QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 18th September 2009, 3:06am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 15th September 2009, 12:13am)
You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.
Exactly which edits are you referring to?
The ones that are being undone, of course!
QUOTE
Abd has hardly made any edits to wikipedia articles that have lasted. Easy enough to check for yourself. He has created a stub or two.
This thread is supposed to be about JzG. Want to write about me, start a thread, asshole.
However, the cries that Abd should be banned started with RfC/JzG 3, so I'm defacto a part of the issue. That was quite a show! Simple RfC, conclusive evidence, support from Durova, etc. And the response of two-thirds of editors commenting: ban Abd!
The substance: As a Wikipedia editor, I was mostly reactive. I was creative occasionally, when I was expert on the topic or did special research. Take a look at the history of
Donna Upson (T-H-L-K-D), for example, or look at the history of
lyrikline.org (T-H-L-K-D). Almost every "what links here" for the latter was placed by me. That lyrikline.org is whitelisted at en.wikipedia was my work, and there are two jobs remaining to be undone: delisting at meta, which I believe is now possible, and adding more links to covered poets. There is a page in my user space, showing pages on poets with en.WP articles where links were added, and the hundreds remaining to be done.
User:Abd/lyrikline poets (T-H-L-K-D). In addition, redlinks there may indicate an article that could be created, or the spelling is different.
However, from the beginning, my interest was in social structures, and my first semi-SPA edits in August 2007 were about voting systems, which are an aspect of that, and where I have some considerable expertise, recognized off-wiki and also on, in the RfAr, by Newyorkbrad in his vote for the ban.
QUOTE
Just as when Abd was page banned, things will proceed calmly.
It was calm with the original page ban because I kept it that way. It's not calm now, disruption based on this case has expanded. Yes, things work out, but the wasted energy is enormous.
QUOTE
It's like having a fly in the room: irritating when it's there, but immediately forgotten once it's been swatted.
When the room is fully of stinking bullshit, swatting flies is just like .... playing whack-a-mole with expanding legions of persistent socks, never considering that maybe they had a point, and when people have a point and you try to shut them up, they sometimes become persistent even though you'd think it makes no sense.
QUOTE
BTW Abd's allegations of a cabal, rejected by ArbCom, have so far driven away two female contributors, Woonpton and Crohniegal. Not great. But that's what happens when people make things up.
What ArbComm rejected was a word. I asked them to address the substance, they mostly didn't, probably because it is a difficult issue and they'd have had serious trouble finding consensus on it.
As to Woonpton and Chronie, these were far from innocent bystanders suffering collateral damage. They were named only after investigation, and the evidence was given. Not of reprehensible collaboration, nor for any reprehensible action at all, I made no effort to show such, and though some level of reprehensibility could be inferred from some of the evidence I presented on them, it is mild by Wikipedia standards. Basically,
a "cabal" allegation for an editor was specific to the case, and represented a judgment, clearly shown by the evidence, of a prejudgment, a kind of "involvement" with the issues or persons of the case. That's all. And if Mathsci actually can't understand that, well, it just goes to show that expertise in mathematics doesn't teach you anything at all about people. And if he can, he's not only an asshole, he's a liar.
What I called a "cabal" is what Carcharoth called "an appearance of a cabal." Appearances have effects, they are socially real. It's like "racism." There is no physical reality to "race," that's well-known, but a lot of people will argue with that! It's a
social reality, and it has real effects. If I tell someone that they are racist, I might be absolutely correct, in the academic sense: they believe, or act as though they believe, that race is real. But it will be considered inflammatory, and probably correctly, unless sufficient context has been laid. I laid the context for "cabal," but the context was ignored and denied even when reaffirmed, with comments like, "Yeah, but what he really means to say is," followed by what I repeatedly denied. And then Woonpton and Crohnie reacted to (or created, in the case of Woonpton) the false imputations only, in spite of substantial attempts to personally explain. Crohnie apologized, actually, but then was egged again on by Woonpton. With Crohnie, I assume simple gullibility, falling in with a bad crowd, and holding understandable opinions, with Woonpton, it's worse than that, the woman is vicious and vindictive, ABF personified.
Crohnie is not editing because of back surgery, and she seems to be recovering. Maybe her temperament will recover, too. Woonpton loudly protested she was retired, but isn't, and had made her conclusions about the Cold fusion article before I was ever involved, and I was banned since the beginning of June, she didn't take up editing! Mathsci is just repeating the propaganda about "driving away experts or editors." Nobody was driven away by me, unless perhaps they were incapable of ignoring arguments that they ignorantly disagree with. Or even that they intelligently disagree with.