chapcom, wikiversity, mentoring, and 6 unanswerable questions

here's an update for my poor neglected blog.... a few of the goings on lately...

I've been asked to help out the WMF Chapters Commitee with communications - I'm pretty interested and excited about that, and am currently finding out more! (I think I 'slowpoked' them into it - by volunteering to answer emails and just generally keep focus on outstanding issues etc. etc. - still it's kinda cool, no?).

I remain under mentorship at en-wiki in the BLP area, and there was a bit of a broo ha ha with a request I made for admin.s to review long-term-blocked User:Moulton's situation, which resulted in my mentors extending the process - the arbs got involved, and I'd say it's now settling down a bit - though whether or not the path forward is clear is anyone's guess :-)

Wikiversity has been hit rather harder by growing tensions, with the community sort of half eating itself, and not a gruntle to be seen (Jimbo even popped in with a ban). It's a very 'mellow' place though (and that word has particular connotations in the wiki-verse) - and in some ways the drama there is rather more akin to an argument between church wardens when the choir have their end of year party, and someone forgot to order biscuits, as oppose to the cagematches the en-wiki goes for .....

the 6 unanswerable questions are wiki related, and after recent events, I'm rather glad I didn't post them to either en or wikiversity, for reasons I might discuss in another post.... I'll write them up here at some point - so you'll have to pop back ;-)

asking for restrictions to be lifted.....

to edit BLPs or not to edit BLPs... that's the question rolling around some pages of the english wiki at the moment - and the question which has brought me back to this poor neglected blog. (are there any blog protection services? - I'm sure I'm negligent in many ways, and would probably face charges....)

So I asked arbcom if I could be allowed to edit BLPs again - and now it's sort of grown into a wiki-constitutional discussion in some places (can this be discussed at the Village Pump? AN? RfAr pages only? - is 'the community' actually empowered to make any decision? offer comment? etc. etc. - oh, and where does Jimbo fit in to all this?) - as well as a sort of open review of my editing.... or perhaps more acuarately an opportunity for people to pass comment about their impressions of what's been going on - I think some folk could do with taking a a closer look at some diff.s etc. - or just ask me a question! - I won't bite! :-)

Perhaps the discussion is now at the petering out stage (I've been told in the past that persuading three arbs to actually comment on a request is pretty good going!) - which may or may not bring us back to this point at some point in the future... we'll see how it pans out....

wikipedia, scientology, and 'anonymous'

Bumping around the wiki a couple of months or so ago, I came across the whole series of articles on scientology - including several related 'featured' articles on pop culture topics, like Battlefield Earth 'the movie' (must check that out one day - can it really be worse than my personal worst film of all time 'Licence to Kill'?)

Anywhoo... to cut a long story short, I've now browsed around the subject online fairly extensively, and found some interesting stuff, in a sort of 'a few threads coming together' sort of way.... hence this post (which as ever is largely for my own edification, and as an aide-memoire).

I think it was Kelly Martin's blog (now a new look, and no wikipedia stuff) where I first read a mention of the connections between anti-scientology activists, and the english wikipedia - from memory, referring to David Gerard having done so much fighting one cult (Scientology) and now supporting another (Kelly's interpretation of Wikipedia at the time). I've also got half a memory of reading that a few more of the wiki 'old guard' were active on the anti-scientology newsgroups back in the day - can't back that up at all at the mo, so I don't know if it's received wisdom, or one of those things that someone tells you that turns out to be not so reliable..

Anywhoo... the final piece of the thread was this youtube video;

which I noticed randomly the other day, on one of my 'fairly extensive' browsing expeditions.... as you can see, the video has been removed, the user account closed, and the pages all gone from youtube's public site - the link above is to the Google cache. I saw the clip the other night (well, it was just a still picture, and an audio file) - and made a mental note to check out what it was saying - though it was a bit fishy. I got in touch with one of the named people from the audio, and sure enough, they knew nothing about it at all...

In the audio, which was purported to be a leak from a Scientology official, it was claimed that the Wikimedia foundation was financially supporting the 'anonymous' movement, and that various wiki luminaries were to be declared 'SPs' (suppressive persons) - a decleration which seems to have led to some rather obnoxious harasssment in the past from various scientology organisations. It was also claimed that Scientology will be sueing the wikimedia foundation in some way at some point for some thing (it wasn't very clear on that point!).

I thought these threads coming together was a bit of a coincidence, and that's why I'm commenting here..... if you can handle conceptual hyperbole, there really are some fascinating analagies to be drawn between Wikipedia and Scientology - which makes it all the more interesting if the two organisations become antaganistic. In some ways Wikipedia is a cultural product of 'anonymous', and as such represents a tangible target, I guess..... or not... maybe.....

anyways.... there are no doubt several books to be writ on related subjects in due course, and there's only a small chance that I'll return to blog about this before one of them is published..... cheers chaps.....

this month....

I have mostly been thinking about foundation issues - you know - stuff about the elections to the board of trustees... I've been trying to record brief conversations with each candidate... I'm gonna 'publish' as many as I can complete by the 6th June - and I'm hopeful we'll get at least half done....

you know where to find me if you'd like to!

oh my word....

several other non-written up thoughts cross my mind at the moment - but I'm actually enjoying use of the word 'borked' too much to bother with them - here's the distilled version;

The checkuser system is borked
The arbcom is borked
The way wikipedia handles biographies is borked
The way wikipedia improves itself may be borked, and this would be a bad thing!

If de-borking actualy equates to re-borking then, well, I guess wikipedia's just inevitably borkful. There - no post is complete without inventing a word.

might as well enjoy the ride!

(I did learn some interesting stuff this week, I just can't be bothered to write it up..... sorry... and with that I leave my poor blog alone for another little while......)

that time of the month

ok - so this is a bit of a blatant filler to try and prevent momentum entirely leaving this blog... I wouldn't want to disappoint either of my readers!

I feel like there are quite a few irons in the fire at the moment about Wikipedia in general... there's the establishment of the aussie chapter (well done all!), talking with other editors, and other folk (public conversations at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly', as well as private conversations, and planned chats too....), issues around biographies on wiki (my proposal, and many others are getting some attention), and finally one that relates to my arb case, and sanctions, which is the use of different accounts (pseudonyms) and how the wiki reacts to such behaviour (ethical concerns abound!).

Poke me for more info (or just slide it under the door of my gmail account!) - the interesting times over there continue!.....

probably see ya' in May!

tuppence more from the naughty step

okey dokey - so I've finally remembered how to delete my cookies and this has restored my access to wikback.com - and I was a bit surprised to see that I have access to the 'Wikback Itself' forum (for some reason I thought access to that, and to 'Cage Match' was restricted, but I guess it's only 'The Mirror' which is - not sure why, but ours is not to question!).

There's a thread about my recent ban there, which is interesting to me (well it would be, wouldn't it!). Thanks to all the commentators there, who have seen fit to draw a little bit of attention to the situation - it is appreciated, and here's what I see happening;

Well first I'd better refute a bit of stuff that's been asserted - somewhat intemperately I find, but hey, your temper is your business, I guess.

"I have had many conversations with PM privately about the importance of this to me. I've provided examples, and guidelines, and have moved his posts to the mirror (which I've set up as lightning rod for this sort of thing). The other hosts have discussed this with him as well. And he has continued, most recently by again complaining that no one will tell him who ran checkuser on him at what times in the course of events that led up to his ban (the post at issue has been deleted)."

um... nope, not really. Leaving aside the fact that I've been trying to discuss some moderately complicated 'checkuser' issues in general terms, and am more than happy to leave 'my case' out of it; UC and I have communicated, and a few messages have bounced back and forth - but I haven't had any messages from other hosts and moderators excepting CComMack, who's been kind enough to say that he thought my posts were quite helpful on occasion... I really don't believe UC has any reason to be righteously exasperated, which is afraid how it comes across to me - in fact it's kinda misrepresentative to be honest... if I were to paint the situation as one party being calm and polite, and the other being unreasonable, we'd pick the roles differently, I think. However, if anyone is at all interested, I'm happy for UC to release all messages on this matter, because I think they tell the story pretty well.... (ping me if you want a copy of the messages I've sent... they generally go along the lines of 'thanks heaps for running the forum, and I'm afraid I still don't understand x, is y allowed? once again, thanks, PM.'

It's heartening to see that on this matter, I might not be entirely crazy (other folk seem confused too) - and hopefully I'll be unbanned soon, and allowed to comment within the rules / guidelines - I'd like that!