And the award for Most Difficult Expert goes to …

Once approved as a general expert editor, one may apply for a specialized expert badge in a similarly to-be-determined process.

Hrmmm....

Appears to be a contest between an Agent Probunkateer on the one hand and an Agent Probonkateur on the other toe.

I'm beginning to see a whole new way of subverting Wikipedia. You just need to make a really bad name for yourself (such as Jonny and I have each done), then … depending on your true desires (or that of your client), simply launch a sockpuppet advocacy campaign on behalf of the OPPOSITE side of the coin, and your true desires shall be fulfilled by the Wikipediots.

Too easy!

Greg

Why do you think that is?

They overschlept?

Question

Why does this guy mention you in this edit summary? — Closedmouth 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

* Thank you for that. The answer is: because he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and wants to be absolutely certain that everybody knows it. Guy 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

* Trying to hoist Guy by his own petard, it seems … his oft-stated opinion is that there needs to be a draconian purge of anything connected with a banned user, because "banned is banned", so this sockpuppet army is taking him at his word and blanking out a bunch of articles that were largely authored by banned user Jon Awbrey, for disruptive effect. *Dan T.* 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:* See the banning debate, the suspected sock puppets, the proven sockpuppets, and note that the major problem with Awbrey was his insistence on adding original research, followed by endless argumentation and attempts to rewrite policy in order to allow him to continue adding original research despite numerous editors asking him with, steadily increasing firmness, to stop. Awbrey is banned. Things he added before he was banned do not need to be deleted, but having been banned he is banned and should simply go away and leave us alone. This is garden variety WP:POINT stupidity by a banned user who demonstrated at enormous length his complete inability to work with others whose views were different from his own. You seem to think that this stupidity makes him seem more credible and me less so. Forgive me if I disagree absolutely.

If Awbrey wants to contribute to content, he can appeal the ban to ArbCom. It may be that they will convert the ban to a topical ban or editing restriction. Something tells me that he would not respect an editing restriction any more than he respected the request to stop adding original research, but you never know. Feel free to initiate the ArbCom case on his behalf. Guy 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonny, you've been educated by your dear friend JzG.

I think that he really loves you, Jon, I do …

Awbrey is banned. Things he added before he was banned do not need to be deleted, but having been banned he is banned and should simply go away and leave us alone.

It's a contest between Ban Stick vs Roll On.

Family matters for now, though, so I don't know when I'll be able to get back to it.

It's a contest between Ban Stick vs Roll On.

Guy Chapman continues his campaign of Bare Assed Lies (BAL) based on Secret Evidence here.


I realize that many newcomers to The Wikipedia Review are probably unaware of the full sad history of this episode, so I'll try to run through the low points of it one more time later on.

Family matters for now, though, so I don't know when I'll be able to get back to it.

Jon Awbrey

The major problem with Awbrey was his insistence on adding original research, followed by endless argumentation and attempts to rewrite policy in order to allow him to continue adding original research despite numerous editors asking him with, steadily increasing firmness, to stop.

Isn't there an Admin named BaloniousChunk whose job it is to sort all that out?

These articles were started by banned editor User:Jon Awbrey. Awbrey has asserted that they are original research and has blanked them. Most have few if any contributions other than by Awbrey and his many sockpuppets, which would normally qualify as {{db-user}} but the blanking was clearly intended as WP:POINT disruption. However, there is a long-standing issue with the Awbrey's original research in Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), to whom these are all, I think, related, and none seem to have proper reference to independent sources (a "bibliography" without inline citations in this case may be indicative of novel synthesis), so I believe we need to assess the articles, see if they are independently significant, merge, verify (and source) or delete them as appropriate.

Logic of relatives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Logic of Relatives (1870) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Logic of Relatives (1883) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Logical matrix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Relation composition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) [tagged as how-to]
Relation construction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Relation reduction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Relative term (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sign relation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sign relational complex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Tacit extension (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please review these articles, as I lack the specialist knowledge to assess whether this problematic author's claim of original research has merit. Thanks Guy (Help!) 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Much To Do About NOR


Now here's a novelty — Guy Chapman actually admitting that he lacks the competence to render judgment on any random question that comes before the Cathedra Of His Infallible Self-Conceit.

Then again, the novelty of Guy's Newfound Humility is slightly marred by his tiresome inability to get even such simplest of facts straight, such as who said what about what. How strange of him to swear of these articles that "Awbrey has asserted that they are original research", since no such assertion by Jon Awbrey is anywhere to be found. Indeed, there is nothing in evidence but vague accusations out of the Guy's own mouth, so to speak, that "The major problem with Awbrey was his insistence on adding original research, followed by endless argumentation and attempts to rewrite policy in order to allow him to continue adding original research despite numerous editors asking him with, steadily increasing firmness, to stop."

So I'm sure that we'll soon see a prompt retraction from Guy Chapman on that score.

I'm sure …

Jon Awbrey

Perhaps "original research" simply means that something is beyond JzG's understanding.

Perhaps "original research" simply means that something is beyond JzG's understanding.

...the object of an Encyclopedia is to prevent others' understanding from surpassing ours.

Whan that Awbrey with his skewers sote
The Dunce of Farce hath Peirced to the rote,
And Banned every peyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the furore.

Much To Do About NOR


Now here's a novelty — Guy Chapman actually admitting that he lacks the competence to render judgment on any random question that comes before the Cathedra Of His Infallible Self-Conceit.

Then again, the novelty of Guy's Newfound Humility is slightly marred by his tiresome ineptitude at getting even the simplest of facts straight, such as who said what about what. How strange of him to swear of these articles that "Awbrey has asserted that they are original research", since no such assertion by Jon Awbrey is anywhere to be found. Indeed, there is nothing in evidence but the very vague accusations out of Guy Chapman's own mouth, so to speak, that "The major problem with Awbrey was his insistence on adding original research, followed by endless argumentation and attempts to rewrite policy in order to allow him to continue adding original research despite numerous editors asking him with, steadily increasing firmness, to stop."

So I'm sure that we'll soon see a prompt retraction from Guy Chapman on this score.

I'm sure …

Jon Awbrey

Preliminaries

Mr. Guy, I have a couple of questions and an observation. Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions. (1) Can you show us where Mr. Awbrey asserts that these articles are his original research? (2) Can you show us evidence that Mr. Awbrey has blanked these articles? Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Observation. A big subset of these articles and much of the material in the rest appears to belong more under the purview of the math project. So maybe their notices should be re-listed or at least dual-listed there. Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

: You'll see it in the edit histories; a blocked sockpuppet blanked the article claiming them to be original research by the banned user. The more eyes the better, do please feel free to bring this to their attention as well. Guy 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Guy, that is what puzzles me. I read the reason that was given by the editor who got blocked after blanking the pages and it says, wait let me check, ..., "(Removing Jon Awbrey's Original Research By Order Of Guy Chapman)". This person seems to be saying that he or she is removing Mr. Awbrey's contributions because Guy Chapman says that they are original research. That seems to raise another question: (3) Did Guy Chapman say anything that would lead anyone to believe that Jon Awbrey was guilty of inserting his original research into Wikipedia? Arthur Quark 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

: No, it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point — the policy on banned users says that edits made by banned users while banned should be reverted, Awbrey is trying to apply that retrospectively, and at the same time claiming it's original research, which was the problem with much of his editing before he was banned. I found the idea that it's OR sufficiently credible as to merit at least a review by better-informed people (I know little of this subject). I am, in short, just the janitor. Guy 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Guy, I just now read your last post in the above section, and you do seem to be saying the following things: (4) charging Mr. Awbrey with contributing a lot of his original research to Wikipedia, in violation of the WP:NOR policy, (5) saying that Mr. Awbrey was very insistent in doing that, and (6) saying that Mr. Awbrey was banned from Wikipedia for doing this. Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little confusing, so maybe you could point us to some concrete evidence for each of the various assertions that you have made. By way of trying to clear things up a lttle, I will repeat the outstanding charges below, and suggest that it would help if you append some concrete evidence to each one: Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Mr. Awbrey asserts that these articles are his original research.
2. Mr. Awbrey has blanked these articles.
3. Guy Chapman said something that would lead someone to believe that Mr. Awbrey was guilty of inserting his original research into Wikipedia. (If Guy = Guy Chapman, then this point is covered.)
4. Mr. Awbrey contributed a lot of his original research to Wikipedia, in violation of the WP:NOR policy.
5. Mr. Awbrey was very insistent about inserting his original research into Wikipedia articles.
6. Mr. Awbrey was banned from Wikipedia for inserting his original research into Wikipedia articles.

Thanks in advance, this would help us assess the situation. Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)