The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Abd again (2011)
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 5th July 2011, 10:18am
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From casliber01 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 13:02:22 2011
From: casliber01 at yahoo.com (Cas Liber)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban Appeal
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinb-roku6x3_Q9_GpH2Kb46U-DwnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <186165.93008.qm@web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
<BANLkTinb-roku6x3_Q9_GpH2Kb46U-DwnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <653727.57416.qm@web125411.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

I am happy for abd if he is getting on with and communicating with people. I have never encountered such walls of text (well, almost never) in his replies. Moulton is a different kettle of fish altogether and probably best left undiscussed unless (until?) necessary
Cas


________________________________
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, 15 April 2011 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban Appeal


On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I think we should take it. Ottava is to me qualitatively different to the Abds and Moultons, in that obnoxiousness isn't his defining characteristic and he is capable of working with people he disagrees with.
>
>
>

Ottava is indeed different, but I think you're being unfair to say that Abd and Moulton's defining characteristic is obnoxiousness.? Abd, for example, is an argumentative, idiosyncratic, and obstinate POV pusher.? Without much to contribute, he's all downside on Wikipedia, but I note he seems to be getting along relatively fine on the Island of Banned Users (Wikiversity).

Ottava couldn't even manage that modest feat because obnoxiousness is one of his defining traits.? Whereas Abd will argue until the cows come home, and some unbanned users might hurl personal attacks, Ottava quickly infers conspiracies in others' behavior.? When people disagree with him, he doesn't just assume they're wrong or stupid, but he quickly concludes that they're morally questionable people engaged in some sort of conspiracy to oppress the right and the good (that is, Ottava).? He happily drags them to boards over these theories.? I don't think any other user is quite like him in that respect, and I find this behavior uniquely destructive.? He has never been able to reign it in on any forum.

That said, ban appeals have the option to ask the community, and I would not mind posting it in a high-traffic area (sadly, only ANI comes to mind), to check whether I've been in the ivory tower too long.

Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 1 21:38:44 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 17:38:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
Message-ID: <BANLkTikpSiQWA2KQz0pc4zPPZg8pAhEMew@mail.gmail.com>

Seems to have flamed out and has been blocked indefinitely. See his recent
contributions and his talk page, and his last couple of comments on his
request for clarification/amendment, and if you really want an excess of
Abdness see
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&#entry274078

I think this means we can close out his clarification/amendment request, but
I fear that he's going to be a long-term nuisance if he doesn't get bored.
unhappy.gif

Newyorkbrad
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 1 22:03:42 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:03:42 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
Message-ID: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

"Going to become"?

On Sun, 01 May 2011 22:38 BST Newyorkbrad wrote:

>Seems to have flamed out and has been blocked indefinitely. See his recent
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun May 1 22:04:26 2011
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 18:04:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTincyWTkHbdKXnz=LteEXAPqjaDfKA@mail.gmail.com>

Ha! I had the same thought!

Risker/Anne

On 1 May 2011 18:03, Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> "Going to become"?
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 1 22:04:52 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 18:04:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikeDg_mQJvqHko-aWo7-hUiG19jzg@mail.gmail.com>

Good point. But, he was already difficult enough when he was trying to be
useful. Imagine now that he's going to try to be disruptive.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Iridescent Wikipedia <
iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "Going to become"?
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 1 22:27:51 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:27:51 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
Message-ID: <948197.43828.qm@web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Last time he flared out and got indefblocked the admin who blocked him (me) took shit from every nutjob from Moulton to Shalom for about a year afterwards. Someone else can have the pleasure this time.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:04 BST Newyorkbrad wrote:

>Good point. But, he was already difficult enough when he was trying to be
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 1 22:42:12 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 18:42:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <948197.43828.qm@web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <948197.43828.qm@web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinYgF50LsqWFFaDGUrus1yAGaYi=A@mail.gmail.com>

Fut.perf. is the blocking admin, and T. Canens just revoked talkpage access.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Iridescent Wikipedia <
iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Last time he flared out and got indefblocked the admin who blocked him (me)
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun May 1 22:47:05 2011
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 18:47:05 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikeDg_mQJvqHko-aWo7-hUiG19jzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
<BANLkTikeDg_mQJvqHko-aWo7-hUiG19jzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DBDE2E9.3020606@uberbox.org>

On 01/05/2011 6:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> Good point. But, he was already difficult enough when he was trying
> to be useful. Imagine now that he's going to try to be disruptive.
>

Many of our most disruptive and damaging editors are genuinely trying to
be useful; because of that, they're given a great deal of leeway before
they've done enough damage to be shown the door. People who are
obviously up to no good get the systematic boot and tend to cause much
less damage in the long term.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon May 2 00:12:40 2011
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 20:12:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <4DBDE2E9.3020606@uberbox.org>
References: <723391.33741.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
<BANLkTikeDg_mQJvqHko-aWo7-hUiG19jzg@mail.gmail.com>
<4DBDE2E9.3020606@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=EHUtmhY4aY8WX-O72NqtG+DHJEA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> On 01/05/2011 6:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>
> Good point. But, he was already difficult enough when he was trying to be
> useful. Imagine now that he's going to try to be disruptive.
>
>
>
> Many of our most disruptive and damaging editors are genuinely trying to be
> useful; because of that, they're given a great deal of leeway before they've
> done enough damage to be shown the door. People who are obviously up to no
> good get the systematic boot and tend to cause much less damage in the long
> term.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
This is true. Swift blocks to socks would be much less disruptive than
what's transpired.

Frank
----------
From dougweller at gmail.com Sun May 8 07:41:28 2011
From: dougweller at gmail.com (Doug Weller)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 08:41:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Clerks-l] Abd's request for
clarification/amendment What's going on here?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=UZNnTvgwEe3cPgG8-v94NSDPS8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=UZNnTvgwEe3cPgG8-v94NSDPS8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinCTzvT64VkKyaOE_-_8WUKd5UvaA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Weller <dougweller at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Clerks-l] Abd's request for clarification/amendment
What's going on here?
To: Clerks-l <clerks-l at lists.wikimedia.org>


I think maybe I should have had more explicit instructions, but some
new user has done this, and I still don't know what to say to Ed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427909917

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Doug Weller <dougweller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have I done this wrong then? See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...weller&diff=cur
>
> Doug still struggling with where my appdata is kept, etc.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Doug Weller <dougweller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Done. I deleted it, saying 'archiving as moot given that editor is now
>> indef'd' which I thought was necessary to say.
>> Doug
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Given Abd's current status, I believe this can be archived.? I think this
>>> should preferably be done with as little fanfare as possible.
>>>
>>> Newyorkbrad
----------
From dyellope.wiki at gmail.com Sun May 8 08:28:12 2011
From: dyellope.wiki at gmail.com (David Yellope)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 04:28:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Clerks-l] Abd's request for
clarification/amendment What's going on here?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinCTzvT64VkKyaOE_-_8WUKd5UvaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=UZNnTvgwEe3cPgG8-v94NSDPS8w@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTinCTzvT64VkKyaOE_-_8WUKd5UvaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim8g_BykdyV4Hs_BauQQgad7H53wQ@mail.gmail.com>

Odds on this being Abd, pretty good? whoever this was was apparently trying
to dig Jack Merridew a deeper hole by registering an account and pretending
to be him..
----------
From dougweller at gmail.com Sun May 8 08:38:44 2011
From: dougweller at gmail.com (Doug Weller)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 09:38:44 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] More on the Abd archiving & socks
Message-ID: <BANLkTi==rwPM=rdhAbaLExnqFVEca=2ngw@mail.gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428026415
(which has been restored by Tim) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427912053
which the IP then removed.

Doug
--
Doug Weller
http://www.ramtops.co.uk
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun May 8 14:51:04 2011
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 10:51:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Clerks-l] Abd's request for
clarification/amendment What's going on here?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim8g_BykdyV4Hs_BauQQgad7H53wQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=UZNnTvgwEe3cPgG8-v94NSDPS8w@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTinCTzvT64VkKyaOE_-_8WUKd5UvaA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTim8g_BykdyV4Hs_BauQQgad7H53wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik8+6PR5P69BNvrht1sy+pUU3caDA@mail.gmail.com>

It is Johnny the Vandal (JtV), and he is being highly disruptive in the
Arbcom area right now; he's created several socks related to "cats" to
disrupt the Jack Merridew clarification too. Block with email off and talk
page access turned off please, per the usual process for JtV.

Risker/Anne

On 8 May 2011 04:28, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Odds on this being Abd, pretty good? whoever this was was apparently trying
----------
From dougweller at gmail.com Mon May 9 05:18:59 2011
From: dougweller at gmail.com (Doug Weller)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:18:59 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Socks messing with my talk page,
no response here or at Arbs list over archiving Abd case
Message-ID: <BANLkTinFz5LPA540d+iZeheJUd0FO1rF4g@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry, but I'm beginning to despair here. I've posted twice to the
clerks list, once to the Arbs list, asking whether my archiving (or
failing to archive) the Abd case was the right way to go about it
given the request to keep it low key. Socks have been messing with my
talk page over this, a first time account.

When someone says a clerk has made a mistake, and the clerk asks for
advice, I feel it's important to give it as soon as possible. Given
real life, that may take a while, but....

--
Doug Weller
http://www.ramtops.co.uk
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon May 9 05:37:49 2011
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 01:37:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Socks messing with my talk page,
no response here or at Arbs list over archiving Abd case
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinFz5LPA540d+iZeheJUd0FO1rF4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinFz5LPA540d+iZeheJUd0FO1rF4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim6Xhvo76WmWPx4HRnJjktfe+Gi8g@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>
Replied to Doug on the clerks list.

Risker/Anne
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue May 10 00:07:06 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:07:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Newyorkbrad/Abd)
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=S005T+_yjc4kUPB=WD28YtEV7YA@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Abd <abdlomax at yahoo.com>


I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to reply to this sooner. It's been a busy
week for me both with wiki business and, much more urgently, in the
so-called real world.

Thanks for your note also. I am sorry that things did not work out with
regard to your editing Wikipedia. My advice in the past regarding how you
could change your editing style was sincerely meant, but it may be that some
people's approaches fit in better with this particular project than others.

I do need to ask you, at this point, to back away from some of the
disruptive activity you're engaged in. I am sure you can give me a very
principled defense of what you have been doing -- but your posts on
Wikipedia Review suggest that you also anticipate, and even hope, that the
result will be disruption in the form of provoking massive rangeblocks. I
strongly urge that you find another approach altogether to venting your
frustration with Wikipedia.

If you continue to behave as you are, I will find myself having to make a
recommendation to the General Counsel of the Foundation concerning how the
situation should be dealt with. In fairness, I should tell you that up till
this point, my standard recommendation for how to deal with users whose
identity is known and who intentionally provoke massive rangeblocks has
never been acted upon. But there could always be a first time.... I hope
we don't need to pursue that line of inquiry.

I wish you the best in your off-wiki endeavors, including the search for
Cold Fusion. I remain a strong skeptic, but I will continue to read of
developments with interest.

Regards,
Newyorkbrad

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Abd <abdlomax at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Brad, thanks for your kindness in the past. You recognized in your comments
> in the RfAr/A that what I was doing might not be obvious. However, it's all
> been explained in the past. I wrote a long mail to you, but it seems to have
> been lost somehow, I didn't get the echo.
>
> If you don't want email from me, please let me know. Harassment is not a
> part of the plan.
>
> What I'm doing now is demonstrating how banned users can non-disruptively
> make positive contributions. I've done this before, and it works, and it's
> actually impossible to stop. All that can be done is to attempt to punish
> banned users for positive contributions, that don't even complicate ban
> enforcement unless it is understood that it is *necessary* to stop all
> edits. Self-reverted edits are almost implicitly harmless. They self-enforce
> the ban, they evince cooperation.
>
> This process works, and if it's abused to actually cause disruption, it
> simply backfires on the banned user. It only works if the contributions are
> positive.
>
> If you look at the list of edits-under-ban on my Talk page (under the
> section title), you'll see that all of them were harmless at worst. I first
> looked at my alleged violating edits and reverted them, where nobody had
> replied. This is a consequence of the claim that they were ban violations.
> Then I saw two problems, and fixed them. One (the archiving problem) has now
> been reverted back in by another user. If I had not noticed this, it would
> quite possible have escaped notice, and frustrated users looking for the
> four discussions. It was a bit of work to replicate what the bot would have
> done; my self-reversion made it easy to verify and fix. This is far more
> efficient than the other proposed ways for banned users to make
> contributions.
>
> As a side-benefit, a bug in MiszaBot II was revealed, as well as an abusive
> spam-blacklisting (blacklisting for content control based on POV -- there
> wasn't any spamming alleged).
>
> The other self-reverted edit still sits, completely harmless -- it would
> merely be an improvement if it were reverted back in. There is no
> POV-pushing involved. I just happen to know the field and saw unintelligible
> text and, having the book in my office, made it clear, by using a few words
> more from the source.
>
> Self-reversion was invented by me, suggested to Carcharoth, who approved,
> for ScienceApologist to use to make "harmless edits," if his purpose had
> been improvement rather than poking ban enforcement. Self-reverted edits
> require no attention, if the content is bad, they are a waste of time for
> the banned editor. This was a design to allow a banned editor some freedom
> and usefulness, while creating practically no enforcement problem.
> Self-reversion "par ban" is self-enforcement.
>
> However, as you know, sometimes a ban is actually punishment, and that
> weighs more than content improvement and protection. Self-reversion, with
> positive edits, teases this out, and that is why, elsewhere, it was
> successful even though opposed by administrators. By opposing it with
> blocks, they expose the punitive aspect of their approach. Their choice.
>
> (I attempted to make this part of Ban policy. It wasn't opposed, though it
> didn't get a lot of attention. It was only opposed when, later *I* used it
> once, and then they piled in with "a ban is a ban," which completely loses
> IAR and neglects that self-reversion is *cooperation with a ban.*)
>
> I have, in the past, posted lengthy comment on my Talk page. I was far more
> reserved this time, after the two-week block. I hadn't decided whether or
> not to put up an unblock template. Future Perfect is highly involved with
> me; his first block -- he's now made four -- was when I criticized *him.* No
> way should he have touched me. Schulz was a part of the clique I'd
> identified in the next RfAr -- the same clique as was featured in the
> Climate Change RfAr. And Schulz was part of the small possee in conflict
> with Brian Josephson, see below.
>
> Contrary to the claims, I was previously very moderate in response. Most
> blocks I didn't even bother to request lifting. Why trouble another admin
> for just a little editing time?
>
> But I had never verified what would happen if I actually appealed to
> ArbComm over the General Sanctions renewed ban. When I saw abuse of Brian
> Josephson, Nobel laureate, account the same name, from the same people, that
> motivated me.
>
> Independently, JzG's behavior has been appalling, he's completely
> disregarded RfAr/Abd and JzG, but ... nobody cares, Brad. That's why I've
> gone rogue. I've concluded it was useless to remain cooperative, to try to
> respect the bans, since they were wikilawyering them six ways till Sunday,
> and nobody cared enough to look. Many of those attempts to sanction me for
> harmless edits failed, the arguments rejected, but, Brad, once a ban is up,
> all it takes is one extreme interpretation by an admin (out of how many?),
> which is covered as "reasonable," and so the MYOB ban tightened and
> tightened way beyond what would have been accepted by the committee if it
> had been explicit at the beginning. The original MYOB ban allowed mentor
> exemption, and I was fine with the ban that way. Perhaps you remember that
> Fritzpoll volunteered to be my mentor? He was already recusing himself from
> anything regarding me, so why was that declined? Brad, you are sitting on an
> abusive committee, that is more about social collusion and punishment than
> about protecting Wikipedia.
>
> Good luck. If you have any questions, "Abd" means "servant."
>
> --
> This e-mail was sent by user "Abd" on the English Wikipedia to user
> "Newyorkbrad". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue May 10 18:03:09 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:03:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)
Message-ID: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarded by permission.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax <abdlomax at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>


Thanks for your response. Your reply is not urgent. This is long, I'm
afraid, but maybe it would be better for you to read a long post than to
recommend legal action to the General Counsel!

------------------------------
*From:* Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>
***Sent:* Mon, May 9, 2011 8:06:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: Wikipedia e-mail

I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to reply to this sooner. It's been a busy
week for me both with wiki business and, much more urgently, in the
so-called real world.

Thanks for your note also. I am sorry that things did not work out with
regard to your editing Wikipedia. My advice in the past regarding how you
could change your editing style was sincerely meant, but it may be that some
people's approaches fit in better with this particular project than others.

Brad, I understand your advice, and I believe it was sincerely meant.

The problem is that the project is defined by its goals, not by the
community which attached itself to those goals. The goal is a general human
goal, and it requires neutrality, a difficult concept but not an impossible
one. Neutrality requires maximized consensus, and maximized consensus
requires process which carefully protects minority opinion and point of
view.

Instead, Wikipedia, because of the development of supermajority election
process, combined with life terms for admins, developed a core which
deviated widely from the larger community, able to dominate and control. The
difference was not obvious.

This is not personal. You think that "things did not work out." They are
working out perfectly, but thanks for the kind thoughts.

I do need to ask you, at this point, to back away from some of the
disruptive activity you're engaged in.

Thanks for asking, rather than demanding. However, what's the quid pro quo?

No, my intention is to complete what I began six or seven years ago. My goal
was always project neutrality, I was working on these concepts for many
years before Wikipedia began. Change is always disruptive, Brad. It is
always opposed by those who have become established in an organization.
Exceptions are rare.

If you'd like me to stop, you would have to set up and/or participate in a
process whereby we could come to consensus. My last RfAr was the last stop
in non-disruptive due process. I was blocked during it, for violating edits,
not believed by me to be violations -- hence an RfAr/C! -- and by an
administrator who had been highly involved in conflict with me. The renewed
ban was at the instigation of JzG, who has been highly disruptive, and who,
during this RfAr, he violated the admonition ArbComm had issued in RfAr/Abd
and JzG, and one of the alleged violating edits was attempting to remedy the
problem. It was handled by an admin, but only because I raised attention to
the issue.

Brad, ArbComm threw the book at me for minor alleged offenses, that did no
harm in themselves, but ignored -- and continues to ignore -- major ones
that have heavily damaged project neutrality for years.

Hence my conclusion that the present "administrative cabal" -- you do
remember that this was Jimbo's term, right? -- is an enemy, functionally, of
the fundamental project goals, and I am no longer bound to cooperate. I
recognize the good faith intentions of the participants, and the problem is
a difficult one, but, to make a long story short, I intend to complete what
I began.

If you were to look at my "disruption" in detail, you would see that every
action is intended as an improvement of the project, and the only
"disruption" is that I'm disregarding blocks and bans. There is, indeed,
damage being caused, but entirely by the enforcement response.

I began with self-reverted edits, which, if ignored, would have done zero
damage. This is, in fact, the point.

However, I'm operating under the ancient rules of tribal warfare now, which
is measured response. That is, if cooperation is punished, it ceases.
Self-reversion "per ban" is cooperation. It was punished -- an edit filter
was set up to block all edits which mention "Abd," which caused quite a
problem for a day or two, since that's an extremely common Muslim name. So
it's ceased. If the community backs down, I back down.

Because range blocking has begun, I've completely abandoned self reversion.
I'm still identifying edits, but that will probably cease. In other words,
due to the community response, I'm moving into traditional socking. It's an
old game, at this point.

I do know what I'm doing, and I'm over explaining it, unless someone wants
to enter the conversation on an equal playing field. My Wikiversity account
is open for discussions, and there is a user page there where I'm
documenting what I do, and it has a talk page attached where this can be
discussed. Eventually the study will be moved into WV mainspace, when it's
completed and organized.

I'm aware of the history, and I'm hoping I can avoid the mistakes of those
who came before, like Moulton. Nobody is being attacked, nor is Wikipedia
being attacked. Rather, the reality of Wikipedia is simply being exposed,
through documentation of action and response. Lots of people know the
situation, but this particular approach has never been tried.

You don't think it's a problem that RevDel is being used -- twice now -- to
conceal harmless, actually helpful, edits? You don't think it's a problem
that range blocks are being used without any evidence of harm to the
project? That the edit filter is being run in block-edit mode immediately,
without testing the filter in log mode, just to try to stop something
*completely harmless*? That efforts to fix the damage are reverted without
regard for the other editors involved, IPs who were simply caught in the
crossfire?

Brad, if you really cared about the project, you'd care about these things,
and you'd try to find a way to develop cooperation between me and the
community.

I am sure you can give me a very principled defense of what you have been
doing -- but your posts on Wikipedia Review suggest that you also
anticipate, and even hope, that the result will be disruption in the form of
provoking massive rangeblocks. I strongly urge that you find another
approach altogether to venting your frustration with Wikipedia.

No, that's not accurate, I don't hope for that, I merely have acknowledged
that it's possible. Victory, for me, would be, in fact, that the community
responds moderately, to moderate "disruption." Range blocks are not
moderate, they inherently cause collateral damage, difficult to assess.

I'm not venting, Brad, you have a totally inaccurate model of my state. I'm
acting, based on what I realized when the whole clique machinery started
moving toward banning a Nobel laureate. I interdicted that, on his side,
i.e., I explained to him how Wikipedia worked and, no, it was not likely
that the insanity he was finding in community response was the result of
some payoff from the oil industry. The clique -- this is exactly the same
clique as I offended with the JzG RfAr and that proceeded to come after me,
through Hipocrite and William M. Connolley --, however, is still active,
though damaged by the Climate Change RfAr. If you take a look at the Energy
Catalyzer article, you can see the POV of this clique, openly manifested.
They are highly biased, and they are not interested in articles being
balanced according to what is found in reliable source. Cold fusion was a
test case, interesting because it's a situation where MPOV, majority POV, is
radically different from the balance in peer-reviewed mainstream journals
and the academic press.

In other words, this faction has long violated the Fringe Science RfAr
conclusions. Included in the evidence cited against me, of "tendentious
editing," in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, was a pointer to an argument
made by Enric Naval, in the Fringe Science RfAr, in which EN argued against
what ArbComm eventually found. Did ArbComm expect me to agree that I was
tendentious based on evidence that had nothing to do with me, but which was,
in fact, a content argument presented by an editor who was violating
ArbComm's own standards? And which radically misrepresented what was in the
source he cited?

I worked and continue to work with Enric Naval. He's a good-faith editor, he
merely doesn't understand the science, but he's often been willing to
compromise. The editors whom I supposedly offended with my "style" were
editors who, if anyone should have been banned, it should have been them.
But banning is not a part of my intentions and actions, I did not seek for
anyone to be banned. But restrained, yes. Instead, ArbComm shot the
messenger, and that is exactly what happens in social structures like what
Wikipedia developed.

I don't take it personally, because I've worked with this for years. I did
give up for a while. What happened last month was that I decided that it
didn't matter whether or not I thought I could succeed, what mattered was
standing up for what I see as possible.

And this is pretty simple, and it's generic: start respecting people and
they will start respecting you. Wikipedia insults and blames and rejects
experts, aficionados of topics, people who love a field, and instead of
fostering collaboration and the development of consensus, quickly rejects
one side as "disruptive." There are ways to do better with all of this, much
much better.

But it could start with me. What I'd ask for now would be very simple, it's
what I proposed two years ago, and it was almost accepted. Carcharoth
approved, thought it was a good idea. It wasn't used, immediately, because
it was proposed for ScienceApologist, as a way that he could make his
"harmless spelling corrections" without complicating ban enforcement. His
rejection of self-reversion, then, was precisely because he wasn't willing
or desirous of cooperating with the ban. But I proposed a change to the ban
policy, that self-reverted edits would not ordinarily be considered
violations of any ban. It's already a matter of policy or practice in many
areas: for example, self-reverted edits "undo" 3RR violations, and
self-reverted incivility, if it's prompt and not gaming, is considered
unimportant, transient.

I've argued this before, but I'm not debating it now, I'm simply pointing
out that the community could easily stop my "disruption," by defining it
away, thus allowing *zero response* to my work. What my project has shown,
so far, is that most of the early self-reverted edits of any substance were
*accepted,* even being reverted back in by, say, Enric Naval, an "opposing"
editor. I had proposed self-reversion with PJHaseldine, and it worked the
same way. His first self-reverted edit was fairly complex, and it was
brought back in, modified, by the very editor who had asked for his topic
ban. Thus self-reversion had facilitated cooperation between previously
opposed editors. That's by design.

If Scibaby had self-reverted his cow fart edits, would it have been
necessary to escalate with massive range blocks? Only if those opposing him
were really interested in excluding his POV entirely, of removing it from
consideration. And that interest must be vigorously opposed, or Wikipedia is
truly lost.

If I am allowed to make self-reverted edits per ban or block,
self-identified, so that true sock puppetry is not involved (i.e, pretense
of being someone different), if I am protected from further sanction for
harmless or constructive edits, I would return to such identification and
practice. This means that my ban does not have to be lifted, and the
principle could be applied to anyone.

Self-reversion is not a panacea, merely a technical step that could be made
to provide a return path for banned users. It worked on Wikiversity, for
Thekohser. It's not magic. But it establishes a middle path. Software
changes could make it even simpler, creating a "moderated" class of user
whose edits are all "suspended," in history. But I won't go there. Right
now, self-reversion works, respects bans, it's self-enforcing of bans, in
fact.

I know the objections that can be raised. And they all can be answered.

Respecting normal self-reversion as being cooperation could begin to heal
some of the divisions that have heavily damaged Wikipedia. I'd be happy to
help with this, but, being banned, I can't do it on Wikipeda, and it would
be too disruptive to try to get unbanned, as yet.

Basically, Brad, I'll cooperate with the bans if the community will
cooperate with me. Want respect, give respect!

If my Talk page access is opened, I would use it to document all my
self-reverted edits, as I'd started to do. I am also willing to accept a
site ban that allows me to edit my user pages, that all edits outside my
user pages would be banned. Which would mean that I'd self-revert everywhere
but my Talk pages.

But if the community takes a hard line, I take a hard line. Quid pro quo.

If you continue to behave as you are, I will find myself having to make a
recommendation to the General Counsel of the Foundation concerning how the
situation should be dealt with.

I'd be happy to discuss this with the General Counsel. Brad, you are a
lawyer. I'm not, but I have studied common law and have some substantial
legal experience, and I know how to talk with lawyers representing their
client's interests, and it is not in the Foundation's interest to engage in
a battle. If you have recommendations to make, I'd love to know what they
are. Wouldn't it be more efficient, and less costly, to tell me?

I do not believe that anything I've done, so far, would put me at any legal
risk. If I'm wrong, Brad, I'm judgment proof, and I demonstrated, in my
life, that I was willing to go to jail, if needed, to stand for important
principles. I'm not easily intimidated, and I'm a little concerned at the
tone here. Are you sure you want to convey that attitude?

You are aware, of course, that any legal action against me would serve my
whistle-blowing purpose? Right?

In fairness, I should tell you that up till this point, my standard
recommendation for how to deal with users whose identity is known and who
intentionally provoke massive rangeblocks has never been acted upon. But
there could always be a first time.... I hope we don't need to pursue that
line of inquiry.

It would have to be shown, Brad, that I was "intentionally provoking massive
rangeblocks," and I'm pretty aware of the legal situation, and, frankly, you
are proposing a losing position, as to what I've been doing. GRAWP, sure.
Might work.

Don't go there, Brad, to use a technical legal term, really dumb. It would
be like trying to sue the victim of a police riot for provoking it with
legal actions known to offend the officers. I mentioned this on WR: I have a
lawyer friend who, given a speeding ticket by an officer whom he considered
rude and offensive, as the officer was getting in his car, gave him the
finger. The officer marched back and stood there, red-faced, and realized
there was nothing he could do, walked back to his car, and drove away.
Professional. If he'd not been professional, he'd have lost his job, and the
lawyer might have made some money.

Brad, your "standard recommendation" might be a problem. There should be
something that precedes it, and if your legal training didn't tell you this,
there was something missing. You'd negotiate with the person. Wikipedia has
completely neglected this.

If a banned user is disruptive, there probably is a reason. It is possible
that they were abused in some way, and that they needed *protection.*
Mentorship can do this, but mentorship was, instead, all based on the idea
that the disruptive user was "wrong," that he was the problem. Maybe. But it
should cut both ways. A mentor should protect as well as constrain. The core
developed the idea that it was always right, and that anyone who offended it
must be wrong.

As you can imagine, this attitude creates and perpetuates conflict.

I wish you the best in your off-wiki endeavors, including the search for
Cold Fusion. I remain a strong skeptic, but I will continue to read of
developments with interest.

I do think you don't understand my position on Cold fusion. I was *very*
skeptical, until I read the research as reported in mainstream peer-reviewed
journals, and other competent research (such as that sponsored by the
Electric Power Research Institute), and digested it.

Cold fusion is now a known phenomenon, demonstrated by replicable,
conclusive experiments, there are hosts of popular myths out there about
this. The search -- in which I am not involved -- is not for Cold fusion,
but for two things: how to make the effect more reliable and stronger, and
how to explain it, because there is no satisfactory theory of mechanism, all
that is known is result, i.e., that (in the original type of work) deuterium
is being converted to helium, with the energy that must be released, from
mass-energy conservation, being entirely -- or almost entirely -- released
as heat. Nobody really knows how it works.

As to making the effect more reliable and stronger, we may be in an end
game. The "Energy Catalyzer," see the article, is either a very clever and
very difficult-to-pull-off fraud, or it's all over, practical cold fusion
devices for generating massive heat are apparently already being sold to
selected customers under non-disclosure, if the rumors are true, and there
are commercial plans, backed by hundreds of millions of euros, to be in
production this year. (This device works with nickel and hydrogen, which is
*really mysterious* as far as theory is concerned, but that there was some
reaction taking place in the Ni-H system was already observed and published,
years ago.)

As far as my own conflict of interest is concerned, this is bad news!
Because what I'm selling is palladium deuteride kits that demonstrate very
low-level neutron production, if they work (I'm expecting the first runs to
start this month). (It's merely replicating U.S. Navy research, published in
2009.) Science fair type stuff. The E-Cat will be far more spectacular. But
maybe some students will still be able to have fun with my stuff. Besides, I
bought thousands of dollars worth of palladium, platinum, and gold, and
that's proving to have been a nice action, the prices have skyrocketed
since.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 5th July 2011, 10:23am
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From elenoftheroads at gmail.com Wed May 11 08:53:49 2011
From: elenoftheroads at gmail.com (Elen of the Roads)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:53:49 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimFje8OW7W-SMGmQ9LRcRX2jshkxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Or the short version "Wikipedia must contain THE TRUTH ™, and I am going
to ensure that it does, no matter what"


Elen of the Roads



On 10 May 2011 19:03, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Forwarded by permission.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 11 09:26:24 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:26:24 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimFje8OW7W-SMGmQ9LRcRX2jshkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTimFje8OW7W-SMGmQ9LRcRX2jshkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <735336.82792.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Not even that; he has a grand plan for how Wikipedia should work (explained at
great length at WP:Delegable proxy), and sees any decision making mechanism
which doesn't fit into that?which at the moment is all of them?as illegitimate,
so he genuinely feels he doesn't need to abide by any existing precedents or
policies since they don't have the true mandate. (If you're not aware, although
he likes to give the impression he's a nuclear physicist IRL he's actually the
former chaplain at San Quentin, which I imagine demands and reinforces an
attitude of moral certainty.)

He has an elaborately constructed worldview which bears little relation to
objective reality (at one point he was claiming to have personally been taught
physics from Richard Feynman); provided one doesn't stray onto his pet theories
he's perfectly pleasant, but as soon as you come into his sights he never lets
go. I don't think it's worth wasting any time at all arguing with him.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed May 11 12:37:59 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:37:59 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)
In-Reply-To: <735336.82792.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTimFje8OW7W-SMGmQ9LRcRX2jshkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<735336.82792.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimuVg3j+c4HytC9rntiQaH9fJJ_Wg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia <
iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> ...he's actually the former chaplain at San Quentin, which I imagine
> demands and reinforces an attitude of moral certainty.)
>

This I did not know. Thanks.

Abd had historically had more respect for me than some other folks, in part
because I made more efforts to reason with him than the average bear would
have had patience for, and in part because I had worked with an editor he
was close to (User:Absidy) on some parliamentary procedure articles. (The
wikicareer of the latter ended disastrously, and he's currently in federal
prison for threatening to kill President Obama.) I thought that a longish
note from me might get Abd to reconsider his current disruption; it was a
long shot, and obviously it didn't pan out.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 11 13:02:18 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:02:18 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimuVg3j+c4HytC9rntiQaH9fJJ_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikahyzRw3NybKAbF4ztpXDKP5CABA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTimFje8OW7W-SMGmQ9LRcRX2jshkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<735336.82792.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
<BANLkTimuVg3j+c4HytC9rntiQaH9fJJ_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <313735.46128.qm@web29101.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

He does generally listen to me, even though I was the one who originally booted
him out?I was (AFAIK) the original coiner of the formulation "indefinite block
as in until resolved, not as in infinite", which is a key part of his New Vision
For Wikipedia,* and he approves of my "block/protect, explain my reasoning, and
then take no part in the unblock/unprotect discussion unless one of the parties
specifically requests a comment" approach. However, I really do not want to get
into a long discussion with the Abd?Moulton axis.

I wouldn't be averse to unprotecting his talkpage again, on the grounds that the
only people reading it are those interested in what he has to say so nothing is
being disrupted, but wouldn't go ahead with that without a fairly firm consensus
since it would mean overturning Timotheus Canens and might lead to excess drama.

*As I understand it, he wants all conduct blocks to be indef, and lifted once
the root problems have been addressed rather than after an arbitrary time
period. It would be unworkable in reality, but I can see valid reasoning
underpinning it.




________________________________
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wed, 11 May, 2011 13:37:59
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Abd)




On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia
<iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

...he's actually the former chaplain at San Quentin, which I imagine demands and
reinforces an attitude of moral certainty.)
>
This I did not know. Thanks.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed May 11 15:07:11 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:07:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (from Abd)
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=trm1pyYG7gRhNqtcwb1177OqSDA@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarding, with permission and for the record. I don't plan to respond at
this time.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax <abdlomax at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>


By the way, just so it's clear, I wrote you only because of your kindness
and thoughtfulness in the past, and so that my actions might be less of a
mystery.

It was not an indirect appeal to ArbComm, it did not even occur to me that
you might want to forward my response to the committee. You may forward
this, if you choose. Any arbitrator is welcome to write me directly, or to
publicly discuss anything with me on Wikiversity, assuming that site's
policies are followed.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 19 21:07:13 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:07:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Continuing threats of extreme disruption by Abd
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAp+0MSf5Gjox+BVORyxb2H5pV5A@mail.gmail.com>

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=0&#entry275327

We all should be aware of this situation. For this with limited time, the
last entry is the most currently relevant.

We need to balance between stopping this disruption and figuring out whether
we need to gently reign in any admins who may be overreacting.

Personally, as I've stated in the thread, I would support an immediate legal
proceeding seeking to enjoin Abd from editing Wikipedia -- but my current
thinking is not to raise that with the Office now, so as not to change their
focus from Morrow. (At least I hope they are still focused on that; I
haven't seen any news on that since Iridescent's post.)

Newyorkbrad
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 19 21:47:47 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:47:47 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Continuing threats of extreme disruption by Abd
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAp+0MSf5Gjox+BVORyxb2H5pV5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinAp+0MSf5Gjox+BVORyxb2H5pV5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <104546.3688.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

As with most of these people, Abd is a lot more cover than book. I very much
doubt he'll ever rise above the level of "vague background nuisance", and he'll
probably get bored fairly quickly; unlike Kohs and Moulton he has no deep
ideological dog in this fight.


Greg Kohs makes a valid point in that thread. Legal action against Morrow would
be recognized as a last resort action against a seriously mentally ill person
who poses a clear and present danger to individuals. Legal action against Abd
would be ridiculed as a massively powerful global organization using the law to
shut up a minor crank, and both the tech press and the
information-wants-to-be-free Assangists would (correctly) gleefully point out
the many cranks and crackpots who have been tolerated or openly welcomed on
Wikimedia projects over the years. Would you want to be Sue or Jimbo on the day
the guy from Wired calls for a quote on why we're taking legal action against
Abd, while turning blind eyes to multiple Baxter incarnations?
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 20 00:00:58 2011
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 20:00:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Continuing threats of extreme disruption by Abd
In-Reply-To: <104546.3688.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <BANLkTinAp+0MSf5Gjox+BVORyxb2H5pV5A@mail.gmail.com>
<104546.3688.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikjEM-7zapdZcgmZib_PjZs__6ddw@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I would probably have gotten an order against Baxter two years ago.
Or more accurately, warned him that if he didn't desist we would get such an
order. But I digress.

As for Abd, I do hope that he won't be allowed to post endlessly on
Wikiversity about his disruption of Wikipedia, even if he calls it an
"experiment" or some such.

Newyorkbrad




On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Iridescent Wikipedia <
iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> As with most of these people, Abd is a lot more cover than book. I very
----------
From iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk Fri May 20 00:27:20 2011
From: iridescentwiki at yahoo.co.uk (Iridescent Wikipedia)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 01:27:20 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Continuing threats of extreme disruption by Abd
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikjEM-7zapdZcgmZib_PjZs__6ddw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinAp+0MSf5Gjox+BVORyxb2H5pV5A@mail.gmail.com>
<104546.3688.qm@web29116.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
<BANLkTikjEM-7zapdZcgmZib_PjZs__6ddw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200608.26971.qm@web29115.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Nobody outside the Wikipedia Review bubble cares about Abd, and even they've
lost interest. Wikiversity pageview stats are well hidden?possibly because they
don't like to admit how badly they're currently floundering?but the toolserved
count of views of his Grand Disruption Project
athttp://stats.grok.se/en.v/201105/User_talk:Abd/Wikipedia/List_of_self-reverted_edits
is revealing. (I'll bet most of the 32 are actually the page auto-refreshing
after Abd's changes, too.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Tue 5th July 2011, 6:35pm
Post #3


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
Cool Hand Luke

I note he seems to be getting along relatively fine on the Island of Banned Users (Wikiversity).


Heh. So fucking true. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Tue 5th July 2011, 6:42pm
Post #4


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 5th July 2011, 11:35am) *

QUOTE
Cool Hand Luke

I note he seems to be getting along relatively fine on the Island of Banned Users (Wikiversity).


Heh. So fucking true. laugh.gif

The Island of the Banned.

The Island of Dr. Baxter


"Not to use photos of real women for sock accounts; that is the law.
Are we not men?"

wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 5th July 2011, 11:30pm
Post #5


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Thus saith Iridescent:
QUOTE
Nobody outside the Wikipedia Review bubble cares about Abd, and even they've
lost interest. Wikiversity pageview stats are well hidden?possibly because they
don't like to admit how badly they're currently floundering?but the toolserved
count of views of his Grand Disruption Project
at http://stats.grok.se/en.v/201105/User_talk...-reverted_edits
is revealing. (I'll bet most of the 32 are actually the page auto-refreshing
after Abd's changes, too.)
No clue. That page isn't a "Grand Disruption Project," that is confusion on two levels.

1. What I was doing on Wikipedia, and what I may continue to do, is to make useful contributions, in spite of being banned. If making useful contributions, or harmless *at worst,* is "disruption," well, it just goes to show! It is if they say so, which is the point. They create it as disruption, they make it disruptive through how they view it.

2. The page documents what I do on Wikipedia and the community response. In the case of IP editing, self-reverted, since those edits identify themselves, it was immediately documented, originally on my WP talk page, which would have been best, but when that was shut down, then on Wikiversity. However, when self-reversion was met with range blocks anyway (which is part of what I intended to demonstrate, how enforcement becomes a goal in itself, losing the original purpose), as well as revision deletion, I turned to true socking. Self-identified IP is hardly a "sock" in the original meaning.

And for obvious reasons, I'm not going to identify a true sock until either it's identified on-wiki, or the possible use is complete.

The page hasn't been used for anything yet, other than documentation, so anyone who wants to see it can, and some have looked, some have commented. It is not "the Grand Project," other than the extent to which demonstrating and documenting Wikipedia dysfunction *without making it personal* is the project. But it's more than that, as will be seen later if I ever get a Round Tuit. It's pointing to the moon, it is not the moon. It's raw data, right now, with practically no analysis. That's for later.

And Iridescent wastes time looking for page view stats! That's really funny!

Right now, the range blocks have expired, I think, but I'm not inclined to edit WP at the moment, and I don't have time. I will again, I'm sure, and I'll probably start up self-reversion with identified edits again, thus allowing the cycle to repeat, if that's what they want. I didn't stop editing because of the range blocks, I had relatively unimpeded access all through that.

The goal is to teach them them to actually practice RBI, which works, unless you imagine that the goal is to Stop the Damn Puppet Master From Editing Entirely No Matter What, in which case the loose cannons start range blocking for edits that are *obviously* harmless, or using revision deletion for the same, or the edit filter, thus slowing down the server, etc.

(Ah, the arrogance of that Abd! He imagines that he can teach us something! Actually, no. I think it can be really hard to teach these people anything, so certain are they of their own rightness and rectitude and understanding. And it is not odd at all that this is then how they view me, as so convinced of my own rightness that I can't consider the possibility of error. Actually, I love to discover or be shown error, it's just that these people aren't particularly good at that. My biggest error, as shown by the ArbComm revelations, was in trusting ArbComm, I'd been fooled by appearances in RfAr/Abd and JzG, where the committee concealed its actual deliberations and division.

They claimed that I was doing all this socking (a quite modest amount, in fact) to *force* them to range block, etc. No. Nobody was forced to push any button, and if they were just doing RBI, I would already have reverted, the first part, so, if they are exercised, they can block the IP for the formality of it. Or not. I was making it easy to identify the edits, and they interdicted that with the edit filter. Thus making my edits obscure when I stopped self-identifying, or especially when I started socking. They've created this sock puppet problem over and over, you'd think they'd get it by now. Some do, in fact, but they are not in the majority.

Consider me a test strip for stupidity. Someone else can interpret the strip, later or sooner.

The really odd thing is that they don't range block for even frequent vandalism from large ranges, so it just shows ... there is no crime worse than defiance of Our Authority.

Newyorkbrad really showed his stuff with the legal threats, eh? He's apparently lost his mind, too much Kool-Aid. Seems to get almost everyone to some degree or other.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Wed 6th July 2011, 12:48am
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



<snip>

You know Abd, when your response to the original, huge post is within an order of magnitude in size, you lose the rest of us to sheer ennui.

Just saying.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Wed 6th July 2011, 12:54am
Post #7


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:48pm) *

<snip>

You know Abd, when your response to the original, huge post is within an order of magnitude in size, you lose the rest of us to sheer ennui.

Just saying.

Welcome to WR. May I suggest experimenting with the ignore button while you're settling in? rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 6th July 2011, 2:02am
Post #8


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:48pm) *

<snip>You know Abd, when your response to the original, huge post is within an order of magnitude in size, you lose the rest of us to sheer ennui.

Just saying.
Look, I don't expect this to be interesting to you, just to some. How about not reading it if it doesn't grab you? If something is important, someone else will pick up on it and quote it. That's how SB_Johnny gets his news, and there isn't anything wrong with it.

I have a lot more to say about that leaked mail. Perhaps. So I should not say it because "Vigilant" isn't?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Wed 6th July 2011, 2:06am
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 6th July 2011, 2:02am) *

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:48pm) *

<snip>You know Abd, when your response to the original, huge post is within an order of magnitude in size, you lose the rest of us to sheer ennui.

Just saying.
Look, I don't expect this to be interesting to you, just to some.

Most of what you say is only interesting to the writer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 6th July 2011, 2:45am
Post #10


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Thus saith Iridescent:
QUOTE
Not even that; he has a grand plan for how Wikipedia should work (explained at
great length at WP:Delegable proxy), and sees any decision making mechanism
which doesn't fit into that?which at the moment is all of them?as illegitimate,
so he genuinely feels he doesn't need to abide by any existing precedents or
policies since they don't have the true mandate. (If you're not aware, although
he likes to give the impression he's a nuclear physicist IRL he's actually the
former chaplain at San Quentin, which I imagine demands and reinforces an
attitude of moral certainty.)
Gee, glad to know from Iridescent what I see. WP:PRX was a proposal by a long-time Wikipedian, and I explained a little there, not much. The real trick would be Asset Voting, but all this is experimental. There are plenty of other "legitimate" decision-making methods, but ... Wikipedia doesn't use them, neither traditional nor innovative, relying instead upon something that is obviously and blatantly broken.

My conclusion that ArbComm was broken beyond repair, and therefore was not worthy of respect, however, had only arisen shortly before this comment was written by Iridescent. ArbComm was not following policies and guidelines nor was it enforcing its own precedents and decisions, and we can see why, in the capricious opinions of Iridescent. There is a message stuck in the middle somewhere, where someone (Iridescent or CHL?) wrote that ArbComm should take the case I was presenting. And that simply disappeared, I don't see it being discussed. I'm wondering if something was missed in the search.

Absolutely, I abandoned, around May 1, "abiding by existing precedents," once I was indef blocked, though I was far from the first to do this, we might almost call it a precedent that banned editors will sock. I wasn't formally banned yet, but knew I would be in short order.

I have never claimed to be a "nuclear physicist" in RL. Just to have studied physics. I was a volunteer Muslim chaplain at San Quentin, yes, not "the chaplain," except for maybe two weeks when the regular chaplain was on vacation, and it seems to me that Iridescent is here expressing a kind of religious prejudice. Moral certainty? Yeah, I have self-confidence, to be sure, but certainty? That's a big word.

Newyorkbrad lapped this up, gullible puppy that he is.
QUOTE
He has an elaborately constructed worldview which bears little relation to
objective reality (at one point he was claiming to have personally been taught
physics from Richard Feynman); provided one doesn't stray onto his pet theories
he's perfectly pleasant, but as soon as you come into his sights he never lets
go. I don't think it's worth wasting any time at all arguing with him.
Wow! No wonder she thinks I'm insane. I actually claim to have been "personally taught physics" from Richard Feynman.

That whole period 1961-63, was probably a hallucination, when I imagined I was attending Cal Tech, and sitting in the lectures that were filmed and became Feynman's physics text. The hallucinations of Feynman were spectacular, that must have been some great stuff I was smoking. I even dreamt that I was sitting in Page House listening to Feynman tell his stories. Wearing suits like we wore to dinner, since he'd had dinner with us before, but I was wearing tennis shoes, with one toe cut out because I had an ingrown toenail. Funny what crazy details show up in these fantastic memories.

Yup. Objective reality is pretty boring, because apparently it doesn't allow me to know or learn from someone like Feynman. Iridescent's objective reality, anyway. I will never forget Feynman. Major influence.

My long mail to Newyorkbrad, which he forwarded to the list, has lost quotations, so a reader will easily become confused as to what NYB said and what my reply was. Maybe I'll repost that with quotations. In general, the leaked posts are pretty confusing as to who wrote what.... but perhaps we are getting what we've paid for. Thanks again, Malice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Thu 7th July 2011, 7:13pm
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 6th July 2011, 2:06am) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 6th July 2011, 2:02am) *

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:48pm) *

<snip>You know Abd, when your response to the original, huge post is within an order of magnitude in size, you lose the rest of us to sheer ennui.

Just saying.
Look, I don't expect this to be interesting to you, just to some.

Most of what you say is only interesting to the writer.


I feel like we're stuck in a mandatory Abd therapy circle wherein Abd exercises his demons(daemons?) through the generation of text and the rest of us participate in pre-purgatory cleansing through the reading of the aforementioned missives.

I, personally, feel qualified to enter Elysium at this point but would accept a trip to Limbo if it would forestall the textual punishment.

Oh my god(s), why have you foresaken us?

Vigilant
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st 10 14, 4:00am