Questions and complaints about moderation + unlisted, mostly unmoderated, free discussion

[kitefreak]

Windy Skies forgets that many readers have no idea about water kite history and technology. Doug himself is not a kite expert, but represents someone who could learn more.

Yes it is increasingly contentious how Windy Skies is escalating his censorship to hide serious content that requires care and knowledge to create. Its no coincidence that he relies on anonymity to fake concern over non-technical distraction.

Windy Skies is not helping AWE progress like those he impedes. While he abuses superuser power, he imposes constant punishment on my account settings. Censorship in AWE will not prevail.

Censorship is dumbing down the entire Forum, compared to free-speech. Windy Skies has taken the most contentious possible role from behind his mask. Those who have truly built up AWE knowledge are not masked.

[kitefreak]

Windy Skies is now attacking JoeF on multiple topics, as if JoeF is a bad guy in AWE, and masked authority is needed to police him.

Luke, Tallak, Pierre, and Rod are morally responsible for Windy Skies, now after JoeF. Windy Skies is not helpful in AWE, like those he wrongly attacks. Let Windy help add more references to the WP Paravane page, if he is sincerely wanting to help Open AWE and WP culture.

[Windy_Skies]

@Windy_Skies

So calling a paravane an underwater kite is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia.

@kitefreak, I’ve blocked some of your replies to this topic to not derail the topic too much. If you want to continue refuting this claim, you would have to point to credible third-party sources agreeing with your claim.

@kitefreak

A little patience will allow vast supporting references

Okay.

[kitefreak]

I want to stop your censorship under mask of anonymity. Proving you factually wrong every chance you offer is not my preferred choice, but it will do, since your are so poorly informed.

To me you are a Netiquette Concern Troll, with no prior record of helping AWE advance, and doing terrible damage here. Stop harassing me and Joe on our topics. We are honest scholars who have done our AWE homework better than any hapless censor, as time and the public record will prove.

[PierreB]

@Windy_Skies

So calling a paravane an underwater kite is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia.

@Windy_Skies,

Paravane as underwater glider is mentioned in Wikipedia. That contradicts your statement.

[Windy_Skies]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The paravane /ˈpærəveɪn/, a form of towed underwater “glider” with a warhead that was used in anti-submarine warfare

You can read the italic part here as an explanation or definition of what a paravane is, it’s not a synonym.

I see Joe gave some more references. Perhaps I’ll look at those and perhaps I’ll look at stuff myself too. I think he references mostly patents, I’m not sure I agree that a patent is a good source for word usage.

I’ll change my position to this:

@Windy_Skies

So calling a paravane an underwater kite is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Or the claim (implicit from the naming of the article) that “water kite” is the and commonly used synonym for “paravane” is not referenced.

[kitefreak]

This is Wikipedia’s policy on patents as sources. Windy Skies is wrong to have overlooked them before accusing-

"Are patents reliable sources?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples&action=edit&section=7)]

WP:PATENTS" redirects here.
An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented."

Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources?

[Windy_Skies]

"Are patents reliable sources?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples&action=edit&section=7)]

WP:PATENTS" redirects here.
An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented."

@Windy_Skies

I’m not sure I agree that a patent is a good source for word usage.

Right. That Wikipedia quote agrees with what I wrote.

The full text:

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples - Wikipedia?

A patent is a limited monopoly granted by a government to an inventor, in return for the inventor disclosing his invention (instead of, for example, attempting to maintain it as a trade secret).

An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented.

Government patent authorities, however, do not fact-check, edit or endorse any material in the patent application. Their main concern, as regards conditions for publishing an application (not an issued patent), is whether the application is in conformance with the form and content required of a complete patent application under the guidelines of the relevant patent office (national or international). The primary responsibility of patent authorities is to verify that the inventions claimed are clearly delineated, non-obvious, and novel (that is, not previously described in the literature, whether in a patent or elsewhere).

Patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. A patent application is written by the inventor-applicant, and patent authorities have essentially no control over its content, and may be published before the patent office has agreed that the claimed invention merits a patent.

The content of a patent should be considered somewhat less reliable. Patent examiners do not replicate any experiments, build any devices, or decide whether any tests run by the inventor were done correctly. They have no way of knowing whether information provided by the inventor is accurate or whether the invention will work as described. Patent authorities:

• do not control the content of an issued patent (other than prescribing the format);
• do not attempt to verify that the inventions described actually provide whatever benefits are claimed in the patent, or that results of experiments were actually as described; and
• do not pass judgment on whether the ideas offered in the patent are scientifically accurate.

Thus both issued patents and patent applications have limited use as sources on Wikipedia:

• They are reliable as a citation to the existence of an invention and its date (e.g., “A patent was issued to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010…”).
• They are reliable for attributed statements about their contents (e.g., “According to five-year-old inventor Steven Olson in his application for US Patent #6,368,227, issued in 2002, he invented swinging sideways because swinging back and forth might get boring.”)
• A patent will also contain a section referencing previous literature, which may be a good source to search for other citations.

Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents.

[kitefreak]

Where unresolved complaints against New Forum Moderation bias and censorship are leading. Just sent out to the parties-

–
Roland, Udo, Thomas, Richard, Joep, etc.

Time for AWE leaders to stand up for free speech and transparency in AWE.

The New Forum has a secret Moderator (Windy Skies) run amok with censorship of AWE content on the false pretext of Netiquette. Lots of informative posts are being hidden from public view or even deleted. Luke, Tallak, and Rod are fully supportive in writing of this censorship, which decimates even neutral topics like “All about Knots”.

On the other hand, poorly qualified supporters of AWEurope insist Makani and Kitepower mishap cover-ups are not a problem, with rigorous aviation safety reporting standards and tradition ignored. People may die or be severely injured by the cover-ups (ie. lessons of Kitepower’s runaway AWES tether disposition in Valkenburg urban zone).

The pattern of censorship aligns with your venture circles, and against independent critics and skeptics. No claim or actor in your scope is ever wrongly attacked. Now the bias is escalating. JoeF’s integrity as an AWE Wikipedian is challenged by the secret censor on the New Forum simply for using “paravane” and “water kite” interchangeably. When Joe produced multiple vintage patents proving his proper traditional usage, patents themselves were rejected as proof of technical usage by the secret actor, and the accusation left in place.

Send a clear message here that secret censorship and bias in public AWE discussion is not acceptable. Reverse the long descent into secretive process under entrenched non-democratic leadership, that has climaxed by AWEurope’s closed AWEC2019 session and non-response to years of concerns over insider dealings, to the detriment of open AWE engineering science.

Add the issue of AWEurope acquiescence or complicity with Forum censorship to the concerns over the loss of open conference planning (no US conferences anymore). As venture mishap statistics and other unflattering information continue to be covered up from investors, authorities, and scholars, AWEurope is headed for stormy investor and legal waters.

Academic and investment open information standards are clear. Censorship has no place. AWEurope ventures must advance only on merits, not on hype and a public record willfully distorted by secret actors.

Please bring your collective public influence to bear against the problem of growing AWEurope venture secrecy and erosion of open public discussion on the New Forum. Make conference video records public as well. Support full public mishap reporting and statistics to aviation standards, for public safety, and investor’s rights.

dave

kPower

[kitefreak]

There is the missing prior post defending JoeF and vintage patents as proper usage guides to “paravane” and “water kite”, as equivalent terms of art. Windy Skies is wrong.

Where do all the New Forum censored posts go? Are they deleted, or preserved for posteriority?

[Windy_Skies]

@kitefreak

Where do all the New Forum censored posts go? Are they deleted, or preserved for posteriority?

They are not deleted.

I blocked a few of your recent posts in this topic because they were either abusive and or had unsupported opinions or similar. They are not up to standard and I don’t feel like wasting my time responding to them. Make a better case if you can.

In response to Pierre’s comment I changed my position somewhat. Here it is, poorly worded still:

@Windy_Skies

So calling a paravane an underwater kite is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Or the claim (implicit from the naming of the article) that “water kite” is the and commonly used synonym for “paravane” is not referenced.

And yes, according to Wikipedia, patents are not reliable sources for common word usage. Though of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself.

[kitefreak]

We are talking about JoeF’s expert usage of terms-of-art in kite engineering.

Windy Skies is wrong that this is about “common word usage”. He should have apologized for the false accusation of “original research”.

Its WIndy Skies’ whose posts are the most “abusive…unsupported opinions…not up to standard.” If his secret professional identity could be compared with JoeF’s open identity, it would be clear how poorly qualified by background WIndy Skies is.

[PierreB]

@Windy_Skies,

One times again this extract from Wikipedia (The paravane, a form of towed underwater “glider” ) contradicts your statement (So calling a paravane an underwater kite is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia).

And so your arguing (Or the claim (implicit from the naming of the article) that “water kite” is the and commonly used synonym for “paravane” is not referenced) is fallacious.

When it is obvious you make the things wrong, the best is to go back and remove the decisions attached to this issue.

About this topic both @kitefreak and @JoeFaust are 100% correct and imaginative.

[Windy_Skies]

Paravane (water kite)

Let’s look at this a bit closer. Here are other Wikipedia pages with the identical format:

Lavender (color)
Ebola (band)

This format means the thing in parentheses is an existing category to which the thing in front belongs. So Ebola is a (musical) band.

So I might be wrong there. For the title to make sense, paravane would need to belong to the existing category of water kites, water kite would not need to be a synonym of paravane like I said.

But the article does treat paravanes and water kites as synonyms…

So is water kite an existing category and is paravane a member, or perhaps the only member, of that category?

I have not found evidence of this. No sources are given for that either in the article. And there’s no “water kite” Wikipedia page. So all I can say is that that is either original research or not referenced.

@PierreB

remove the decisions attached to this issue.

Note the lack of any, other than the decision to make one comment in the topic.

Random link: Human Verification

[Rodread]

@kitefreak I fully get the frustration over lack of AWES progress brought about by the machinations of ineffectual and obstructive organisations supported by political agendas.

That is bureaucracy in a nutshell.

It pisses off everyone in every field. Yet, We can all do our bit to improve our effectiveness & prevent it.
If you see something wrong, try to HELP those involved understand what is wrong. They were probably acting in good faith based on their perception of the situation.

In medicine, there is DUTY of Candour. You must inform patients, even if they can’t know, that you have done something which is even potentially harmful to them. That is hard.
…The doctor wasn’t trying to leave a needle in your shoulder…
Engineers backed by investors have a poor whistleblowing culture.
I doubt anybody is actively trying to misguide public safety critical information. There are likely omissions from records which could inform better practice. There is definitely convenient avoidance of practices which although harder to accomplish could lead to safer and better results.

There is a duty on engineers to report. UK has the Occupational Safety and Health Consultants register regulations on
RIDDOR the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations

From where I see it, (I’m probably wrong) Science seems different. To me, there seems to have been little rigour in the steering of publically funded AWES science toward claimed goals.

Here’s an example which confuses me. So I need to find out more and help.
A group I think has EU funding, spun off from AWESCO research only wants to employ people who then cannot continue in AWES. Gun pointed at own foot. That cannot be right.

Admittedly … I’ve been fairly aggressive in my approach here. A public forum wasn’t the most discrete way to handle this. Hopefully some good can come from asking why.

@rschmehl Maybe I should remove the question from LinedIn?

I think we can all benefit from starting more often with
Why?. Start with Why by Simon Sinek… recommended reading. TLDR

@kitefreak, It’s great you use resistance within AWES to highlight inconsistencies and potentials for grievance. But everyone seems innocent to me. Misguided, naive, ? potentially.
But, there is no mishap coverup as you reported. We know some detail of some incidents.
Yes, there is a lack of openness in reporting data which can benefit AWES as a whole.

Unfortunately, we are not working as a collective because we are not funded as a collective.
We are trying to fix the troubles of successful capitalism with a capitalist approach. It might work.

Demonising key AWES players who work hard and have the same climate and energy goals as you will not work in anyones favour.
Collaboration and teamwork thrive in a civil environment.
Civilisation comes from a culture of civility.
There is room for us all to be more excellent.
(I’ve gone from misquoting Waynes World to Bill and Ted now… Time to stop there)

[PierreB]

The problem is not bureaucracy but the absence of a credible AWE solution in the near future.

[kitefreak]

@Rodread

everyone seems innocent to me

Consistent thinking for someone who considers Windy Skies’ ignorant censorship and trashy accusation of innocent people (like JoeF), “excellent”. Rod seems guilty to me, on this point.

Pierre: "The problem is…the absence of a credible AWE solution in the near future.

That’s a short sighted denial of the complaint here, of technical censorship in AWE. Pierre’s fatalistic pessimism about the “near future” is a separate topic. Windsled, Ship Kites, Kite Surfing, Kiwee, KiteSat, etc. are “credible AWE solutions” to their users. Long term, the world will be changed by AWE.

Its a very exciting time for those who have carefully predicted and patiently awaited specific AWES ideas to fail, with abundant R&D funding, to properly prove expertly-predicted dead-ends to less qualified but honest open-minded observers.

Failed censorship here will be an interesting historical footnote to a triumphant technology born from open AWE, not undue insider advantage. Its good that censorship must lose.

[PierreB]

By his numerous hostile mails (which we find echoed in this forum) sent for a long time to many managers of the AWE companies of Airborne Wind Europa, that is to say the head of almost all the AWE companies including SkySails that he claims to appreciate, Dave (@kitefreak) is guilty of deliberately acting against AWE for a long time. Since he has no superior solution to offer, one may wonder what his real motivations are. One does not try to scuttle AWE companies for years without a mobile that remains to be discovered.

[JoeFaust]

Among DaveS’ solution offers may be a superior offer.
So, now two statements are published about the matter.
Shall we try to prove either statement? Pierre, do you want to show proof of your claim? My claim is softer and stands easily for the “may” dimension. However, your statement of “no” may be much harder to prove; of the hundreds of offers, have you proven that not one of them is “superior” (whatever “superior” means). I do not recommend going down this path of argument, but your stark claim of “no” is interesting.

And to face the enormous AWE work of DaveS that ever positively grows AWE, your stating publicly that he “deliberately acting against AWE for a long time” is very puzzling about your take on the matter. To work for transparency, fairness, equity, and field comparative testing seem to be positive for AWE. To well identify poor downselects and wish that the involved funds be differently spent to do more AWE good is working for the good of AWE.

Have you proven that there is no superior offer in DaveS’ offers at CoolIP and FairIP ? AWE as seemingly matters to you is barely getting started in the world; such space is in an infancy.

To work against censorship and to ask leaders to face the challenge of censorship is a peacemaking work, not hostile work. To wish to save AWE community from awful practices is something over which I would hope you would cooperate with DaveS. Awful practices will have damaging consequences; it is not hostile to work for good practices.

[PierreB]

@JoeFaust

your stating publicly that he “deliberately acting against AWE for a long time” is very puzzling about your take on the matter.

The present topic is an unlisted topic. So it is not a public topic.

@kitefreak’s numerous daily attacks against AWE companies of which the last with 8 recipients are suspect.
@JoeFaust as you agree with these Dave’s attacks, please present Dave 's and your superior AWE plan. Is it Böse-Einstein-Quantum-Thermodynamic AWE plan? Figure5? Other? If you have nothing, your best bet is to stop your attacks.
Otherwise, we risk asking questions about your real motivation for what Dave pours out every day on mailboxes and also on the forum, even without talking account of personal false attacks with your tacit approval.

@JoeFaust

To work against censorship

The only one censorship I remember is yours in the old forum. For example when Dave Santos
knowingly twisted the words of his interlocutors or attacked the AWE companies without any solid base, and that the author tried to re-establish the truth you systematically censored him in the old forum.

You and Dave should stop cry about what you call censorship as it is rather indecent.

@JoeFaust

To wish to save AWE community from awful practices is something over which I would hope you would cooperate with DaveS. Awful practices will have damaging consequences; it is not hostile to work for good practices.

Joe, do you want to show proof of your claim? Where are “awful practices”, where are “good practices”?

For what I see, “good practices” would come from you and Dave, and “awful practices” from Airborne Wind Europe companies? But it can be the reverse, unless you prove this statement about what is good, what is bad. The bad words that Dave pours every day do not argue in your favor.