331
edits
User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Disclosure: what's up
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) (→Disclosure: re) |
(→Disclosure: what's up) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | :::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::Of course you would think that there is nothing wrong with a total waste of time and space. Well, I ''became'' involved because I saw a strange tagging of a page for cross-wiki spam, that wasn't spam. As I investigated that, opened it up, worms started falling out. The first case is documented at a [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Augusto_De_Luca Wikiversity user page] (and may become an educational resource there). Following up on that, I requested global unlock for a series of users who had violated no policies. That was denied at meta, but a steward suggested I file an RfC (and another wrote he had "issues" with what had been done). I don't file RfCs without prepping, and I can take weeks of research to do it. So I started to work on [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Antispam_practices Antispam practices ] and, looking at current activity, I noticed another "cross-wiki spam" removal of what appeared to be an academic book, totally relevant to the page. And so I started to investigate that, and it led to [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Antispam_practices/Santarelli the Santarelli incident]. This is not organized to impeach the steward, it's simple a collection of research notes, so far, with only a little conclusion. But the same name keeps coming up in nearly all the activity. The planned RfC is on antispam practices and policies, it's not about the individual steward, but ... I have some idea that some stewards are embarrassed by what has been done, but don't know what to do. The particular steward has more or less threatened to block me before. It's a risk, but so what? If I'm blocked, I dump the data where others who might be interested can use it, and walk away, knowing that I did what I could. | |||
::::I have a history of getting administrators sanctioned or desysopped, while you were busy poking the feds and wasting their money. Their friends retaliate, no surprise, but then a steward worked on another case, succeeding mine, and more of the faction involved was sanctioned. I'd uncovered problems with the antispam practices, back then, and the first ArbCom case was about that, abuse of blacklisting. My position was sustained by the Committee, but ... by that time the blacklisting had moved to meta, where the Committee has no remit. And it took something like two years to get that blacklisting lifted. It's about time that the meta policy be confirmed by the community, or revised, one or the other. Basically, policy is routinely ignored by certain stewards. | |||
::::I remember my first user RfC on enwiki. The faction I was confronting was fat and happy because they mustered 2/3 votes "Ban Abd," entirely contrary to RfC policy, since the RfC was not about me, and had been cosigned by Durova. (Who warned me I'd be banned from cold fusion, by the way, if I filed, as I eventually was. At that time, I cared much more about wiki policy than about cold fusion, they ''imagined'' that I was a POV-pusher, because that is how ''they'' think.) But I expected that. The failed RfC provided the basis for an ArbCom filing, a failed attempt to find agreement. At first, they thought they might prevail before the Committee, and they claimed my evidence was cherry-picked. After all, any admin can make an occasional mistake, right? In fact, my evidence was a "total compilation of all relevant edits and actions by the administrator,* and what they thought were my hostile comments were the admin's own edit summaries. Whack! An arb decided to ''recompile the evidence,'' using a bot. It showed, of course, exactly the same thing. The faction scattered and the admin retired for a while. It was all, for the most part, a useless waste of time, because he wasn't the problem, the ''structure'' is the problem. He came back and just got his friends to do whatever he wanted, after that, instead of doing it directly. He continued the same agenda, POV-pushing, without any change. And so did they. | |||
::::So, we never know what will come. Before I'm ready to file the RfC, I will identify support. If there is no support, I won't file. "Voice crying in the wilderness" is a formula for "waste of time." I've got plenty else to do! | |||
::::If I'm going to put up the evidence and analysis somewhere, it won't be here, where it could only be useless, at best, and it could do harm. It would be on wikipediocracy, where I've been invited to write articles and blog posts. That's a place where someone might see it who can actually do something. Not here, Nathan. You have some sort of value in just "being right," or imagining that you are. I don't. I just do my work and see what happens. | |||
::::The other place where it might go would be as a private communication with Wales. I have a specific opportunity for that, don't know if I'm ready. His project, however, his baby, is being corrupted by gross violation of wiki principles and policies, and it might be possible to do something about it. As you know, I'm about principles and structure, the individual incidents don't really matter that much to me, though, of course, I ''act'' with respect to specifics, as demonstrations or examples. What I'm seeing is the tip of the iceberg, and the problem is not "bad users," but defective structure, I've been on that for years. | |||
::::As to Wikiindex policy and practice, I don't have any dogs in this race. I just want the administrators here to know what they are getting into. You brought down a few trolls and vandals. There could be a lot more where those came from, if enough oxen are gored. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== What RONR has to say about attacking a member's motives == | == What RONR has to say about attacking a member's motives == | ||