Wikipediocracy

A five year anniversary is coming up. I am thinking about one final appeal to ‘the community’ (forget about arbcom, the ‘6 month pass’ is a complete fallacy).

For: (1) I have barely touched the place in nearly two years, and absolutely not at all for more than a year. Previous objections to an unblock hinged upon the so-called ‘sockpuppeting’. (Wikipedians regard genuinely abusive sockpuppeting such as vote-stacking, the concurrent use of alts to create the impression of support, or to conceal conflict of interest, as on a level with creating an account to avoid a ban, right or wrong). So an appeal might just succeed. (2) I become slightly more notable this year and I would prefer not to be in the public eye as a ‘banned person’, for whatever reason. (3) I would occasionally like to correct the more serious errors and mistakes I see in my own specialist subject. (4) 5 years is one of those special numbers that won’t come up again for another 5 years, i.e. August 2 2019.

Against: (1) Appeals at ANI are a form of ritual humiliation where you are supposed to confess to your errors and submit to the so-called ‘community’, who are really just a bunch of hangers-on at the drama boards. Why submit yourself to such humiliation? (2) There is possibly some external public relations value in a subject matter expert being banned. It proves there is something badly wrong with Wikipedia.

Comments welcome.

I am with the "Against" rationale.

Hopeless, and don't waste your time. I just got done lecturing Tim on the difficulties of starting an Editor's Association or forum that is Wikipedia-friendly. That would be easy, compared to getting you un-demonized.

The "major subject-area expert who was banned" angle might actually be more useful from the standpoint of public relations. Our little Wikipedian friends will have no sane defense and no rationalization to "explain away" such treatment, if used correctly. Especially if you find other experts who quit editing or were tossed out.

Try it. Just set out the facts of the case, self-abnegation is not necessary. The worst they can do is say no.

Hey, they unblocked Fae and Russavia, all things are possible in this world.


tim

Randy from Boise wrote:The worst they can do is say no.

And you say you've known Wikipedians for how many years? Do you really believe that's the worst they can do?

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:The worst they can do is say no.

And you say you've known Wikipedians for how many years? Do you really believe that's the worst they can do?

They could start a BLP on him, I suppose.

I refer you to a comment I made a few weeks ago link

Being banned from Wikipedia is an honor, IMO.

It doesn't take much to get me to start a lecture on why one person should generally not consider themselves better than a general group of people.

But, Ed... You are better than they are; don't drag yourself back.

It used to be that "community banned" meant that there was no admin willing to unblock you. I think that's changed.

Best of luck. Whichever way it turns out, you'll have a community which admires you and respects your work.

I second what Zoloft wrote.....really you can't lose, Mr. Damian; if the "community" rejects you, then they prove that Wikipedia is run by small-minded control freaks. If they let you back in, you get to repair all the damage to the site and your reputation in Wiki-land.

Stierlitz wrote:...you get to repair all the damage to the site...

Which will improve Jimbo's reputation. And Ed gets to do all this for free? What a deal!

Arbcom Agent: Do we have a deal, Mr. Damianus?
Petrus: You know, I know that the Foundation doesn't care about having a better wiki. I know that when I edit some pages, i think that somehow it is a good thing to press the Save Changes button. After five years, you know what I realize? Having lots of people read what you write on a popular website is bliss.

Textnyymi wrote:Having lots of people read what you write on a popular website is bliss.

According to Alexa, the average time people spend on a Wikipedia page is 1.2 minutes. That's less than on Twitter.

According to Alexa, the average time people spend on a Wikipedia page is 1.2 minutes. That's less than on Twitter.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

Textnyymi wrote:Is that a good or a bad thing?

Both - it means that most people are getting to Wikipedia from Google when they want to quickly look something up, which causes Google to continue favoring WP in search results, which is bad. But since people aren't spending much time on WP once they get there, it means they're not browsing around aimlessly looking for other interesting bits of info which, if they disagree with it, might cause them to want to edit something and potentially become Wikipedians themselves, which is good.

However, given the choice between having high Google (and therefore Alexa) rankings and a higher "conversion rate" (yes, this is actually what they call it), they'll take the former every single time, while of course still bemoaning their inability to improve on the latter.

I'm reading the responses so far, bar one, as a 'don't even think about it'. Am I reading this right?

Peter Damian wrote:I'm reading the responses so far, bar one, as a 'don't even think about it'. Am I reading this right?

That's my reading.

I think you should try.

Peter Damian wrote:I'm reading the responses so far, bar one, as a 'don't even think about it'. Am I reading this right?

Personally, I don't think it could hurt to try, other than the time-wasting of course. Like I've stated in the past, it's all about the masturbation potential - if your request is sufficiently groveling and self-abased to give them a good squirt, they'll probably "reward" you with an unblock, which will probably last until the next time you write something mildly critical of one of them. But in the past, you just haven't been good at providing them with what they want in this area, which is obviously a good thing.

Peter Damian's default role is "grumpy and short tempered critic", but he thinks he can also cover the role of "good faith pro-wiki editor" at the same time. For that to work, he needs at least one account which is completely separated from the now default role of grumpy and short tempered critic.

Once upon a time (2008 or so) he used to edit pages about Tuscan Villas under another name, which was banned as well. That cuenta probably stands a better chance to be unblocked since it covered the pro-wiki editor role, but as soon as he starts doing the grumpy critic it's game over again.

Of course if he chooses to try, other than general time wasting, there will be some lelz

Peter, one of your favorite quotes in regards to wikipedia is the quote by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger"

... But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders

.

Now, let's get back to your question. Did I understand you right? Are you really asking, if you should ask trolling inmates who show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style to allow you back to their sick, insane, inmates run asylum?

neved wrote:Peter, one of your favorite quotes in regards to wikipedia is the quote by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger"

... But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders

.

Now, let's get back to your question. Did I understand you right? Are you really asking, if you should ask trolling inmates who show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style to allow you back to their sick, insane, inmates run asylum?

Well no, I would just like not to have the stigma of being known as a 'banned editor', primarily. Secondarily because while I ignore petty or obvious vandalism, indeed welcome it, because it proves how unreliable the place is, I don't like to see stuff that is subtly wrong or misleading, when in my own specialist subject. It's analogous to a factory pumping out poisonous toxic pollution, which you would like to stop. If it means entering the factory and turning off a few valves here and there, then is there something wrong with that?

But I return to the 'primarily' bit. It's all very well saying that I should rise above it, and that they are mean-spirited and worthless people, but it's my reputation at stake, not theirs. I have argued for years with the arbitrators and with WMF lawyers and even an external counsel who they employed, to no avail. They have all the power, and I have nothing. I simply would like this stigma removed, and if it means a public appeal, then so be it. Possibly.

Peter Damian wrote:

neved wrote:Peter, one of your favorite quotes in regards to wikipedia is the quote by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger"

... But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders

.

Now, let's get back to your question. Did I understand you right? Are you really asking, if you should ask trolling inmates who show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style to allow you back to their sick, insane, inmates run asylum?

Well no, I would just like not to have the stigma of being known as a 'banned editor', primarily. Secondarily because while I ignore petty or obvious vandalism, indeed welcome it, because it proves how unreliable the place is, I don't like to see stuff that is subtly wrong or misleading, when in my own specialist subject. It's analogous to a factory pumping out poisonous toxic pollution, which you would like to stop. If it means entering the factory and turning off a few valves here and there, then is there something wrong with that?

But I return to the 'primarily' bit. It's all very well saying that I should rise above it, and that they are mean-spirited and worthless people, but it's my reputation at stake, not theirs. I have argued for years with the arbitrators and with WMF lawyers and even an external counsel who they employed, to no avail. They have all the power, and I have nothing. I simply would like this stigma removed, and if it means a public appeal, then so be it. Possibly.

Peter, I wish you a long, happy and healthy life, but sooner or later you would pass away,we all will, you know. Who then would keep trying to stop the factory from pumping out poisonous toxic pollution or you have any doubt that the the only way to prevent the factory from keeping pumping out free knowledge poisonous toxic pollution is destroying it ?

Peter, I wish you a long, happy and healthy life, but sooner or later you would pass away,we all will, you know. Who then would keep trying to stop the factory from pumping out poisonous toxic pollution or you have any doubt that the the only way to prevent the factory from keeping pumping out free knowledge poisonous toxic pollution is destroying it ?

Make the owner of the factory responsible for the disaster its creation is causing.
Oh wait, are you saying that Section 230 is lifting responsibility off the owner of the factory?

Peter Damian wrote:A five year anniversary is coming up. I am thinking about one final appeal to ‘the community’ (forget about arbcom, the ‘6 month pass’ is a complete fallacy).

For: (1) I have barely touched the place in nearly two years, and absolutely not at all for more than a year. Previous objections to an unblock hinged upon the so-called ‘sockpuppeting’. (Wikipedians regard genuinely abusive sockpuppeting such as vote-stacking, the concurrent use of alts to create the impression of support, or to conceal conflict of interest, as on a level with creating an account to avoid a ban, right or wrong). So an appeal might just succeed. (2) I become slightly more notable this year and I would prefer not to be in the public eye as a ‘banned person’, for whatever reason. (3) I would occasionally like to correct the more serious errors and mistakes I see in my own specialist subject. (4) 5 years is one of those special numbers that won’t come up again for another 5 years, i.e. August 2 2019.

Against: (1) Appeals at ANI are a form of ritual humiliation where you are supposed to confess to your errors and submit to the so-called ‘community’, who are really just a bunch of hangers-on at the drama boards. Why submit yourself to such humiliation? (2) There is possibly some external public relations value in a subject matter expert being banned. It proves there is something badly wrong with Wikipedia.

Comments welcome.

If you do it, just post the appeal to your talk page (or email somebody to post it for you - just don't post it with a new account or IP cuz the idiots will automatically scream "sockpuppetry!!!!"). Once it's up, leave it completely alone. Even if some schmucks show up and start lying their asses off (which will happen). Don't respond. Hopefully at least a few semi-sane people will show up, look into it, and answer them for you. If you answer them yourself (again, if you do, do it on your talk page or via email to someone like Newyorkbrad or whoever is our liaison with Wikipedia, don't do it with a new account or an IP) the idiots will start saying "see how argumentative he is?!? Obviously hasn't learned his lesson! *Oppose*" and other nonsense like that. This is a long way of saying that's it's pretty much a dice roll. I give it 50-50.

My advice would be – if you really want to get the ban lifted, just say that you will focus entirely on content work in your area of expertise, and if your appeal is successful stick to that, religiously, leaving any and all comments critical of Wikipedia and Wikipedians to here. Do not discuss WO on Wikipedia, do not post to Jimmy Wales' talk page.

If you think you can do that, then by all means apply. If that sounds unpalatable to you, or is more than you can confidently say you'd be able to abide by – i.e. if you're not confident that you would be able to ignore any and all provocations that might come your way – then I wouldn't bother, because it will just lead to more trouble sooner or later.

I would recommend registering a new account name as well (declared of course, with a redirect from your old account's user page to the new one), to make a clean break.

HRIP7 wrote:My advice would be – if you really want to get the ban lifted, just say that you will focus entirely on content work in your area of expertise, and if your appeal is successful stick to that, religiously, leaving any and all comments critical of Wikipedia and Wikipedians to here. Do not discuss WO on Wikipedia, do not post to Jimmy Wales' talk page.

If you think you can do that, then by all means apply. If that sounds unpalatable to you, or is more than you can confidently say you'd be able to abide by – i.e. if you're not confident that you would be able to ignore any and all provocations that might come your way – then I wouldn't bother, because it will just lead to more trouble sooner or later.

I would recommend registering a new account name as well (declared of course, with a redirect from your old account's user page to the new one), to make a clean break.

Yep, this approach stands the best shot at working.

+ 1
Good luck!
Claudi/Capsot

Thanks for all the views, for and against. I have decided not to go ahead, and shall mark the day in private, and in quiet contemplation.

Thanks also to those who offered privately to post on my behalf, it was much appreciated.

The authoritarian types who dominate Wikipedia tend to believe that banning people, and keeping them banned, is more important than building quality content. They believe that because they have become so absorbed in the politics of Wikipedia that they have lost sight of its purpose. One way to highlight that and discredit the bullies is to make unimpeachably good edits while banned, while also making one's "banned" identity clear. That forces them to choose between two bad options: revert good content and look foolishly destructive, or leave the good content and thereby enable a weakening of the "banned means banned" ideological framework. If they choose the latter, but also block the account, then rational observers will be appalled by the practice of banning people who contribute good content.

HRIP7 wrote:According to Alexa, the average time people spend on a Wikipedia page is 1.2 minutes. That's less than on Twitter.

I've always suspected that in lengthy articles on complex topics, the vast majority of readers don't look at any part of the article besides the lead section. Has anyone ever tried to evaluate whether that's the case?

On articles that have been a magnet for edit warring, such as Global Warming (T-H-L), the lead section often is long enough to qualify as its own stand-alone article. That article's lead section is eight paragraphs accompanied by three images; after someone's read all of that (along with the three image captions), I personally have a hard time imagining them wanting to read any further.

After you've read the lead of almost any article that's been edit-warred extensively, you're likely to give up, because the leads get so convoluted.

Peter Damian, you might be just setting yourself up for more verbal abuse. You sort of remind me as you write here of the case of Vietnamese Trongphu, who was also bothered by the stigma of his permanent block. He managed to successfully overturn it at his own talkpage, but necessarily through the support of a couple or few high-profile administrators, namely Newyorkbrad and Alison.

Brad was no more than words and timid approach but at least least he showed up. It was Action Alison who actually unblocked based on the discussion at his page, which was graced somehow by avoiding the attentions of all the vile WP:AN/ANI regulars that might've been able to kidnap it to their turf at any time.

Without to boast, but we here at Wikipediocracy including me also made the injustice to Trongphu (he was defending his heritage against some campfire fairy tale of a torturous lady Viet Cong sniper portrayed by Wikipedia as historical) an hot discussion topic, and I think that helped him out. He also might've benefited by his pledge not to edit English Wikipedia again.

So, if you want to follow Trongphu's model, try to get yourself an influential administrator to support you and raise the matter at your page, where you might be able to limit the Ebola viruses that are the WP:AN/ANI regulars, such as Beeblebrox and Bwilkins who saw the vulnerability of Trongphu due to his limited English, ganged up on him like cowardly bullies do and got him blocked in the first place.

Captain Occam wrote:I've always suspected that in lengthy articles on complex topics, the vast majority of readers don't look at any part of the article besides the lead section. Has anyone ever tried to evaluate whether that's the case?

Yes, researchers have evaluated how people read Wikipedia articles.

http://www.taln.upf.edu/system/files/bi ... kiwiki.pdf

http://gazehawk.com/blog/cluster-analys ... -tracking/

thekohser wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:I've always suspected that in lengthy articles on complex topics, the vast majority of readers don't look at any part of the article besides the lead section. Has anyone ever tried to evaluate whether that's the case?

Yes, researchers have evaluated how people read Wikipedia articles.

On the other hand, in the case of group administrative discussions. I'm convinced through a lot of observation that most only read the commentary, and are ignorant of any background or explanation above.

Triptych wrote:Without to boast, but we here at Wikipediocracy including me also made the injustice to Trongphu (he was defending his heritage against some campfire fairy tale of a torturous lady Viet Cong sniper portrayed by Wikipedia as historical) an hot discussion topic, and I think that helped him out. He also might've benefited by his pledge not to edit English Wikipedia again.

Actually, I'd heard of his plight first on Wikipediocracy, so you're absolutely right.