1,191 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. “doxing” them; revealing their true identities and everything they can discover about them.

      Wikipedia decided to rely on anonymous editors. Instead of using anonymous informants as journalists do, hiowever, they allowed anonymous administration, thus guaranteeing an unreliable system, and creating motivation for doxxing. It was cheap and quick, and worth every penny paid for it.

      People who work for nothing don't. Some have very noble motivations, at least initially. But some have agendas to pursue. The policies made Wikipedia into a battleground, and then anyone who treated it like it is, was violating policy. Even if they followed every policy.

      My opinion is that in certain unstable people, Wikipedia literally drove them crazy, and I believe there have been suicides. This article ends up being about someone who has claimed to be schizophrenic, and it's probably that his editing obsessions contributed.

    2. actually help to shape science itself.

      Yes. This happens.

    3. levels that defy belief.

      What I have seen, I could not have and would not have invented.

    4. online skirmishes over Wikipedia’s non-PC topics are particularly vicious,

      Yes, and it is "vicious" that prevents genuine consensus from forming, when there is no adult supervision.

    5. reasonable people and Leftism

      "reasonable" means "agrees with me." The author is expressing a battle from within one side, not as an overview, not as how a peacemaker will see it. A peacemaker will see all sides, from above, as it were.

    6. they are crazed Social Justice Warriors—and a growing threat to political and scientific discourse.

      I have always disliked the epithet SJW. There is something wrong with fighting for justice? Actually, yes, there can be. It can be fascist, suppressive, when it goes beyond establishing justice and instead attemptis to suppress opinion, and especially when it believes that the 'end justifies the means," such that it is acceptable to lie in order to attack "Bad."

    7. Lunatics Take Over Asylum: Oliver D. Smith, RationalWiki, And The Wikipedeans

      The image above is from Emil Kirkegaard's blog

    1. Mankind Quarterly
    2. Edward Dutton
    3. pseudoscientist[2]

      The source does not readily establish "pseudoscientist."

    4. alt-right

      source shows he appeared on an alt-right podcast. To the Rats, this proves affiliation. It would be necessary to listen to the podcast to assess this.

    5. appeared on Mark Collett's alt-right podcast

      No actual link to evidence, However, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY4LEWs7I4I

    6. writes for VDARE

      Standard. One post in 2012 becomes present tense "writes for."

    7. eccentric

      Standard RatWiki snark, "eccentric" meaning "anyone who does not think like me or ordinary people." Dutton calls himself the "Jolly Heretic," and most people and especially most Rats, are neither Jolly nor Heretical (within their comrforable and narrow community, they are conformists.)

    8. It was 93 per cent of foreign rapists in Finland are Muslim.

      "It was" flags to me that this could be a correction of a prior statement. The significance of the statement is unclear. This is on Twitter. There is a remarkable statistic provided from Finnish police sources, but it does not appear to be as Dutton states. To someone looking for dirt, a statement like that looks racist or bigoted. But my question is always "Is this true" and then "what are the conditions, what are the facts." Not "what is the political of the person who said it." This was on Twitter, which is not known for careful speech, correctly phrased. There is something remarkable there, and Dutton may not have stated it well. Or he really is confused about the distinction between nationality and religion. I'd really need to read his book on the subject. The meaning of the statement is vague, the source may be about charges, whereas the statement is conclusory about rape, and what are the underlying numbers?

    1. Gary Taubes

      Gary Taubes, one of the strongest science journalists on the planet. "Refuting" is how pseudoscientiists and pseudoskeptics write. Real science does not write like that.

    2. short lifespans, high infant mortality,

      Rats carry around many common misconceptions. There were high rates of infant mortality for many reasons, but survival beyond infancy tended, from what I've been reading recently, to approach more modern standards. The shift to agriculture was not without heavy costs, including vulnerability to communicable diseases and various deficiency disorders probably related to a less varied diet. Agrarian societies were stronger in other ways, and in particular, such cultures were able to dominate and control smaller tribal cultures. But that is not about individual health.

    3. In a nutshell

       This is what the Rats miss with their snark

    4. At least one death has been attributed to a high-protein diet

      Once again, paleo and similar diets are not high protein, but individuals might practice them that way. High protein is dangerous for many people. There was research a century ago studying a man who came back from living with the Inuit, reporting that they had a diet that was totally meat, and were healthy. He lived in hospital isolation for a year, eating only meat, originally lean meats. He started to get sick, and they realized that the Inuit ate the entire animal, including what we call "offal." They also ate copious amounts of fat. When they added in organ meats and other details, he was healthy.

      Anyone changing their diet radically, even if they think it is "healthier" should do so with the advice and monitoring of a physician, unless the change is not drastic, and still one should be on the lookout for possible issues.

    5. conducted by a panel of around 30 nutrition and medical experts

      Rats love facts like this. Now, RatWiki is allegedly anti-authoritarian, and this is a clear reliance on authority.. That was one review for one year, and one panel. How was the panel chosen? Did it include a diversity of opinions and approaches? What Gary Taubes has pointed out many times is that "consensus" arose in the related fields, not by conclusive science, as neutrally reviewed, but by an information cascade, and he has shown that some of this was related to astroturfing (but also other non-scientific factors.) and then a particullar Rat points to sources that claim Taubes misprepresented evidence. I've looked at that. He did not -- in a significant way -- misrepresent information. He has presented an enormous amount of information and it was possible to find errors there. And that is what has happened. He has been attacked for not being perfect.

    6. the advantage of a paleo diet, like any other diet that emphasizes unprocessed foods, is in the satiety

      Rats readily state conclusions as if fact. Certainly the factor mentioned here cold be significant, but there are many others.

    7. Calories in versus calories out,

      Yeah, that's what it is called. It sounds reasonable, but might be utter bullshit, in spite of many claims that this is basic physics, which it is not and for the reason they state! Stopped clock moment? Well, that;s rude.

    8. nothing suggests that the body cannot handle foods we've sourced in the last 100,000 years — in proper amounts, at least.

      the problem is that we actually do not know the "proper amounts." Most of what is written about this is not rooted in research, and dietary compositions produce different effects, i.e, what are called "food calories" are not, as many seem to assume, thermodynamic calories, they have been adjusted by study of actual caorlies produced from eating foods and examining all the inputs and outputs. More than a century ago.; And dietary context may vary this, but this has been little studied.

    9. only grass-fed ruminants, pastured poultry, etc.

      One may practice principles without making them into rigid, insane rules.

    10. Cutting them out will naturally lower one's calorie consumption drastically.

      that assumes that what replaces the cut-out foods is not higher in calories. This is all really dumb. Fat, in particular, is much more calorie dense. The reality of nutrition is far more complex than the cartoon understanding of these editors.

    11. A bout of food poisoning could lead to dramatic weight loss as claimed.

      It is much less likely than these brainless nerds think. For starters, we can smell, we are actually quite good at detecting spoiled food. Salad greens, with refrigeration and proper containers, can easily be good for a week. Fiber is the most important part of salad for meals, which will not be lost, and a decent diet will be getting plenty of fiber.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/well/eat/do-prepackaged-salad-greens-lose-their-nutrients.html

      Yes. Some loss. Not important in a week, and the basic advice is to avoid wilted greens, they should still be crisp, and they will be. If some of it is not, it can be picked out. Have these Rats ever maintained a kitchen and do they know how to cook?

    12. his expertise is tangential to the topic.

      Right,. whereas the authors of this junk are PhDs in the field, right, such that they can pass judgment on the work of a mere exercise physiologist PhD. They all have high training in science journalism and are very careful not to introduce any bias. And if you believe that, wait till the tooth fairy comes tomorrow!

    13. [49]

      The article is significant;y more nuanced than that. Yes, that's the conclusion. Which is largely meaningless. In the field that passes for "nutritional science," one will find in almost any area "several assumptions" where evidence is weak, which these authors call non-existent, which is BS. Paleo is an approach, but it has been made into a specific set of ideas that may come from specific authors. The approach is actually common sense (and may indeed incorporate useless assumptions, people do that.) These authors are totally naive about fat.

    14. several of the premises of the Paleo diet

      I'll read the article, but this is common, a confusion between a practice and "premises" on which the practice might be thought to be based. It is a confusion between theory and reality. It'm not getting a good feeling about the article. "No evidence" is usually false. Rather, the author may judge evidence as weak and interpretation speculative, but people rarely believe or assume anything with no evidence at all.

    15. the Paleo diet is not a miracle diet

      Doesn't that depend on context? If one has been eating in a way that simply doesn't work, and starts eating paleo -- which is a general principle, not a specific diet (except that there are forms based on specific books) -- one may experience a "miracle." or not. This is an experiential reality, very common: expect miracles and you will see them. Not necessarily the miracles you expect! "Not a miracle diet" is not a scientific statement, it is an ordinary, non-scientific popular conclusion, unless "miracle" has been defined.

    16. Does the paleo woo work, and is it based on science?

      Answers are incorporated in questions. Idiots add leading questions. Ask about "woo" you will probably get woozy. Pseudoskeptics generally don't look for what works about something, only for what is wrong.

    17. in contrast to high protein diets such as the Atkins Diet and the South Beach diet,

      again, clueless. High fiber consumption is generally recommended in HFLC diets, which resemble paleo diets, milk probably being a major difference. (And some people cannot tolerate milk, it's an adaptation.)

    18. more satiety per calorie, compared to a Mediterranean diet

      I found the study frustrating but interesting anyway. They studied a "paleo diet" that avoided fatty meats. Indications are that fat was highly prized and preferred by hunter-gatherer peoples, and most anywhere that the low-fat propaganda has not penetrated. All this shows that the article was not written by a serious student who would recognize obvious confusion.

    19. little if any difference in protein intake between diet groups.[

      So high protein was BS/

    20. diet based exclusively on whole-wheat bread

      Which has nothing to do with a paleo diet.

    21. the paleo diet, even in a 'high meat' form, is not necessarily high in protein

      indeed. None of this is clear. Numbers?

    22. Protein and fat take longer to digest, leaving the dieter with a sensation of being "full" for a longer period of time.

      Probably bullshit. First of all, eating to "full" is generally a bad idea. However, being aware of hunger and appetite is part of a sane food plan. However, the major effect is from the fact that after a few days on a ketogenic diet, like 'Atkins one is burning fat for fuel, instead of glucose. Glucose is rapidly cleared from the blood by insulin, resulting in blood sugar crash, which is experienced as "hunger." A keto diet stops that cycle, and the common report is that one simply does not get hungry in the same way. My experience is that I have a more developed appetite, I salivate in anticipatiojn of eating, and I enjoy food more than I ever did before, but "over-eating" is unpleasant, undesirable.

    23. produces more sense of satiation

      no study cited. Probably bullshit. (i.e., 'more" compared to what? And what is satiated? I have a strong impulse for "crunch," which meat and fat do not generally satisfy. So I make baked cheese mixed with chia and flax seeds. Nice and cruncy, low carb and very high fiber.

    24. will not desire food, especially "snacks", for longer periods of time

      It is well known that high fat consumption suppresses appetite. Nothing in the sources was about human "snacking." Anyone with experience with controlled eating will be aware that snacking is a complex issue, a habit (and generally considered to create danger of weight gain. But what one eats matters.

    1. community ban of Abd from English Wikipedia

      I've seen this before. Contrary to what the Smith brothers claim, I have not been commonly banned. This ban is like another that they also cite: if I retire, claim that I'm not going to edit any more, as long as a certain abusive situation continues, they then ban me. "You can't quit, you're fired!" This is all social dysfunction.

    2. strong consensus

      Wikipedia pretends that the community does not vote, rather, decisions are to be made on the strength of arguments, which can be quite subjective. When involvement is considered, the consensus was far weaker than he suggested. What I would say is that the ban was within his discretion as a closer,. He was correct, that the discussion was a waste of time. Subsequent history proved this, because something that few, if any, in the discussion seemed to realize. If the goal was to prevent disruption, it would not be prevented by declaring a ban. I had clearly abandoned any further participation on Wikipedia, but if I did intend to continue editing, being banned would not have any effect. Not being banned might make it easier to revert edits,but nobody seems to have noticed that no reversion was necessary for what I did. So what this discussion did for me was to demonstrate how hopeless the Wikipedia community was. But not just the Wikipedia community. It was the generic wiki community. I did work for some years on Wikiversity, and there were some exciting possibilities there, but it would take a community effort and vigilance to create them, and I never managed to iinspire that, though I did accomplish a lot. When I realized that Wikiversity was vulnerable to what the founder of Wikiversity called "Wikipedia Disease," and I called Wiki disease because it can happen on any wiki without protective structure, and attempts to create protective structure will be resisted by the oligarchy that has formed, existing wikis are intrinsically dangerous. Something else is needed. I see no sign that Wikipedia will be able to break the paralysis that increasingly afflicted it.

      And I am so glad that I bailed when I did. It was a simple move, and made my life far easier than struggling with that mess.

    3. reinstated via discretionary sanctions

      I don't think that was true.

    4. antithetic to the concepts of Wikipedia.

      I don't know what talk page, but "Wikipedia" began with a set of ideas and ideals that were not intended to be fixed, hence WP:IAR. However, that's where it went, such that this person could believe that "the concepts of Wikipedia" are a fixed thing. That is the beginning of death, but I do not know how long it will take.

    5. none of his other socks have been blocked

      Yes. I had disclosed socks. I don't recall what I said then, but I just checked, there is such a sock still unblocked. I stopped the experiment because the purpose had been achieved and, yes, it was causing collateral damage. That he thought I was delighting in it was his projection, and that this fellow would say that demonstrates what is all too common. ABF rules.

    6. Support

      involved. sad case.

    7. IP editing before and after his block

      No, not true. I did not sock to evade blocks. I openly socked, dislosing the edits, initially on my talk page, which was quckly blocked (and, yes, I know the policy and why), then on Wikiversity, on a user study page. The IP socking was from 2 May to 8 May, By the end of that the enforcement, mostly by T. Canens, as I recall, was becomiing draconian, causing collateral damage. I was done, I had collected evidence that these idiots completely overlook, without harming anyone or any content, actually making positive contributions. Then I created one sock. What I wanted to observe was how a neutral editor, carefully avoiding disruption, would be treated. I found out. The old protective policies were dead. But, in any case, I did not disclose that account at first, for obvious reasons. The account EnergyNeutral, made 98 edits from May 19 to May 31, and then went on "wikibreak." It was blocked on 3 June. There were no furhter edits of Wikipedia by me. Calling a period of editing of one week,19 edits, with a defined purpose, designed to minimize disruption, as "extensive editing" was misleading, but misleading evidence and arguments are routine on Wikipedia from administrators and editors in good standing>

      there is no adult supervision. JzG, however, was recently reprimended, his mojo must not be working, and he has been gone for about a month, from previous intense activity. But if history is any guide, he will realize that he can ignore this and carry on as if nothing happened, with maybe only a tiny amount of caution. At this rate, perhaps before he dies, he will stop telling users to fuck off.

    8. block evasion

      If block evasion had been my purpose, I would have created an account from the beginning and disguised my IP. Instead, this was all open, and very restrictted and time limited. I never claimed that the admin had no right to block me. In fact, I made it trivially easy to identify my edits.

      When a banned user who was popular with the faction made edits under ban that were "harmless spelling corrections," many of the same users going after me thought it was ridiculous to block someone for making harmless edits. I invented self-reversion as a way that he could make those spelling corrections, easily, and without complicating ban enforcement, if the policy had been amended to legitimate this. I proposed it, and the proposal sat there for a time until someone actually used self-reversion and then the screams rose up A ban is a ban is a ban." And to hell with WP:IAR.and to hell with encouraging cooperation.

      That user -- it was Science Apologist -- angrily rejected the proposal because "why should he revert a perfectly good edit," and the answer was meaningless to him, "to make ban enforcement uncomplicated by cooperating with the ban." He did not want to cooperate with the ban, he wanted to make any admin who reverted him look silly. And I then confronted this and he was site-bannnd for a time. This guy, though, highly disruptive, has a faction that just loves him. ArbCom site-banned, he came back through a community discussion, and he went right back to his old behavior, which is usually accepted because he has friends.

    9. chronic editing through IP accounts

      For a very short time, in a way as to cause minimal disruption. There is almost no notice of that. There was only disruption from the enforcement effort, and that only for a short time. This was actually a demonstration of how enforcement can cause more disruption that the original problem. but admins don't want to look at that.

    10. I take words out of context

      Experienced Wikipedia administrator does not know how to assume good faith. It is all too common. What T Canens said took what Silverseren had written and intepreted it in a way that was not implied.

    11. POV-warring

      I never did that.

    12. single sock

      He noticed!

    13. trying to point a finger and laugh at him

      In fact, fast-forward to 2017-2019, this ban is pointed to as proof of how disruptive I was, by people allied with JzG and that whole faction. There was no necessity for this ban, it did nothing but allow others to claim I was not merely indef blocked, but "banned." It did not prevent one edit.

    14. Support

      Very, very involved

    15. en edit-warring block

      This would require that I edit war, which is not what I ever did.

    16. s that it enables the formal 3RR shield for reversions.

      What is brilliant about this is that the examples cited of bannable behavior were not edits that required any reversions at all, originally because they were self-reverted. Because those edits were also self-identified, ban enforcement was made easier. If these users actually looked at that experiment with an eye toward seeing if there was anything of value there, they'd have seen this. If I actually cared about this, I might end up being really pissed and then creating massive disruption But I don't and that is not ever what I have done.

    17. Was that lifted from a political "trial" in Maoist China

      No, from a political trial in fascist Wikipedia. Now, here is how this works: A user who was highly involved in conflict with me, who, in fact, held a grudge and commonly blamed me for everything wrong with the cold fusion article, for years later, filed a request to consider a ban. His friend pile in and there are many comments in support from them. that then attracts other users who want to be a part of the community, or who are inclined to agree. Few of these will actually consider evidence, fewer still will consider contrary positions and ideas. So process on wikipedia, discussions like this without the protections of evidence collection with RfC or ArbCom cases, and without any protection against presenting even radically false arguments and deceptive evidence, will tend to go with the early responses. Reversal is unusual.

      There is no penalty for being part of a pitchfork=weilding mob, I have never seen it, and I have seen maybe hundreds of ban discussions.

      And these process defects are larded through Wikipedia. The adhocracy worked wonderfully for quick building of an encyclopedia, but not for making it reliable in any way. POV pushing is allowed if the POV is a popular one, which then pushes the project away from academic neutrality, toward a popular belief that what most editors believe is neutral, and any other POV is not neutral. So you can push a skeptical position, can insult a medical professoinal as a quack, with no sanction, but if you point out that this is not a neutral comment, you might be dinged for POV-pushing. Identifying administrative abuse was crucial to the development of a neutral project, but the reality is that they shoot the messenger.

    18. Wikiversity to refight old vendettas

      no evidence was alleged of old vendettas, what is he talking about?

    19. ignorance of anti-socking policy

      I was fully aware of the policy

    20. COI material

      never on Wikipedia, I was topic banned before the COI developed.

    21. Support

      very, very involved

    22. Support

      involved

    23. rest of us to handle it

      Why is someone knowing they are right (or incorrectly believing they are right, or appearing to be so) a cause requiring any handling at all?

    24. Support

      Very involved, prior conflict.

      Ban policy (I checked) still requires a consensus of uninvolved editors. I contronted a rather large faction, over administrative abuse. It is utterly unsurpising that they would vote for a ban.

      This was, remember, a process where I was not allowed to defend. It really made no difference to me what the outcome was. It did not stop me from editing, what stopped me was my choice not to waste any more time.

    25. Support

      very involved.

    26. Support

      involved, I think.

    27. I'm not cooperating any more, period.

      Yes. I finished some work of personal and larger interest, and then left Wikipedia entirely alone.

      These fascists have no idea of how to create cooperation. It never occurs to them to ask a user what their intentions are. When they decide to unblock a user, commonly, nothing is put in place to help the user stay unblocked. When ArbComm admonished JzG, there was absolutely no structure to monitor his behavior to ensure that he heeded the warning. Commonly, when a user is sanctioned, no help is put in place to guide them to more productive behavior. No, it's all about punishment which is called "protective," but which is very inefficient at actual protection. As I wrote, if I had chosen to retaliate, I could have. Scibaby could easily create far more work than it took him to sock, once one learns how to do it. Yes, it may be necessary to block, etc., but for starters, Flagged Revisions to reduce the need for immediate attention. There is no coordination of monitoring of Recent Changes, it is all ad hoc and wastes vast amounts of editor time, it probably take fifty times the labor compared to what would be necessary with a little focus and a little developed responsibility. Wikipedia will eventually be eaten. That's my prediction. Meanwhile sane people move on, once they see the reality of the cabal. Meanwhile, ah, paid editing. Do they think that won't happen because they declare a policy against it? The system encourages paid editing, in fact, by not creating reliable review. If there were relaible review, there would be no problem with paid editing. It would be like news media prohibiting press releases. The early community had some great ideas, but little long-term vision. Not surprising, in fact.

    28. were I to treat it as a battleground

      which I never did.

    29. With due process exhausted, my compliance becomes no longer a matter of obligation

      that's correct. It becomes voluntary only. That full statement should be read. I stopped cooperating. However, that does not mean that I would continue to edit Wikipedia. Why should I care about sewage floating in a cesspool? Wikipedia can be beautiful at times, but overall, it is not a useful place to work on content. Horrible, actually. Wikipedia process requires a willingness to engage in vastly inefficient process. It took weeks to get consensus for putting in one freaking link because JzG kept reverting it. So I created a review process. A lot of work. It showed that the community wanted the link, and armed with that, he stopped removing it. Weeks of work for one link. And, of course, eventually it slid into the muck.

      What I put in became this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Fleischmann&oldid=357342538#Conference_proceedings

      This was not a "peer-reviewed" source, it was Fleischmann's own description of why he had undertaken his work. To use something like that requires consensus, and with substantial effort, consensus was obtained. So, for a time, readers of the article could find that source. One editor removed it in 2016 without discussion as part of a much more extensive edit. Nobody noticed (because, remember, I was banned, but there were others who had that page watchlisted and who knew.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Fleischmann&type=revision&diff=743068690&oldid=731418542

      The edit was generally good. But this editor had no idea why that text was there, and likely did not look at the talk page archive. Wikis are unreliable, unless they have far better protective structure in place.

    30. shows no signs of stopping is

      there is no sign because he did not look for what was in front of his face.

    31. This topic ban is still in effect, and Abd has absolutely no intention of abiding by it.

      Mind-reader. By the time of this discussion, I had completely stopped editing Wikipedia, and never again editied it. (There are apparently two exceptions, I documented this on the Wikiversity user page mentioned, where, much later, I apparently accidentally edited something by IP. So what?

    32. I propose a community ban for Abd.

      What he did not propose was any right of the banned user to respond to charges. "

      Well aware" is how wikis go south, because popular impressions are created based on quick impressions. One might notice a factor missing from all this discussion. Not an administrator, I took two administrators to ArbCom and the first (JzG) was reprimanded and the second (William M. Connolley) was desysopped. In the second case, there were dozens of editors calling for me to be banned, as there were two dozen users in the RfC that preceded the JzG case calling for my ban -- compared to only a dozen actually reading the case and supporting it, which case was eventually supported by ArbCom. Two dozen editors violated policy. Nothing done about it, nothing would ever be done about it.

      Bottom line? I was wasting my time with Wikipedia, it was a lost cause. But there are other wikis and more to be learned. I have just opened up a wiki and my first two users were notable scientists, with Wikipedia articles.

      I'm having fun.

    33. Seconded, since I am not aware of it

      Thanks, Guy. One point, maybe you can use it some day.

    34. Abd is really to that extent compared to the usual criteria we hold for community bans.

      Usually it requires extensive disruption. The basis for this ban was a short period of socking and one actual sock. Definitely there was a basis for continuing the block. However, the community can ban whatever it wants through a consensus of uninvolved users, at least that was policy. In reality, I have never seen an analysis of who was involved or not. JzG and Raul654 would be very involved, from prior disputes.

    35. Rdfox and Raul, not Jzg

      It is possible that JzG was a participant in the much later private complaints to the WMF that led them to globally ban me, he was involved in the deletion discussion on Wikiversity that was connected with it.

      I was never close to a community global ban. For starters, I was only banned on one wiki, en.wikipedia. I was blocked for a short time on meta, that was lifted. I had activity on hundreds of WMF wikis.

    36. he was community banned

      topic ban from cold fusion, yes. And I respected that ban until I abandoned wikipedia.

    37. Abd is already (permanently) community banned.

      He lied.

    38. back in the delegable-proxy day

      that was a proposed experiment that would have been voluntary, involve no policy change, but that might create the collection of information to better assess consensus. This was considered a net negative, so negative that it was proposed to delete the proposal (not my proposal, by the way, but I was an off-wiki theoretician with delegable proxy). That sequence revealed to me how dead-set Wikipedia was in preserving the status quo. Anything the might show a better way (or not!) was to be "terminated with extreme prejudice." The vehemence was astonishing to me. I really had high hopes for Wikipedia, but knew that it would need to develop more reliable process. By 2011, I had competely abandoned that idea. This was unlikely to happen with Wikipedia, the Iron Law of Oligarchy had taken over. I see mo sign now (2019) of any move to actually empower the full community. Wikipedia runs for the interests of what Jimbo called the "Cabal." And denies that there is any cabal, only by pretending that the only kind of cabal is one with guys with moustaches rubbing their hands in an evil conspiracy. In fact, the wiki structure encourages factions to form and to advance factional agendas, it's trivial. Watchlists and no restraining community review process that actually works.

    39. BUT you can't actually revert the edits more than once, else you risk running afoul of EW and eventually 3RR

      and if the edit was constructive that you reverted, you have damaged the project simply in order to enforce a "rule." This situation does not actually change if the user is blocked or banned. This all points out how far the admin corps has gone from wiki-sanity. He is looking for a rule to justify reversion. Yes, someone could, in theory, create multiple accounts but this had nothing to do with the experiment.

    40. somewhat similar experiment

      Knowing Guido den Broder, I doubt it was actually similar. Self-reversion can be done disruptively. Yes, it was an experiment, but once the WP admin response had played out, I was not going to continue it and only did one more experiment, also not disruptive. (But some will argue that any block evasion is disruptive. Regardless of conditions. to put this bluntly, WP:IAR is dead.

    41. User:Roadcreature (GdB)

      later ANI

      Without a link, this would be useless in discussion. Guido den Broeder was a PITA on Wikiversity.

    42. alternate approaches to editing whilst banned from a WMF wiki

      He gets it better than others. The approach was invented before I was banned, and it worked. To work, however, requires that a policy be established that self-reverted edits, identified as made under a ban (and therefore to be carefully examined before reverting them back in) would not be ban violations, not in themselves. If the edits were otherwise disruptive, like "So-and-so is poo!", self reversion might not avoid sanction.

      The real point of self-reversion is that, to work, cooperation must be set up.

    43. you can buy all the components and try it yourself

      Yes. that was ready and available by the time the web site was up. I still have all those components, but largely abandoned that project. There is more known, now, and I might restart it. This is for experiment, i.e., for study and learning, not to "prove" anything. But these WP admins have some weird idea about "believers" in pseudoscience. I have been published under peer review in a mainstream journal on the topic. They probably believe that such publications don't exist, and why? Because all reference to them has systematically been expunged from the WP article! One of the last things before I was topic-banned was getting a declaration from WP:RSN that a particular peer-reviewed secondary source was usable as reliable source. That was attacked extensively, but the decision was, yes, reliable source. This was the most prominent review of cold fusion ever. Excluded. Why? (and I am not claiming that the conclusions of that article are "true." Verification, not truth, right?

    44. the actual working model

      This kit would not be called a "working model." It was a collection of materials to be used to replicate a SPAWAR experiment, claim to produce a few neutrons (very few, but this kit was optimized from various reports of theirs to crreate, possibly, as many as thousands of proton-knock-on tracks and a few "triple-tracks," which are diagnostic of neutrons. I thought it was a cool idea. I did not expect to make a profit, rather it was designed to break even, covering necessary labor at a modest rate.

    45. have the kit available yet,

      where did he get that. The materials were available for sale, making what could have been difficult, easy.

    46. advertising their COI

      Disclosing. WMF policy requires disclosing COI. Is that "advertising." I suppose. But this was an educational resource, and the kit was designed to replicate a notable experiment.

    47. we as Wikipedians can force that decision.

      In any case, he was correct, except for one thing. A collection of "trusted" Wikipedians could privately complain and if a user was actually violating the terms of use, they could convince the Office to globally lock. Even more, they could have a user not violating the TOU be banned, by presenting misleading evidence or worse, since the WMF has a star chamber process.

    48. vendettas

      I was not carrying out any "Wikipedia vendetta." Those were not allowed on Wikiversity, and I was part of the defense against it. But a Wikipedia vendetta spilled over onto Wikiversity, and Wikiversity was largely defenseless.

    49. Wikipedia Review

      This was misleading. Wikiversity was for educational resources, and included learning-by-doing, and people could study whatever interested them. Some people have been interested in "wiki studies," and that can include criticism. As a WV sysop, I acted to prevent personal attacks on Wikipedians. Later, one of my blocks came, if I recall correctly, when I used revert warring to call attention to persistent outing and personal attack against a WP sysop. It worked. In other words, where a major policy required breaking a minor one (3RR). I went for major instead of minor. A more general application of this principle is in WP:IAR. Admins, however, come to not actually care about improving the project, they care about enforcing rules and their own ideas of what "improvement" means. And once opped, they become almost impossible to remove. They can become incredibly disruptive and nothing is done, and if somone points it out, it can be wiki-suicide.

    50. anyone is actually listening

      Well, I write to learn and I write for the future. And out of my Wikipedia experience, I was able to be paid as a consultant. That drives them crazy! But it was not a violation of policy.

    51. f he's quietly editing some non-cold-fusion-related topic with socks, then what's the harm

      Indeed. But the fascists actually want to punish. And if you look at what I was banned for around cold fusion, it was not for POV-pushing. It was for allegedly writing too much on the Talk page. And the example given was a request to lift a global blacklisting on meta (not on Wikipedia!) That had started simple but, guess who! JzG made it complicated by lying about the facts, so I needed to present evidence and that gets long. The request was successful. So I was banned for a successful request on meta. Go figure. These fascists do whatever they want and invent excuses for it, and they have high experience at presenting popular excuses.

    52. Jimbo stepped in and shut it down

      That intervention occurred before I was active on WV. However, it had consequences. When Jimbo parachuted in with a meat-axe, it had massive negative consequences on that community, which prized academic freedom. So a WV sysop filed an RfC to remove Jimbo's Founder powers. It was doing poorly, running about 2:1 against, because of long-term users like Raul654, did he vote? I don't recall, but his vote would have been obvious. Jimbo apparently did not notice that many long-term users had voted to remove the tools. It had, in fact, been heavy-handed. So, perhaps emboldened, he went to Commons and started deleting porn. The way I have summarized this later was "Academic freedom? Who cares? But don't touch our porn!" The issue was really the same, the right of the local wikis to autonomy. Cross-wiki disruption could already be handled by stewards, but there were ways to preserve neutrality and avoid cross-wiki disruption without destroying academic freedom. I was very careful about that project not to cause any damage other than what was created by over-reaction, and that was limited. By the time of this discussion, I had ceased all editing of Wikipedia. As typical for these fascists, had I been banned, it would not have stopped me. They imagine that they have super-powers, being admins really does go to their heads.

    53. nor should they, since his actions aren't vandalism, they're just the cold fusion topic area)

      While I did do a lot of study of cold fusion there, it was not the bulk of my work, for the longest time. The documentation of my socking -- which was part of a larger study of the use of self-reversion to avoid ban violation -- was presented for deletion and consensus was to keep it.

    54. until the folks over there decide otherwise

      And so it went. But I was eventually banned from Wikiversity. If you look at it, a whole drawer of socks appeared to harass, a 'crat who had been very inactive appeared and said he had received private complaints, Some Wikipedians piled in to comment and attack, and I was unilaterally banned by him on some trumped-up excuse that had never been used before, the length of my block log. I had been extremely active on Wikiversity, practically ran the place for a time, had been abusively blocked by a rogue probationary sysop, and there were other events. I even made some mistakes and was short-blocked. All fairly normal. But I had already concluded that Wikiversity was unsafe and I had stopped working there. I only was editing to confront impersonation socking. That 'crat called it a "vendetta." In fact, he was colluding with them, that's become more and more obvious (it is more than admitting to private contact, which was bad enough.)

    55. and how to impose a ban on him on all WMF projects

      And Raul654 was a very large presence with that faction, having created, with WMC, one of the largest sock farms ever by simply banning someone because of their global warning point of view. He created an entire industry to detect edits mentioning cow farts, he blocked large swathes of the internet. By a year or two before this, functionaries were telling me he had to go.

    56. I wonder if it's possible to arrange a *global* ban from all WMF projects

      At that point, no. This user had no idea of global policy and how and why it was very different from Wikipedia. Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, but was neutral by inclusion, rather than exclusion. That is academic rather than encyclopedic. In academia, people do original research and argue for their ideas, and that is protected. But I was not "pushing a cold fusion POV on Wikipedia. That was a myth created by my confrontation of the pseudoskeptical POV pushers who resisted my very conservative editing of that article. I was not a "believer," but I was putting in information from reliable sources, which the faction (that included JzG and William M. Connolley later) revert warred to keep out. Connolley lost his tools over my first cold fusion ban, but the faction continued to push for it, and if you have two dozen editors, including some administrators, pushing a position, it does not take off-wiki collusion for it to happen. They will wear anyone down.

    57. turning topic ban evasion

      what the project was about was as a demonstration that it was possible for banned users to make positive contributions, making enforcement easier, and this idea had been approved by an arbitrator, before. The method was to self-revert the edit, as being subject to a ban, with identification of the user. The proposal was that such self-reverted edits would not be considered ban violations (as they would be harmless and would only come back in if explicitly accepted.) This actually worked, and created cooperation between banned editors and the very editors who had wanted them banned.This study stopped because it was obvious that admins would do anything to enforce a ban, including blocking innocent users, creating massive range blocks, creating edit filters to prevent the user from identifying himself (with many false positives), and using revision deletion to hide perfectly good edits.

      Nobody looked at balance. That is what Wikipedia had become, an inefficient mess, needlessly pissing off people so that they become LTAs, and not actually caring about the impact on neutrality of differential blocking based on POV,

    58. inability to accept that he is anything other than 100% right?

      Personal attack. But who notices and cares?

    59. to evade ArbCom sanctions

      It was not an ArbCom sanction. JzG is so careless with reality that he might as well be said to be a liar.

    60. cold fusion ban,

      Yes. A community ban, that was interpreted beyond the original intention.

    61. Given EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) following on from an unsuccessful appeal of the topic ban re Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I am assuming that Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is now considered banned? It's probably best if someone else tags the user page and links to the various sockpuppets. Guy

      Why someone else? Well, Guy (JzG) was highly involved with me, I had taken him to ArbCom and he was reprimanded and never forgave this. He implies that I was ArbComm banned. I had been but it expired and was replaced by a community ban. I appealed to ArbCom and I was blocked during the appeal, and it became obvious that ArbCom was not going to do anything, and I considered I had exhaused due process and I was going to be blocked and banned if I jaywalked, and so I abandoneed Wikipedia. But first I tested a procedure I had developed whereby banned users could non-disruptively make positive contributions. That required some socking, so I did that. When it became obvious that the WP admin coomunity no longer cared about WP:IAR, but had become fascist, I then did one final test, to see how a carefullly neutral and non-disruptive user would be treated. That was Energy Neutral. Look at contributions. No conflict. Yet, abruptly, banned by an arbitrator. I had taken no steps to disgusie my IP. But once upon a time, they would not checkuser you unless you were disruptive. I had now learned that the community had abandoned the traditions that originally built Wikipedia. So I never again socked. So one actual sock puppet in 2011.

    1. I'd have thought that that is exactly the sort of thing for which discovery is needed.

      And he would be right. Legal process actually makes a great deal of sense, usually. That's "common law." Discovery is mandated by court rules, largely intended to facilitate the "discovery" of evidence by an orderly process, to reduce surprise at trial, to make the whole affair more reliable as to genuine fact-finding.

      It is actually possible, in California, to file interrogatories prior to filing a lawsuit, at least that was the rule when I was in California. In a case where I was not personally involved, but was assisting a close friend (ah, give me a moment to remember how drop-dead beautiful she was!), I wrote interrogatories that were then served on the plaintiff. When the plaintiff saw them, they suddenly became amenable to settlement, and the case quickly settled for far, far less than they had been demanding. (this was a case where the plaintiff was an insurance company under subrogation from a landlord, for a fire accident claim, and the attorneys had a fixed-fee arrangement that did not contemplate extended litigation. It became obvious that this was going to involve much more than they expected.

    2. et's not assume his motives are completely malign.

      What is commonly seen, amazing for a project with Assume Good Faith as a policy, is Assume Bad Faith, it's rampant and routine.

    3. they could recover legal costs and bury him.

      Extracting blood from turnips is not economically feasible.

      Rreally, :"arbitrator" now means little more than "Randy from Boise." they used to be, most of them, highly experienced, or seemed that way.

    4. If this proceeds to any extent, he'll need to fly out there.

      I doubt it. But I have children land grandchildren living in Marin County and it is always nice to visit them.

    5. Section 13 of the Terms of Use requires

      this is not an action under the Terms of Use, it did not arise out of my usage of the site (as far as I know!). Even if the TOU governed, they were written by the WMF and that the WMF would libel me was not contemplated. Self-serving terms can be defeated. Obviously, I considered the jurisdiction issue, My prior usage of the site under the TOU was not a consent to the WMF libelling me with those limitations on jurisdiction, which would be unconscionable as interpreted. In a real MTD for improper jurisdiction, we would cite arguments and authorities, but I'm pretty sure that I'd prevail. And I could be wrong, and much depends on the impressions of the judge, more than I'd have expected, in my experience, than from legal principles. Law is a human endeavor, and I just might have a leg up precisely because I'm pro se at this point.

      As near as I can see, the proper venue for this case is a U.S. Federal court where any of the parties reside, as a Diversity action, which is how it was filed.

    6. abuse

      this is an arbitrator? I certainly did not state that!

    7. It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

      This says a great deal about this troll. He is neither feared nor loved. What I would fear is being someone like him. Fate worse than death.

    1. Abd will lose less than a $500 while costing the WMF several thousand dollars in donor money and a bunch of time. Does that seem true to you?

      Yes, that's how it looks to me.

      This would be if they refuse to negotiate and rely on an MTD, and prevail. But they could spend that and fail, easily, wasting it, needing then to spend much more in discovery and trial. And I may be able to raise funding to cover my costs, and might raise enough to retain a lawyer, or might find pro bono counsel. At this point that is not necessary.

    2. vexatious litigants.

      I am not a vexatious litigant. I know the rules and I'm not even close. Vigilant is a blowhard troll, always has been. Vicious, too, what he did to that wiki started by what's his name, the partner of the WMF CEO, was disgusting. And these people talk about me, throwing stones, living in glass houses. The Smith brothers point to a single Wikipedia sock (an experiment, not disruptive) and they have created hundreds of tagged Wikipedia accounts, highly disruptive, and most of their accounts have never been tagged. He would criticize David as a "disruptive adolescent stone-throwing publicity-seeker" ignoring Goliath, as if Goliath were a harmless pastoralist.

    3. There is absolutely ZERO

      Woo! A challenge! Fun!

      I accomplish fun no matter what, it's independent of conditions.

    4. The local counsel will already know everyone in the local jurisdiction's court system.

      And the local counsel will meet with me, face-to-face. I do well in such meetings, generally. I have actual people skills, which most involved with the wikis do not. I do not talk like I write.

    5. The fact that Abd opted for a non-jury trial means that they don't have the unpredictability of 12 random ding dongs to deal with.

      That cuts both ways.

    6. They'll evaluate his fiscal state to estimate how long he can afford to litigate.

      And they will see, "for the rest of his life, and beyond, because he has heirs and assigns (and they have money, by the way). As to rest of his life, we never know, but it easily could be twenty years. My mother lived well into her nineties. My father died a bit before my age, but of lung cancer, he was a smoker.

    7. I strongly suspect

      To a witchsmeller, everything smells like a witch.

    8. compelled to give him a defined reason for his ban

      Not exactly. They don't have to give a defined reason, probably. I will consult with counsel before deciding that as final. If the case survives MTD, they will be required to provide all documents, and depositions may be required from officers. Again, I suspect that their counsel will be smart enough to negotiate, and the contents of that cannot be fully anticipated. But this is what a lawyer will normally do Those who insist on "this is ridiculous and I ain't talking to this troll" do not do well.

    9. in California it's doubtful.

      I used to live in California and was successful in court there. But this case is filed as a Diversity action in Massachusetts, with the U.S. Federal Court 20 minute's drive away.

    10. Ding, ding, ding.

      If this is BURob 13, a great example of someone raised beyond competence by something or other. This guy is actually an arbitrator. Standards have been falling, though they were never that high.

    11. I'd grind him so fine

      Way too much testosterone, poor guy. I know many lawyers. Lawyers who talk like that fail, big time. Would this guy actually dare face me in court? With a threat like that, he would not be allowed near the place.;

    12. the office bans are a total block box is to make a lawsuit like this hopeless

      Beeblebrox is probably correct. However, they did not do complete work in setting up protection, creating defamation here and potentially in other places. $400 is actually a lot of money for me, but I expect to obtain full value, even if only as a learning experience. One thing I learn is how many idiots there are ready to issue mindless, ignorant opinions.

    13. I'm aware of at least one such case.

      Do we know who BURob13 is, that his personal knowledge is any kind of evidence? If this is Wikipedia BU Rob13, perhaps. But there is no verification of identity, and there are people who do impersonate. But no details were given, and the existence of a case does not demonstrate that it is common, and if rare, the basic objection raised would be valid.

    14. associations to it could negatively affect people in real life.

      Indeed. I know for a fact that the impressions of the general public about a ban like this is that it impeaches the character of the person. Many will not realize the political possibilities, will assume that the WMF is benevolent, and must have had sound reasons, the ban must really have been necessary for protection. Even though it protected nobody, it was only punitive, as far as I can see.

    15. Has a SanFranBan ever been rejected because someone outside of T&S disagreed with it?

      The reality of the situation: Making a decision to reject the proposed ban will create controversy among staff, it will take time, and staff time is money. Few will make waves. But they might. The community is only represented through the Board, which is weak (as it is in many organizations, I've seen this up close. The Board depends on the Staff, and any Board member who offends staff will often be ousted as a troublemaker.)

      But, bottom line, this is irrelevant. The WMF has very poor ban process, not transparent, hidden, star chamber, and not appealable. I can see no basis for that, there could be the possibility of appeal that would still protect privacy.

    16. You said that, not them.

      It does not matter what they said. If an action will be readily interpreted with defamatory effect, if this would be reasonably anticipated, and if the action continues on notice, the action can be considered defamation.

    17. cannot have defamed him

      The announcement of the ban, unnecessary for legitimate purpose, is a defamation, or certainly can have that effect, and it is effect that matters.

    18. a declaration that he is so abominable

      Considering what they do allow, especially. What I blew the whistle on was actual impersonation-to-defame, followed by threats of retaliation, actually carried out with the assistance of the WMF. If nothing else, this will expose that, bring it into relief, and very possibly make it into media, i.e., reliable source. At that point much of the reputation damage will have turned into a positive effect.

    19. Several people outside of Trust and Safety must sign off on any action they take

      The reality in such organizations is that such people may not themselves carefully investigate. The case probably must look good to them, trusting what was reported. But this is all speculation. Yes, I know what they claim about the process. Claims are like assholes . . . . What I see here, and it is common, is that because something is a stated policy, it actually happens.

    20. snowball's chance in hell this reaches discovery.

      I guess we find out how the temperature of Hell and the melting point of snowballs compare. I agree that it is unlikely that this goes to discovery, because it is likely that it will be settled before then. But that's up to the WMF. If they insist on stonewalling, first of all, if they do that, I win $200,000 do not pass go. No, if they don't negotiate, they may waste money on an MTD. In spite of the opinions of legal ignoramuses here, an MTD is likely to fail, because there is an issue of fact that will require a trial to resolve: is the publication of a ban an act of defamation? My opinion is, yes, but what matters is not my opinion, but the adjudication of a court, upon consideration of arguments, and have these trolls ever read the legal principles for adjudication of a Motion to Dismiss? I have and I watched actual process.

      The defendant must show that there is no fact alleged that could possibly result in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. That is actually quite difficult in most cases, which is why most motions to dismiss fail in federal court. We have a case here where a published ban actually was used to defame.

      No, by the time a Motion to Dismiss appears, if it does, I expect to have professional assistance. Right now, I filed pro se, keeping expenses at a minimum. I have not decided what I would settle for, and if I did, I would not announce it, but this much is clear: a reduction in my expenses will not increase my demand!

    21. they are legally entitled to bar

      Probably. There are issues that have never been tested, but this case does not directly test them. Not as filed.

    22. His only claim about the WMF in that filing is that they globally banned him.

      Ah, you gotta read carefully. I claimed that they published the ban. Without the publication, both to the public and to the compainants, it could not have been used to defame.

    23. no statements about Abd publicly except to say he's globally banne

      Correct.

    24. that will play in front of a judge

      One cannot play one's imagination in front of a judge. I have actually stood in front of judges, having filed motions, and the judges were smiling and joking with me, and my motions were granted. Vigilant probably assumes that I speak like I write, but those are very different contexts, and in person, I'm focused on connecting with the audience, and I'm good at it, at least so far. I'm actually trained. Vigilant is a self-important opinionator, self-appointed as Witchsmeller Pursuivant, wearing a very weird breastplate, as if a warrior. This guy would not last ten minutes in court before they toss him out. Well, maybe ten minutes!

    25. imagine the deposition of Mr Lomax

      Honi soit qui mal y pense

    26. don't have to even give a reason

      that is correct, they don't, but they also do not have to publish a ban to create and enforce one.

    27. bury him in lawyers.

      ooo! How many can talk at once? Do they jump on the plaintiff, do they lie down on him, and how deep do they bury him. One, two, three lawyers deep? At $300 per hour each? For how long do these lawyers assume this position? Uh, is this legal?

      I'm amazed how dumb this long-time troll is.

    28. an injury to his reputation

      In these discussions, Vigilant and others have shown injury to reputation. Vigilant particularly by citing the RatWikik article as if proof that I'm a "net.kook." .

    29. real money.

      He noticed, and so did I. Oliver Smith does not own the pot he pees in. I'm not sure about Darryl. By involving the WMF, they involved an entity with assets, which was not bright. But it worked for them, for a year! Oliver is already facing a lawsuit from another one of his targets. If this gets going, Darryl has offended many people with assets, and so this just might get expanded, if it continues. I do not control the future, even if I declare it, sometimes. Man proposes, Reality disposes.

    30. shit out of luck

      I don't need luck and I don't believe in it.

    31. a reasonable basis for his banning

      Weird. The ban protected nobody, had no effect on what I was doing, and only served the purpose of defamation, exposing the WMF to liability. That was 'reasonable?"

      In any case, I don't know what the basis was. I assume, in fact, that it looked reasonable to them, based on what they believed happened. But did that actually happen?

      Perhaps the "clownfuckery" was believing the reports of "valuable volunteers" like JzG and Joshua P. Schroeder"? Or the Smith brothers? Or who else?

    32. Being Abd

      In case anyone has not noticed, he is not Abd.

    33. force the WMF to disclose the basis and evidence on which he was banned

      Well, probably not exactly. I.e., they will probably claim privacy protection requires that remain confidential. However, there are ways to deal with that. I learned a lot by paying close attention to Rossi v. Darden, with claims of privileged communication and skilled lawyers on both sides. Disclosure to a magistrate was ordered, who decided if it was to be revealed.

    34. does quite often work as a smear tactic

      It works in a context where there is no ordered examination of evidence. It works much less in a court environment.

    35. the purpose of seeding doubt in the (potential future) judge's mind about whether or not he's actively violating the WMF terms of service.

      Yeah, this joe job could possibly be intended for that. Stupid, though. If this case gets to the point where violation of the terms of service is relevant -- it is not a core issue -- there is no evidence those are me. And I'd be in court, testifying, and I'm told I have a great smile. I don't think I will look like a liar. I know not to get obsessed and upset by the lies of others. It will be visible. Don't mistake my documentation for upset and complaint. Trying to judge people by text, online, is quite hazardous.

    36. interesting

      thanks.

    37. Old man yells at cloud on steroids.

      There is no yelling allowed in court.

    38. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

      People who eat excrement tend to not think clearly.

    39. suicide by court.

      Vigilant has no life, so knows not death. Yet.

    40. a $10M liability.

      It could be $10 trillion and make no difference.

    41. the WMF can bury him alive

      To bury me alive will be expensive. The court is not likely to award unnecessary costs. How many lawyers are needed to respond to this action?

    42. that WMF legal moves to dismiss

      That might not even be likely.

    43. He's pro se vs real lawyers.

      Yes. David v Goliath? Place your bets!!!

    44. brought the WMF and their legal team into this

      Not yet. They have not yet acknoweldged service, so I may have to send a process server.

    45. $200K in damages

      Plus expenses and punitive damages if so adjudicated.

    46. The WMF don't owe him or anyone else access to their servers.

      That is more or less correct. However, I have not claimed that they owe me access to the servers. I have access, and it is not prohibited. What is this idiot talking about? What is prohibited is write access. Of course, they could not prevent it if I choose to ignore the ban. But it would muddy my case.

    47. He'll be lucky if this is simply thrown out as frivolous.

      The opinion of The Garbage Scow is worth what?

    48. He's after the John Does as well as the WMF.

      Yes. While I suspect defamation by "Does," I preferred to wait to name them until there is more evidence. There will be a cost of service. Especially for the U.K. Does (There may be three or four).

    49. Dipshittery

      Shit comes from assholes.

    50. how the WMF is liable for that alleged harassment

      By creating the publication that the trolls cited as proof of their claims that I must have Done Something Really Bad, to receive such an extraordinary sanction. Context matters.

    51. hell of a time

      Civil case. Proof not needed, merely a preponderance of evidence, and there is plenty of evidence, more probably available through discovery. I actually warned the WMF a year ago to keep server records. If they didn't, if they destroyed them, they become liable for what might have been in them. Spoliation of evidence. Bad Idea, once notified.

    52. Your account is not your full name nor obviously you

      One who hides behind anonymity may think that, but my account was never anonymous. It was obviously me. This is a stupid objection. Naive.

    53. financial injury from being prevented from using it

      And I have not claimed an injury from being banned, only from publication of the ban without necessity.

    54. constitutional right to use their platform

      Correct. Who claimed that I did?

    55. How will you prove this?

      I don't have to know how at this point. That is what discovery is about, uncovering possible evidence. If the action is not challenged by a motion to dismiss, or the motion is rejected, or if the case is not settled before then, it goes into discovery, which is where lawsuits get expensive. Requests for production of documents are not expensive, but depositions are. Who pays for a reporter who transcribes the deposition? How is this handled by an in forma pauperis plaintiff? I don't know, I have seen no counsel on this. Bridge down the road, not yet in sight. But if I need to raise money for that process, I'm pretty sure there are people who will throw money at this.

    56. What injury does a 'false complaint' do to you?

      There are a number of harms that may be alleged. If they are not all alleged in the complaint, my legal advisory (not an attorney, but a highly experienced paralegal) said "Keep it simple." I can amend later. This is like any libel. The injury may be subtle, difficult to quantify. But I do know some people to ask, possibly to depose. See, filing an action gives a plaintiff some super-powers, to compel testimony. If the court agrees it is relevant. Will I wield those powers with skill? I don't know, how about I find out? And part of this is obtaining expert advice. I am much more likely to get it because I took those first steps.

    57. is not responsible for anyone who posts there.

      Unless they communicate with the one who posts there, and act according to that person's libels, believing them, and the action then serves the defamatory purpose. I have not claimed that the WMF is responsible for that action in itself, but it is responsible for the consequences of its action, and especially after they are on notice, which they were about a year ago.

      It is obvious that Vigilant is a basement dweller, with no real-world legal experience. I am not a lawyer, but I know some and have been reading legal opinions for many decades, and have even written legal criticism, accepted by lawyers, and every motion I have filed in court (as it happens, both motions to quash service of a summons) was accepted. And the judges were amused, at this pro se hippie outfoxing the professionals. It's fun for them! Doesn't mean that I will prevail after the lawyers wake up and smell the coffee and realize they might have to work for their fees.

    58. Who all knows the Abd account is you

      He is addressing me on Wikipediocracy, when I was banned from there, probably for confronting him on some libel of another. I didn't see all this until it was referenced elsewhere.

      The ban was immediately announced on the RatWiki article on me (started by Darryl Smith and maintained by a long series of Smith socks plus occasional edits by actual independent RWidiots and even some smart ones, on occasion), with the WMF health and safety acknowledgement mail published by Oliver Smith. So two complaints, Oliver and Darryl Smith. I have an address for Oliver, and if this gets serious, I can probably get the one for Darryl. But all this hinges on what will be revealed in discovery, as a core.

    59. an anonymous account?

      It was never an anonymous account. The Witchsmeller hasn't done his homework, he's encountering some serious dementia, with no preparation.

    60. If the WMF want to make an example of him, he's just committed bankruptcy.

      How do you make an example of someone without making any comment on the underlying situation? And I could have filed in forma pauperis, I qualify, probably. They allow people to file who have no assets, where a countersuit for malicious prosecution or some such nonsense would not be able to collect any damages, so any sane attorney would tell them, "You are big boys, you can afford to defend this, but maybe you should fix your process so that you are not vulnerable to claims like his, and take the cost of settlement with him as the price you pay for the learning experience. If he is crazy and insists on the Moon, well, cross that bridge if you come to it. Maybe he's not crazy. And I imagine the drooling, batshit insane WMF officer, saying, "But he is a well-known loon!!!" And the lawyer will say, so what? The only way to find out is for a lawyer to communicate with him. Sooner, rather than later, before he incurs more expenses, making all this more expensive. You really should have asked me when he wrote that first certified mail. Might have saved $400.

    61. his crack dealer

      Never tried the stuff. I have ADHD and small amounts of Ritalin work wonders, but I haven't taken it for years. Vigilant should go back to smelling witches, some of them are beautiful, I've known one well. But I think he might find that they are not, in the least, attracted to this asshole. So he can then join an incel group.

    62. 1

      I had to give a value to the damages, at least $75,000, to be a proper Diversity case. Punitive damages, if the court awards them, could take this up. $200,000 is not necessarily a high figure. Do I think I will get it? Only if they default, or if they go to trial and I wipe the floor with them. Or, by that time, my attorneys do. That filing is just the toe in the door, I'm not going to incur attorney expenses until (1) the need is immediate, (2) an attorney volunteers on contingency, or (3) I have raised the money --- or some combination.

      If the WMF is swift to address this issue, it might all go away quickly. That depends on them.

    63. published

      "Published" is the key word here. Not "banned." Further, that they "refused response" shows that the libel was continued in spite of notice. They were warned, by mail to the registered agent. They chose not to respond, so they, my opinion, become liable for further costs and damages.

    64. for what amounts to $400 of the individuals money and a few hours of time.

      He noticed. I was trained to notice these leverage points, where a small effort might have a large impact. Or not. We don't know until we push that lever.

      Claims that I will be found liable for enormous costs and possible, but unlikely, I suspect, not for a case of first impression, as this appears to be. If precedent were clear, yes, that could be possible. It is not clear, or I would not have filed.

    65. at their discretion and legal and other areas are courtesy copied to make sure the paper work is right and to give the appearance of a fair process.

      They probably have a sign-off procedure, but as star chamber process, it is entirely unclear how thorough it is in actual practice. Some of the bans are highly questionable. But those banned are not unitied, only a few talk to each other. And most believe the WMF is impregnable, thinking that the TOS, written by the WMF, controls. When a contract is written by one party, without the participation of another party, a court will fully interpret it, usually, in favor of the other party, not the author. Unconscionable terms will be rejected by the court, if not made very clear to the user.

      The are not impregnable, but every lawsuit I looked at, except maybe one, was unskillfully filed, that suits died for lack of prosecution was common.

    66. I honestly don't think they care about the effects bans have on the people, the projects or the community.

      The WMF was designed to serve the community. What "community," It was never clear, but it would be the community that builds the project. Everyone else, eff 'em. Readers? How can we serve the vast anonymous hordes? Because it was thought impossible, they never went there. But it is not impossible. By bifurcating accounts into "people here to build an encyclopedia," and those judged as having some other agenda (like truth, for example, which might be personally known to them, as experts or otherwise), and by blocking the great unwashed, not "Wikipedians", they poked out one of the eyes of the entity that could actually approach neutrality, if given structure. That structure was proposed as an experiment, and it was immediately and viciously attacked, the vehemence amazed me, for a mere experiment, harmless. Unless, of course, it worked and it was then decided to use it. Can't allow that. This is the Iron Law of Oligarchy at work. By not enabling the full community of interest from the beginning, by depriving the "other" of any voice, even if expressed without disruption, they made the drift away from neutrality inevitable.

    67. about Abd's use of software

      Actually, the suit is about the WMF usage of the software. Not mine. And they did not block me over my usage of the software, but about something else, unknown, possibly guessable.

    1. I mean, ghosts have to be a real thing, according to everybody.

      That is all meaningless without a definition of "real." Is the mind real? Is Mona Lisa smiling?

      Sorry about that child's disappointment. But, long-term, reality is better than fantasy, and there is a way in which Santa Claus is real, and when the child grows up, part of his or her job may be to actualize that.

    2. "if you understand this story then you will be liberated of all worries and fears".

      Machina, there is a huge clue that, if you notice it and realize the implications, could transform your life into that vision of liberation. It is that you imagine this claim in the blog post. It is not there. This is your fantasy, and you don't know the difference between your fantasy and understanding and reality. The first step toward transformation is recognizing our existent condition, -- we must start from where we are, not where we imagine or think we should be -- that we live and believe in fantasies. Once we admit that, we then develop an appetite for reality. That appetite is, perhaps, natural, but has been conditioned out of most of us. Or it is not natural, I don't know for sure. I just know what happens when we honor and amplify it.

      So first, baby step: he did not claim what you said.

      You are trapped by your belief in "correct." To be useful, a story or interpretation or even understanding does not need to be "correct." It is more generally accurate to say that no story or interpretation is "truth." What is a bit deeper, perhaps, than what he wrote is that if one is in a position from which one understands the story, one is already liberated. The story is pointing to something. But it is not the story causing what is pointed to. The entire dualist construction (cause and effect, right and wrong, yes and no, is confronted by koans, the point of a koan is to create a mind-failure, a breakdown of the traps we have created. Looking at a koan and taking it as some sort of scientific reality is completely missing the point, and abusing it. It's a test. Koans are actually used to measure progress in training. Outside of training, they are meaningless except as others who have experience the same may recognize it in the koans. And many Buddhists intellectualize the koans and explain them, missing the point themselves, treating them as some sort of religious dogma. "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." or they talk about the "Stink of Zen."

    3. any on believe anything you say when your interpretation was so wrong there

      As a child. Really, Rats can be so obtuse. One who has made a mistake of some kind will generally have deeper understanding than one who never made the mistake. On the other hand, sometimes we flip to the opposite pole, still trapped in dualism.

    4. you can't be handed knowledge or understanding.

      Gold on RationalWiki. Who knew?

    5. a single person's experience with Buddhism and its effects will be true for that person, but may not and need not be true for you or anyone else.

      The problem disappears in practice. One step is to look for reality in one's own experience, and a sign of reality will be stability and, I'll claim, peace. There is a core choice to make, and I call it a choice rather than "the truth," but it is one of many examples of something becomes true because we say so. (And not true if we don't say so.) Do we trust reality? Or, perhaps, do we fear it? (If we are honest, most of us will come to recognize, that at least in some ways, we fear it. But we can fear a thing and also make a choice to trust it.) That choice is fundamental and will dominate the rest of our lives.

    6. Buddhism to have some kind of special position over other religions and philosophies.

      that is because fundamental Buddhism is actually universal, it is not rooted in belief and dogma, but in experience, that is actually accessible to us. There is also a "Buddhism" that has become a body of dogma. I found this with Buddhism first, myself, but I also found the same with Islam. It takes some degree of work and experience to distentangle the encrustations of dogma from the core.

    7. It's possible I suppose, but unlikely.

      I've known that Ariel was "with it" for a long time.

    8. I just want to know what makes people take stuff like Zen koans so seriously or that they have any wisdom in it.

      Asking questions about why other people think as they do is not a formula for gaining understanding, unless you ask those people, and, even then, if you are holding firmly to your own ideas, you may not be able to understand what they tell you. I suggesr, instead, asking yourself why you think that what is on that page is "nonsense." You are assuming that it is, and then want to understand why some, you apparently believe, take it "so seriously."

      I'll answer the question for you, you are free to contradict me. You think it is nonsense because it does not make sense to you, and you believe that your own understanding defines the reality of "sense."

      Koans are designed to test consciousness. If you have certain experience, a koan makes sense, if not, not. It's that simple. I asked the Abbot of Nanzenji, on a visit to the U.S., about koans. I said, "Koans are often considered paradoxes, but my understanding is that, to the enlightened, they are not paradoxes. I was a little more than 20 years old and, ah, precocious. He looked straight at me and said, "To the enlightened man, koans are not paradoxes."

      What could be called entry-level koans were transparent to me. Advanced koans, not. I might have needed decades of training, not just a more or less accidental stumbling into kensho that I had experienced.

      So, that's my experience. What really matters. for you, is your experience.

      If one takes koans "seriously," they don't understand them, big surprise.

      You think others are taking them "seriously," trying to extract wisdom from them. perhaps like squeezing blood from a turnip.

      There is a practice in Zen, koan study. It's not the kind of Zen I have practiced, and it requires a master, probably. They are not easy to find.

    9. That doesn't really answer it for me.

      Your question has no answer that you could possibly understand, without doing the work. People spend decades in training to break through what keeps us from kensho (insight into our true nature). You want to read an article, or ask questions on RationalWiki, to get what people work for years to obtain with mixed success. However, along the way, there are other benefits to the study.

    10. Contemporary cognitive science agrees.

      Let's remember that this is a blog, an expression of a opinion, not a scientific article. He is invoking a high-level fantasy, not actually citing anything scientific. I'd call it sloppy, but sloppy is very normal!

      But there is a science involved here, in a personal sense. Buddhism in general can be understood as claiming that by attending carefully to our own experience, we can discover reality in a deeper way than is possible just by going with the flow, the avalanche of experience, the endless chattering of the monkey mind.

      This can be called religious, but it is also secular, it requires no belief in gods or the supernatural. However, if one practices what is being suggested, one may encounter experiences outside of the normal. How one interprets those experiences is another matter. This, then, can create a problem. Can one transmit this to others? Carl Sagan brilliantly explored this in Contact.

      This is what can be done: if one carefully describes the experiences themselves, as sensory reality, others may recognize the descriptions as confirmed in their own experience. Those without those experiences may call it all "nonsense." And, for them, it is.

      Until and unless they do what might be needed to share the experience. In my training, the advice was to "hang with winners." I.e, keep the company of people who are living well, who smile a lot, and who create joy and happiness in those around them.

    11. Science cannot establish the non-existence of reality.

      Right. And the author was not claiming that. I could say he was a bit careless in how he expressed the idea, he did not need to mention "cognitive science" because we all already know enough, if we pay attention to our own experience and have any basic understanding of biology and psychology. Once we attribute consciousness to the brain, we have the elements needed for the mechanistic understanding that there is a model of the world that is not, in itself, reality, but a reflection of it. Study this for a few years and then consider what happens when the mirror of the mind is shattered. There are koans about that. On another level, science cannot establish the absolute non-existence of anything. In general, that is not testable.

    12. you will need some pretty compelling reasons to ignore your own senses.

      The language you use is full of red flags as to how your imagination and reactivity dominate your thinking (and thus your expression). "he makes it seem" That is not discriminable. Rather, you read what he wrote and you thought something, and you attributed that to what he was "making." it's fantasy, and that we engage in these fantasies is part of what he is talking about. You add something to what he wrote, you added "really" and "just." Rather, what is studied in Buddhism is how the mind works. We do put together an image of the world. If you study your own senses carefully, you may notice this. Most of us do not remember what the world was like as a newborn, do we? We learned to put it together. How much of this is built-in, I don't know, but we also learn, very clearly, to ignore much of what we actually see and feel and hear. If you don't know that, it's because you have not studied your own life. (look up "entoptic phenomena" and learn to see them. You have been seeing them since you have had eyes to see.

      You use "experience" and "consciousness" as if they are different. Are they? A sense organ is like a switch. If we flip a switch, does this create in the circuit and "experience"? Is the brain a machine? Where is the consciousness?

    13. there is nothing to be learned from this question.

      Someone who claims this is setting themselves up to learn nothing. Great idea, eh? Repeat as needed for comfort and a life that is not worth living.

    14. No. Not at all. It doesn't say that there is nothing real outside of your own mind.

      Right, Ariel is often a clear thinker. I should add a bit more. Take this literally: It literally does not say "there is nothing real outside of your own mind." It does say something else that you have collapsed into that.

    15. it is clear where it starts to make leaps

      What is clear to me, having been studying Buddhism, in texts (including in the original Sanskrit) and with teachers, for over fifty years, is that there are places where the author moves outside what is fully grounded in the dharma, missing half of the message. But he's good about the other half, and it is the other half that may be important for practice.

    16. That didn’t really answer my question or address the article.

      Perhaps because you did not ask a question in the body of your post. You have one -- many, actually -- but you didn't ask it, and the question you asked has a yes or no answer. Ariel does give it to you below. Do you actually care about this subject? If so, why are you asking on RationalWiki, do you expect to find a deep understanding of Buddhism there? Or antyhing, for that matter. Quora is much better.But they require real-name accounts (though you can ask questions and even answer anonymously.) And they will whack you immediately for incivility. But you could probably manage it.

    17. are you sure? Because he makes it seem that what we take to be a solid body is really just a series of conscious events that we cobble into a coherent body. He even mentions the bit about cognitive science saying all experience arises when consciousness is stimulated by a sense organ in response to stimuli.

      The language you use is full of red flags as to how your imagination and reactivity dominate your thinking (and thus your expression). "he makes it seem" That is not discriminable. Rather, you read what he wrote and you thought something, and you attributed that to what he was "making." it's fantasy, and that we engage in these fantasies is part of what he is talking about. You add something to what he wrote, you added "really" and "just." Rather, what is studied in Buddhism is how the mind works. We do put together an image of the world. If you study your own senses carefully, you may notice this. Most of us do not remember what the world was like as a newborn, do we? We learned to put it together. How much of this is built-in, I don't know, but we also learn, very clearly, to ignore much of what we actually see and feel and hear. If you don't know that, it's because you have not studied your own life. (look up "entoptic phenomena" and learn to see them. You have been seeing them since you have had eyes to see.

      You use "experience" and "consciousness" as if they are different. Are they? A sense organ is like a switch. If we flip a switch, does this create in the circuit and "experience"? Is the brain a machine? Where is the consciousness?

    18. the premise is faulty

      What premise? It is possible that the author has fallen into a trap, but that is not "Buddhism." His writing is generally quite good, but I'd need to study it more; The invocation of "cognitive science" is a bit of a red herring.

    19. https://www.lionsroar.com/what-is-your-body-july-2013/ I can't help but feel like the guy says that there is no physical reality and that it's all just in your mind and that science proves it.

      It's great that you are questioning what you read, Machina, but not great that you are not aware of your own processes and what keeps you from understanding the material on that site. What does the "guy" say? You wrote about what you "feel," but is not a feeling, it is a thought you invented or that fell upon you in reaction to what you read, the "feeling" part would be an emotional reaction -- a body sense -- in response to it

      To understand what is on that page, will, for most people, take at least a few years of practice of what they are talking about. (For those with the experience, it is all obvious.) I can say this for sure to you: the guy did not say what you think. The page is not saying "there is no physical reality." What Buddhism works with is what we actually experience, and we experience through the senses and the mind. What we sense and our awareness are phenomena of the mind, not reality itself, so Buddhism is silent on the issue of "physical reality," except \that it focuses on actual experience, which is a kind of physical reality. But it is all the mind. And the same set of experiences and understandings can be viewed as "it is all physical reality." The paradoxes and difficulties arise from the idea of two realities: physical and mental (or "spiritual"). "There is only one reality" is also a story, and imagination, but it happens to be a very useful one. Buddhist training is about attending to what is present, not trying to "figure it out." No "belief" is required.

      To be sure, the author of that page (and possibly the source on Abhidharma) wrote something you could take as denying physical reality. In a more complete understanding of Buddhism, denial and affirmation become one, and one way of understanding that is dialectical. I.e., it is A and it is not-A, and deep understanding arises -- in practice and experience -- when one can hold opposites, seeing the difference and the unity. Now, someone can tell you this and it can be meaningless, because to understand it requires having gone through the process. That can take years, though some degree of awakening can occur in a flash. Don't believe it till you see it! However, Ariel31459 has pointed to the value of respecting others. Respect, not worship. Test what is said, but, of course, you must first understand what is to be tested! If you have not understood it, at least to be clear about what practice is being recommended, you may otherwise create a test that is doomed to failure.

  2. Mar 2019
    1. It's totally meta

      You can do what ya wanna.

      Hypothesis is a web-wide collaboration. If someone else wants to annotate this page, they can. There are pages dense with annotations.

    2. if he is using a pseudonym online?

      Dysklyver gets it right. Abd and Abd ul-Rahman Lomax are the names I mostly use. Dennis Lomax is still my legal name, I never bothered to change it.

    3. Abd would like everyone to know he is busy being awesome.

      Thanks for passing it on.

    4. how often someone has sued the WMF

      I've looked at a few. Mostly idiotic failures. but there was a German case where the plaintiff won.

    5. 10 cents per page, with a max of $3 per document. The first $15 per quarter is waived.

      Tarantino is actually useful. Yes, I'm aware of that action. The charges are outrageous, far beyond what is necessary for incremental expense for access. But give any agency a cash cow, then try to take it away and watch the fireworks.

    6. member of the community

      It might be difficult to find.

    7. Fail to claim a cause of action.

      Perhaps. I doubt it.

      But consider this. To be dismissed for failure to file a claim of action, the defendant will have to appear and file a Motion to Dismiss. How much will that cost them? I bet it would be more than $400! As well, I can amend my complaint in response to such a motion. By that time, it is likely that I'll have legal assistance, so this will not be entirely my own expertise, which exists but is limited.