JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims Options

[Abd]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

[Cla68]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 15th September 2009, 12:13am

[Abd]

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

Right, it should be expected. However, this particular issue was very widely debated before, and appeared settled. It means to me that JzG hasn't changed his spots. No big surprise and no big deal, why should I care about whether or not it is easy for readers of the article to actually read the source? No skin off my teeth.

On editors undoing stuff, it was fascinating to see Hipocrite, who has returned now that the RfAr that might have considered his behavior is closed, blanking the cabal evidence page that JzG put up for deletion, with an edit summary, "To the victor?"

I just didn't expect it to be so blatant. But Hipocrite was right out there before, the most flagrantly disruptive editor I've seen (beyond ones immediately blocked). It's obvious: he has people protecting him.

I don't mind blanking of the pages, by the way, though I do mind deletion, actually removing the evidence that was used by ArbComm. Even that, though, isn't a big thing in the long run. The Cab's days are numbered. I've seen more Cab activity in the last day than I'd seen in a long time, I'm not sure what that means. Some of them had been laying low, but still it's a huge burst.

Don't be surprised if a group of editors will now systematically delete all your contributions one by one.

I won't. However, there just might be some resistance to that.... we'll see. There is a series of voting system AfDs filed today, one on an article I recreated, filed by a probable sock of the blocked Yellowbeard, Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , he's taking advantage of the opportunity.

[Cla68]

It means to me that JzG hasn't changed his spots.

JzG also still refuses to admit that he was wrong about Weiss/Mantanmoreland.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 15th September 2009, 1:45am

[Son of a Yeti]

JzG also still refuses to admit that he was wrong about Weiss/Mantanmoreland.

Has he ever admitted anything?

[Moulton]

Has he ever admitted anything?

If not, has he ever admitted that he's never admitted anything?

[Abd]

Has he ever admitted anything?

If not, has he ever admitted that he's never admitted anything?

Has anyone ever asked him if he ever admitted that he never admitted anything?

However, there is an example very recently where he admitted something. I sent him an email about an obvious sock of Yellowbeard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and he put up a notice at AN/I about it, noting that it was from a banned editor (me), but admitting that the suspicion was "worth investigating." The AN/I report and a permanent link for future generations.

And this raises an issue: involved editors and administrators are motivated to so something about a problem, the uninvolved may not be. In all the protest about my work to confront use of tools while involved, something was lost: it wasn't the actual use that I was protesting, but the failure to acknowledge involvement and recuse after using the tools. JzG was here involved, it could be asserted, because he previously blocked Yellowbeard. One editor commented "duck." But no admin picked up on more than that, and nobody has filed a new SSP report, now that "sock" is even more obvious than it was before, at the time of the first report. It's work. If nobody cares enough to put together what is needed, nothing is done.

If an involved admin asks for help (and JzG's comment can be read that way), I've often seen the report ignored, or, worse, debate began. I documented a situation where an AfD was involved, and leaving the abusively re-opened AfD open attracted comment, creating a hugely disruptive AfD, with the process and content cabals duking it out. The admin had scrupulously avoided protecting the page or blocking the editor who was reverting his speedy close, but recused. And got a bad result. I argued, later, that the admin should have, at least, have protected the article, and probably should have blocked the editor, who was a blatant sock, and then recused, reporting to a noticeboard. Instead the issue at AN/I became whether or not the article was notable. If ArbComm needs discipline, AN/I needs it even more, the original purpose of the page has been lost, it was designed as emergency request for admin assistance, and instead it has become, too often, a forum to debate issues. It could be fixed, rather easily done in a technical sense, but with only difficulty because of serious inertia. The admin who created AN/I later wrote, in a retirement notice, that it had become a monster.

Much argument against enforcing recusal rules comes from a legitimate concern along this line. Editors who have sufficient knowledge to make good decisions, are often involved. Uninvolved administrators frequently err because they don't understand the situation. Disentangling this from the fact that involved admins are often biased is necessary. I would claim that admins aren't usually dinged for action while involved, but for tenacious refusal to recuse after involvement is questioned. And I claimed, to much derision, that admins should normally recuse upon request, no issue of blame or necessity for disruptive discussion.

An error recently made was that a block of WMC for edit warring over a BLP issue was reversed because the admin was allegedly involved. Not only was the claim of involvement preposterously thin (no prior involvement was shown, only edits working on the particular incident to remove a BLP violation after a BLP noticeboard request), but involvement is no reason to wheel-war, unless the underlying claim of the blocking admin has no merit at all. Rather, the behavior of the blocked editor should always be the issue. Involvement does not equal substantial error, only, possibly, procedural error.

The arguments used to support WMC's unblock were the precise opposite of the arguments presented in favor of WMC's blocks of others while blatantly involved.

However, there was a recent case, where A Man In Black (T-C-L-K-R-D) was desysopped for an involved block, even though he immediately went to a noticeboard with it. However, in this case there was serious long-term dispute, and AMIB should have known better; and the block was only contributory. I counselled him to immediately and formally recuse, and he did so, but it wasn't enough.

With WMC blocking me for violation of the community ban from Cold fusion (the first block, before the RfAr), I never raised the issue at the time because it was trivial; it shouldn't have been him, as ArbComm found -- AFAIK -- and a neutral admin might not have blocked for a harmless edit -- that was actually the precedent at that point --, but the block was only for 24 hours, and there was a basis for it, the ban.

The real problem was that after the community ban expired, he continued to insist on his right to maintain the ban on his own initiative. So the RfAr was over continued recusal failure in spite of explicit assertion of involvement in dispute, and ArbComm made its decision on desysopping based primarily on WMC's insanely stubborn block of me during the case; being adverse parties in an accepted RfAr is about as blatant a proof of "involvement in a dispute" as can be imagined.

Under IAR, however, which is policy, and absent blatant involvement, admins should act, and be protected for acting, according to their own best judgment; they are required, I suggest, to notify the community for immediate review whenever they act in a situation where appearance of involvement might exist. They are required to abstain from action, and instead request assistance, as would any other involved or concerned editor, wherever they should reasonably know that they are, in fact, involved.

[Chindog]

However, there is an example very recently where he admitted something. I sent him an email about an obvious sock of Yellowbeard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and he put up a notice at AN/I about it, noting that it was from a banned editor (me), but admitting that the suspicion was "worth investigating."

Why would anybody email a person who doesn't want anything to do with them? Are you autistic spectrum?

Why have you not slinked away? The cab ran over you, Rick. Can I call you Rick? You are the Rick(shaw) that swerved in front of the Cab(al), then got run over, so Rick seem appropriate. The Cab lost a headlight, Rick lost his consciousness for three months, as happens between cabs and ricks. Little floaty birds still circle but Rick is out cold.

Rick, what is your fascination with harassing JzG?

[Abd]

However, there is an example very recently where he admitted something. I sent him an email about an obvious sock of Yellowbeard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and he put up a notice at AN/I about it, noting that it was from a banned editor (me), but admitting that the suspicion was "worth investigating."

Why would anybody email a person who doesn't want anything to do with them?

Perhaps because I edited Wikipedia for two years. It does take some time to recover.

Are you autistic spectrum?

Funny, if I remember correctly, JzG asked that too, when I said he might be making a mistake. Do you by any chance live in England? No, I'm not autistic, I'm just plain crazy, but I convinced the judge to let me go. Look, if you could see what I see, you'd be crazy too. Instead, you are just stupid and vicious.

Why have you not slinked away?

Because I don't feel humiliated? I was blocked a year ago, and I felt obsessed. I deliberately didn't put up an unblock template, because I wanted to see what would happen. This time, I felt relief. Why should I slink? I did make mistakes, but I didn't do anything wrong. And I'm still not sure that I could actually have done it better. The results were decent.

The cab ran over you, Rick.

They did? What makes you think that? How come I'm free and they're still trapped, slaves to a monster project that they don't understand and that will eventually chew them up and spit them out?

Rick, what is your fascination with harassing JzG?

Hello? Sending him an email that he properly responded to? He was the one who blocked the sock master before, I thought he'd like to know. He didn't have to do anything, but he did the right thing, in fact, and he didn't complain. So who are you? Why are you hiding?

Rick, what is your fascination with harassing JzG?

Emailing someone to tell them about a possible "sockpuppet" is harassing them?

I didn't think so either. I was a little worried JzG might think so, but it wasn't my intention and he did seem to respond well.

It should be said that JzG didn't do anything to me. WMC did, but I'm not carrying resentment about WMC either. I feel sorry for him. On the other hand, I've felt sorry for some pretty awful people, much worse than WMC. Maybe I think we all have the capacity to be awful, if we aren't careful, if we only imagine that behaving badly is what other people do, not us.

And besides, this is JzG we're talking about. If your bar for what constitutes "harassment" is that low, JzG himself would be in San Quentin by now. Next to Amorrow, WillyOnWheels and that Grawp guy, JzG is probably the most destructive figure ever to descend on Wikipedia.

I really didn't think that he was that bad. I don't think WMC was that bad. I find the evil of some of their supporters worse, the ones who egg them on but who would never warn them that they are about to drive off a cliff. Where were JzG's friends? Where were WMC's friends? The ones who would tell him, uh, you're going too far here, before he trashes his bit?

WMC is in a bad way, he seems to be lashing out, trying to see how far he can go without being blocked. Bad sign.

[Kato]

I find the evil of some of their supporters worse, the ones who egg them on but who would never warn them that they are about to drive off a cliff. Where were JzG's friends? Where were WMC's friends? The ones who would tell him, uh, you're going too far here, before he trashes his bit?

JzG was told in no uncertain terms to knock it off by many people in this Rfc last year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/JzG2

I really didn't think that he was that bad.

I didn't think so either until he completely lost the plot in 2007. You are probably unaware of the full history. He accelerated almost all the biggest disputes in WP's history and helped them into the international news. From the Naked Short Selling thing, the Secret List thing, to the Rachel Marsden thing and many more including being a catalyst in feuds with Greg Kohs, Jon Awbrey, Dan Tobias and TheFieryAngel. His judgement is berserk.

[Abd]

I find the evil of some of their supporters worse, the ones who egg them on but who would never warn them that they are about to drive off a cliff. Where were JzG's friends? Where were WMC's friends? The ones who would tell him, uh, you're going too far here, before he trashes his bit?

JzG was told in no uncertain terms to knock it off by many people in this Rfc last year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/JzG2

I'm thinking of those whom he would think of as friends, if there were any. "Allies" is not a synonym for "friends." An ally will not tell you that you are in danger if you foolishly attack his enemy. A friend will. ArbComm reminded me not to persist with methods of dispute resolution that were ineffective. Those "methods" were actually attempts to wake up JzG's friends to the danger. In fact, though, the danger to his bit wasn't great, but that's because he effectively retired as the RfAr approached. Had he insisted on his actions, as WMC later did, he might have been desysopped. Another admin explained the situation to me as JzG being put on a short leash. If he does shit like that again, he's toast, as long as anyone cares enough about it to bring it to ArbComm.

I really didn't think that he was that bad.

I didn't think so either until he completely lost the plot in 2007. You are probably unaware of the full history.

Not merely probable, it's a sure thing. I wasn't going after JzG, I was supporting the principle of administrative recusal. The same was true in the next case, but the Cab did successfully muddy it, and it was only WMCs almost-beyond-belief stubbornness that led to his desysopping. There are lessons to be learned. It shouldn't be so hard.

[...]His judgement is berserk.

Wikipedia's judgment process is berserk. JzG was burning out. Given the structure, it is to be expected. Very few can survive the environment unscathed, it brings out, eventually, the worst in people. This could be fixed. Anyone interested in how, please email me, and you could become part of the group that considers and, perhaps, develops a solution. It's only obvious once it's understood, and before then it is far from obvious, there are a hundred "obvious" objections that turn out to be based on unexamined but very common assumptions. Only a few people can get past that, at first, which is very normal and says nothing about the intelligence or good will of the others. But it only takes a few, and it will expand from there.

[Moulton]

I was supporting the principle of administrative recusal.

Very few can survive the environment unscathed, it brings out, eventually, the worst in people. This could be fixed.

Recusal is a practice found in ethical cultures. It is not a practice found in corrupt cultures.

Theoretically, a corrupt culture can be repaired and become an ethical culture. But in the case of Wikipedia this is unlikely, as Jimbo has expressly declared that the concepts of ethical management are beyond the scope of any WMF-sponsored project.

[Abd]

Recusal is a practice found in ethical cultures. It is not a practice found in corrupt cultures.

Theoretically, a corrupt culture can be repaired and become an ethical culture. But in the case of Wikipedia this is unlikely, as Jimbo has expressly declared that the concepts of ethical management are beyond the scope of any WMF-sponsored project.

The assumption here is that Jimbo and the WMF are in charge. They have legal control of the wiki, but they depend on the real sponsor, the community, and the only reason the community can't fix wikipedia is that it's asleep, dreaming as it were, and waking up isn't yet practical. But it will be. Waking up the community is my project, and "community" actually means "human community," as I wrote long ago, Wikipedia is just a particular project, one relatively small example that would benefit, realize its ideals without compromising its values, if even a fraction of the editors understood and applied the concepts. Could actually be quite a small fraction.

Cynicism is a normal response at this point. Only a few will be able to move past this formidable obstacle. It's not going to be handed to the community on a silver platter, they wouldn't accept it, they would believe that it's poison. I was prepared for this by a schizophrenic mother who did actually believe that about poison; to survive my childhood, I had to be able to tolerate insanity (not without damage, but that's another story -- or maybe it's this one!).

All that has happened with Wikipedia is that individual insanity has been replaced by the collective insanity of an ochlocracy, which reduces collective intelligence instead of enhancing it, and while democratic structures improve the situation some (ArbComm is a democratic structure), consensus structures can do much more, far more effectively and, in the end, more efficiently. It is known how to do the latter on a small scale, what is new to the FA/DP concepts is potential application on a large scale, which has been considered impossible by political scientists. They didn't think of something.

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 18th September 2009, 2:33pm