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]

Hey, I've arrived! I must have done something right.

An impersonation account was created today, Dennis Abd Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Took Tnxman four hours to do something (thanks, Tnxman!). It's a "checkuser block," but he didn't say who the puppet master was. It sure wasn't me! I saw this because I have google searches set on Abd Lomax....

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 26th July 2011, 6:36pm

[Mathsci]

Hey, I've arrived! I must have done something right.

An impersonation account was created today, Dennis Abd Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Took Tnxman four hours to do something (thanks, Tnxman!). It's a "checkuser block," but he didn't say who the puppet master was. It sure wasn't me! I saw this because I have google searches set on Abd Lomax....

Also Bad Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . It did not look like you.

[Abd]

Also Bad Lomax (T-C-L-K-R-D) . It did not look like you.

Yeah. Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) ???

Those "Lomax accounts" were reverting edits by AwesomeCoffee (T-C-L-K-R-D) who's been identified as a sock of Tyciol. See history of one of these pages.

Yeah, kinda doesn't look like me. Pure disruption, oddly based on reverting what look like good edits of a banned user. That's kinda anti-Abd. Awesome Coffee, indeed. Good work, Tyciol, if that's actually you. Boring as hell, to be sure, but to each his own.

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

[-DS-]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

[Abd]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

[jayvdb]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

You like to watch pedos?

[Abd]

I'm getting interested in Tyciol. WTF?

What do you mean by that, Abd?

I mean that I'm seeing someone who is blocked with the reason being quite obscure. I'm sure that the "in crowd" knows the reason. From what little I could find, it seems he's considered a "pedo-pusher."

Given the danger that such people could represent to young users, what would make sense would be, not blocking them, but watching them. Block them, you can't watch them without major effort. That fails.

There would be ways, but it would require thinking differently, I'm not holding my breath as to Wikipedia!

You like to watch pedos?

Watch them what? Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence? It is impossible to keep them out of the wiki playground, so don't you think it would be safer if they can be watched, than if they can't?

You think like a typical Wikipedia administrator who imagines he has Real Power with those block buttons. It's a joke. Only incompetent noobs have any difficulty socking, if that's what they want to do. There is a purpose to block buttons, it's even legitimate, but there are limits to that, and collateral damage.

And I didn't describe what could actually be done, and in typical Wikipediot fashion, you are completely uninterested.

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

[A Horse With No Name]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot.

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment.

[EricBarbour]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot.

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment.

I wish I could state with reasonable certainty that you're being unnecessarily cruel to Mr. Vandenberg.
Sadly, all the evidence I've seen to date has tended to support your thesis.

If he were smarter, he either would have quit by now, or have started some kind of campaign to
reform its governance. But he's quite happy to let the freak-show grind onwards, replete with
the sports trivia/militarism bias of the database, the defamatory BLPs, the endless penis photos,
the barking craziness and backstabbing on AN/I and SPI every day, and Erik Moeller overseeing
it all. Plus, he seems to really enjoy calling himself "the president of Wikimedia Australia",
something I do not consider to be the act of someone who knows better.

(And oh, just by the by: did you know there's a photo section on Commons called
Modification_of_the_human_male_penis? Completely NSFW, or anyone....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 1st August 2011, 8:37pm

[jayvdb]

Jay, are you a total idiot, or are you hiding your intelligence?

Nah, he's an idiot.

You and people like you are the reason why Wikipedia is so monstrously unfair and monstrously inefficient.

Oh, he's just a run of the mill idiot. I think you are giving him too much credit with that comment.

I wish I could state with reasonable certainty that you're being unnecessarily cruel to Mr. Vandenberg.
Sadly, all the evidence I've seen to date has tended to support your thesis.

If he were smarter, he either would have quit by now, or have started some kind of campaign to
reform its governance. But he's quite happy to let the freak-show grind onwards, replete with
the sports trivia/militarism bias of the database, the defamatory BLPs, the endless penis photos,
the barking craziness and backstabbing on AN/I and SPI every day, and Erik Moeller overseeing
it all. Plus, he seems to really enjoy calling himself "the president of Wikimedia Australia",
something I do not consider to be the act of someone who knows better.

(And oh, just by the by: did you know there's a photo section on Commons called
Modification_of_the_human_male_penis? Completely NSFW, or anyone....)

I did try to promote reform in 2009. Many of those reforms were successful, and I am content with what was achieved in 2009.

This year I'm not putting nearly as much effort into reform of Wikipedia. I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

[Kelly Martin]

\I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

You do realize that it was originally established as a membership organization, and disestablished as such by Jimmy Wales with the full consent of the Board (and on advice of counsel) in 2006, over the objections of several people in the community including myself, despite determined effort by Jimbo and company to do the dirty deed as quietly as possible?

Wikimedia will never be or become a membership organization, at least not as long as Jimmy's alive and kicking.

[SB_Johnny]

\I am proud to be part of Wikimedia Australia as I believe that the Wikimedia chapters, which are associations of members, are important to the health of the Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia would look very different if the WMF had been established as an association of members back in 2006.

You do realize that it was originally established as a membership organization, and disestablished as such by Jimmy Wales with the full consent of the Board (and on advice of counsel) in 2006, over the objections of several people in the community including myself, despite determined effort by Jimbo and company to do the dirty deed as quietly as possible?

Wikimedia will never be or become a membership organization, at least not as long as Jimmy's alive and kicking.

Interesting. Did they ever explain their reasoning for that, or was it a "because Jimmy said so" thing?

[Kelly Martin]

Interesting. Did they ever explain their reasoning for that, or was it a "because Jimmy said so" thing?

Not publicly, at least not with any clarity. But the real reason was to limit Jimmy's personal liability. Under Florida law, the directors of a nonprofit organization with members can potentially be sued by the members (singly or in combination) in order to enforce certain rights under the charter. By eliminating the members, they virtually eliminated the possibility of Jimmy (and the other directors) being sued for failing to faithfully comply with the organization's bylaws and the requirements imposed by state statute (which Wikimedia fairly regularly failed at in its early years). The Attorney General of the State of Florida can still sue in the event that (s)he concludes that the public interest requires it, but the likelihood of that is essentially nil.

The entire process of discarding the membership provisions was itself conducted illegally, but they got away with it mainly because there was no way anybody could have proven they were a member: the organization never maintained a membership roster (itself a violation of state statute). Since the original bylaws defined anyone who had contributed to a Wikimedia project as a registered user as a "member", it is certain that there were members at the time the bylaws were amended; those members should have been given opportunity to object to the change, introduce alternative proposals, or decertify the directors prior to the change taking place. The Board (on the advice of counsel) took the farcical position that the only identifiable members were the five directors, thereby undercutting all the safeguards that supposedly existed within Florida corporation law.

Talk to Alex Roshuk if you want a solid earful on this issue. He wrote Wikimedia's original bylaws, and was one of the most vocal critics of the decision to jettison the concept of having members.