June 16, 2008: Disgusted administrators reveal the IRC access code to the forum where administrators discuss among themselves
Internet users are finally starting to react!
June 15, 2008
There's a problem with Wikipedia, it's on everyone's lips, in every circle. Some readers tell me: it's ruined, I no longer consult this encyclopedia, it's gone off track. Me, I still do. It remains an enormous reservoir of information, a true institution. But this site has fallen into the hands of "administrators" wielding powers they abuse and exploit. Recently, I saw that an internet user had been "blocked" by an 18-year-old administrator, a student. That's absurd...
I just spoke on the phone with Florence Devouard, President of Wikipedia France, 37 years old, a mother of a family. A reader had found her address and phone number. I had trouble believing she wasn't on the red list, but no. She asked me the purpose of my call. I mentioned my "lifetime ban" and a request for mediation submitted by an internet user, a message that had been posted on her "user" page. It was deleted twice. I admit I couldn't find in the history who had deleted it. She said "I wasn't aware." I find it astonishing, implausible, that a passage on the user page of Wikipedia's president would be erased without her being informed. But I checked, the text was re-added to her user page right after my call, just below.
Here is the text:
Call for Mediation
Introduction
Florence,
First of all, thank you for your work, thank you to all those who, alongside you, contribute to spreading knowledge. A near-constant user of Wikipedia (one tab in my browser always points to the homepage), never hesitating, even with a child on my lap, to look up information about the ladybug and its larva found in the garden
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccinellidae
(very beautiful images), or personally about the history of Western esoteric and spiritual movements (see the page about Helena Blavatsky), I can only express my admiration, but I'll stop here, as that's not the subject.
I am also a regular reader of Jean-Pierre PETIT's website (hereinafter referred to as JPP), and I am now facing a painful double dilemma regarding the controversy between him and one (or more?) administrator(s) of fr.wikipedia.
On one hand, the unexpectedly vibrant encyclopedia, an indispensable tool for culture; on the other, a top-level scientist, tirelessly exploring new frontiers (some of them transdimensional, given how strange physics can be), and selflessly popularizing knowledge of which he is often the discoverer (3D surface reversal, annihilation of Velikhov instability, author of a revolutionary cosmological model, and so on).
The reason I'm contacting you is to request your mediation regarding an editorial war that has pitted him against an administrator who requested and obtained from his peers a lifetime ban.
As far as I know, this is the first time a lifetime ban has been imposed on an engineer from SupAéro, also a former CNRS research director.
Moreover, this conflict harms the image of Wikipedia France.
Problems
First problem, admittedly bewildering but no less real: JPP sees references he adds to his biographical article regularly erased, apparently by an administrator citing vandalism.
I protest against the fact that a person cannot freely access the article about their own biography. This is nonsensical, and moreover an infringement of a fundamental freedom.
Second problem (no less serious): This lifetime ban concerns a person whose multiple competencies are beyond dispute, furthermore an excellent popularizer, thus depriving Wikipedia of the possibility of a high-quality contribution.
Proposals
First, it seems legitimate, even essential, to allow a person free access to editing the page about their own biography.
Vandalism issues can easily be circumvented by assigning the individual a login that clearly distinguishes them from a mere vandal.
Second, Wikipedia France should re-establish contact with JPP, to normalize relations, and thus gain a potentially outstanding contributor.
Note
Yesterday evening, I created a call for comments, clearly outlining the various points I mentioned. To my great surprise, the page was deleted during the night, around 3 a.m., without further ado.
Contact details
My email: nightflight77 at hotmail.fr
JPP's email: jppetit1937 at yahoo.fr
Comment
Jean-Louis
First time I'm expressing myself here. Just a word to talk about this lifetime ban too?! It's astonishing to read such things on Wikipedia. On some sites, I don't say, but here it's a blot. So, must we wait until he dies to hope that a reasonable mind can speak about JPP's work? Isn't it better to let the person themselves speak about their own work? What a curious attitude...
Comment
I can't believe a person can be banned for life from Wikipedia?! I'm talking about Jean-Pierre Petit specifically, or anyone in general. Are there abuses of power by some Wikipedia administrators? In that case, I won't make any more donations. I would like a clear, civic response. Thank you.
Proposal
Wouldn't it be justified to grant academics a special administrator status for pages related to their field(s) of expertise?
I personally haven't requested the revocation of my lifetime ban, as the measure taken in October 2006 seemed ridiculous to me at the time. I doubt that even if it were reversed, I could contribute to Wikipedia in areas of my expertise. I tried writing a text on MHD, but was immediately overridden by an administrator, just a computer technician. I asked that only those with actual competence should intervene on such technical pages. All in vain.
Many academics, possessing both knowledge to share and the ability to popularize it, refrain from contributing altogether, unwilling to face off against incompetent individuals protected by their anonymity. I once wrote about Wikipedia:
It's like children throwing stones, and the parents say nothing.
It's true, and it's sad. Organized groups, distributing their administrator badges to their peers, have seized this tool of knowledge and pedagogy and now rule it.
I don't know how they manage to monitor such a massive volume of pages so quickly, but they do, day and night.
(...). This is nothing less than censorship.
Try it yourself. Create an account under your real name. Go to this "pseudonym" page and try to paste this text via copy-paste, then count how many minutes pass before your action is undone. It will be measured in minutes.
If you persist, an administrator will "block" you: you'll be forbidden from editing for a set period, until you return to "better sentiments." If you persist, you could be "banned for life." It's the mob against the isolated individual. How many people have experienced this? They must number in the thousands. After two or three attempts, or even a temporary block, facing a wall, they give up. But I suggest you don't let them have the field. Persist. Intervene on the "Censorship" page, for example. Add a paragraph on "Censorship on Wikipedia." You'll quickly be labeled "vandalism." On Wikipedia, a vandal is someone who doesn't follow the laws of the mob of anonymous individuals now ruling there.
If contributors persist, an administrator will lock the page (you'll see a padlock appear).
Following my suggestion, internet users began to react and attempt to modify Wikipedia pages, which is their strict right. One, Louis-Raphaël Leygues, went to the "Pseudonym" page and added the following three lines, immediately erased by an "anonymous administrator."
Received today, June 15, from Louis Raphael Leygues:
----- Original Message -----
From: Louis Raphael-Leygues
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:16 PM 32 seconds
Subject: The continuation of wiki
I just received this message:
Hello
Louis Raphael-Leygues,
Despite the messages we sent you (see above), you chose not to heed our warnings.
Consequently,
an administrator has blocked you indefinitely.
If the block is ever lifted, you may edit Wikipedia regularly again.
If you believe this block is unjustified, add the text « {{unblock|stated reason}} » to this page, following the character « | » with the reason for your objection.
You may also, if you have a user account and provided an authenticated email address in your preferences, send a message to the administrator who blocked you, or to any administrator on this list. Please include your username or IP address in your email.
No summons were sent to me, contrary to what is implied in the message, and the person who erased my contribution was an unregistered user from IP 79.81.227.142, making any discussion impossible.
Louis
Same day, June 16, 2008:
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric humann
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008, 10:17 AM 39 seconds
Subject: Wiki edit
Hello Jean-Pierre,
I've just created an account under my real identity to try to edit the pseudonym text, as it seems logical it should appear, but in vain. Indeed, the page is blocked—only administrators can edit it.
Measures, countermeasures—this is truly a war for total control over this supposed "free" and "improvable by all" tool of popularization.
As you know, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No need to say more about these criminals.
Wishing you a good reception,
Sincerely,
Let's continue the fight.
Eric HUMANN
I assume these emails will begin to enlighten readers about Wikipedia's so-called democratic character. If internet users continue, we'll see administrators indefinitely blocking an increasing number of pages. They are already seriously concerned about this "offensive" they perceive as "organized vandalism," which is actually a legitimate demand for freedom of expression and information.
Some readers misunderstand and think, because of my lifetime ban, that I'm making this a personal affair. That's false. This struggle to free Wikipedia from those who behave as if they owned it is important. Some realize this, others don't. We're fighting for LIBERTY. Join this fight—it's important for you, your future, and everyone's future. Otherwise, we'll allow a dominant ideology to take root, with the brainwashing it entails. On Wikipedia, this doubles as mediocrity.
Pseudonym
The '''pseudonym''' or '''pseudo''' (common abbreviation) is a borrowed name taken by someone who does not wish to conduct a certain activity under their real name.
Most Wikipedia users, for example, use it most of the time. Few sign with their real names. By not assuming their own viewpoints, they make their articles appear unreliable and questionable in the eyes of a large part of readers. Thus, they lead this magnificent idea that is Wikipedia toward a questionable level of opacity, due to its administrative system.
The use of pseudonyms is common in literary or artistic circles. It allows, in some cases, the maintenance of anonymity. A pseudonym differs from a nickname in that it is chosen by the person who uses it, rather than being assigned by a third party.
Personally, I believe this red passage belongs on this page. So I've provided a link to the text content of this page edit.
'''War name''' is an expression found in French and several other languages, including American English, to designate certain pseudonyms.
Here are the follow-up interventions by multiple internet users:
---- Original Message ----
From: Loacoon
To: jppetit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 6:24 PM 50 seconds
Subject: Wikipedia resistance
Hello,
I've just added to the Wikipedia page on pseudonyms the previously deleted text, copied from your website.
Let's see how long it stays.
Rosetzky Cedric
----- Original Message -----
From: Loacoon
To: jppetit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 6:27 PM 52 seconds
Subject: Less than 2 minutes
The text remained less than 2 minutes. Administrators seem vigilant about their reputation.
Rosetzky Cedric
----- Original Message -----
From: neuville mickael
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 6:55 PM 44 seconds
Subject: Re: Re: Wikipedia, how to counterattack?
Oh my, it didn't take long—7 minutes to erase this addition from the page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudonyme&action=history
Mickael Neuville
Three minutes after Mickael Neuville received this private message from a Wikipedia administrator:
----- Original Message -----
From: neuville mickael
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 6:58 PM 13 seconds
Subject: Private Wikipedia message
Dear Mr. Petit,
Here is the private message I received:
Pseudonym
[
edit
]
Please don't add random content to the article.
You're not on a blog.
~Pyb
(d) June 15, 2008, 6:53 PM (CEST)
Michael Neuville
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex cpersoca
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:01 PM 55 seconds
Subject: Wikipedia - Analysis of "The Observatory of Digital Worlds in the Humanities"
Dear Mr. Petit,
Excellent! I see the Pseudonym page is already semi-protected (impossible to edit without a user account older than 4 days).
However, I've just created my account with my real name because I share your view on the absurdity of pseudonyms. Anyway, I don't care about being banned for life from a site I don't find interesting, but I'll contribute openly anyway.
If I had time, I'd have searched for another relevant article to edit tonight, but I don't have time (I'm working all weekend—these two emails were written during 50% of my free time, so you can imagine...).
But in four days, I'll open fire on this article too, though I'm not very confident about the outcome.
May you be right.
Alexandre Guérin, Reims
----- Original Message -----
From: Claude Letellier
To: jppetit
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008, 12:21 PM 15 seconds
Subject: Wikipedia drift
Hello Mr. Petit,
Frequently visiting your site, I've become aware of Wikipedia's drift.
Like you, I can't tolerate intolerance, especially from people who may be educated but are mediocre.
Although I don't use this encyclopedia, I can't accept that some decide for us what is good or bad, or what we should learn.
I also can't accept that the person involved cannot defend themselves or correct information about themselves (your biography).
Having visited your site this morning (June 16, 2008), I'd like to inform you that the edit made by Mr. Alexandre Guérin at 1:38 AM is still present at 12:00 PM today.
I propose to follow your advice and contact the president.
To conclude, thank you for all your actions. I look forward to seeing Anselme in new adventures.
Please allow me to quote you these words:
"It is ignorance that blinds and misleads us.
Open your eyes, O wretched mortals."
Leonardo da Vinci.
Thank you again.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexandre Guérin
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008, 1:21 PM 42 seconds
Subject: RE: Re: Wikipedia - When admins bicker on IRC, users take over.
Dear Mr. Petit,
The edit made to the Self-Censorship page on Sunday at 1:38 AM was just autocensored
10 hours later
by the system via the action of 'Croquant', a regular user who clearly guessed I was implicitly referring to you.
Is this an admin using a regular user account (is multi-accounting possible despite IP identification)? A collaborator of an admin? Or are these attacks really directed at regular users?
Attached is a compilation of screenshots into one image.
To your readers:
"If you cannot be saints of knowledge, at least be its warriors."
F. Nietzsche
Alexandre Guérin, Reims.
You can also intervene, just as you can edit a comment at the bottom of the President's user page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/me
The unease isn't just outside Wikipedia. A man "answering to the pseudonym Alvaro" previously participated in discussions leading to my lifetime ban.
Access to administrator debates that presided over the lifetime ban
.
Reason, unacceptable to them: revealing the name of an contributor, Le Ya Ya, actually Yacine Dolivet, a PhD student in theoretical physics at École Normale Supérieure, who had eventually annoyed me with his incompetence. I had written to his lab director saying:
- I'm trying to create pages on cosmology, but one of your students, Yacine Dolivet, is making my work difficult due to lack of expertise in this field. Given the active role he plays on Wikipedia under the pseudonym Le Ya Ya, I'd like to provide him with necessary clarifications during a seminar in your institution, since clearly he understands nothing in this domain.
Dolivet, seeing me edit the page on Einstein's Constant, blocked me with "banners" as a warning:
- Warning! This might be a scientist trying to publish personal work!
Totally ridiculous.
Then followed surreal debates on the value of this constant, where participants displayed their ignorance. See further below. It's enough to completely discourage continuing.
So this Alvaro
whose photo you can find on Wikipedia
ended up having regrets and contacted me. A veteran of Wiki, he realized he had been manipulated by a scientist, Alain Rizuelo, an astrophysicist, who had gathered around him a band of "lieutenants" with the goal of gaining maximum power. Alvaro understood, but too late. A few months ago, he told me he was trying with others to reverse this decision, which he now considers idiotic.
I recontacted him ten days ago, asking about the result of his behind-the-scenes efforts. I received a reply full of links to "internal discussions," like those held "among administrators." These are not open to the public, except to a few "admitted" individuals. I'll provide these links,
so you can see the level of schizophrenia and stupidity they can reach in their idle, sleepless gatherings.
With always the same leitmotif: that damned pseudonym, which none of them seem willing to question, and which traps them in the virtual realm, masks their glaring incompetence, grants them pseudo-personalities. They can say, "I am RamaR, or Manchot."
These people have been administrators for years and will remain so. It's very likely their only "activity" in life, their only "reason for being."
I asked "Alvaro" to testify openly (no response). He's a "veteran of Wikipedia." He's the first to say everything is going wrong, but lacks the courage to write it in my columns, even going so far as to provide his identity—something that would expose him to these virtual circuits, far from what they call "real life" in their very particular jargon! Honestly, I pity these people.
Here is Alvaro, on the left, "at dad's":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chez_Papa_02.jpg
Since he doesn't respond, I reproduce his email. You'll see how things work "inside Wikipedia"—very badly. I don't understand why "Alvaro" doesn't go further, that is,
after breaking down and resigning his roles as "administrator and arbitrator,"
why he doesn't testify? He's still on the IRC channel, which, as I understand, is a private exchange space for administrators not open to the public.
Hi JPP,
Old biker as ever ;D
Actually, I saw (again!) a link to your site on the IRC channel, so I took a look and saw the latest developments.
What's missing from people's profiles are their COMPETENCES. Le Ya Ya was a novice, period. Nothing like a "heavyweight" like me. Nobody grasped that.
No, one of Wikipedia's core principles is anonymity.
We had the example on the English Wikipedia of a contributor (who held high positions on en:wp and the Wikimedia Foundation) who presented himself as a doctor in theology until a sleuth tracked him down in real life and revealed he was just a student.
I pity you for realizing, with hindsight, what happened and the cost it entailed. People like Riazuelo have built a clientele of "voters" who vote. Like the rather dull Hégéssippe. But one vote is one vote.
Exactly.
You've realized the human cost of the battles. Harassed from all sides, you resigned, facing a horde of young people wanting to "kill the father." A generation wanting to rebel against "adults," those in power with their "service records."
Me, due to my scientific and authorial trajectory. You, as an old pioneer of WK. And you couldn't hold on. You too eventually cracked under the relentless harassment.
Exactly. But I'm holding on ;D
I've "only" resigned my roles as administrator, bureaucrat, and arbitrator.
Inside WK, someone will eventually have to question the legitimacy of the powers granted to certain individuals.
Yes, but it's not easy. Those who think are rarely "big talkers." And vice versa.
Manchot: better to laugh about it. And quite a few laugh at him. Ah, a humorous drawing is a formidable weapon for those who know how to wield it.
For info, see:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Comité_d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Alvaro-Manchot%2C_Med%2C_RamaR
At the time, I was an arbitrator, just like Alain_r, and that's when I realized who he was and resigned. By the way, it's the same RamaR, admin on wp:fr and wp:en, who recently did this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Pierre_Petit&diff=218827911&oldid=216058324
Also see:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Comité_d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Alvaro-Manchot
And more recently (ongoing):
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Comité_d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Alvaro-Grimlock
In any case, I initiated arbitrations against admins, which is what they reproach me for ;D
In the last case, against Grimlock, one of Alain-r's "little soldiers."
On the discussion page of that arbitration, we can find this delicious "Alvaro is just a complete nuisance" penned by the inimitable Manchot.
I realize the immense effort and energy it takes to re-engage in the fray at WK, for you. Let's say you're compelled to do it out of... a duty to truth. Otherwise, lies will win once again. Psychologically, it's very hard. But it's already honorable that you've realized you made a mistake. Not everyone does that.
Yes, thank you, but... it's not easy. The vast majority of Wikipedians don't want "headaches." Inertia rules. When you point out the sore spot, you're seen as the troublemaker making waves. And it's exhausting, draining—this isn't why I'm on WP.
J.P.PETIT
For info, alain-r has signed up on Citizendium, the "experts' encyclopedia":
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User:Alain_Riazuelo&oldid=100017977
But he isn't contributing:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alain_Riazuelo
Since the Citizendium project isn't taking off (with contributors like him, no surprise ;-) I think he's trying to modify WP from within. His star has dimmed somewhat, and he wasn't re-elected arbitrator in March 2008—already something.
I saw that the person I thought would publicly confront alain-r on WP chose to retreat instead.
It's sad, but I don't blame him at all. He had nothing but blows to take, all to save a JPP who, in the eyes of many (the joys of misinformation), appears as a "jerk" (a term used on IRC).
Sincerely
++
Alvaro
After revealing the content of this private email, I received a message from a reader reproaching me for reproducing "Alvaro's private email," saying "people won't trust you anymore. They won't dare write to you." You'll notice I didn't publish my correspondent's email address. When I receive an email and think its content deserves to be shared with my readers, I first ask:
-
Whether the person agrees to me mentioning their name and email address (I sometimes receive insulting emails)
-
Whether the person, who signed with a pseudonym, agrees to share their real name, thus signing their writing.
I act according to the response I receive. Sometimes they express very "strong" opinions but refuse to sign. There are messages I've reproduced on this page. I asked the signatories (who contributed under their real names) for permission to mention their email address, in case they wanted to exchange with others on this issue. Negative response. OK. Such mention was certainly not essential.
Sometimes the correspondent asks that their name not be cited, or their name but not their email (a request that's understandable). Some say, "cite this address, not the one I sent you, as it's my professional email." Completely understandable.
All scenarios exist. Sometimes people send vehement criticisms of my writings, and I respond, "Very well, provide us with your version of the facts and sign it, by your name." This happened with a certain Delroux, who claimed to discredit those he called the "Pentagogos." His writings remain on my site. I could remove this page if he changes his mind. Otherwise, it's the internet version of "persist and sign."
Also, many people today live in fear, rightly or wrongly. I don't count how many people write to me, informing me (sometimes of trivial matters), asking not to be named. But sometimes they have perfectly valid reasons to ask this. I think of people who sent me supportive emails, which I published, and who are, for example, in the national education system or in research/university, occupying vulnerable positions.
Back to mentioning Alvaro's private email. Please note that
Alvaro is a pseudonym. It's not the real name of this person.
Imagine receiving an email signed
a-friend-who-wants-you-well@hotmail.com
and reproducing it, especially by providing readers with their email. I believe the internet completely distorts people's values. It's serious. Transpose it: You receive an anonymous letter signed "a friend who wants you well" and... you post it on your front door! Oh scandal! I wrote a new story on this topic.
http://www.jp-petit.org/science_fiction/mise_en_garde.htm
I found it important to mention the links leading to the "private conversations" of Wikipedia administrators, so internet users can witness the poverty of such exchanges, revealing how a great idea is sabotaged by mediocre and malicious individuals. I'm merely exposing a conspiracy of stupidity.
This page continues with what it originally contained—a true serial.
Some readers think I'm clinging to this as a personal matter. That's completely false. It's
your
matter. I don't believe it's desirable for Wikipedia to fall into the hands of a gang of thugs in the general interest. But you'll have to
fight to change the rules of the game, and I won't do it for you. For example, demand a decision from the President regarding the mediation request she was presented with (she had twice tried to erase the page). I don't absolutely need to be able to intervene in this structure. I already have plenty to do. It's a matter of principle. Will you let thugs dictate the rules? It's up to you to choose. The only support I can offer is testifying about your actions, your attempts, your failures, and the censorship measures you've been subjected to. Then, perhaps, it will eventually spread like oil and have an effect. He who tries nothing achieves nothing.
Wikipedia is a fantastic invention. Seeing things evolve this way deeply troubles me.
June 16, 2008: I'm leaving today for France, for six weeks, and my responsiveness on this matter will be affected for a few days.
Travel time, time to reconnect my machine to the internet in Pertuis. But as soon as I can, I'll resume this story,
extremely important
, contrary to what a vain people thinks. This is the problem of
freedom of expression
whose denial itself constitutes censorship exercised within an expression space by individuals concealed behind anonymity.
Let readers who react, rise up in protest, continue doing so. I will echo their actions as soon as possible, within a few days.
Let them not believe that "I'm giving up," far from it. The struggle has only just begun, this confrontation between honest people and a horde of mediocres and dishonest individuals.
In the meantime, in no particular order, new reactions.
An article translated from English on Wikipedia (already outdated, showing that we in France are only now discovering effects that Americans have perceived for a long time).
This article
A reader's opinion, clearly highlighting the neurotic nature and mediocrity of the administrators and managers.
Link
June 16, 2008
: A reader continues to resist:
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex cpersoca
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008, 3:01:31 AM
Subject: Wikipedia - Deliberate provocation added, already online for over an hour!
Dear Mr. Petit,
Frustrated at being unable to immediately edit the page on Censorship (due to its semi-protected status)
after creating my account under my real name, I opted instead to insert the "Wikipedia example of self-censorship due to internal motives" onto the related page Self-Censorship (at 1:38 AM). This is a deliberate provocation, barely justifiable in this context, but it comes from the heart... Its future removal seems obvious, yet it has already been online for over an hour! A record. Are the administrators sleeping? I doubt they would approve of this example anyway.
Here is the link to the page in question:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocensure
And here is the paragraph I added, shown in red:
Internal Motives
Due to hierarchical reasons, a journalist may hesitate to write an article he knows will be poorly received by his superiors, fearing possible dismissal if he is an employee, and
especially
if his status is more precarious (
freelancer
).
Example: After one of its employees (
Pierre Carles
) produced a report (
Pas vu à la télé
) on a private conversation between Patrick Le Lay and Gérard Longuet, the channel Canal+ did not broadcast the report it had commissioned itself and ceased working with this journalist.
Another example: On Wikipedia, although knowledge publication is possible through any internet user who hasn't been permanently banned, some administrators who spend dozens of hours daily monitoring every single edit are capable of censoring any addition that doesn't fit within their very narrow personal preferences. This constitutes a blatant example of self-censorship due to internal motives, which only serves to perpetuate a dominant, established thought pattern shared by many administrators, to the evident detriment of the quality of this tool, which was originally intended to provide everyone with complete and high-quality knowledge.
You will find my edit under my name at 1:38 in the history.
Alexandre Guérin, Reims
Note that the "Censorship" page is "semi-protected." Due to its permanent lock?!?!
Disgusted administrators did not delay in revealing the access code for the confidential communication channel used by Wikipedia administrators.
Their IRC channel
Here are the access keys. Go ahead, you'll drive them completely paranoid.
Server: irc.freenode.net
Channel: #wikipedia-fr
Read this hour-long IRC debate in the administrators' discussion space (President Anthere is present).
An hour of nocturnal debate, during which President Anthere also participates. Alvaro is harshly attacked. He is even threatened with the ultimate punishment: revealing his identity!
It would be comical, if it weren't so sad to witness firsthand the debates of the people managing Wikipedia's content. But some administrators had had enough of being immersed in such destructive childishness and have finally given in. Now the "IRC channel" has become a sieve. The administrators will now be seriously stressed.
I sent an email to "Alvaro":
June 16, 2008
Dear "Alvaro."
I noticed that despite having "resigned from all your roles," you are still part of this band of schizophrenic, childish, malicious individuals. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. That's a mistake. You seem "Wiki-dependent."
Choose your side decisively. Grow up. Reveal everything you know about Wikipedia's internal workings. Anyway, this sect's fortress has become a sieve since disgruntled administrators leaked the IRC access keys—the confidential communication channel you use—and since alarmed internet users have started following your debates live, without your knowledge (...). Debates in which you are labeled "a traitor to the cause." It's very reminiscent of heated debates within a secret society. Yet the horde of Wikipedia administrators, led by the president, functions like a secret society, like a sect. That's what internet users are now learning, stunned.
I assure you, they all fall over when they discover these coded dialogues, worthy of a high school clique.
Wikipedia must be saved—that is, purged of the bunch of fools and insecure mediocrities parasitizing this structure. Or, if possible, help cure some of them.
Help us do it.
Jean-Pierre Petit
The beginning of this page, as I composed it in early June 2008
The Uncontrollable Drift of the French Wikipedia
June 13: Administrators block the Alain Riazuelo page, a page that had been emptied of all content.
An internet user requests mediation from the highest authority of Wikipedia-France: Florence Devouard, regarding my permanent ban.
June 12, 2008: Internet users cannot create a simple biography page about Alain Riazuelo, astrophysicist—why not?!
June 12, 2008: Wikipedia censorship in action, immediately.
Updated June 11, 2008: Resist the rise of the power of fools.
Updated June 10, 2008: History of the "protection" of my biography page, ending on June 30, 2008.
Updated June 2, 2008: Mention erased, page locked!!
Updated May 30, 2008
February 14, 2008
Updated February 15, 2008
Updated February 21, 2008
Internet users are probably frequently wondering how Wikipedia works, who manages it, who controls it.
Of course, there are many pages describing an encyclopedia that is both standard and extremely useful, indispensable, in a state of continuous enrichment. With one click, you can learn everything about stainless steel or the life of Richelieu. The situation becomes significantly more complicated, for example, when it comes to science or the biography of individuals. One of Wikipedia's principles is that individuals cannot write their own biography or discuss their own scientific work. The second principle is the systematic use of pseudonyms, intended to place all contributors on an equal footing, regardless of age, social background, education, etc.
The actual result is that "the winner is whoever can spend the most time possible typing on these pages each day, successfully imposing their version of the facts or their view of things." These contributors can also band together, forming organized groups, as is the case in the increasingly murky domain of scientific knowledge.
Soon, contributors began working on my own biography page, leading to fierce battles between "pro-Petit" and "anti-Petit." At one point, in the discussion space (refusing to participate under a pseudonym), I posted a text saying, "If you wish to create a biography about me, here are some details."
I then ventured, still under my real name, to contribute to Wikipedia. For example, I filled in a missing page about Einstein's constant.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constante_d%27Einstein
An anonymous contributor, under the pseudonym "le Ya Ya," immediately blocked this page with a warning banner stating: "Warning, this might be an attempt to subtly pass off personal scientific work!"
I investigated and learned that this young man, from the École Normale Supérieure, was pursuing a thesis on superstrings at a theoretical physics laboratory. Subsequent exchanges were quite comical, illustrating his incompetence in cosmology. In the Wikipedia page I had created in 2006, I had reproduced the calculation leading to this formula, and for extra caution, I had simply translated a passage from one of the great classics on General Relativity, the excellent book by Adler, Schiffer, and Bazin "Introduction to General Relativity," published in 1967 by Mac Graw Hill, which led to the expression of this constant:
Here's my young normalien denouncing what he believes to be an error. The denominator must be to the fourth power! This led to absurd exchanges, including one message from a reader saying humorously:
- I notice that in the mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau's book, the speed of light is also squared. Damnation! So this book must be a fake! Who can I trust?
I had to clarify. Science has its fashions. Today, this constant is written with the fourth power, simply because of how one chooses to write Einstein's equation. Hence the clarification I had to provide to reassure everyone.
A little time lost, but well...
Readers told me, "You should contribute to the pages on MHD. After all, you're the pioneer and the leading French expert in this field." I made a few timid attempts and was immediately blocked by a new anonymous contributor, an IT professional by profession. In the discussion page, pointing out several absurdities, I asked that anyone wishing to collaborate on building this page have at least minimal competence, even in fluid mechanics. But, tired of wasting time, I quickly gave up.
Elsewhere, on my biography page, the battle raged. A character with a pseudonym too transparent: "Alain.r" (Alain Riazuelo, researcher at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris), supported by "le Ya Ya," the normalien, waged a fierce campaign against the "pro-Petit." At one point, Riazuelo published a very sharp critique of my scientific work, mentioning a page he had set up on the Institut d'Astrophysique's website, to which he belongs.
http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html
These Wikipedia pages thus turn into forums. This is particularly annoying when dealing with scientific topics. Riazuelo's text (still present on this site!!) was nothing but nonsense. In such cases, the proper response is a seminar-style explanation. I requested this from Riazuelo in a private email: no reply. Since this situation was damaging my cosmological work, after several follow-ups, I posted a copy of my polite email to Riazuelo, requesting a seminar at his lab to clarify matters before a competent audience. In the process, I provided the identity of "le Ya Ya," easily found by consulting the directory of the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He is Yacine Dolivet (for info, this young man, having completed his thesis, now works in a bank while still actively participating in Wikipedia).
In response, after discussions accessible to Wikipedia users, revealing the quality of its administrators—recruited by co-option, without any quality control—I was instantly "permanently banned" from Wikipedia. You will no longer find any other articles bearing my name. I had supposedly "revealed the identities of two contributors" and "brought a private matter into Wikipedia." I don't believe this was a private matter, but rather a scientific one. But as we'll see,
my subsequent attempts
to request seminars remained unanswered at the IAP. You judge for yourselves.
On February 13, 2008, a new incident occurred.
My readers may recall the series of articles I posted on my site following the American breakthrough in 2005–2006 on the "Z-machine" at Sandia Laboratories, New Mexico. In particular, there is an analysis of the key article published in April 2006 by Malcolm Haines, director of the plasma physics laboratory at Imperial College, Cambridge. This analysis has no equivalent, and upon rereading it two years later, I find it not too bad. It is available at:
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/Z-machine/papier_Haines/papier_Haines.htm
It turns out that since a very recent date, two years after the publication of Haines' paper, a slight stir of interest seems to be emerging around this research field in the French technoscience sphere. A meeting is scheduled with plasma specialists, where I will be invited to present the various aspects and outcomes of these researches. One of the concerned individuals thus deemed it appropriate to mention my analysis of Haines' paper at the bottom of the Z-machine page, with a link. The following reply was received:
For information, "Pourriel," a neologism combining "poubelle" (trash) and "courriel" (email), is the French equivalent of the word "Spam."
My contributor then referred to this blacklisting, presented in the Wikipedia administrators' bulletin.
Source:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2007/Semaine_52#MediaWiki
Here is first the summary of this weekly bulletin (it is the
52nd
week of 2007):
Then the content of the discussions and the implementation of the decision by a certain Hégésippe.
The ban on citing or linking to any document containing the keywords
http://www.jp-peti
t
therefore became effective as of December 27, 2007.
You will notice the essence of the argumentation. There are too many links in Wikipedia pointing to my site (122 to jp-petit.com, which has since disappeared, and 27 to my site, reinstalled at another host under the URL http://www.jp-petit.org). Note Hégésippe's sentence:
I believe Mr. Petit's sites, irrelevant, have no place being linked from Wikipedia-FR.
My contributor, after failing the previous day, succeeded in adding a link to the file containing my analysis of Malcolm Haines' paper by slightly modifying the address, i.e., by removing the three "w"s:
http://jp-petit.org/science/Z-machine/papier_Haines/papier_Haines.htm
Apparently, this worked for a few hours. But Hégésippe Cormier monitors "his" page, and
a few hours later
he removed this link by adjusting the forbidden character string:
February 14, 9:37 PM: Immediate reaction from Hégésippe Cormier: he removed this link to my analysis of Malcolm Haines' article V
Here are the available details about this "Hégésippe," available on Wikipedia:
Source:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:H%C3%A9g%C3%A9sippe_Cormier
One can
laugh at all this
, but it's enough to browse the page where Hégésippe Cormier presents himself to form an idea of the man's intellectual qualities. If you explore a bit more this Wikipedia France, you'll notice, by browsing the personal pages of administrators,
that this type of character is by no means an exception.
Very few mention specific, tangible skills. Most refer to their sports, musical, or culinary tastes. With Cormier, one reaches peaks of provocation and bad taste, entirely unpunished and without comment from other administrators, simply because they often have nothing better to offer in mediocrity. This idiotic, shocking sentence will remain in place indefinitely. The pseudonym system allows bad actors and idle people of all kinds and ages to wield power over talented individuals.
Far from me the idea of embarking on a new crusade for French Wikipedia. It would only be a waste of time. That said, my readers quickly investigated to identify this "Hégésippe Cormier." The result isn't impressive, and we won't even mention it. What's interesting is connecting to the discussion page between "administrators" regarding his admission.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Administrateur/H%C3%A9g%C3%A9sippe_Cormier_(2)
There, you'll find a bundle of links allowing you to explore the profiles of various Wikipedia France administrators. This will help you form an idea of these "managers," who consider "fighting vandalism" a sacred duty. This justification masks an entirely different position:
Anyone who doesn't think like me is a vandal
After such elections, a new administrator is granted unlimited power to erase, prohibit, blacklist, with no recourse. Idle people, petty minds, insecure individuals
can then freely vent their frustrations
in complete impunity. Thus, Mr. Hégésippe Cormier must fall asleep at night thinking, "I am the one who defeated Jean-Pierre Petit," which must have been the case for "manchot," who declared my "permanent ban" two years ago.
Thus, Wikipedia's drift is inevitable. Indeed, groups composed of mediocre people—let's say it plainly: of fools—can only recruit their own kind. I made this observation in a book published in 1988, noting that fools aren't as foolish as they seem, because they know how to co-opt each other in all professional and social environments. They instantly recognize each other, with a flair that inspires admiration. The non-fools lack this gregarious strategy, this unyielding solidarity.
Given the geographical dispersion of Wikipedia administrators, their expansion is comparable to the proliferation of metastases.
Unfortunately, against such a phenomenon, I believe there is no remedy. Shameful, Wikipedia is a great idea. But how could such a tool have fallen into the hands of such mediocrities? The answer lies in the time required to continuously follow such a volume of information, and that too in a voluntary, unpaid manner. No professional engaged in serious work, no genuine creative individual could spend ten to fifteen hours a day, or more, exploring these pages. Those who follow Wikipedia can assess this by the presence of various "figures" of these groups and the frequency of their interventions. Look at, for example,
Alvaro
, who presided over the sessions leading to my "permanent ban" (..).
February 21, 2008: I'm informed that "Alvaro" had already resigned as administrator of the Wikipedia structure as early as 2007, following internal upheavals. So be it. I was advised that to include his photograph from the Wikipedia site on my site, it would have been preferable to first obtain his consent. In fact, there's a much simpler solution: I remove this photograph and simply mention the link allowing access to it:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chez_Papa_02.jpg
The reader will go or not go to look at this photo, which they can access by searching Alvaro's personal page on this Wikipedia.
That said, this affair of the complete indexing of my entire site by "Hégésippe Cormier" has triggered reactions within the Wikipedia administrator group. The flexibility of the net allows for extremely rapid responses. In just a few days, my collaborator Julien Geffray created a new site
where my scientific commentary on Malcolm Haines' paper was immediately posted as a PDF (
English version
,
French version
), along with other documents (click on DOCUMENTS at the top). So far, no one has removed this new link. If they did, it would constitute an ad hominem attack. This affair could have an exemplary aspect. Indeed, what would have happened if I had tried to intervene in the composition of the Wikipedia page dedicated to the Z-machine? I would have likely wasted insane amounts of time and energy battling, sentence by sentence, word by word, against various editors protected by pseudonyms, not automatically competent in this complex and new plasma physics, possibly favoring certain groups within French technoscience (especially French ones).
Here, the call is discreet, but it's not impossible that, through word of mouth, people will say, "Go to the French Wikipedia Z-machine page, then at the bottom, you'll see a link to an analysis of Haines' paper by J.P. Petit. There, you'll find well-structured, richer content than the general text of the page."
Nothing will stop me from, as I could have done on the Wikipedia Z-machine page, additionally posting on this new site a clear, accessible popularization of the basic principles of this fantastic machine. Then, one could include in the references, with another link: "A presentation of J.P. Petit's principles of the Z-machine for the general public."
The power of the net is to create
the freedom to inform oneself
. These pages on this new site, no one will be able to touch them. On the other hand, if people want to judge these documents, they are free to do so in the
Wiki page. The reader will form their own opinion. Scientific readers of my analysis of Haines' paper could see that it was
entirely objective
: just scientific facts.
It's all a matter of time. If I can, I could very well create, in both French and English, a complete introduction to MHD on this site, at the public level and at the student or researcher level. My site readers know that I have sufficient competence, talent as a popularizer, and pedagogical skill as a teacher to create instructive pages at all levels. Then, one could access documents through links placed on various pages. Unless someone like "Hégésippe Cormier" uses a fact like "122 links, that's too many!"
I could very well, on this site or on another dedicated to my own work, compose documents referring to astrophysics and cosmology, in French and English. Documents that could be linked from pages in these domains. Again, the reader will be the judge.
I am quite shocked, though not overly surprised, to see that Alain Riazuelo, a 35-year-old polytechnician researcher at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, has already maneuvered toward Citizendium to occupy an "expert" status there. Wikipedia and Citizendium merely reveal the violent, internal struggles unfolding within this "scientific community." The difference is that at Citizendium, the experts' names are known. At this stage, I'd say "the most relevant, the most constructive, the clearest, the most fruitful wins." What structures like Wikipedia or even Citizendium risk, if they too get "infiltrated," is being "parasitized" entirely by richer, more credible structures. In fact, this article on Haines' work, linked from the French Wikipedia Z-machine page, behaves like a kind of "parasite" or "satellite," depending on the term one chooses.
Wikipedia activists will only rejoice at this explosion of access to information. Others won't appreciate seeing a certain control slip from their hands.
Ah, if you go to Wikipedia on the "Einstein Constant" page I wrote, you'll see at the bottom a link to a "cosmology portal." In the list of technical terms, you'll find Hubble Constant, Cosmological Constant, but not Einstein Constant (without this constant, there's simply no cosmology at all). Is this an oversight? I don't know. Someone might make this correction. I can't: I'm "permanently banned" by a certain "Manchot."
I would also like the permanent ban to be mentioned on the page dedicated to my bibliography, for having revealed the identity of a young person from the École Normale Supérieure who was operating under the pseudonym "le Ya Ya," rather stupidly in my opinion. After completing a thesis on superstrings, he now works in a bank but continues to participate in Wiki France.
I believe this deserves something like:
Permanent Ban:
Jean-Pierre Petit has been permanently banned from Wikipedia, making it impossible for him to contribute further. His permanent ban took effect on ... on the proposal of ...... (link), following a vote by administrators who participated in .... (links to their personal Wikipedia pages). The reason for this permanent ban is as follows: Mr. J.P. Petit, during the heated discussions accompanying the development of his biography, where he participated, revealed the identity of the contributor "le Ya Ya" by writing to the director of his research training.
A reader, more familiar than I am with Wikipedia's archives, has communicated to me:
The permanent ban was pronounced by "Korrigan" on October 10, 2006:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Korrigan
:D
In this personal page,
Korrigan
provides his identity:
Rémi Kaupp
, his profession, his age: 24 years old, and his photo
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tronche_de_Korrigan.jpg.
This followed a first temporary block of "guillom" for two weeks, who declared "almost blocking indefinitely."
The first to encourage the permanent (lifetime) block was... "Hégésippe."
Then "Korrigan," who supported it,
followed by "P@d@w@n," who also proposed indefinite blocking, extending it to his IP address, not just his name.
"Popo le Chien": same position.
"Markadet": same position.
"Alvaro": does not take a stance but says any decision is acceptable to him.
"Esprit Fugace": banishment
"David Berardan": banishment
"DarkoNeko": same, though he thinks the banishment penalty is insufficient
"Poppy": banishment
"Med": happy with the decision!
To access the debate that led to this permanent ban:
For curiosity's sake, read the entire discussion corresponding to the link above.
The "work" of Wikipedia administrators requires an incredible amount of time. Either it's a true apostolate to be saluted, people dedicating all their free time to it, or it's people who have all their time available. For some, it has become... their life, a totally virtual, autistic life, a true Venetian carnival under their pseudonyms. From this angle, it's insoluble.
The solution would be to ban the use of pseudonyms, requiring that all Wikipedia contributors can no longer benefit from this cover. This is the choice made by those who created Citizendium. I was asked to participate. But converting texts into good English is too much work.
On Wikipedia and in the scientific field, self-proclaimed experts, judges, and parties, like
Alain Riazuelo
, researcher at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris,
who would hardly descend into the arena
to face those they block in front of witnesses, do their best, under the pretext of "fighting vandalism," to maintain a stifling and mediocre conformity. Their students "monitor page content." All this can reach peaks of stupidity. A few months ago, a friend discovered on the page dedicated to Boy's surface images inspired by my polyhedral version of the surface, which I had invented in the mid-1980s:
Boy's surface, on Wikipedia
and the same, in my Topologicon, twenty years earlier:
My friend added a mention of my comic book "Le Topologicon" with a link, which was immediately cut under the pretext of "advertisement," even though the album is freely downloadable at:
http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/Francais/topologicon.htm
He had to insist for the link to be restored.
Imagine all the things I could have installed on Wikipedia, in many fields. But I'm "permanently banned," and to be honest, I no longer have the slightest desire, as long as this affair is parasitized by such a bunch of mediocrities. It's a shame for users, but we know of no way to rid this encyclopedia of its... encyclopedists.
I know people are trying to rebuild, elsewhere, a similar structure, this time free from this plague of the net: pseudonyms. But it's anglophone. So we'd have to install texts in English. That's too much time to spend.
Finally, now you know just how far things can go in stupidity, with no control or recourse possible.
May 30, 2008
A few months ago, two Wikipedia administrators contacted me directly. One of them had endorsed the session in which half a dozen other administrators voted in 2006 to ban me for life (see further details by scrolling up on this page). He admitted that he had only realized too late the consequences of a manipulation originating from Alain R. (Alain Riazuelo, from the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris). Through these exchanges, I discovered the extent of a phenomenon that could be compared to gangrene affecting this fantastic tool for information and the dissemination of knowledge.
These two individuals told me they would try to correct this situation. The fact that I received no response suggests their attempt ended in failure. I will not mention their names to avoid increasing their difficulties.
More recently, a 25-year-old computer scientist attempted to add to the bibliography dedicated to me the mention of my life ban in 2006 for revealing the identity of a contributor, a scientist who used the pseudonym le Ya Ya. Four times in a row, his addition was erased "within minutes," he wrote. He insisted and was then threatened with "blocking" due to "edit wars." He lodged a protest with two site administrators, receiving no response. He then turned to his "personal page," where Wikipedia visitors could land by typing "life ban of Jean-Pierre Petit" into the site's search engine. The information was immediately censored, and he was again threatened with blocking and a ban on expression within the site if he persisted. Disgusted, he eventually requested to be unregistered as a contributor, which was accepted and implemented instantly, while traces of his interventions were promptly erased.
Anyone can decide to modify the content of a page. All it takes is to click on the "edit" tab to access the page's code. Therefore, any reader of these lines can add the mention regarding my life ban. Their version of the page will be immediately replaced by the previous one, amounting to a swift erasure. If they persist, some "higher authority" will lock the page citing an "edit war."
Thus, Wikipedia's structure is "democratic," and you may express yourself freely as long as your statements align with those who maintain certain pages like gatekeepers. I make this brief reminder. While I use Wikipedia extremely frequently across many domains, all these stories belong to a tedious past for me. The consequence is that numerous scientific and technical entries where I could have made rich, well-substantiated contributions corresponding to my various specialties are filled with empty, inconsistent debates, or are simply riddled with errors.
That’s how it is...
A few hours after posting the text above on Wikipedia, here is what an "edit war" on Wikipedia looks like.
Jean-Philippe Ayanides, who sees no reason to act under a pseudonym, decides to add the mention of my banishment to my biography page. Here is the state of the page at 3:15 PM:
Two minutes later, at 3:17 PM, a certain Ludo29 reverts the changes made by J.Ph. Ayanides. The sentence disappears.
3:17 PM: Ayanides, who does not consider himself defeated, restores his version. A padlock icon on the right appears to indicate that someone has locked the page.
To access the Wikipedia page dedicated to me
It would still be normal for internet users to know on my biography page that I was banned for life from Wikipedia in 2006.
Access to debates among administrators who presided over my life ban
June 2, 2008, 3:30 PM:
The mention of my life ban was removed from the page dedicated to my biography
!
You will not find in the history the name or pseudonym of the person who carried out this action. For greater security, they locked the page
!
When the page is unlocked, if it ever is, to align with the strictest truth, simply add, without comment:
Jean-Pierre Petit was banned for life from Wikipedia on October 10, 2006
.
Access to debates among administrators who presided over this life ban
and you place the link to:
June 7, 2008:
A piece of information communicated by a reader.
If the mention of my life ban has disappeared from the biography page, it now appears in the English version, which you can access immediately when you are on the French Wikipedia by clicking on "English."
June 10, 2008:
History of the lock (called "protection")
A reader sent me the address where you can find the history of the lock on the page dedicated to my biography. His message:
I just found the history of the locks on your biography on Wikipedia, hoping it might help you:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Journal&type=protect&page=Jean-Pierre_Petit
Here are the details of the latest protection:
"May 30, 2008, at 2:17 PM
DocteurCosmos (Discuss | Contributions) protected « Jean-Pierre Petit » (Pro-JPP offensive [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires June 30, 2008, at 12:17 PM (UTC)))"
Who is "Docteur Cosmos"?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:DocteurCosmos#Contributions_majeures
Go to the section:
My areas of incompetence
You will find:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:DocteurCosmos#Mes_domaines_d.27incomp.C3.A9tence
There you will find "Physics, Mathematics," followed by the sentence: "The list is long."
What is this person doing in this matter of "page protection," where he mentions (in red) the reason for his decision: "Pro-Petit offensive"
It seems that any attempt to modify anything on this page is immediately labeled "vandalism"...
In other words: wanting my biography to include the mention of my life ban for revealing the identity of a contributor who spoke under a pseudonym is considered unacceptable within the Wikipedia sphere. You will notice that while a life ban can be issued within hours following a vote by half a dozen "administrators" (in fact, an ex-baba cool in his fifties and a group of 22-25-year-olds, none with any scientific training), it seems that the page lock cannot be maintained indefinitely. It is mentioned that this protection will end on June 30, 2008.
Therefore, from this date onward, it will be possible to attempt to restore the pure truth:
The life ban from Wikipedia was issued in October 2006 by Wikipedia administrators (link to the discussion page, see: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2006/Semaine_41#Blocage_de_Jean-Pierre_Petit) for revealing the identity of a contributor who spoke under the pseudonym (le Ya Ya).
It is likely that this mention, considered a "pro-Petit offensive," will trigger a new lock. But at least, since we will have, thanks to readers' research, access to the lock history, we will be able to follow in real time the fundamental malfunction of Wikipedia.
Others may attempt a similar effort in the English version of the biography by editing the mention. The reason for the life ban is not an "edit conflict" (I never directly edited my own biography page), but this supreme crime: removing the mask of one of the participants.
I don't know how things will evolve. All I can say is that two Wikipedia administrators, "Alvaro" and "Cereal killer," regretting this life ban situation, (unsuccessfully) tried to correct the course. Through them, we learned the extent of infiltration within this structure, particularly by individuals like Alain Riazuelo. It was only much too late that these "momentary conspirators" realized Riazuelo was manipulating his world, which occupies a significant part of his time. The failure of this internal attempt to reverse the 2006 decision shows the degree of decay within this structure, deemed irreversible by some.
I will not fight, and my "fans" will not expend energy doing so on my behalf either. My scientific biography is incomplete. I have been the subject of scientific contributions in many other fields. For example, I was a pioneer in the field of bitemperature plasma kinetic theory. Etc. Such a wide range of achievements can only provoke the hateful jealousy of someone like Alain Riazuelo, alias Alain r.
I reproduce below a copy of this page containing the history of the lock on my page:
June 11, 2008:
A reader wrote to me:
Good evening,
Following your latest publication concerning Wikipedia, and exasperated by the current state of affairs, I have drafted the following comment:
Looking forward to reading your response (on your site), always with great pleasure,
T BESSON
In fact, we here discover the weakness of Wikipedia. I mean the group of petty individuals who, having co-opted themselves as administrators, have created pressure groups, arrogating to themselves the right to censor, lock, etc...
We are completely helpless against an idiot who, under the cover of a pseudonym, decides to lock a page and prohibit its modification, when what he considers a "pro-Petit offensive" consisted simply of mentioning that "I was banned for life in October 2006 for revealing the identity of a contributor," which is strictly true.
Indeed, as long as this kind of occult, totally uncontrollable power exists, one feels disarmed. Internet users, many of whom are scandalized and exasperated by such militant mediocrity, cannot force open the locks imposed by these administrators.
However, they can... create new pages.
Therefore, I suggest that internet users create pages in this encyclopedia on interesting topics such as:
-
Life ban (in general, with historical examples. Ostracism in ancient Greece, etc. Then a section on "life ban on Wikipedia: who issues it, how, on what criteria." Examples, interesting links)
-
Wikipedia management
-
Blocking
-
Vandalism
(Do not forget! Anything not aligned with the pressure group’s line is considered vandalism)
-
Pseudonym
-
Writing under X
-
Censorship on Wikipedia
-
Online pressure groups
-
The dominant mindset on Wikipedia
-
The ability of idiots to recognize, co-opt, and form networks
-
Wikipedia: the manipulation of administrators by those who lack the courage to act openly
-
Right of reply page
(Exists, but rather meager)
- Alain Riazuelo: biography.
A paragraph should read: "After criticizing astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Petit on a page of his affiliated laboratory, the Institute of Astrophysics, in 2006, the lab refused to grant his colleague a right of reply in the lab’s seminar. The same silence was maintained by the lab’s director, Mr. ... Links."
To create the page, one does not need to be a specialist. It suffices to lay out the standard sections, stating that the page is under construction, inviting people to complete it, and adding:
Refusal to grant a scientific right of reply in a seminar (2006)
Just true facts, verifiable facts.
etc..
Every time such pages are created, I will mention their existence on my site, which receives considerable traffic. This could be an interesting experiment. These pages will serve as forums where people can share their personal experiences, contribute elements, and reveal from within, not through blogs, the state of decay of this structure. If 10% of my readers create pages, the administrators will simply not know where to turn.
The pages in question will be blocked, locked, censored by administrators who have become completely hysterical. It will suffice to create a journal of censorship on Wikipedia. If it is censored in turn, it will reappear under another name, which I will mention.
If internet users "fall victim to Wikipedia administrators," we could create a directory of "blocked" users with history, reason, name, email address, skills, and positions. We might uncover things like: "PhD in biology, blocked by Popo the dog" or "History professor, blocked by Freddy 27." The strength of these idiots lies in their numbers and their fantastic talent for co-opting each other. React, organize, counterattack, try to save this wonderful vessel.
Incompetents and failures have seized this fantastic and useful tool. Resist! Make their lives impossible too. Every fortress has its weak points.
June 12, 2008: Wikipedia: Follow its censorship in real time!
By scrolling up to the top of this page, you can follow the entire development of the affair.
To access the Wikipedia page dedicated to me
There was no "edit conflict" in the sense of respecting the rules of this secret society (exactly the right word, since the names of administrators, participants, and "responsible" individuals, shielded by pseudonyms, remain unknown), as claimed in the English version. I never directly intervened on the biography page dedicated to me. I was banned for life from Wikipedia in October 2006 by "Korrigan" following a vote by half a dozen "administrators," a group composed of an ex-baba cool in his fifties, Alvaro (whose photo can be found on Wikipedia—using a pseudonym does not prevent one from showing oneself), playing a "godfather" role in this group, and young individuals aged 25 to 30, none possessing any particular expertise, especially in science.
Access to debates among administrators who presided over my life ban
Alvaro and Notafish: specimens of Wikipedia administrators, whose photos can be found on Wikipedia.
Since then, on blogs, internet users have increasingly reported on the uncontrollable grip of this fantastic tool by idle, failed individuals of all kinds, who can indulge freely and vent their mediocrity and lack of competence with complete impunity, their pseudonyms shielding them.
Exasperated by these behaviors, I was banned for life in 2006 for revealing the identity of a contributor, a certain le Ya Ya.
This ban was immediately reflected on the English version of my biography ("banned for life"). There, it is mentioned that "I am not taken seriously by French scientists" (and added "references are desired"). This means that Wikipedia, on an international scale, spreads gossip about individuals targeted, without any reference, and bans them for life when they request the right to respond in a seminar and reveal their identity.
Recently, browsing this page, you will see that a certain Hégésippe (who has since modified his profile page, so much did it reveal his stupidity, which he openly claims—see above) even added my website to a blacklist "for excessive citations" (..). More recently, another reader attempted to add on my biography page that I had been banned for life from Wikipedia, which was erased and then blocked (impossible to modify the page until June 30, 2008). Thus, Wikipedia avoids the truth, refuses to allow undeniable facts revealing its shortcomings to be mentioned!
An increasing number of internet users realize that important sectors of this structure have fallen under the control of malicious, bitter, incompetent, and mediocre individuals who vent their frustrations. In doing so, they completely discourage potential contributors. I cannot count the number of valuable scientific colleagues with impressive records who tell me, "Contribute to Wikipedia? To clash with idiots hiding behind pseudonyms? Not for me!"
Can Wikipedia be saved? I believe it can. To do so, internet users must exercise their rights: the right to modify existing pages or create new ones, to fight against the invasion by mediocrities, and to demand the removal of powers granted to complete neurotics (like this Hégesippe Cormier!).
The predictable response was immediate. Thus, if you type "censorship" on Wikipedia, a page already exists:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
Here is a message from a reader:
Message received on June 12, 2008
Mr. Petit,
I took the liberty, following your call for "civil resistance," to modify the following article on Wikipedia:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
Here is the added paragraph:
"Censorship also occurs on the internet. Regarding Wikipedia, Jean-Pierre Petit has been subject to a life ban, making it impossible for him to contribute. The reason for this life ban is as follows: Mr. J.P. Petit, during the heated discussions accompanying the creation of his biography, where he participated, revealed the identity of contributor le Ya Ya by writing to the director of his research training program. As a result, Mr. J.P. Petit can no longer express himself on Wikipedia. This is a new form of censorship, dictated by anonymous participants, raising the issue of controlling information from the internet in general and Wikipedia in particular."
At 1:50 PM, this modification had already disappeared—no big surprise.
Nevertheless, I persist and modify the article again. Thank you for giving me the motivation to enter this fight.
Thank you for your contagious energy and dedication.
Sincerely,
Rénald Wittemberg, physics teacher at IUT
Here is the added text, before immediate censorship (archived):
At the bottom of the section
FRANCE
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censure&oldid=30554861
The modification was immediately erased by Gribeco, who monitors "all acts of vandalism." You can find mention of this by clicking on the History. You will see that the internet user attempted a second time to reintroduce this addition, which was immediately erased again by the official censor.
Within the group of Wikipedia administrators, an addition is considered an act of vandalism.
Here is Gribeco’s personal page, which is also... protected against any "act of vandalism" (by another administrator). They’ve figured it out—they protect each other...
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Gribeco
Vandal (Wikipedia):
Someone who doesn't think like us
What will happen next?
It depends on you, internet users.
If you believe the addition made to this "censorship" page by this internet user is justified, you can restore it yourself. It will be erased again. There will then be an "edit conflict," and an administrator will impose a temporary block on the page to suspend these disputes. If your tone does not suit the sect members, you may be "blocked," meaning you can no longer contribute. Temporarily blocked, or possibly "banned for life" if you, for example, reveal the identity of a contributor by tearing off their mask!
What would be extraordinary is if the repeated protests from internet users led to a definitive lock on the page dedicated to censorship!
Readers and internet users can therefore fight within Wikipedia, which is their property. In this megasite, they are... at home, since it was originally created for everyone to express themselves. Yet, double standards. Some, protected by pseudonyms they cling to desperately, have been granted the right to "block," "censor," "forbid," and issue "life bans." But by whom? How? Who leads this organization, to whom can legitimate complaints be addressed?
A mystery to clarify. This secret society wants to remain so, since recently a high-ranking Wikipedia official, "cereal killer," has spoken in the press!
Other internet users quickly find themselves facing the sect members and, worn out, surrender the ground. Yet, one must resist, have a civic resurgence against this new invasion of a structure that is extremely useful, too valuable to be left in the hands of idiots, originally designed to be democratic, now ruled by new tyrants, members of a sect, a secret society. It is... appalling.
Detail: No Wikipedia administrator can intervene on the content of my pages. That’s something. I can therefore report here on your efforts and your struggle if you decide to do so. I cannot do it for you.
Here, you have a point of entry, a textbook case: this "censorship" page that... censors itself!
It was the same Gribeco who immediately erased a discussion page created yesterday by an internet user. Those who wished to express their opinions could not do so—the page had already... disappeared.
You will find the mention of this deletion at this address. It was carried out on June 12, 2008, at 3:45 AM (Wikipedia censorship operates 24/7, carried out by people who often dedicate all their time to it).
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Journal&offset=20080612063538&type=delete
Here is a message from a reader dated June 12, 2008, who unsuccessfully tried to intervene.
Good evening,
I created a page on wiki about "JP Petit":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Petit
and I responded with my real name in the discussion section of the page:
I admire your energy and courage. The fact that you possess these qualities and are able to inspire others is admirable.
Please feel free to pass on my contact details to anyone who might need them, and don’t hesitate to take advantage.
Sincerely,
Thierry Lezaud
Another message (June 12, 2008):
Annoying!
This morning, when trying to view the comment page I created yesterday, I realized it had disappeared. Since I don’t yet know how to navigate the history, it would be helpful to solicit a reader who has the technical know-how to find out who deleted it. Anyway, I will recreate this page this evening and send you the link. There is no reason why such a basic debate as a person’s right to correct their own biography should not be initiated.
Note, however, that the speed with which the comment page was deleted can only demonstrate active surveillance of your site. Existence of a Wikipedia intelligence service?
Sincerely,
Thierry Besson
Another message (June 12, 2008):
Wikipedia is sinking further... this time it's the discussion page!
Jackpot! King Hégésippe, the fool, former admin dismissed for misconduct, is now re-elected admin and reignites the fire on your article by protecting the discussion page. What a bunch of dogs—this disgusts me from contributing so much…
23:50 . .
Hégésippe Cormier (Discuss | Contributions) protected « Discuter:Jean-Pierre Petit » (clear campaign of external propaganda [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires July 11, 2008, at 10:50 PM (UTC)))
For information, semi-protection prevents edits from IP addresses and from accounts registered less than four days ago. I could modify the article without problem, but I really don’t want to enter a sterile edit war with these people with "powers."
I know their "cabal" well, having spent several months on their discussion channel #wikipedia-fr, where all the admins are present throughout the day (Alain r first among them) (Alain Riazuelo, astrophysicist). And as soon as something happens, all the wolves descend. Alvaro was one of the few who fought on many points (with admin rights), but he has abandoned it for almost a year now (he is no longer an administrator).
A sad failure for Wikipedia on this point. The only plausible solution I can envision to resolve this dispute would be to contact (if possible by phone) the president of the Wikimedia France board of directors
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Anthère)
who holds the "stewart" rights to change user permissions at all levels. Assert your editing rights by explaining the ban, its reasons, and your motivations as a quality contributor.
Good luck! If you need help from the Wikipedia side, I can set up articles, but I would prefer you do it yourself, and I would just need to review them for spelling and "wikification," as I did for your first contributions (Julien was there too at the time, but I believe he was even more disgusted than you by these childish behaviors).
A2 (fervent reader who translated the Economicon)
It seems this time we are dealing with a reaction from someone inside this organization. We learn here, what I already knew, that Alvaro, regretting having endorsed my life ban, had vainly tried to correct the course, then resigned from his administrator status, completely disgusted. Six months ago, in emails he sent me, he denounced the manipulation to which he and many others had been subjected by Alain Riazuelo (contributor under the pseudonym Alain r.), astrophysicist at the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris.
See this dossier.
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/ASTROPHYSIQUE/le_temps_de_la_lachete.html
It is not up to me to contact this president of the Wikimedia France board of directors
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Anthère
who holds the "stewart" rights. Here is her personal page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/me
On which she reveals her identity and her face (it is surprising that an administrator would reveal only part of her physical appearance).
The president of the secret society Wikipedia France
A touch of symbolism in her attire
Could someone obtain her postal address?
Normally, a president or presidentess of such an important structure, a true institution, should be reachable this way.
Unless sending letters could be considered "postal harassment"?
Personal information in English at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/me
You can always try to contact her, even just by phone.
Go to this page:
What the other think of me
(What others think of me). You will find reproductions of love letters sent to her by her fans.
But elsewhere, you find a complete portrait. The lady’s name is Florence Devouard:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Devouard
Florence Devouard, born September 10, 1968, current president of the Wikipedia Foundation
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Devouard
In this link, you have the name of the village where she resides. I assume you can find her address, contact her, and your protest messages will not be erased by "censoring administrators." React, organize, send her a petition from internet users scandalized by the drift of Wikipedia France. Finally, if that's your opinion, of course...
The president of the board of directors of this Wikipedia France structure is also responsible for how things evolve. Question her.
This woman lives in the small village of Malintrat, near Clermont-Ferrand, married, with three children, born in 1968 (37 years old). After working in a food and beverage company, laid off in 2005, she now devotes herself to being a mother and, of course, to Wikipedia France.
Many people know that astrophysicist Alain Riazuelo, researcher at the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, spends most of his time playing the role of an Ayatollah of science. Here is his user page:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Alain_r
He dreams of occupying a prominent position as a popularizer, becoming the Hubert Reeves of the French Wiki:
http://www.planck.fr/heading2.html
The public discovered, through Lee Smolin's book "Nothing Is Wrong in Physics!" (Dunod), that science was undergoing a major crisis. Scientific reputations are built somewhat like Wikipedia administrators, through co-option. In Wikipedia, new administrators are elected by "veterans" who vote under pseudonyms. The scientific community functions in the same way, covertly. It co-opts its experts, its referees, who then allow articles from group members to pass while blocking others. It has its own search engines, like SPIRES, which continuously scan "citations." It is therefore relatively easy to form a group whose members constantly cite each other, thereby boosting their standing. Conversely, those who are unwelcome are systematically ignored. This allows Alain Riazuelo to claim:
- I occupy an important position within the astrophysics community. Look at how many times I've been cited. In contrast, how many times have Jean-Pierre Petit's works been mentioned, according to this database? Barely at all? Therefore, his work is worthless, since its presence on this scientific market is at the very bottom of the scale.
Please visit the page dedicated to the biography of astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Luminet
You will see, in red, the name of
Alain Riazuelo
. If you click on this name, you will land on a page awaiting editors:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alain_Riazuelo&action=edit&redlink=1
Edit what? How?
Return to the Luminet page and switch to edit mode by clicking the "Edit" tab. You will see an editing field that you could potentially modify ("vandalize").
You can copy and paste this content into the editing field for Riazuelo, then erase everything not relevant, keeping only the format and sections. In preview, you would get this, i.e., the skeleton of the page:
You could then easily add references to his scientific works, since they are mentioned via a link on his personal page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Alain_r
This link takes you to the arXiv page listing his works:
http://fr.arxiv.org/find/astro-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/riazuelo/0/1/0/all/3/0
I simplify your task by presenting this content on this Web page.
You will thus be able to begin constructing a page dedicated to Alain Riazuelo (which he cannot create himself due to Wikipedia's ethical guidelines), but he will appreciate that you showed interest in him and that other Wikinauts are doing so for him. You can complete it by obtaining his age, curriculum vitae, laboratory affiliation details, and any other information of perfect authenticity. Then, for good measure, you could add a new section:
Scientific Criticism Activities
In 2006, Alain Riazuelo published on his laboratory's website, the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris (Link), a very severe critique of Jean-Pierre Petit's cosmological work (Link to my biography page).
(Link to this critique page:
http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html
-)
Jean-Pierre Petit asked to be allowed to respond to these criticisms during a seminar at the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris, a request he also made to the institute's director. But neither the director nor Alain Riazuelo responded, considering the request unfounded.
Symmetrically, on my biography page, someone could write:
The opinion of astrophysicist Alain Riazuelo on Jean-Pierre Petit's cosmological work
In 2006, Alain Riazuelo published on his laboratory's website, the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris (Link), a very severe critique of Jean-Pierre Petit's cosmological work (Link to his biography page).
(Link to this critique page:
http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html
-)
Jean-Pierre Petit asked to be allowed to respond to these criticisms during a seminar at the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris, a request he also made to the institute's director. But neither the director nor Alain Riazuelo responded, considering the request unfounded.
It would be interesting to see whether these mentions would be accepted by Wikipedia's censors or removed, and for what reasons?
June 12, 2008, 5:00 PM
An internet user, Nicolas Borallo, attempted to create a biography page for Alain Riazuelo, simply including the information available about him: his curriculum vitae, his laboratory affiliation, and a list of his works.
The page was immediately erased by "Doctor Cosmos" (who is not a scientist!).
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 3:09 PM
Subject: Wikipedia
Hello,
I've just created the biography page for Mr. Riazuelo on Wikipedia.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Riazuelo
Best regards
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Wikipedia
Mr. Petit,
The page was instantly erased.
Here is the message I received:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:218.124.53.67&redirect=no
What does this mean?!!
User Discussion:218.124.53.67
A Wikipedia article, the free encyclopedia.
Go to: Navigation
<
,
Search
<
Hello,
The article you just created about Alain Riazuelo
<
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alain_Riazuelo&action=edit&redlink=1
does not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion
<
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CAA
in the French Wikipedia. This article will therefore soon be deleted. Best regards,
(:Julien:) <
By clicking this link, you will learn everything about "Julien," the one who immediately erected a barrier preventing the creation of the Alain Riazuelo page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:%28:Julien:%29
<
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:%28:Julien:%29
June 12, 2008, 3:19 PM (CEST)
/Ce this is the discussion page of a user who has not created an account or does not use one. To identify them, we use their IP address <
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adresse_IP
number, which may be shared by several users. If you notice comments not meant for you, you can create an account
<
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Connexion/signup
or log in <
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Connexion
to avoid future confusion. [Which domain does this IP belong to?
<
]
[Search on Dshield
<
http://www.dshield.org/ipinfo.php?Submit=Submit&ip=218.124.53.67
]/
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Wikipedia
Mr. Petit,
I've reposted the page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:218.124.53.67&diff=cur
I really like the "Thank you for not persisting on this path" from Doctor Cosmos."
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia
I've just created an account under my name... and I've just republished Mr. R's page.
Here is the page code (simple, but good for a start). I used references he provides on his Wikipedia page.
time
'''Alain Riazuelo''' is a [[astrophysicist]] [[France|French]]
researcher at the [[Institute of Astrophysics of Paris]] (IAP).
== Scientific Activity ==
Publications: [
http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/these/main_4-0.pdf
thesis],
[
http://fr.arxiv.org/find/astro-ph,gr-qc,hep-ph,hep-th/1/riazuelo/0/1/0/all/3/0
articles]
== Popularization Activities ==
[
http://www.planck.fr/heading2.html
Introduction to Cosmology] (in construction!)
=== Notes ===
{{Portal|astronomy|cosmology}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Riazuelo, Alain}}
[[Category:Astrophysicist]]
[[Category:French astronomer]]
[[Category:French physicist]]
[[Category:Cosmologist]]
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia
And here it goes again—Julien erased the page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Nicolas_Borrallo
Wikipedia administrators have become completely hysterical...
Messages like this appear:
They lock a page, forbidding editing, even though it hasn't been created yet!!!
Alvaro told me in a private email chain when he and a few others tried to reverse the situation, unsuccessfully. Riazuelo pulls all the strings in Wikipedia's science branch. He spends an unbelievable amount of time behind his keyboard, manipulating a whole group of "young administrators," trained like watchdogs, to whom he gives orders, being far too cowardly to act openly. As long as he doesn't have a biography page, he can remain in the shadows he prefers. But if such a page is created, sooner or later someone will want to add that he has acted as a scientific critic (and this is always the case, since the critique page he set up on the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris website is still there, a page he mentioned in internal Wikipedia debates, thus making it public).
Our science is sick with all the Riazuelos of the planet. There are no longer places where scientists can fight fairly, ideas against ideas, theorems against theorems, works against works. If I were facing this little Riazuelo, this sort of Sarkozy of astrophysics, in a seminar, ah, my friends, I'd eat him alive, and he knows it very well.
In fact, I believe scientific seminars, when they become discredited and a scientist comes to defend themselves, should be filmed and broadcast on Dailymotion or YouTube. In all fields, from all sides, a civic reaction and awakening are necessary. In politics, in justice, in economics, and... in science.
Friday, June 13, 2008, 7:59 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo to Jean-Pierre Petit
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia
Mr. Petit,
Just a small clarification. Wikipedia administrators have taken things further than I thought. On most pages mentioning Alain Riazuelo, the link to his potential biography has simply been removed, becoming plain text (as if we shouldn't create a page for this gentleman). According to the criteria for inclusion, for a scientist, the following conditions must be met:
Scientists, academics
-
Have received a nationally or internationally recognized scientific prize (e.g., Nobel Prize, CNRS Medal...),
-
Be considered a reference author in the field,
-
Be considered the author of a widely disseminated theory.
Note: "Doctor Cosmos" is not a scientist!
The criteria for including a scientist's biography in Wikipedia:
Consequently, my biography should not appear in Wikipedia, since I am neither a Nobel laureate nor a CNRS medalist, my theories are not recognized, and my work is strongly contested (see Alain Riazuelo's critique on the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris website, where he is affiliated):
http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html
So, either:
-
I belong in Wikipedia, considered a reference author of a widely accepted theory. Then the critique page created by Alain Riazuelo must disappear from the IAP website, and Wikipedia users should demand this measure, as this text is an attempt to discredit a "recognized scientific authority," emanating from a person "who is not recognized," since he does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
-
Or Riazuelo is right, and my biography must then be removed from Wikipedia.
Friday, June 13, 2008, 9:50 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Subject: Wikipedia
Hello,
I was just referring to the fact that they removed the links to Mr. Riazuelo's potential biography. If you search Wikipedia for "Alain Riazuelo," three pages appear. In the content of these three pages, yesterday, Mr. Riazuelo's name still appeared in red (a link to a non-existent biography page).
Since this morning, these links no longer exist.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Luminet
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trou_noir
I restored it on this one (for how long??) I wanted to check whether this option was blocked.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers_en_tore_bidimensionnel
I don't know if it matters, but yesterday it was still possible to create this biography, and it was even expected since Alain Riazuelo's name was in red.
Since the biography was protected, the links to this potential biography have been removed, as if we shouldn't encourage people to take too much interest in him.
I must admit, I'm baffled.
Nicolas Borallo
Indeed, Riazuelo's name has been changed to black and the link removed. Yet this link encouraged internet users to create a page about him.
Best regards,
Nicolas Borallo
Alain Riazuelo is extremely active within Wikipedia's "science branch," as confirmed by "Alvaro," who told me in a private email: "We realized too late that he was manipulating us. He has gained such influence over many administrators that he uses them at will, according to his own goals. They have become his lieutenants. When we tried to react, it was too late. He had already built a clientele, a majority within the administrators."
The reader must understand that this is not about "personal problems" or a personal conflict between this researcher and me. It goes much further. This affair reveals the infiltration of Wikipedia by "the Ayatollahs of science," too cowardly to act under their own names. The young Riazuelo himself is merely the "gunman" for a group, of which Jean-Pierre Luminet is also a part.
It is truly extraordinary that when I suggested to internet users that they populate the page dedicated to Alain Riazuelo, it triggered such a chain reaction, even though its initial content was entirely consistent with his curriculum vitae and the presentation of his work. The page was deleted and... blocked:
Friday, June 13, 2008, 11:39 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Subject: Wikipedia
Mr. Petit,
Simply incredible... Does this mean that (if we accept their logic) you've been permanently banned for an article that shouldn't exist according to their criteria?
I think it's not respected anyway. I found an example of an American scientist's article (co-author of one of Riazuelo's papers), and none of the inclusion criteria mentioned appear on this page:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Weeks
It has existed since January 2008, according to its history:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Weeks&action=history
This case is probably not rare. The deletion of Riazuelo's biography is therefore unjustified.
Best regards,
Nicolas Borallo
Friday, June 13, 2008, 12:06 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Philippe Ayanides
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Subject: Wikipedia::Jean-Pierre Luminet.
I'm stunned.
The administrator named Alex intervened in less than a minute to erase the creation of a link to Riazuelo, claiming the article was "out of criteria," even though there wasn't one yet! I restored it twice (anonymously for now), but as he's an admin, he'll eventually block me!
Jean-Philippe Ayanides - UNIX System Administrator
Try again, get an account, and go through to the block. I'll report here.
A reader suggests creating an Alain Riazuelo biography page on
Citizendium
(where people act under their real names, and where, according to Alvaro, Alain Riazuelo has registered as an "expert"). Everything attempted will be reported here.
Friday, June 13, 2008, 2:10 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Philippe Ayanides
To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Subject: Wikipedia::Jean-Pierre Luminet.
Here is Tejgad's response explaining the blocking of the page on Riazuelo:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:195.46.193.41&redirect=no
And here are his references (cited page).
Scientists, academics
-
Have received a nationally or internationally recognized scientific prize (e.g., Nobel Prize, CNRS Medal...),
-
Be considered a reference author in the field,
-
Be considered the author of a widely disseminated theory,
Note: The mere fact of publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals is not sufficient criteria.
Tejgad is a young student from Lyon's preparatory classes (administrator on Wikipedia!!!) and says... what he's told to say.
We wish him good luck in his exams.
Criteria for article inclusion, particularly biographies and scientific biographies:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CAA
Readers might wonder: Why all this fuss? Why this display of "scientific grudges"?
In fact, the stakes are simply science.
Wikipedia pages are filled with biographies of people presented as great scientists, often well-paid by state institutions, but who are at best popularizers, fervent propagators of the dominant scientific thought of the moment. A thought, by the way, which is sometimes fragile and susceptible to sudden collapse (like the "standard model," sung for three decades by our national bard Hubert Reeves, who now prefers to devote his energy to defending wild fauna).
Behind these upheavals, we risk uncovering the truth, particularly through the Riazuelo affair: this young man repeatedly publishes the same work and benefits from an extensive international network of favoritism. He publishes prolifically in "major journals." The number of citations he receives is impressive. Mine, by comparison, are negligible. Does this mean he is "recognized by his peers" and I am not?
Under these conditions, it should be his biography and the popularized account of his interesting contributions that appear in the encyclopedia, not mine.
If a page is created about him, some specialists might be tempted to offer critiques and remarks, possibly using links, as he himself did regarding me. But would he then demand the right to respond in scientific seminars, as I did in 2006? (A request he ignored, responding with contempt.) Would he have the courage to face criticism from actual mathematical "heavyweights"? Could all this "modern cosmology" not collapse like a house of cards, as happened with superstrings?
Logically, Riazuelo must make a decision about this critique page on my work. He is, as chess players say, in a Zugzwang position:
-
Either he maintains his critique, accepts a face-to-face seminar confrontation in front of witnesses (a session which should then be filmed and streamed online via Dailymotion or YouTube), and loses the game publicly and in front of his colleagues.
-
Or he deletes his page and... loses face.
Or he does neither, and discredits himself in the eyes of internet users, losing all scientific credibility.
I am not fighting to defend my own ideas and work, but to defend Science with a capital S, which I have tried to serve as best I can for 40 years. To defend a certain idea of science, like that of a man such as Lichnérowicz, whom everyone remembers. Class, elegance, modesty, integrity.
André Lichnérowicz, mathematician, academician
June 16, 2008:
A failed request by a reader regarding the impossibility of creating an Alain Riazuelo page.
Source:
Justification for Phe's negative response: none.
Friday, June 13, 2008, 12:02 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: kfran kfran To: Jean-Pierre Petit
Friday, June 13, 2008, 12:02 PM
Subject: Wikipedia's drift
Hello Mr. JPP.
Just to inform you that I am also tired of the abuse of power by certain "moderators" on Wikipedia.
I've just written to them expressing my dissatisfaction and suspending my annual donation of 15 euros (a non-negligible amount for me).
Indeed, I was one of the first donors when Wikipedia was not yet very well known.
Best regards,
I am not "believing." I've studied the Bible quite a bit. You'll find it in the downloadable books section on my site. When I think of these pillbugs hiding behind Wikipedia, particularly a whole group of mediocre scientists (but who "publish a lot"—today, that's not incompatible), I think of Christ's sermon entering the Temple's courtyard:
June 15, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicolas Borallo
To: jppetit
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:05 PM
Subject: Updates
Mr. Petit,
Just a few updates on the drift of French Wikipedia.
Most pages mentioning Mr. Riazuelo are now protected or semi-protected (except the black hole page, but given the pace, it's only a matter of time). You must not create a page about this gentleman.
Look at the history of the page "Two-dimensional torus universe":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Univers_en_tore_bidimensionnel&action=history
The following line is quite revealing:
(actu) (
diff
)
June 14, 2008, 12:21
Ludo29
(Discuss | Contributions) m (Protected "Two-dimensional torus universe": Requested coup de force from JPP's site [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
So Ludo29 protected this page because readers were vainly trying to add a link to Mr. Riazuelo's biography (this being labeled a "coup de force" suggested by you). I can well believe they call you all sorts of names on IRC.
Otherwise, that famous Doctor Cosmos, non-scientist, who removed Mr. Riazuelo's links from most pages.
I just realized I'm considered a vandal... (under my IP)... all for adding links.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:218.124.53.67
I'll keep you informed of any new developments.
Best regards,
Nicolas Borallo
Paraphrasing, I would say:
- It was written that the house of science would be a house of knowledge for all nations, and you have turned it into a cave of liars, frauds, thieves, and impostors!
I think of Veneziano, who teaches superstrings and holds the chair of theoretical physics at the Collège de France...
There is something rotten in the kingdom of science!
An internet user posted a mediation request on the discussion page of Wikipedia France's President, Florence Devouard:
Florence Devouard, President of the Wikipedia Foundation, France. Pseudonym: "Anthere"
You can access this discussion page by clicking this link:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anther
Here is the page. You click on user page to access this discussion page.
And you go all the way down.
You will notice the author's astonishment at discovering that "someone," at 3 AM, erased his message... like that! It can only be an administrator. Whatever the outcome of this request, such abuse of power should result in the removal of administrator status from the perpetrator of this act of censorship, concealment, and the immediate opening of an investigation.
Anthere (a flower name) holds maximum powers in the field of Wikipedia France. What decision will she make?
June 15, 2008:
The mediation appeal simply disappeared from this page, and I can find no trace of it anywhere. Is this a... form of response?
Or at least a kind of finality, expressed by a structure remarkably... watertight.
I believe some readers have understood this form of resistance. Thus, Louis-Raphaël Leygues composed a new page dedicated to the pseudonym. Absurd, see further down:
This content was immediately modified by "Mr. 79.227.142," who removed all references to Wikipedia's customs.
Enter resistance.
A "vandal" is someone who thinks differently from the "dominant thought" that has taken root on Wikipedia, where it is fashionable to claim, even prescribe, the use of pseudonyms and the practice of anonymity. When discussions raged on my biography page's discussion tab, an administrator suddenly said, "Petit should take a pseudonym, like everyone else, and everything will return to order (...)."
Copy the content of the page to this address and reinstall it by editing in Wikipedia. It is your right. Taxed as "vandalism," you risk being "blocked" by an anonymous administrator, and who knows—banned for life. You will notice that during the war, resistance fighters protected themselves with pseudonyms, but here it's the opposite. It's... absurd.
It is the resisters who sign their interventions with their true identity!
1