I am not quoting Gleb, I'm rephrasing his comment in my own words and from my own point of view. I think this is his original comment, but he repeated this in other places as well.

I am not sure there is agreement about the direction of improvement.

Gleb has posted how he finds it difficult to write sleazy scummy content, but overpowers his reluctance and through great personal sacrifice does write it. I would expect that "improvement" for him means more concentrated snake oil or, perhaps, less personal discomfort with producing it.

I don't think this is what Elo would consider "improvement".

I am unsure; I believe Ra asked for evidence of what Gleb had said followed by Gleb declaring his academic status as evidence enough to be an authority on <the issue>. This led Ra to criticize his academic status.

While it is true that Gleb is an academic; it is also true that "because I said so" is not a good enough answer to a request for more information(especially not here on LW) (I am unsure if the request was polite or not)(I am also unsure of the exact wording of Gleb's response). I am unsure as to the state of that whole thread;

Ra could probably compile the best history as he is right in the thick of it.

It could certainly be said that adressing the arguments is the most significant thing, not the person who made it. If the arguments are not clear enough to address; That would lead to asking for more evidence and lead us to here and now. I am unclear as to all the details to be able to understand this all.

I want to note that Azathoth123, the other name for Eugene_Neir previously negatively engaged with Intentional Insights, and that my karma went from 1009 to 838 after VoiceOfRa began criticizing me several days ago.

why? This post is not a productive thing.

This comment puts me in the "I don't care who started it" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/) mood. As in - (To be extra clear) you are acting like a child.

Maybe if you spent less time on Ra, and more time improving your content; you wouldn't be having this problem. I am sure that Ra would thank you for it too.

This is the internet; haters will exist. if his reasons are valid or not, you need to be better than this. Especially given your attempt at having a status holding position atop a rationality organisation.

(words redacted, to the effect of - your post and the motivations behind it is an example of the cause of people finding your actions disagreeable)

I want you to write a list to yourself of "most important things that Gleb has to do today". Then order it by significance - if "complain about Ra" is on that list; keep going. If not - you have a list of things to do.

Yes! This appears true. Not all despair fits into this model (some people fail to get the upswings), but I think a large fraction does. There's one important, non-obvious corollary: not only should you not resist the slide into despair or try to never have it, but you should optimize what you do in that time! If, for example, you respond to the feeling of despair by drinking alcohol, you'll probably never get to have the thoughts that mood had to offer.

This thread from last August pre-dates this entire incident, and it calls for the banning of VoiceOfRa. That thread also presents evidence that VoiceOfRa is the same person as Eugene_Nier, who was previously banned for retributive mass-downvoting. Reviewing VoiceOfRa's comment history since then, I found rather a lot of abuse in the past month. Each of those links is an unrelated interaction with a different person. I also note that some comments in his history have numbers of upvotes that seem implausible.

I'm not going to second the call for a ban; it'd be kind of pointless. But, VoiceOfRa, I am going to politely ask you to step back and reconsider what you're doing here. Some of your posts offer a useful alternate perspective, which no one else is bringing. But sometimes you seem to get angry, and... there's a line between debating and attacking and you end up on the wrong side of it. This causes the other person to get defensive, and it ends up exploding into hundreds of low-quality comments. People who skim the site looking for high-quality conversation see that, and they leave. There's an art to avoiding this trap, and I admit to having fallen into it in the past, but I really want to see less of it.

FWIW, "my" version was intended to be neutral (it says what InIn is trying to do and the criticisms that have been made on LW, and adds that it isn't known how correct either "side" is about InIn's effectiveness) and Gleb has said on the article's talk page that he's OK with it.

It was made in response to Richard Kennaway's post about the edit war, in the hope of stopping it by having an InIn article that demonstrably isn't just promotional puffery. [EDITED to add: that is not an accusation that Gleb's version was just promotional puffery; but clearly it looked that way to VoiceOfRa, and probably to others too.]

So far as I can tell, the wiki weirdness is a combination of suboptimal cache-control headers and the odd way deletion is implemented, and is not a consequence of hacking or other abuse.

Thanks for clarifying the deletion history, much appreciated.

From my own perspective, I do feel attacked, by someone who has also engaged in ad hominem attacks against me and likely sock puppetry. It's been a pretty negative experience, and I'm trying to treat is as a "comfort zone expansion" opportunity.

I'd welcome you rewriting the wiki article since it seems that your comment received a lot of upvotes, indicating community support for your perspective.

Background: I'm a returning LW old hat and CFAR alum and worked briefly on the LW codebase a long time ago, but am not a moderator or authority of any kind; this is my summary based on publicly-accessible data.

The edit history is not inaccessible. What happens is that whenever an article gets deleted, all of its history entries move to https://wiki.lesswrong.com/index.php?title=Delete&action=history.

Gleb Tsipursky co-founded an organization called Intentional Insights, and is doing rationality training/outreach through it. He's been posting rationality materials on Less Wrong. He created an LW Wiki page for the org in March and made occasional updates, and on November 19 it had this text. That looks pretty reasonable, although I'd remove the language suggesting a possible CFAR collaboration unless it progresses past the "has talked with" stage. On November 29 and 30 VoiceOfRa deletes it and Gleb Tsipursky restores it, then Gjm wrote an alternative article which is intensely critical and based mostly on this thread.

That thread is too involved for me to do more than lightly skim it right now, but I will highlight this comment by jsteinhart:

My main update from this discussion has been a strong positive update about Gleb Tsipursky's character. I've been generally impressed by his ability to stay positive even in the face of criticism, and to continue seeking feedback for improving his approaches.

The content of the Less Wrong Wiki is pretty inconsequential; if not for this post it wouldn't be seen. But fights like this can be very destructive to motivation, and if I were in Gleb's shoes I'd be feeling unjustly attacked. I'd prefer to see that stopped, and replaced with something more constructive.

I drafted the words with the phonology rules of http://selpahi.de/ToaqAlphaPrimer.html caiq is the first syllable of the word and ce the second.

But I grant you that at the moment I don't understand enough about phonology to publish a working draft of a language. My intent with this post was more to present the compounding system that I consider to be useful.