FT2's state visit, So how was it for you? Options

[LessHorrid vanU]

I have to say that there was no indication that FT2 "read himself into" the place before arriving.

As Lar and NYB have shown you can be fully your WP personality here, but interact here in accordance to the mores and practices that are common. That FT2 didn't is disappointing for both a member of the ArbCom, who might be expected to observe the courtesies of dealing with people in the manner they find preferable, and in regard to any useful interaction he may have hoped to participate in. I have no clear idea why he chose to appear here.

[Vicky]

There's cake?

Sure.

I have no clear idea why he chose to appear here.

He wanted to chat up Dogbiscuit?

[Jon Awbrey]

What's this "driven away" idea? I left a message for Greg Kohs when I had to go: "I'm not active online, or here, all day, so there'll routinely be delays between posts — sometimes long ones. It's not avoidance, it's trying to fit all that is needed, in. […] If you could do me a favor, and forward this to those active in the current threads — I think thats kelly, tarantino, proabivouac, damian, at minimum? Just so that they know what's what."

It wasn't forwarded?
(Maybe Greg didn't see it yet)

Forwarding PMs on here is a really inefficient way to communicate, and I'm not so sure how to forward to multiple users, anyway. I do think I forwarded the note to Kelly Martin and to Peter Damian, but I couldn't fathom how to forward to more than "primary" and "other" recipient.

Oh, and I only got around to it this morning.

As I said, really inefficient.

And, why me? Do I look like John E. Potter?

Greg

Oh Grate — the guy's just got here and already he's playing PrimeMajesterial games. Can't these Transparent Types function without multiple sekrit societies constantly running in the background? But thanks for reminding me to put FT2 on my ignore list. Like, maybe we should create a blocking category for Cross-Wiki PM-Spammer, not to mention AM Spammer and FM Spammer, too.

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Nah, we didn't, but we certainly didn't welcome him with open arms and give him a coffee and slice of cake, either.

There's cake?

We'Re a strychtly BYOC (Bring Your Own Cyanide) party here — though Lord knows some people always seem to bring enough for everbuddy.

Tanks But No Tanks,

Jon

[FT2]

FT2's here as a sort of 'public relations' exercise, for himself as much as anyone I expect, after the close of wikimedia uk. While we were discussing his professional capacities and the wikimedia project with which he was involved, was when he turned up. And I can't really blame him.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's chosen to do this himself. He's just doing what he thinks is best. It remains to be seen whether it will work. But FT2's presence may mean he's discussed more nicely than he otherwise would have been. It's a sort of 'damage limitation' IMHO. Are the threads with what might be his real name connected with the close of wikimedia uk tarpitted or no-indexed? If so, it might be nice to make sure he knows as maybe he thinks this will come up in a google search for his name.

I give Somey permission to quote my email of April 29 (and his reply if he wishes), as well as my email of last week (if needed), to address some of those questions. Please do.

There's an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything else starts to look like nails. It might be hard to believe someone could want to visit for dialog, and would want to know at least the views of credible critics, but if some here stopped believing everyone on Wikipedia is in a conspiracy and against them, and others on Wikipedia stopped believing every criticism and user here is disruptive, a lot of people who aren't on the extremes of either view would probably be happy.

My on-wiki role is simple - I'm a wikipedia administrator and editor. (I enjoy cleanup work, and edit a wide range of topics.) In December, I was voted by the community to sit for a 3 year term on a committee that handles some of wikipedia's most difficult disputes and privacy-related issues. I do that job till I burn out, till three years are up, or till choosing to resign. I took it up because I was handling disputes of that scale already and felt I could best help by offering that role, and because like any other admin and user I could see that Arbcom was hitting issues and I felt I might be able to help avoid some of them. Which has been a lot tougher than I thought, to be honest, and was made almost impossible when Newyorkbrad resigned at the exact same time of year that burnout often hits, also accompanied by Deskana's absence.

I don't see any conflict between my role there, and dialog here. It doesn't mean I agree with everything. It means I want to know a wider range of views than I might hear on Wikipedia alone, and discuss some issues with critics not just supporters. Also, a number of disputes start with doubts and uncertainties being discussed off-site; making it easier for users to ask actual questions early on could pay off. They could ask anyway, but sadly, people usually don't ask unless it's made easy to.

And now I need to go catch up on the last 24 hours posts.....

[Jon Awbrey]

You are growing sleepy — very, very sleepy …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

There's an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything else starts to look like nails. It might be hard to believe someone could want to visit for dialog, and would want to know at least the views of credible critics, but if some here stopped believing everyone on Wikipedia is in a conspiracy and against them, and others on Wikipedia stopped believing every criticism and user here is disruptive, a lot of people who aren't on the extremes of either view would probably be happy.

Okay, let's see what we can do to start making you and the people who interact with you on WP a little happier.

Some issues are inherrently polarizing, because they involve differences in philosophical/ethical and theological views which are simply not compatable, and never will be. So the question is how to handle them on WP.

In the past the way it's ended up being done, is to summarize competing POVs within the same article while the article is small. As it grows, the various factions need their own space to "get away from" each other, as it will, and lay out their cases in peace. Subarticles are then spun-off. These are by definition NOT POV forks, so long as the various articles contain short summaries of the others, and links, so that walled gardens are not created.

Now, this eventually can work well (or as well as you can hope for, at least). A standard example is the Scientology article, which ONLY works because the various people who have strong points of view have been given 23 subarticles in which to do it. If you want any major POV regarding scientology, it's in there. There are separate articles for Criticism of Scientology, Ethics (Scientology), Scientology controversies, Scientology as a business, and so on.

Now, this process isn't perfect, and articles on religions aren't quite mirrors of each other. You'll find a Criticism of Catholicism and a Criticism of Mormonism article, just as you will for Scientology (these are criticisms of the beliefs themselves). And you'll find Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Mormonism (each with their own articles) defined as the prejudices and bigotries against the people who hold or practice the beliefs. Strangely, there is no Anti-Scientology as an article.

When it comes to other beliefs and actions, we begin to see a non-parallel process in operation. Within homosexuality there are no references to articles about "Criticism of homosexuality" (the ethical or health-related objection to the acts themselves, rather than the people who practice them or are drawn to them), by that term. Instead, we simply have an article on "homophobia" in which all this is defined as "irrational." What? This is very much like definining all objection to any Jewish belief as "anti-semitism" or "Jewphobia".

If you'd like a parallel, there is a long section in the Pork article about health risks in eating pork and there's an entire subarticle on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. Incredibly, the parallel article in homosexuality is simply called "religions and homosexuality." What happened to "restrictions" in the header? And there's nothing about additional health risks in men having sex with men, at all, in these days of AIDS (yeah, despite much politicking, it's still overwhelmingly a disease of IV drug users and men who have sex with men, and a gigantic amount of money has been wasted, admits the WHO recently, on "general education of schoolchildren" which should better have been used to target groups at risk). But eating pork chops and having anal sex are fairly parallel activities (though I suspect the pork chop habit is the safer). A decent encyclopedia would organize their discussion in the same ways.

Now, many fights about POV-pushing happen as small articles on things like paraphilias grow. Ultimately, many of these should probably be large enough to have some subarticles on anti-paraphilias and "Criticism of paraphilia X". As well as subs on religious proscriptions, ethics, business, and so on. What people trying to insert this stuff into the "main and only" article are doing, is simply signalling that such a fission is trying to take place. At this point, wise editors can allow to happen (as they did with the religious articles) or they can block it for more drama, as has happened with homeopathy, zoophilia, and so on.

What's not supposed to happen is that some admin who is supposedly familiar with the history of the way controversial articles have grown on WP, and with the appropriate ways of preventing edit wars, to show up on the middle of such a process where a paraphilia article is expanding, and say: "You're POV-pushing, [of course they are!] and since we officially are NPOV on WP, I'm going to block you if you do any more of this!"

That kind of thing speaks of both ignorance of the workings of WP, of the ongoing biases in what actually exists on WP, and (finally) of abuse of power. I believe I've seen you do it. If you come here to WR to defend it, we're going to rub your nose in it. And since there's not much you can do about that here, you can debate it rationally or slink off.

So. Ante up. Dialog(ue) over to you. Why not let the article on NLP grow in the same way as the article on Scientology? What's your problem with a "Criticism of zoophilia" article? Or, for that matter, an Anti-zoophilia article? We have an Anti-circumcision article (now redirected to "genital integrity"), but strangely no "Criticism of circumcision," or "Circumcisionophobia". Probably this is because neither side wants to be caught accusing the other of religious or cultural bigotry, even though it's no more or less bigotry than choosing (or not) to eat pork or choosing (or not) to have anal sex, or sex with animals.

The day you acknowledge that all these things are the same problem, and they can't be looked at as a nail to be pounded at with your banhammer when you meet some editor with a POV you don't like, is the day you start to learn the real difficulties of administration on WP. So, welcome to WR, FT2.

May you find it uncomfortable here.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 2nd September 2008, 8:02pm

[Vicky]

It might be hard to believe someone could want to visit for dialog, and would want to know at least the views of credible critics, but if some here stopped believing everyone on Wikipedia is in a conspiracy and against them, and others on Wikipedia stopped believing every criticism and user here is disruptive, a lot of people who aren't on the extremes of either view would probably be happy.

Believe it or not, FT2, you're not the first senior Wikipedian to post here. We've had constructive engagement with several people, to the benefit of WP. And dialogue does mean answering people sensibly and constructively.

[Carruthers]

There's an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything else starts to look like nails. It might be hard to believe someone could want to visit for dialog, and would want to know at least the views of credible critics, but if some here stopped believing everyone on Wikipedia is in a conspiracy and against them, and others on Wikipedia stopped believing every criticism and user here is disruptive, a lot of people who aren't on the extremes of either view would probably be happy.

Did you really just type that? Did you understand what you were saying?

With all due respect, if you have typed this out and pasted this onto your screen before posting any of the stuff you've posted here over the past two days, you might not have made half of those posts.

You are new here. You have people with whom you are in ongoing, open conflicts.

Rather than diving in and making pronouncements about how you are right and they are wrong, perhaps you should....well, lurk more first and try to get a feel for what they are saying.

Your posts make you seem as if you are the last person who is interested in dialogue. Dialogue requires communications on both sides. You have been asked several direct questions and you have not even made the effort to say, clearly and concisely, "I can't discuss that".

You might not like what people are saying about you here, but they do have the right to express themselves as they see fit (as long as they follow the rules here), without them being banned. If you really want dialog, why don't you start by listening for a change? That, and try to make shorter, more concise posts which answer questions in a direct manner, if this is to say "I can't answer that".

[Kelly Martin]

Believe it or not, FT2, you're not the first senior Wikipedian to post here. We've had constructive engagement with several people, to the benefit of WP. And dialogue does mean answering people sensibly and constructively.

Like FT2 is here for dialog. He's not. His purpose here is no where near so noble.

C'mon, FT2. Prove me wrong.

[Carruthers]

The day you acknowledge that all these things are the same problem, and they can't be looked at as a nail to be pounded at with your banhammer when you meet some editor with a POV you don't like, is the day you start to learn the real difficulties of administration on WP. So, welcome to WR, FT2.

Interesting points, all of them. However, this line of thinking only points out the inherent fallacy of WP:NPOV policy and how it relates to COI and the administrative hierarchy currently in place.

I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a NPOV edit: everyone has their own values, positions, ideas which they naturally want to see become the "established and accepted" position. When this position has been achieved, through "consensus" (on WP...and in life, read this to mean "the elimination of dissenting viewpoints". Yes, Virginia: some people will do anything for tenure...),
, the process becomes much more complex: it is no longer about the examination and analysis of knowledge, or dialog or even consensus....It becomes an issue of protecting the "perfect state" in which the knowledge is presented.

Of course, you always have somebody coming along who says (usually quite rightly) "that's not right, because X happened before Y which implies Z". If this idea is accepted, then the entire construction falls apart. So, therefore we have an "Inquisitorial process" which serves to remove such "heretics" from the "perfect state" which exists.

What happens when one of the "Grand Inquisitors" visits the area of Hell in which all of the excommunicated wail forever outside of the Gates of Paradise? More importantly, why should he do so? What is the motivation? Could it be....Conversions???

Now, before anybody brings up NewYorkBrad, I have to say that he is indeed the exception that proves the rule. I also believe that he has many questions about the current administrative structure in WP and is working towards reform.

I also believe that, given the kind of behavior that we've seen in the past few days on the part of our friend here, this process of reform is going to be extremely difficult because....some people are going to have to let go of a lot of ideas for it to be effective.

Ite missa est

[Milton Roe]

What happens when one of the "Grand Inquisitors" visits the area of Hell in which all of the excommunicated wail forever outside of the Gates of Paradise? More importantly, why should he do so? What is the motivation? Could it be....Conversions???

Maybe. But I really doubt if FT2 practices all the paraphilias he writes about. He's just a paraphilia voyeur for many of them. Probably he feels the same way about visiting WR, as he does to a Furry or Zoo website. He can now say he's been there, talked to them.

If he's here as tourist, we can't make him think. Only encourage.

I'm reminded of a bunch of WASPs going into some remote corner of Africa in a tour bus, snapping away with their Nikons, to get pictures of the bizarre natives. Some locals with astringent senses of humor ran along side the bus with mirrors. Some of the passengers got it, and some didn't.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 2nd September 2008, 8:16pm

[Carruthers]

What happens when one of the "Grand Inquisitors" visits the area of Hell in which all of the excommunicated wail forever outside of the Gates of Paradise? More importantly, why should he do so? What is the motivation? Could it be....Conversions???

Maybe. But I really doubt if FT2 practices all the paraphilias he writes about. He's just a paraphilia voyeur for many of them. Probably he feels the same way about visiting WR, as he does to a Furry or Zoo website. He can now say he's been there, talked to them.

If he's here as tourist, we can't make him think. Only encourage.

I'm reminded of a bunch of WASPs going into some remote corner of Africa in a tour bus, snapping away with their Nikkons, to get pictures of the bizarre natives. Some locals with astringent senses of humor ran along side the bus with mirrors. Some of the passengers got it, and some didn't.

I don't think that he's trying to convert us all into being pro-bestiality or pro-pedophile. Probably it's more of the whole "let's shake society up by forcing them to rethink their deepest prejudices" nonsense that these people like to serve up. It's more the "in yer face" "wikipedia is not censored so HERE look at THIS!!" kind of posturing that goes on over there. I think that most of these people don't believe half of what they write in the first place: it's intellectual posturing.

No, the "conversions" are to "the Wiki-Way" and aren't we going the greatest thing that Mankind has ever done since Gutenberg and all of that. We'll all supposed to line up for glasses of delicious koolaid and knock ourselves on the head and say "Sheez, they're all RIGHT! I've never going to vandalize a WP article again!"

Well, it ain't so simple. Some of us have thought about this stuff quite a bit. Some of us have tried to play the game by their rules and have discovered the dirty secret that "what you see is not what you get". Some of us like to play cards with a deck that isn't stacked.

I know that I keep coming back to "excommunication", "heretics", "the Inquisition", "Dogma"....but that's what I keep seeing. It's all about who is "elected" and who is "damned". Most of us over here are at least marginally "damned". FT2 is trying to "save" us....

Well, as some of us think that a good party in Hell is quite a bit more fun than sipping Koolaid with Jimbo....

Hey, I've been wanting to use this for ages: Here is proof of the WP cult (be sure to watch it to the end :

[Milton Roe]

Very funny YouTube. Thanks.

Well, as some of us think that a good party in Hell is quite a bit more fun than sipping Koolaid with Jimbo....

This is the point at which I say: "Have you ever read.... Milton?"

[FT2]

On the other hand, I can understand why he would give no quarter to Peter and Docknell given that they are severely on his case.

It's a bit like a few other issues, where public consensus had trouble handling the idea others might actually know what they were talking about.

I have an open mind whether he is simply misguidedly naive on NPOV on controversial subjects - the no consequences USENET philosophy that people will evaluate information and come to their own views, in spite of the fact that it is clear that the inability to maintain a NPOV article on controversial subjects demonstrates that it is a fallacy. Clearly, Peter and Docknell are trying to establish whether it is naivety or active promotion.

Like it or not, wikipedia is based on NPOV - we don't slant articles for what people "should" think or to "protect" them. On distasteful subjects that often means removing strong "anti" biases as well as "pro" biases, and both sides hate it. (Imagine editing [[Homosexuality]] on a wiki whose mother tongue is from a country with the death penalty for it, and people are sure gay=aids, for example.)

Peter felt very strongly on finding 1/ I dared edit a horrible topic, 2/ didn't feel ashamed to list it in my contribs page at arb election. He objected, hit a wall, objected, hit a wall, and it spiralled. But he's a decent guy at heart and that's why I am willing to attempt mediation.

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

The main failing of FT2 is that he thinks other people are not as clever as him and that enough obfuscation will allow him to win an argument; I think that it just reduces his stature. I'm not a great one for yes/no answers when it is a world of grey, but as he is playing the political game, there are a few yes's and noes that he should give, even with qualifications. I am not sure those two words are in his vocabulary though.

I'm wordy because thats how I am. Same as some are terse, and others abrasive or whatever. Its not easy to answer a question with many overtones, in 5 words. If a person has to have a weakness, that's not the worst one to have. It's a bit of an in-joke, but among actual disputants, more seem to state they appreciate it (1 2 3 4) than dislike it.

[Peter Damian]

Peter felt very strongly on finding 1/ I dared edit a horrible topic, 2/ didn't feel ashamed to list it in my contribs page at arb election. He objected, hit a wall, objected, hit a wall, and it spiralled. But he's a decent guy at heart and that's why I am willing to attempt mediation.

Ft2, I started this thread for the benefit for non-involved parties to have their say, and as a courtesy to you not to have the involved parties ramming stuff down your throat.

Could you please return that courtesy and not mention the involved parties (that's me, Doc and Probivouac). Thanks. And what you say, by the way, is dishonest and wrong. Please address it in the other thread. Thanks again.

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

What you say here is also dishonest and unpleasant, and people have already asked you not to do this. Docknell is a contributor here. As for Headley, we await the evidence I have asked for. Enough said.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 2nd September 2008, 9:02pm

[Carruthers]

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

You are going to have to treat him as an honorable user here because he is one at this site. Even if you were to prove that his is a longterm vandal on WP, that doesn't change the fact that he is an "honorable user" here.

I'm only speaking for myself of course, but I would think that many others here feel the same way.

[Jon Awbrey]

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

You are going to have to treat him as an honorable user here because he is one at this site. Even if you were to prove that his is a longterm vandal on WP, that doesn't change the fact that he is an "honorable user" here.

I'm only speaking for myself of course, but I would think that many others here feel the same way.

FT2 needs to try, try, try and grasp the fact that many of us consider Wikipedia to be a dishonourable and even dangerous enterprise. And so we do not hold it against people who have in good conscience chosen to oppose it and even blockade it in various and sundry ways.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Interesting points, all of them. However, this line of thinking only points out the inherent fallacy of WP:NPOV policy and how it relates to COI and the administrative hierarchy currently in place.

I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a NPOV edit: everyone has their own values, positions, ideas which they naturally want to see become the "established and accepted" position. When this position has been achieved, through "consensus" (on WP...and in life, read this to mean "the elimination of dissenting viewpoints".

Yes, yes, yes. But the perniciousness of the WP:NPOV policy is that you can point out POV all you like, and they simply come back at you with the idea that NPOV is not supposed to apply at the ground level of writing, but at some overarching meta-level where you're deciding how much space to give competing POVs and their subarticles and so on. It is the official WP position that this can be objectively determined by going to the library and doing some reseach on how much space, time, and relative-quality-source citations are given to each POV.

Now, this is just as much bullshit as the other view. Anybody who has been in academia, or had to write a review article for publication, or has thought about epidemiology very much, can tell you that. But officially, at WP it's a goal worthy of statement and lip-service, and that causes problems right there. Because if you think it's attainable, you might think you've attained it. Then you'd come down with all the smuggness of a FOX news or NY Times paper or NPR radio, thinking that you're fair and non-partisan and unbiased.

When the Brahmins at WP (and FT2 certainly qualifies as a bodhisattva) think they actually have achieved the stated goal of divine negation of POV-desire, then they can very dangerous. All that's necessary then is to give them a little power to implement their views by force, and balooey, you get essentially a State Religion. It's the religion of Objectivism which states that it can have "contextural certainty" on the basis of any evidence set. Just one answer is THE answer, then. This is the idea of some crazy Russian narcissisitic lady whose name I forget. Oh, yes, Alisa Rosenbaum.. Bleh

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:13pm

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia's concept of NPOV is laughable three ways to Tuesday. Not only is it laughable to insist that neutral points of view exist at all, but Wikipedia's way of choosing victors in the point of view battle is just plain stupid. And I see way too much FoxNews-like "fair and balanced" crap where "neutrality" is achieved by having some sort of ping-pong game between two camps in which each side trades volleys across the reader's poor beleaguered eyeballs, turning the article into some sort of free-fire no-man's-land of endless rhetorical salvos, serving only to convince the reader that everyone hates everyone else.

Why anyone cares to defend such tomfoolery is beyond me.