You guessed it — JustZapitGuy is in it.


Jonny

This is the ultimate in Wikipediot logic. "Well, yes, we KNOW this is technically against our license, and we KNOW that it looks silly to everyone else, but we must be vindictive against those we ban!"

I don't see anything technical about it. All an editor gets when they contribute under GFDL is attribution. If they have removed substantial edits (as is the case of a serious scholar such as Jonny) and then replaced substantially the same material (has that actually happened yet?) to deprive the banned editor of attribution without degrading the article it is the most vicious and fundamental violation of the GFDL possible. It is also blatant plagiarism.

It is the kind of blunder only a cultish true believer could make or even suggest.

I suppose they could get their GC to give them a workshop on this stuff, but he's probably afraid that JzG would ban him if he did.

Jonny

What a load of crap, only someone taking Wikipedia as some forum will write something like this. A banned user who correct typo's is doing something positive. No one has a mind reader reading that persons intention. What sort of disruption is he talking about? Something which has yet to occur? I didn't know any policy says we should revert all edits by banned users. I thought what mattered is the content of the edits no matter who made the edits. The policy actually say that it can be and not should be, unless it has changed.

Not everyone were banned because of disruption in articles mainspace, in fact most of those who disrupt articles mainspace get away without a ban in the name of almighty NPA. Also, not every socks have ill intent in the ban invasion. I have invaded my ban to counter the disruption of another user who was invading his ban also. And then a second time to fix stuff from a disruptor who creat countless numbers of articles FORK. I will probably invade my ban again if massive disruption is done which would harm because of Wikipedia's inflated credibility.

Thank you for that unsolicited moment of consenual validation! I had once felt sure that when I first started working on Wikipedia the Recurrent Mantra was some form of words to the effect that «The value of an edit is in the edit and not in the identity of the editor». I remember being struck by this because of its analogy to the teachings of some organized religions that the validity of a sacrament is in the divine grace conferred thereby and not in the person of the priest who is merely the instrument of the ceremony. And this Espoused Doctrine (ED) was applied to edits of all kinds, whether contributions to article space or comments and questions in dialogue and project spaces.

But I hadn't heard any Wikipedians talk that way in such long time that I was beginning to think that I had merely dreamed it.

Jon Awbrey

I suppose "comment on content, not the contributor" only applies to some Wikipedians, eh? Certainly not, JzG!

Obviously. I never took you to be a sacerdotalist.

In three years of contributing to this increasingly dysfunctional project, I heard only a few very brief discussions of what GFDL means and how it guides and constrains user behavior. Compare 3RR, the interpretation of which was frequently debated at length and in detail…yet which one has a meaning in the world outside of Wikipedia? Which is the matter of ethical integrity, and which is the arbitrary rule? I don't recall seeing anyone blocked, banned or desysoped for violating it, or for plagiarism generally. Say what you will of incivility, "wikilawyering," tendentious editing…at least they're legal, and not obviously unethical. This underscores once again Wikipedia's desperate need for sound professional advice and adult supervision.

Man, they really don't understand anything about copyright and the GFDL, do they?

This one statement makes JzG open to legal attack. Is there any way to make this into a permanent weblink so they can't wipe it clean?

This could be important...

I'll tell you what else is important. He's using the "Arch Coal" debacle as an example, and it's a totally incorrect example. Wikipedia Review was not banned when it authored the Arch Coal article. Not only that, we authored it and posted it ON OUR OWN WEBSITE, and it was User:J.Smith who actually published interactively served it up on Wikipedia. If only JzG would read this before he spouted more of his lies.

Also, while you're reading that discourse, note how Jimbo abandons the discussion, since he doesn't have a good answer for any of his original ideas.

Greg

Another flagrant GFDL violation is List of Fellows of the Royal Society. This was originally List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, which was finally deleted on the third AfD after surviving the first two (when even Jayjg voted keep) and a DRV. After it was deleted, the text was taken by admin Scientizzle. He deleted all the references and re-posted it with no history. Thus all the work to establish that these people were Fellows, their subject areas, date of election, etc, which should be attributed to the relevant editors, is now attributed to Scientizzle.

And they've done a lousy job of turning it into a list of all Fellows. The great majority of names are still those on the list as originally posted (presumably all the Jewish ones).

I have no idea whether there is any applicable law on the subject, but it occurs to me that there is something unethical about appropriating and adopting the intellectual property of a contributing editor whilst banning them and redacting all record of attribution of their prior contributions.

The fons et origo at issue in this consideration is the normative principle commonly known as «Credit Where Credit Is Due (CWCID)». This principle is an essential active ingredient in every Virtue Of The Intellect (VOTI) and cannot be alienated from the very idea of intellectual good.

It is my common sense understanding that the Laws and Licenses of Civil Societies respect and support the aesthetic, ethical, and logical principle of «Credit Where Credit Is Due», making it accordingly a legal principle in all of those Civil Societies.

But it is not my job or place to argue the details of the Law. It is enough for me to argue from the normative principles that precede and validate the Law.

If the Law does not respect and support these principles, then the Law is an Ass.

Jon Awbrey

To my mind, the Law is already an ass, independently of any illustrative examples supplied by Wikipedia. But that's a rant of a different pallor.

I must be on some kinda Platonic jag this morning, 'cause I can see the Law as nothing Butt a secular human production that does what it can to emulate the eternal essentials of Divine Justice, and so it's an Ass that has to be led over its Bridge with much coaxing and carroting, if not Gilt O'er with Φeromes and Flowers.

Don't worry — it's nothing another cup o java won't fix …

Jon Awbrey

That's what I felt when my own created article was scrapped by a user and that he got away with 3RR because one of the reverts was by a banned member (me). I have no say even for the articles I have created or rewritten.

How many articles have been deprived of their creator? It is disrespectable not only unethical. I would have no problem if they delete the articles I have created, but that they restrict me to touch my own creations is like stealing.

Who in his right mind would release his knowledge like this to make it general knowledge if later he is deprived of working on it, and his editing of the article he created reverted as vandalism. Why not delete them all together?

I think that we should start a thread where authors who created and remained the principal contributors to specific Wikipedia articles could certify their authorship of these articles, giving permission to all and sundry editors to blank them at any time.

This would serve as a form of protest and a wake↑call to Wikipediot Whorelords.

Come to think of it, now is a good time —

Jon Awbrey

You have said more truth here than you know.

Wikipedia's Deny Attribution (WP:DA) program is already in full swing.

For example, I started the Wikipedia article, The Simplest Mathematics, on Charles Sanders Peirce's 1902 paper of the same name, intending to develop it as I got time — time which I never got, of course. Here is the body of the article as I left it:


Wikipedia admin Kaldari deleted the article according to the preveiling rule of WP:P?WP?WDNNSP! (Process? What Process? We Don't Need No Stinkin Process!) and inserted the contents in the main article on CSP, destroying the author attribution and committing plagiarism all in one fell swoop.

Jon Awbrey

This seems to be the nub of the issue, from my perspective.

The absence of a functional and responsive dispute resolution process is at the core of a lot of the problems.

Oh, wait.

You said Deny Attribution, not Deny Arbitration.

Never mind.

Sounds right to me.

Of course, the whole idea of banning certain people while allowing anonymous contributions is completely impossible anyway. If people can contribute anonymously, then you can't ban anyone. If you want to ban people, then you can't let others contribute anonymously. How hard is that to understand?

What's to dispute about due attribution?

The absence of a functional conscience, ethics, and moral compass of a 4-year old is at the core of a lot of the problems.

Jon Awbrey

Let's be clear. This has nothing to do with contributions made post-banning. Banning is merely the device and the excuse that Wikipediot Management uses to steal content, to deny proper attribution to those who contributed the content, and to prevent the victim from Fixing It in the wiki-way that they constantly advertize as being their ideal.

There does not appear to be an article creation log, only the article deletion log, so they have deleted the record that I created this article under my IRL user name long before I was blocked. Deleting the article also removes the edits from my contribution history and the tools that use them like the Kate-Interiot utility.

Jon Awbrey

I am sorry. I feel your pain. {{{Jonny}}}

I appreciate your concern, but what I experience in regarding the systematic perfidy of the Wikipediot Cult is more properly described as anger and contempt, and the scope of those affects extends well beyond the purely personal sphere, as does the effects of their own actions.

Jon Awbrey

Anger and contempt are not painful for you?

Okay then, sorry.

Didn't say that, but pain is not the proper focus of attention, and does not become so except in morbid conditions. Pain, like any other affect, is an intentional condition. In other words, it is directed toward an object and it has an objective. In the case of a negative affect like pain, the object is a condition that one earnestly desires to change. That is the semantics and the pragmatics of the signal pain.

Jon Awbrey

People's feelings are not the proper focus of attention???

;_;



Sorry, if you want change, I am afraid I am completely
and utterly useless to you.

At a very basal level, one's own feelings are the focus of one's attention; that's true of infants and animals. Higher life forms, though, have learned to refocus their attention on things in the outside world other than their own feelings.

Errr, I though I was focusing on Jonny's feelings, not mine.

Infants and animals? What about friends and lovers?