A case study of administrative abuse

[Alfonzo Green]

http://alfonzogreen.blogspot.com/

How I got banned from Wikipedia. Once I realized the organization is pathological and beyond reform, excommunication seemed the natural course.

[Hex]

Your story is long and I haven't read it yet, but welcome aboard.

A related link for readers: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green (T-H-L)

Now reading. Keywords: Rupert Sheldrake (T-H-L), morphic resonance (T-H-L), AndyTheGrump (T-C-L), Barney the barney barney (T-C-L), JzG (T-C-L), pseudoscience, ArbCom.

[Kumioko]

As a fellow banned editor I also welcome you to this site and look forward to reading about your experiences with Wikipedia.

[Randy from Boise]

Oh, Jesus....

"On January 20th, 2014, 'Blippy' edited the Wikipedia entry on BlackLight Power and its founder Randell Mills, who claims to have developed a process of generating electricity at odds with standard physics.
* * *
"At the heart of the scientific project is the willingness to set aside pre-existing beliefs in favor of open-minded investigation. In the world of Wikipedia, however, science is confused with materialism, the unverifiable belief that matter is the entirety of existence and that all causation is mechanical."

Yeah, that's the basis of science...

Alternative physics universes don't belong on Wikipedia...

RfB

P.S. Andy the Grump does good work.

[Kumioko]

Oh, Jesus....
Yeah, that's the basis of science...

Alternative physics universes don't belong on Wikipedia...

RfB

P.S. Andy the Grump does good work.

Although I would agree that Andy does good work Andy is, as his name suggests, rather grumpy much of the time and my problem is that no one has the courgae to reel him in when he goes off on people unnecessarily. Much like a multitude of other editors

[Hex]

Yeah, I lost interest after skimming it for keywords and then coming back and actually starting to read it to find phrases like "the high priests of materialism". My immediate impression of the whole thing was déjà vu, anyway - are't there other people on here who have endless arguments about Sheldrake and skeptics and the like? Is that iii and Captain Occam's thing? I never read their conversations so don't know.

Anyway, sorry Alfonzo, I don't think you're going to find much success in using this forum as an extended venue for your side of a giant arbitration dispute by wrapping it up as a critique of administrators and ArbCom.

[Alfonzo Green]

I don't think you're going to find much success in using this forum as an extended venue for your side of a giant arbitration dispute by wrapping it up as a critique of administrators and ArbCom.

My critique demonstrates that Wikipedia administration is willing to violate policy in order to maintain biased articles. Isn't that reason enough to bring it to your attention?

What makes it a useful critique is the depth of detail. Everything relevant is there, and it's all linked, including the one you supplied in your previous post. If it seems like too much, skip ahead to "Enter the Ideologues." I only included the opening, which mentions Blippy and AndyTheGrump, so as to indicate a pattern of abuse beyond the case study.

I didn't start this thread to rehash Sheldrake vs. skeptics. It's about whether Wikipedia is serious about neutral articles based on reliable secondary sources. I show that in at least two cases, both having to do with science, administration is not only corrupt but incapable of recognizing its corruption. If anyone here feels I haven't succeeded in making this point or that I could be more clear or less wordy or what have you, I'm all ears.

Thanks for giving it a go.

[Alfonzo Green]

As a fellow banned editor I also welcome you to this site and look forward to reading about your experiences with Wikipedia.

Thank you

[Kelly Martin]

My critique demonstrates that Wikipedia administration is willing to violate policy in order to maintain biased articles. Isn't that reason enough to bring it to your attention?

What makes it a useful critique is the depth of detail. Everything relevant is there, and it's all linked, including the one you supplied in your previous post. If it seems like too much, skip ahead to "Enter the Ideologues." I only included the opening, which mentions Blippy and AndyTheGrump, so as to indicate a pattern of abuse beyond the case study.

I didn't start this thread to rehash Sheldrake vs. skeptics. It's about whether Wikipedia is serious about neutral articles based on reliable secondary sources. I show that in at least two cases, both having to do with science, administration is not only corrupt but incapable of recognizing its corruption. If anyone here feels I haven't succeeded in making this point or that I could be more clear or less wordy or what have you, I'm all ears.

I've been saying everything above for eight years now. But your blog post, based on my brief skim, isn't about the structural issues, it's about how you lost because your point of view is inconsistent with Wikipedia's house point of view. The "depth of detail" actually makes it boring and tedious. Who is the intended audience for this article?

Fundamentally this dispute is essentially the same as any number of basically identical disputes that have been had over the past decade on any and every issue that the militant Internet skeptics care about. They've owned those articles on Wikipedia for a long time, and will pull out every stop to keep those articles bent the way they want. If you wanted to write an interesting article in this area, you could talk about the interlocking between militant skeptics, climate change warriors, and anti-creationist advocates, and how mostly single-issue editors in each of these groups aid one another in their respective battlefields.

[Randy from Boise]

Fundamentally this dispute is essentially the same as any number of basically identical disputes that have been had over the past decade on any and every issue that the militant Internet skeptics care about. They've owned those articles on Wikipedia for a long time, and will pull out every stop to keep those articles bent the way they want. If you wanted to write an interesting article in this area, you could talk about the interlocking between militant skeptics, climate change warriors, and anti-creationist advocates, and how mostly single-issue editors in each of these groups aid one another in their respective battlefields.

That is to say: those who believe in science and the scientific method will consistently defend across a broad spectrum of subtopics sourced, factual, reality-based content against those seeking to install content based upon faith-based reasoning and magical thinking.

RfB

[eagle]

The blog post concludes:

Wikipedia is toxic with taboo, conformity, demonization, projection and the anal-retentive need to provide an image of order and cleanliness even if the result is inaccuracy and alienation. Given the fear-driven hostility permeating the project, it's no surprise that not a single administrator has stepped forward to denounce the ongoing witch hunt against defenders of reason and neutrality in the Sheldrake dispute.

At bottom Wikipedia is an elaborate, self-operated torture device. Knowledgeable people who invest significant time clarifying controversial issues are liable to see their work deleted by ignorant ideologues who then attack them both on talk pages and noticeboards. To get an idea of just how hellish it is down there, check out the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, 837 interminable pages of complaints and counterattacks, an endless war made inevitable by a capricious and unreliable administration that rewards subservience and punishes dedication to accuracy. In such a pathological environment, the only option is to go nuclear, to relentlessly attack until exhausted editors either give up or get forced out by complicit administrators.

The problem is that many people approach Wikipedia as a big game to see who can gain political power in the process of voting content creators off-the-island. If every new editor had to read the above two paragraphs and sign an informed consent to being mistreated, then nobody would edit Wikipedia (except perhaps paid PR types.)

[Flameau]

That whole comment implies that it is purposely toxic and its not ignorance or poor management. People in places of power on Wikipedia are rarely trained or capable of management - those that are seem overwhelmed by all the work that gets heaped upon them. Willingly at first, but they cannot easily walk away from it at later dates. ANI is a record of issues, but nearly 80% of them are not solved there and the issue continues to fester.

[Kelly Martin]

That whole comment implies that it is purposely toxic

Wikipedia is purposefully toxic. Not by design, of course, but once the environment became toxic, people who thrive on such toxicity came to relish it and now take steps to keep it that way.

[Kumioko]

That whole comment implies that it is purposely toxic

Wikipedia is purposefully toxic. Not by design, of course, but once the environment became toxic, people who thrive on such toxicity came to relish it and now take steps to keep it that way.

I completely agree and unfortunately many or most of those in the positions to change it do not want too because that toxic environment and out of the muck is where they came from. They have the power and they aren't about to give it up. Many are willing to violate any policy that keeps them from achieving their goals/POV and unfortunately admins are generally exempt from policy. Especially if they are in positions like Arbcom. There is literally no one outside that that performs any oversight so once they have climbed to the top of the dung heap, there is no way to get them down. I am generally not in favor of the WMF stepping in because traditionally they don't know what they are doing and everything they touch turns to crap. But in this case, there really needs to be some intervention by the WMF to undo the toxicity and general assholmanship that is shown all over Wikipedia on a daily basis.

[Alfonzo Green]

If you wanted to write an interesting article in this area, you could talk about the interlocking between militant skeptics, climate change warriors, and anti-creationist advocates, and how mostly single-issue editors in each of these groups aid one another in their respective battlefields.

If that's the article you want to read, perhaps you should write it. Feel free to use my article as a source.

[Alfonzo Green]

those who believe in science and the scientific method will consistently defend across a broad spectrum of subtopics sourced, factual, reality-based content against those seeking to install content based upon faith-based reasoning and magical thinking.

I take it you haven't read the article. What I show is that factual content from reliable secondary sources is rejected in favor of the personal biases of editors with the backing of corrupt administrators.

[AndyTheGrump]

No. What you show is that Wikipedia prevented you from using it to promote delusional claptrap.

As for 'corruption', I suggest anyone interested in the subject looks into the long and murky past of Blacklight Power. Endless 'investment opportunities', endless hype, and no power. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Incidentally, I note that Alfonzo Green refers to 'Blippy' in the third person. Can I ask why?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Rupert Sheldrake (T-H-L) and his Beliebers should be happy that his morphogenic field (T-H-L)s appeared in Dr. Who (T-H-L) & Torchwood (T-H-L).

The suppression of pseudoscience is one of the successes of Wikipedia. Andy the Grump (T-C-L) & Carrite (T-C-L) are others.

[Kumioko]

No. What you show is that Wikipedia prevented you from using it to promote delusional claptrap.

As for 'corruption', I suggest anyone interested in the subject looks into the long and murky past of Blacklight Power. Endless 'investment opportunities', endless hype, and no power. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Incidentally, I note that Alfonzo Green refers to 'Blippy' in the third person. Can I ask why?

Although I have mixed feelings about the whole Rupert Sheldrake incident one thing is without question IMO. There is a sizable number of abusive admins on Wikipedia and the Wikipedia leadership (The WMF, the arbcom and other admins) continue to ignore the problem. They either claim there is none which is straight horseshit or there is nothing they can do. Sure there is something you can do enforce policy evenly and stop exempting admins from it! When an admin issues a legal threat such as the one directed towards me from both AGK and Newyorkbrad, they should be blocked at minimum. When an admin is found to have used the tools abusively, which happens frequently in edit wars and the like, they need to be at least blocked if not desysopped (at least temporarily). If an admin violates a policy that would under normal circumstances be used as a reason to not give someone the tools, then they should lose access to the tools. Arbs and admins should also not be telling editors to Fuck off or Fuck you. There are way better ways to vent frustration and solve the problems.

But instead, people come up with excuses about how they didn't really violate policy or that its so hard to get the tools we don't want to loose a "good" admin. All bullshit. If they violate policy, they need to be held accountable.

[AndyTheGrump]

Kumioko, this thread isn't about you.

[Kumioko]

Kumioko, this thread isn't about you.

Yes I know and I also know you voted to ban me from Wikipedia. I was merely using my situation as a reference. If it wasn't for you and your bully buddies I wouldn't be banned and I wouldn't be talking about my situation at all.

[Alfonzo Green]

No. What you show is that Wikipedia prevented you from using it to promote delusional claptrap.

I got topic banned for adding the word "biologist" to the opening sentence of the Sheldrake biography, along with four citations to articles in the New York Times referring to him as a biologist. Are you saying that the standard depiction of Sheldrake in reliable secondary sources, including peer reviewed journals and academic texts, is "delusional claptrap?" Clearly you're placing your POV above source material.

As for 'corruption', I suggest anyone interested in the subject looks into the long and murky past of Blacklight Power. Endless 'investment opportunities', endless hype, and no power. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

I share your skepticism in BlackLight Power. According to the Village Voice, however, some physicists think the BlackLight technology is worth further investigation. You and other editors blocked this information from the BlackLight entry, thereby suppressing science on Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I note that Alfonzo Green refers to 'Blippy' in the third person. Can I ask why?

This comment indicates paranoia. Sorry, Grumpy, but there's no evil mastermind posing as different editors in order to subvert Wikipedia. Blippy and I and many others are trying to defend the spirit of free inquiry that characterizes science and sets it apart from religion.

[Alfonzo Green]

The suppression of pseudoscience is one of the successes of Wikipedia.

The reaction against pseudoscience has metastasized into the suppression of any scientific proposal that's ever been characterized as pseudoscience, whether or not this characterization has any validity. In this sort of atmosphere, any theorist who doesn't conform is instantly suspect.

[Kumioko]

The suppression of pseudoscience is one of the successes of Wikipedia.

The reaction against pseudoscience has metastasized into the suppression of any scientific proposal that's ever been characterized as pseudoscience, whether or not this characterization has any validity. In this sort of atmosphere, any theorist who doesn't conform is instantly suspect.

It wasn't so long ago that much of the scientific community viewed Epigenetics with a pseudosciencesque mentality and now look at it go. One thing we know of science is that todays pseudoscience is tomorrows cutting edge theory....and as it turns out the world isn't flat as some once thought.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The suppression of pseudoscience is one of the successes of Wikipedia.

The reaction against pseudoscience has metastasized into the suppression of any scientific proposal that's ever been characterized as pseudoscience, whether or not this characterization has any validity. In this sort of atmosphere, any theorist who doesn't conform is instantly suspect.

It wasn't so long ago that much of the scientific community viewed Epigenetics with a pseudosciencesque mentality and now look at it go. One thing we know of science is that todays pseudoscience is tomorrows cutting edge theory....and as it turns out the world isn't flat as some once thought.

Alfonso Green,
Brush up on "any", for starters. Presumably you intended "some" or "many" or perhaps "most"....


Kumioko,

There are methodological problems inherent in epidemiology and particularly in epigenetics, but nobody denies successes, e.g. the role of niacin in neural tube defects in epidemiology and BCRA in epigenetics.

Once a gene has been located as likely responsible for a disease, one can do experiments with animal models and evaluate the causal influence of the gene on the condition. Epigenetic research is unlikely to result in direct cures, but it has suggested better understanding of disease mechanisms and biological processes.

Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have weaker ties to experimentation or making predictions.

[Kumioko]

Also take a look at the Tale of 2 mice where the 2 mice are genetically identical but changes in their epigenetic structure make them look much different.

And your right they do now, but at some point in the future they might find links. I'm not saying I agree with arguments on either side. What I am saying is those arguments should be allowed to be stated. The problem is that Wikipedia and its community have gotten to the point where any views that are non christian or non mainstream are treated with contempt and editors interested in those areas are run off. Wikipedia should be about all knowledge, not just what we as individuals personally beleive.

[Randy from Boise]

For the record: I speak in generalities about Wikipedia content parameters above and have no knowledge or information about the technology or scientific claims advanced by BlackLight Power or any other entity.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

those who believe in science and the scientific method will consistently defend across a broad spectrum of subtopics sourced, factual, reality-based content against those seeking to install content based upon faith-based reasoning and magical thinking.

I take it you haven't read the article. What I show is that factual content from reliable secondary sources is rejected in favor of the personal biases of editors with the backing of corrupt administrators.

Correct, I haven't read it. I speak in generalities.

RfB