportunity to make a clever (?) observation, well then, thanks! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Project considered by some to be disruptivewas operating on Wikiversity . TK had edited it. JW parachuted in to save the WMF, blocked TK.
Wikiversity community comes unglued. SB_Johnny, 'crat, is desysopped by JW, reopped, and then resigns.
WV custodian files RfC on meta to remove Founder flag from JW.
RvC sputters along, about 1:2, as would be expected. There are far more supporters of Jimbo than there are people who even know what WV is. (Given that, this !vote should have been worrisome. But people who want to believe that they are popular frequently miss clues like that. Many of the Oppose !votes were of the nature of Why Do We Have This Silly RfC, Anyway, the Trolls Should Be Blocked.)
JW, seeing that WV is useless and failing to impress, goes to Commons and reviews pornography. Tough job, but someone's got to do it. Deletes some out of process.
We don't really care about academic freedom, but don't touch our porn! Commons users (and users of commons images, including some deleted, on many encyclopedia projects) pile in, RfC reverses to 4:1 in favor of removal, with over 500 !votes.
JW "voluntarily" gives up the intrusive tools, the disruptive ones. Can't block a fly on a wiki, any more, unless they have given him a local sysop bit.
Meta stewards toss JW a bone by globally locking the TK account.
Some decision is made -- we no longer see the discussions behind these things, secret decision-making has become common, in spite of being explicitly prohibited in steward policy -- that local wikis should be able to make their own decisions about who can participate and who cannot. So stewards go around to all the local wikis to locally block, and the global lock is lifted. This was obviously a secret decision, it was coordinated and fast. And it made sense as a compromise. (Respect Jimbo's comment when he was angry -- effectively, "who will rid me of this troublesome Kohs?" --, but also respect local autonomy.)
But on May 30, ML relocked TK, causing him to be unable to edit on wikis where he had been unblocked, such as de.wikipedia and wikinews. He never had been unable to edit on wikis where his account hadn't been linked, I think. If so, it was only because of the local lock. The local communities were not informed of the new global lock, the lock summary says that it was per discussion, but there was no public discussion or disclosure, beyond the log itself, and confusion resulted.
On Wikiversity, TK made an agreement with Abd to try to return, by opening up an account for the purpose of communication, so the global lock can be bypassed. Abd blocks the account (which had no contributions), but allows Talk page access. Then a process was negotiated where TK would make nondisruptive edits, positive contributions, by IP, and self-revert. WV editors reviewed the edits and found them good, and reverted them back in. For weeks, this went on and the IP remained unblocked, even though the most fanatic "Block the IP if the editor is blocked!" custodian knew fully what was going on. Eventually, though his fuses blew and he blocked. A guy can only take so much cognitive dissonance. He has finely honed reflexes developed to press Block User and Rollback Contribution faster than the user can hiccup. You don't want to ruin those by introducing any thinking. I don't blame him. I wouldn't either.
No problem. Abd went to the page for requesting custodian action and requested unblock. A sprawling discussion resulted, and finally SB_Johnny, seeing that the WV community was paralyzed (it wasn't, it is just *very* slow), returns with a fanfare (Ottava screaming "Out of process!"), and sets up a poll. The poll shows, after some time, 75% consensus to unblock Thekohser. Then SBJohnny has cover to delink the TK account to turn off the global lock, and he unblocks. (And Ottava screamed "Recusal failure, he closed what he supported," which is a fascinating position for Ottava to take, given that he's absolutely opposed recusal policy formation on Wikiversity. Ottava forgot that you can do almost anything if you have 75% expressed support.)
Naturally, the sky fell, fulfilling Ottava Rima's sober predictions and his desperate attempt to prevent Wikiversity from committing wikisuicide.
Not. Not so far, anyway.
Another unblock effort has been underway at Wikibooks. There, a 'crat delinked first, in a discussion that appeared to favor that. TK then requested unblock. The discussion continued. There was only one dissenter to unblocking: ML, who simply kept repeating his mantra: "This is silly. The user is banned. End of question," how many times? I lost count.
So the 'crat unblocked, having seen sufficient consensus for that. SB_Johnny, on Wikiversity, closing the discussion there, commented that, hopefully, in the future we'd require a consensus to block, not to unblock.
Anyway, ML immediately reblocked. Since he is also a steward, he was asked if this was a steward action or local. He responded "local." Various Wikibooks users notice that the sky appears to be falling, since a local sysop, 'crat, and checkuser was wheel-warring against an expressed consensus.
Wait. ML was no longer a checkuser. At the same time as he reblocked, he went to meta and requested the bit be taken away. No reason given, but it was obvious. Meta requires that there always be two checkusers, and the other one was the 'crat who had unblocked. It was a device for reducing that 'crats privileges. Payback. Mike can give himself checkuser any time he wants, on the face of it, because he is a steward.
Looks grim for the WB community, eh? Not so fast. A request for permissions is cobbed together and a discussion is set up, and there are 27 signatures quickly gathered to request a new checkuser. And so a steward sets the bit for the new one (congratulations, Thenub314), and restores the bit to the 'crat (Adrignola).
Signs of furious behind-the-scenes activity by ML have been appearing. His visible contributions have plummeted. He canvasses another user and admin on some wikis to pop into Wikiversity and vote against a permanent custodianship for a young fellow who had supported the unblock of TK, and as a result, the vote appeared to be 67% for promotion. (In fact, it was 70% with all votes counted, and that vote was blatantly canvassed, the IRC logs became known). The candidacy was rejected. The user realizes that he now has less dirty work to do, and is relieved, and, as well, can notice that the only regular user who voted against him is a permanent custodian who wheel-warred with him. And he had seven supports from regular users.
A user appeared on Wikibooks who changed her (?) position based on private communications with ML. He'd explained to her how TK was accustomed to eating babies and every word he said was a lie calculated to Destroy the Wiki. Sort of. And besides, TK is globally banned ... globally banned ... globally banned. The whole discussion is Stupid, because, did I mention, TK is globally banned? And anyone who questions this is an obvious Troll, why do we allow this blatant disruption?
(OMG! Do you realize that MIKE LIFEGUARD personally emailed me to explain this? I am sooo honored!)
But Thekohser is editing freely now on: Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikinews.
So the score as it stands.
JW: 5 ... WV: 10 ... TK: 10 ... ML: 0
JW is reasonably happy because his original concern, abuse of Wikiversity as a platform to illegitimately attack other wiki users -- i.e., without clear guidelines to protect user privacy and similar problems --, has been interdicted, and will remain so. I may be underestimating his sense of success.
WV is happy because it has gained some content, may gain more, and has established its right to make local decisions, and there are users who will actively watch to make sure nothing untoward happens.
TK is happy because he can give the finger to JW and ML. Can't ban me! Nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah!
And ML is a loser, running around desperately trying to shift the situation by pulling hidden strings, and it isn't working. The strings appear to be broken. Only the clueless are listening to him.
And the WMF will benefit as well, because Wikiversity will host projects under ethical guidelines to do real Wiki Studies. The old problems were due to a lack of guidelines and/or supervision and restraint. People will always try to do stuff that will cause trouble, that's not going to change. But functionaly communities learn how to handle the shit safely and turn it into fertilizer that grows stuff.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 21st August 2010, 4:19pm)
(OMG! Do you realize that MIKE LIFEGUARD personally emailed me to explain this? I am sooo honored!)
If that's not an indication of off-wiki canvassing, I don't know what is. I guess a transparent discussion on the wiki where the other side has a chance to respond is too much to ask for.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 21st August 2010, 5:44pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 21st August 2010, 9:19pm)
Damn! I start out to write a Brief History of [anything], and lose my focus.
Yeah, we noticed that.
We notice that you noticed.
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sat 21st August 2010, 7:36pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 21st August 2010, 4:19pm)
(OMG! Do you realize that MIKE LIFEGUARD personally emailed me to explain this? I am sooo honored!)
If that's not an indication of off-wiki canvassing, I don't know what is. I guess a transparent discussion on the wiki where the other side has a chance to respond is too much to ask for.
It is not going to happen spontaneously. It's not enough to have a policy, as there is on meta for stewards, there have to be enforcement processes. Or it's meaningless.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Mike.lifeguard responding to User:Panic on Wikibooks)
You say that Pathoschild's actions were a "correction" when in fact they were a mistake. Thekohser is banned from all WMF projects. I don't know how to make that clearer. –mike@en.wb:~$ 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mike could make it clearer if he exhibited the record of the case or the hearing where that outcome was adjudicated, per the presumptive WMF model of "due process" (assuming such a model exists).
Or, it might be just another instance of Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Evar.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th August 2010, 1:31pm)
QUOTE(Mike.lifeguard responding to User:Panic on Wikibooks)
You say that Pathoschild's actions were a "correction" when in fact they were a mistake. Thekohser is banned from all WMF projects. I don't know how to make that clearer. –mike@en.wb:~$ 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mike could make it clearer if he exhibited the record of the case or the hearing where that outcome was adjudicated, per the presumptive WMF model of "due process" (assuming such a model exists).
Or, it might be just another instance of Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Evar.
GBG's Corollary: Once Moulton is wronged, no matter how trivial the injury, he will never shut-up. Ever.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th August 2010, 2:31pm)
If you want peace, work for justice.
If not, dissipate yourself by pursuing petty grievances all over the internet.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
Mod Note: Moulton's post concerning crank racial theories have been moved to the closed thread in Politics and Such on the same topic.
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:31pm)
QUOTE(Mike.lifeguard responding to User:Panic on Wikibooks)
You say that Pathoschild's actions were a "correction" when in fact they were a mistake. Thekohser is banned from all WMF projects. I don't know how to make that clearer. –mike@en.wb:~$ 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mike could make it clearer if he exhibited the record of the case or the hearing where that outcome was adjudicated, per the presumptive WMF model of "due process" (assuming such a model exists).
Or, it might be just another instance of Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. Evar.
I hope N is a high number, because I don't think this is a very good law. Not that I'm looking to further derail another thread discussing pet theories, just wanted to say that.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
So, is it becoming clear to every Wikibookian that Mike.lifeguard's grounds for global locking of my account is "personal vendetta", and that he abused his tools to further that flimsy agenda? Or, is it just me?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th August 2010, 7:11pm)
So, is it becoming clear to every Wikibookian that Mike.lifeguard's grounds for global locking of my account is "personal vendetta", and that he abused his tools to further that flimsy agenda? Or, is it just me?
Global locking "per discussion" and then not linking to the discussion after another steward removed the global lock is suspicious. Perpetuating a conflict of interest as both the global locker and local blocker is not acceptable. And Pathoschild confirmed on his talk page that "there is no steward consensus in favour of enforcing the ban in this way".
Getting any further information on what the justification is for the local block, much less the global lock, is like talking to a wall, however.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th August 2010, 8:11pm)
So, is it becoming clear to every Wikibookian that Mike.lifeguard's grounds for global locking of my account is "personal vendetta", and that he abused his tools to further that flimsy agenda? Or, is it just me?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th August 2010, 5:11pm)
So, is it becoming clear to every Wikibookian that Mike.lifeguard's grounds for global locking of my account is "personal vendetta", and that he abused his tools to further that flimsy agenda? Or, is it just me?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
On Wikiversity, it does seem that my account has been detached from Mike.lifeguard's personal "global lock", is unblocked, and is free to contribute again.
So, that makes edits today on the following Wikimedia projects:
Yet, only yesterday, Mike was stating emphatically, "Thekohser is banned from all WMF projects. I don't know how to make that clearer."
Maybe it would be more clear if Mike would just admit defeat in the face of community opposition to global account locks being secretly misused to carry out one-sided and arbitrary "global bans"? Either that, or Mike should re-block the Thekohser accounts on Commons, Wikisource, and Wikiversity, just to make his intentions more clear.
An unlock request is also in at Wikinews, being that I'm unblocked there, but the account's locked (out of process).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Now here's something very interesting to me...
Upon request from me on Wikinews to simply "unLOCK" the account that was previously unBLOCKED, one "Blood Red Sandman" weighed in with his opinion about that (negative, of course).
While Blood Red is coming around to the notion that the Wikinews community should not be overruled, he took it upon himself to go on over to Wikipedia and BLOCK the IP address that I happen to be using, ever since it became unblocked a couple of weeks ago.
Meanwhile, during those short 16 days where the IP was unblocked on Wikipedia, there were five (5) edits made to Wikipedia article space. I hereby attest that 80% of those edits were not me, and I had absolutely nothing to do with those edits, other than being proximate physically (somewhere in the building) to the people who made them. So, the IP is blocked for another 6 months by Blood Red Sandman (acting on evidence from another Wikimedia project). Net benefit -- my company is saved probably measurable hours of productivity time that would otherwise be wasted on Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Hey gang, do you think we can get a review (in recent hindsight) of this area on Meta?
It seems that everywhere Mike.lifeguard's "global lock" action has been carefully reviewed, the community consensus is that it was inappropriate and a misuse of the tool function. Maybe the whole megillah should be overturned?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 27th August 2010, 12:22pm)
Hey gang, do you think we can get a review (in recent hindsight) of this area on Meta?
It seems that everywhere Mike.lifeguard's "global lock" action has been carefully reviewed, the community consensus is that it was inappropriate and a misuse of the tool function. Maybe the whole megillah should be overturned?
Yeah. I just wrote a tome on your Wikibooks Talk page, in response to the stub the nub. I'd made a relatively brief comment on your Wikinews talk, congratulating you and giving you the usual precautionary talk. And the 'crat seems to have concluded that I was "stalking" and "harassing" you and dinged me for it on my wikinews Talk page. Heh! Good luck dealing with that level of density! I'm sure he means well, though, and even a stopped clock can keep papers from blowing away.
I've concluded that, in fact, the situation with the global lock ain't so bad. For one thing, it's great at calling attention to the fact that stewards seem to be rather commonly violating steward policy, because now we have several stewards, in relation to your affair, acknowledging "discussions" that obviously were not on-wiki. Mike.lifeguard says that some were IRC, some private email list or private emails. That's a blatant lack of the transparency that the Steward Handbook requires, that actions be based on on-wiki (on-meta) discussion.
But the global lock also requires a 'crat to fix it locally. When then makes it less likely that some punk admin will just reblock on some pretext. It means that a community is more consciously taking on the burden of a smartass like you. In the long run, it will be safer, I predict. Just be careful!
Tell me, were those sarcastic comments on Wikipedia worth the hassle that they caused? It's a real question, I think that there was huge value for them in exposing what idiots the arbitrators are. Blocking someone for a sarcastic edit summary like "I pledge allegiance to ArbComm"? What ever happened to caring about content? These are juveniles, even though the arbitrator that actually blocked you looks old enough to be a grandmother, easily. Some people never grow up.
(These people have completely confused executive and judicial power, but, of course, that's just one of a huge pile of process errors, too many to document!)
But if you pile it on now that you seem free enough to do so, you know what will happen. The people who helped you will feel betrayed, and the backlash will be strong, and this time it will have been a local community deciding on a block, not Jimbo and the gang at meta.
Instead, Greg, I think you know what I'd like you to do. Start, carefully, on Wikiversity, to help write guidelines for ethical research into the WMF wikis. Not to "expose corruption," though eventually it might come to that. Rather, to insure that the subsequent research and documentation process itself follows ethical guidelines and doesn't become an excuse for laundry lists of complaints about this or that user.
My own view is that the wiki problems are not caused by the players in the drama, they are structural in nature; the structure creates the roles, and people will fill them according to their natures. Give the same people better structure, they will behave better. Much better.
You, and many others, have been badly abused. But turning around and abusing the abusers, even though there may be some justice in that, will not resolve the problems. Kick the abusers out without changing the structure, new people will fill the roles. Fix the structure, and some of the abusers may become cooperative members of the community. Along with many "banned users." Others won't.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th August 2010, 10:47pm)
I just wrote a tome on your Wikibooks Talk page, in response to the stub the nub.
I just read that. Or should I say I tried to read it. My eyes scanned the text, but I'm afraid to say I have no idea what you were trying to say. Abd, I daresay you hold the world's record (in my personal experience) for the ratio of words uttered to information conveyed.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th August 2010, 4:13pm)
While Blood Red is coming around to the notion that the Wikinews community should not be overruled, he took it upon himself to go on over to Wikipedia and BLOCK the IP address that I happen to be using, ever since it became unblocked a couple of weeks ago.
Meanwhile, during those short 16 days where the IP was unblocked on Wikipedia, there were five (5) edits made to Wikipedia article space. I hereby attest that 80% of those edits were not me, and I had absolutely nothing to do with those edits, other than being proximate physically (somewhere in the building) to the people who made them. So, the IP is blocked for another 6 months by Blood Red Sandman (acting on evidence from another Wikimedia project). Net benefit -- my company is saved probably measurable hours of productivity time that would otherwise be wasted on Wikipedia.
From the IP editor talk page, we have this brilliant explanation from Blood Red Sandman:
QUOTE
As I mentioned on Wikinews, I blocked this IP again. Nothing personal (although on a personal level I doubt I'd !vote in favour of unblocking), but as an admin I have a duty to prevent you flouting your block. That's a duty I can't get round, same as you can't just get round your block. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing personal. Right.
Where do these blockheads get the idea that they have a "duty" to "prevent flouting a block"? The duty, if any, is first to avoid damaging the project with the tools, and the second duty, beyond that, is to block to prevent damage. Just because an IP might be a blocked or banned editor creates no duty at all. Block enforcement, for these busybodies, has become an end in itself, and they will pursue it to insane lengths, to "win" this "battle." It's especially ironic if an user has been blocked for "having a battlefield mentality." Have you ever seen the WikiProject Spam page?
Yeah, spam is a problem, and I tried to organize non-admin help to deal with it. Blocked. I saw way too many cases where the mindless antispam habits ended up seriously abusing good-faith contributors who had simply placed "too many" useful links to some web site that they thought highly useful, and, guess what? The antispam brigades don't care about content. The evidence generally considered in making blacklist decisions, and block decisions, is simply that a user has added so many links. All of them could be completely appropriate, tough.
Mike.lifeguard is up to his eyeballs in this. That's how I first "met" him.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 30th August 2010, 11:06pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th August 2010, 10:47pm)
I just wrote a tome on your Wikibooks Talk page, in response to the stub the nub.
I just read that. Or should I say I tried to read it. My eyes scanned the text, but I'm afraid to say I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Well, I hope it was more coherent than that. It was long. I even tried to use a collapse box. Wikibooks doesn't seem to have the collapse template that I usually use....
Here is the comment. What I wanted to do was collapse the history part. See, Greg, I write as I research. I learned a great deal writing that, that I hadn't realized. I found, for example, where Jimbo had authorized the global lock of May 3 or so. Very clumsy. Very.
There is a reason why Pathoschild did not refer to that discussion in all the local blocks. Pathoschild is, relatively speaking, the good guy here, but, just like all the others, he was making decisions based on off-wiki discussions. The elephant in the living room. They don't even realize that it's a problem.
The difference between Pathoschild and Mike.lifeguard is that Pathoschild probably was acting with something resembling consensus, Mike.lifeguard is way out on a limb.
But if nobody will do anything about it, he owns the place, just like he owns Wikibooks if nobody will do anything about it.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 30th August 2010, 11:06pm)
Abd, I daresay you hold the world's record (in my personal experience) for the ratio of words uttered to information conveyed.
Moulton has lately decided that I'm a well-meaning idiot. He has a very simple standard: if I revert any of his contributions, no matter what my reason, I must be an idiot.
Simplifies his process of understanding. I've been explaining to him the algorithms I use to determine how I've been responding to his editing on Wikiversity. It's really very, very simple, but I believe him when he says that he can't understand it. He seems to be incapable of understanding anything that leads to conclusions that interrupt his personal agenda. That, in fact, is quite why he ended up so thoroughly banned. He couldn't see the other side, and so he could not negotiate compromises. He's more like them than he would care to recognize.
"the stub the nub"? Thenub314 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your question means? --Abd 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across this reference to myself on Wikipedia Review in a post by a user Abd (I am assuming your one and the same). I was curious what the name was supposed to imply about me (am I generally associated with stubs?). Moreover, why the abuse? The question was intended to mean something to the effect of "what's up with that?" Thenub314 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thenub, please do not bring discussion or possible complaint here from Wikipedia Review. That's like a local bar. It is not a Wikiversity Annex. You may ask me there, if you like, or you may email me. Thanks for respecting this. --Abd 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Usually, when one goes channel surfing, there is a completely different program on each channel.
Here, when you go channel surfing, the same program has snippets on half a dozen different channels.
No wonder no one can follow the story arc of these perplexing character-driven dramas.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 31st August 2010, 10:06am)
Usually, when one goes channel surfing, there is a completely different program on each channel.
Here, when you go channel surfing, the same program has snippets on half a dozen different channels.
No wonder no one can follow the story arc of these perplexing character-driven dramas.
Of course not. The wiki system was theoretically designed for transparency; however, they did not realize the complexity, and did not implement analytical systems that would intelligently filter the vast flow of information.
Some analytical tools have been provided, but they are not nearly enough.
Some of the guidelines recommend that article Talk pages be refactored to show the decision-making process. However, that "backstory," that would supposedly show why the article is the way it is, is hardly ever done. There have been some FAQs created that explain "article facts," and I've seen those be dominated by MPOV-pushing factions. Those FAQs should be true consensus documents, since they should be entirely based upon an historical record. If there are alternate versions, i.e., of the *meaning* of the historical record, a consensus report will present the alternatives, together with the "votes" on it. This report should be rigorously NPOV as a report of the history and arguments presented.
"NPOV" should mean that all parties would, in theory, be willing to sign off on it. I.e., "Yes, this incorporates the views of the good people, i.e., me and my friends, and what the stupid lying hipocrites, the other side, claim is their opinion." Except they wouldn't actually state that.
Moving toward backstory process like that would, in fact, dissipate much of the highly polarized situation that I just represented.
Full consensus like that on article content is naturally much more difficult, because the evidence is itself controversial, and encyclopedias require conciseness, but there is no such limit on documenting the process. Hypertext can be used to create a summary level and then fully detailed sublevels.
As the encyclopedia grows and matures, more and more work would go into the backstory. "Newbies" who try to re-enter old debates with rejected arguments would be referred to the backstory pages instead of just "Go away you clueless moron, and keep it up we will file a suspected sock puppet report on you. Revert." There, they would find all the arguments for and against what they are trying to do. If those arguments are incomplete, they would be invited to add new ones (at the bottom level) and to request review *by those who are sympathetic to those arguments* -- or who were in the past and understand why the arguments were rejected.) If some cogent new argument is presented, this would propagate up the structure to the point where it is reviewed by all involved and might even change the article content.
Thus, if there are "factions," each faction takes care of its own, at first. But this doesn't reach the article, until the process is ripe, and it becomes possible for the article to more closely approach true consensus, and to stay that way with stability. As the article approaches consensus and true NPOV, all on board that consensus (which should approach unity) have an interest in preserving the compromises that were made, because it is far less work to do so, and the result, if the old revert warring and "block the opposition" battles return, would have erratic and unpredictable results, long-term, not to mention wasting enormous amounts of time without actual improvement of content.
"the stub the nub"? Thenub314 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your question means? --Abd 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across this reference to myself on Wikipedia Review in a post by a user Abd (I am assuming your one and the same). I was curious what the name was supposed to imply about me (am I generally associated with stubs?). Moreover, why the abuse? The question was intended to mean something to the effect of "what's up with that?" Thenub314 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thenub, please do not bring discussion or possible complaint here from Wikipedia Review. That's like a local bar. It is not a Wikiversity Annex. You may ask me there, if you like, or you may email me. Thanks for respecting this. --Abd 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Now, as to this, I'm amazed that the stub would think (using the term for lack of a better word) that this would be appropriate to discuss on Wikiversity. Why not on Wikibooks, where he's an admin and could blocka-my-ass? Heh! Nyan nyah nyah nyan nyah. Betcha he won't!!!
I see that the stub has invited me to respond to his question here. Sure. "The stub" implies a truncated intellect, there is no there there, only the barest glimmering of intelligence can be discerned from what is visible. We used to call this a "warm body" at Caltech, and it was a term we used for each other. You know how undergrads can be, I assume. By the way, that was almost fifty years ago. But when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
What we have in Wikiversity is a pseudo-university run by the least qualified, for the most part. It is as if the campus police staged a coup and kicked out the senior academics and are making decisions on what can be taught and how and who can enroll and who can't and who can teach and who can't. And the academics were so befuddled by this outrage that they were not able to organize a coherent response. Compared to what it could be, the place is almost dead, there are only a few lights here and there.
This is not empty complaint. I can and will do something about it. But it will take time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 30th August 2010, 11:37pm)
Try publishing your "algorithms" here and see if anyone can understand them.
Well, I've described them in detail for Moulton, by email. Here is a summary:
1. Ignoring activity is an option, and I may periodically do this in order to gauge the effect of the remaining algorithm, or simply because I'm busy. With a cooperating editor (that's not Moulton, really, though occasionally he makes brief and feeble efforts in that direction), I'm far less likely to "ignore," but rather to much more consistently "support." In the end, though, the algorithm doesn't depend on cooperation.
2. If an edit by a blocked editor has not been reverted, and has not received comment in response, revert it without prejudice. I.e., not based on the content itself, but merely on the status of the editor. This is easy if the edit is self-identified (which is a form of cooperation).
3. If the edit has been self-reverted, proceed to the next steps immediately. I encourage self-reversion for blocked editors, because it yanks the rug out from under the rationale for block enforcement by IP blocks. If an unblocked editor would agree to self-revert, and follow up on that, in a problem area (which could be the entire damn wiki, or, say, everywhere outside of the user's private space or places where the user is specifically invited to participate, which could be a maintained list), there wouldn't be any need to block! Ever!
4. Review the reverted edits of blocked editors for suitability. Restore if suitable or at least not harmful.
5. If the blocked editor revert wars, revert with a warning and if revert warring continues, request blocking. Were I an admin, doing this with community support, I'd block if the warning was ignored. If not community support, I'd simply file a request, and not being an admin, that's also what I do.
6. If my restoration is reverted by a non-blocked editor, edit again, replacing content objected to with a link to the history and an explanation. If this was a resource (or article on Wikipedia -- though I cannot do this on Wikipedia because of my MYOB ban), I'd place this on the Talk page. (I handle having my own edits reverted in a similar way. I do not revert war with unblocked editors, unless I have such a strong position that community consensus is going to be obvious. And even then I won't usually do it immediately. Exception would be BLP problem on Wikipedia.
7. For particular blocked editors where I believe the editor has a significant percentage of usefulness in contributions, I may accumulate statistics, useful later in possible review of the block.
8. Where my activity has been challenged (typically as "encouraging block evasion"), start listing proposed restorations before doing it, especially where they might be somewhat controversial, to allow time for *specific* objections.
9. Find alternatives to restoration seeking to satisfy the legitimate objectives of the blocked editor, where restoration itself might be considered disruptive. For example, Moulton recently reverted the redaction of his old "testimony" by a hostile editor. That redaction was offensive, but, so too, the testimony might be considered offensive (I'm not judging that, simply noting that it was *obviously* considered offensive by some). So I replaced the entire evidence section content with a reference to that section in history. It is simply buried by one click. This is not necessarily a final disposition, but probably will stand until there are ethical guidelines in place for review of WikiMedia activity, which would cover such matters.
Note that the original allowance of the redaction of Moulton's evidence by a hostile editor, altering the actual words he had used in testifying to his experience, was utterly outrageous. That such an outrage was allowed to stand is symptomatic of the massive dysfunction of the WV community at that time.
The editor who altered testimony had a point, that Moulton used inflammatory language when less offensive language could have conveyed much the same, but part of the testimony would be emotional in nature, conveying the prior outrage that Moulton felt. The hostile editor could have made that edit and self-reverted, then referred to it, and could have sought to have the testimony "suppressed," either from the top level or entirely. That would have been possible. But simply altering personal, signed testimony, no. Beyond the pale.
Behind Moulton's continued disruption are real ethical offenses, and abuse he and others have suffered. Eventually, the communities will have to face this. I'm trying to bring that day closer, not to arrange for "guilty parties" to be punished or humiliated, but simply to design and provide functional structure, so that this doesn't continue to happen, or so that, if it does happen, the disputes can actually be resolved efficiently instead of just burying the side perceived as the loudest squeak.
Montana Mouse, as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome, but please don't squeak during a class on something else, please wait your turn. Unless I'm stepping on your tail, in which case, I'll try to attend to it promptly. But, please, watch your own tail and don't place it where it is likely to get stepped on. That's what I expect of a Mature Mouse, over sixty years old.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 31st August 2010, 11:23am)
What we have in Wikiversity is a pseudo-university run by the least qualified, for the most part. It is as if the campus police staged a coup and kicked out the senior academics and are making decisions on what can be taught and how and who can enroll and who can't and who can teach and who can't. And the academics were so befuddled by this outrage that they were not able to organize a coherent response. Compared to what it could be, the place is almost dead, there are only a few lights here and there.
I hope this isn't a recent revelation... that's been pretty clear for quite some time now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 31st August 2010, 11:23am)
This is not empty complaint. I can and will do something about it. But it will take time.
I'm sure your intentions will be rewarded in wikiheaven, but (no offense) all you've really done so far is convince both the campus police and the academics that you're a bit kooky. Which you'll have to admit is understandable, because trying to convince everyone to have the WV equivalent of AN/I in your userspace (and moderated by -- wait for it -- you) is just kinda, well, kooky.
Reminds me of a funny t-shirt I saw yesterday that said "my imaginary friend thinks you have serious mental problems". (I want one!)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 31st August 2010, 12:18pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 31st August 2010, 11:23am)
What we have in Wikiversity is a pseudo-university run by the least qualified, for the most part. It is as if the campus police staged a coup and kicked out the senior academics and are making decisions on what can be taught and how and who can enroll and who can't and who can teach and who can't. And the academics were so befuddled by this outrage that they were not able to organize a coherent response. Compared to what it could be, the place is almost dead, there are only a few lights here and there.
I hope this isn't a recent revelation... that's been pretty clear for quite some time now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 31st August 2010, 11:23am)
This is not empty complaint. I can and will do something about it. But it will take time.
I'm sure your intentions will be rewarded in wikiheaven, but (no offense) all you've really done so far is convince both the campus police and the academics that you're a bit kooky. Which you'll have to admit is understandable, because trying to convince everyone to have the WV equivalent of AN/I in your userspace (and moderated by -- wait for it -- you) is just kinda, well, kooky.
Reminds me of a funny t-shirt I saw yesterday that said "my imaginary friend thinks you have serious mental problems". (I want one!)
Spoken by someone who was a 'crat and custodian at WV and who was utterly unable to address the problems, giving up in despair. John, if you know better, please demonstrate it.
Yes, I have an "equivalent" to AN/I in my user space. Except it is not an equivalent, it is what AN/I should have been from the beginning: moderated. But doesn't that create a problem, who watches the watchers? No. My "private AN/I" is moderated by me. Don't like that, start your own damn equivalent. Let the best AN/I win. Or let all of them win. In the end, this is roughly what I see:
A central AN/I page, like the current "Request custodian action" page. This page is just a transclusion of "recognized" individual moderated pages. "Recognized" means "have been found useful by the community through some process. The individual request pages may possibly be other than neutral. But any custodian can watch any of them, including 'unappproved' ones, and handle the requests. These are on-wiki process, fully meeting the transparency requirements that are *not* met by the "recommended" use of IRC.
If an individual moderated page is found to have disruptive effect, it gets delisted from the central page. That would include having too much traffic, being used for debate.
Request custodian action should not be allowed to become a place to seek community consensus. That is exactly what demolished AN/I on Wikipedia. Highly abusive, highly dysfunctional.
You will notice that the Talk page for my private RCA page is at a level down, through a redirect. That is so that discussion -- which is not Request custodian action -- doesn't show up on watchlists. Anyone who wants to can also watch the discussion page. Or they can ignore it.
The ultimate goal is to level the playing field between custodians and other users, while at the same time improving the efficiency of custodial action.
There is another side effect. That page records all requests for custodial action by me. It becomes possible, then, to have some sense of how I'd act as a custodian. Where I would recuse from acting personally, I note that (and, indeed, such recusal requirements should always be disclosed with requests for action, this is a common failure on Wikipedia, where a highly involved editor, possibly an administrator and thus probably respected by many, has a personal agenda and finds something to criticize, which can always be done with an active editor, and then files a "request" to Bock His Ass for this Obviously Disruptive POV-Pushing. Not mentioning that he has himself been sanctioned by ArbComm for POV-pushing in the very area. So some neutral (and probably clueless) administrator looks at the "evidence" he has provided, cherry-picked and framed to create a desired impression, and blocks his ass. Or, in the specific case I have in mind, supports a ban. Not realizing that the editor had just been framed based on evidence more than a year old, and who was currently conducting himself with absolute propriety. And a lone voice chiming in to point this out? Well, he was blocked too.
The usual Wikipedia story.
Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'. --Bob Dylan.
Gad, I looked at YouTube videos of this. Awful. All of them that I saw. No passion. Dead. Disconnected. No presence. I can see I'm going to have to dust off the guitar and start doing some recording again. This was part of my repertoire, back then. Barsoom Tork, any ideas?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Abd, compare your "algorithm" to the WV Policy on Scholarly Ethics...
The Wikiversity policy on scholarly ethics explicitly states that the scholar will not attempt to use Wikiversity as a platform for advocating or advancing propaganda or any other type of deception or intellectual dishonesty, but rather, the editor is devoted to scholarly consideration of their topic of study. This means not distorting or hiding evidence and not crafting illegal, deceptive, dishonest or otherwise unethical accounts of facts or ideas. Wikiversity scholars can, and must, study their subjects with devotion to honesty and the highest scholarly standards.
In particular, falsely labeling constructive contributions as "vandalism" is a departure from scholarly ethics. Redacting or hiding evidence is a departure from scholarly ethics.
Refusing to engage in scholarly discussion of such departures from scholarly ethics is also a departure from scholarly ethics.
SBJ might say you are "kooky" to depart from the protocols of scholarly ethics.
I just say it's conduct unbecoming a conscientious scholar who cares about scholarly integrity and scholarly ethics.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 31st August 2010, 1:03pm)
Abd, compare your "algorithm" to the WV Policy on Scholarly Ethics...
The Wikiversity policy on scholarly ethics explicitly states that the scholar will not attempt to use Wikiversity as a platform for advocating or advancing propaganda or any other type of deception or intellectual dishonesty, but rather, the editor is devoted to scholarly consideration of their topic of study. This means not distorting or hiding evidence and not crafting illegal, deceptive, dishonest or otherwise unethical accounts of facts or ideas. Wikiversity scholars can, and must, study their subjects with devotion to honesty and the highest scholarly standards.
In particular, falsely labeling constructive contributions as "vandalism" is a departure from scholarly ethics. Redacting or hiding evidence is a departure from scholarly ethics.
Refusing to engage in scholarly discussion of such departures from scholarly ethics is also a departure from scholarly ethics.
SBJ might say you are "kooky" to depart from the protocols of scholarly ethics.
I just say it's conduct unbecoming a conscientious scholar who cares about scholarly integrity and scholarly ethics.
Barry, you are not exactly a neutral observer on this. Sequestering evidence is a common practice. The evidence remains available for study, but is not shoved in the face of someone opening a page where it might have otherwise been placed; it is, instead, referenced. In a library, you may have to ask for it. Sometimes, under more difficult conditions, one actually may have to show adequate cause to see it, but that's not relevant here, except maybe for oversighted contributions.
Have I labelled your contributions, constructive or otherwise, as "vandalism," beyond noting one possible technical meaning -- one which I do not myself employ?
You have a strange idea about the obligations of scholars to discuss. Scholars are under no obligation to discuss at any particular time, outside of fora intended for that. They may choose how and when to respond to criticism, for example. You may not stand up in my class and start haranguing me about something I wrote somewhere, unless maybe you are registered for the class, and even then I may ask you to sit down. And call the campus police if you don't. I am not obligated to respond to you on your self-defined terms, but rather through normal institutions and conditions.
Something about your two-year experience with Wikipedia abuse has warped your perspective.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
Poor JWS has been spending long hours, day after day, week after week, month after month, for two years now, trying to dig up all that sequestered, redacted, and hidden evidence. It's a sorry record of rampant corruption, but part of the corruption is obliterating the evidence of the corruption.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 1st September 2010, 6:05am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 31st August 2010, 10:05pm)
You just have to look at things from Jimbo's point of view.
Jimbo's point of view is not the perspective of a Fair Witness.
Nor is yours, necessarily, Barry. Jimbo's point of view is Jimbo's point of view, and a refusal to attempt to see situations from the point of view of others, or a simple inability to do this, is a primary ingredient in protracted conflict.
It is, quite simply, completely unnecessary to determine whether or not Jimbo was "correct" to block Thekohser, and to declare, in off-hand comments on Wikiversity, which others rushed to implement, that Greg was "globally banned."
It's irrelevant, in fact, for the practical decision which exists to be made is whether or not to continue the blocked status of Thekohser on the various projects, and that decision can be and should be made based on the welfare of each project, and those decisions are normally best made locally.
This is quite in accord with what appears to be a rough consensus at meta, with few visible dissenters. Part of the problem here is that, obviously, meta steward decision-making process has gone (or has remained) underground, invisible, cloaked and concealed, contrary to meta policy. When there are obvious conflicts between policy and behavior, it's clear that one or the other should be changed!
For to have a policy that does not reflect actual practice will continue to create disruption, as people expect stated policy to be followed. But to change the policy would confront the fact that the policy exists for very good reason.
Groups which are able to operate contrary to policy, because they are, themselves, the major enforcers of policy, are commonly not motivated to fix a situation like this, because fixing it will restrict their freedom to do whatever they please.
However, if there is, in fact, a (relatively silent) majority that recognizes the importance of transparency, they can and should realize that if they allow this condition to continue, they may well lose their capacity to fix it. Secret decision-making requires constant attention, or it will become dominated by a few. Wikis are highly vulnerable to quite small-scale secret collaboration.
(deleted section on meta and blacklisting process.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 1st September 2010, 3:49pm)
There's a possible vote coming on Wikibooks -- for or against my indefinite block/lock?
Maybe. The community there is mostly ... absent. The real problem isn't you, Greg. The real problem is Mike.lifeguard. Communities without some kind of functional review process that guarantees that sysops have the continuing support of the community, or that, alternatively, have some means of balancing out the power of a sysop determined to have his own way with the wiki, are pretty much powerless to deal with what happened there.
Mike.lifeguard wheel-warred to keep you blocked. The account was blocked by Pathoschild, but merely as a procedural device, not as a determination that you should be blocked, and Pathoschild was, both at the time, and later, explicit that the final decision was up to the local community and, indeed, Pathoschild did what was done at the beginning of May precisely to take a global lock, which was considered to override local decision-making, and replace it with a pile of local blocks, which could then be locally considered. And so it sat for almost a month.
Then Mike.lifeguard reset the global lock, based on "discussions." Which is typical of Mike.lifeguard's CYA deceptions, he implies that it was some kind of consensus, but, in fact, that could mean as little as "I discussed this with a friend." What I've found, asking Mike for background on a decision, is that he will say as little as possible, implying but not actually saying what he wants you to believe. Try to pin him down, he lets a little more detail dribble out, still implying what he wants you to believe, but, again, still not saying it. He is, bottom line, a sophisticiated liar.
Pathoschild's block had allowed Talk page access, consistent the the position that these actions were intended to allow negotiation of unblock. But Mike then reblocked to disallow Talk page and email access.
So when the WB community actually started considering unblock, Mike's argument was quite simple: "No. He's globally banned." By whom? Turns out, by Mike.lifeguard. There is no consensus at meta on this. Period.
Mike was the only person to actually object to unblocking. Adrignola had unlinked the account so that Greg could use the Talk page.
When no other objection to blocking appeared, Adrignola -- who, with many others, seems to think that it take consensus to maintain a block, not consensus to unblock -- unblocked. Mike immediately reblocked, and blocked fully, talk page editing and email prohibited. This was clear wheel-warring.
Mike also promptly went to meta and resigned his checkuser bit there. Why? No reason given, but from the timing, it was blatant. This was retaliation against Adrignola, for daring to oppose Mike's position. There must be two checkusers on a project, or none. By resigning, Mike forced the loss of the checkuser bit for Adrignola.
So ... WikiBooks has a rogue sysop. Mike furiously lobbied for the ban behind the scenes, and a few users showed up, spouting regurgitated arguments obviously not based on their own research (they have been singularly unwilling to even discuss the history in detail), so whether there would still be a consensus for unblock is unclear. But this is what Wikibooks faces, and it is not about Thekohser.
It's about the right of the community to make its own decisions. And about its ability to restrain sysops willing to disregard the rest of the community to push their own positions. Sooner or later, this must be confronted. The problem will not go away, even if Mike.lifeguard retires. It's not really about him, either. It is about how the community operates, particularly when there are problems.
The standard view among the general community isn't surprising. I've seen this for more than twenty years on-line. "Can't you guys just stop fighting?"
No. Without the community's help, they can't. The question presumes that the problem is symmetrical, as well, that it takes two people to have a dispute, we don't like disputes, so they must both be at fault. It's not a bad starting assumption, in fact, but it can break down badly, and communities that don't figure out how to avoid settling with "a pox on both your houses" will not be able to address conflicts and survive without major damage.
Wikipedia has been trying avoid confronting administrative abuse for years, taking on only a small percentage of cases of real abuse, and basically throwing the book at anyone who is a whistle-blower.
Eh, Greg? Eh, Barry? Right?
Ad hoc community process, with or without voting, might be able to sometimes address a specific problem. But it is incredibly inefficient. Or, alternatively, the attention actually paid to it by those who !vote isn't enough, and the results can be abominably mindless. What is needed is structure, formal process. Wikipedia has some glimmerings of this, inadequately established and inadequately supported.
In the smaller projects, it seems that everybody seems to be hoping that it won't be necessary. Can't we just get back to our work?
But even small communities, real-life, with more than a handful of participants, normally find that structured deliberation is necessary.
Until the need is more widely recognized, it's very difficult to establish. But, in fact, it would only take a handful of users at each wiki to make it happen. The number could be quite small. The very problems that make it possible for a small but determined faction to dominate even Wikipedia for many years, make it possible for a handful of users who want to establish real consensus process to succeed.
Cooperate, only do it better, and do it to establish and preserve the right to cooperate, to participate in consensus discovery and expression, based on full and open consideration.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 1st September 2010, 3:49pm)
There's a possible vote coming on Wikibooks -- for or against my indefinite block/lock?
Technical detail: The global lock is no longer effective there. All there is stopping you from editing other than by IP is Mike.lifeguard's local block.
Were I Adrignola, I'm not quite sure what I'd do. He doesn't want to "wheel war back." But he is also faced with blatant defiance of wiki common law by Mike.lifeguard.
I'd probably ask the community, formally, with a process that would remain open for quite some time.
I dinged The Stub (Thenub314) about this, because he is straining at a gnat (weird suspicions that The Sky Will Fall if Greg is unblocked, or, alternatively, a view that He Must Be Punished for his Horrible Offense at Wikipedia -- i.e., doing good volunteer work, unimpeached except for the fact that he was, at the same time, banned under another user name), while swallowing a horsefly: a sysop willing to wheel-war to get what he wants.
Not to mention the pernicious concept that users should be punished at all. Punishment simply is not in the wiki playbook. Not legitimately, anyway. Protection, yes, but there are many ways to protect. Blocking is one of the least efficient in many situations. Not to mention being downright rude.
Which is more offensive, that I've called this user The Stub, or that the user wants others to be blocked, excluded, considered worthless as contributors, outside the community. (Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge," supposedly, so if Thekohser's knowledge is irrelevant, he must not be human. Q.E.D.)
If The Stub doesn't understand this, he shouldn't be a sysop himself, because, sooner or later, he will abuse it. Perhaps, though, he will think about it and revise his view. It's been suggested that he might be a decent sysop at Wikiversity. I don't think so! Not unless he reconsiders this position. The question will be asked.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 1st September 2010, 4:28pm)
Were I Adrignola, I'm not quite sure what I'd do. He doesn't want to "wheel war back." But he is also faced with blatant defiance of wiki common law by Mike.lifeguard.
I'd probably ask the community, formally, with a process that would remain open for quite some time.
It's too bad that Thekohser wasn't a more active participant in the past year there. The community is blissfully apathetic to site-wide issues the majority of the time and people don't care to get involved in a heated discussion that they don't readily see would affect them over an editor whom they do not know.
This discussion has been open for quite some time and it's pretty much deadlocked. I'm not quite sure what I'd like to do either. Nobody's put forward any good reasons for a local block and nobody's calling for Mike.lifeguard's head either. The fact is, a not insignificant number of the local admins trust in Mike's judgment as a steward and so choose not to get involved, so as to not piss myself or Mike off.
"Can't you guys just stop fighting?" "Can't we just get back to our work?" Indeed. I picture a beach with waves of oil from a spill approaching and all the while the Wikibooks community members turn their backs to the water and continue to work intently on their sand castles.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Wed 1st September 2010, 8:36pm)
It's too bad that Thekohser wasn't a more active participant in the past year there. The community is blissfully apathetic to site-wide issues the majority of the time and people don't care to get involved in a heated discussion that they don't readily see would affect them over an editor whom they do not know.
Yeah. This is more or less the situation I faced at Wikiversity. Why should people get exercised over this? Well, what if I could demonstrate some good content?
I don't know how much of a difference it made. Greg had already been somewhat of a contributor at Wikiversity. In any case, to get the good contributions, I arranged a page with Talk access for Greg. So this would be the action to take first: allow Talk page access so there is a way for Greg to officially communicate. Ask him to tone down the rhetoric, and let you help him navigate the passage.
So what he does is contribute by IP, with self-reversion "per block of Thekohser." Anyone can look at those edits and accept them, taking responsibility for them. If someone gets trigger-happy and blocks the IP, and as long as he is only using the IP for positive contributions (and not pushing the edge with WMF criticism, etc.), it will be possible to drop the blocks. People can look at what the block is actually "preventing."
It was argued that this was Thekohser's nefarious plan, to contribute Good Content in order to "stick it to Jimbo." I think that's great and I'm sure Jimbo will also be amused. Reframe: we are tricking disruptive editors into creating good content. With their full cooperation.
If they were truly enemies of the wiki, you know, they would not cooperate with this plan! But generally these people are not; they are, rather, people who caught the vision at some point and became highly offended at how it had been hijacked. Re-integrating these people with the community is probably an essential part of moving into the next phase of wiki development.
It won't always work. Does anything?
Others will suggest things such as having him email content; still others will criticise the normal restoration of good content as "proxying for a blocked editor." But direct self-reverted contribution, as I've described, pulls the rug out from under mindless block enforcment. If he's actually disruptive, then, of course, enforce the block! But good content? No. Self-reversion eliminates the argument that a blocked editor is causing problems by creating a need for block enforcement. There isn't any obligation to review self-reverted edits. Unreverted edits by a blocked editor, yes, if we assume that there was some legitimate protective purpose to the block.
I'm pretty sure that Thekohser will cooperate with such a plan, he certainly did on Wikiversity.
Suppose in the end that his propensity for sarcastic commentary gets the better of him and he gets blocked. (Should sarcastic commentary result in blocks? I'm not even going there. Maybe. Maybe not.) Well, a path of return has been established. Build up a record of positive contributions, keep his nose clean, and he can again be unblocked. The wiki gains, as long as people accept that there is a reasonable tradeoff being made. A little discussion now and then about a block, with more hours paid back in content creation.
I really am recommending increased use of alternatives to the "no edit" block concept. Imagine, on Wikipedia, bot reversion: a reverting bot is controlled by a protected file that specifies an inclusive or exclusive list of files, or possibily categories. Any edit by a "banned" editor to a covered page is reverted by bot if not self-reverted. But then any other editor, on their own responsibility, may restore it. I know for a fact that far less damage would have been done to Wikipedia NPOV because of bans, were this in place there. What Wikipedia did was pander to people who really wanted any possibility of argument contrary to their position, from someone knowledgeable in a field, to be eliminated.
But we don't need to think about all that to understand that allowing a blocked editor to make suggestions, openly, instead of using evading sock puppets, is a good idea. As long as the suggestions don't require immediately review, as long as that review is voluntary and undertaken by those who consider the results worth the effort, it should be fine. This is why "self-reversion."
It is a blocked editor saying, "I may not agree with the block, but I'm willing to respect the right of the community to address what it sees as problems, and I will cooperate with what it decides it needs to protect itself. I am with this self-reverted edit making a suggestion, and I hope that someone will give it due consideration. I will revert it so that anyone who is offended by the idea of me contributing does not need to attend to this edit."
This is not, as has been claimed, "block evasion." It is a blocked editor taking responsibility for enforcing the *purpose* of the block!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Wed 1st September 2010, 8:36pm)
This discussion has been open for quite some time and it's pretty much deadlocked. I'm not quite sure what I'd like to do either. Nobody's put forward any good reasons for a local block and nobody's calling for Mike.lifeguard's head either. The fact is, a not insignificant number of the local admins trust in Mike's judgment as a steward and so choose not to get involved, so as to not piss myself or Mike off.
Patience. See, a common, default position of editors on a small wiki may be to think of someone like Mike as "our" rep on meta. You are right; they will not want to piss him off, because meta is a mystery to most folks, and they think that they need a "friend" there like Mike to get what might be needed. In fact, meta is just another wiki, and a relatively small one. I've gone to meta with reasonable requests, three times. Twice they were blocked by ... Mike.lifeguard. They were on a page that he owns with a few friends. The other request was routinely granted. Not by Mike. There are lots of stewards, and the large majority of them simply want to be helpful.
(Jtneill is a 'crat on Wikiversity because I went to meta and pointed to the candidacy discussion and !vote on Wikiversity, and that requests had been made of local 'crats, but they were not responding. Any user could do this. Just as any user could have gone to meta to request those checkuser approvals. Better it was you, though, wasn't it? They will prefer to see requests like that with a 'crat approval.)
There are factions there, and a few individual stewards who have little regard for consensus (or who, more charitably, believe that whatever they believe is consensus). There have been repeated efforts to remove Thekohser's name from a list of people who have volunteered to speak about WikiMedia Foundation projects. Thekohser's name, Gregory Kohs, is on that list. That is the general consensus, but periodically someone shows up and tries to remove it, because, after all, he's "globally banned." But all it takes is a few editors willing to stand up against this position -- which is isolated, not consensus -- and, so far ... the listing persists. Because the list is theoretically neutral, like all pages on the wiki. And there are still plenty of people who want it to be that way. They don't want meta to be perceived as some iron fist crushing individual initiative on the various projects.
But there are a few who like the iron fist idea. It's orderly. The trains run on time.... (until, of course, the partisans lay some thermite on the tracks. The answer to this is, of course, to be stronger and defeat them all. One would think that it would be noticed that this doesn't work. But hope persists that all this disruption can be eliminated by pushing the block button hard enough. Shouldn't the software have some sound effects? Ka-Blooey!)
Recently, I have been the victim of a public personal attack by user Abd. When I attempted to discuss the matter politely he refused to discuss this here, perhaps for fear of violating the civility policy. I will turn the questions he refused to answer to the greater community so I might understand better why I should tolerate such remarks. The link to the relevant remarks is here. So the questions are: Is it appropiate for me to discuss this with him at wikiversity (I saw it as neutral ground given my position at wikibooks)? Are talk pages restricted to solely "wikiversity business"? Why is one user publicly ridiculing another user not fall under wikiversity business? Thenub314 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no value in discussing this on Wikiversity. But I did not "refuse to answer" this user's questions. Rather, I wrote that this wasn't the place to address these issues. This community has seen quite enough of the use of the wiki to deal with off-wiki or cross-wiki issues. He was invited to ask on Wikipedia Review, or to ask by email. He declined both. (I did reply on Wikipedia Review.) And then he brought this here. To answer his questions, specifically:
No, it is not appropriate to discuss this here, unless some Wikiversity necessity is shown. It might or might not be "neutral ground," but this is not Wikiversity business at all, though certainly there is discussion of Wikiversity on Wikipedia Review. There is, indeed, danger of violating civility policy by pursuing this here; for example, the above is borderline uncivil itself. And if I were to respond to it in detail, I'd be tempted to push limits myself, etc. "Personal attack" is something that can vary in meaning with context. Wikipedia Review is like a local bar, people say all kinds of things. It isn't a formal meeting. Further, if any of the WMF wikis were related, it would be Wikibooks, where I have been fairly direct with Thenub314, including, in fact, answering his original question.
No, talk pages are not restricted to WV business, but they may only be used sparingly for other business, and by the consent of the user whose talk page it is, and obviously with the consent of the other user posting there. "Refusal" to answer questions about off-wiki activities is not an offense of any kind.
I'm rather constantly ridiculed at Wikipedia Review, including today by a prominent user here, and wouldn't dream of bringing that here. We have users here who are banned for incivility or other offenses on other wikis; and as long as they behave here, they are welcome here. I'm very tempted to describe what the conflict is on Wikibooks, because it's ironic in the light of the above, but I won't. No. It's not anyone's business here what I've said there, nor what others say about me, unless some very specific necessity is shown. That's not even been remotely done in this case.
On my Talk page, Thenub also asked, "Why the abuse?" That is a loaded question, assuming abuse; abuse exists and is defined within a social context. What I wrote there would be abusive if written here. What is written and done on WMF wikis is routinely ridiculed there. Don't like it, don't read it! During a difficult Requests for arbitration hearing on Wikipedia, I once described a certain very vocal participant, on Wikipedia Review, using very uncivil language, but also language that probably caused a lot of people to laugh, because, for years, they had been thinking the same thing. Was this abusive? Well, that fellow immediately went to the RfAr talk pages and pointed to what I'd written, thus spreading it far and wide. I think it was the beginning of the end for him, he's lost more privileges than most of us ever dream of having.... He simply did not understand that he wasn't the center of the universe, and that he'd been abusing people for years, with far worse than what I'd said about him, actually trashing their work, blocking them to exclude their point of view, and truly abusing them with impunity.
If anyone has questions about what was written on Wikipedia Review, they are welcome to email me. They are also welcome to participate at Wikipedia Review. It's a rowdy place, where people write freely about what they think, and are only rarely tossed out on their ear. It has to be pretty bad! Participants there include high-level WMF functionaries, sometimes, Wikipedia ArbComm members, highly experienced users and analysts, and yes, some who have been blocked and banned in various places. If you want to understand what actually happens on WMF wikis, you'll get a better education there than anywhere else right now. But, of course, you will still have to have some discrimination, and check any asserted facts before relying upon them. People can and will write anything they like there, it is rarely censored. If you are an admin who has been active, you will almost certainly find yourself raked over the coals, but, the good news, you can respond freely. There, you want to call that jerk you blocked a "troll," fine. Here, it's a bit iffy, you have to be Jimbo to get away with it, and remain secure. Come to think of it, didn't Jimbo not remain secure with his privileges after the events of March? He really should have written that stuff on the Review, not here! I think I'll suggest it to him! --Abd 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, thenub, you aren't targeted. It seems that Abd wishes to make personal attacks on everyone on and off Wiki. Wikiversity doesn't have any rules or policies about not including off-site matters in its discussions, especially since we use IRC to make many of our decisions as with the mailing list. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thenub, if you want my advice... simply engage (entirely off-Wikimedia sites) in a lifelong campaign to discredit and disparage Abd. A personal vendetta can be richly rewarding. But, first you have to identify who Abd is (real name), since attacking "Abd" won't mean anything to anyone, really. Then, you may also have to openly identify yourself, since most people will dismiss any charges being leveled by someone who goes by "Thenub". Believe me, as a fellow "The...x" nickname user, I know. Good luck, and happy retaliating! -- Thekohser 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Ottava, do you mean to say that anyone can do anything that is not ruled out by policies? Such may be unforgivable ideas, I do fear. Who on earth are "we" who "use IRC to make many of our decisions as with the mailing list." Whoever they may be, they could, should or would not represent the WV community at large. Have you ever suspected that the WMF way of decision-making is one of the most ridiculous kinds on earth? I'd like to draw anybody's attention to the "open conspiracy" of H. G. Wells, who first proposed what looks most like Wikipedia plus. That is to say, such must apply to all these wiki projects. Such informal ways you suggest should be ruled out as far as possible, in my opinion. Am I fully understood? -- KYPark [T] 11:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What happens off-wiki should stay off-wiki. Wikiversity and you cannot do anything about Abd's behavior towards you at WR. Even if Wikiversity had rules, they wouldn't apply at WR. Problems at WR should be reported to WR Admins. -- darklama 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, the joys of playing the game of Narcissistic Wounding and Narcissistic Rage. What a trip!
I chipped in on that one. Not sure if that will be interpreted as a voice of reason or a voice from WR though... I don't think the current admins like me very much.
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.
: WHY EVEN BOTHER GETTING UNBLOCKED ALSO WHO CARES ABOUT KOHSER, JUST OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT FROM ANOTHER IP LOL! THERE R MILLIONS OF PROXIES OUT THERE, LET WIKIPEDOS WASTE TIME TRYIN TO FIND U, GIVE EM SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH OUTSIDE THEIR "NORMAL PLAY"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(danielaword @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:51pm)
: WHY EVEN BOTHER GETTING UNBLOCKED ALSO WHO CARES ABOUT KOHSER, JUST OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT FROM ANOTHER IP LOL! THERE R MILLIONS OF PROXIES OUT THERE, LET WIKIPEDOS WASTE TIME TRYIN TO FIND U, GIVE EM SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH OUTSIDE THEIR "NORMAL PLAY"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 42
Joined:
Member No.: 21,806
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:59pm)
QUOTE(danielaword @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:51pm)
: WHY EVEN BOTHER GETTING UNBLOCKED ALSO WHO CARES ABOUT KOHSER, JUST OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT FROM ANOTHER IP LOL! THERE R MILLIONS OF PROXIES OUT THERE, LET WIKIPEDOS WASTE TIME TRYIN TO FIND U, GIVE EM SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH OUTSIDE THEIR "NORMAL PLAY"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(danielaword @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 7:02pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:59pm)
QUOTE(danielaword @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 6:51pm)
: WHY EVEN BOTHER GETTING UNBLOCKED ALSO WHO CARES ABOUT KOHSER, JUST OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT FROM ANOTHER IP LOL! THERE R MILLIONS OF PROXIES OUT THERE, LET WIKIPEDOS WASTE TIME TRYIN TO FIND U, GIVE EM SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH OUTSIDE THEIR "NORMAL PLAY"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
The astute will note that several people have chosen to abstain. Given Thekohser's requirement for a minimum of ten votes, that helps to ensure that even the minimum will be difficult to meet. I'm not a fan of a straight-up vote being conducted for a block/unblock, but heck, any sense of due process or consensus building evaporated a long time ago and nobody seems interested in ratifying a fleshed-out blocking policy.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
QUOTE(danielaword @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:51pm)
: WHY EVEN BOTHER GETTING UNBLOCKED ALSO WHO CARES ABOUT KOHSER, JUST OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT FROM ANOTHER IP LOL! THERE R MILLIONS OF PROXIES OUT THERE, LET WIKIPEDOS WASTE TIME TRYIN TO FIND U, GIVE EM SOMETHING TO PLAY WITH OUTSIDE THEIR "NORMAL PLAY"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
I suggest you take 10 feet of dental floss, tie one end to the caps lock key and the other to the door-knob, then yell for your mother to enter.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 8:46pm)
The astute will note that several people have chosen to abstain. Given Thekohser's requirement for a minimum of ten votes, that helps to ensure that even the minimum will be difficult to meet. I'm not a fan of a straight-up vote being conducted for a block/unblock, but heck, any sense of due process or consensus building evaporated a long time ago and nobody seems interested in ratifying a fleshed-out blocking policy.
Can't a compromise be reached such as Greg is placed on a one-year probation and must avoid WMF-related things on WikiBooks?
The only way it seems that Greg is going to be unblocked is if he is unblocked with restrictions. That may or may not be something Greg will consider, but why not throw it out there?
Are the other stewards really going to stand by and let Mike Lifeguard get away with dismissing a local community's consensus? The global ban is moot. I'd argue that unless it's blatant vandalism or criminal, global bans should not be dealt out.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 8:26pm)
Are the other stewards really going to stand by and let Mike Lifeguard get away with dismissing a local community's consensus? The global ban is moot. I'd argue that unless it's blatant vandalism or criminal, global bans should not be dealt out.
This is the problem. Mike can tell stewards that he's acting as a local admin (and has stated that his actions are as a local admin) but yet imply to the local admins that he's working with additional information as a steward (reinforcing this by the repeated statements that Thekohser is globally banned--something that wouldn't be of a concern to a local admin). As the person who implemented the most recent global lock, it would have been prudent for him to keep his hands off the local situation.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 8:46pm)
The astute will note that several people have chosen to abstain. Given Thekohser's requirement for a minimum of ten votes, that helps to ensure that even the minimum will be difficult to meet. I'm not a fan of a straight-up vote being conducted for a block/unblock, but heck, any sense of due process or consensus building evaporated a long time ago and nobody seems interested in ratifying a fleshed-out blocking policy.
Greg, you are trying to push a river. It just sloshes about.
Yes, I understand what you were doing, but, politically, a bad idea. Puts people off their feed when you propose a complex decision-making algorithm. You could have just said that you would respect a consensus to block, and not tried to nail down exactly what that meant.
What you did wasn't, in fact, offensive, and you set a high standard. You know that the cabal can muster a fair number of warm bodies when it wants to. Really, as many know, there should be a consensus for a block, whereas you are requiring a consensus against a block.
On the other hand, some of those abstentions can be interpreted -- easily -- as no support for a block, i.e., support for unblock. But by making some very specific requirements, interpretation later, even if it is for the plain sense of the process, can be called wikilawyering. Keep it simple, I suggest.
And, yes, I have a tendency myself to construct over-complex processes, trying to anticipate contingencies that nobody else will think of until they are faced with them... not necessarily a good idea.
Actually, there has been good rapid response to this. I'm impressed. I would not have gone for a !vote yet, I'd have wanted to see you make some contributions (by the method I suggested or by some other method). But the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is now in the oven....
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 9:51pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 8:26pm)
Are the other stewards really going to stand by and let Mike Lifeguard get away with dismissing a local community's consensus? The global ban is moot. I'd argue that unless it's blatant vandalism or criminal, global bans should not be dealt out.
This is the problem. Mike can tell stewards that he's acting as a local admin (and has stated that his actions are as a local admin) but yet imply to the local admins that he's working with additional information as a steward (reinforcing this by the repeated statements that Thekohser is globally banned--something that wouldn't be of a concern to a local admin). As the person who implemented the most recent global lock, it would have been prudent for him to keep his hands off the local situation.
Obviously. But, then, he wouldn't be Mike.lifeguard, but an imposter, and you'd have to checkuser him.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 9:51pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 8:26pm)
Are the other stewards really going to stand by and let Mike Lifeguard get away with dismissing a local community's consensus? The global ban is moot. I'd argue that unless it's blatant vandalism or criminal, global bans should not be dealt out.
This is the problem. Mike can tell stewards that he's acting as a local admin (and has stated that his actions are as a local admin) but yet imply to the local admins that he's working with additional information as a steward (reinforcing this by the repeated statements that Thekohser is globally banned--something that wouldn't be of a concern to a local admin). As the person who implemented the most recent global lock, it would have been prudent for him to keep his hands off the local situation.
Have you tried talking to the steward Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D)
about this? He may not be a fan of Greg's actions, but he does believe in fairness and could at least get the other stewards to look at the situation independently of Mike's assertions.
This whole situation presents an alarming situation and precedent. I thought stewards existed to aid Wikimedia projects by interpreting local consensus and assisting communities? Local consensus has gone against Mike's actions as an administrator and a steward and yet the other stewards will do nothing. The stewards should "trust, but verify" Mike's statements and determine for themselves what should be done. This reminds me of when Mike harangued Jon Awbrey for putting his Curriculum Vitae on his userpages. Revolting.
(Am I preaching to the choir here? Sorry if I am.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 9:26pm)
Can't a compromise be reached such as Greg is placed on a one-year probation and must avoid WMF-related things on WikiBooks?
An unblocking admin can set any conditions he or she likes, in fact. What's particularly offensive about Mike.lifeguard's position is that it is extreme and inflexible.
However, conditions aren't really necessary. If Thekohser causes problems, or is alleged to be causing problems, that can be addressed. Any admin could warn him, and block if he ignores the warning. But I'd advise any admin doing this to be careful. Make sure it is worth the possible disruption. I.e., on Wikiversity, Greg has made a sarcastic statement. Horrors!
But, the fact is, that it doesn't stand out from what is routinely tolerated from other users. If he does anything that creates a serious risk of thunderbolts from meta, I'll be right there warning him myself. But I really want him around, to help develop ethical guidelines, and that process, itself, should not be a problem. No, absent prior guidelines, please, no discussion of specific cases, on-wiki, unless the intention has been laid out, people who might be affected are notified, and there is no sustained objection.
Basically, ethical guidelines are followed!
QUOTE
The only way it seems that Greg is going to be unblocked is if he is unblocked with restrictions. That may or may not be something Greg will consider, but why not throw it out there?
He might consider restrictions. He seems reasonable to me, quite reasonable. Also cantankerous and rebellious sometimes. Those are not necessarily opposites, and the qualities can all be good ones, in a sane community.
He is under no restrictions on wikinews, wikiversity, wikisource, or commons. The 'crat who delinked on wikinews pointed out that wikinews can be tough as nails, it's not necessarily kind to newby week there, any week. But there are no restrictions. He had previously been unblocked on wikinews at the beginning of May, when it was first considered. But the global lock had made that moot, so a 'crat was needed to delink.
I'd advise him to take this slowly, and allow positive experience to accumulate at each of the wikis, or at least not negative experience. Then, with enough of these, there will be a basis for requesting unlock, and, my guess, there are stewards waiting for the right conditions and the right cover to go ahead with this.
Until there is better review process for administrative actions, addressing admin abuse is quite tricky and dangerous.
By the way, I want to emphasize, I'm not taking the position that the original blocking of Thekohser was improper. (Nor am I claiming it was proper.) What was clearly improper, as far as I can tell, was the global lock by Mike.lifeguard. In general, it's one thing to block for a time (and "indef" is supposed to mean for a time, just an undetermined one), and quite another to ban. I'm opposed to bans, it's enough decide "block for now, until some better idea comes along."
QUOTE
Are the other stewards really going to stand by and let Mike Lifeguard get away with dismissing a local community's consensus? The global ban is moot. I'd argue that unless it's blatant vandalism or criminal, global bans should not be dealt out.
Sure. Jimbo wasn't even aware of the tool. A steward came to him and suggested it and he responded something like "I guess that would be better." At the beginning of May. And so it was done, but it was quickly realized that this was a problem, it was undone by Pathoschild who did the heavy lifting of blocking locally, just to set a default, not to claim that this was some command, it was explicit: this is being done -- instead of a global lock -- specifically to allow each wiki to make their own decision. And that stood for almost a month, and there was no apparent reason for a change, except possibly some discussion on de.wikipedia.... that someone may not have liked. That and wikinews were the only wikis actually affected immediately by the global lock. They had both unblocked.
It's very obvious. In May, there was no global ban. No process or statement from Jimbo (even if that were considered authoritative) has been shown, just "discussions" alleged by Mike.lifeguard, which would certainly not be steward consensus, from other evidence we have; rather some relatively private conversations with a few participants. Mike and his friends, I'd guess. Cabal, anyone?
I don't think Jimbo is behind this. I think he's far smarter than that. But he's also probably not intervening to stop it. Now, there would be an interesting move, eh?
"Please stop harassing the user Thekohser. While we have certainly had our disagreements, Mr. Kohs is a critic of WikiMedia projects, and we need criticism, and especially intelligent, cogent criticism, even if it is harsh sometimes, to know how to improve our practices. Each wiki in the WikiMedia family is free to decide if Mr. Kohs' participation is welcome or not. I said things about a global ban back in March, in the heat of discussion on Wikiversity, at a point when I was attempting to show that WMF wikis should not tolerate being used as a platform, a "safe haven," for criticism of personal behavior on other wikis, which itself can amount to harassment. That was incorrectly taken as an official pronouncement, it was not. I congratulate the local wiki communities, users, and administrators, who have understood the issues and who have acted soberly according to the needs of each wiki. If I can be of any assistance, blah, blah..... --Jimbo Wales."
Am I hopelessly naive?
Do you know that I don't care? Just saw Jimbo in that video referenced here, talking about AGF. He was right.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:35pm)
Have you tried talking to the steward Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D)
about this? He may not be a fan of Greg's actions, but he does believe in fairness and could at least get the other stewards to look at the situation independently of Mike's assertions.
Uh, Lar isn't a steward. Courtesy, rumor has it, of Mike.lifeguard.... He's an ombudsman, as I recall, dealing with possible checkuser abuse.
QUOTE
This whole situation presents an alarming situation and precedent. I thought stewards existed to aid Wikimedia projects by interpreting local consensus and assisting communities? Local consensus has gone against Mike's actions as an administrator and a steward and yet the other stewards will do nothing. The stewards should "trust, but verify" Mike's statements and determine for themselves what should be done. This reminds me of when Mike harangued Jon Awbrey for putting his Curriculum Vitae on his userpages. Revolting.
(Am I preaching to the choir here? Sorry if I am.)
Well, yes, you are. The above are the arguments I've been making, more or less, for well over a month. Stewards don't have some magic wiki process. They are just as perplexed about what to do about someone like Mike as anyone else. They don't like confrontational de-privileging process, and they are a group that generally respects the enormous investment of labor that a volunteer like Mike has put in. I think that the general attitude is naive and is causing damage, that it's necessary that stewards self-police, establishing fair (but efficient and firm) process for identifying abuse and taking steps to see that it does not continue.
That's really the issue. Wikis don't -- or certainly should not -- punish. It's all about protection, on-going. But too often, as an example, ArbComm has assumed that if it "admonishes" an admin, why, the admin will surely modify their behavior. In fact, the admin frequently simply ignores it, since ArbComm itself doesn't bother with consensus process, and it takes the special conditions -- rare -- that someone gets offended who has the guts and patience and time to file another RfAr, and, even then, it's likely that ArbComm will simply "strongly admonish" this time.
What I asked of ArbComm was something quite different. Don't desysop, but also don't merely admonish. Instead, suspend admin privileges until the admin satisfies you that they understand recusal or other relevant policy and will not re-offend. Simple. Protective. Not punitive. But they absolutely, every time I proposed this, ignored it completely. I actually don't know why. Not Invented Here? (I.e., not by One of Us?)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:58pm)
It looks like it's 5-0 for an unblock, thus far.
Actually, I read it as seven for unblock, since one referred to his well-known opinion -- he's the one been working for unblock! -- and there is one true abstention, which itself said "I will not oppose an action either way." This is snow for unblock, with no opposition expressed so far. But we know that several have opposed unblock in the past. There is Mike, Thenumb, and Arlen. Did I miss anyone?
What is surprising to me is only the speed of the voting, so far. Also, I might have expected more blowback from Greg's rather pushy request. Block evasion, eh? So much for that! There is obviously not a great sentiment to keep him blocked, nobody seems to have objected to the evasion. And he didn't even self-revert!
I can see The stub rolling in his grave consideration, upset that the Rules aren't being Followed, and his favorite project is being duped into Unblocking the Troll of the Century, who Actually, Don't You Realize, BOUGHT A WIKIPEDIA ADMIN ACCOUNT. and VANDALIZED HUNDREDS OF BLPS. And probably eats babies, though We Have No Proof.
His friend Abd, though, just admitted on WIKIPEDIA REVIEW that, if invited, he would EAT PART OF A BABY. And that he had already handled these baby parts when they were DRIPPING WITH BLOOD, just after he CUT THEM OFF of babies. MORE THAN ONE! OH! DISGUSTING! Doesn't that prove the case? We are turning the wikis over to CANNIBALS! So if Thekohser does not immediately disavow THE CANNIBAL, we will know that HE IS ONE TOO.
Drama question: will the nub attempt to close the voting since it was started by a blocked editor? Does he realize what would happen if he tries this? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of
Edit: Odd, I could have sworn I saw it on his userpage. I must not have seen the strike through. That's depressing. Our list of allies grows thin. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Edit: Odd, I could have sworn I saw it on his userpage. I must not have seen the strike through. That's depressing. Our list of allies grows thin. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 23,978
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:06pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:35pm)
Have you tried talking to the steward Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D)
about this? He may not be a fan of Greg's actions, but he does believe in fairness and could at least get the other stewards to look at the situation independently of Mike's assertions.
Uh, Lar isn't a steward. Courtesy, rumor has it, of Mike.lifeguard.... He's an ombudsman, as I recall, dealing with possible checkuser abuse.
I read it as he's recused himself from steward duties while holding the ombudsman position. Odd, though, as I thought that was only necessary for CheckUser duties.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 2:15am)
Initial efforts were made to nominate darklama, but he turned it down because he did not want to identify himself to the Foundation. Others, such as Jomegat, have made it clear that they do not want to be CheckUsers. Pi zero was only recently made an administrator and so would have been too new. Other administrators were semi-active/inactive. Local policy requires potential CheckUsers to be administrators first. The timing of the situation makes it unclear whether it was a referendum on Thenub or an effort to get me CU tools back with a second CU.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 8:25am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:06pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 10:35pm)
Have you tried talking to the steward Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D)
about this? He may not be a fan of Greg's actions, but he does believe in fairness and could at least get the other stewards to look at the situation independently of Mike's assertions.
Uh, Lar isn't a steward. Courtesy, rumor has it, of Mike.lifeguard.... He's an ombudsman, as I recall, dealing with possible checkuser abuse.
I read it as he's recused himself from steward duties while holding the ombudsman position. Odd, though, as I thought that was only necessary for CheckUser duties.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Fortunately, because my senior honors thesis at Emory University covered the topic of the American media's portrayal of strategic bombing in World War Two, I already have a four-page summary of the strategic air campaign that introduced the 28-page thesis. As it was awarded only magna cum laude, and not summa cum laude, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I'm going to release those four pages to Wikibooks under the terms of the CC license, as my gift of appreciation for the unblock.
Should that come to pass.
It's up to you, Wikibooks. Juicy, original, informative, cited content about strategic bombing; or, Mike.lifeguard's personal vendetta.
Edit: Odd, I could have sworn I saw it on his userpage. I must not have seen the strike through. That's depressing. Our list of allies grows thin. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
I haven't investigated the process. Yeah, the userpage is wrong. The day is coming to look at some of the crap that has come down, at meta. It's being doing damage to the projects for quite some time.
The theory, what's in the steward manual, is great. It is not being followed by some stewards.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 10:01am)
Fortunately, because my senior honors thesis at Emory University covered the topic of the American media's portrayal of strategic bombing in World War Two, I already have a four-page summary of the strategic air campaign that introduced the 28-page thesis. As it was awarded only magna cum laude, and not summa cum laude, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I'm going to release those four pages to Wikibooks under the terms of the CC license, as my gift of appreciation for the unblock.
Should that come to pass.
It's up to you, Wikibooks. Juicy, original, informative, cited content about strategic bombing; or, Mike.lifeguard's personal vendetta.
It's your call.
You know, Greg, I wish you would not make these offers. It's embarrassing, and it should not be necessary. You intend to contribute. That's really enough. What the contributions are aren't so important, as long as they are likely to be positive.
I just did and posted an analysis of the current voting, at here. There was consensus for unblock when Adrignola originally did it, the only dissent had been Mike.lifeguard at that point. Mike then seems to have furiously canvassed for people to change their positions, it was really stark with Arlen22, but it's also really, really visible. And now the consensus for unblock is overwhelming, and it's strong even if all those who expressed opposition before still oppose.
It's 8/1/1 now (oppose block, support block, abstain); if the other three who have expressed opinions show up and !vote, it's 8/4/1. I'd predict that only a pile of outsiders coming in is likely to reverse this. And, as has been pointed out by many, it should take a supermajority to block, not the other way around.
Does Mike.lifeguard want to call attention to what he did on WikiBooks? I rather doubt it! He's got more at stake than his sysop and 'crat bits there. He canvassed off-wiki, instead of presenting his arguments on-wiki, because he knows that the arguments will only convince the ignorant. Arlen22 actually mentioned, in her last edit, that he had warned. Of what? He talked about blocking people who supported unblock, in his prior comments. It's really blatant, what's been going on.
From the buzz I'd been hearing, I wouldn't have gone for a vote right away, as I suggested, I'd have wanted to see some positive contributions first. But, Greg, you may have hit the nail on the head. People really wanted to just get this thing over with.
The leader of the charge against Lar was Mike.lifeguard. I have not examined this in detail, but it seems to have a distinct aroma of an attempted lynching.
There was extensive use of links to Wikipedia Review. Note that within a few months, Lar was under attack at Wikipedia, with somewhat similar charges being made, leading to the Climate Change arbitration. Lar has subsequently been mostly exonerated, with those who heavily faulted him seeming to be headed for sanctions.
I see 8 comments for confirmation, but it looks like a serious error has been made in Steward confirmation process. It appears that the decision to drop a steward is made only by stewards. But what's important is that the *community* have confidence in stewards. It's well known that administrators in general will tend to support administrators who "play along" with and mutually support the group of administrators, even if the general community is opposed. This isn't just about WMF projects, it's a general phenomenon.
So removing an abusive steward could be quite difficult, because of the "circle the wagons" effect. In the other direction, a steward who stands up for community consensus, when a majority of stewards (or even a substantial minority) have shifted their position away from that, is likely to be seen as betraying the steward community.
Folks, if we want to keep people active as stewards who care about real community consensus, and about fair process, we are going to have to work for it. They will not do it for us, they will run away with the project. It is practically a universal rule. Chickens that are not watched and protected get eaten by foxes. Don't be surprised when it happens. And don't blame the foxes, they are just doing what comes naturally for them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
The vote is hugely lopsided toward unblock of Thekohser on Wikibooks. Right now, not counting the vote of Moulton as IP, it's 9/1/1 for unblock. (Several people abstained out of a sense of protest against voting, but made it clear that they supported unblock.)
Thekohser was, on the one hand, brilliant in asking for the !vote, but not so great in asking that it remain open for a long time. So, here, we already have a snow outcome, but he wants it to stay open? Which will invite more people out to keep him "banned" to show up?
I understand the sentiment, but that whole complexity of setting some high bar was politically quite ineffective. I think people just didn't understand it. Even though he wasn't doing that, they thought he was making some demand of the community. People often don't read that carefully!
Meanwhile, Moulton dove in with a preachy !vote, revert warred to keep it there, and then, when I marked it (a device to keep it from being reverted!) he revert warred on that as well.
I've come to the conclusion that Moulton really doesn't want Thekohser unblocked. He wants what he wants, what he has always wanted, total freedom for himself. He doesn't care if his participation there attracts confusion and muddies the waters. He wants the waters muddied.
Moulton is an interesting test of my wiki concepts. How people like him are handled is crucial. He tests boundaries, literally pushing them. How can the often quite valuable contributions of such people be allowed, without allowing disruption, as he bonks the muggles?
In any case, in my analysis of the voting, at the end, because it is so lopsided toward unblocking, I listed all the editors who had, in the past, AFAIK, expressed opposition to the unblock. And with each editor, I added all the diffs of their edits to the lengthy discussion on that page.
It is shocking to review these. Basically, the opposition to unblock is Mike.lifeguard, Mike.lifeguard, and Mike.lifeguard, the last two iterations through off-wiki strong-arm or seductive tactics, I don't know which, for sure. Arlen22, who had expressed strong opposition to the block, suddenly changed her position, and in her last comment, she referred to "warnings" from Mike.lifeguard. Mike.lifeguard's comments are amazing, particularly in the light of the present poll, which simply confirms what had been more or less hidden in the sprawling discussion.
You've got to do something about this sprawling discussion thing, folks. It takes a little process, a little structure, but it is not hard.
Mike was not only blatantly acting against an overwhelming consensus, he was claiming that even raising the question was disruptive, trolling, and that people who supported unblocking should be blocked themselves. His main argument was that Thekohser was globally banned, end of question, when it is very apparent that steward consensus was that it was a local decision, and it is obvious that Thekohser isn't "banned from all WikiMedia projects," since quite a few have unblocked him and are allowing him to edit. Without incident, so far, and that situation goes back to the beginning of May or before.
Nobody who writes as Mike wrote, shown in those diffs, and who acted as he acted, wheel-warring, wearing two hats (globally locking as a steward, then enforcing it locally as a local admin when the locals get uppity), should be allowed to be a sysop, much less a steward. Seeing how he behaved with Lar, he stands exposed as a complete hypocrite.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 7:34pm)
Thekohser was, on the one hand, brilliant in asking for the !vote, but not so great in asking that it remain open for a long time. So, here, we already have a snow outcome, but he wants it to stay open? Which will invite more people out to keep him "banned" to show up?
Abd, it is Labor Day weekend, a prime vacation period for many people, even Wikipediots. Had I not allowed plenty of time for the voting to remain open, the "early" and "quick" method would have just been cursed by the blockers when they'd doubtlessly come bounding in on Tuesday or Wednesday, back from their trip to the shore with their parents, crying, "Well, of course the vote for his unblock passed -- you held it while we were all on vacation!"
Giving more time removes that complaint's legitimacy.
Besides, who is to say that more time gives advantage only to the blockers? What if the additional time equally allows for the "pile on" effect to grow -- people like to be seen publicly as backing a winning cause, a motion that carries.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 4th September 2010, 12:01am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 3rd September 2010, 7:34pm)
Thekohser was, on the one hand, brilliant in asking for the !vote, but not so great in asking that it remain open for a long time. So, here, we already have a snow outcome, but he wants it to stay open? Which will invite more people out to keep him "banned" to show up?
Abd, it is Labor Day weekend, a prime vacation period for many people, even Wikipediots. Had I not allowed plenty of time for the voting to remain open, the "early" and "quick" method would have just been cursed by the blockers when they'd doubtlessly come bounding in on Tuesday or Wednesday, back from their trip to the shore with their parents, crying, "Well, of course the vote for his unblock passed -- you held it while we were all on vacation!"
Giving more time removes that complaint's legitimacy.
Besides, who is to say that more time gives advantage only to the blockers? What if the additional time equally allows for the "pile on" effect to grow -- people like to be seen publicly as backing a winning cause, a motion that carries.
You may be right. I don't care about it taking longer, and it will quite likely increase credibility. I don't think that an admin is obligated to wait, though, to act based on the obvious consensus, which includes all prior comment. It really was consensus for unblock before, simply ignored by Mike.lifeguard, who gave really scary "arguments."
Arlen22 has now "clarified" her comment about the "warning." I.e., it was supposedly about people fighting with each other. I'm seeing an interesting phenomenon there, obsessive control. I suppose that could be said about me, too....
But I've seen so much, again and again, of discussions and polls that are disrupted by off-topic threaded comment, that become unreadable, that drive away participation.
This process is still not the way I'd do it. If you'd said you wanted to go to a poll, I'd have set up something different, where the arguments were collected and presented in summary first, *then* the poll. But that's pretty radical, for WMF wikis.
Like, who needs evidence? The whole concept of voting before the deliberation is done is known, classically, by the technical term "utter stupidity." In standard deliberative process, it takes a supermajority (2/3 vote, Robert's Rules) to proceed to a vote on a question. The question is amendable before that, through the same process, so people, before voting, have agreed on the exact question. By a supermajority!
The wiki community thought that it would save time by avoiding "red tape." The result has been the opposite, prodigous discussions that never actually consider the facts, for example. Argument when there is no seconded motion. And on and on. No structure. In person, with more than a handful of people, this is guaranteed to waste enormous amounts of time.
It's pretty funny, The stub's removal of my collapse of off-topic stuff because "he doesn't like it." I could have gone for a different solution: removal to the Talk page. My guess, though, is that he would have liked this even less. How would this guy do on Wikipedia?
So I looked. Mathematician. Mostly edits articles on mathematics. No apparent conflict. Found one situation that might be diagnostic.
He accidentally removed a comment by another editor in an AfD. The editor reverted and pinged him on his Talk. What did he do? He apologized. But in the AfD itself. No understanding of what's appropriate, i.e., that apology was completely off-topic at the AfD, his removal had been reverted, and he had apologized on the user Talk page. (Really, he should have just responded on his own Talk page, but there are different opinions about this.)
So, not surprising that he'd have no understanding of why it might be important to layer discussions so that stuff that wanders off doesn't cause the main point to be missed.
Ah, but the plot thickens. The stub was here allied with Mathsci. Heh!
Complete trainwreck. Why was this a trainwreck? Well, quick glance, the AfD was heavily abused with the same editors commenting over and over.
The stub voted twice. First time Move, Merge and deleteRedirect. Second time Delete? Nothing like being clear. No wonder Stifle threw up his hands!
That was almost two years ago, to be sure, but he'd been editing for more than two years.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Well, the quality of those opposed to your unblock on Wikibooks is stunning, Greg. This has done a service for all of us, since The stub, that short end of the stick, Thenub314, came whining to Wikiversity about how he'd been "personally attacked." Here on Wikipedia Review. He'd tried to discuss it with me on my Talk page there, and I declined. Utterly inappropriate, so.... he went to the Colloquium and started a section on Personal Attack. I pointed out how it was completely inappropriate to use Wikiversity to deal with off-wiki disputes or complaints. Greg -- naughty! -- suggested that the stub respond by declaring a life-long vendetta against me. Bad sign, Greg, I hope you aren't going to keep that up, there!
But, of course, you were spot-on. Like, get over it! The stub is arguing for Greg to be blocked, based on stuff he has no understanding of at all, but he's sure it's Bad. He's saying far worse than "dumb." What goes around comes around. Don't like people talking about you, don't talk about them. Be careful. And, truly, if you don't want to go into the bar, don't hang around the door listening in on conversations and being outraged by what you hear! (I actually responded to the nub in several places, most thoroughly on Wikibooks on my Talk page, though again declining to answer his loaded question.)
So SB_Johnny closed it. This is where we really learn about the stub. He reverted SBJ, at the same time removing SB_Johnny's comment, and, to boot, restoring an unrelated section that had been removed by the archive bot. (That series of edits.) And then wrote that he was doing this because he wasn't finished, he was doing this as a "purely academic discussion," for his own "edification."
Since he'd made quite a mess, revert warring with a sysop and 'crat over a closure of a discussion, removing that custodian's comment, that specifically asked that the matter be taken elsewhere, ignoring the instructions on the archive template, and causing a discussion section to be double-archived by the 'bot, I warned him. His response.
I'm grateful. Ottava was planning on proposing that this stub be a probationary custodian at Wikiversity. I think he's trashed that.
The lack of clue was stunning. I knew he wasn't swift from his arguments on Wikibooks. But, hey, maybe he merely disagreed with me. Occasionally intelligent people do that, maybe it's the weather or something....
All because I called him "the stub" here. On the one hand, he acknowledged that this was only mild incivility (not to mention off-wiki!) but .... then he said that it was equivalent to calling someone an "idiot" or a "liar." He's right about "idiot." Colloquially, that's pretty much equivalent to "I disagree with him." Nobody who can manage to type something coherent and do even a little work as a sysop could possibly be, literally, an idiot!
But "liar" is a claim of moral reprehensibility. Call me an idiot all you like, Moulton hasn't used that word yet, or has he? I don't recall. "Einstein" he did use, damning me with faint praise. Big deal. So he doesn't think some of what I'm doing is a good idea, and it frustrates him. So new?
But if he called me a "liar," that would be it. It's a fighting word.
Idiot? Not among the highly educated, particularly those with a science or engineering education, anyway, it's how we talk to each other. Someone who takes enormous offense at being called an idiot has got some serious self-image problems. Of course, it depends on context.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
Seriously, now, why does any of this surprise you, Abd? Mr. "Lifeguard" has been pulling similar stunts for years on en-wiki. He's a slime, pure and simple. No need to beat around the bush.
I also tried to tell Lar that he'd get the bum's rush, sooner or later. He's been "too honest" on WR, and they hate him for it. Just being a trusted steward and ombudsman didn't help him at all when Mike.l decided to knife him in the groin. It's just another Wiki-Day.
And I don't know what to say about thenub, except that I've researched his personality via what little there is online. He's one of those powerfully nerdy people that make good contributors (within their very narrow area of expertise), but poor "administrators". In short, don't trust him. He'll chicken out on a dime.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 6th September 2010, 4:25am)
Seriously, now, why does any of this surprise you, Abd?
Don't assume I'm surprised when I document something.
QUOTE
Mr. "Lifeguard" has been pulling similar stunts for years on en-wiki. He's a slime, pure and simple. No need to beat around the bush.
"Slime" is a technical term, and I'd prefer to use something more specific. And, of course, before using something like that on-wiki, I'd want to be able to point to a poll. Mike.lifeguard is the use equivalent of Dog vomit slime mold. Yes. --Abd, proposer. No. --JzG. You!!!! Object. -- Jimbo. He is not! Dog vomit slime mold makes for pretty pictures, it's encyclopedic. Nuke! --AverageWikipedian. Exaggeration! --Lar. Please be careful, Abd. Yes. -- Thekohser deprecated as blocked user. Yes --JedRothwell. This user is blocked on Wiipedia, but not on meta.
Consensus being shown in the above poll, the Dog Vomit Slime Mold Barnstar will be placed on Mike.lifeguard's user page, as a badge of shame/honor/whatever. --Anonymous Closing Admin.
QUOTE
I also tried to tell Lar that he'd get the bum's rush, sooner or later. He's been "too honest" on WR, and they hate him for it.
Just remember: "They" is a minority of WMF users, administrators, stewards, and functionaries. The problem is that "they" are more highly motivated and can present an image of representing consensus. But that breaks down when decent process is used.
QUOTE
Just being a trusted steward and ombudsman didn't help him at all when Mike.l decided to knife him in the groin. It's just another Wiki-Day.
Time will tell. I still don't quite understand the process that happened in that "confirmation." And what it means. There was an argument presented that had sufficient color to be accepted, that of a some conflict of interest. It was actually preposterous, but stuff like this doesn't necessarily get considered down to details. By the time Lar's position as Ombudsman is up, this may come back.
There are some very weird aspects to steward policy. The worst I've seen is that the requirement for open, on-meta process is being blatantly disregarded. This creates a wedge, a foot in the door.
It might be noticed what happened when the general community gets exercised. There is a great deal to be learned from the Remove Founder Flag RfC on meta. It is full of clue for those who want it.
QUOTE
And I don't know what to say about thenub, except that I've researched his personality via what little there is online. He's one of those powerfully nerdy people that make good contributors (within their very narrow area of expertise), but poor "administrators". In short, don't trust him. He'll chicken out on a dime.
Well, not the sharpest pencil, at least not regarding WMF and wiki policy and procedures. Maybe he's a great with mathematics. I've seen nothing to make me worried about his being a checkuser at Wikibooks. Better than Mike.lifeguard! But he's clearly under the undue influence, off-wiki, of Mike.lifeguard and Ottava Rima, he seems to be a bit of a dupe of Ottava, who might have used him in what may have been an attempt to assassinate my character on Wikiversity. So to speak.
Seems like a decent fellow, just fallen in with the wrong crowd. Courage? I don't know. You have to understand the danger to be courageous. He sure stuck his foot in his mouth on Wikiversity.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Jimbo's call for a global ban of Thekohser (and Mike.lifeguard's slithering execution of it) seems to be failing all over the place. Here's another unblock, this time on Wikibooks.
Kept the steward bit, though. That's a bit mysterious!
Not a whisper anywhere about it except a hint that something would be said on the stewards mailing list.
Okay, my speculation. Mike demanded support and didn't get it. He was criticized for what happened at Wikibooks. So, he's running off in a snit. Or, alternatively, in the opinion that the WMF wikis are doomed, gone to hell, the great unwashed are taking over.
This is the end of dependence on personal power as distinct from sensitive service to the community.
Kept the steward bit, though. That's a bit mysterious!
Not a whisper anywhere about it except a hint that something would be said on the stewards mailing list.
Okay, my speculation. Mike demanded support and didn't get it. He was criticized for what happened at Wikibooks. So, he's running off in a snit. Or, alternatively, in the opinion that the WMF wikis are doomed, gone to hell, the great unwashed are taking over.
This is the end of dependence on personal power as distinct from sensitive service to the community.
Well, I'm guessing he probably had a warm and fuzzy interaction with Jimbo a while back, and was inspired to stick his neck out with the understanding that Jimbo would "completely support" him.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 9th September 2010, 4:07pm)
Well, I'm guessing he probably had a warm and fuzzy interaction with Jimbo a while back, and was inspired to stick his neck out with the understanding that Jimbo would "completely support" him.
Does he have an account here?
Well, there is a lot that is invisible to outsiders. Steward policy says that decisions should be made based on on-wiki discussion, but there is obviously a whole lotta shakin' goin' on off-wiki. Privately. Hey, ethics people, what do you think about this: policy calls for openness and transparency, the reality is closed and concealed.
Mike.lifeguard, though, had seriously declined in activity. From the timing of events, we can tell that he was in a snit at certain points, but that might have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
I rather doubt that Jimbo was behind Mike's global lock on May 30. The global lock at the beginning ofMay was instigated by a Steward who went to Jimbo on Jimbo Wikipedia User talk, and suggested it. Jimbo said he hadn't been aware of the tool, and, why shore, that seemed a reasnable thing to do. Thing was, the stewards were looking for cover from Jimbo, i.e., for him to actually push the button on the global lock. By this time, I think Jimbo was realizing that he'd screwed up. He'd been getting "out there." At one point, shortly before the Remove Founder Flag RfC shit hit the fan, he said that community consensus didn't matter. Well, if you don't mind that the wikis take a complete nose dive, I suppose they wouldn't matter at all.
I find it rather puzzling, frankly. Jimbo isn't stupid. But people can become, shall we say, dull. Or dulled. Burned out.
In any case, there were stewards who signed the remove founder flag RfC.
Isn't that interesting?
Bastique: commented in the neutral section, no !vote. Darkoneko: comment, not listed as a !vote, but: Sorry, that last action on commons was really too reckless. what the meow, seriously. DerHexer:!vote to Remove. Millosh:struck early oppose, based on antiporn move by Jimbo. Sj: commented, just some brief helpful comments. No opinion given on removal.
So of 5 stewards represented on that page, one voted to remove, one didn't vote but clearly considered Jimbo's action "too reckless," and one struck an oppose, based on the commons issue.
But the sample may be highly warped. There are 32 stewards, and I'd assume they would mostly be very aware of a process at meta. I'd somewhat expect them not to participate. Note that no steward !voted, in the end, to oppose the Remove Founder Flag proposal.
Another factoid. Voting against the RFF proposal, which was started by a Wikiversity sysop, Juan de VojnÃkov, were the dynamic duo, Ottava Rima and Adambro. Adambro has some kind of reserve, he doesn't lose it like Ottava does. But Ottava, from his most recent comments on Wikiversity, has some kind of imagination that he's solidly supported by the community. Which is a tad inconsistent with his consistently taking positions opposed by about 3:1, when the real feelings come out.
What I see when I look at the early !votes in that is very familiar. The cabal asserts that those who question it are "trolling," "wasting everyone's time," and just "trying to disrupt." Those early votes were running 2:1 against the proposal. When the Commons shit hit the fan, it flipped, with massive !voting, to roughly 4:1 for it.
It's participation bias, the tyranny of the most active. I.e., those with the biggest bias or biggest axe to grind.
Well, I'm guessing he probably had a warm and fuzzy interaction with Jimbo a while back, and was inspired to stick his neck out with the understanding that Jimbo would "completely support" him.
More likely his mom's basement flooded — and he doesn't know how to swim.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 9th September 2010, 9:35pm)
See ya, Mike. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Mike claimed it had nothing to do with the Wikibooks/Thekohser situation. However, that's quite a coincidence. I'd chalk this up to his standard deceptiveness. Sure, he might be leaving for that reason, or that's his excuse, but something pushed him to abruptly do it. The timing is close. He simply doesn't want to concede anything, wants to turn it into an insult.
Hey, Greg, is Guido running a rogue operation there? He's requested unblock at meta on your behalf. Arguing to death. Typical for him. Making off arguments. He's arguing that you should be unblocked because the original block reason was supposedly the global ban, and, since there is no global ban (he has a point there), you should be unblocked. That's not going to fly, period, and they are nailing him on it.
Jimbo blocked, block reason given: ‎ (Cross-wiki issues: Globally banned user) Since Jimbo was declaring the ban, the ban wasn't the proximate cause, it was Jimbo's decision and whatever that decision was based on. "Cross-wiki issues." Guess what? The default is to assume that an admin decision was correct, even if the admin was later dumped.
I consider meta a tough nut to crack. I wouldn't waste much time there unless I knew exactly what I was doing.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined:
Member No.: 26,960
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th September 2010, 3:14am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 9th September 2010, 9:35pm)
See ya, Mike. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Mike claimed it had nothing to do with the Wikibooks/Thekohser situation. However, that's quite a coincidence. I'd chalk this up to his standard deceptiveness. Sure, he might be leaving for that reason, or that's his excuse, but something pushed him to abruptly do it. The timing is close. He simply doesn't want to concede anything, wants to turn it into an insult.
Hey, Greg, is Guido running a rogue operation there? He's requested unblock at meta on your behalf. Arguing to death. Typical for him. Making off arguments. He's arguing that you should be unblocked because the original block reason was supposedly the global ban, and, since there is no global ban (he has a point there), you should be unblocked. That's not going to fly, period, and they are nailing him on it.
Jimbo blocked, block reason given: ‎ (Cross-wiki issues: Globally banned user) Since Jimbo was declaring the ban, the ban wasn't the proximate cause, it was Jimbo's decision and whatever that decision was based on. "Cross-wiki issues." Guess what? The default is to assume that an admin decision was correct, even if the admin was later dumped.
I consider meta a tough nut to crack. I wouldn't waste much time there unless I knew exactly what I was doing.
He's destined to leave. I'll see him in uh... Wikibookian land?
Magister Mathematicae (who signs as "Drini", which WTF does that have to do with "Magister Mathematicae"?) (by the way, Abigor / Huib does the same annoying thing) (as an aside, wouldn't Wikipedia become measurably better if they just got rid of everyone who signs their name differently than their actual User name?) said that I had:
QUOTE
...no intention to edit or contribute.
(to Wikibooks)
What the f**k does Master Drini Drano Mathematickle think that all THIS was?!
Seriously, someone ought to tell Mister Math Drain to get a clue and to apologize. Even if it's Guido.
Magister Mathematicae (who signs as "Drini", which WTF does that have to do with "Magister Mathematicae"?) (by the way, Abigor / Huib does the same annoying thing) (as an aside, wouldn't Wikipedia become measurably better if they just got rid of everyone who signs their name differently than their actual User name?) said that I had:
That's sooooo annoying to me as well.
QUOTE
QUOTE
...no intention to edit or contribute.
(to Wikibooks)
What the f**k does Master Drini Drano Mathematickle think that all THIS was?!
Seriously, someone ought to tell Mister Math Drain to get a clue and to apologize. Even if it's Guido.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
I find it interesting that three out of the four people who wished Mike Lifeguard a fond "farewell" were supporters of his lock of my account. And they were the only three advocates for my block on Wikibooks.
In contrast, none of the eight people who opposed my block on Wikibooks have had anything whatsoever to say to Mike Lifeguard as he retreats, defeated, from his former feudal duchy.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th September 2010, 12:29pm)
I find it interesting that three out of the four people who wished Mike Lifeguard a fond "farewell" were supporters of his lock of my account. And they were the only three advocates for my block on Wikibooks.
In contrast, none of the eight people who opposed my block on Wikibooks have had anything whatsoever to say to Mike Lifeguard as he retreats, defeated, from his former feudal duchy.
Greg, generosity befits the victors. If you gloat, I guarantee it will come back to haunt you. You can note indications of what happened, and you have just presented some interesting statistical evidence, but ... be careful. This isn't over, I suspect, but I highly recommend that you back off from trying to push this further at this time.
You were right, I'd say events showed, to ask for the !vote on Wikibooks. Guido is now pushing for your unblock on meta. I'd say his argument sucks, it is very unlikely to fly, and the more that sucky arguments are used, the more that the general opinion will turn against those using them.
To be unblocked at meta, unless you get lucky with admin roulette, will take a showing that there is a decent meta purpose to your being unblocked. It's probably not enough to claim that "the block was unfair." This is a political reality.
I suggest looking at why you'd want to have access at meta. There are really only a few reasons to go there, and others can go there for you when one of those reasons arise.
And there are plenty of idiots still at meta, who don't hesitate to violate recusal policy, saw a good example today. To root these out will take time. Wikis are like silly putty, the harder you push, the stiffer they become, but they are quite plastic to a slow approach, if there is sufficient reason behind what one is pushing. Sometimes even if not! This is how, in fact, various factions have sometimes taken over. They figured out that those who were patient won.
It was an explicit argument used by William M. Connolley at one point, when one of his cabal friends complained about a minor defeat. Don't worry, he told him. They will go away or be blocked, and we will still be here. I tried to use that 'we' to demonstrate factional involvement, but ArbComm was way to bored to notice....
And the blithering and drooling idiots at meta didn't notice the process error. They could have kept it quite simple. Guido, go away, until you show that Thekohser is actually asking for unblock here. You want to make a request? Get permission from him, privately, then ask that his talk page access be restored. Or he can confirm that with a email, that access was unblocked.
Instead, my guess, they wanted to take the opportunity to drub Thekohser. And the ones that might weigh in on the positive side don't because they notice the problem.
Long-term, this can be approached, but probably a need will have to be demonstrated.
QUOTE
Magister Mathematicae (who signs as "Drini", which WTF does that have to do with "Magister Mathematicae"?) (by the way, Abigor / Huib does the same annoying thing) (as an aside, wouldn't Wikipedia become measurably better if they just got rid of everyone who signs their name differently than their actual User name?)
Yeah. It ought to be against policy, because it confuses people until they figure out what's going on.
QUOTE
said that I had:
QUOTE
...no intention to edit or contribute.
(to Wikibooks)
This routine and gratuitous incivility is one of the major problems on WMF wikis. Originally AGF was policy on Wikipedia. Because it was so difficult to enforce, they abandoned that and made it just a guideline. That was a mistake. It would have been worthwhile exploring how to enforce it. AGF is about appearances, I think that some didn't realize that. Something can be done about appearances! But as soon as it was tolerated to pile abuse on an unpopular editor, it became common, I'm sure, if it wasn't before.
It is not necessary to abuse an editor to block him or her. That is, if editors are to be blocked only based on actual behavior. Which should be the principle! But too many wanted to cut corners.
QUOTE
What the f**k does Master Drini Drano Mathematickle think that all THIS was?!
Probably just one effing book. He's looking at the "big picture." or thinks he is....
Let it go, Greg, my advice. Just keep plugging away, doing the most important of the work that comes to you to do. Please watch what I'm doing on Wikiversity, sometimes I might need help. Be sure, if you do this, please, to be rigorously civil and careful, promoting the best ethical standards and exemplifying them. If you can be more civil than I, so much the better! I'm not presenting myself as a model of perfection! But I do try to keep "idiot!" here! Not there, no matter how much it might seem like just the perfect thing to say.
QUOTE
Seriously, someone ought to tell Mister Math Drain to get a clue and to apologize. Even if it's Guido.
Guido can point it out, but he's already established himself as a Loser, out to lunch. It was fortunate that his threat at the Public Speaker talk page didn't flip the whole thing!
One of the greatest difficulties with Wikipedia reform is that some of those advocating it are definitely cannons where the bolts holding them down broke. They are useful, sometimes, to demonstrate that there is a Problem, but .... they can sometimes slow down fixing it, because those trying to fix it can be seen as Helping That Troll.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
Mike.lifeguard requested removal of his steward bit today, and, of course, it was quickly granted. Farewell, Mike.lifeguard, gone to the wiki afterlife.
How he is treated by people there will likely depend on how he treated people here, life works that way, what goes around comes around. We all should pay attention to this!
O, reform it altogether! And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them. For there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the mean time some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villanous and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th September 2010, 10:40pm)
Guido can point it out, but he's already established himself as a Loser, out to lunch. It was fortunate that his threat at the Public Speaker talk page didn't flip the whole thing!
Actually the 'threat' did flip the whole thing, in our favour. Wikipediots fear one thing: the competition, since they hold no power there. That is why they target me and Greg in the first place.
Sometimes, from the position of a 'loser' (i.e. a user who is no longer a contributor) you can actually accomplish more. Meta is not Wikibooks, where there are normal users around who still care.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
By the way, in a healthy environment requesting to unblock another user is the normal process, rather than that they should need to request this for themselves.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th September 2010, 9:29am)
I find it interesting that three out of the four people who wished Mike Lifeguard a fond "farewell" were supporters of his lock of my account. And they were the only three advocates for my block on Wikibooks. In contrast, none of the eight people who opposed my block on Wikibooks have had anything whatsoever to say to Mike Lifeguard as he retreats, defeated, from his former feudal duchy.
Don't kid youself, Greg. I suspect he intends to go off and hide for a few months. Let the storm go by. Then when you least expect it, he'll log back in and ask for his admin/bureaucrat powers back. And they will duly be handed back to him. Then? Judging from his past actions, he will go back to removing your access on en-wiki, WB and WV, and anywhere else he can find.
BTW, my retiring is totally unrelated. I've received a promotion that doesn't leave me in a position to contribute to WMF projects any longer. It is interesting to see, however, that many believe the universe revolves around them and their allies (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) – mike@meta:~$ 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Meta request was a total bust, so you're not off the hook just yet.
QUOTE
The following discussion is closed: Unblock request declined by several admins. This means there is no reason to discuss this anymore. This discussion is closed now and there is no reason to go on with this. Please use your time for other more important things. Thekohser keeps blocked on meta. Please note that further commenting here can be seen as disruption. If there is a way to decide to unblock, it should be done by officials (board members, staffs). We don't unblock him here. Thanks for understanding. -Barras 19:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th September 2010, 4:26pm)
Greg, generosity befits the victors. If you gloat, I guarantee it will come back to haunt you. You can note indications of what happened...
Well, then, let me note that Mike.lifeguard is a serial liar and a bully. And the community finally stood up to the bully, and the person who was being picked on gave the community a lovely gift of content, as a "thank you". That's what happened.
I'll take my hauntings. I don't like liars, and I don't like bullies.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th September 2010, 9:27am)
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th September 2010, 4:26pm)
Greg, generosity befits the victors. If you gloat, I guarantee it will come back to haunt you. You can note indications of what happened...
Well, then, let me note that Mike.lifeguard is a serial liar and a bully. And the community finally stood up to the bully, and the person who was being picked on gave the community a lovely gift of content, as a "thank you". That's what happened.
I'll take my hauntings. I don't like liars, and I don't like bullies.
Be careful. It's catching. The "I'm right and I don't want to hear it" attitude is really just a mirror of the bully's attitude.
You won, or, more accurately, you won this tactical confrontation, with some help. Strategy, though, must be based on a more dispassionate view. Step back, think. Gather support, and shift your own positions, learn from your mistakes, let your effort be part of a groundswell, don't push the river. Let it flow, don't resist the waves, surf them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 11th September 2010, 1:42am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th September 2010, 9:29am)
I find it interesting that three out of the four people who wished Mike Lifeguard a fond "farewell" were supporters of his lock of my account. And they were the only three advocates for my block on Wikibooks. In contrast, none of the eight people who opposed my block on Wikibooks have had anything whatsoever to say to Mike Lifeguard as he retreats, defeated, from his former feudal duchy.
Don't kid youself, Greg. I suspect he intends to go off and hide for a few months. Let the storm go by. Then when you least expect it, he'll log back in and ask for his admin/bureaucrat powers back. And they will duly be handed back to him. Then? Judging from his past actions, he will go back to removing your access on en-wiki, WB and WV, and anywhere else he can find.
Now is the time to build community, there is a little breathing space. Thekohser is still in exile, the global lock is still in place, so it takes unblocking process on each wiki, and that's been made difficult by the global lock, since it defeats the normal allowance, by the extensive direct blocks that were implemented, mostly by Pathoschild, of Talk page access to allow unblock requests. But what's happened is that several "countries" have admitted Thekohser as a participant. If he uses those wikis as a base to attack the Foundation or personalities, he'll lose his sanctuaries. So, I highly recommend that he stay with uncontroversial content as far as what he initiates.
But he can support moves by others. On Wikipedia, ArbComm recognized how dangerous I was to the oligarchy, thus my MYOB ban (which was indef, very unusual, and based on no specific violations of anything). But they allowed me to !vote in polls. That was wikilawyered to death by the cabal, I stopped even trying, because my personal participation just isn't that important. Unless it is. I haven't seen an example yet where it was, but I'm not watching. Greg can !vote in polls whenever he sees fit, on those wikis, and it will create almost no hazard to him, unless he goes way beyond voting into sarcastic comment when the ground isn't ready.
Most people don't like conflict. And they will assume that someone who appears to be fighting and complaining is disruptive. It's a knee-jerk, possibly instinctive, reaction. It's functional, as a first impression. People don't have the time to figure out every situation. That's why good structure is needed, so that disputes don't get presented "to the community" without having been prepared by careful process, so that all the evidence is laid out and summarized.
The most important place that Greg is free is Wikiversity. Wikiversity is designed, among other things, to study wiki science. It was part of the founding vision! But Wikiversity suffers from the same pathologies as the other wikis, it is merely that it has basic policy that can be used to overcome those pathologies. It will still take work, it will still take establishing new and more functional structure. Wikiversity must remain academic, aloof in a sense. What happened was that it became a haven for revolutionaries, and the appearance was, if not the reality -- it may have been the reality! -- that it was being used to plan "attacks."
Revolutionaries, we must remember, are attempting to improve the world. But the danger is that the disruption they can cause can do more damage than good. Academic study of society and of revolution cannot become "involvement," per se. Academia, though, can experiment, carefully, with its own process, and can develop structures that might be used elsewhere, once having been proven in a small academic environment.
It appears that the studies in "ethics," which became, sometimes, laundry lists of complaints about individuals, thus attracting supporters of the individuals to disrupt it, were undertaken without first establishing guidelines for such "research." Hence if Wikiversity is to be useful in the study of organizational ethics -- which is a framing of studies in organizational technology and psychology -- it must first establish groundrules that define what can and cannot be done. Yes, we can have a course and can publish papers on wiki history. No, we cannot become a platform from which to launch personal attacks, and if "history" becomes very current, when the "meanings" of events have not had time to become clear, it can rapidly become way too involved to be of use, it simply becomes a reflection of a conflict being studied.
BTW, my retiring is totally unrelated. I've received a promotion that doesn't leave me in a position to contribute to WMF projects any longer. It is interesting to see, however, that many believe the universe revolves around them and their allies (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) – mike@meta:~$ 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. But, then again, as Thekohser has pointed out, the guy had a habit of deceptive comment. Many times, you could see him take an action very well correlated in time with an event that would mean something significant to an ordinary person. He basically set up a test at Wikibooks: if I'm important to you, you won't unblock this troll. He staked his bits on it, really. So, when it finally became clear that yet another admin there was willing to defy him and his predictions of dire consequences, and he couldn't bring down those dire consequences, and, if he even stayed active, he might lose his bits anyway, he retired. "Just a coincidence." Right.
Yes, this is a tactic that has been used successfully by many abusive admins (and some editors pull the same trick.) When they see the train coming down the track, but before it actually arrives and process is begun to sanction, they retire. Wikis have a habit of very much disliking moot process, and if the guy is retired, why kick him when he's down? Except that if he retires when he is arguably "not under a cloud," he can then come back later, and if someone objects, they get dinged for bringing up "old stuff." Sooner or later, the community or community process will need to get wise to this trick. Here is my solution.
A process capable of removing privileges is begun, filed, with some evidence. It doesn't have to be much, and it is closed as not currently needed because of the retirement. But it's there. It's a "cloud." That cloud should be promptly noted with any "voluntary" retirement. And then it becomes possible to challenge the return.
Politically, this shouldn't be done by a single editor, it should have signatures supporting it by at least two editors, with some good reputation.
QUOTE
The Meta request was a total bust, so you're not off the hook just yet.
QUOTE
The following discussion is closed: Unblock request declined by several admins. This means there is no reason to discuss this anymore. This discussion is closed now and there is no reason to go on with this. Please use your time for other more important things. Thekohser keeps blocked on meta. Please note that further commenting here can be seen as disruption. If there is a way to decide to unblock, it should be done by officials (board members, staffs). We don't unblock him here. Thanks for understanding. -Barras 19:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Tactically, Thekohser blundered here, though he might still recover -- or it's too late, it could look like a purely political move this late. He should have popped in, in some way -- IP probably okay if confirmed on a wiki where he can edit, but he also has email access on meta, so he could confirm it that way -- and said that this request wasn't coming from him, apologizing for the disruption, and thanking Guido for his kind intentions, but asking him to stand down.
In other words, he'd make himself look, and would, in fact be, cooperative and reasonable, the opposite of disruptive. For him to be unblocked at meta, he'll need to be globally unlocked first, and there is a very clear way to that. But he can't be the one to do it. It should be done by admins from various local wikis, and it should be done when there is a need. I don't see the need yet.
This is the secret: to be effective in transforming wiki functionality, one does not need to be an admin, and one doesn't even need to be unblocked. It's necessary to step out of the game, a bit, to understand it, to rise above it, and begin to design it, to shift the rules. If the new design is good, and if it can be demonstrated in even small ways, it can grow naturally. People don't like to be pushed, and it can take them time to understand new ideas. It takes patience and persistence, taking small steps, with only occasional crisis points where larger shifts can be made.
As I see it, the "new design" is mostly a more practical and efficient realization of the original vision, bringing in what has long been known about organizational structure, while preserving the advantages of wiki freedom and distributed decision-making as the routine operational practice.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th September 2010, 11:55am)
Tactically, Thekohser blundered here, though he might still recover -- or it's too late, it could look like a purely political move this late. He should have popped in, in some way -- IP probably okay if confirmed on a wiki where he can edit, but he also has email access on meta, so he could confirm it that way -- and said that this request wasn't coming from him, apologizing for the disruption, and thanking Guido for his kind intentions, but asking him to stand down.
In other words, he'd make himself look, and would, in fact be, cooperative and reasonable, the opposite of disruptive.
I thought about doing that, but it was a bit too much effort for a project as infected and infested as Meta. Plus, I didn't want to give away the IP that I was on.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th September 2010, 2:43pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th September 2010, 11:55am)
Tactically, Thekohser blundered here, though he might still recover — or it's too late, it could look like a purely political move this late. He should have popped in, in some way — IP probably okay if confirmed on a wiki where he can edit, but he also has email access on meta, so he could confirm it that way — and said that this request wasn't coming from him, apologizing for the disruption, and thanking Guido for his kind intentions, but asking him to stand down.
In other words, he'd make himself look, and would, in fact be, cooperative and reasonable, the opposite of disruptive.
I thought about doing that, but it was a bit too much effort for a project as infected and infested as Meta. Plus, I didn't want to give away the IP that I was on.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 11th September 2010, 2:48pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th September 2010, 2:43pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th September 2010, 11:55am)
Tactically, Thekohser blundered here, though he might still recover — or it's too late, it could look like a purely political move this late. He should have popped in, in some way — IP probably okay if confirmed on a wiki where he can edit, but he also has email access on meta, so he could confirm it that way — and said that this request wasn't coming from him, apologizing for the disruption, and thanking Guido for his kind intentions, but asking him to stand down.
In other words, he'd make himself look, and would, in fact be, cooperative and reasonable, the opposite of disruptive.
I thought about doing that, but it was a bit too much effort for a project as infected and infested as Meta. Plus, I didn't want to give away the IP that I was on.
He's paid his dues, Jon. You haven't, not for a long time.
Greg, you could still do it this way. Send an email to a reasonably friendly or responsible steward, saying what I mentioned, assuming it's true. It is, you know, you just acknowledged that you thought the place too "infected and infested." Not stirring up shit in an infected and infested place is sound public policy! Ask them to post a brief note to this effect. It is very unlikely to hurt, and may help, in the long run. Start preparing for next year, and the next. It is going to take time to turn this mess around, that's obvious.
Unless some light bulb goes off in Jimbo's head, or in Sue Gardner's. It's not impossible, but I would not hold my breath. I intend to ask, but not abruptly and very carefully. Sometimes you only get one chance.
Before going to Jimbo or the Board, I want to make sure not only that I know exactly what I want or am suggesting, but that I have evidence it will work, or have a specific plan for harmless testing, and can show that it will be likely to fulfill their legitimate goals. There are some very level-headed people involved at high levels, along with the other kind. I think they are looking for solutions, though not necessarily in the right places.
Meanwhile, I'm taking small steps, moving toward minor demonstrations.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 11th September 2010, 2:48pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th September 2010, 2:43pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th September 2010, 11:55am)
Tactically, Thekohser blundered here, though he might still recover — or it's too late, it could look like a purely political move this late. He should have popped in, in some way — IP probably okay if confirmed on a wiki where he can edit, but he also has email access on meta, so he could confirm it that way — and said that this request wasn't coming from him, apologizing for the disruption, and thanking Guido for his kind intentions, but asking him to stand down.
In other words, he'd make himself look, and would, in fact be, cooperative and reasonable, the opposite of disruptive.
I thought about doing that, but it was a bit too much effort for a project as infected and infested as Meta. Plus, I didn't want to give away the IP that I was on.
He's paid his dues, Jon. You haven't, not for a long time.
Greg, you could still do it this way. Send an email to a reasonably friendly or responsible steward, saying what I mentioned, assuming it's true. It is, you know, you just acknowledged that you thought the place too "infected and infested". Not stirring up shit in an infected and infested place is sound public policy! Ask them to post a brief note to this effect. It is very unlikely to hurt, and may help, in the long run. Start preparing for next year, and the next. It is going to take time to turn this mess around, that's obvious.
Unless some light bulb goes off in Jimbo's head, or in Sue Gardner's. It's not impossible, but I would not hold my breath. I intend to ask, but not abruptly and very carefully. Sometimes you only get one chance.
Before going to Jimbo or the Board, I want to make sure not only that I know exactly what I want or am suggesting, but that I have evidence it will work, or have a specific plan for harmless testing, and can show that it will be likely to fulfill their legitimate goals. There are some very level-headed people involved at high levels, along with the other kind. I think they are looking for solutions, though not necessarily in the right places.
Meanwhile, I'm taking small steps, moving toward minor demonstrations.
Omigawd, what a Self-Inflating Gasbag you are. It's clear that you and Ottava deserve each other, just do us all a favor — get a room and spare us the moaning.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th September 2010, 10:45pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th September 2010, 5:30pm)
Greg, you could still do it this way. Send an email to a reasonably friendly or responsible steward, saying what I mentioned, assuming...
Seriously, Abd... not worth my time or effort.
You have sovereignty over your own time and effort, Greg. I'm merely some sort of hybrid between your advisor, community advocate, and the court jester.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 11th September 2010, 7:38pm)
Omigawd, what a Self-Inflating Gasbag you are. It's clear that you and Ottava deserve each other, just do us all a favor — get a room and spare us the moaning.
We do have our rooms, but you keep eavesdropping and making loud farting noises. I'm generating nothing but Illuminating Gas, burning it carefully, in quantities sufficient to light the place up so stuff can be seen, by those who want to look, but, on the other hand, it seems those farting noises also have quite a stink. How about you stick a lit match up your ass? Save us all from that smell. If you video it, you could have a hit on Youtube. Tastefully presented, of course.
One happened to do just that at Wikiversity (but his intention is probably lulz and trolling instead of srs bznss).
By the way, congrats Greg.
(Pro note: I don't hate Greg. I just like Wikiversity far more. But getting unblocked at Wikibooks would either have no consequences or get them shut down, so, either way it doesn't affect me. Woot woot).
One happened to do just that at Wikiversity (but his intention is probably lulz and trolling instead of srs bznss).
By the way, congrats Greg.
(Pro note: I don't hate Greg. I just like Wikiversity far more. But getting unblocked at Wikibooks would either have no consequences or get them shut down, so, either way it doesn't affect me. Woot woot).
You make so little sense, Ottava. If you think wiki-politics is your future, my advice is don't quit the family farming business.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 15th September 2010, 10:49am)
Mod note: inane, irrelevant and obnoxious ramblings on religion deposited elsewhere.
For transparency, care to reveal to the subjects of your dominion where you deposited them? For our academic interest in inanity, social irrelevancy, obnoxiousness, distraction, and, for that matter, what some consider the same thing, religion?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 12th September 2010, 11:39pm)
One happened to do just that at Wikiversity (but his intention is probably lulz and trolling instead of srs bznss).
This would be Ottava's opinion of SB_Johnny, couldn't be anyone else. And what SB_Johnny actually did was to drop in to function to show consensus of 75% for unblocking Thekohser, before actually doing it, thus putting a big dent in Ottava's regency.
I note the similarity between Ottava's position -- that confirming and establishing action based on consensus is "trolling" -- and that of Mike.lifeguard. Mike had the sense to resign before the shit came down for it, thus preserving his options for later.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
Moving my relevant post back here sans off-topic religious sentence.
At any rate, this a clear victory for Greg. Jimbo's ability to control all WMF wikis has failed and the power of the Stewards has been successfully challenged. A small wiki defeated Jimbo and his Steward henchmen.
We should rejoice for this victory, but the war is far from over.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:37pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 15th September 2010, 10:49am)
Mod note: inane, irrelevant and obnoxious ramblings on religion deposited elsewhere.
For transparency, care to reveal to the subjects of your dominion where you deposited them? For our academic interest in inanity, social irrelevancy, obnoxiousness, distraction, and, for that matter, what some consider the same thing, religion?
A search on recent postings containing the words shit-head and liar should find it. It really, really, isn't worth looking for aside from, how does the youth of today put it, the lutz.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 15th September 2010, 6:51pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:37pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 15th September 2010, 10:49am)
Mod note: inane, irrelevant and obnoxious ramblings on religion deposited elsewhere.
For transparency, care to reveal to the subjects of your dominion where you deposited them? For our academic interest in inanity, social irrelevancy, obnoxiousness, distraction, and, for that matter, what some consider the same thing, religion?
A search on recent postings containing the words shit-head and liar should find it. It really, really, isn't worth looking for aside from, how does the youth of today put it, the lutz.
The same theme. "Our" community. A rejection of contrary opinion as being from outsiders, trolls. Mike.lifeguard lives on in spirit.
Did anyone salute Gerard's droppings there? Apparently not. Gregory Kohs is still on the speaker's list. I suppose it could change any time. However, that was a standing consensus.
GerardM completely neglected the evidence and arguments given on the RfC page, which were very much about policy and the welfare of the overall community, and, after all, meta is the coordinating wiki for the entire community, it exists to serve, not itself, but the various wikis. It has been infected, however, with certain administrators who serve their own opinions and feelings, as GerardM so eloquently states:
In my opinion ending the block before its time has no likely benefit. It only results in wranglings like this. As far as I am concerned we do not need him and his ilk. Thanks [[User:GerardM|GerardM]] 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ending the block only results in "wranglings like this"? It was most a fairly sober discussion until GerardM staggered in.
It seems he might be confused, does he think that this was a request to unblock Thekohser? Only for Talk page access, which was allowed when the block was originally created. It is only the wild-ass removal of Talk page access, for no apparent reason, that is at issue.
Now, if it had been true that there was a global ban, the complete block would have made some kind of sense, within that universe. But if there is no global ban, then Thekohser can be -- and is -- a participating user at WMF wikis, and should have similar access to resources at meta as other users, providing he behaves himself at meta. And he was, largely. There was no Talk page abuse, in spite of the block summary.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined:
Member No.: 26,960
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 15th September 2010, 9:02pm)
Moving my relevant post back here sans off-topic religious sentence.
At any rate, this a clear victory for Greg. Jimbo's ability to control all WMF wikis has failed and the power of the Stewards has been successfully challenged. A small wiki defeated Jimbo and his Steward henchmen.
We should rejoice for this victory, but the war is far from over.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Interesting to note that 10 days after Google crawling them, Google seems to rank my content on Wikipedia Review at #1 on this search, whereas Wikibooks' copy of the content is nowhere to be found, until you click "Show duplicate content", and then it appears, just after Wikipedia Review.
I conclude that for someone seeking an audience for book-style free content, Wikipedia Review would be a better location to publish it than Wikibooks. Therefore, I'm not sure I'll be using Wikibooks very much going forward.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 4:41pm)
Interesting to note that 10 days after Google crawling them, Google seems to rank my content on Wikipedia Review at #1 on this search, whereas Wikibooks' copy of the content is nowhere to be found, until you click "Show duplicate content", and then it appears, just after Wikipedia Review.
I conclude that for someone seeking an audience for book-style free content, Wikipedia Review would be a better location to publish it than Wikibooks. Therefore, I'm not sure I'll be using Wikibooks very much going forward.
You know, I get tired of seeing how you torture keywords to get your website to appear in the first place. That's shameless weaseling merketing at its best (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) .
I think that a more natural search would be the first few words of Roosevelt's quote "We have got to be tough with Germany" and neither your page nor Wikibooks appear on the first page of results. Your page is at #12 and Wikibooks is a duplicate result in #45.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:37pm)
You know, I get tired of seeing how you torture keywords to get your website to appear in the first place. That's shameless weaseling merketing at its best (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) .
I think that a more natural search would be the first few words of Roosevelt's quote "We have got to be tough with Germany" and neither your page nor Wikibooks appear on the first page of results. Your page is at #12 and Wikibooks is a duplicate result in #45.
Thank you for verifying that Wikipedia Review would be a better location to publish content than Wikibooks.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th September 2010, 7:41pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Mon 20th September 2010, 12:37pm)
You know, I get tired of seeing how you torture keywords to get your website to appear in the first place. That's shameless weaseling merketing at its best (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) .
I think that a more natural search would be the first few words of Roosevelt's quote "We have got to be tough with Germany" and neither your page nor Wikibooks appear on the first page of results. Your page is at #12 and Wikibooks is a duplicate result in #45.
Thank you for verifying that Wikipedia Review would be a better location to publish content than Wikibooks.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 22nd September 2010, 2:01pm)
Thank you for completely ignoring my point.
P.D.: Hum, did wikipediareview just disappear from google's results? It was there a couple hours ago... linkie
You're welcome.
Google is very strange. Sometimes they bump a page up nice and high, then later put it so low you might never find it. This seems to happen most often to newer pages in the index. Eventually, the process kind of levels out, and the page finds its final resting place in the results, unless some new dramatic attention (via links back) is paid to the page, elsewhere on the Internet.
See what happens when you add "Wikipedia Review" to that same search. It's still indexed, for sure. At least, that's what I'm seeing right now. I suppose in two weeks, it could be gone altogether.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
Jonathan Hochman seems to be coming to his senses on one aspect of Wikipedia history, even if he has to "screen" his rationale with an edit summary that will satisfy the cabal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th May 2011, 2:23pm)
Jonathan Hochman seems to be coming to his senses on one aspect of Wikipedia history, even if he has to "screen" his rationale with an edit summary that will satisfy the cabal.
Jehochman can be quite reasonable, that's been true for years. His edit summary isn't at all odd or surprising.
This is the text affected:
QUOTE
Edit for hire is a very bad idea. Microsoft caused themselves a great deal of bad press by paying someone to edit their Wikipedia article. The problem with edit for hire is that an editor paid by an organization, being externally-motivated, will almost inevitably violate WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), one of Wikipedia's most important policies.
That is such bullshit. It assumes that paid editing creates higher bias than already exists for many, many editors from their non-paid points of view, and over which they cheerfully ignore neutrality policy, with the tolerance of the administrative core, I can testify and I could prove it.
The argument would apply to incompetent paid editors, who don't know the policies and guidelines, and who violate them. (Aside from COI policy, which is essentially unenforceable except for clumsy violators who take no precautions.) Any competent paid editor will advise their client well as to the limits of what can be done within policy and guidelines.
Some companies might not care, and some paid editors might not care about unethical behavior, but that's life. If a company wants to keep paying for unstable content, paying for meat puppets to attack editors who try to fix their article (within guidelines), etc., there is no way to stop it. But most companies would want to have a decent article, one that will survive AfD and that is well-sourced, that looks good, that -- within guidelines -- gets their message out, and they would want maintenance to be simple, which requires guidelines being better respected than average! A promo piece can backfire, wasting all the effort that they paid for.
Idiots.
The blog linked from the essay page is fascinating. This is far from an obvious example of how Bad paid editing is. "Bad press" is something that Microsoft can expect no matter what they do, and the particular person they solicited was a white hat, as far as I can tell. Some things I noticed.
Ta bu shi da yu (admin, now Tbsdy lives (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, retired) commented, supporting Rick Jelliffe if he did paid editing. Jelliffe may have never edited the article, perhaps confining himself to what he did acknowledge, privately communicating with some editors, who did fix some things, which any company could surely do.
I suspect that Wikipedia editors are averse to reading long pages, I've got lots of evidence for that! There was apparently some media flap over this, and this was what they could find to link to.....
Rick Jelliffe has some links to the media flap. I didn't see any disclosure of how much Jelliffe was paid, but my guess is that they got their money's worth, and if there was "bad press," it would be because Jelliffe disclosed the possible contract. Before he actually had it (see the blog, then later information.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 13th May 2011, 3:10pm)
Rick Jelliffe has some links to the media flap. I didn't see any disclosure of how much Jelliffe was paid, but my guess is that they got their money's worth, and if there was "bad press," it would be because Jelliffe disclosed the possible contract. Before he actually had it (see the blog, then later information.)
I think it could be equally shown that among the tech press, Microsoft probably got as much "good press" that their Open XML products were getting unnecessarily abused on Wikipedia before they stepped in with Jelliffe. Which would actually be a bit of a black eye for Wikipedia.
So, once again, we see history being revised.
Abd, I don't know if you've seen this, but I was on TV talking about the flap.
Most of the anonymous know-it-alls on here who tell us that Examiner and Wikipedia Review are worthless have never been on TV speaking about anything we talk about here.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th May 2011, 7:51pm)
I think it could be equally shown that among the tech press, Microsoft probably got as much "good press" that their Open XML products were getting unnecessarily abused on Wikipedia before they stepped in with Jelliffe. Which would actually be a bit of a black eye for Wikipedia.
So, once again, we see history being revised.
Wikipedia has this new tool: Revision Revision. It replaces the tedious practice of redefining what a user did through argument. Now, with RR, you can just change the troll's edits, to make his trolling intention crystal clear, bypassing all that fuss.
I came across a revision deletion yesterday where not only was the deletion reason hidden, but the name of the admin making the deletion was also suppressed. Can't be too careful, can we?
QUOTE
Abd, I don't know if you've seen this, but I was on TV talking about the flap.
Most of the anonymous know-it-alls on here who tell us that Examiner and Wikipedia Review are worthless have never been on TV speaking about anything we talk about here.
They aren't worthless? Learn something every day. How much are they worth? How would we know?
The Examiner is crowd-sourced, in a way, but a different model than Wikipedia. The value of information is directly related to the trustworthiness of the source. On the Examiner, if I'm correct, the sources are real people using real names, and some writers might be quite reliable, and some not. On Wikipedia, they are usually anonymous, except for the naive like me who use real names.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:43pm)
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 all important 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 contributions page 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?
Huib seems to be in a snit about the shoddy privacy practices exercised by the OTRS team. He and his buddies ("a lot of writers") won't be sharing their content with Wikipedia any more.
Isn't it funny how, eventually, the Wikimedia Foundation and its lousy governance manage to offend and turn away just about everyone, even the die-hard WikiLovers?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
The theme of "global ban as act of vengeance" is being explored here currently.
If you were ever a fan of the English Wikipedia user page for Thekohser, look at it now, because it's not long for this world.
I'll be curious to see how the ArbCom will outdo itself in terms of depraved revenge on an innocuous user page. Meanwhile, they'll stamp out the one on English Wikipedia, but what of the nearly identical page on Wikiversity?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 22nd June 2011, 2:16pm)
I'll be curious to see how the ArbCom will outdo itself in terms of depraved revenge on an innocuous user page. Meanwhile, they'll stamp out the one on English Wikipedia, but what of the nearly identical page on Wikiversity?
Well, this is encouraging:
QUOTE
As the reblocking administrator/arbitrator, I was reinstating the community ban as the unban conditions had been violated. As such, it would require a broad consensus of the community to unban him, at minimum. - Risker
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 22nd June 2011, 2:16pm)
I'll be curious to see how the ArbCom will outdo itself in terms of depraved revenge on an innocuous user page. Meanwhile, they'll stamp out the one on English Wikipedia, but what of the nearly identical page on Wikiversity?
A little dramatic here, Greg?
They are technically correct, blanking of user pages for banned users is routine. It's pretty harmless, and far better than deleting them, which sometimes happens, since anyone can read the history.
(Notice that my user and user talk pages were *immediately* blanked, even when I was only indef blocked, not actually banned. The deletion process (MfD) for my other user subpages began immediately, before the community ban was declared. That, especially where these pages were linked as evidence in RfCs and RfArs, has much more impact than blanking, because history was being hidden, history with effects elsewhere.)
This has no effect on the Wikiversity user page, at all, and action against you there, absent you giving them some spectacular excuse, would be resisted.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 22nd June 2011, 3:05pm)
They are technically correct, blanking of user pages for banned users is routine. It's pretty harmless, and far better than deleting them, which sometimes happens, since anyone can read the history.
Here's the way I see it...
(1) There are a number of Wikipediots who truly dislike me. They prowl about the Internet for information that they can spring against me as a "gotcha" -- such as the deletion of paid article content about Graffiti4Hire.
(2) Some of these Wikipediots, undoubtedly, have reviewed the information found at my English Wikipedia User page, to try to gather clues about my editing style, my points of interest, etc.
(3) By blanking the page, that will discourage at least some number of new and old Wikipediots from going the extra step and looking at the page's content through the History tab.
(4) Thus by blanking the page, while depriving me of (perhaps) a bit of new clientele traffic, the Arbitration Committee will also be depriving some Wikipediots of an easier channel to track and know me. Therefore, it's possible that blanking this page will further ease my paid editing operation on Wikipedia, where several of my accounts are decidedly not suffering any sort of block or ban.
It must kill them to know that I continue to operate much as I did in 2006, except that now 0% of my Wikipedia work is done truly on a volunteered, gratis basis, where in the old days it was about 50-50.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 5th July 2011, 9:10am)
In many cases, it's as if Jimbo just joined Wikipedia a week ago and is still getting to know the ropes.
Isn't that a good thing? Let's take this further.
Suppose he were to create a sock account and seriously begin working on the project. Wouldn't he learn some important stuff? Shades of Harun al-Rashid. (I see that Wikipedia doesn't have the story of Harun moving incognito among his people, have I confused Harun with someone else? Nevertheless, I think readers will get the idea. Action research. Jimbo could also follow the exploits of others with somewhat similar effect, and perhaps he does.)
This could be really fun! I hope he tries it, if he hasn't already.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Tue 5th July 2011, 2:29pm)
So of coursethere are not doing anything about your userpage in wv.
That's great to hear, coming from the grammatically-challenged twit who blanked my User page on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I've just updated my Wikiversity User page to reflect some new data.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:50pm)
the grammatically-challenged twit
Just because I make a few unimportant mispellings and akward constructions. Thus forcing other editors to correct almost every new sentence I add to articles.
I once heard that, at the start of wikipedia, people made spelling errors in purpose: New editors would spot them, and feel compelled to edit the page to correct them. This would get them started editing wikipedia.
A point of clarification -- you're not a twit for having bad grammar; you're a twit for molesting my Wikipedia User page that had no impact whatsoever on your life, but has some (small) impact on my life, without so much as asking me my opinion. Actually, thinking about it, "twit" is really too nice of a word to describe your action.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Tue 5th July 2011, 2:11pm)
Just because I make a few unimportant mispellings and akward constructions. Thus forcing other editors to correct almost every new sentence I add to articles.
I once heard that, at the start of wikipedia, people made spelling errors in purpose: New editors would spot them, and feel compelled to edit the page to correct them. This would get them started editing wikipedia.
Greg isn't the only one here who thinks you're a twit. (I would prefer to replace the "i" with an "a", myself.)
And don't kid me about that old spelling-error scam. Wikipedia articles contained typos and bad spelling because they were being written by random insane people. Then, and still today. (I've got evidence of massive typos in numerous Wikipedia articles, right now, that are years old. I will not correct them, because I despise you, "Mr. Naval". Have a nice day.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
Everything I need to know about Enric_Naval was revealed in this post.
QUOTE(Enric_Naval)
"You know that avatar that Zoloft uses. That one with the sad slime hidden inside a cave, looking at a butterfly that is freely flying outside? I always thought that it was an alegory of how Poetlister was trapped in an ugly masculine body, longing for a sex change operation so he can become a beautiful butterfly. You know, an alegory for having your penis peeled off and redone into a vagina. I wonder if Stanistani will be grossed out by this interpretation of his avatar."
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Tue 5th July 2011, 4:11pm)
Just because I make a few unimportant mispellings and akward constructions.
Ah, but the fact that Mr. Naval deems these to be "unimportant" (not to mention misspelling the word "awkward") is just one more reason why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a scholarly reference work.
But here's the thing I don't get - when one of the Wikipedians is insulted by Mr. Kohs for having acted in some sort of anti-Kohs fashion, why then escalate by attempting to apply even further restrictions to Mr. Kohs' account? Is it really just a series of ball-thrusting maneuvers, like mice in a laboratory cage? Don't they have any sense of perspective, of how they're seen by others when they do things like this?
I don't blame them for trying the restrictions in the past, because they had to follow their various patterns if only in the interest of fairness... but don't they realize now that, barring some form of hurtful abuse, they'd be better off lifting restrictions when he insults them, as a form of reverse psychology?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 5th July 2011, 11:35pm)
A point of clarification -- you're not a twit for having bad grammar; you're a twit for molesting my Wikipedia User page that had no impact whatsoever on your life, but has some (small) impact on my life, without so much as asking me my opinion. Actually, thinking about it, "twit" is really too nice of a word to describe your action.
You posted your page in the private website of a non-profit with a humanitarian purpose. That non-profit allows anyone to use their server to further their humanitarian goal. Then you used it for your own greedy purposes, purposes which happened to damage the non-profit's humanitarian goal. I am sure that you wouldn't allow that to happen in your website.
Wikipedia articles contained typos and bad spelling because they were being written by random insane people. Then, and still today.
You are projecting yourself in wikipedia editors.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 6th July 2011, 5:48am)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Tue 5th July 2011, 4:11pm)
Just because I make a few unimportant mispellings and akward constructions.
Ah, but the fact that Mr. Naval deems these to be "unimportant" (not to mention misspelling the word "awkward") is just one more reason why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a scholarly reference work.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 7:26am)
You posted your page in the private website of a non-profit with a humanitarian purpose. That non-profit allows anyone to use their server to further their humanitarian goal. Then you used it for your own greedy purposes, purposes which happened to damage the non-profit's humanitarian goal. I am sure that you wouldn't allow that to happen in your website.
Enric, why does your beloved non-profit spend on the "humanitarian" program services only 43 cents of every tax-exempt donation dollar?
If you didn't notice (since you appear to be such a dimwit), my complaints that "damage" the non-profit are only calling for better governance of the project, but I guess you don't want that. You prefer a "humanitarian" goal of wasting more money than is actually spent on serving the mission.
I should probably stop here, but your idiocy abounds, so I'll just point out that I have never logged into Wikipedia as User:Queen of the Dishpan, which you falsely claimed to be one of my socks.
As for the Examiner... I'm sorry that you're jealous of the fact that my message is reaching an audience that has generated over 32,000 page views thus far.
If you'd like to come to my website and start a factual page that damages my goals, I'll look forward to what you might be able to piece together. As long as your content is factual, and as long as you sign it with your real name, I wouldn't delete it the way you deleted my factual content from Wikipedia, you coward. You see, I don't scare the way you and your project seem to scurry from the truth.
I don't agree that arbcom was "discredited" by the leaks. Most of the items that could be considered negative were things that anyone with more sense than God gave a gerbil pretty much suspected anyway. More constructive would be to ask what we can learn from this. Perhaps the first lesson is that arbcom should get out of the business of handling sensitive personal information. There's no way to keep it secure; it exposes them to liability; and it can't help to know that if any serious legal difficulties arose WMF would kick them to the curb with great alacrity. So at the first hint of anything sensitive the arbs should sent the matter straight to WMF. Let the WMF staffers earn their $200,000/year salaries (or whatever the figure is). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, can't let that one go unchallenged. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, makes anything near $200K per year. My salary is a good deal less than that, I assure you. With the cost of living in SF, I certainly am not getting rich. Every one of us chooses to make less money than we could in the private sector because we believe in the projects and the work. I know what I'm worth on the free market, but I like being a part of this project. I want to be here. Further... I'll miss Shell. She was a pillar of this community and a fantastic lady, in my book. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking specifically of Sue Gardner, whose salary is listed at well over $200,000.[1] Is she not one of your "colleagues"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Those are mere facts, completely irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of valid criticisms of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly with regard to staffing as the sheer number of people working for Wikimedia grows and grows, but to suggest that the Executive Director is overpaid for that role in that area is a bit silly. The larger point about ArbCom getting out of the personal information business is spot-on, however. I'd just hate to see it drowned out in irrelevancies. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. I have struck this part of my comment as it has given an opening to deflect attention from the main issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hilary Clinton only gets $186,600 but I'm sure her responsibilities are nowhere near as great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th July 2011, 3:03pm)
blah, blah, blah
Goodness, save your imaginative accounting and imaginary conspiracies for yourself. If I wrote a page on you in your website then you would remove all negative information about you, I have no doubt about that. I just have to see how you refuse here to accept any responsability for the blanking of your user page.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 6:26am)
Books[/url] neverhavetypos, right? So, according to you...
It wasn't the fact that you made the typos, it was the fact that you came right out and stated, matter-of-factly, that they were unimportant. A professional editor, who had concern for his/her reputation and so on, would never say such a thing.
You, and other WP "editors," have to not only stop saying such things, you also have to stop believing them. Once you do that, you'll have cleared a major hurdle, at least from the perspective of people in the editorial profession.
This is why a good critique of Wikipedia has to be bulletproof and uncontestable---because the thing has so many arrogant, aggressive, and utterly clueless fanboys like him.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 12:26pm)
You posted your page in the private website of a non-profit with a humanitarian purpose. That non-profit allows anyone to use their server to further their humanitarian goal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 6:03pm)
Goodness, save your imaginative accounting...
First time I've heard an official federal Form 990's numbers described as "imaginative accounting". You're amusing Enric. I wonder what you do for a living in the real world?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 7th July 2011, 12:07am)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 6:26am)
Books[/url] neverhavetypos, right? So, according to you...
It wasn't the fact that you made the typos, it was the fact that you came right out and stated, matter-of-factly, that they were unimportant. A professional editor, who had concern for his/her reputation and so on, would never say such a thing.
You, and other WP "editors," have to not only stop saying such things, you also have to stop believing them. Once you do that, you'll have cleared a major hurdle, at least from the perspective of people in the editorial profession.
Are typos more important that content? Do we have to dismiss someone's contribution a priori just because it has typos? In a non-professional volunteer driven work? This is what you were saying with your comment.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th July 2011, 3:43pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 6:03pm)
Goodness, save your imaginative accounting...
First time I've heard an official federal Form 990's numbers described as "imaginative accounting". You're amusing Enric. I wonder what you do for a living in the real world?
(It's your interpretationof the numbers that is imaginative accounting)
Anyways, since you can't deny that you are abusing a non-profit with a humanitarian goal, you try to derail the conversation by saying that the non-profit is not well administrated. Which of course doesn't excuse you abusing the non-profit for your personal promotion, but allows you to create a smoke-screen so people won't see your actions for what they are.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 7th July 2011, 12:10am)
I'll admit, though, Mr. Kohs might do well to state (for the record) that he knew in advance that his actions would probably lead to that result.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 3:36pm)
Anyways, since you can't deny that you are abusing a non-profit with a humanitarian goal
Fine words butter no parsnips. Explain this "humanitarian goal" and in what way WMF furthers that. Bear in mind they say they are only equivalent to a webhosting company, that they don't actually create or publish anything off their own bat, and that everything other than maintaining servers is all the (legal) responsibility of 15 year olds.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 10:28am)
Are typos more important that content? Do we have to dismiss someone's contribution a priori just because it has typos? In a non-professional volunteer driven work? This is what you were saying with your comment.
I once had some sympathy for Enric Naval. Then I saw that when his errors were corrected, he resented it, and supported bans for anyone who pointed out his ignorance. He's an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. He's been highly disruptive at times, but got a pass, at the same time as he supported throwing the book at other editors for jaywalking.
Just a little example that stuck in my mind. During RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, I defied WMC's self-declared ban by editing Talk:Cold fusion. WMC reverted it and blocked me, but I was quickly unblocked and my edit restored by Viridae.
Enric Naval revert warred to keep this comment off the Talk page. He asserted I was banned, when I was not. Then he reverted again after Rlevse had declared a ban, which would not at all indicate that prior edits should be reverted. And then again, making 3RR. For a comment on a talk page suggesting some sources that meet RS criteria. These were peer-reviewed secondary sources, supposedly the gold standard for science articles.
I later compiled a list of recent sources on Cold fusion, at Wikiversity. This shows 19 secondary sources since 2005, sources found in the Britz database as being "mainstream." I did not count the papers in J. Sci. Explor, because that journal explicitly considers neglected fields. There are no comparable negative secondary sources in peer-reviewed journals in that period, that bear on the science. There are one or two secondary sources that assume "scientific opinion," i.e., the widespread rejection.
What's the biggest elephant in this living room? The strongest evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions, and for fusion as one type, is that helium has been measured, repeatedly, as correlated with anomalous heat from calorimetry with highly loaded palladium deuteride. This is covered in detail in Storms [Naturwissenschaften, Status of cold fusion (2010)]. It was a major focus of the review paper submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004.
The article only includes the faintest whisper, lost in the noise, about this, from the 2004 review. When I was banned again from the article last year, I was suggesting sourced material from the Naturwissenshaften review. ScienceApologist and Enric Naval were opposing this, claiming that this was not a reliable source because the author was a "promoter" of cold fusion, and providing other spurious reasons to ignore what was completely obvious: this was published by Naturwissenschaften, a venerable mainstream multidisciplinary journal, on the first page of the issue, with a big heading: REVIEW.
I took it to WP:RSN. Result, acceptable as reliable source. Result with article: nothing. I was banned for my efforts -- I was by this time COI, so my efforts only consisted of suggesting this on Talk. I only edited the article with what I expected would be noncontroversial. I was often surprised at what ScienceApologist and Enric Naval considered controversial, I'll admit. But no revert warring, 0RR.
Banned.
Whenever Enric thought he could get away with it, he advocated and enforced bans. He was involved in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. He submitted the evidence they used to justify my ban (apparently they never actually read the evidence, and only cited it because it sounded bad. In fact, he cited his own opinion, issued before I ever edited Cold fusion, in RfAr/Fringe science, an opinion contrary to ArbComm's decision in that case, and they linked to this as evidence that I'd been tendentious.)
Enric Naval had, many times, openly revealed his point of view and had edited tendentiously to promote it. And nothing was done. He was untouchable. Why?
Because this was Wikipedia and he was Enric Naval, that's why.
This is why a good critique of Wikipedia has to be bulletproof and uncontestable---because the thing has so many arrogant, aggressive, and utterly clueless fanboys like him.
I'm taking vigorous exception to this evidence-free statement. We do not know that Enric is a boy.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:28am)
Are typos more important that content? Do we have to dismiss someone's contribution a priori just because it has typos? In a non-professional volunteer driven work? This is what you were saying with your comment.
No it wasn't, and I obviously wasn't.
I was saying that professional editors of printed reference works would never state that typos and misspellings are "unimportant," and that in order to be taken seriously in that world, Wikipedia editors have to follow suit.
Clearly I was not saying that content should be "dismissed" because it contains typos and other grammatical flaws, nor was I saying that spelling/grammar is more "important" than "content," however you're defining the word "content." I am saying that a truly well-made encyclopedia puts a high value on the quality of both the information itself, and the expression/presentation of that information, and its publishers would never publicly claim that either of those things lacked importance, even relative to the other.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
I know plenty of authors who cannot spell worth a damn, and every last one of them (the ones who are successful, at least) immediately heap voluminous praise upon their editors for fixing their atrocious spelling and making what they write publishable.
Not being able to spell is not an impediment to authorship. Failing to recognize that it is an impediment to publication, however, is.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 7th July 2011, 8:26pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:28am)
Are typos more important that content? Do we have to dismiss someone's contribution a priori just because it has typos? In a non-professional volunteer driven work? This is what you were saying with your comment.
No it wasn't, and I obviously wasn't.
I was saying that professional editors of printed reference works would never state that typos and misspellings are "unimportant," and that in order to be taken seriously in that world, Wikipedia editors have to follow suit.
Wikipedia is not-professional and not-printed. Many wikipedia editors are interested in getting recognized by most of the world population as a better encyclopedia that any work ever published by that professional printed world. Why the hell would they want to be recognized by the guys they are competing against.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 7th July 2011, 8:26pm)
Clearly I was not saying that content should be "dismissed" because it contains typos and other grammatical flaws, nor was I saying that spelling/grammar is more "important" than "content," however you're defining the word "content." I am saying that a truly well-made encyclopedia puts a high value on the quality of both the information itself, and the expression/presentation of that information, and its publishers would never publicly claim that either of those things lacked importance, even relative to the other.
And you are defining the word "truly well-made encyclopedia" to mean something that has been superceded by wikipedia's success. And by "superceded" I mean "totally trashed around and left it in the gutter to survive". Ask the Encarta guys about how their encyclopedia was "truly well-made", ask Britannica about how the bottom line of their "truly well-made" encyclopedia has been affected by a bunch of typo-maker aficionados.
>implying that wikipedia needs to be "truly well-made" and adapt their presentation to an arbitrary set of rules that you feel personally that encyclopedias should comply with.
If wikipedia had forced their editors to comply with arbitrary levels of presentation/typos/grammar/whatever, then it's probable that it would have never become successful. Apparently, people loved the ability to go there and drop a few clumsy lines in a new page, and they would eventually be fixed, corrected and expanded to beautiful articles that they could have never written by themselves, and linked in a network with articles of related topics. Aka, newbies and clumsy people put up badly-shaped content, and other editors who are more knowledgeable in grammar hammer it into shape. This still happens, but to a lesser extent, because all the low-hanging fruit was already harvested.
Hell, I can imagine you starting the project instead of Jimbo, forcing everyone to put into wikipedia only correctly gramatical and typo-free sentences, and fucking up the project before it had an opportunity to get started. All because of not putting content before presentation. Yes, even putting content at the same level as presentation could have fucked the project.
If wikipedia ever wants to become a professional printed work, then it will have to contract professionales to proof-read it. Then your comments about importance will become relevant, since that will be the moment of giving so much importance to presentation.
Yeah, I got winded with this.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 7th July 2011, 8:46pm)
Not being able to spell is not an impediment to authorship. Failing to recognize that it is an impediment to publication, however, is.
Wikipedia is not actually "published" as such. If I ever want to become a published author, then I'll have to give much more importance to spelling.
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 7th July 2011, 6:17pm)
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Abd.
· View this post · Un-ignore Abd
Yes, Abd, I love you too. If you have some comment about cold fusion sources, then you already know how to contact me.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 7th July 2011, 4:54pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 3:36pm)
Anyways, since you can't deny that you are abusing a non-profit with a humanitarian goal
Fine words butter no parsnips. Explain this "humanitarian goal" and in what way WMF furthers that. Bear in mind they say they are only equivalent to a webhosting company, that they don't actually create or publish anything off their own bat, and that everything other than maintaining servers is all the (legal) responsibility of 15 year olds.
The goal is building a free-access compilation of universal knowledge, for people who can't afford paying for knowledge. The WMF enables the writers of that encyclopedia by providing the server hosting, raising the funds for the servers, taking care of legal matters (trademarks? legal menaces? legal advice? DMCA complaints? legal compliance in fund raisings? contracting paid developers? maybe you think those get handled magically on their own?), and giving as few nudges as possible because they are afraid of destroying the community by accident.
They are obviously furthering the goal, since the knowledge keeps being compiled and massively distributed in the wildly-successful-beyond-any-prediction free-access freely-redistributable encyclopedia that is hosted in their servers. And in something like +200 languages, although anything outside the English wikipedia still needs tons of work.
Maybe you think that the WMF should write the encyclopedia themselves? That's it's not possible to further the goals of a project by providing technical and legal support that allows the guys who do the real work to keep working? That wikipedia would be better off without a non-profit taking care of all that stuff?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:17am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 6th July 2011, 6:21pm)
This is why a good critique of Wikipedia has to be bulletproof and uncontestable---because the thing has so many arrogant, aggressive, and utterly clueless fanboys like him.
I'm taking vigorous exception to this evidence-free statement. We do not know that Enric is a boy.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 7th July 2011, 12:41am)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 12:26pm)
You posted your page in the private website of a non-profit with a humanitarian purpose. That non-profit allows anyone to use their server to further their humanitarian goal.
Right, of course, to evaluate the value of wikipedia we must look only at cherry-picked examples of pop culture and US politics. God forbid we look at the actually worthwhile content.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 7th July 2011, 10:41pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 1:17pm)
If wikipedia ever wants to become a professional printed work, then it will have to contract professionales to proof-read it.
SÃ, Señor Naval. ¡SÃ, se puede!
Of course. And in the other post I mispelled "alegory" with one "l" because it's written "alegoria" with one "l" in Spanish. Unlike French, German, English and Latin, where it has two "l"...... How is this called, Language transfer, maybe? Sigh, second languages suck.
Did I already mention that Hans Adler said that I shouldn't be editing wikipedia at all? (because of my English)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 1:57pm)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 7th July 2011, 10:41pm)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 1:17pm)
If wikipedia ever wants to become a professional printed work, then it will have to contract professionales to proof-read it.
SÃ, Señor Naval. ¡SÃ, se puede!
Of course. And in the other post I mispelled "alegory" with one "l" because it's written "alegoria" with one "l" in Spanish. Unlike French, German, English and Latin, where it has two "l"...... How is this called, Language transfer, maybe? Sigh, second languages suck.
Did I already mention that Hans Adler said that I shouldn't be editing wikipedia at all? (because of my English)
*sigh* I'm feeling so tired....
If you had simply said, "I make a fair amount of mistakes because English is my second language," nobody here would be giving you crap for it. Instead you state that errors aren't important or even have a beneficial effect.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:48pm)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 7th July 2011, 12:41am)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Wed 6th July 2011, 12:26pm)
You posted your page in the private website of a non-profit with a humanitarian purpose. That non-profit allows anyone to use their server to further their humanitarian goal.
Right, of course, to evaluate the value of wikipedia we must look only at cherry-picked examples of pop culture and US politics. God forbid we look at the actually worthwhile content.
*cough* there are at least 4 errors in the first paragraph there - example Jean Froissart wasn't French.
As for the rest aren't they mostly polluted so that nobody quite knows how much is crap? PD can point you to whole swathes of nonsense. I recall maths articles that were arse about face. Then of the organisms there are a whole bunch of stubs which are basically a taxonomy and a image where the image is of some there critter. The articles on the Scientists are used as delivery vehicles for those engaged in point scoring. The medical articles are full of anti-pharma diatribes, and what are we to make of the MMR article hijacked for several years by anti-vaccinationists?
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 3:17pm)
Wikipedia is not-professional and not-printed. Many wikipedia editors are interested in getting recognized by most of the world population as a better encyclopedia that any work ever published by that professional printed world. Why the hell would they want to be recognized by the guys they are competing against.
Why wouldn't they? Not that I actually suggested they should, of course. In any given creative endeavor, there are people who set the standard, people who validate the standard, and people who then attempt to meet the standard. Standards are usually validated by some combination of critics and consumers, but Wikipedia obviously doesn't care about consumers (they're not the ones paying), and it certainly doesn't care about critics.
Wikipedia isn't attempting to meet the standard set for encyclopedia publishing, it's deliberately ignoring that standard, just as you're indicating here - in no uncertain terms, I might add. You think that's just fine, as is your right, but at the same time you shouldn't be surprised that others will disagree with you.
QUOTE
And you are defining the word "truly well-made encyclopedia" to mean something that has been superceded by wikipedia's success....
Not "success"; rather, "lack of overhead."
QUOTE
...implying that wikipedia needs to be "truly well-made" and adapt their presentation to an arbitrary set of rules that you feel personally that encyclopedias should comply with.
You really do like to put words in people's mouths, don't you? I never said it "needs" to be anything of the sort. Clearly it can be useful to consumers despite not meeting professional standards, or else it wouldn't have such a high Alexa ranking.
However, traditional publishing standards are not "rules," nor are they "arbitrary." They aren't part of a game that someone made up just because they thought publishing reference materials would be fun. Wikipedia, on the other hand...
QUOTE
If wikipedia had forced their editors to comply with arbitrary levels of presentation/typos/grammar/whatever, then it's probable that it would have never become successful...
At least you admit that much!
QUOTE
Aka, newbies and clumsy people put up badly-shaped content, and other editors who are more knowledgeable in grammar hammer it into shape.
Or not, as the case may be. (Other options include deleting the content entirely, filling it up with rubbish, turning it into a "coat-rack," or letting it just sit there for years with no ongoing maintenance.)
QUOTE
Hell, I can imagine you starting the project instead of Jimbo...
Thankfully, I can't.
QUOTE
If wikipedia ever wants to become a professional printed work, then it will have to contract professionales to proof-read it.
You really don't think there's any other way? If I were a less charitable person, I might think you were deliberately setting your standards lower than they should be and hoping that the rest of the world, once the last "professional" encyclopedias are run out of business by a liability-protected, tax-advantaged, free-sector-dumped competitor, will simply accept it because there's no viable alternative.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 105
Joined:
Member No.: 6,149
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 8th July 2011, 2:18am)
*cough* there are at least 4 errors in the first paragraph there - example Jean Froissart wasn't French.
As for the rest aren't they mostly polluted so that nobody quite knows how much is crap? PD can point you to whole swathes of nonsense. I recall maths articles that were arse about face. Then of the organisms there are a whole bunch of stubs which are basically a taxonomy and a image where the image is of some there critter. The articles on the Scientists are used as delivery vehicles for those engaged in point scoring. The medical articles are full of anti-pharma diatribes, and what are we to make of the MMR article hijacked for several years by anti-vaccinationists?
I think that you are again cherry-picking the bad content and estudiously ignoring the wealth of good content.
Also, you have the option of fixing that bad content if it really annoys you. If this was written in a paper encyclopedia then you would be out of luck. You would have to wait passively to see if later editions corrected the mistakes, and pray they don't introduce new ones or remove correct facts. You don't even have the option of bitching about the errors in a freely-editable talk page that everyone reading the article has the option of consulting.
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 8th July 2011, 1:40am)
If you had simply said, "I make a fair amount of mistakes because English is my second language," nobody here would be giving you crap for it. Instead you state that errors aren't important or even have a beneficial effect.
You sound like a troll when you act like that.
Because I always find it flattering when my English is good enough to make some people conclude that I am an English native that just happens to write badly.
I mean, damn, if people think I am a native speaker, then they tend to correct any minor errors I make. This motivates me to improve your English much harder, and makes me (painfully) aware of many of my still-to-be-solved flaws. Consequently, I never utter a complaint when people clean-up my writing with abrasive references to people who can't write good English for shite.
I only feel irked when people appear to dismiss someone's comments just because they write badly. Which, to me, seemed to be your case. I hope I was wrong.
The problem is giving importance to typos over content, which is again my pet peeve: saying that content is somehow inferior because it has typos of bad grammar. Of course the presentation is inferior. But, if the underlying content is valuable, then you can simply fix it and correct it. Which is the case with wikipedia, which means that allowing people to write bad English did have a benefitial effect in wikipedia's case. And allowing bad English from anonynoys random contributors might actually have been one of the root causes of its success. And this whole board happens to be about reviewing wikipedia, not about reviewing professionally-written professionally-edited paper-binded English publications in general.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
Wikipedia obviously doesn't care about consumers (they're not the ones paying),
Obviously. They only care about:
* donators, because they are the only ones paying. And who apparently give a shit about profesional publishing standards (or, at least, they think that lowering that standards is a good tradeback).
* editors, because they are the backbone of wikipedia. There are some who cringe at having to correct other people's typos but keep plowing anyways, and there are other who appear to be perfectly happy spell-checking and re-wording whole sections and even articles.
* readers, because they are indirectly validating the standards of wikipedia, via checking it over other reference works which are supposedly superior. And who appear to prefer oodles of content over perfect presentation. Happy readers might become donators, another reason to keep them happy.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
and it certainly doesn't care about critics.
Because, if wikipedia had implemented the suggestions of its critics, it would have never reached its current success.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
Wikipedia isn't attempting to meet the standard set for encyclopedia publishing, it's deliberately ignoring that standard, just as you're indicating here - in no uncertain terms,
Exactly. Because it would earn nothing by adopting the standards of the institutions that it's managing to topple by means of simply existing.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
You think that's just fine, as is your right, but at the same time you shouldn't be surprised that others will disagree with you.
Oh, yes, I can see that you are disagreeing with me. However, I am making the point that there are massive amounts of people who disagree with you. Aka, that the unwashed masses seem to be happy with wikipedia's standards. And wikipedia happens to be intended for those unwashed masses (people who can't pay for a paper edition of Brittanica, or for lots of reference books, or for access to journals).
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
(...) Clearly it can be useful to consumers despite not meeting professional standards, or else it wouldn't have such a high Alexa ranking.
Exactly, it's managing to be useful in spite of bad English. And trying to force professional standards would have probably prevented wikipedia from ever becoming useful.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
However, traditional publishing standards are not "rules," nor are they "arbitrary." They aren't part of a game that someone made up just because they thought publishing reference materials would be fun.
They are what kept people buying paper encyclopedias. If enough people had accepted buying encyclopedias with minor errors in exchange for more content, then some publishers might have decided to change their standards. Maybe the opportunity was already there and nobody identified it, or maybe paper encyclopedias are too expensive to take that chance (the more content it has, the more expensive it is, and you would have to pay again for later editions where errors are corrected. Better have a small cheaper encyclopedia with no errors. Wikipedia is free independently of size and so are the updates. The medium shapes the message, etc. Encyclopedia standards are not a magical unchanging set of standards, except in the mind of people.)
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
QUOTE
If wikipedia had forced their editors to comply with arbitrary levels of presentation/typos/grammar/whatever, then it's probable that it would have never become successful...
At least you admit that much!
Uuuuuh, of course I do. Am I supposed to be ashamed of that or something?
It also allows quick updating, and incorporating suggestions from passerbies who notice missing or mistaken content.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
Or not, as the case may be. (Other options include deleting the content entirely, filling it up with rubbish, turning it into a "coat-rack," or letting it just sit there for years with no ongoing maintenance.)
Yes, there are abandoned and/or crappy parts of wikipedia. But those areas also exist in paper encyclopedias.....
Just a few weeks ago, a Spanish bibliographical encyclopedia endorsed by the Royal Academy of History, under-representing women and saying that dictator Franco was just a good chap after all. And then refusing to pull the paper edition and fix it, and refusing to take measures for future encyclopedias. Even after the Minister of Culture asked the director of the Academy in person.
Or this nifty regional encyclopedia, overloaded with regional nationalism, completely endorsing every pseudohistoric crapola ever uttered by nationalistic historians. Then people citing that encyclopedia to insert pseudohistoric "facts" into the relevant regional wikipedia, then that crapola seeping into the English wikipedia. All because of a paper encyclopedia which, of course, had flawless "standards"... in typos and grammar.... with the content standards being crapped upon in the name of making the Fatherland look good.
And that other regional encyclopedia, where the quality of the entries depended on who had written the article the last time (they replaced the entries every few years with a full new version). Then staying unchanged for years, including all the small errors that would have been easy to change. My favourite entry is now finally correct in a certain point, finally reflecting the facts that I defended for years in wikipedia by digging up sources for days in a row.
Summary: paper encyclopedias don't have magically good content just because they have good presentation standards.
Paper encyclopedias got owned by wikipedia because wikipedia cared more about content standards. That there is bad content in wikipedia is a given, that this bad content doesn't exist in paper encyclopedias is just wishful thinking. Idem for content that is not covered. Wikipedia covers way more content than any other encyclopedia, but as a consequence it also has way more gaps. I think that those are reasons for praising and crying for improvement of content, not for crtiticizing and crying for abandonment of work.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 8:29am)
QUOTE
If wikipedia ever wants to become a professional printed work, then it will have to contract professionales to proof-read it.
You really don't think there's any other way? If I were a less charitable person, I might think you were deliberately setting your standards lower than they should be and hoping that the rest of the world, once the last "professional" encyclopedias are run out of business by a liability-protected, tax-advantaged, free-sector-dumped competitor, will simply accept it because there's no viable alternative.
Isn't this already the case? Video killed the radio star, Guttenber's printing machine killed all those beautiful hand-written manuscripts with decorations, engraving killed manual reproductions which were more beautifully made, photography then killed engraving thus not allowing authors tointroduce their own creative changes in the images, digital photography then killed chemical photography which was arguibly an overall good change, free GNU software damages closed-software companies that can give personalized support for money, modular programming killed all-written-from-scratch programming that was more efficient and customized, Wallmart-type supermarkets killed most small familiar shops that gave more personalized service, digital copy is killing traditional authorship rights and control over copies, etc.
No need to do anything in purpose. People are already choosing with their wallets that those well-written encyclopedias don't have enough added value to pay for them. Adapt or die, etc.
Now, if you want to argue that this is a bad change, I can't agree with you. Wikipedia appears to be giving way better content overall, at expense of worse presentation. I think that's a good thing. Also, it's not like we can go and get this trend reversed, isn't it? Progress is difficult to stop, and it's getting increasingly difficult to stop in this internet-connected world. Might as well embrace it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 8th July 2011, 10:34am)
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Fri 8th July 2011, 4:10am)
I think that you are again cherry-picking the bad content and estudiously ignoring the wealth of good content.
It is a criticism site, after all.
Enric Naval doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that these are simply pages that I've run across as I've been looking for information. The errors are so frequent in areas that I have a passing knowledge of, that one can only assume that similar errors exist in places I don't have any knowledge of. Frequently one will find pages where a person mentioned in an event of say the 14th century, is linked to a person of the same name living in the 16th century. How about the confusion here starting with "Among the members of ..." you'd have thought it wouldn't have been too hard to get that bit right.
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
QUOTE(Enric_Naval @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:57pm)
igh, second languages suck.
Did I already mention that Hans Adler said that I shouldn't be editing wikipedia at all? (because of my English)
It seems to be primarily an English (or rather American) attitude to criticize people for spelling errors in this way. You see far less of it on say French WP, despite the alleged protectionist attitude of the French to their language. Odd.
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 8th July 2011, 1:18am)
PD can point you to whole swathes of nonsense. I recall maths articles that were arse about face. Then of the organisms there are a whole bunch of stubs which are basically a taxonomy and a image where the image is of some there critter. The articles on the Scientists are used as delivery vehicles for those engaged in point scoring. The medical articles are full of anti-pharma diatribes, and what are we to make of the MMR article hijacked for several years by anti-vaccinationists?
True enough. I could certainly add to the list. Many errors, I find, are due to people having reasonable sources but then, deliberately or not, distorting what they say. Some of it is "look how clever I am, I've found the truth rather than the errors found in so many sources" - when they haven't.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 8th July 2011, 2:27pm)
I'm still a student, and I'm in my sixth decade.
Never stop learning. I'm testing out for MCSE next week.
Call me jealous... I tried to take a couple of classes a few years ago, but had to give up because I'm simply unable to stay awake during a lecture or presentation. In fact, I wouldn't even bother going to conferences any more, except for those that are required for certifications (which I can't stay awake in, but apparently that's not required).
Am I the only one considering putting Enric Naval on the ignore list? I'm not at all sure he's teachable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 8th July 2011, 3:23pm)
I tried to take a couple of classes a few years ago, but had to give up because I'm simply unable to stay awake during a lecture or presentation. In fact, I wouldn't even bother going to conferences any more, except for those that are required for certifications (which I can't stay awake in, but apparently that's not required).
Am I the only one considering putting Enric Naval on the ignore list? I'm not at all sure he's teachable. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
SB_Johnny won't read this unless someone quotes it, if he still has me on ignore, which is fine with me. I sympathize with the problem, I have difficulty with most speakers when they go on for more than five to fifteen minutes, even pretty good speakers. However, that problem doesn't apply to written text, I simply won't read it carefully, I skim to see if I might be missing something, or I just don't look if I've found the signal to noise ratio too low.
I only put participants on ignore when they are both annoying and I'm tempted to respond. I've only done that with one or two writers here. Editors where I might want to know what idiocy they are up to on Wikipedia (or even something reasonable), I won't ignore. Enric Naval has done a lot of damage, so ....
I have not decided that harassment would be a part of my little project. Probably not. But, hey, if I wanted to start, I do know where I might start.
Except that Enric could be.... the most interesting man in the world.
I too, am a student. But I'm finally no longer a pupil in any formal school. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) The school of hard knocks, which I do sometimes attend, is that one mentioned by all those 5th century Greeks and RFK. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
To be fair, there's nothing wrong with being a student, even at age 33. At the same time, it's easy for someone who's been struggling to run a business or working in a soul-crushing job for 20 years to look on such a person as a bit of a "whelp."
Of course, if I had it to do all over again I probably never would have gone to school at all, and instead I would have moved to Maui to become a professional surfer.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Jimbo calls for global ban on Thekohser, and his bidding is done
