Meeting with Jon Davies

[Willbeheard]

And welcome to the 'ocracy, Horsie!

We need to tighten up the welcoming policy. Horse joined on 15 March and made his first post on 6 April!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195&p=2821#p2821

[Willbeheard]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what "NC" stands for? Thanks.

"Non-commercial". On a CC licence it means of course that you forbid commercial re-use. Of course people will ignore that, but there is a strict WMF policy that photos with an NC licence cannot be uploaded. I've seen plenty of photos deleted on those grounds.

[lilburne]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what "NC" stands for? Thanks.

"Non-commercial". On a CC licence it means of course that you forbid commercial re-use. Of course people will ignore that, but there is a strict WMF policy that photos with an NC licence cannot be uploaded. I've seen plenty of photos deleted on those grounds.

Yeah for the images that mbz1 creates the NC license will keep them out of the hands of Commons. But will allow them to be used by most academic sites, and bloggers. Meanwhile if any commercial uses arise they will contact her for explicit usage rights. She can decide whether to get paid or not at that point, doesn't mattter. What does matter is that the images are out of reach of the Commons scum.

[Peter Damian]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

[The Wife]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

That's odd and obviously nasty behavior. I wonder if there is more being hidden that rapprochement would put at risk.

[dogbiscuit]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

Surprised that you take any account of Gerard, himself a well-known troll. The others are just doing what Wikipedians do, which is mindlessly repeat what they read somewhere and assume that what they read is what happened. Just as much of a problem in the real world as on Wikipedia. Seriously though, did you expect any different? And who gives a toss about some bloke we've never heard of when there are still hundreds of sexual positions to educate our young about?

[Vigilant]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

Surprised that you take any account of Gerard, himself a well-known troll. The others are just doing what Wikipedians do, which is mindlessly repeat what they read somewhere and assume that what they read is what happened. Just as much of a problem in the real world as on Wikipedia. Seriously though, did you expect any different? And who gives a toss about some bloke we've never heard of when there are still hundreds of sexual positions to educate our young about?

Hear, hear.

David Gerard is a well known troll from back int he usenet days.
I doubt he has ever contributed anything to human advancement in his entire life.

[lilburne]

I doubt he has ever contributed anything to human advancement in his entire life.

Are you forgetting mirth?

[Vigilant]

I doubt he has ever contributed anything to human advancement in his entire life.

Are you forgetting mirth?

Unintentional humor is, by far, the best kind.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

That's odd and obviously nasty behavior. I wonder if there is more being hidden that rapprochement would put at risk.

David Gerard can be pretty poisonous if in his mind you're 'one of them' and therefore not 'one of us'. He has a black and white war mentality. He's one of the 'glorify porn under the banner of anti-censorship' crowd, and if you make any effort to exercise editorial judgement, he'll go off on tyrants about puritanical Merica, Fox News and Rush Limgaugh.

[Peter Damian]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

That's odd and obviously nasty behavior. I wonder if there is more being hidden that rapprochement would put at risk.

David Gerard can be pretty poisonous if in his mind you're 'one of them' and therefore not 'one of us'. He has a black and white war mentality. He's one of the 'glorify porn under the banner of anti-censorship' crowd, and if you make any effort to exercise editorial judgement, he'll go off on tyrants about puritanical Merica, Fox News and Rush Limgaugh.

Jon Davies wrote back to me and kind of apologised, saying that some things can seem harsher on email or in a forum, than in real life, and this was not just in Wiki-land.

Charles Matthews said I was being 'adversarial'.

I didn't challenge either of these statements, nor did I question again why they still had the post on that list saying that I was a threat to the safety of their volunteers. Not wishing to seem adversarial, of course.

[The Wife]

Well this has all come to sad end. I think Jon had every best intention of 'healing the wounds' and setting the process of reconciliation between the two parties.

I made an intendedly helpful post on the WMUK mailing list. And now Gerard responds by calling me a troll. So I wrote to Jon, copy Charles Matthews and John Vandenberg, thanking them for their kind efforts, but saying that further attempts at reconciliation were unlikely to be productive, in my view.

That's odd and obviously nasty behavior. I wonder if there is more being hidden that rapprochement would put at risk.

David Gerard can be pretty poisonous if in his mind you're 'one of them' and therefore not 'one of us'. He has a black and white war mentality. He's one of the 'glorify porn under the banner of anti-censorship' crowd, and if you make any effort to exercise editorial judgement, he'll go off on tyrants about puritanical Merica, Fox News and Rush Limgaugh.

A usenet troll who is a pro-internet porn activist would certainly be someone with nothing to gain from rapprochement. Thanks all for the background.

[EricBarbour]

Perhaps you could deal with/negotiate with Davies. But it should be crystal-clear by now that Gerard and Matthews are hopeless.
If there was a DROP of decency in the Wikipedia world, Gerard would have been shown the door long ago. Yet he continues to
troll mailing lists, after 8 years of strife, hatred, and ugliness.

He even made a legal threat in 2009--and got away with it. He'll take the whole thing down with him.

[lilburne]

Yet he continues to troll mailing lists, after 8 years of strife, hatred, and ugliness.

But he still is the prettiest one of them all.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/30 ... _the_year/

[TungstenCarbide]

A usenet troll who is a pro-internet porn activist would certainly be someone with nothing to gain from rapprochement. Thanks all for the background.

...He even made a legal threat in 2009--and got away with it. He'll take the whole thing down with him.

That's not the half of it He goes on rants and raves about 'Jesusland' when people mention editorial judgement, raging against the evils of censorship, and then proceeds to censor left and right when it suits him, abusing his administrator powers along the way. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... t&p=207580

[The Wife]

A usenet troll who is a pro-internet porn activist would certainly be someone with nothing to gain from rapprochement. Thanks all for the background.

...He even made a legal threat in 2009--and got away with it. He'll take the whole thing down with him.

That's not the half of it He goes on rants and raves about 'Jesusland' when people mention editorial judgement, raging against the evils of censorship, and then proceeds to censor left and right when it suits him, abusing his administrator powers along the way. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... t&p=207580

Below from http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?sh ... ntry207580

"QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm) Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm) No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:40pm) David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:45pm) Child Porn is information that needs to be free. Embarrassing comments about DG, not so much.

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =179936825 Here's David censoring information about his beloved super secret admins-irc channel, (you know - the very same one where Jimbo went to round up his posse of admins to go demolish Sanger's bio).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =179963395 And here's Gerard protecting it, to make sure the censorship sticks.

Oh, and you're gonna love this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... unding_IRC
When the case went to the arbcom, Gerard hid behind closed doors and presented his defense in secret, by virtue of his membership on the arbcom mailing list, which none of the other parties to the case had. Needless to say, Gerard got a pass, and the arbcom took full advantage of the opportunity to demonstrated what a joke they were.

But you are absolutely right, GBG, Gerard loves censoring except when it comes to obscenity, like pictures of men sucking their own wieners. For example, when discussing images on the Autofellatio page, Gerard threatens; 'If this looks like becoming the Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia, I will be out of here.'" http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20954.html

So they are appealing to rationality in an attempt not to alienate part of the audience of an online encyclopedia that includes children because the rational audience members believe a picture is necessary when describing autofellatio and the opposite view equates to Christian religious extremism. Now I understand why inferring evangelical Christianity a cult is okay on WP.

[The Wife]

Yet he continues to troll mailing lists, after 8 years of strife, hatred, and ugliness.

But he still is the prettiest one of them all.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/30 ... _the_year/

This photo builds the argument in my head that perhaps if WP were for profit some of the ridiculousness would be minimized.

[Peter Damian]

Perhaps you could deal with/negotiate with Davies. But it should be crystal-clear by now that Gerard and Matthews are hopeless.

Matthews is an interesting one. Private school, then Oxbridge, then teaching mathematics. Now doesn't work, except at Wikipedia. I feel as though I'm in a parallel universe when arguing with him. Clearly very bright, but constantly misses the point on quite obvious things. Constantly refers to the time he spent on Arbcom, as though that were the most important thing that ever happened in his life.

I had a friend who was very similar - did PhD pure maths at Cambridge, very bright in certain ways, is now a model civil servant, indeed a Mandarin. Finds it very hard to relate to people. When I discuss people with him, or interact in apparently normal ways, it's as though he read a manual on 'interacting with people', but the manual is out of date, or misses certain key details, or is just plain wrong. Also, when you are interacting with people and they come across as having learned it from a manual, that's not good interaction, is it.

My friend has two family members with autism. Is there any connection between high mathematical ability and autism?

[edit]

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has spent much of his career championing the positive side of autism. His most recent finding, to be published shortly in the Journal of Human Nature, is that talented mathematicians are at least twice as likely as the general population to have the condition. He also found, by comparing maths undergraduates at Cambridge University with undergraduates of other disciplines (law, medicine), that mathematicians are more likely than students of other subjects to have a sibling or parent with autism.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=176954

[thekohser]

Matthews is an interesting one.

I once found myself moved to e-mail Matthews, saying to him, "I believe you have some form of mental problem bordering on sociopathy."

He asked me never to contact him again.

[Willbeheard]

Matthews is an interesting one. Private school, then Oxbridge, then teaching mathematics. Now doesn't work, except at Wikipedia. I feel as though I'm in a parallel universe when arguing with him. Clearly very bright, but constantly misses the point on quite obvious things. Constantly refers to the time he spent on Arbcom, as though that were the most important thing that ever happened in his life.

He is by any stretch an obsessive. I believe that he deliberately gave up work so he could concentrate on Wikipedia. He probably holds the record for the most edits to WMF projects without use of bots. Yet his e-mails (I've never actually talked to him) are the only reasonably sane and coherent ones I've ever had from any real muck-muck except Lar. He was an excellent ArbCommer and is right to be proud of it. Needless to say, he was voted off after one term (and it hurt him terribly).

[The Wife]

Perhaps you could deal with/negotiate with Davies. But it should be crystal-clear by now that Gerard and Matthews are hopeless.

Matthews is an interesting one. Private school, then Oxbridge, then teaching mathematics. Now doesn't work, except at Wikipedia. I feel as though I'm in a parallel universe when arguing with him. Clearly very bright, but constantly misses the point on quite obvious things. Constantly refers to the time he spent on Arbcom, as though that were the most important thing that ever happened in his life.

I had a friend who was very similar - did PhD pure maths at Cambridge, very bright in certain ways, is now a model civil servant, indeed a Mandarin. Finds it very hard to relate to people. When I discuss people with him, or interact in apparently normal ways, it's as though he read a manual on 'interacting with people', but the manual is out of date, or misses certain key details, or is just plain wrong. Also, when you are interacting with people and they come across as having learned it from a manual, that's not good interaction, is it.

My friend has two family members with autism. Is there any connection between high mathematical ability and autism?

[edit]

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has spent much of his career championing the positive side of autism. His most recent finding, to be published shortly in the Journal of Human Nature, is that talented mathematicians are at least twice as likely as the general population to have the condition. He also found, by comparing maths undergraduates at Cambridge University with undergraduates of other disciplines (law, medicine), that mathematicians are more likely than students of other subjects to have a sibling or parent with autism.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=176954

Professor Baron-Cohen is not the first to have found this link. There is a strong correlation believed to be genetic between having a parent who excels in math, and I believe engineering and high level computer work, and having a child with autism. When I say strong correlation I mean in comparison with parents not strong in math, etc. It's a problem Silicon Valley has had to deal with. I could pull up a few studies if you were interested.

Having needed to reach out for autism support in our family, I will say that there are ways neurotypicals (like you) can learn to adapt communication to people with autism. It's a learnable skill.

The people with autism have less flexibility. One neuropsychologist told me that someone with autism is searching for the "proper" response when interacting socially. Apparently there's a scene in the movie "The Terminator" that illustrates this. The android is faced with a novel situation. The viewer watches the android serially search memory for various responses before selecting an appropriate one. Also, people with autism may use lines from favorite movies or television shows to guide them in interacting. The entire subset of mental actions that take place before they are able to verbalize a response is mind-boggling. The process of speaking to others is quite unlike a brain without autism. People without autism have the greater freedom to choose an interaction style to assist communication with an autistic.

In our family written communication and long time-lags are communication adaptations that appear to be successful more often. Nothing works all of the time. The communication impairment varies: sleepiness, stress, guilt, worry, hunger, needing the restroom, all change the interaction style. Nor can our son explain to us what he is feeling or what he is reacting to most of the time.

[eppur si muove]

Matthews is an interesting one.

I once found myself moved to e-mail Matthews, saying to him, "I believe you have some form of mental problem bordering on sociopathy."

He asked me never to contact him again.

You do realise thta he comes out of this anecdote rather better than you do?

[The Wife]

Matthews is an interesting one.

I once found myself moved to e-mail Matthews, saying to him, "I believe you have some form of mental problem bordering on sociopathy."

He asked me never to contact him again.

You do realise thta he comes out of this anecdote rather better than you do?

I'd hope there had been excessive provocation. If Matthews falls on the autism spectrum these kinds of people tend to hold idealistic, unrealistic standards of justice and fairness. In fact they can be entirely naive in practical ways while being able to explain things in the abstract. They are easy to manipulate and don't realize they are being manipulated.

[Peter Damian]

Professor Baron-Cohen is not the first to have found this link. There is a strong correlation believed to be genetic between having a parent who excels in math, and I believe engineering and high level computer work, and having a child with autism. When I say strong correlation I mean in comparison with parents not strong in math, etc. It's a problem Silicon Valley has had to deal with. I could pull up a few studies if you were interested.

This is going to go off-topic any second but I will start a new thread if it looks interesting.

I read some stuff online by Baron-Cohen and was immediately hooked. I’m first of all fascinated by large organisations, which I see as eco-systems, and fascinated by how the parts of the eco-system fit together. Now I’ve learned from Baron-Cohen that children on the autism spectrum find lying and deception difficult to understand, and tend to accept appearance as reality. Now in most organisations, people are aware that management can lie or deceive, but mostly they give their trust based on personal judgment. Management in turn make a judgment on how much they can ‘get away with’. The balance varies between organisations. In Wikipedia, by contrast, I’ve noticed that many people there give complete and utter credence to what ‘management’ say, no matter how absurd. So I’m pondering an eco-system consisting on the one hand of pathological liars on the one hand, and on the other hand, people on varying parts of the autism spectrum.

[The Wife]

Professor Baron-Cohen is not the first to have found this link. There is a strong correlation believed to be genetic between having a parent who excels in math, and I believe engineering and high level computer work, and having a child with autism. When I say strong correlation I mean in comparison with parents not strong in math, etc. It's a problem Silicon Valley has had to deal with. I could pull up a few studies if you were interested.

This is going to go off-topic any second but I will start a new thread if it looks interesting.

I read some stuff online by Baron-Cohen and was immediately hooked. I’m first of all fascinated by large organisations, which I see as eco-systems, and fascinated by how the parts of the eco-system fit together. Now I’ve learned from Baron-Cohen that children on the autism spectrum find lying and deception difficult to understand, and tend to accept appearance as reality. Now in most organisations, people are aware that management can lie or deceive, but mostly they give their trust based on personal judgment. Management in turn make a judgment on how much they can ‘get away with’. The balance varies between organisations. In Wikipedia, by contrast, I’ve noticed that many people there give complete and utter credence to what ‘management’ say, no matter how absurd. So I’m pondering an eco-system consisting on the one hand of pathological liars on the one hand, and on the other hand, people on varying parts of the autism spectrum.

It's plausible and provides explanation for a number of patterns. As you say this is an eco-system and each part relies on the other.

[The Wife]

I read some stuff online by Baron-Cohen and was immediately hooked. I’m first of all fascinated by large organisations, which I see as eco-systems, and fascinated by how the parts of the eco-system fit together. Now I’ve learned from Baron-Cohen that children on the autism spectrum find lying and deception difficult to understand, and tend to accept appearance as reality. Now in most organisations, people are aware that management can lie or deceive, but mostly they give their trust based on personal judgment. Management in turn make a judgment on how much they can ‘get away with’. The balance varies between organisations. In Wikipedia, by contrast, I’ve noticed that many people there give complete and utter credence to what ‘management’ say, no matter how absurd. So I’m pondering an eco-system consisting on the one hand of pathological liars on the one hand, and on the other hand, people on varying parts of the autism spectrum.

I agree this is off topic. Our experience with our son may provide some context to what others experience with some Wikipedians.

When I need my son to listen I am careful to speak to him from a different room. His senses overwhelm his ability to process sound and this mitigates the problem. This does not even begin to discuss the entire variety of sensory issues.

Explaining to him that someone is not really his friend or has taken advantage of him has results that would not be expected of a neurotypical person. He has no conception of the difference between someone who talks to him and a friend. He feels extremely hurt if this is discussed because he wants friends and feels differentiating between a friend and an acquaintance is equivalent to losing friends. He will do anything for a "friend." His true friends have seen his problems for years, never mentioned them to him, and watch out for him socially.

Another possibly instructive item is how someone with autism may react when upset. I am going to have a wallet card printed for any potential future day when he may need to interact with the police (e.g., minor traffic accident). This is advisable for people with autism because they often interact oddly under stress. In particular, our son literally loses his power to speak among many other sequelae. Of course, he usually does not make eye contact. I can only imagine how a police officer would react to a man acting this way.

When he was younger he could become quite upset by what appeared to be normal situations to outsiders. Even into his teens grocery stores were problematic situations for us. One continuing problem was buying frozen pizza. He loves cheese pizza with black olives which one can order from restaurants. While shopping he was instructed to pick a pizza he wanted at the store. He decided he wanted his favorite but could not communicate this. This type of pizza is not available in the frozen foods section. Eventually after numerous arguments and meltdowns during various trips to the store we realized what he wanted. In the meantime we had to repeatedly make him wait in car due to his behavior. When it dawned on us what he wanted we told him we could buy cheese pizza and a can of olives. He loved the pizza we produced at home. He cut and applied the olives himself. To my surprise the same problem continued at the grocery store on future days. He had not been able to process that the only way to get cheese pizza with olives was to buy them separately. He continued to look for what was fixed in his mind: black olive cheese pizza already frozen. Eventually he accepted the state of frozen pizzas. This knowledge did not transfer to other similar situations. Each situation has to be dealt with in isolation. In no area is his IQ below normal. He was gifted in areas at school and is a voracious reader which also caused conflict at home (bedtime, etc.).

I can only hope this provides some insight into why someone with autism may appear obsessive (and is in the non-technical sense), can be contrary, can have meltdowns, interacts strangely, communicates poorly, is easily manipulated, and does not appear to learn in some situations.

[Peter Damian]

This is fascinating. I have a few friends with Asperger's. One of them finds the supermarket very difficult. She cannot decide which part of the store to go to first, or make a decision between equal but competing alternatives. When I took Richard Stallman to lunch, he took 10 minutes to decide what to have from the menu.

I think it's easy to deal with the condition on a personal basis, and I hardly notice it face to face. It's online that it becomes a nightmare. So add to you eco-system: pathological liars, people who can't easily tell liars from ordinary people, and all online.

[The Wife]

This is fascinating. I have a few friends with Asperger's. One of them finds the supermarket very difficult. She cannot decide which part of the store to go to first, or make a decision between equal but competing alternatives. When I took Richard Stallman to lunch, he took 10 minutes to decide what to have from the menu.

I think it's easy to deal with the condition on a personal basis, and I hardly notice it face to face. It's online that it becomes a nightmare. So add to you eco-system: pathological liars, people who can't easily tell liars from ordinary people, and all online.

Of course, my heart breaks for the people with disabilities. Picking a family movie to watch has strict time limits in our house.

I think you must be a kind and tolerant person to say you hardly notice it face to face. Autistics are prime targets for bullies throughout life. Some humans will not tolerate differences.

[thekohser]

Matthews is an interesting one.

I once found myself moved to e-mail Matthews, saying to him, "I believe you have some form of mental problem bordering on sociopathy."

He asked me never to contact him again.

You do realise thta he comes out of this anecdote rather better than you do?

I'd hope there had been excessive provocation.

Of course there was provocation.

It was the usual wiki-smugness and wiki-dismissiveness.

My stance on paid editing was that if a paid editor follows the rules of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE, there is no harm in allowing their content into the Wikipedia User space to be reviewed by others.

Matthews responded:

The more often you bring up exactly the same points here, the more obvious it is how little support you have.

I contend that in 2006, there was ample support for treating paid editors as a class of editor that (as long as they disclosed) could be "reviewed" by the rest of the community. I contend that Matthews was deliberately lying to say "how little support" there was for that, in order to close discussion (in his favor, of course). He continually would puff himself up with how much he knew about the paid editing phenomenon, but then would repeatedly draw conclusions about it that were not supported by my actual experience in the field. I still contend that most of his joy in opposing even disclosed and reviewed paid editing came from the pleasure he derived in how it antagonized paid editors.

Of course, Matthews had the support of his sociopathic buddies, JzG and David Gerard, so it was likely quite the power trip for him, to see how he was pleasing the "in crowd" on Wikipedia. Guy Chapman then went so far to taunt that his plagiarized copy of my original article was "better" than mine. That tag-team of Matthews, Gerard, and Chapman were really very sociopathic. I stand by that assessment.

[The Wife]

Matthews is an interesting one.

I once found myself moved to e-mail Matthews, saying to him, "I believe you have some form of mental problem bordering on sociopathy."

He asked me never to contact him again.

You do realise thta he comes out of this anecdote rather better than you do?

I'd hope there had been excessive provocation.

Of course there was provocation.

It was the usual wiki-smugness and wiki-dismissiveness.

My stance on paid editing was that if a paid editor follows the rules of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE, there is no harm in allowing their content into the Wikipedia User space to be reviewed by others.

Matthews responded:

The more often you bring up exactly the same points here, the more obvious it is how little support you have.

I contend that in 2006, there was ample support for treating paid editors as a class of editor that (as long as they disclosed) could be "reviewed" by the rest of the community. I contend that Matthews was deliberately lying to say "how little support" there was for that, in order to close discussion (in his favor, of course). He continually would puff himself up with how much he knew about the paid editing phenomenon, but then would repeatedly draw conclusions about it that were not supported by my actual experience in the field. I still contend that most of his joy in opposing even disclosed and reviewed paid editing came from the pleasure he derived in how it antagonized paid editors.

Of course, Matthews had the support of his sociopathic buddies, JzG and David Gerard, so it was likely quite the power trip for him, to see how he was pleasing the "in crowd" on Wikipedia. Guy Chapman then went so far to taunt that his plagiarized copy of my original article was "better" than mine. That tag-team of Matthews, Gerard, and Chapman were really very sociopathic. I stand by that assessment.

I see provocation. I wonder if you indicate Matthews may be unwittingly manipulated by JzG, Gerard, and Chapman. I'm learning all these people; Gerard was new to me yesterday and I was shocked.

It would be in no way surprising to find people with antisocial personality disorder in WP both because of the history and culture of the project.

People with Asperger's do not have to be portrayed as hapless victims. They are as individual as the next person and can be real jerks.

What is interesting to me are the differences between how and why a jerk who has Asperger's acts like a jerk in comparison to someone with antisocial personality disorder. Someone with APD has the advantage of being able to predict the responses of his or her prey with greater accuracy and frequency. An autistic may simply not know how to take another's feelings and desires into account. For that reason those things will not be weighed duly. It can take a long time to explain this to them. Most of them seem to care quite a lot about fairness when such things are explained in detail over a long time by someone they know well.

OTOH an autistic is apt to make poor social decisions. If he falls in with a bad crowd he is not apt to distinguish bad behavior from normal behavior if bad has been defined as good in some idealistic way. We know that happened at WP. Also, shades of ambiguity and levels of relative goodness are not things their brains process well. In my son I have not witnessed this being processed independently or with help.

In my opinion (I am the only person I know who thinks this and am likely wrong) it is possible to have both narcissistic personality disorder and autism. OTOH children with autism have been misdiagnosed as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder. That almost happened to my son; thank god we kept searching because parts didn't fit. ODD may grow into APD. Imagine if a child with Asperger's were treated as if he were ODD. He could grow up to be very angry and act out a lot. In essence, he would have been raised while having the worst possible assumptions wrongly made about him at all times.

Edited to add: As to lying I have wrongly accused my son of this out of not understanding how his mind was working and I feel badly for that. He has lied to avoid conflict or situations in which he perceives rightly or wrongly that he may get in trouble.

[The Wife]

My stance on paid editing was that if a paid editor follows the rules of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE, there is no harm in allowing their content into the Wikipedia User space to be reviewed by others.

I contend that in 2006, there was ample support for treating paid editors as a class of editor that (as long as they disclosed) could be "reviewed" by the rest of the community.

I may have first heard of paid editing here. I weighed it against the community ideal of volunteers. I felt against it. Then I realized it was inevitable. Then I thought longer and harder and came to your stated conclusions.

Then I tried to off-load the Theosophy article on any paid editor I could contact. I didn't know you were a paid editor then. I didn't name the figure but I was considering spending $200. I was hoping Cla would work by the hour though I had no knowledge of him (I assumed he was a woman). He seemed normal and competent. Fascinatingly, no person agreed to improve the article for money. One person did ask my relationship to theosophy.

I have no relationship to theosophy. This is the story of how I joined WP and my husband joined CZ.

One day theosophy came up in casual conversation with my husband. I said, "Look it up on WP," because I didn't want to research it. My husband looked it up and appeared confused. I assumed the problem was he had no background in reading on the topic of religion while I do. I read the article and had that sinking feeling when one realizes the internet is spewing bad information. Within days he had applied for CZ and I had joined WP in an effort to share knowledge and correct misinformation.

At one point while attempting to assist in improving the Theosophy article there was an almost wholesale re-attribution of facts from one source to another overnight with no change in the body of the article. This and other problems led me to want to pay any competent person to fix the issues at the Theosophy article. All I wanted was an improved article with accurate reliable sources (i.e., don't attribute statements to sources which don't say that and don't claim magic happens as a fact).

[The Wife]

It was the usual wiki-smugness and wiki-dismissiveness.

Of course, Matthews had the support of his sociopathic buddies, JzG and David Gerard, so it was likely quite the power trip for him, to see how he was pleasing the "in crowd" on Wikipedia. Guy Chapman then went so far to taunt that his plagiarized copy of my original article was "better" than mine. That tag-team of Matthews, Gerard, and Chapman were really very sociopathic. I stand by that assessment.

The difference between Matthew's e-mail/mailing list behavior and his face-to-face interaction with Peter Damien is interesting. I wish the sample size were larger.

It is clear that JzG and others (not you) were being jerks.

I enjoy watching deans, university presidents, and other politicians say "no." We all realize the easiest way to say no is to indicate some vague willingness to possibly say yes at some unspecified time in the future if unspecified conditions are met. Barring that totally ignoring the opponent works well. They chose neither. Either they are not management material because they can't find the path of least resistance, they enjoy the fights, or both. I'm sure you'd know better than I.

[Peter Damian]

An update on this. I emailed a few people involved with WMUK asking for evidence of the supposed 'harassment'. Davies is very helpfully looking into it. Another reply (not Davies) said that the problem was my 'speculation' about the identities of senior Wikipedians. If one claims to know the real name of someone, then it is harassment to mention that you do, even if you do not introduce it into the discussion. It is also harassment to mention other attributes that might be useful to anyone wishing to research the real-life identity of the person.

For example, if the old version of an arbitrator's page says they are a fan of Chelsea Football Club (hypothetical example) then it is harassment to mention this on WY, and it endangers the security of volunteers. So be warned.

Apparently I have speculated like this on a few occasions, and this may be the reason for the notice put up by WMUK.

[TungstenCarbide]

An update on this. I emailed a few people involved with WMUK asking for evidence of the supposed 'harassment'. Davies is very helpfully looking into it. Another reply (not Davies) said that the problem was my 'speculation' about the identities of senior Wikipedians. If one claims to know the real name of someone, then it is harassment to mention that you do, even if you do not introduce it into the discussion. It is also harassment to mention other attributes that might be useful to anyone wishing to research the real-life identity of the person.

For example, if the old version of an arbitrator's page says they are a fan of Chelsea Football Club (hypothetical example) then it is harassment to mention this on WY, and it endangers the security of volunteers. So be warned.

Apparently I have speculated like this on a few occasions, and this may be the reason for the notice put up by WMUK.

Davies seems like a pretty nice guy. I wonder if he was embarrassed communicating these details to you, while realizing how fucking ridiculous they sound?

[HRIP7]

An update on this. I emailed a few people involved with WMUK asking for evidence of the supposed 'harassment'. Davies is very helpfully looking into it. Another reply (not Davies) said that the problem was my 'speculation' about the identities of senior Wikipedians. If one claims to know the real name of someone, then it is harassment to mention that you do, even if you do not introduce it into the discussion. It is also harassment to mention other attributes that might be useful to anyone wishing to research the real-life identity of the person.

For example, if the old version of an arbitrator's page says they are a fan of Chelsea Football Club (hypothetical example) then it is harassment to mention this on WY, and it endangers the security of volunteers. So be warned.

Apparently I have speculated like this on a few occasions, and this may be the reason for the notice put up by WMUK.

Wikipedia manages to combine almost obsessive public visibility with secrecy. Almost everybody is cloaked, like in the Ku Klux Klan. And like in the Seven Society, the names of members may only be revealed after their passing.

[TungstenCarbide]

remember, simply imagining an editors identity ("Opposition research" in wikispeak) even if the evidence is posted by the editor himself, is a WikiHighCrime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... harassment

[thekohser]

Let me know the next time you're in DC. I'm more then happy to meet with most people I know because of WP if I'm free.

I'll be attending Wikimania 2012 in DC, so I'll probably see you there if you're planning on attending.

Er... maybe I should say, "I'll be attempting to attend Wikimania 2012." It's possible that I'll be barred at the door.

I just accepted a new job position at Comcast, heading my own research group. So, it's a crazy-busy time right now -- no way I'll get down to Washington DC today for Wikimania. Possibly Friday; we'll see.

[Anroth]

And miss the chance of being turned away with "You're not on the list, you're not coming in!"?

[Peter Damian]

Update: I had an email from the CEO just after I went abroad two weeks ago, proposing that the ban be lifted. (Actually I had not asked for the ban to be lifted, only that the libellous public accusations made by WMUK against me be retracted, but never mind - lifting the ban would achieve this anyway).

A number of conditions were attached, none of them particularly onerous. But then there was this:

That you agree that you will not photograph fellow attendees without their agreement or 'out' them if they prefer to edit anonymously.

OK to the photographs (I always ask permission, unlike some WMUK members). But the second part (outing) is confusing. Does it refer to the outing of 'fellow attendees' only, or to any WMUK member, regardless of whether they attended or not? If the former, that seems reasonable. Or rather, it is reasonable not to out someone on the basis of something you learned from them at a WMUK meeting. It would have a chilling effect on both sides if people are afraid to speak at a meeting for fear of being 'outed'. But what if I meet someone at WMUK, then learn their identity from another source, such as their WP user page?

Perhaps we need another thread on 'outing'.

[HRIP7]

Good to hear.

But what if I meet someone at WMUK, then learn their identity from another source, such as their WP user page?

Then you couldn't be outing them, as they're out already.

[Zoloft]

Good to hear.

But what if I meet someone at WMUK, then learn their identity from another source, such as their WP user page?

Then you couldn't be outing them, as they're out already.

It's difficult to deal with people who banned you for hypocritical reasons and not feel that they wouldn't do it again. See: thekohser vs The Great White Wales.

[EricBarbour]

OK to the photographs (I always ask permission, unlike some WMUK members). But the second part (outing) is confusing. Does it refer to the outing of 'fellow attendees' only, or to any WMUK member, regardless of whether they attended or not? If the former, that seems reasonable. Or rather, it is reasonable not to out someone on the basis of something you learned from them at a WMUK meeting. It would have a chilling effect on both sides if people are afraid to speak at a meeting for fear of being 'outed'. But what if I meet someone at WMUK, then learn their identity from another source, such as their WP user page?

Perhaps we need another thread on 'outing'.

No, there's no point. It is intentionally vague. If they need a reason to ban you in the future, they will invent one.

To all: if you have the identities of WP insiders, pass the info to me. It will appear under my byline, and then they can't blame you (or anyone else).
I truly do not give a rat-shit what the "poor little Wikipedians" feel about mean old me. Especially after learning that Raul654 did a checkuser on me in
2008, for having the temerity to "out" an abusive administrator--which turned out to be quite easy.

What the blob thought he was going to do to me for committing that "terrible sin", I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. Perhaps blackmail
was on his mind, perhaps he was stupid enough to think that I deeply loved Wikipedia and wanted to keep "helping it".

Fatboy violated their own rules, simply because he didn't like me. And no one ever did anything about it.

They are amoral little slugs. You cannot "reason" with them or expect "fair treatment" from them. I've said that before, haven't I?

[Zoloft]

Insist that you go back with no conditions, and ask that the 'rules' be posted to all participants, not just you.

[Vigilant]

OK to the photographs (I always ask permission, unlike some WMUK members). But the second part (outing) is confusing. Does it refer to the outing of 'fellow attendees' only, or to any WMUK member, regardless of whether they attended or not? If the former, that seems reasonable. Or rather, it is reasonable not to out someone on the basis of something you learned from them at a WMUK meeting. It would have a chilling effect on both sides if people are afraid to speak at a meeting for fear of being 'outed'. But what if I meet someone at WMUK, then learn their identity from another source, such as their WP user page?

Perhaps we need another thread on 'outing'.

No, there's no point. It is intentionally vague. If they need a reason to ban you in the future, they will invent one.

To all: if you have the identities of WP insiders, pass the info to me. It will appear under my byline, and then they can't blame you (or anyone else).
I truly do not give a rat-shit what the "poor little Wikipedians" feel about mean old me. Especially after learning that Raul654 did a checkuser on me in
2008, for having the temerity to "out" an abusive administrator--which turned out to be quite easy.

What the blob thought he was going to do to me for committing that "terrible sin", I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. Perhaps blackmail
was on his mind, perhaps he was stupid enough to think that I deeply loved Wikipedia and wanted to keep "helping it".

Fatboy violated their own rules, simply because he didn't like me. And no one ever did anything about it.

They are amoral little slugs. You cannot "reason" with them or expect "fair treatment" from them. I've said that before, haven't I?

Spot on, chap!
There's a strange cognitive dissonance that pervades their culture.

W: You *must* want to come back and edit amongst the holy...
W: If you'll only lower your back and lick our toes, you can be forgiven and be reborn.
V: Fuck you guys. I'll just stand over here and throw rocks at you stupid fuckers...
W: wha wha wha?

[Kilmarnock]

To all: if you have the identities of WP insiders, pass the info to me. ... They are amoral little slugs. You cannot "reason" with them or expect "fair treatment" from them. ...

Yes, support this.

The reasons administrators and the more provocative editors crave anonymity is not that they fear retribution for their decisions, but because without it their posturing and deceptions would be riduculed by their local communities (university departments, football clubs ... whatever) and exposed for all to see. They could not continue without it.

Liliburne is quite right to say that they face no more danger than, say, the public moderators on Yahoo, or investigative journalists in the West. To pretend that they do is simply self-gratifying fantasy designed to further their sense of self-importance, and is a slight on those brave human right activists and journalists in less democratic societies such as the late Anna Politkovskaya, who do indeed court danger on a daily basis in the course of their duties but nevertheless do not make a cult issue about protecting their privacy because of it.

Want to know who Risker is? Find the photo of her on Commons with a label on her lapel saying "Anne". Now Google "Anne Risker" and select the first of several palpable hits to locate your target (speaking strictly metaphorical like of course ).

And that, ludicrously, from one of the champions of admin privacy, apparently (or as far as I can make out and refracting her monniker) one professionally involved in mitigating risk.

She, and all her deluded puffed-up fantasist bothers and sisters, make me puke.

[Peter Damian]

The offensive and libellous statements made by WMUK have now been removed from the (WMF owned) site. I consider the matter closed. Quoting Davies' mail for the record.

If Prioryman et al continue posting their false allegations on WP, would be grateful if someone let me know.

Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davies
To: Edward Buckner
Cc: Richard Symonds
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: My email to you


I am not technical enough to know the chapter and verse on this but I believe the emails have been removed.
If there are other remnants under OUR control let us know.
Can we move forward on this?
Jon

[thekohser]

The offensive and libellous statements made by WMUK have now been removed from the (WMF owned) site. I consider the matter closed. Quoting Davies' mail for the record.

If Prioryman et al continue posting their false allegations on WP, would be grateful if someone let me know.

Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Davies
To: Edward Buckner
Cc: Richard Symonds
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: My email to you


I am not technical enough to know the chapter and verse on this but I believe the emails have been removed.
If there are other remnants under OUR control let us know.
Can we move forward on this?
Jon

Nice job, that the e-mails have been un-posted. However, were you given any assurance that the intention and policies described by those e-mails have also been revoked? Or, are you still "banned and dangerous" when it comes to live meetings of the WMUK?

[EricBarbour]

The offensive and libellous statements made by WMUK have now been removed from the (WMF owned) site. I consider the matter closed. Quoting Davies' mail for the record.
If Prioryman et al continue posting their false allegations on WP, would be grateful if someone let me know.

You saved a copy of the materials deleted, I hope? You might have to use it, when your writing goes public and Jimbo's Bunnies show up to attack your methods and conclusions.
There are few things more damaging to an intellectual attack, than proof the attackers were personally defaming you months and years ago.....

[Peter Damian]

The offensive and libellous statements made by WMUK have now been removed from the (WMF owned) site. I consider the matter closed. Quoting Davies' mail for the record.
If Prioryman et al continue posting their false allegations on WP, would be grateful if someone let me know.

You saved a copy of the materials deleted, I hope? You might have to use it, when your writing goes public and Jimbo's Bunnies show up to attack your methods and conclusions.
There are few things more damaging to an intellectual attack, than proof the attackers were personally defaming you months and years ago.....

Yes, and an email from 'Chase me' Symonds to prove it. I haven't saved Prioryman's use of them, however.