Wikipediocracy

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:An administrator named Bbb23 (T-C-L) just blocked me for 24 hours for "edit-warring" on Wikipediocracy (T-H-L).

and unblocked.

EricBarbour wrote:I suspected that would happen. Far as I can tell, DYK is only closely watched by one type of person:
WP editors trying to get their bloody articles mentioned on DYK.

Please keep in mind, most of Wikipedia's actual consumers of information find their way to a WP article
via Google or other search engines, or WP's own search function. (Wales was once quoted that "60 to 70%' of
Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google.) Despite the page-view statistics, not many people look at the
front page closely -- except Wikipedians.

We have discussed this before, and I noted then that the main page gets a massive number of views every day. On June 22, when this entry appeared, it got 9 million views. While the vast majority get to Wikipedia from searches, people do go to the main page and browse, but there are a lot of links to check out so viewing traffic gets dispersed among many entries. Viewing traffic of specific pages doesn't even tell the whole story. That primarily gauges click-through-rate, rather than total viewing exposure as not everyone is going to click the link.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:An administrator named Bbb23 (T-C-L) just blocked me for 24 hours for "edit-warring" on Wikipediocracy (T-H-L).

Interesting that Orlady would stick her face into that discussion. She might be the subject of a very detailed blog post on Wikipediocracy one day.

I should add that the DYK of Wikipediocracy also led to Gregory Kohs (T-H-L) getting 57 page views that day, compared to its normal trend of 3 to 10 views per day.

Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.

I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."

dogbiscuit wrote:Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.

I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."

There was no sourcing on the origins of Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) the last time I checked.

A reputable journalist would need at least two sources, at least one from Selina and at least one from here, giving the same account of the formation of Wikipediocracy, for presenting an unattributed NPOV history of the site's formation. Otherwise, attributions for accounts would be given.

NewYorkBrad (T-C-L) pulled "common knowledge" out of his ass, and stuck his vacuous "history" at the top of the body of the article. If this is his article writing, NYB should stick to anodyne ArbCom discussions, providing dispensations for prodigal administrators/bureaucrats who are getting criticized by their peers, and kvetching on my talk page about my response to Paulno94 (T-C-L)'s "get your knickers twisted".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote:Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.

I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."

There was no sourcing on the origins of Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) the last time I checked.

A reputable journalist would need at least two sources, at least one from Selina and at least one from here, giving the same account of the formation of Wikipediocracy, for presenting an unattributed NPOV history of the site's formation. Otherwise, attributions for accounts would be given.

NewYorkBrad (T-C-L) pulled "common knowledge" out of his ass, and stuck his vacuous "history" at the top of the body of the article. If this is his article writing, NYB should stick to anodyne ArbCom discussions, providing dispensations for prodigal administrators/bureaucrats who are getting criticized by their peers, and kvetching on my talk page about my response to Paulno94 (T-C-L)'s "get your knickers twisted".

You've got some busted links there for NYB and Paulno94.

In article news, it looks like some people are trying for a third byte at the apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... omination)

Talking of busted links, the auto-linker here apparently breaks on closing parentheses, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)
That's the second time recently that I've successfully watchlisted an article before it existed. People are so predictable.

Hex wrote:Talking of busted links, the auto-linker here apparently breaks on closing parentheses, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)
That's the second time recently that I've successfully watchlisted an article before it existed. People are so predictable.

Thanks for the help.
I can only laugh at myself for noting two broken links and then inserting one of my own.

Vigilant wrote:I can only laugh at myself for noting two broken links and then inserting one of my own.

Life's no fun if we can't laugh at ourselves sometimes.

Convenience link for next month.

Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summary

Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)

then begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)

give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this

I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?

Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summary

Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)

then begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)

give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this

I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?

Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.

You have attempted to extend WP:AGF (T-H-L). A fatal error has occurred. Please report this error.

<!-- *not an actual system error* -->

What is the actual complaint? Haven't had time to read it fully yet, but in skimming the bloog there seems to be no speculation on real-life identity, so the "outing" stuff that got Cla68 in trouble regarding Russavia's blog entry isn't an issue.

Tarc wrote:What is the actual complaint? Haven't had time to read it fully yet, but in skimming the bloog there seems to be no speculation on real-life identity, so the "outing" stuff that got Cla68 in trouble regarding Russavia's blog entry isn't an issue.

Weller had an uncanny performance as Robocop (T-H-L), so perhaps he is again under the control of a mysterious directive. The existence of a WP "Directive Four"---prohibiting the blocking of an administrator or arbitrator---would explain a lot of behavior, which now appears to be cowardice or hypocrisy.

Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.

This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.

Tarc wrote:Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.

This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.

Tarc, I'm curious about your comment here. Wasn't there already a community-wide discussion about this question in the context of the blog post about Russavia, and the community decided that having links to Wikipediocracy was allowed? What sort of larger discussion do you think is needed that hasn't already happened a few months ago?

Captain Occam wrote:

Tarc wrote:Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.

This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.

Tarc, I'm curious about your comment here. Wasn't there already a community-wide discussion about this question in the context of the blog post about Russavia, and the community decided that having links to Wikipediocracy was allowed? What sort of larger discussion do you think is needed that hasn't already happened a few months ago?

IMO they simply decided that running straight to the spam blacklist was an abuse of process, I don't think the underlying issue was ever addressed. My point today was that this should be settled fo' realz one way or the other, so we don't have another admin doing another revert and protect the next time Barbour goes on a blog vendetta.

If someone is worth writing about, they're worth writing about thoroughly. So even though I still don't really get the point of this particular article, there is nothing wrong with saying "Mathsci" = Antony Wasserman, particularly since he's been adding his own personal work, under his own name, via the Mathsci handle to Wikipedia.

The insane, childlike reaction to this is once more instructive. How many links are in Wikipedia articles to "unreliable" sources that deliberately and falsely malign the article subjects? Thousands, at least. This link is just to a website that says, accurately, that A=B - but it involves one of the elect, so different rules apply.

Tarc wrote:IMO they simply decided that running straight to the spam blacklist was an abuse of process, I don't think the underlying issue was ever addressed. My point today was that this should be settled fo' realz one way or the other, so we don't have another admin doing another revert and protect the next time Barbour goes on a blog vendetta.

EricBarbour told me a few days ago that Cla68 wants to make an arbitration request about some of the issues covered by this blog post, as well as about some of the additional details that the blog post wasn't able to cover because of space constraints. If the place where you were thinking of having this discussion is ArbCom, you might want to first ask Cla68 about the request he was planning to make, in case you and he want to combine them. I imagine they'd cover a lot of the same territory.

I look forward to adding the hivemind as a reference to a suitable article.

Vigilant wrote:I look forward to adding the hivemind as a reference to a suitable article.

It'll be a frosty afternoon in the devil's abode before that dickbag's blog ever graces the Wikipedia, I'll see to that one myself.

Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.

Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.

Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.

Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.

Think I'll go back to bed now.

EricBarbour wrote:

Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.

Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.

Think I'll go back to bed now.

Wake up when its all over?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summary

Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)

then begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)

give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this

I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?

Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.

Dougweller removed the protection, expressing surprise that no administrator had removed it, despite his having given his approval hours before.

I'm guessing that arbitrator Salvio_giuliano (T-C-L) will not come apologizing for indulging his authoritarian impulses (again). Salvio removed my request for administrative assistance, hatted the ongoing discussion (against close policy), and then threatened to block me if I restored the request. No wonder it took Weller himself to remove the protection template.

Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.

Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.

Why not both?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I'm guessing that arbitrator Salvio_giuliano (T-C-L) will not come apologizing for indulging his authoritarian impulses (again). Salvio removed my request for administrative assistance, hatted the ongoing discussion (against close policy), and then threatened to block me if I restored the request. No wonder it took Weller himself to remove the protection template.

(again) ? is this type of action common with this user?

I see that although Dougweller's protection is removed, nobody's yet attempted to add back the link to Wikipediocracy in the article about it. Is anyone courageous enough to try that? The poll on the article talk page has already reached a consensus that the link should be there, so no admin who respects the community's decision-making process should be able to stop someone from re-adding it.

Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?

.... aaaand, reverted by Mathsci himself.

Ming wrote:Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?

Drama God is Pleased!

Ming wrote:Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?

.... aaaand, reverted by Mathsci himself.

01:20, 3 July 2013‎ Mathsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,510 bytes) (-100)‎ . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)

EricBarbour wrote:

Ming wrote:Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?

.... aaaand, reverted by Mathsci himself.

01:20, 3 July 2013‎ Mathsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,510 bytes) (-100)‎ . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)

They love you, Eric.

Just wanted you to know...

that in those cases and situations where I have supported you, it's only been because you've been correct in your conclusions, and because the behavior you've pointed out is, in my own personal evaluation, damaging to this project. E. A. Barbour's speculation that I have done so because we are fellow Brits would have somewhat more validity were I actually British (American born, bred and resident) - but what can you expect from a fellow whose path to personal fulfillment lies in writing about collecting vacuum tubes?

BTW, if you've been sending out notices about the meetings, I haven't received one lately. I wouldn't want to miss out on ganging up on the next helpless victim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 9:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =562501526

EricBarbour wrote:

Ming wrote:Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?

.... aaaand, reverted by Mathsci himself.

01:20, 3 July 2013‎ Mathsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,510 bytes) (-100)‎ . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)

What, he doesn't give any credit to Echigo mole?

The boy is losing his mind.
Makes me want to make several accounts and stick "Antony John Wassermann is MathSci" in subdirectories.

I wonder which one he is

Second from the left?

I don't feel comfortable with Mathsci getting blocked for removing a link containing personal information about him that isn't vital to the article. Although it is hardly rational for him to react this way when his worst enemies have known his identity for some time without it being a real problem for him and he's been more than happy to relay on-wiki where he plays organ, the street he lives on, and all other manner of personal details, it does concern him so he should be allowed a bit of irrationality on this point. Not to mention that, I mean, most of the people who supported reinstating the link on the talk page are hardly the most objective of people. Of course, my desire would be to say all that to the blocking admin directly on Mathsci's talk page, but that is not allowed there because of da rulz.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Although it is hardly rational for him to react this way when his worst enemies have known his identity for some time without it being a real problem for him and he's been more than happy to relay on-wiki where he plays organ, the street he lives on, and all other manner of personal details, it does concern him so he should be allowed a bit of irrationality on this point.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that Mathsci's opponents have never been given any such allowance. After having a clean block log for six years, the first time TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked after provocation from Mathsci it was for a month, and the second time it was indef. Trevelyan isn't coming back (at least not anytime soon), Akuri isn't coming back, and Deltahedron isn't coming back, but Mathsci will be back tomorrow. Comparatively speaking, I think getting a 24-hour block for making five reverts in two hours is fairly lenient.

I also suspect he'll be unblocked before the 24 hours are up. Every other time he's been blocked, he's been able to find an admin willing to unblock him early.

Vigilant wrote:The boy is losing his mind.
Makes me want to make several accounts and stick "Antony John Wassermann is MathSci" in subdirectories.

I wonder which one he is

Second from the left?

Marta Asaeda, Antony Wassermann, Vaughan Jones, Erik Christensen, Roberto Longo and Adrian Ocneanu (Los Angeles, 2004)
Source: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~shlyakht/ucla ... mages.html

from the book wiki:

More irony: Wassermann is listed as the recipient of a Miller Research Fellowship, in 1986-88. He is even listed in the Wikipedia article "List of Miller Research Fellows (T-H-L)". Wassermann also won a Whitehead Prize (T-H-L) in 1990. Many of his fellow recipients are "notable" enough to have their own Wikipedia biographies -- but Wassermann does not have such a biography.

He is even quoted as an expert in the article Baum-Connes conjecture (T-H-L).

His name was inserted in December 2007 by a very obscure editor named Wurzel33. One of my candidates for a Mathsci sock.

If he's not careful, he's gonna be "notable" soon......

Vigilant wrote:Second from the left?

Yup. The guy on the right is Adrian Ocneanu (T-H-L) -- an article mostly written by Mathsci, of course.

Captain Occam wrote:I also suspect he'll be unblocked before the 24 hours are up. Every other time he's been blocked, he's been able to find an admin willing to unblock him early.

Less than two hours. Good call.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I don't feel comfortable with Mathsci getting blocked for removing a link containing personal information about him that isn't vital to the article.

Eventually, though, the lead article here will be about someone else; or maybe won't be about any particular person at all. Does this mean that the link can stay in the Wikipedia article when there's no editor's name in the lead, and gets removed when there is; or does the mere possibility that the lead blog post might name an editor give cause to prevent ever including the link? Unless they keep hiding the discussions about these issues, the people who might care will always have the clue to come here when they want to look up someone's identity.

AGK wins an internet:

In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.

If I ran Wikipedia, I'd say: treat wikipediocracy.com links the same way you treat google.com links. You can use Google links to "out" editors just as easily as you can use WO links. Heck, you don't even have to link to anything: just say "you should Google Qworty" or "you should Google Russavia" and that'll do it.

The "compromise" idea of allowing the link as "text" but making it non-clickable is patently ridiculous: most decent browsers will let you just highlight the text, right-click on it and choose "open link", and even the shittiest browsers will let you copy and paste into the address bar. All you're doing is mildly inconveniencing readers.

The problem is that it comes down to motivation: I may add a WO link to "build the encyclopedia" (i.e. in the Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) article's infobox) or I may add it to taunt somebody who's the current subject of a blog post. And Wikipedia's stunningly bad at sussing out motivations. Look at how long it took them to figure out what Russavia's game was, and that could not have been more obvious. (The Commoners still haven't figured it out.) AGF abounds to the point of absurdity. Even Kiefer.Wolfowitz said, at one point, that claiming to know somebody's motivations was a sign of a psychological disorder (or something like that). In the real world, of course, if somebody does something that raises an eyebrow, you ask them why they did it, and if they give you a bullshit answer (ahem) then you recognize they're trying to get one over on you and you treat them accordingly. But this approach seems alien to Wikipedia culture. You could upload a photo of yourself setting an effigy of your wiki-enemy on fire and the Wnts and Mattbucks would rationalize it away as being freely licensed art generously offered.

It's all so absurd. External "harrasment" site? "Blacklists?"

A search of Wikipedia's articles returns 15,500+ appearances of dailymail.co.uk.

Why don't they deal with that?

DanMurphy wrote:It's all so absurd. External "harrasment" site? "Blacklists?"

A search of Wikipedia's articles returns 15,500+ appearances of dailymail.co.uk.

Why don't they deal with that?

Good shout, Dan! I've always kept an (evil) eye out for the Mail in particular. It will be an absolute pleasure going through that list and removing the tabloid guff from BLPs.

I've made a start on Sinitta (T-H-L) (reducing the article considerably in the process.)

Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:

In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time (emboldening added by KW). Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.

Beeblebrox (T-C-L) wrote an moronic request for arbitration, a year ago. Can somebody find it?

(I did not seem to link it from my election guide which stupidly recommended strategically voting for KWW (T-C-L), probably the worst candidate!)

Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:

In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.

Was a rather dickish response, IMO.

Tarc wrote:

Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:

In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.

Was a rather dickish response, IMO.

Yes. Although the general thrust was absolutely correct, but in his position he should have phrased it differently. It must have been difficult enough to not put 'You twat' on the end, as that seems to be the way he was going.

When you look at this whole situation, there's something basic that seems inconsistent about it. Here's the sequence of events:

1: Mathsci gets blocked for edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page.

2: The article gets protected as Mathsci's preferred version.

3: Mathsci gets unblocked, under the assumption that ArbCom will resolve the issue.

4: ArbCom then declines the case request, with the assumption that the issue should be resolved by the community. Meanwhile, although the community's desire on the article talk page remains clear, Mathsci has successfully thwarted it.

This is the one of situations for which ArbCom exists: where the community consensus is already clear, but due to one or more intractable editors, the community is unable to carry out that consensus. But in this case ArbCom is passing the buck back to the community, even though the community has already decided they can't handle this situation without ArbCom's intervention. Do the arbitrators really expect this exact same situation to not repeat itself when the article's protection expires?

Someone needs to drop a note on the drive by admin's talk page and ask them to fix this.