User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions

::::::::The close did not give any reason but "consensus." (And it was obvious that there was no genuine consensus.) "Strength of arguments" was mentioned without any specification of what arguments were true and cogent and what arguments were not, and without indicating that any of the arguments had been checked by the closer. The close was unsigned. Ban policy actually requires that a ban decision be made by a consensus of ''uninvolved'' editors, but I've found, again and again, nobody does the analysis. I had been very active, and thus there were wide involvements.

::::::::The original AN report was filed by an administrator who had been reprimanded by ArbCom for his actions, in a case I filed, over his actions-while-involved, blacklisting lenr-canr.org. (At the time I became involved in the issue, I had no idea what was going on with cold fusion, I developed my point of view much later, having bought the books and having actually studied them.) In the second case with my name in it, also involving cold fusion, the administrator who first topic banned me lost his sysop bit over his actions. However, he was very popular, and his faction retaliated. I could go on and on, my conclusion -- before this ban discussion was begun (I was not notified and not given any opportunity to respond) -- was that Wikipedia was so functionally and fundamentally broken that it was a waste of time to continue with any serious work there.

::::::::I look from time to time, and my conclusion is still the same. The problem is not those people, the problem is the structure, which might as well have been designed for high conflict, and not genuine consensus. Wikipedia is a useful wiki, but is not designed for reliability. It's often very good, and then it can be spectacularly warped and biased. And fixing that, when the bias is maintained by a faction, more than one or two editors, can be almost impossible. I did know how to do it, and did it, and that is *exactly* why I became persona non-grata. This is only relevant here because this is my Talk page.

::::::::Self-reversion was something I invented to be used by a banned editor who still wanted to make positive contributions. It was not invented for me to use. When it was first proposed, it had a little support, including from an Arbitrator. It was suggested to a topic-banned editor, and he used it with good purpose. It worked, as designed. It created cooperation between that banned editor and the person who had requested the ban! Later, it was used on Wikiversity in an attempt to create a record of positive contributions as a demonstration of cooperation. One banned editor used it, and was unbanned. The other refused, since, after all, he was right, why should he revert his own completely correct edit? He was unblocked by an admin about to lose his bit, I suspect it was retaliation; it created quite a fracas. Reblocked, etc. Still globally locked.

::::::::So when I was blocked and effectively banned, I used it. I was very careful. It was predictable, however, that this would have no effect on the mob at AN. To them, a ban is a ban is a ban. No exceptions. *Not even obviously harmless edits that create no necessary enforcement labor.* And so was demonstrated fundamental contradiction in the Wikipedia structure. That was the purpose. I knew that I could be banned, and didn't care. Hence I have never appealed that ban to ArbCom. I also have watched ArbCom through many trials. It's also badly broken. The sock was created *after* the self-reversion period. My long-term position has been that strict enforcement on Wikipedia can lead to disruptive behavior. So harmless edits led to not only IP blocks, but expanding range blocks and revision deletion of harmless content. The admin who did that was reprimanded, policy was written to specify that this was not to be done, but, then, because admins hate to have any restrictions on what they do, an exception was written that any admin could drive a truck through. And who else cares?

::::::::In any case, I then created one sock, since the range blocks had become a nuisance. There was never a public complaint about the sock. The sock was blocked as an ArbCom block, though I was not under an ArbCom sanction (this was all misreported in the ban discussion). Basically, an arbitrator apparently decided to checkuser me, and I had not taken any evasive action. I later found, from the hacked ArbCom mailing list, there were arbitrators, even before the first case, where my position was totally vindicated by ArbCom, who wanted to ban me, but they had no basis in the first case. There really was no basis in the second case, either, but by that time, a faction howling for my head. ArbCom assumes that if there are many editors seeking to ban a user, the user ''must be'' doing something wrong. Actually reviewing evidence -- usually, too much work!

::::::::All this was set up by Wikipedia structure, which creates and attracts the behavior. It's entirely predictable.

::::::::It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies ''want'' it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens.

:::::::: So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream journal, to be considered reliable source. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited.

::::::::Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation.

::::::::This is all classic social process: people remember, not what actually happened, but what they noticed and concluded. The copyright argument had convinced quite a few until someone -- me -- actually challenged it with evidence. And they remember what they thought, and they don't need to check it, since, they believe, they already know the truth.

::::::::The faction I'm talking about, five years ago, was maybe two dozen editors, including three or four administrators. ArbCom has no clue how to handle a faction like that, that includes insiders. They threw the book at the Eastern European Mailing List faction, which had one administrator involved, and they did so, quite clearly, because they were horrified at the very concept of editors communicating off-wiki. In fact, what the EEML and that administrator had actually done was harmless. He was an academic and had written, ini peer-reviewed articles, glowingly, about Wikipedia process. Then it bit him.

:::::::: No, we will build content on Wikiversity, we will raise a generation of users who know how to explore topics and generate genuine consensus -- or how to document differences. And the monolithic Wikipedian structure will crumble, space will open up, and the future will be created. Or it won't. So what? We are having fun doing it. -[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)