Inactive Wikipedia administrator survey hoax Options

[Kelly Martin]

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.

[iii]

a) I don't get that impression from looking at Salsman's contribs, so you'd better offer some evidence.

The guy seems really taken by conspiracy theories involving, among other things, cold fusion, depleted uranium, proposals that climate scientists are intentionally low-balling their estimates of climate change ....

I'd go on, but you can do your own digging. He appears to hold these certain beliefs with a special kind of vehemence and apparently thinks of Wikipedia as a vehicle to be used for the promotion of these certain agendas. In the abstract, it's an attitude that is somewhat common on Wikipedia, but it doesn't strike me as all that stable.

It's mildly amusing that he's a thorn in the side of the WMF and the Wikipedia power system. The thing is, the community positively sweats obsessive types like this if they only sublimate their insanity into a blind adherence to the system. If Mr. Salsman dropped the thumbing his nose act, I'm sure they'd love to have him in their little guild. Just a little too difficult for them to control, that one.

[iii]

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.

Really? I'm not that perplexed. The story goes like this: a bunch of admins are wondering who this person behind the survey is. Looks legitimate enough. Then they find out it's from a doubleplusungood nonperson.

Apoplexy.

This isn't the first and will not be the last time.

[tarantino]

The behavior of WMF staff and sundry in this affair is, to me, far more perplexing than that of James.

Really? I'm not that perplexed. The story goes like this: a bunch of admins are wondering who this person behind the survey is. Looks legitimate enough. Then they find out it's from a doubleplusungood nonperson.

Apoplexy.

This isn't the first and will not be the last time.

I liked this exchange he had with the young arbiter, Anthony G. Kelly of Glasgow.

I am most certainly not part of GNAA -- Those who coddle them should be ashamed of themselves for the predictable results. By indefinitely blocking me for this, I have become more powerful against them than you can possibly imagine. I swear by the beard of Ward Cunningham that in no more than one month's time, the GNAA article will be permanently deleted, in process. See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. I often attend Foundation events and I will enjoy the opportunity to discuss this matter face to face. Do you ask because the shame of coddling racist trolls makes you feel threatened by someone who is willing to do something about them? Selery (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take as much pride in blocking people who use Wikipedia for their own internet evangelism as I do in blocking abusive trolls. AGK [•] 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by tarantino: Fri 17th February 2012, 4:18am

[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.

[EricBarbour]

I'm beginning to think iii is right--he hasn't responded to me since our early email exchange, yet
he's running around on AN/I being a dick. Hope it's fun for him.....because it's not fun for me.

[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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

Did you intentionally try to mislead people with your email into thinking it was a WMF sanctioned survey?

Was Walling cooperating with you prior to throwing you under the bus at wp:an?

Did you just ignore all the WMF foundation people after talking to them and run the survey your own way.

(sorry, i just don't have the patience to read through all the wikipedia bullshit and really do want to hear your side)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 22nd February 2012, 6:24pm

[SB_Johnny]

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.

Heh. Ask your survey questions here, and maybe I (or Kelly) will be nice enough to answer here.

[Kelly Martin]

Well, technically I'm not an inactive admin because I resigned my adminship when I left in 2006. And his questions aren't going to get me to reengage in Wikipedia, so he has no incentive to ask them of me.

[jsalsman]

Did you intentionally try to mislead people with your email into thinking it was a WMF sanctioned survey?

Was Walling cooperating with you prior to throwing you under the bus at wp:an?

Did you just ignore all the WMF foundation people after talking to them and run the survey your own way.

(sorry, i just don't have the patience to read through all the wikipedia bullshit and really do want to hear your side)

No, the email I sent is below; in particular, "The direct administration of this survey is being performed by a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous at this time."

I thought Walling was cooperating because of the Office Hour transcript also below, and I thought Philippe was on board with it per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3422334

The Foundation approved the survey back in September 2010 per http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thread:...te%3F/reply_(3) i.e. "The plan is still to do this...."

Dear Wikipedia Administrator:

Please respond to this survey: [url]

A few years ago, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning Task Force on Community Health noted the troubling decline in administrator participation in the English Wikipedia and resolved to survey inactive administrators to identify the reasons that admins leave the project, in hopes that would help improve the associated issues. By mid-2010 a survey was drafted but resourcing and other issues prevented action until recently when a statistical analysis revealed a 96% chance that administrator inactivity is causing the decline in active English Wikipedia editors as a whole. Therefore, this survey is being distributed to you so that the reasons for administrator attrition can be better understood and acted on. Individual responses will be kept anonymous, but aggregate summaries will be published as soon as they are available. The goal of this research is to get broad, qualitative information about why administrators have stopped contributing, in hopes that we can use it to revitalize both the administrator and editor community.

If you have questions, please reply by email to [email] or the Wikimedia Foundation Community editor retention point of contact for this survey, Steven Walling: [email]. The direct administration of this survey is being performed by a Community Health Task Force volunteer who wishes to remain anonymous at this time.

Thank you very much for your service to the community and your help with this survey response.

Here is the Office Hour transcript excerpts in question from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_...ours_2012-02-10

[09:41am] jsalsman okay, well I guess the first thing I need is to know who in Zack's department will be point of contact for editor recruitment efforts
[09:41am] Philippe jsalsman: that hasn't changed.
[09:41am] jsalsman who then?
[09:41am] StevenW jsalsman: you can talk to me and Maryana
[09:41am] jsalsman okay
...
[09:59am] jsalsman StevenW: I'm going to go ahead with the three-year old inactive admins survey and send you access to the results spreadsheet

[EricBarbour]

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.

Good, you might actually get some information out of this. Please, write it up and get it published, somewhere.

[tarantino]

Here he is again, haunting the noticeboards.

That's not me.

My apologies, and welcome to The Review.

[jsalsman]

My apologies, and welcome to The Review.

Don't apologize, you have always been my favorite fan on WR!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=478569721 lol

[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?

[Fusion]

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

Is there not a Wikipedia policy that improving the encyclopedia is more important than obeying its rules? For those too lazy to click on the link, I quote it:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Or do you believe in ignoring this policy? Does this not go round and round in a circle?

[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

[iii]

What's with the cold fusion obsession?

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.

If you want WP to handle cold fusion, or any other controversial
scientific area, neutrally---fix Wikipedia's culture first, not the bloody articles.

Your suggestion, Eric assumes fixability, of course.

After fighting to get recognition for these ideas "for a decade now", it must be really tantalizing for you, jsalsman, to have within your grasp what appears to be an easily usable mouthpiece "that anyone can edit" only to be thrown up against the deliberate inanity of Wikipedia bureaucracy. Indeed, there's something beautifully symmetric about angry-at-the-"hegemony" special-interest editors going toe-to-toe with angry-at-the-experts psychophants. Pitting the two against each posits an equivalence where by special-interest editors sees themselves as experts while psychophants see themselves as hegemony.