Inactive Wikipedia administrator survey hoax Options

[TungstenCarbide]

<edit> looks like a hoax, see tarantino's post below

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewfor...EU3RuX2RoREE6MA

"...a statistical analysis revealed a 96% chance that administrator inactivity is causing the decline in active English Wikipedia editors as a whole: "

Looks like the survey is being run by Steven Walling and "a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous".

----

related thread; The "holy shit" slide on editor retention, Sue Gardner on Wikipedia's death spiral

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 15th February 2012, 5:36pm

[tarantino]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewfor...EU3RuX2RoREE6MA

"...a statistical analysis revealed a 96% chance that administrator inactivity is causing the decline in active English Wikipedia editors as a whole: "

Looks like the survey is being run by Steven Walling and "a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous".

The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was run by long-term puppetmaster Nrcprm2026.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) deleted "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

[TungstenCarbide]

The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was run by long-term puppetmaster Nrcprm2026.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) deleted "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

- that's a funny hoax, someone went through a lot of effort to make it - thanks tarantino. Nrcprm2026 has been socking for over 5 years it look like. I wondered of he's a disgruntled ex-administrator.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 15th February 2012, 5:52pm

[tarantino]

The survey wasn't approved by Walling or the WMF, and it was run by long-term puppetmaster Nrcprm2026.

00:13, 14 February 2012 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) deleted "User:James Salsman/Inactive administrators survey" ‎ (OFFICE action. Per WMF Legal team.)

- that's a funny hoax, someone went through a lot of effort to make it - thanks tarantino. Nrcprm2026 has been socking for over 5 years it look like. I wondered of he's a disgruntled ex-administrator.

Though he's been banned for years on enwp, he just ignores it. For whatever reason, he takes wikimedia and himself seriously and wasn't intending for this to be a hoax.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cas...nia_Chapter.pdf
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...t=James+Salsman

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.

[tarantino]

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.

Here he is again, haunting the noticeboards.

[jsalsman]

Also, if you see an IP from the SF Bay area on the noticeboards or reference desk, chances are it's him.

Here he is again, haunting the noticeboards.

That's not me. I haven't been in the Bay Area since last September, although I probably will return pretty soon. Then off to an undisclosed location and a fancy proxy configuration for the mother of all fresh starts.

Eric, please be patient. I got another valid survey response just this morning so I'm holding it open until at least the weekend before I write up the data.

So far over a dozen formerly inactive admins have returned to editing enwiki after receiving the survey; some appear to be very active: ThaddeusB, C12H22O11, CBDunkerson, Cholmes75, Cobaltbluetony, EWS23, Enochlau, Firsfron, Guettarda, Hall_Monitor, James086, ReyBrujo, RobyWayne. This is a far better result than anyone had hoped.

Cheers,
Jim

P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.

[iii]

P.S. Ask a serial sockpuppeter who believes improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules anything.

What's with the cold fusion obsession?

[jsalsman]

What's with the cold fusion obsession?

My arch-nemesis fellow serial sockpuppeteer Science Apologist and a handful of other less transgressive editors are constantly trying to remove any sources which suggest that cold fusion was anything other than a pseudoscientific scam. The problem is that there is plenty of peer reviewed secondary evidence that it's not a scam, just really hard to get right. Very few experimenters realized that they were losing hydrogen through their cathode power wiring.

I think it's a great article to work on because the hegemony is actively trying to suppress what has basically emerged as the dominant point of view in the peer reviewed literature for a decade now, because of the psychological association of the idea with scientific negligence. As the excuses get flimsier and flimsier over the years, it is great practice for spotting degenerate editing patterns. Arbcom has cast their lot in with the wrong side, and about five people have been banned for trying to accurately represent the peer reviewed secondary literature. No other article has come close to that situation, so of course I'm fascinated by the dynamics there.

I'm very excited about the Defkalion tests in Athens today. Supposedly the Greek government is involved in the validation, so win, lose, or draw it should hit the press hard enough that they'll probably let NASA's recent work back in to the article.

[EricBarbour]

I think it's a great article to work on because the hegemony is actively trying to suppress what has basically emerged as the dominant point of view in the peer reviewed literature for a decade now, because of the psychological association of the idea with scientific negligence.

And as I have already found, Wikipedia attracts some of the most incivil, arrogant scientists in the world.

People like Connolley and Raymond Arritt are responsible for this state of affairs--
pigheaded, intractable, abusive, manipulative and antisocial. They do this because Wikipedia facilitates
it, and disses actual expertise. If you want WP to handle cold fusion, or any other controversial
scientific area, neutrally---fix Wikipedia's culture first, not the bloody articles.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 24th February 2012, 8:59pm