On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au> wrote: I suspect this would prove problematic in practice, c.f. these texts of yours: http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!717.entry http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!718.entry While I don't doubt your good intentions, I suspect that anyone who can get kicked off both Wikipedia and Citizendium for the same thing, and then suggests the two are conspiring, is unlikely to be able to work well with others. - d.

On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au> wrote: But that it keeps happening is somehow everyone else's fault in turn, rather than anything to do with the common individual? I'm horribly familiar with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio… And further activity as User:Zordrac and User:Blissyu2. - d.

On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au> wrote: What's the common denominator? You. If you've been independently banned from that many sites (and I've pretty sure they were independent - I really can't see Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review joining forces to attack you...), it's almost certainly your fault. You can't blame anyone else.

On Nov 16, 2007 8:54 AM, u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au> wrote: There's nothing evil or malign or even wrong with not getting along with other people. We observe that you don't get along with us. We tire of trying to work around that; we ask that you leave. That's not an aspersion on your character. It's a judgement on the interactions. If you disagree and feel that you got along with us ok, then I am concerned for your judgement about social situations, but that still doesn't reflect badly on your character. Whatever your perception of the situation, we just don't want to deal with it anymore. You can leave gracefully if you chose to do so. We can apply increasingly harsher bans/blocks/kicks off mailing lists/etc if you force the issue. But you don't have a right to insist that you can still hang around here and communicate with us. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Quoting u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au>au>: This is a waste of time. Can we ban him from this list please?

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:28:45 +0900, "u/n - adrianm" <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au> wrote: Not evil, just deluded and very very persistent. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

The problem with what David Gerard says here is that he is missing one important factor: I wasn't ever actually banned from Citizendium. Did everyone check the links that David Gerard provided? Did David Gerard himself actually read them? You see, the reality is that I quit Citizendium in disgust at their providing false information off of Wikipedia, especially after over a month of negotiating to make sure that that wasn't going to happen. Citizendium then determined that by quitting I was asking to be banned, and so it happens. Was I "banned from Citizendium"? No. I quit from Citizendium. If you actually read the links that David Gerard provided, you would find the evidence there. Also, let's not forget my actual case, where I was banned after less than a week of using Wikipedia, as a newbie. A case with an article with a rather lengthy history of being written falsely, where they can't even manage to get the dates right (insisting that its a 1 day event when it actually lasted for 3 days - quite a discrepancy). As for my version, that I wrote for Citizendium, but then asked them to delete after they added in factual inaccuracies that were copied from Wikipedia, here is the version that I wrote (courtesy of Wikinfo): http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre So we've already got the fact that David Gerard misled a few people about whether I was banned from Citizendium AND about why I was banned from Wikipedia (for being a newbie, and for trying to correct inaccuracies as opposed to some idea that it was for legal threats with an unexplained extension from 1 year, which is already served, to indefinite). But not only that, he's failed to mention the Wikipedia Review link. Did you all click that link before? The whole Private Musings thing? You'd know all about that. Its been discussed to death here. And you'd know the power struggle on Wikipedia Review that relates to that. You see, I own Wikipedia Review, hence I can't really be banned from there. They just changed the passwords on me and made it difficult for me to get it back. Why? Because I made Wikipedia Review look bad. Because I exposed some actions by a member of Wikipedia Review to lie to people of Wikipedia. Because I thought that was wrong. Now, you all get that, don't you? All understand? Or are you still content to quote tiny things out of context and to repeat inaccurate information as fact? Good way to write an encyclopaedia guys. Adrian

The problem with what David Gerard wrote is that it isn't true, most importantly because I didn't get banned from Citizendium. If you followed the links that David Gerard provided, you would find that they prove that I was NOT banned from Citizendium. Instead, the reality is that I quit Citizendium in protest at them inserting factual inaccuracies from Wikipedia in to an article that I had created, in spite of previously promising that they wouldn't do this. I wasn't "kicked off", and suggesting so is quite simply false. I quit. They did interpret my quitting as suggesting that I was asking to be banned, and enforced that, although they have said that I could be unbanned if I wanted to. And it most certainly was NOT for the same reasons as what happened on Wikipedia. It was over the same article, yes, but most certainly not for the same reason. For anyone who isn't aware of the case, I edited Wikipedia and within a week of my first edit, I was put on a Request for Arbitration, with absolutely no explanation as to what that was, and with no opportunity to defend myself (in theory I could, but I had no idea what to do, so in reality I could not). It was a classic case of Newbie Biting. The reality of the situation is that at that stage Wikipedia was maintaining a factually inaccurate article on the Port Arthur massacre, a topic which I am very much an expert on, and I had attempted to add factual accuracies to the article. Indeed, to this day I have contributed more to that article than anyone else - and I have been banned for 2 years! Nobody else who has more expertise on that topic has ever edited Wikipedia! Indeed, whilst banned a number of administrators have sought my advice for improvements to the article. If you want to see my version of the article, it is currently located on Wikinfo, and is the version that I submitted to Citizendium: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre Some things that you might notice is that I have stated, and proven, that the massacre lasted for 3 days, not 1. Wikipedia's article falsely claims right at the front that it was a single day mass murder, something that is factually false, and is easily proven to be false. If Wikipedia can't even get that right, then how can they be trusted with regards to that article? There are over a dozen different factual inaccuracies with that article, which sadly some people refuse to change to be accurate. Times, court proceedings, witnesses, police findings, photographic evidence, other kinds of evidence - all presented falsely on Wikipedia. And the sad part is that in the April 2006 10 year anniversary a number of prominent Australian news reports used that false Wikipedia article as a source. That Wikipedia article has subsequently used a number of these reports as sources for their own inaccurate comments. So it becomes a circular example, where Wikipedia has, in that example, presented false things as fact, and they have subsequently become accepted as fact. This is history-changing, and is very dangerous. Also, with regards to something else (I won't go in to the whole rest of the absurd arguments raised by various people on this thread), I am the owner of Wikipedia Review, hence I am not really banned, and can't really be banned from the place. They simply changed my passwords, as a power play. It is a little cumbersome to get them back, and at this stage I am letting it slide. And the reason why should be well known to people on this list - I reported to a number of people that Wikipedia Review member Kato was creating a drama on Wikipedia in relation to Private Musings and Robert Black, by presenting false information. Some people on Wikipedia Review felt that I was betraying secrets and betraying their members, so they changed my passwords. It is a really simple thing. My point in mentioning everything was pretty clear for anyone who can think clearly. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO CITE A SOURCE. How many people read through things that David Gerard wrote and took them at face value? How many people even bothered to click on the links to check things out? How many people just assumed that I was really banned from Citizendium? How many people just assumed that I am really banned from Wikipedia Review? How many people refused to read anything else on the basis that I had stated that at various times I was banned from a number of other sites? The point I was trying to make is that people quite often don't check their facts, and they make assumptions. You all proved my point very well, by having very few people reading this list bothering to check their facts. If you do that on an encyclopaedia, how accurate is it going to be? There exist right now a number of articles which have quality references, but whose content does not match what the references say. Again, using the Port Arthur massacre article as an example, there was a time a year or so ago where one of the references said that Martin Bryant was diagnosed as not being fit to stand trial, yet in quoting the reference the Wikipedia article said that the reference said that he was diagnosed as being fit to stand trial = the exact opposite of what the reference actually said. We need to be vigilant in checking facts, and not jumping to conclusions. And remember that if someone is banned, the only thing that you can say for sure is that someone banned them. Unless you are prepared to look at the actual case, you can't make an assumption that they were legitimately banned, or anything else. I am sure that most bans are legitimate, because most bans are merely banning sock puppets or serial spammers and the like. But for any bans which have had some discussion about them, you can't honestly say that it is clear cut. And why should someone be forced to apologise for things that they didn't actually do? Adrian

On Nov 16, 2007 7:16 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith. Which is why you have to work extra hard. It is not surprising if, given that most of us can with some ease see that you do not regret your past action, nor do you intend to change your motivation for editing the encyclopaedia, we do not choose to extend the -remarkably fragile- assumption of good faith to you. Naturally, thus, we will place you in the same category with those others - "banned users" - to whom we do not extend that good faith. If you want to change that, you're going about it the wrong way. You can't expect saying that "all other banned users are bad, but I am not, because I did nothing really wrong" is going to change it. You may expect that accepting your past "ass-hattery" or whatever is enough, but frankly it isn't because we'd expect much more from someone who has worn out our willingness to extend good faith. So I'd suggest you either assume that your time here is finally done, or, in private, ask some forgiving individuals how to go about painstakingly recovering the community's trust. And listen to them. RR

Quoting joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu: Er, that should have been "We should not confuse" rather than "We should confuse"- major difference.

Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>et>: No disagreeement there. The point was more for clarity and context. It is important to remember that not all banned users actually have bad faith issues (of course if they don't, their likely response is to just go elsewhere. There seems to be a correlation with a lack of good faith on their part and their likelyhood to stick around and be disruptive)

Quoting u/n - adrianm <adrianm(a)octa4.net.au>au>: No, that wasn't my point at all. There are many people who are completely unable to work with others and must remained banned. The point is that that holds despite the fact they are operating in good faith.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: I think self-awareness is the key, so I hope he makes it. I've mentioned it on-list before, but I'm so taken with it that let me mention again the paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"[1]. I think this effect, known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect[2], is often at work with our more difficult participants. It's not that they go out looking to be dicks or troublemakers. I'm sure they're conscious only of the best of intentions. They come and do their best, and their best looks great to them. But not to somebody else, and so begins a cycle of trouble. William [1] http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

Stephen Bain wrote: You are really describing a Catch-22 situation. If someone needs to prove good faith again it will best be done through his edits. Simply kissing ass with a lot of hollow promises just won't do it. Sockpuppets and proxy editing should not be viewed as wrongs by themselves. They should only be viewed as sins when they are used in the furtherance of other wrongs. A newly unbanned user who in the past has built up an inventory of sockpuppets can only too easily use the wrong account. A person who assumes good faith should look a little more deeply when he discovers the person using the alternate account. If he uses that other account for a handful of innocent edits one should avoid jumping to the conclusion that he is somehow working underhandedly. We should be looking for ways to build bridges with these people, not looking for minimal excuses to freeze them out. Ec