Abd, blah, blah, blan. How long before indef? A day. A year? A lifetime? Options Rating

[Abd]

Abd has abandoned his fantasy that due process might work. Too hard, too many idiots per square arbitrator.

No more explanations. Just edits, with edit summary. Ah, yes, he's blocked. So? Ah, yes, he's banned from cold fusion. So?

Respecting blocks and bans was part of due process. I tried that for two years. If there isn't any due process, there isn't any obligation. So now I'm trying something else. It's more fun, I'm sure of that already.

I know exactly what responses are likely, been there, seen that, many times, even from the administrative side. I've watched experts at work, experts like ScienceApologist and William M. Connolley, and anyone remember Fredrick day? He taught me that truly blocking and banning a knowledgeable editor was impossible. All you can do is block them, block IP, and range block, and even then, the damn edits keep coming through, unless you block huge swaths of the internet, which gets the Office irritated and makes the troll happy. Really got you there!

I worked out how to deal with this years ago, but never got to test it myself.

See User talk:Abd#Edits under ban. The first five edits there merely evade a block, plus the sixth. The sixth is the first substantial edit, fixing a broken archive, MiszaBot II failed to save discussions because of a spam blacklisting added because of the discussion, during it! Brilliant, eh? Incompetent blacklist administrator, is the real story. He knew there were usages, and there still are. But this broke the 'bot, causing four discussions to vanish. Took me a while to figure it out.

What had happened? Had someone censored it? In fact, someone did censor *part* of it! The link that was being discussed. That was a use of the blacklist for content control, on the argument of "biased web site." Which it obviously is, not RS at all, idiotic question, really. But RS is not the only legitimate usage of links. This was one. And there is an article on the web site, which is notable. So a link to the site is proper there. Etc. Can be whitelisted, sure. But the blacklisting admin perhaps expected the complaining IP editor to do the work.... Right.

The blacklist is supposed to be for *spamming.* Massive addition of links that can't be handled by ordinary editorial process, or, say, COIBot. Not content control. That's what ArbComm decided, but... who cares? If I complained about this, I'd have been whacked even without the recent block. They'd think I was pushing Islamic Extremism, a terrorist web site. Some of the people behind that site might kill me first, they *hate* Muslims who will cooperate with non-Muslims. I used to get death threats for writing about Islam.

The seventh is a ban violation, the original reason self-reversion was invented, to allow harmless fixes by banned editors. It should not complicate ban enforcement, since, being self-reverted, nobody is obligated to pay attention to it at all. But, watch. What do people think will happen?

How long will I be allowed to edit my Talk page? Any guesses? And do I care? That one I can answer.

Here are the two substantial edits: RSN and Cold fusion.

Really, Fredrick day taught me this trick: make good edits by IP, as a honey pot for your opponents, and when they revert them as block/ban violations, they look like idiots. He sucked me into reverting an apparent BLP violation. (it wasn't, but it looked like it was, porn star articles, well, they do it upside down.) Except, since I'm not actually trying to make anyone look like an idiot, I revert myself. Nobody has to do anything.

Which then discriminates between those who actually care about content from those who use bans as punishment. Hey, I think it's brilliant, but even my friends shake their heads about self-reversion.

So it's time to stop talking and act. Talk will never get this across.

What about here? Well, this is the local bar and gorilla. It's for talk, right?

The most likely response, right now, is nothing. That's Wikipedia. Nothing. But ... long term, I don't know.

Thekohser might have a word about how self-reversion worked. It staved off his admin enemies for long enough that a record of good edits was built up, and it was then possible to find a 3/4 majority for unblock. Without that, maybe. Maybe not. It's a wiki, which is Hawaiian for "unpredictable Sisyphean waste of time." Right?

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 1st May 2011, 9:19pm

[Abd]

Ah, another nice Wikipedian, JPGordon. They are like robots.

Must ... Stop ... Evasion ... Push ... Button ... Do Not Read ... Mind Will Rot.

This is so cool. Now I don't have to document the posts. It's much easier now.

So far, no IP blocks. I think they realize how useless those will be, so they aren't bothering. I doubt that this condition will continue, unless I don't edit for a while. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how I feel.

I prefer for my edits to be visible as mine, as long as I'm self-reverting. If the range blocks appear, then I stop identifying. Then they have to go to much more work, an increase of labor that will be well-deserved if it goes that way. Scibaby, how many socks? Did they stop counting at 500? Look at those SSP reports, think of how much editor time was wasted there. All to prevent some edits about cow farts and global warming, trivially reverted. The guy was abusively blocked and unilaterally banned by two of the most abusive administrators, he was never formally banned by the community, the offense was always "block evasion."

They get what they resist. It's kind of a law of nature. Reaction causes action.

On Wikipedia, the mole always wins whack-a-mole, because you can't actually whack the mole. You just close off a hole, he pops up in another. It's fun for a while, for the admins. Then it gets old, really old. They blame the mole. But the mole is just behaving like a healthy human being, in this sense: people detest being controlled. Enlist their cooperation, idiots!

Still the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_90&diff=426938182&oldid=426937964 self-reverted edit] to the archive hasn't been reverted back in. Apparently they vastly prefer a defective RSN archive than dignifying a blocked editor's contributions by accepting them. Even though it could easily be verified that there is a problem with that archive.

Normally, by the way, any edits to these archives are noticed and reverted, quickly, since almost all such edits are improper. So you'd think that someone would notice a self-reverted edit that explained why it was being self-reverted.

This was part of the theory of self-reversion: turn ban enforcement into good content editing. I understand, absolutely, why they wouldn't accept the edit to Cold fusion, they'd have to look at the source, a book which I have on my desk. But the edit to the RSN archive?

Look, WR patrons, most of you know that Wikipedia is a compleat looney bin. I'm just having fun demonstrating it, and improving the project at the same time! Maybe it's totally useless, the whole mess is going to collapse of its own weight, as a new encyclopedic form develops that has better structure, that shrugs off the old shell.

How far will they go?

Ah, right. No record of any bad edits to articles. I remember when they revoked rollbacker. No reason, no abuse. All they did was make it more difficult to handle spam, so I stopped doing recent changes. Like, if I'm indef blocked it makes a difference? It's worth spending the time to push the button?

Oh, that's right. Admins are normally people with way too much time on their hands. That's how they get the edit counts without being caught in some POV battle yet. I forgot. Never mind.


This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:03am

[melloden]

tl;dr

[Abd]

tl;dr

thanks, melloden. That is sooo useful. Now I know that you didn't read this along with almost seven billion other people. What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them. The cost/benefit ratio for that has to be enormous. Any ideas?

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:19am

[Peter Damian]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

[The Joy]

What I've always wondered is why people bother to write tl;dr, for what obviously wasn't written for them.

It was tl;dr for me also. Perhaps these people are trying to be helpful. If you made it shorter, perhaps they would read it? Just a thought.

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial. They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial. It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd. The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

What more can be said? What more can be done?

[Abd]

I think the issue is that WRers have seen this sort of thing so many times, we really have nothing to add. Even if Abd is "right" and there is an injustice against him, we've recognized here time and time again that once the Wikipedia system and the head honchos of the community declare you anathema then you are exiled. Since Abd has been on the Review, he's been doubtless told that his efforts of finding justice on Wikipedia will be in vain, and yet he persists to this day.

Whether efforts for justice are in vain or not is a long-term judgment, eh? I've been aware of the difficulty -- it's generic -- since before I started editing Wikipedia. The Joy hits it:

As big as the English Wikipedia is, the meta-community of WP is like a small town. When you piss off the wrong people in a small town, soon the whole town's against you. Not to pick on the ArbCom, but even judges in a small town have a hard time being impartial.

Indeed. And that's why appeal courts aren't in the small town....

They read the same noticeboards as everyone else and can develop prejudices against defendants well before a trial.

They are admins and inherently prejudiced against non-admins who challenge admins. Supermajority election, which is what exists for admins and arbs, is structurally guaranteed to produce the effects we so know and love. What would be needed would be proportional representation from a defined population. Multiwinner-STV could do it, and Asset Voting would do it spectacularly and in real-time. And no recusal, then, because of being "involved." The only arbs who understood what I was doing consistently recused for exactly that reason. Leaving behind a warped ArbComm that didn't understand.

Notice this: supermajority election sounds great, but it's actually lousy. It means that any unpopular point of view will be excluded from the deliberations, instead of being represented according to its actual acceptability.Multi-winner elections, by approval-at-large (most votes), inherently create two-party systems, or, with a single district, one-party systems. It's a kind of democracy, but about the most dysfunctional and dangerous kind.

It doesn't help that plaintiffs like JzG (a long-time administrator and still highly respected by the meta-community) are going against Abd.

JzG's acceptance by that community is the best demonstration Ii could arrange of the community's dysfunction. It's not his fault, he's insane. It's the community's fault, though, of course, they could be insane, too. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

The only way to have a chance is if you can convince one or a few prominent townsfolk to help you plead your case. In Abd's case, there seems to be no one willing to take his case. Thus, he is a de jure and de facto outcast and exile.

That's accurate. Pisses me off, for sure, because of how many times I took up the case for others. But those others don't, my guess, know what's happening, it's lost in the noise for them. Most of them are relatively sane.

Looks to me like JzG's attempt to blacklist lenr-canr.org again is going nowhere fast. His unilateral blacklisting at en.wp flopped when DGG reverted it. The meta request has one positive comment from his claque, basically, "per nom." I rather doubt that this is going to be accepted. Beetstra is complaining about me on his meta Talk page, obsessed. Gee, I simply tried to thank him! Succinctly!

What more can be said? What more can be done?

I'm not saying so much any more, except just some flapping here. On-wiki, I'm doing. Action research. Long-term project. I'll respond more to Somey. Thanks, Joy.

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 2nd May 2011, 5:02pm