Nasty little Wikipedians

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528037876

That's right, let's go back and paste some nasty tags on the user pages of a non-person, for some supposed breach of something. What on earth does this have to do with building a comprehensive and reliable reference work?

[Randy from Boise]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528037876

That's right, let's go back and paste some nasty tags on the user pages of a non-person, for some supposed breach of something. What on earth does this have to do with building a comprehensive and reliable reference work?

Did you attempt to "build a comprehensive and reliable reference work" with your unauthorized editing using other account names? That's the big question. If yes, my sympathies lie on one side, if no another.

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

RfB

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528037876

That's right, let's go back and paste some nasty tags on the user pages of a non-person, for some supposed breach of something. What on earth does this have to do with building a comprehensive and reliable reference work?

Did you attempt to "build a comprehensive and reliable reference work" with your unauthorized editing using other account names? That's the big question. If yes, my sympathies lie on one side, if no another.

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

RfB

I've always been honest about the socks - the current block was the result of telling someone about it, after which they ran to an admin to make the block. For that, I have been accused of 'boasting', of course.

On your other question, most of the articles listed here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian were written by socks. Stupid, I know. When I see an article with really serious errors in it, I try and ignore them. Then I think about all the students reading that stuff and I sometimes do something about it. I was raised to regard education and enlightenment as something sacred, and much of my professional life has been devoted to that. Stupid, I know, but difficult.

[DanMurphy]

What a little mouthbreather "beeblebrox is:

Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Hestiaea (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Block evasion: banned user sock, no need to give them a forum for their anti-WP rantings)

Hey "Beeblebrox" you ignorant buffoon. Intelligent professionals who express disagreement aren't "ranting." I've been interacting with Edward for some time now, and I've never seen anything remotely approaching a "rant." I know the difference since I am prone to the occasional rant myself.

You probably know the difference and are just a shameless liar, getting your extra little dig in on Edward's latest scarlet letter, a dropping left behind for other hall monitors that "this 'un is a ranter, execute with extreme prejudice."

Shitheel.

[DanMurphy]

And now something on topic for Wikipedians to chew on. I went to Edward/Peter's list of articles he's created. A title intrigued me. I read it -- clear, lucid, and written by someone I know is a professional. My first instinct was to come here and say "Hey, Edward, really nice article." But then I realized that if an article has been largely unmolested by the average Wikipedia editor for years now, the absolute worst thing I could do would be to risk calling Wikipedian attention to it (since it would accelerate its degradation into something unreadable, with heavy doses of banal and crazy sprinkled throughout).

[roger_pearse]

When I see an article with really serious errors in it, I try and ignore them. Then I think about all the students reading that stuff and I sometimes do something about it. I was raised to regard education and enlightenment as something sacred, and much of my professional life has been devoted to that. Stupid, I know, but difficult.

Me too. Unfortunately Wikipedia is run (for all practical purposes) by people who feel the opposite.

Considering that Wikipedia is designed to be compulsive, it seems curious that Wikipedia-fans jeer at those who find themselves, erm, compelled. But they do...

[lilburne]

(since it would accelerate its degradation into something unreadable, with heavy doses of banal and crazy sprinkled throughout).

No point in whistling up the dogs.

[TungstenCarbide]

Did you attempt to "build a comprehensive and reliable reference work" with your unauthorized editing using other account names? That's the big question. If yes, my sympathies lie on one side, if no another.

He was an exemplary editor for years before being blocked for absolute bullshit. Didn't you know that, Randy?

[Randy from Boise]

Did you attempt to "build a comprehensive and reliable reference work" with your unauthorized editing using other account names? That's the big question. If yes, my sympathies lie on one side, if no another.

He was an exemplary editor for years before being blocked for absolute bullshit. Didn't you know that, Randy?

Nah, I don't know too many personal histories here.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

He was an exemplary editor for years before being blocked for absolute bullshit. Didn't you know that, Randy?

Nah, I don't know too many personal histories here.

And yet, you've got plenty of "opinions" about them, and are willing to post such opinions before performing any fact-checking.

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

Who the hell are you talking about? PD is not an "administrator" on Wikipediocracy. If you're talking about the book wiki, it's private, so
calling it a "criticism site" is a bit absurd. Especially since you've never seen the content of the site.

[Notvelty]

Did you attempt to "build a comprehensive and reliable reference work" with your unauthorized editing using other account names? That's the big question. If yes, my sympathies lie on one side, if no another.

He was an exemplary editor for years before being blocked for absolute bullshit. Didn't you know that, Randy?

Nah, I don't know too many personal histories here.

RfB

'tis funny. I could have sworn you've pontificated extensively on account history when you think it suits you. Indeed, one wonders wtf your first comment to this thread was if it wasn't a failed attempt to gain some bullshit wikipediot highground by alluding to Edward's account history.

[Zoloft]

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

*cleans under fingernails with knife*

You gots some problem wit da admins?

[DanMurphy]

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

You idiot. We are too smart here for this false equivalency BS tactic. This web forum for exchange of opinions largely around criticism of Wikipedia does not pretend to be anything other than that. We are not pretending to be an encyclopedia-type thingy. We do not believe we're involved in some grand, transformational experiment and claim that it is built around radical transparency and radical openness to participation (this is the big lie that Wikipedia has sold to people; most here know better).

[Peter Damian]

One of the arbitrators actually contacted me about this, and pointed out that I had been 'socking to avoid a ban'. And at this point I realised I was in one of those situations such as in a job interview where you cannot say anything natural or commonsensical that conflicts with what you are supposed to say.

1. The natural thing to say is that avoiding a ban is not a big deal. The underlying principle of Wikipedia is that 'anyone can edit', and the software is specifically designed to make it easy. You create an account, or hit the edit button as an IP, and off you go. But you can't say that. You can't possibly say to the important arbitration committee that avoiding a ban is really not a big deal.

2. Or you could point out that everyone socks on Wikipedia, because of the ease and simplicity of it. It's almost expected, and indeed, when I recently attended a meeting, an administrator expressed surprise that I wasn't socking. Really? Surely you are? But of course you can't say that to a committee, which is charged with upholding the sacredness of Wikiepedia process, for that would imply they are not doing their job properly.

3. Or you could say that the ban was unfair and absurd, and there is nothing wrong with evading something that is unfair and absurd. But that would impluy either the 'community' was wrong in imposing the ban or (if an Arbcom ban) it was the fault of the committee. So you can't say that either.

4. Or finally the last resort, you could point out that you are a specialist in a subject where specialists are hard to find, and that the articles connected with your specialism are in a dire state. But this of course will go nowhere. The Committee does not have any responsibility for content.

So you are left with a situation that everyone agrees is absurd, even individual members of the committee, but it is an absurdity which cannot be articulated, for fear of revealing it for what it is.

[Peter Damian]

One of the arbitrators actually contacted me about this, and pointed out that I had been 'socking to avoid a ban'. And at this point I realised I was in one of those situations such as in a job interview where you cannot say anything natural or commonsensical that conflicts with what you are supposed to say.

1. The natural thing to say is that avoiding a ban is not a big deal. The underlying principle of Wikipedia is that 'anyone can edit', and the software is specifically designed to make it easy. You create an account, or hit the edit button as an IP, and off you go. But you can't say that. You can't possibly say to the important arbitration committee that avoiding a ban is really not a big deal.

2. Or you could point out that everyone socks on Wikipedia, because of the ease and simplicity of it. It's almost expected, and indeed, when I recently attended a meeting, an administrator expressed surprise that I wasn't socking. Really? Surely you are? But of course you can't say that to a committee, which is charged with upholding the sacredness of Wikiepedia process, for that would imply they are not doing their job properly.

3. Or you could say that the ban was unfair and absurd, and there is nothing wrong with evading something that is unfair and absurd. But that would impluy either the 'community' was wrong in imposing the ban or (if an Arbcom ban) it was the fault of the committee. So you can't say that either.

4. Or finally the last resort, you could point out that you are a specialist in a subject where specialists are hard to find, and that the articles connected with your specialism are in a dire state. But this of course will go nowhere. The Committee does not have any responsibility for content.

So you are left with a situation that everyone agrees is absurd, even individual members of the committee, but it is an absurdity which cannot be articulated, for fear of revealing it for what it is.

As if to prove my point (see (4) above) someone closely connected with the Arbcom wrote saying "Talking about the work you have done on the project won't help your case in their eyes - they'll see your explanation as "this is what I added to Wikipedia when I shouldn't have been adding anything at all"." I replied saying that it was surreal, and they wrote back agreeing that it was indeed surreal.

Of course: in these situations where what you are supposed to say conflicts with anything natural or commonsensical, probably everyone involved understands the unreality of it. But you are not locked into a sort of game from which no one can escape. Another of my correspondents calls it 'social gridlock'.

[Randy from Boise]

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

You idiot. We are too smart here for this false equivalency BS tactic. This web forum for exchange of opinions largely around criticism of Wikipedia does not pretend to be anything other than that. We are not pretending to be an encyclopedia-type thingy. We do not believe we're involved in some grand, transformational experiment and claim that it is built around radical transparency and radical openness to participation (this is the big lie that Wikipedia has sold to people; most here know better).

Banjo players should not pretend they hate bluegrass music. Either give up the banjo or drop the pretense.

Revision Deletion in all save the most flagrant cases of libel is bad medicine. It enables backstage shenanigans... Don't do it and don't cause it to be done.

RfB

[Zoloft]

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

You idiot. We are too smart here for this false equivalency BS tactic. This web forum for exchange of opinions largely around criticism of Wikipedia does not pretend to be anything other than that. We are not pretending to be an encyclopedia-type thingy. We do not believe we're involved in some grand, transformational experiment and claim that it is built around radical transparency and radical openness to participation (this is the big lie that Wikipedia has sold to people; most here know better).

Banjo players should not pretend they hate bluegrass music. Either give up the banjo or drop the pretense.

Revision Deletion in all save the most flagrant cases of libel is bad medicine. It enables backstage shenanigans... Don't do it and don't cause it to be done.

RfB

I'm channeling 'Clippy' from Microsoft Office here:
"Hi! You seem to be trying to make a point on an Internet forum. What the fuck are you getting at?"

[Peter Damian]

Additionally, it does seem a bit........ contradictory........ for a key administrator at a criticism site which is constantly on about WP administrators flushing historical evidence down the memory hole with revision deletion, courtesy blanking, and clean starts to make use of a similar sort of thing when the need suited. Any explanation of that?

You idiot. We are too smart here for this false equivalency BS tactic. This web forum for exchange of opinions largely around criticism of Wikipedia does not pretend to be anything other than that. We are not pretending to be an encyclopedia-type thingy. We do not believe we're involved in some grand, transformational experiment and claim that it is built around radical transparency and radical openness to participation (this is the big lie that Wikipedia has sold to people; most here know better).

Banjo players should not pretend they hate bluegrass music. Either give up the banjo or drop the pretense.

Revision Deletion in all save the most flagrant cases of libel is bad medicine. It enables backstage shenanigans... Don't do it and don't cause it to be done.

RfB

Yes what exactly are you getting at? My complaint about Wikipedia is the way it puts those 'BANNED EDITOR' icons on the user pages of those who fell out of favour with the administration. I managed to get them removed. Nothing has been deleted. I suppose if this had been Germany in the 1930s and I had managed to get those yellow stars erased from my shop front, people like you would be crying censorship or whatever.

Or are you referring to stuff that's supposed to be going on here? If so, what?

[roger_pearse]

My complaint about Wikipedia is the way it puts those 'BANNED EDITOR' icons on the user pages of those who fell out of favour with the administration. .... Germany in the 1930s and I had managed to get those yellow stars erased from my shop front...

Yes, just why DOES there need to be something of that kind published on a banned user account? It amounts to publishing an allegation about someone, after a less than judicial-standard process, on the world's major internet site. And ... isn't this liable to be defamatory? To be something that injures the reputation of real people?

It must be one of the major reasons why editing Wikipedia under your own name is a mistake; you're basically placing your reputation in the hands of a bunch of anonymous malicious kiddies. Any one of them can do you serious long-term harm, and what recourse do you have other than to involve lawyers?

What does anyone gain from this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[dogbiscuit]

Yes, just why DOES there need to be something of that kind published on a banned user account? It amounts to publishing an allegation about someone, after a less than judicial-standard process, on the world's major internet site. And ... isn't this liable to be defamatory? To be something that injures the reputation of real people?

In moments of sanity, Wikipedians have recognised the defamatory nature of those notices, but that does not stop the likes of Prioryman using the principle of being banned to suggest that the banned are major criminals who should be shot on sight and are dangerous individuals in real life. The user page is the tip of the iceberg of Wikipedian insanity.

[roger_pearse]

Yes, just why DOES there need to be something of that kind published on a banned user account? It amounts to publishing an allegation about someone, after a less than judicial-standard process, on the world's major internet site. And ... isn't this liable to be defamatory? To be something that injures the reputation of real people?

In moments of sanity, Wikipedians have recognised the defamatory nature of those notices, but that does not stop the likes of Prioryman using the principle of being banned to suggest that the banned are major criminals who should be shot on sight and are dangerous individuals in real life. The user page is the tip of the iceberg of Wikipedian insanity.

I've seen the same. Every troll does that sort of thing.

If any of us had any access to the courts, and could afford it, I imagine that a couple of libel actions would deal with this sort of abuse rather promptly. If only. It makes you realise why statutory online regulation is inevitable. (And I don't much like the idea of it, because of what it will entail; but what else can possibly happen?)

[dogbiscuit]

If any of us had any access to the courts, and could afford it, I imagine that a couple of libel actions would deal with this sort of abuse rather promptly. If only. It makes you realise why statutory online regulation is inevitable. (And I don't much like the idea of it, because of what it will entail; but what else can possibly happen?)

The Web Elite would have it that the Web is their personal fiefdom and the Ignoranti that are the General Pulbic only have themselves to blame for using the Internet. Slowly, the world is coming to understand that the Net is not a separate world and as Governments have signed up wholesale to reliance on the Internet, it also becomes their responsibility to make it safe for citizens.

In the real world, there is protection from the typical day to day activities of the web:

- if a conman knocks on your door in real life, you report them to the police. On the Internet you get told you are stupid for falling for these obvious scams, and when you suggest that enablers should be blocked, you get the shrug of "The Internet would route around such foolish notions."

- If someone went into your property and put up adverts, if they were persistent, you'd have the support of the police or local councils to resolve the problem, yet on the Internet, there is a whole industry devoted to invading other people's web property to spam links for products.

- If you spoke in public like people do on the Internet, the chances are you'd be arrested for a variety of different offences.

- Promoting paedophilia would see you at best arrested, probably for your own safety.

Although the likes of Wales are trying to fight a campaign against control on the Internet, the reality is that people like him have made it inevitable as they cannot grasp that the Wild West attitudes have to end. The technocracy do not have a right to dictate the use of the Internet, and for it to be a place for day to day activities it has to be brought under the control of law, where the law is based on the general public's perception of what is appropriate behaviour. That they do not understand why it is not governed appropriately (and generally assume that magically it is) is not an excuse to do nothing to resolve the situation.

Myself, I'd prefer a two tier Net - a protected level where to gain access ISPs take a strong responsibility for management and reject communication with any ISPs that are not prepared to control reported misdeeds. You then let the nutters have free access to everything else, but that will whither away as the main ISPs refuse to allow their communications to be used for copyright theft and criminal behaviour, and the nonconformist ISPs discover that they simply cannot fund the bandwidth from people who are not prepared to pay for their basement oriented entertainment (it's a fair assumption that the general public are funding the bandwidth requirements of the Pirate Bay generation), and the spammers have a much reduced target audience.

[The Joy]

Would a kind Wikipedian at least NOINDEX Peter's userpages and alternate accounts? That would be a step in the right direction.

[roger_pearse]

If any of us had any access to the courts, and could afford it, I imagine that a couple of libel actions would deal with this sort of abuse rather promptly. If only. It makes you realise why statutory online regulation is inevitable. (And I don't much like the idea of it, because of what it will entail; but what else can possibly happen?)

The Web Elite would have it that the Web is their personal fiefdom and the Ignoranti that are the General Pulbic only have themselves to blame for using the Internet. Slowly, the world is coming to understand that the Net is not a separate world and as Governments have signed up wholesale to reliance on the Internet, it also becomes their responsibility to make it safe for citizens....

All true, of course.

But remember that we can't trust our rulers, who will happily "protect us" from knowing about their misdeeds, and are entirely comfortable with censorship by intimidation of opinions that they do not share. This is the age of political correctness, you know, not one of freedom of expression. If the establishment ever decides to endorse (e.g.) paedophilia, we may be sure that their first step will be to create a climate in which it cannot be criticised, and in which doing so is branded as "hate", can be reported to the police, is grounds for dismissal, etc. We may agree with some such positions, and disagree with others; but we see every day that every special interest group today scrambles to be awarded this privileged status, and with them the power to shut down any criticism of themselves. Indeed once they have this power, they can send agents provocateurs to "detect Wrong Thinking" and denounce their victims to the police, and thereby subject them to months and years of misery and official harassment in the guise of "investigation". And some of the worst groups have done just this, and the others probably could. Who can doubt that such agitators will do exactly the same on the web, just as soon as they possibly can?

(I don't belong to ANY of the privileged groups, so pardon my annoyance at being told what I may or may not say about these people)

Quite what the answer is I do not know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[dogbiscuit]

But remember that we can't trust our rulers, who will happily "protect us" from knowing about their misdeeds, and are entirely comfortable with censorship by intimidation of opinions that they do not share.

...

Quite what the answer is I do not know.

The trouble with that thinking is that it hands power to the other lot, which is the likes of the NRA who apparently would rather us see school children shot on a regular basis to empower an armed revolution against a corrupt government. I've gone full circle, and although I see western government becoming more corrupt over time, I trust the other lot far less. The results of the mistrust of power are people like the mother of a child dying of cancer who has fought a long battle to stop her child being treated because she believes that there is some unknown alternative treatment that has to be better than the conventional treatment. As the judge put it, to have an argument about quality of life, you first have to have a life.

Unfortunately, the main driver of corruption of government is this modern belief in the businessman being the only rational human being (we heard that line in the American Presidential Election) - that we only need government by economics and all else is secondary. When we return to a more reasoned approach to government that actually considers governing for the people rather than this nonsense about governing for business so that somehow individuals get a better life through enslavement to business then we can move forward.

However, it is nonsensical to consider regulation by elected governments to be a worse option than de facto control by criminal gangs and loony freedom fighters and Jimbo Wales and his mates.