ArbCom better than everybody else, From: Proabivouac gets indef blocked on WP Options

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

No they aren't. They exist to Arbitrate disputes. Doesn't make them better or above everyone else. ArbCom does too much that it really shouldn't IMO.

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

No they aren't. They exist to Arbitrate disputes. Doesn't make them better or above everyone else. ArbCom does too much that it really shouldn't IMO.

Isn't this the biggest 'lie' of them all on WP - it is supposed to be a 'flat' democracy - all users even anonymous IPs editing articles on an equal basis whereas IN FACT there is this hierachy of:

IP address editors
logged in editors
admin

- and now 'ArbCom'!

And yes, we're supposed to think that at each level the people become better and better, wiser and wiser, holier and holier! Jimbo is the Sun God and Prophet!

This post has been edited by flash: Mon 20th October 2008, 11:58am

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

No they aren't. They exist to Arbitrate disputes. Doesn't make them better or above everyone else. ArbCom does too much that it really shouldn't IMO.

Isn't this the biggest 'lie' of them all on WP - it is supposed to be a 'flat' democracy - all users even anonymous IPs editing articles on an equal basis whereas IN FACT there is this hierachy of:

IP address editors
logged in editors
admin

- and now 'ArbCom'!

And yes, we're supposed to think that at each level the people become better and better, wiser and wiser, holier and holier! Jimbo is the Sun God and Prophet!

I'll admit it: when I see an IP edit an article without an edit summary, or a user with a red userpage, I'll check the diff just to make sure. And you're right - IPs are at the bottom end of the scale. Logged-in users follow. Then admins. Bureaucrats and checkusers follow, then ArbCom at the top, the best, and greatest thing on the wiki. As FT2 puts it, ArbCom 'is a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community is', and they are Wikipedia's 'best, most seasoned, and skilled users'.

I beg to differ.

As FT2 puts it, ArbCom 'is a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community is', and they are Wikipedia's 'best, most seasoned, and skilled users'.

I would be willing to consider that argument if it wasn't for the fact that an ArbCom member made the claim that ArbCom members are WP's best.

I'll admit it: when I see an IP edit an article without an edit summary, or a user with a red userpage, I'll check the diff just to make sure. And you're right - IPs are at the bottom end of the scale. Logged-in users follow. Then admins. Bureaucrats and checkusers follow, then ArbCom at the top, the best, and greatest thing on the wiki. As FT2 puts it, ArbCom 'is a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community is', and they are Wikipedia's 'best, most seasoned, and skilled users'.

Yeah, and the editors do all the work, and are constantly 'freaked out' by the malcontent admins. The big question is how does one get rid of the 75% rubbish admins, who are forever trolling, from Wikipedia. Many of them are simply ruining the project. I propose that they should all undergo an IQ test, for starters. That's surly get rid of half of them.

Bottom line is that WP does not respect its editors.


This post has been edited by Gold heart: Mon 20th October 2008, 12:24pm

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

No they aren't. They exist to Arbitrate disputes. Doesn't make them better or above everyone else. ArbCom does too much that it really shouldn't IMO.

It was an intentionally provocative comment.

Wearing a Wikipedian hat point of view: they may be ordinary members when it comes to editing, but they have been granted power over community members by the community. The reason they are granted that power is that the community has adjudged that they are worthy and capable of wielding that power over any other member of the community.

However you try and pretend that Wikipedia is a classless society, like in the real world, power structures and status will naturally occur. However, the point of ArbCom is that they are supposed to be the best of the community for their role and have been set above the community - if they are not, why have they been entrusted, why was there an election? ArbCom cannot operate over the community if the community does not accept at some level that the ArbCom is better than everyone else.

By different measures, there are lots of groups on Wikipedia who are deemed better than everyone else - ID Cabal (remember them?), SlimVirgin and crew, Jimbo, administrators. You can say all are equal or even should be equal, but the proof of the pudding is there on Wikipedia.

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

They are supposed to be - that's the point.

No they aren't. They exist to Arbitrate disputes. Doesn't make them better or above everyone else. ArbCom does too much that it really shouldn't IMO.

This touches on yet another problem with ArbCom. The blurring of lines between enforcement and dispute resolution is rather like having one of the umpires in a baseball game step up to bat for one of the teams.

Bottom line is that WP does not respect its editors.

It doesn't offer that olive branch even to its readers. There's a lot of things wrong with wikipedia, not least of which is its very existence, lack of respect for its editors from - umm- other editors, is low down the scale.

Isn't this the biggest 'lie' of them all on WP - it is supposed to be a 'flat' democracy - all users even anonymous IPs editing articles on an equal basis whereas IN FACT there is this hierachy of:

IP address editors
logged in editors
admin

- and now 'ArbCom'!

Now, here's the thing - the whole "democracy" idea is pre-rebutted. If wikipedia is modeled on any form of government, its a dictatorship, and its been clear(ish) about that since very early on.

So the question is - why, in the face of frequent reminders of their lack of substantial influence, do some wiki-workers convince themselves they're being told its a kind of "flat democracy", as you put it?

The Wikipedia hierarchy (at least on en-wp), from lowest to highest:

• Bogeymen / Arch-Enemies / The Antichrist
• Very Banned Users
• Normal Banned Users
• Blocked Users (supposedly distinct from Banned Users, even if nobody can actually put their finger solidly on the definition of the distinction)
• Users under some limited sanction
• Users with some real or imagined connection to an Evil Attack Site but who are inexplicably not banned or blocked or sanctioned anyway
• Anon IPs
• Recently created accounts
• Established accounts that haven't done anything, positive or negative, attracting the attention of the inside clique
• Editors with a high edit count, featured article creation, and other achievements, if they're not too politically incorrect
• Admins
• Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and other users with superpowers
• ArbCom
• Ruling Clique Outer Circle (hangers-on with some friendship with the top cliqueistas)
• Ruling Clique Inner Circle (leaders of the sooper sekrit lists)
• Jimbo (though his influence seems to be waning, so he might fall off the top of the pyramid ultimately)

(However, the composition of those Ruling Clique Inner and Outer Circles is greatly in flux these days; Slim used to be a bigshot there but appears to be on the outs now.)

This post has been edited by dtobias: Tue 21st October 2008, 3:53am

[*]Bogeymen / Arch-Enemies / The Antichrist
[*]Very Banned Users
[*]Normal Banned Users
[*]Blocked Users (supposedly distinct from Banned Users, even if nobody can actually put their finger solidly on the definition of the distinction)
[*]Users under some limited sanction
[*]Users with some real or imagined connection to an Evil Attack Site but who are inexplicably not banned or blocked or sanctioned anyway
[*]Anon IPs
[*]Recently created accounts
[*]Established accounts that haven't done anything, positive or negative, attracting the attention of the inside clique
[*]Editors with a high edit count, featured article creation, and other achievements, if they're not too politically incorrect
[*]Admins
[*]Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and other users with superpowers
[*]ArbCom
[*]Ruling Clique Outer Circle (hangers-on with some friendship with the top cliqueistas)
[*]Ruling Clique Inner Circle (leaders of the sooper sekrit lists)
[*]Jimbo (though his influence seems to be waning, so he might fall off the top of the pyramid ultimately)

What about those of us who fall into more than one category (I'm unquestionably in two of them, and cases could be made that I'm in a couple more)?

The Wikipedia hierarchy (at least on en-wp), from lowest to highest:

• Bogeymen / Arch-Enemies / The Antichrist
• Very Banned Users
• Normal Banned Users
• Blocked Users (supposedly distinct from Banned Users, even if nobody can actually put their finger solidly on the definition of the distinction)
• Users under some limited sanction
• Users with some real or imagined connection to an Evil Attack Site but who are inexplicably not banned or blocked or sanctioned anyway
• Anon IPs
• Recently created accounts
• Established accounts that haven't done anything, positive or negative, attracting the attention of the inside clique
• Editors with a high edit count, featured article creation, and other achievements, if they're not too politically incorrect
• Admins
• Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and other users with superpowers
• ArbCom
• Ruling Clique Outer Circle (hangers-on with some friendship with the top cliqueistas)
• Ruling Clique Inner Circle (leaders of the sooper sekrit lists)
• Jimbo (though his influence seems to be waning, so he might fall off the top of the pyramid ultimately)

(However, the composition of those Ruling Clique Inner and Outer Circles is greatly in flux these days; Slim used to be a bigshot there but appears to be on the outs now.)

Dan, I'm hoping to move up from #5 in the hierarchy to #6, at which point we'd be even--although admittedly still pond scum in the scheme of things. I've made offerings to the wikigods at the top of your list, although they have not yet seen fit to show mercy (but hey, it's only been three years!).

The Wikipedia hierarchy (at least on en-wp), from lowest to highest:

• Bogeymen / Arch-Enemies / The Antichrist
• Very Banned Users
• Normal Banned Users
• Blocked Users (supposedly distinct from Banned Users, even if nobody can actually put their finger solidly on the definition of the distinction)
• Users under some limited sanction
• Users with some real or imagined connection to an Evil Attack Site but who are inexplicably not banned or blocked or sanctioned anyway
• Anon IPs
• Recently created accounts
• Established accounts that haven't done anything, positive or negative, attracting the attention of the inside clique
• Editors with a high edit count, featured article creation, and other achievements, if they're not too politically incorrect
• Admins
• Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and other users with superpowers
• ArbCom
• Ruling Clique Outer Circle (hangers-on with some friendship with the top cliqueistas)
• Ruling Clique Inner Circle (leaders of the sooper sekrit lists)
• Jimbo (though his influence seems to be waning, so he might fall off the top of the pyramid ultimately)

(However, the composition of those Ruling Clique Inner and Outer Circles is greatly in flux these days; Slim used to be a bigshot there but appears to be on the outs now.)

Dan, I'm hoping to move up from #5 in the hierarchy to #6, at which point we'd be even--although admittedly still pond scum in the scheme of things. I've made offerings to the wikigods at the top of your list, although they have not yet seen fit to show mercy (but hey, it's only been three years!).

You don't want to move too far up the pyramid - pretty much all of the useful content is generated between users at level 5 and users at level 10.

I'd switch 5 and 6.

The Wikipedia hierarchy (at least on en-wp), from lowest to highest:

• Bogeymen / Arch-Enemies / The Antichrist
• Very Banned Users
• Normal Banned Users
• Blocked Users (supposedly distinct from Banned Users, even if nobody can actually put their finger solidly on the definition of the distinction)
• Users under some limited sanction
• Users with some real or imagined connection to an Evil Attack Site but who are inexplicably not banned or blocked or sanctioned anyway
• Anon IPs
• Recently created accounts
• Established accounts that haven't done anything, positive or negative, attracting the attention of the inside clique
• Editors with a high edit count, featured article creation, and other achievements, if they're not too politically incorrect
• Admins
• Bureaucrats, Checkusers, and other users with superpowers
• ArbCom
• Ruling Clique Outer Circle (hangers-on with some friendship with the top cliqueistas)
• Ruling Clique Inner Circle (leaders of the sooper sekrit lists)
• Jimbo (though his influence seems to be waning, so he might fall off the top of the pyramid ultimately)

(However, the composition of those Ruling Clique Inner and Outer Circles is greatly in flux these days; Slim used to be a bigshot there but appears to be on the outs now.)

... the question is - why, in the face of frequent reminders of their lack of substantial influence, do some wiki-workers convince themselves they're being told its a kind of "flat democracy", as you put it?

Er... how about this blast of putrified hot air from the 'About Wikipedia page:

The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role they may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct.

This post has been edited by flash: Fri 24th October 2008, 11:02pm

Dan, you forgot to put the CIA above Jimbo.

I hate it when ArbCom make a block like that. Gives the impression that they're better than everyone else.

This would be more sympathetic coming from someone who didn't tend to pursue spiteful and childish little vendettas against people who have done way more for Wikipedia than he ever has.

Not that I don't agree with you here.