Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ Slimvirgin/Felonious Monk/JzG case

Posted by: Bob Boy

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 27th June 2008, 10:28am) *

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?


They have to give the Cabal time to Cannibalize all of the plaintiffs.

Jon cool.gif

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 27th June 2008, 10:28am) *

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?


Yes. Most of them.

ARBCOM will finish this up when most people have grown apathetic and disinterested. It's their typical MO.

Posted by: maggot3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/June_2008_announcements

Posted by: tarantino

JzG has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=223395461#Not_around_much after a month and a half to add a wikibreak to his talk page.

Meanwhile, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&oldid=223626089#cut_to_the_slow_speed_chase..., archiving sections on a whim and annoying Lar.

QUOTE(Queen Tony)

Making lots of edits isn't manipulative. That's a ridiculous statement. A person who has lots to say makes lots of edits. A person who has less to say says less. It's a matter of choice. You started this discussion with a gross misstatement of my views, which I corrected. I apologise to the community for not leaving it there, but being sucked into a pointless discussion.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif

Posted by: that one guy

what account may that be?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 7:58pm) *

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif


Yeah, "Pune" my arse...

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 4:58pm) *

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Sat 5th July 2008, 1:58am) *

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 4:58pm) *

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.
Why not? I'm sure he has some personal point of view that needs to be advanced.

Posted by: BobbyBombastic

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 27th June 2008, 10:28am) *

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?
I could not understand what the hell the case was about when it was requested and was surprised that Arbcom accepted it. I think that a wiser group probably would not have accepted it. I think they probably realize that now.

If anyone can attempt to explain the point of this arbitration, what could be resolved, and why it's so important to the functioning of an encyclopedia, I'd be happy to read it.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Sat 5th July 2008, 2:58am) *

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 4:58pm) *

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.


He's done it before. c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cruftbane

Posted by: Moulton

Could someone please initiate RfC/Systemic_Corruption.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 11:17pm) *

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Sat 5th July 2008, 2:58am) *

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Fri 4th July 2008, 4:58pm) *

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit smile.gif

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

He's done it before. c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cruftbane
He has also edited anonymously, as in the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12274&view=findpost&p=45855

Posted by: Bob Boy

Well, still no Arb activity on the case. And Francisco Franco is still dead.

Has there been any recent explanation anywhere (I don't read any of the mailing lists, normally) as to WTF is going on?

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:35pm) *

Well, still no Arb activity on the case.
Looks like Tony Sidaway is trying his best to turn it into a giant clusterfuck. When will someone make a Tony Sidaway Drama Queen Barnstar to carry over the proud Usenet tradition? Perhaps we should have a design contest for it.

Posted by: Cla68

When I returned yesterday from a week away from the Internet I was a little surprised to see that no proposed decision has been started yet. But, no big deal. I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:14pm) *

I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged
So do I. Is there any chance that the final verdict will resemble it?

Posted by: Giggy

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 9th July 2008, 4:50pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 8th July 2008, 7:14pm) *

I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged
So do I. Is there any chance that the final verdict will resemble it?

One can only dream, eh?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Giggy @ Wed 9th July 2008, 3:10am) *
One can only dream, eh?

I suppose it's not Kosher to dream of a Kafkaesque nightmare for all the other jerks in this lunatic social drama.

Posted by: maggot3

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=224555537&oldid=223234937

QUOTE(proposed by Sam Blacketer)
While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Wed 9th July 2008, 7:45am) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=224555537&oldid=223234937
QUOTE(proposed by Sam Blacketer)
While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

Well, golly, if you want some fresh evidence of egregious abuse of power, I have some http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/New.Evidence.html I could share with you.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Wed 9th July 2008, 12:45pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=224555537&oldid=223234937
QUOTE(proposed by Sam Blacketer)
While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.


Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Posted by: thekohser

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html.

Posted by: Dzonatas

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Wed 9th July 2008, 4:45am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=224555537&oldid=223234937
QUOTE(proposed by Sam Blacketer)
While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.



He uses "unsanctionable"... it did pop-up in my spell checker.

Does he mean 'not sanctionable'?

Or, does he mean 'can't undo sanctions that are in place now'?

Posted by: Wizardman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision

At least the community has the right reaction to Sam's motion.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th July 2008, 2:33pm) *

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html.

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:30pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th July 2008, 2:33pm) *

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html.

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.


I think he meant https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085890.html. I have to say that you do have an amazing knack for recalling every single thing someone has said about you on the internet, Greg.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:42pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:30pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th July 2008, 2:33pm) *

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html.

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.


I think he meant https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085890.html. I have to say that you do have an amazing knack for recalling every single thing someone has said about you on the internet, Greg.

<sigh>I know that was the comment, but what did the comment itself refer to? He was gloating overhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest (as linked in that message) sponsored by Danny (aka a for profit company, aka Veropedia) that has not paid up since the competition closed in December. The dishonesty of that makes the gloating doubly ironic for someone in such high standing as an arbitrator.

Posted by: Rhindle

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 9th July 2008, 9:48pm) *

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.
What would be the point?

Posted by: Rhindle

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 9th July 2008, 2:50pm) *

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 9th July 2008, 9:48pm) *

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.
What would be the point?


Probably none, but I still wonder.

Posted by: Bob Boy

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 9th July 2008, 4:52pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 9th July 2008, 2:50pm) *

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 9th July 2008, 9:48pm) *

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.
What would be the point?


Probably none, but I still wonder.


Judging on the ArbCom RfC, nothing would happen. Even Jimbo, whose relevance to current activities at Wikipedia is paper-thin at this point, seems safe. There are too many people invested in the status quo who can prevent consensus for a new model through simple disruption and filibustering.

Posted by: that one guy

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

ArbCom stalling, or just lazy?

yes, yes, and cowardly, and neutered and in deraliction of duty.

Thatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Nuclear_Option.:
<--I'd like to suggest that if the case is dismissed, it would be possible to file a new case, and I would further suggest that to be effective, any case should be specific, narrowly targeted and with reasonable expectations for outcome. Cases of the type All these people are bad, please tar and feather them are never handled well, even with lower profile editors.


I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.

If this isn't a case for de-sysoping, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Piperdown

as had to be done in the Weiss case, skip the fucking arbcom already and go directly to the community.

it stuns me how stupid people are to repeatedly go before an inherently crooked arbcom and expect a different result every time.

Posted by: EuroSceptic

Fucking unbelievable.

Posted by: that one guy

FM, SV, and JzG aren't open to recall, so it'll be next to impossible for the community to do anything about it.

Posted by: Bob Boy

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FProposed_decision&diff=224678403&oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Thu 10th July 2008, 1:08am) *

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FProposed_decision&diff=224678403&oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.


Changes often happen when people in general are "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore." Whether this rises to that level remains to be seen.

Posted by: Achromatic

QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 9th July 2008, 4:18pm) *

I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.


Well, he was a clerk. Was - I didn't realize til he mentioned about a week ago that he had just resigned his clerkship. Wonder why?

Posted by: Wizardman

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 9th July 2008, 9:08pm) *

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FProposed_decision&diff=224678403&oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.


I'm probably John Jay. Or maybe that's giving myself too much credit.

Yeah, this doesn't contribute much to the conversation.

Posted by: Piperdown

as was done in the Gary case, WP community including its thousands of admins can just read the RFC material, ban JzG, desysop FM/SV/Jayjg, and get on with it.

then let's put up Gerard for a review of his "Overstock-Utah-etc" actions.

topped off with a speedy RFA for Cla68.

arbcom is a moot point. let them email each other, and arbcom clownmeritus's raul and bawdy all they want.

Posted by: that one guy

thing is, how can jzg/fm/sv get desysoped?

Posted by: Piperdown

how did I get unblocked and Gary banned?

Wp admins reviewed the diffs for themselves and took action. After enough visibility to those diffs was given via RFC's, admin talk pages, etc, not one of the crooked had the "got my back?" action to do anything about it.

a small bully clique was outmanned by WP'ians armed with diffs. They came, they saw Arbcom bullshit, they took action anyway.

and Tony/Jenny wins this month's "Baghdad Bob" award. Could someone forward it to him from the current and former Arbcommers (you know, the ones that refused to do anything about Gary Weiss)?

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 9th July 2008, 6:53pm) *

and Tony/Jenny wins this month's "Baghdad Bob" award. Could someone forward it to him from the current and former Arbcommers (you know, the ones that refused to do anything about Gary Weiss)?

Better forward that to RegenerateThis.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:28pm) *

to change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.

But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 9th July 2008, 7:04pm) *

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:28pm) *

to change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.

But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

Well, is anyone up for the role of Elector of Saxony?

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE
Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?


the same hundreds of folks who had my back without me asking for it via a soopersekret Jayjgmail, and got Gary back for extended egregious abuse.

Folks who can read and apply their own community's rules evenly.


Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 9th July 2008, 10:05pm) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 9th July 2008, 7:04pm) *
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 9th July 2008, 5:28pm) *
To change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.
But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?
Well, is anyone up for the role of Elector of Saxony?

Who will play the role of Stephen Langton?

Posted by: that one guy

Piper: what I'm saying is there's no method that I'm aware of for the community to desysop outside of recall requests.

Posted by: prospero

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

QUOTE
External campaigns against SlimVirgin

For completeness, I should note that the site over which Cla68 was blocked last year is far from being the only one that focusses heavily on SlimVirgin. There are several such, all presenting as fact highly speculative about her identity and her motives for editing Wikipedia.

One such is Wikipedia Review, which has a whole subforum devoted to SlimVirgin (one of about a dozen subforums devoted to Wikipedians, two of which are arbitrators or former arbitrators).

The SlimVirgin forum of Wikipedia Review contains some 80 topics, and over 2,000 reply postings. Titles such as "SlimVirgin Deathwatch", "100 Reasons to feel sorry for Slim ..", and "Slim - Moreschi - Wiki Smack Down !!" are probably indicative of the level of discourse.

Cla68 and others have apparently used this subforum to canvass for attention to discussions on Wikipedia. Several other users of that forum claiming to be named well known Wikipedians also use it.

There are other attack sites, but that one appears to be the only discussion board dedicated to attacking this Wikipedian.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(prospero @ Thu 10th July 2008, 9:47am) *

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:
QUOTE
External campaigns against SlimVirgin

For completeness, I should note that the site over which Cla68 was blocked last year is far from being the only one that focusses heavily on SlimVirgin. There are several such, all presenting as fact highly speculative about her identity and her motives for editing Wikipedia.

One such is Wikipedia Review, which has a whole subforum devoted to SlimVirgin (one of about a dozen subforums devoted to Wikipedians, two of which are arbitrators or former arbitrators).

The SlimVirgin forum of Wikipedia Review contains some 80 topics, and over 2,000 reply postings. Titles such as "SlimVirgin Deathwatch", "100 Reasons to feel sorry for Slim ..", and "Slim - Moreschi - Wiki Smack Down !!" are probably indicative of the level of discourse.

Cla68 and others have apparently used this subforum to canvass for attention to discussions on Wikipedia. Several other users of that forum claiming to be named well known Wikipedians also use it.

There are other attack sites, but that one appears to be the only discussion board dedicated to attacking this Wikipedian.


There are so many things wrong with that statement it is untrue, but this is Tony "never let the facts get in the way of a good troll" Sidaway. Moving on...

Posted by: Giggy

QUOTE(prospero @ Thu 10th July 2008, 6:47pm) *

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

Emphasis mine. I'm tempted to actually read his entire evidence section after this case closes, just for the guaranteed lulz.

Hmm, just looked over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tony_Sidaway. Surprising number of diffs considering who made it. Was expecting better. sad.gif

Posted by: theseoldshades

QUOTE(Giggy @ Thu 10th July 2008, 10:56am) *

QUOTE(prospero @ Thu 10th July 2008, 6:47pm) *

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

Emphasis mine. I'm tempted to actually read his entire evidence section after this case closes, just for the guaranteed lulz.

Hmm, just looked over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tony_Sidaway. Surprising number of diffs considering who made it. Was expecting better. sad.gif


Even the diffs can't hide the fact that it's utter, misrepresented, misleading rubbish! My favourite bit is:

QUOTE
Severe personal attack on SlimVirgin: "a once-respected contributor".
in analysis of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=186980994 this by Cla.

I'm sure Tony's never called anyone anything worse than that, right? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: One

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Replies_to_some_recent_comments.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.

Posted by: UserB

QUOTE(One @ Thu 10th July 2008, 8:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Replies_to_some_recent_comments.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.


Dad: "My son does some nice things sometimes, so I don't punish him when he breaks the rules."

School: "Punishing Johnny would be harmful to his self esteem so we think it's ok for him to cheat on tests."

Boss: "Bob steals from the company, but he did a bang up job with that project last year, so we don't want to fire him."

Whatever.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Thu 10th July 2008, 12:18am) *

I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.

Thatcher undoubtedly knows as much about SV, FM and JzG as anyone - he has both ears firmly on the ground.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(guy @ Thu 10th July 2008, 10:22am) *

he has both ears firmly on the ground


Which tells you a lot about what's in between.

Jon cool.gif

Posted by: Rootology

Lar, you naughty boy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FProposed_decision&diff=224846262&oldid=224831512

Heh

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(that one guy @ Wed 9th July 2008, 10:32pm) *

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.


You seem to assume that if the case was not dismissed, that there would be some sanctions and desysoppings. Suppose they voted on some real proposals and the result was Cla was sanctioned for harassing SV, and SV, JzG and FM got off scot-free--would you be happier? Dismissal is a more neutral result than people realize. "most of these complaints are old and things are better lately" is not the same as "parties X, Y and Z are not guilty."



Posted by: Saltimbanco

QUOTE(One @ Thu 10th July 2008, 8:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Replies_to_some_recent_comments.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.


Come on, now! We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the rule of law is over-rated. Even if you can't see this now, rest assured that if you were an Arbitrator, you would have no doubt of its truth.

Posted by: gomi

In http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18718, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th June 2008, 1:39pm) *
I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Saltimbanco @ Thu 10th July 2008, 4:49pm) *
Come on, now! We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the rule of law is over-rated. Even if you can't see this now, rest assured that if you were an Arbitrator, you would have no doubt of its truth.

Yes, the Rule of Law is http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/Kohlberg-Gilligan.html.

It's only at the half-way mark to the highest levels of ethical reasoning.

If I were on ArbCom, I would mandate that anyone seeking to exercise a position of authority or responsibility (including editing of mainspace articles) be required to obtain a passing grade in at least one of the higher rungs above the middle rung on the ladder of development of ethical reasoning.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 10th July 2008, 5:03pm) *

In http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18718, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th June 2008, 1:39pm) *
I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.



And you predicted that on Friday the 13th, no less!

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Thu 10th July 2008, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Wed 9th July 2008, 10:32pm) *

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.


You seem to assume that if the case was not dismissed, that there would be some sanctions and desysoppings. Suppose they voted on some real proposals and the result was Cla was sanctioned for harassing SV, and SV, JzG and FM got off scot-free--would you be happier? Dismissal is a more neutral result than people realize. "most of these complaints are old and things are better lately" is not the same as "parties X, Y and Z are not guilty."

I really think that it's a bad idea to dismiss. Another example of epic fail. This case has been dragging on for weeks. It sat idle for how long? Like two months. Yes, a lot of the evidence is old, but it's to give context and show the long-term pattern of abuse that is an on-going problem. I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.

Posted by: Giggy

QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:03am) *

In http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18718, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th June 2008, 1:39pm) *
I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.


And Tony, don't forget Tony!

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 10th July 2008, 9:03pm) *

In http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18718, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:
QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 13th June 2008, 1:39pm) *
I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.



I do agree that it will take the rest of the year to play out, but I don't think Cla eventually leaving because of Slim resurfacing will be an outcome. Slim seems incapable of manipulating the system for the same reasons the arbcom is incapable of hearing the case... The community has simply gotten too large and unmanageable and the outside world's awareness of their follies has become too acute for them to be able to act effectively.

I for one am not concerned with the committee not hearing the case. When they voted to accept so quickly, I thought that the arbs just intended for a fast and dirty railroading of Cla. But the community was on them, used the opportunity to present incontrovertible evidence against SV and FM, which made it impossible for the arbs to act, as those two, you all know, were part of the tight network that always worked in collusion with the arbs, citing them in policy and such, enforcing arbitration decisions as if they were law, and culling adminship nominations in favor of sycophants dedicated to perpetuating their collective regime. The arbs could never realistically act against SV or JzG; they were all central parts of a corrupt system that essentially worked to enforce ArbCom and Jimbo's grip on authority, but which could only operate effectively while ordinary editors believed that their actions were "for the benefit of the encyclopedia."

Now that its obvious, due to the many public scandals brought upon by their own unchecked hubris, to be otherwise, their formerly loyal support system of thousands is now collectively exasperated. For the ArbCom to redeem themselves would be like cutting off an arm. An arm that was once strong and powerful, but which has developed a severe case of gangrene. To save their body, the Arbs have to issue sanctions to, and thereby sever their relationship with, SV and co., but individually and collectively they are not up to the task, and so with their silence their credibility further drains away, and the lumbering RFC gathers more comments like a rolling stone.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 10th July 2008, 9:53pm) *

I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.
A year ago, I don't think this case would have been accepted. I think that rage against the Cabal among rank-and-file Wikipedians is slowly, slowly approaching the boiling point.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Fri 11th July 2008, 2:48am) *

Now that its obvious, due to the many public scandals brought upon by their own unchecked hubris, to be otherwise, their formerly loyal support system of thousands is now collectively exasperated. For the ArbCom to redeem themselves would be like cutting off an arm. An arm that was once strong and powerful, but which has developed a severe case of gangrene. To save their body, the Arbs have to issue sanctions to, and thereby sever their relationship with, SV and co., but individually and collectively they are not up to the task, and so with their silence their credibility further drains away, and the lumbering RFC gathers more comments like a rolling stone.


Since there has been no (correct me if I'm wrong) legitimate successful re-election ever of an Arbitrator besides Fred Bauder, and the following terms expire December 2008:

1. James F
2. Blnguyen
3. Thebainer
4. Charles Matthews
5. Morven (already said he's not running again)

And the following expire in December 2009:

1. FloNight
2. Kirill
3. Paul August
4. UninvitedCompany
5. Jpgordon

The Arbcom shortly is going to look drastically different. I'd bet that anyone who runs and legitimately pushes through as a "Change" candidate is going to do fantatically well. Any candidate that pushes a platform to give control back away from the old Jimbo model to something more overseen and mandated by the community is going to be a lock. The only way to stop this building avalanche would be if Jimbo personally stepped in to do something to keep it the Old Way, and people would collectively crap their pants and fire him if he did that to short circuit the election. The WMF won't be able to do anything either, to support Jimbo or the AC on that, either, since the WMF can't interfere locally with such things. The Section 230 chain stops them.

The handling of cases like this, IRC, and probably others that I missed are going to wreak havoc long term with the power status quo on Wikipedia, and the old guard are going to be helpless to stop it, since they're always in the end as bound by that little birdy called consensus as everyone else is, no matter how much some protest it (Tony). December 2008/December 2009 are going to be very interesting.

I'm honestly shocked that things are turning out the way that they are, here. It's not exactly rocket science to manipulate crowds and opinions. Politicians have been doing it for thousands of years. But the so called Old Guard isn't even trying anymore this year, like they're resigned to the way this is all turning out, or simply don't care anymore. I wonder if people are getting over the idea of power on the site, since it can't realistically be held without fighting 24x7x365 to hold it?

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 11th July 2008, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 10th July 2008, 9:53pm) *

I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.
A year ago, I don't think this case would have been accepted. I think that rage against the Cabal among rank-and-file Wikipedians is slowly, slowly approaching the boiling point.


A year ago, they might still have been able to do what they wanted to, which was essentially what they tried to do with Orangemarlin, but which today they felt they couldn't do in front of the community, probably because expectations of a "fair trial" would get in the way.

Posted by: Viridae

It occurs to me that if arbcom does turn out to be a picture of impotence and pass that dismissal, it will end up in fron the the community. Community based sanctions have progressed a long way.

Posted by: that one guy

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:21pm) *

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

Posted by: Aloft

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_Dog_affair&action=history

More recent tag-team edit warring by Slim and Crum. They like to use the "per talk" edit summaries, even though the the discussion on the talk page clearly doesn't support their position.

How can Arbcom justify not applying some kind of edit warring restriction on Slim? She's sitting there doing it while her case is in progress. How much more blatant can she be?

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 10:17am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_Dog_affair&action=history

More recent tag-team edit warring by Slim and Crum. They like to use the "per talk" edit summaries, even though the the discussion on the talk page clearly doesn't support their position.

How can Arbcom justify not applying some kind of edit warring restriction on Slim? She's sitting there doing it while her case is in progress. How much more blatant can she be?

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair

Posted by: One

Yeah, desysopping is hard, but how about this:

FM is pretty damn weak here, has stacks of evidence against him, and has been socking (even though people are too discrete to point it out). I think he could get community banned with or without the bit. I doubt FM or JzG could, but I think it's not impossible for FM to be.

If he blocked for a decent length of time desysopping would seem pretty uncontroversial.

Maybe we're not there yet though.


Edit:

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:16am) *

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair

Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(One @ Sat 12th July 2008, 11:17am) *

Yeah, desysopping is hard, but how about this:

FM is pretty damn weak here, has stacks of evidence against him, and has been socking (even though people are too discrete to point it out). I think he could get community banned with or without the bit. I doubt FM or JzG could, but I think it's not impossible for FM to be.

If he blocked for a decent length of time desysopping would seem pretty uncontroversial.

Maybe we're not there yet though.


Edit:

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:16am) *

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair

Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.


Socking?

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(One @ Fri 11th July 2008, 8:17pm) *
Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.
Mongo's statement was useless. 3RR and a longstanding dispute? Did he even read why they were blocked?

I suppose some people will say that he should have warned first, but should it be necessary to warn an administrator not to participate in a month-long tag-team edit war? Shouldn't they know better already?

Crum hadn't edited that page for a bit, but since he's been warring on it for a month there's no doubt he would go right back to reverting. It's not like he would have suddenly decided to stop on his own.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:21am) *

Socking?

B identified Odd nature as a sockpuppet of Felonious Monk on the basis of contribs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence#Odd_nature.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_is_a_sock_puppet_of_FeloniousMonk.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

The Arbitration Committee completely ignored it:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14119&hl=Odd+nature

We've since discovered that Odd nature edits from FM's employer, even moving with him when he changes jobs:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18982&view=findpost&p=111714

The only evidence to the contrary was…well, he told people it wasn't true.

Assume good faith!

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 12th July 2008, 11:36am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:21am) *

Socking?

B identified Odd nature as a sockpuppet of Felonious Monk on the basis of contribs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence#Odd_nature.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_is_a_sock_puppet_of_FeloniousMonk.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

The Arbitration Committee completely ignored it:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14119&hl=Odd+nature

We've since discovered that Odd nature edits from FM's employer, even moving with him when he changes jobs:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18982&view=findpost&p=111714

The only evidence offered to exonerate FM was…well, he told people it wasn't true.

Assume good faith!


LOL. Is odd nature blocked?

Posted by: Aloft

It looks like Crum reverted ten times, against four different editors. Seven of those times he was citing talk page consensus that did not exist.

If that's not edit warring worth blocking over, I'm not sure what is.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:37am) *

LOL. Is odd nature blocked?

Of course not. Unlike Orderinchaos, who at least had the decency to quit socking upon being caught and let go, the socking continues as before. Why shouldn't it? According to the arbitrators, the rules are, if you're an administrator and get caught socking, and then make up a story that explains it, nothing happens. He's just following the rules.

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:58am) *

If that's not edit warring worth blocking over, I'm not sure what is.

Regular users are blocked on a similar basis all the time. Administrators should be held to at least the same standards as are ordinary users. However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:10pm) *
However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)
Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:10pm) *
However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)
Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.


Yep.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 2:23am) *

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:10pm) *
However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)
Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.


Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

Posted by: Bob Boy

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:28pm) *

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.


Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point? He seems to have become a bitter, sad joke - he only comes out to rant incoherently once in a while. He's like one of those naked hermits who lives in a cave and throws poop at anyone who approaches.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Sat 12th July 2008, 2:28pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:28pm) *

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.


Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point? He seems to have become a bitter, sad joke - he only comes out to rant incoherently once in a while. He's like one of those naked hermits who lives in a cave and throws poop at anyone who approaches.


Heh. Unfortunately the vast majority of those commenting on ANI will believe anything they read - and never bother to look at the evidence to see if it is correct or not.

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 11:28pm) *
Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point?
I imagine that if you found Mongo on your side in a dispute, it would be handy to sit back and let him do all the poo flinging. That's pretty much his role on WP now; he flings poo on behalf of his buddies, and in return his buddies form the "consensus" that keeps him from getting blocked too much. It's a symbiotic relationship, you see. JzG serves a similar purpose.

Posted by: that one guy

I've noticed. Sort of reminds me of Giano in a way, though Giano goes whatever way he wants to and no one can really stop him.

Posted by: Piperdown

Mongo was Gary Weiss's #1 Friend that wasn't his own sock. They used to carry on a "conversation" on a subpage to try and mock those who pointed out Gary's Wikiabuses.

Within a month after I first edited "naked short selling", Mongo, on behalf of Gary, put me up for a sock check, complete with a dozen diffs that showed nothing related to what Mongo was accusing me of, counting on that most admins would be too lazy to actually read the diffs.

What an asshole.

Posted by: Giggy

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 2:23am) *

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:10pm) *
However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)
Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.


Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

Oh wow, a Wikipedia Review user archived that section. I'm waiting for the accusations of my ulterior motive, because heck, I wouldn't have a clue what it is.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Giggy @ Sat 12th July 2008, 1:55pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Sat 12th July 2008, 2:23am) *

QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 11th July 2008, 9:10pm) *
However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)
Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.


Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

Oh wow, a Wikipedia Review user archived that section. I'm waiting for the accusations of my ulterior motive, because heck, I wouldn't have a clue what it is.

Not before Sidaway got in his poisonous comment along the lines of anyone posting here who is not abusing anyone is clearly supporting the abuse. Sidaway, you need to get a life.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 12th July 2008, 4:14pm) *

Not before Sidaway got in his poisonous comment along the lines of anyone posting here who is not abusing anyone is clearly supporting the abuse. Sidaway, you need to get a life.

Follow Sidaway's link: it refers to Encyclopedia Dramatica, not the Wikipedia Review:
QUOTE(FredBauder)

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision

What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 12th July 2008, 9:24am) *
What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?


Wikistalked. laugh.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sat 12th July 2008, 12:41pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 12th July 2008, 9:24am) *
What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?


Wikistalked. laugh.gif

Like the subpage that (I think) PouponOnToast was keeping of links to posts made here. Is he still indef blocked?
[Edit] Yes. biggrin.gif

Posted by: N. Impersonator

QUOTE(FredBauder)

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision

As even Bauder must know, WP administrators who edit on ED rarely use their WP names.

Posted by: Piperdown

i just noticed the thread about Felonius and Odd Nature.

Same person.

Can't get much more blatant than that data presented.

He also double-voted and used a sock abusively, and should be held accountable for that like any other wikipedian should. So who's going to enforce WP rules on that.

The continued selective enforcement off WP rules (abusive socking should be one of the biggest offenses, after BLP vandalism, that should merit instant banning for all accounts involved.

WP has its priorities entirely fucked up.

BLP vandalism (much of it for weeks/months) is its #1 liability.

Abusive socking is the #1 threat to "community consensus" etc, the supposed single most important concept behind how Wikpedia is supposed to "work".


The former almost always gets a euphemistic "try a sandbox edit instead, please don't call movie actresses anal sex fiends from now on. Cheers! Love you!", when it should get a shoot-on-sight permaban.

The latter, likewise. No matter who does it.

Posted by: Rhindle

The most consistent thing about wikipedia is its inconsistency.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(norsemoose @ Sat 12th July 2008, 2:33pm) *

QUOTE(FredBauder)

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision

As even Bauder must know, WP administrators who edit on ED rarely use their WP names.

Well, if Wikipedia admins have Infragard© tools, they can ID people in that manner.

I think they do.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

After just over four days, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=225436516&oldid=224595709.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Sun 13th July 2008, 6:16pm) *

After just over four days, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=225436516&oldid=224595709.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)


That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.

Posted by: Rootology

I can only imagine the mail list is going nuts over this case now.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Rootology @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:58pm) *

I can only imagine the mail list is going nuts over this case now.


No of course not, that would be Off-WP organised attacking of Wikipedians, and Tony Jenny won't have any of that.

Here, criticism of Wikipedia, and the edits made there, and the treatment of the editors there, is out in the open for all to see. Some people really don't like their actions on Wikipedia being exposed. Take FeloniusMonk/Odd Nature. He's been recently exposed via incontrovertible IP evidence as an abusive sockster. Bet he and his Wikielite friends really don't like that.

Apparently, that's not beneficial to the Wikielite. It's better for them if things get swept under the rug, not talked about like that crazy Uncle no one talks about at family reunions, and all the other loose cannon fire is discussed on elite mailing lists so the Peasants don't get the "wrong" idea about the Nobility.

I'd wager that the Cla68's of WP would stand behind all of their edits on WP, even though they don't have friends to "oversight" the more unpleasant ones. Jayjg and SlimVirgin? Not so much.

I'd also wager that Cla68 would not make a 24th hour complete and utter lie about an RFA candidate being loosely associated with a bogeyman (the "same state" incident) in order to torpedo an RFA. Jayjg (24th hour Tor Incident) and SlimVirgin (24th hour SameStateAsWordbomb incident) ? Not so much.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:12pm) *

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Sun 13th July 2008, 6:16pm) *

After just over four days, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=225436516&oldid=224595709.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)


That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.


if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

Viridae's Very Civil Obediance of WP Processes is no sueymission, it's standing up for what's right in a civil, lawoftheland, proper way. You can't just let continued systematic hyprocrisy-filibustering-disingenious-chewbacca defense-thumbsinears by the people supposedly entrusted by the community as arbs and/or longtime standing admins to continue if its wrong and you can prove it.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:20pm) *

I'd also wager that Cla68 would not make a 24th hour complete and utter lie about an RFA candidate being loosely associated with a bogeyman (the "same state" incident) in order to torpedo an RFA. Jayjg 24th hour Tor Incident) and SlimVirgin (24th hour SameStateAsWordbomb incident) ? Not so much.

This false assertion was based upon a photograph on Cla68's userpage which was taken in Utah- hardly enough to claim that Cla68 lives in Utah, and even were it so, this alone would hardly be enough to assert an off-WP connection with anyone else who lives in Utah. Still, I see no reason to doubt that Slim believed it when she said it, it was not intentionally a lie (and what a lame one it would have been, as it was falsified so easily.) What is missing here - as so often on Wikipedia - is an apology. That's what keeps these assumptions of nefarious motives alive.

What I see, in retrospect, is a very sincere but ill-informed and misguided hysteria surrounding WordBomb. Most everyone believed it, repeated it uncritically, and amplified one another - most everyone save Cla68. He should be recognized for resisting groupthink and exercising good judgment when others didn't.

The Arbitration Committee is very unlikely to do so, because nothing is more important to them then pretending that they were right all along. Tony Sidaway is the voice of the ArbCom in this respect, insisting that they were wise and just in the manner of the emperor's new clothes.



Posted by: Piperdown

false assertion? a very convenient assertion, used as a lie against Cla68 to guarantee the Queen Bee (back then, the hive aint what it used to be) would get the drones to sting Cla68's well-deserved adminship into the ground.

I saw Cla68's skiing in Utah photo on his page. I've been skiing in Utah too. So have millions of others. Many of them were blocked by David Gerard just for living in Utah, lol.

No, what really angers Slim about Cla68 is that Cla68 has pointed out on WP, and rightly so, that Slim, right around the time she gained her adminship, was abusively socking as Sweet Blue Water by double voting.

if I'm Cla68, and I had my RFA torpedoed by an admin who had abused WP rules as serious as abusive socking, then had the nerve to intentionally accuse me of being a <insert WP bogeyman du jour here>, I'd damn well point out the abuses of my false accuser. Damn right I would. Cyde thought so too.

It got covered up, like every other abuse of the currently In-crowd. Good thing WR is here to show the diffs before crooked wikpedians cover them up.

Whistleblowers should be rewarded when their claims prove to be true. Not bullied, squelched, and lied about with vague unsupported accusations by fey blowhards acting as smokescreens for silent starchamber coverup squads.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:53pm) *

false assertion? a very convenient assertion, used as a lie against Cla68 to guarantee the Queen Bee (back then, the hive aint what it used to be) would get the drones to sting Cla68's well-deserved adminship into the ground.

I saw Cla68's skiing in Utah photo on his page. I've been skiing in Utah too. So have millions of others. Many of them were blocked by David Gerard just for living in Utah, lol.



For the record, I was snowboarding in Utah, not skiing. Big difference for us snowboarders smile.gif . I didn't put a date on the photo because I couldn't remember when it was taken. I've gone snowboarding in Utah a couple of times. I think that picture was taken at Snowbasin on the gondola above the Olympic downhill course, but I can't say for sure. I removed the picture because my wife didn't like it.

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:33pm) *

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:12pm) *

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Sun 13th July 2008, 6:16pm) *

After just over four days, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&curid=17454965&diff=225436516&oldid=224595709.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)


That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.


if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

Viridae's Very Civil Obediance of WP Processes is no sueymission, it's standing up for what's right in a civil, lawoftheland, proper way. You can't just let continued systematic hyprocrisy-filibustering-disingenious-chewbacca defense-thumbsinears by the people supposedly entrusted by the community as arbs and/or longtime standing admins to continue if its wrong and you can prove it.


I didn't say it wasn't for a good cause!

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:06am) *

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

Certainly, Wikipedia promotes a opportunistic approach to making one's case, one which is amply on display in the evidence page of the arbitration.

I have three questions:

Would you agree that her fear of WordBomb and "stalking" (whatever the inadequacies of the term) was her primary concern, as she has invariably (to my knowledge) represented it, or would you suggest some other reason for her opposition?

If you would agree with this characterization, is it reasonable to allow that this fear compromised her judgment?

Finally, if she were to apologize, would it make a difference?

Posted by: Piperdown

that would make a good story wouldn't it.

funny how patrick byrne is never mentioned when it comes to slimvirgin.

yeah, it's just a total coincidence that slimvirgin just happened to get involved with protecting weiss on wp at all costs (no matter how many editors were collaterally damaged), and had a negative experience with byrne in school. total coincidence. Just like the total coicidence of Jayjg oversighting some ugly material slim put into her ex-boss's BLP.

but let's all propagate a convenient white lie that lets everyone pretend that there aren't some rotten apples in the admin barrel. lies making up for past lies. it's all wikigood in the world of wikpeida ethics.

i doubt Cla68 cares what slim does with the rest of her wikilife, as long as it doesn't involve lying cheating and stealing adminships from honest editors.

If I'm on Arbcom, I tell people to stop doing bad things (which has obviously happened behind closed wikidoors with Slim), and tell people with justifiable grudges to move on, with assurances that they won't be wronged again by the same person(s). And that no one else will either.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 13th July 2008, 4:33pm) *

if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

In a nut shell, that's wikipedia's biggest problem. An editor's credibility/reputation isn't related to their accuracy, judgment, foresight or the value of their contributions. Instead, an editors reputation depends on who their buddies are, which side they fight on, how fun they are on irc and how devious they are on the secret mailing lists and chatrooms. It's the worst part of Wikipedia's culture and it has to change before other problems can be addressed.

I'll view Cla's successful adminship as a sign of progress.



Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:48am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:06am) *

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

Certainly, Wikipedia promotes a opportunistic approach to making one's case, one which is amply on display in the evidence page of the arbitration.

I have three questions:

Would you agree that her fear of WordBomb and "stalking" (whatever the inadequacies of the term) was her primary concern, as she has invariably (to my knowledge) represented it, or would you suggest some other reason for her opposition?

If you would agree with this characterization, is it reasonable to allow that this fear compromised her judgment?

Finally, if she were to apologize, would it make a difference?


If SV was really afraid that I was supporting someone who was stalking her, I think she would have handled it much differently. My RfA occurred several months after I had been involved in discussion on the Weiss talk page and in an ANI thread about some uncivil editing on Mantanmoreland's part. In both cases, SV's comments towards me were extremely polite and professional. I thought the matter was closed. I had taken the Weiss article off of my watchlist and had decided not to get involved with any other discussions surrounding Mantanmoreland, deciding that I had better things to do than to continue involvement in that issue. During that time, SV never hinted that she thought that I had some hidden agenda or that I was supporting someone that she had a personal problem with.

So, when she got my RfA extended and made those comments, I was completely taken by surprise. From the sudden change in tone of her comments after her silence on the matter for several months, I believed her actions in my RfA were simple retaliation for getting involved in the Weiss issue, and an attempt to suppress an editor who had some knowledge of what was going on there.

An apology probably would have fixed it. After I posted the self-RfC on myself, I thought that it made her actions look so ridiculous and indefensible that she would have no choice but to apologize. Unfortunately, she chose to try to defend her actions, and a few other editors, infamous around here, chose to support her defense.

Now, this isn't about me anymore. Others have told me of other, good editors who have left the project or almost left because of her bullying and attacks. I myself have observed the way she treats or has treated some of the project's best editors, like Tim Vickers or Sandy Georgia, among many others, and find it just absolutely despicable. She owes a lot more people besides me an apology. In fact, I would say, much like OrangeMarlin recently did, that she needs to apologize to everyone for the way she has acted since the time she started participating in Wikipedia. Of course, a true apology also requires a promise not to repeat the behavior.

Posted by: Moulton

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f78146@.1de2d928/43.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:16am) *

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f78146@.1de2d928/43.


I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:21pm) *

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:44am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:21pm) *

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.


What about a "process" of politely asking an admin on their own talk pages to resign. I'd think once a couple hundred do that, the admin would assume that community consensus is against their continued adminship, and resign.

The community grants adminship. Via petition to an admin, they should be able to take it away. Give an admin a chance to resign, and if they don't present a petition that gives an arbitrator ample reason to believe that community consensus (a substantial majority, not a clique) is against that person continuing as an admin.

Arbcom should have nothing to do with it up front. They didn't grant the adminship in the first place. They arbitrate community conflicts that disrupt the progress of wikipedia and aren't being resolved through regular community discussion.

This is also in-line with requiring admins to re-apply for admin via RFA at reasonable intervals. Lifetime privilege leads to abuse, godkings, and admins with a litany of abuses of power like JzG, Gerard, Jajyg, and Slim. This is a concept that even the English realised was in the best interests of its "community" after a group of abused, bullied, and exploited ancestors of Wikipedians told King George to take his tea and "fuck off". Gandhi's approach would be more advisable in this instance, lol.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 13th July 2008, 6:23pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:16am) *

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f78146@.1de2d928/43.


I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for editors, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain editors?

Cla, we have tried to explain to you that narcissists do not have moments of epiphany, and they do not repent. THEY HAVE NO SHAME. Nor do psychopaths and sociopaths, who are the same sort of animal, but worse. And these people are extremely common, making up about 1% of the population. You may have wondered why you haven't met any. The answer is you have-- you just missed making the connection. These people don't act like Hannibal Lecter in real life. They act like SlimVirgin, JzG, Jimbo, etc. JoshuaZ and Essjay. Probably almost every really, really bad administrator you've ever dealt with on WP has this problem.

These people do not admit to being wrong. These people do not believe they ARE often wrong. They go through multiple jobs, multiple marriages, etc, as other people realize they cannot be dealt with (sometimes without making the diagnosis either!), and each time they take some "hide " (as in pound of flesh) off the other party, or organization. They file lawsuits. They file workers comp suits. They have the worst and nastiest divorces and always get >75% of what there is in a joint relationship. Sometimes they are found as scam artists. But they can run giant corporations, also. They can be president. Whatever they have, however, they feel entitled to more. To the narcissist, the world and life are one long string of unfairnesses, to which they respond with retaliation, no matter how long the time frame. In relationships, they are either at your feet, or at your throat. (of course, usually the first before the second). They worship or hate. They tend to be paranoid, because they never do understand why the world doesn't treat them as the princes and queens they feel they deserve to be treated as.

Narcissistic personality disorder:
QUOTE
...a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige.


In whatever venue they happen to work in. If that's Wikipedia, then there you are.

I can only say this so many times. Certain things are like the idea of "three" which my cat will never figure out. And as for a human, the idea of "three" may well be an apriori. I can't show you what "three" is, except to show you examples of tuples, ad nauseam, until you make an abstraction beyond the things themselves. My cat never will do that. Likewise, I can show you narcissists on WP until the cows come home, and if you aren't capable of believing that such creatures exist, you'll never get it. You'll never understand them or how they can do what they do, without ever learning anything.

Let me tell you a story about one. A guy who works for me off and on, just lost all his money. His credit cards are maxed and he has no equity left in his house. He may eventually be out of that house and back to renting. His family can't help him because they're all in the same boat, despite making a lot of money in the real estate market in the last decade, before the recent bubble burst.

So where did all the money go? Turns out they all had some family member who was the golden boy investment broker. He promised each and every one of them that they would get 10% return PER MONTH on money they invested with him. He had a foolproof scheme. They bought into it, because he was family. I suppose you know how this ends. (No, nobody consulted me about this 300% per year investment operation-- it wasn't MY family). It was, of course, a Ponzi/pyramid scheme. Later investors were paid off from the investments of earlier investors, until one day there was no money left. The banks came and took all the toys of the scam artist, but he was millions in the red and those millions came from everybody in a very large extended family. No doubt he could be prosecuted, but that won't get the money back.

So the guy is telling me about this. He's in his late 50's and has no retirement savings: they're gone. He's saying "How could this guy do this to us? What was he thinking?" And the answer is: "He wasn't thinking about YOU." Not in the least. That's actually POSSIBLE. That's what kind of a person he IS. The particular guy who lost all his money and told me the story, is as honest as the day is long, which is why I employ him. So he's the perfect mark for this second type. And I don't know if he ever will understand.

So. Are YOU getting it?

MR





Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:23pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:16am) *
You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f78146@.1de2d928/43.
I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

A trial (especially a Spammish Inquisition) is highly unlikely to yield an authentic epiphany and genuine repentance.

Think of Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, or Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It takes a well-crafted (and sometimes custom-crafted) story to bring some people out of the dark side.

We might have to reprise some Dr. Seuss tales here.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:06pm) *
To the narcissist, the world and life are one long string of unfairnesses, to which they respond with retaliation, no matter how long the time frame. In relationships, they are either at your feet, or at your throat. (of course, usually the first before the second). They worship or hate. They tend to be paranoid, because they never do understand why the world doesn't treat them as the princes and queens they feel they deserve to be treated as.

Narcissistic personality disorder:
QUOTE
...a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige.

Here is your http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy.

QUOTE(Self-Congratulatory Glad-Handing Templates of the WikiClique on ID)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_1 – FeloniousMonk barnstar cluster issued: 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_2 – ScienceApologist barnstar cluster issued: 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_3 – Dragons flight science barnstar issued: 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_4 – Natalinasmpf barnstar cluster issued: 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_5 – Vsmith barnstar cluster issued: 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RoyBoy/Template_6 – William M. Connolley barnstar cluster issued: 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 3:24am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:23pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:16am) *
You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f78146@.1de2d928/43.
I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

A trial (especially a Spammish Inquisition) is highly unlikely to yield an authentic epiphany and genuine repentance.

Think of Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, or Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It takes a well-crafted (and sometimes custom-crafted) story to bring some people out of the dark side.

We might have to reprise some Dr. Seuss tales here.


I remember a psychologist acquaintance of mine telling me that people with severe narcissistic personality disorder (and I'm not identifying anyone in particular as having this condition) are almost impossible to treat, i.e. "cure."

Posted by: Moulton

Cluster B (Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic) Personality Disorders

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:31pm) *
I remember a psychologist acquaintance of mine telling me that people with severe narcissistic personality disorder (and I'm not identifying anyone in particular as having this condition) are almost impossible to treat, i.e. "cure."

Yes. That tends to be true of all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_the_DSM. It can take ten years of therapy by a gifted psychotherapist to bring someone out of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, or Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Look at all the drama whores on the English Wikipedia. That's prima facie evidence of Histrionic Personality Disorder.

The English Wikipedia is a hotbed of Cluster B types, plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anankastic_personality_disorder, too.

If we were living in Biblical times, we'd be using quaint terms like "wickedness" to characterize that culture.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 13th July 2008, 7:45pm) *

If we were living in Biblical times, we'd be using quaint terms like "wickedness" to characterize that culture.

Yep. I can forgive Durova a lot, just for this one image:

IPB Image

Posted by: Heat

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:44am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:21pm) *

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.


if the community can ban users from WP entirely or restrict their editing then, logically, it can desysop as well.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:45pm) *

Cluster B (Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic) Personality Disorders

It can take ten years of therapy by a gifted psychotherapist to bring someone out of ... Borderline Personality Disorder.

Wonderful.

QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:15am) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:44am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:29pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 11th July 2008, 7:21pm) *

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.


if the community can ban users from WP entirely or restrict their editing then, logically, it can desysop as well.

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

Posted by: One

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(One @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:17am) *

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.


Of course, there's also the community vote...

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).


Most don't care very much. The most abusive ones are the ones who care the most, and they are the loudest. Few admins would vigorously support such a change, and you can't get very far without that. When I was an admin, I argued in favor of the implementation of a community desysopping mechanism, and I think I may have been the only admin at the time who did so. (And isn't it ironic that I'm the one who ended up being desysopped--albeit outside of process?) There should be broader support by this time, but I doubt it's enough.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(One @ Sun 13th July 2008, 11:17pm) *
THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.
Well, the proposal's doomed to failure for the same reason that all remotely controversial Wikipedia policy proposals are doomed to failure, and it has nothing to do with self-interest: it's that there's an unspecified but unreasonably high threshold for policies to be adopted, and that there's no clear process for creating policy. That's why I don't participate much in policy development - when I see a proposal worth supporting, like this one, I drop by and express my support, but I don't hang around to refute the opposers - it's not worth the effort, and Wikipedia's structure guarantees they'll win anyway.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 13th July 2008, 7:06pm) *

These people don't act like Hannibal Lecter in real life. They act like SlimVirgin, JzG, Jimbo, etc. JoshuaZ and Essjay. Probably almost every really, really bad administrator you've ever dealt with on WP has this problem.

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both. Guy C. actually became user:JzG from "Jus zis Guy," which is actually a clever reference to his own name and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaphod_Beeblebrox&action=edit§ion=2 (who would have thought he'd have it in him). So he started with a G and ended up with both J and G. How it happened for Jayjg I don't want to know. And look at the contortions Essjay went through to do it... and how well it worked for him, till he screwed up in other ways. Jpgordon, we're just going to have to put down to parental precog visions of Axis of Weasle future....

Anyway, Cla68, I have the official answer to how you're going to pass that next RfA. You must become Glajay68. A true name of power. biggrin.gif

MR

N.B. It occurs to me that names like Jay Gould and Stephen Jay Gould would translate into great Wiki Names of Power. So I haven't given up the gonzo idea that this J/G addition thing is a totally subconscious "desire to appear more Jewish" or maybe even "more like Jimbo" username transformation, as a way to kiss up to Cabal power. No? Crazy? Okay, fine, then YOU explain it. tongue.gif

PS. And the brand new name of Tony/Anticipation of a New Drawma's Arrival, The..... is... ?

Posted by: gomi

All of this leads one to wonder -- is there any list of n editors (for any value of n, and editors, not admins), who hold enough sway on Wikipedia such that all of them boycotting (or starting to complain, or vandalize, or god knows what) simultaneously would force whomever to institute some systematic change?

I mean would 50 top editors do it? 100? 200?

I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.

Stripping Tyrant-for-Life status from admins by making them stand again every year or two, or instituting some other kind of term limits would solve at least a few of the worst problems on Wikipedia, and Kelly Martin's random jury pool idea would solve many others, but it does not appear that either of those ideas will ever get a fair hearing, much less be implemented, in the post-apocalyptic warlord society that is Wikipedia.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:27am) *
I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.
Well, you're leaving out the Board of Trustees, unless you're trying to restrict "whomever" to one person. But the Board's a small enough body that, unlike the community, it actually could act. Absent that, the Arb Comm could probably also make some significant change by overstepping its authority, provided it did it gradually and incrementally enough. But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:33am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:27am) *
I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.
Well, you're leaving out the Board of Trustees, unless you're trying to restrict "whomever" to one person. But the Board's a small enough body that, unlike the community, it actually could act. Absent that, the Arb Comm could probably also make some significant change by overstepping its authority, provided it did it gradually and incrementally enough. But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.


What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.

I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority for himself.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:42am) *
What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.

I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority.


Jimbo may have the residual power to do this, but I don't think he has either the intellectual capacity or the motivation. Crafting a compromise that would not be met with a riot would be challenging even for someone skilled, and I also believe that Jimbo is not benefited by a smoothly running Wikipedia. A better Wikipedia that spontaneously grew, for example, an editorial board or something that looked like Olde Media would surely diminish his income from speaking fees.

Posted by: that one guy

Personally, I think it's flipping stupid there's no way to recall admins outside of AOR. Even then the amount of admins recalled are few and far between. A couple of times though an admin that made a stupid move was in CAT:AOR, one was Durova surprisingly enough for the !! block and Kwsn for his Giano block. Durova resigned her's and arbcom said get it back the normal way, Kwsn practically is gone from the project now it seems.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:42am) *
What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.
My suspicion is that he probably doesn't, unless the Foundation is prepared to back him up and say that he has the power to do that sort of thing, even against community consensus. A couple of weeks ago I tried starting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JIMBO, but it hasn't come to much. I thought the Foundation would be able to clarify the question to some degree, so I asked Cary Bass (he struck me as the most appropriate staff member, though I'm not expert on the division of responsibilities within the WMF office) - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bastique#Question_re:_the_basis_for_Jimmy.27s_authority's the result of that endeavor. In point of fact, I had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=222228825&oldid=222219537 already, but he didn't seem interested in providing them.

In summary, it's completely unclear what formal power Jimbo wields, and nobody in a position to do so seems interested in clarifying it.

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:42am) *
I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority for himself.
Replace "Jimbo" with "the WMF Board" and you've described the key plank of my election platform (sorry, I had to point that out).

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:33am) *
But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.

Yes, but the absence of systematic "runnability" (to use your term) leads to factionalism, i.e. the fact that certain groups of editors ("cabals", for lack of a better term) run certain parts of Wikipedia. As you well know, attacking animal rights articles, Judaica, or articles about Israel-Palestine trigger a powerful immune response, whether it is centrally coordinated or not. I don't pay attention, but I'm told the same is true for Pokemon articles.

Posted by: Moulton

Wikipedia is like http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Web+Side+Story, with rival street gangs staking out their territory and fending off intruders by kiboshing them with the WP:Rules. Each local cabal is an ad hoc ochlocracy unto itself. The whole thing gives me a bad case of http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Indigestion.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous
Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.


QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:51am) *

In summary, it's completely unclear what formal power Jimbo wields, and nobody in a position to do so seems interested in clarifying it.
Jimmy views his role on the English Wikipedia as that of God-King. His power is unlimited and granted to him by divine right, and may be limited only to the extent that he chooses to limit it himself.

Posted by: Moulton

Keel de Boolsheet

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:54am) *
]Jimmy views his role on the English Wikipedia as that of God-King. His power is unlimited and granted to him by divine right, and may be limited only to the extent that he chooses to limit it himself.

Is it time for a http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tauroctony, yet?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:53am) *

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both.


I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th July 2008, 8:35am) *
I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

Gregore Jimbo Zapper

I can see it now. Action Comix! Gregore Jimbo Zapper v. Zyklon B. Pussyphart.

Posted by: UserB

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:54am) *

Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.


There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

There are obviously a lot of admins who need to be desysopped, but it needs to be done carefully. The preferable way would be via arbcom, but sadly, it has demonstrated that it is highly inconsistent in its application of sanctions and that's being generous.

I don't have the right answer - I have no idea what it is. But I really think that lynchmob-based desysopping is worse than the present system of adminship for life.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:22pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:54am) *

Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.


There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

There are obviously a lot of admins who need to be desysopped, but it needs to be done carefully. The preferable way would be via arbcom, but sadly, it has demonstrated that it is highly inconsistent in its application of sanctions and that's being generous.

I don't have the right answer - I have no idea what it is. But I really think that lynchmob-based desysopping is worse than the present system of adminship for life.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.


That last suggestion is a very good one.

Posted by: Moulton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Narcissistic_Wounding

QUOTE(Viridae @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:30am) *
QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:22pm) *
If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.
That last suggestion is a very good one.

On Wikiversity, admins are called custodians.

On LambdaMoo, they were called janitors.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

Compare janitorial custodians and public servants to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.

Now go look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder one more time. [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?7@@.1de35bad/1.]

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:22pm) *

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.
Admins are already politicians; they had to be in order to become admins in the first place.

While the argument you give is the canonical "good Wikipedian" reason why there can't be any sort of recall procedure, it's nonsense. If an act that is required by "policy" is widely unpopular, then either the policy is wrong, or the community has its head up its ass. If the former, then the admin should not be attempting to enforce a wrongheaded policy; if the latter, then the admin should be seeking to change attitudes in the community through reason and discussion, instead of through force. The current system, in which admins batter the community with sticks whenever the community disagree with the admins, is broken in so many different ways, and the lack of admin recall just exacerbates the situation.
QUOTE
If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.
Putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. People will quickly learn that admins, by whatever name you call them, have more power than non-admins.

Posted by: Neil

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:56pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Narcissistic_Wounding

QUOTE(Viridae @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:30am) *
QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:22pm) *
If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.
That last suggestion is a very good one.

On Wikiversity, admins are called custodians.

On LambdaMoo, they were called janitors.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

Compare janitorial custodians and public servants to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.

Now go look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder one more time. [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?7@@.1de35bad/1.]


What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:56pm) *

Gandhi called public officials servants.

That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 4:43am) *

Wikipedia is like http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Web+Side+Story, with rival street gangs staking out their territory and fending off intruders by kiboshing them with the WP:Rules. Each local cabal is an ad hoc ochlocracy unto itself. The whole thing gives me a bad case of http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Indigestion.


Dude, you are SO far off base. It's not any homage to West Side Story.

IPB Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrophenia_(film)

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:22am) *

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob)


The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 3:16pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:22pm) *

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.
Admins are already politicians; they had to be in order to become admins in the first place.

While the argument you give is the canonical "good Wikipedian" reason why there can't be any sort of recall procedure, it's nonsense. If an act that is required by "policy" is widely unpopular, then either the policy is wrong, or the community has its head up its ass. If the former, then the admin should not be attempting to enforce a wrongheaded policy; if the latter, then the admin should be seeking to change attitudes in the community through reason and discussion, instead of through force. The current system, in which admins batter the community with sticks whenever the community disagree with the admins, is broken in so many different ways, and the lack of admin recall just exacerbates the situation.
QUOTE
If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.
Putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. People will quickly learn that admins, by whatever name you call them, have more power than non-admins.


For once, Kelly, I completely agree.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:40am) *

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

If you could develop a consensus to implement a procedure for desysoping admins on English Wikipedia, it'd be implemented. There's not an exemption, there's a consensus to not desysop except by ArbCom, or at least a lack of consensus to desysop in any other fashion.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:11am) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:40am) *

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

If you could develop a consensus to implement a procedure for desysoping admins on English Wikipedia, it'd be implemented. There's not an exemption, there's a consensus to not desysop except by ArbCom, or at least a lack of consensus to desysop in any other fashion.


Well, no, theres not a consensus not to do it. Theres simply no "written" process to do it, at this time. If the community decided to desysop someone, it would happen, if there was consensus to do it, and the AC or Jimbo or the WMF couldn't do but "jack" and "shit" about it, to paraphrase Bruce Campbell. Everything has to be by consensus, full stop. It's a rule from the Foundation.






Further, can someone please force Tony to stop trolling the Proposed Decision talk page? He's like a nonstop fart now, choking out everything with his adorable pet views.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:17am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:56pm) *
Gandhi called public officials servants.
That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

The admins on Wikipedia are neither civil nor servile.

Posted by: Neil

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:37pm) *

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:17am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:56pm) *
Gandhi called public officials servants.
That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

The admins on Wikipedia are neither civil nor servile.


Be careful not to generalise, even for the sake of pithy wordplay.

And the admins on Wikipedia not servants; they are volunteers.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 4:25pm) *
Further, can someone please force Tony to stop trolling the Proposed Decision talk page? He's like a nonstop fart now, choking out everything with his adorable pet views.
You might as well try to command the tide not to rise.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th July 2008, 4:35am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:53am) *

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both.


I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

GJayKosher, of course. You're halfway there already. If you can just figure out how to get a Zocky or ZScout Z in there (like the X for Roman Catholics and the old Nation of Islamites), you'll be perfect. JzG, for example, is genius. GjzKosher would totally rule over, say, LukeTraif. The only thing worse would be something starting with Abu.

I'm looking at WW's hivemind list of outed admins and influential folks, which is the only unbiased selection list I have (unbiased from my point of view, since I had nothing to do with who is on there). I see that Sj (not to be confused with Essjay), JzG, and Jareth all got J's into their usernames that weren't there originally in their birth names. It's Jimbo homage or something else. Out of 86, there are 8 usernames on WW Hivemind that start with J, which is 9%. Now, j is a rather late addition to English, being a recent decendent of i (hence the dots over both); so if you look in the dictionary or the phonebook, or even a list of possible baby given male names (assuming most admins are still male), you won't find anything close to 9% J's (although this last will be the closest, what with all the the Jims, Jeremys and Jasons). Statistically, I think the Hivemind J incidence is very unlikely to be chance (it's hard to run a chi-square because I haven't decided what to use for my baseline control group-- perhaps chosen usernames on THIS forum?). There's certainly selection bias somewhere, but I can't tell where. And cause-and-effect could run in any direction, or this effect could just be a confounder for something else.

--M. G. Jay Roe

The Flying J

Posted by: UserB

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:40am) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:22am) *

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob)


The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.


Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.

In a smaller project where there are fewer admins to consider, every active user can realistically be expected to comment on every adminship or de-adminship. But on a large project , 20 highly opinionated users can show up right at the beginning of an RFA (or RF-deA) and have a disproportionate effect on the final outcome, even if they might be the only 20 people that, all things being equal, would hold that opinion. Part of it is that nobody wants to back the "losing side" and part of it is that nobody bothers doing research once it looks like the outcome of the RFA is decided. (When I see a New England Patriots-like score on an RFA, I don't even bother clicking on contributions.)

So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling. In a small project, your 20 wiki friends is 2 wiki friends, so it doesn't have the same stigma.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 3:40pm) *

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?
There is no rule, "Foundation" or otherwise, that requires that Wikimedia projects be run by "consensus". The English Wikipedia continues to utilize its bizarre facsimile of consensus because it serves its ruling classes for that state of affairs to persist, and for no other reason.


Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:22am) *
There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Not only does this ludicrous trope ignore the suggestions of term limits for admins, but it serves as a tacit acknowledgment that admins will be abusive, and therefore should have tenure for life, like Supreme Court justices or Idi Amin. I can't think of a more brainless response to this issue than lip-syncing with the cabal to the tune of this hollow, repudiated idea.

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:37am) *
So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling.
As noted before, this is a fundamental problem with everything on Wikipedia, why exempt admins from it? If they were subject to it, perhaps it would change.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:17am) *

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:11am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:36pm) *
You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.
Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

I don't think that the admins with a subforum here are the only admins that risk being desysoped (though I have no specific names in mind). And I don't speak on just the current poor admins who deserve to be desysoped. Personally, I think a lot of admins, and even admin hopefuls, reject these proposals because the future is uncertain, and as mentioned above, most, I think, prefer adminship be for life.

Currently, desysops come in only the most extreme cases of abuse, yet admins like some of those with subforums here can get away with disgusting amounts of shameful behavior and abuse of tools and retain the bit. While we don't want a system that can be easily gamed, we want one that will keep admins on better behavior. A system where the arguments are thoroughly weighed would be ideal. Arguments to desysop should be specific to abuse of tools, with diffs to support. Any votes that support desysop that are not based on clear and proven abuse of administrative privileges should be discarded as completely irrelevant. Leaving stewards with the discretion

I don't know if such a system can be created in a community this large, but something other than ArbCom has to be established. Around the time I gained adminship, these discussions (including the establishment of AOR) were once again on-going. The majority of admins I noticed commenting used the existence of ArbCom as the reason we don't need anything else. I feel that reasoning is now outdated, as ArbCom is well on its way to finding the community has lost all faith in them.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:37am) *

So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling. In a small project, your 20 wiki friends is 2 wiki friends, so it doesn't have the same stigma.

Indeed, so many human problems over recorded history have come from scaling problems, where people try to take systems (like Communism or tribalism) which work naturally in small groups like families and clans, and just scale them up to groups sizes where people are strangers, without any modification. It's disasterous. And here we see WP, repeating the same-old disasters. sad.gif

Argghhh. Thus, the Review. dry.gif

And yes, the problem has come up before in human society and the solutions for it are at least a millennium old: see Althing, for example. One needs something approximately like a proportionally representational parliament, or failing that, at least some type of liquid democracy and proxie voting so power doesn't concentrate to those non-term-limited oligarchs with too much time on their hands to game the system. It's bad enough in parliamentary democracies as is, even with term limits and no anonymity. Wiki is just that much worse, due to the anonymity, cronyism lack of a voter recall mechanism, and the ever-present possiblity of ballot box stuffing.

So it all comes back to anonymity. Solve that, and the democratic mode problems solve themselves, because they've already had a lot of work done on them, which can simply be ported/borrowed from already-successful large institutions, both public and private.


MR

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:37am) *

Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.


Sure this would scale well. Look:

Based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies#2008

* June: 554 supports on 8 successful, 69.25 avg
* May: 1451 supports on 18 successful, 80.61 avg
* April: 1608 supports on 16 successful, 100.5 avg
* Total: 3613 supports on 42 successful, 86.02 avg
* 55% of 86.02 = 47.31 for April-June 08.

Why not base it on a rolling average of the preceding average supports for the past 3-6 months? That way everyone is on the same exact standards, fairly. Took less than 3 minutes to pull these with a calculator. Do the same for arbs, cats and everyone else.

So, you would need a dead minimum of 47 to qualify the recall and then it would need to finish passing above that over 55%. You would need a substantial number of people calling for the recall. Limit the recall to users with x edits/tenure like RFAR voting (heck, just use the same exact metrics) and that's pretty fair and scalable then. Frighteningly so. The ratio needed would update each time and if you're feeling frisky you can adjust the 55% along the axis of the support percentages that are average out over the given months. It would be kids stuff for a bot writer to draft this and the super simple numbers to community recall/deadmin would constantly be current with what the community standards are to sysop in the first place.

Summary...

Based on what Amerique and Until 1=2 said at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amerique/Community_recall it would require a minimum of 75% support on a qualified user recall to have it pass, like a regular RFA. So if I was an admin TODAY, it would require with my slight tweak a minimum of 47 plus established users (using the standards on who gets to vote for Arbcom elections) to say "Root sucks" within 7 days, and then it would require a finished passing percentage of 75% of those same established users for me to lose my bit. It would be virtually impossible for any lightweight, trivial, or frivilous recall to succeed. No cabal anywhere is that powerful in 2008 on Wikipedia. Not even remotely close.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:54am) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:22am) *
There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Not only does this ludicrous trope ignore the suggestions of term limits for admins, but it serves as a tacit acknowledgment that admins will be abusive, and therefore should have tenure for life, like Supreme Court justices or Idi Amin. I can't think of a more brainless response to this issue than lip-syncing with the cabal to the tune of this hollow, repudiated idea.

Agreed. The whole "good admins create enemies" claim is ridiculous. Good admins will gain more supporters than enemies, just through helping solve problems.

The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:08am) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:37am) *

Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.


Sure this would scale well. Look:

Based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies#2008

* June: 554 supports on 8 successful, 69.25 avg
* May: 1451 supports on 18 successful, 80.61 avg
* April: 1608 supports on 16 successful, 100.5 avg
* Total: 3613 supports on 42 successful, 86.02 avg
* 55% of 86.02 = 47.31 for April-June 08.

Why not base it on a rolling average of the preceding average supports for the past 3-6 months? That way everyone is on the same exact standards, fairly. Took less than 3 minutes to pull these with a calculator. Do the same for arbs, cats and everyone else.

So, you would need a dead minimum of 47 to qualify the recall and then it would need to finish passing above that over 55%. You would need a substantial number of people calling for the recall. Limit the recall to users with x edits/tenure like RFAR voting (heck, just use the same exact metrics) and that's pretty fair and scalable then. Frighteningly so. The ratio needed would update each time and if you're feeling frisky you can adjust the 55% along the axis of the support percentages that are average out over the given months. It would be kids stuff for a bot writer to draft this and the super simple numbers to community recall/deadmin would constantly be current with what the community standards are to sysop in the first place.

It's a good patch suggestion, but in actual operation, the first time a JzG gets booted there's going to be recount whining to make Florida 2000 look like a high school student election. Also, there remains the problem which is sort of equivalent to "incumbent franking privilege" where admins already in office have access to all kinds of back-channel vote-recruitment devices that are absolutely non-transparent. It would take a lot to get over these. However, for some really bad eggs, I think it could be done.

So: anything to throw the rascals out! Formally suggest your idea at the WP:VP!!! At least seeing the opposition will smoke out the "real Cabal" once again. We have to recount our enemies every once and a while, and there's no way to do a "villain roll-call" quite like floating a good reform suggestion at VP, just to see who speaks against it.

MR

Posted by: Rootology

While the funny rhetoric language is nice, keeping this down to banging out "solution" language rather than rhetoric is probably more useful to everyone.

I keep reading what I wrote above, and it keeps seeming impossible to game to me. If I were an admin and someone tried to recall me today, they would need 47 supports to even qualify it. Don't get 47 supports in 7 days, it's over. If you get *JUST* 47+ supports, you'd need at least this to desysop me:

support oppose total count percentage
47 15 62 75.81%

So... the bare threshold to qualify constantly changes based on current community RFA practices. That means old timers never get a bum deal. And frankly, to get bare minimum numbers like that will be HARD, and any desysop would sure as hell get more than 62 total responses. I can't see more than 1-2 people a year at best losing their bit like this, but the option would have legitimate teeth for people to not be bad.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:54pm) *


In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?



Here's one example. Crawling through page histories, I frequently come across one admin, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&user=The_Anome. He's been one for 5 years. He's made over 75,000 edits and his bot, twice as many. He's not mentioned once on WR.

Posted by: gomi

Actual suggested policy:

QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.


I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:25am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:54pm) *


In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?



Here's one example. Crawling through page histories, I frequently come across one admin, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&user=The_Anome. He's been one for 5 years. He's made over 75,000 edits and his bot, twice as many. He's not mentioned once on WR.

Yes. To be fair, police tend to get shot in the line of duty more than firemen. Thus, admins who come in for criticism will always claim they're being singled out due to "police" more than fire work-- or because because they hand out tickets like the highway patrol, instead of universally admired homicide detective guys who aren't in the business of "revenue enhancement."

But here's the difference: admins can easily switch from highway patrol to detective to paramedic and fire rescue, if things get too hot. So some guy who's always getting accused of nighsticking a handcuffed suspect, probably likes that beat, probably likes doing patrolcar and probably likes perp-thumping. But if that is the case, they'd better find something else to do, or else get off "public service" entirely.

Posted by: UserB

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:22am) *
There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?


Well, there are two problem with that analogy. For one, nearly the entire electorate goes their entire life without the local sheriff, dog-catcher, or judge taking any action that affects them. And even the ones that do (say, someone who doesn't like a ruling made by the judge) have to buy advertising time in order for their opinion to affect how someone else is going to vote.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

In the real world, 25% of the electorate is going to show up to vote and the .0001% that you the sheriff have arrested don't make a lick of difference. But on Wikipedia, .01% of the electorate is going to show up to vote and the .001% that are ticked off because you deleted an image six months ago is a pretty high percentage of them.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:45pm) *

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.


B, did you read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18890&view=findpost&p=113660, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?

Even if 30 fanboys showed up (would it really be that many, especially if we applied Arb voting standards for tenure?), the mathematical odds alone of them even qualifying the bullshit recall are nonexistant. It would today by my example take 47 fanboys to even qualify the attempt to "get" me. Even if my other "enemies" showed up, unless I was consistently a total douchebag in my adminnery, would I really get more than 47 people screaming for my head? Then it would require the buy-in of a ton of other vetted users, to reach the 75%+ threshold Amerique proposed. It would never happen to me unless all of Wikipedia fell asleep.

With my suggested stupidly basic rolling number idea that I added to Amerique's proposal, the odds of a bad recall costing someone their user status are nonexistent. How strong is the strongest "solid" cabal now on WP? 10? 15? 20 at the absolute most? The process would be quite safe by math.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:45am) *

Well, there are two problem with that analogy. For one, nearly the entire electorate goes their entire life without the local sheriff, dog-catcher, or judge taking any action that affects them. And even the ones that do (say, someone who doesn't like a ruling made by the judge) have to buy advertising time in order for their opinion to affect how someone else is going to vote.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

This will tend to an anti-deletionist move, for the reasons you note. You can't keep everybody happy without letting everybody (and that means fanboys too) put up the content they like. But I'm for doing that, anyway. Gasp. Why NOT give more people what they like, so long as it doesn't bother somebody else? The anti-deletionist position is very much the libertarian one.

It's possible to please a lot of people, because WP is not paper. A lot of ticked off people who are ticked off because some group wiped out their favorite subject on the basis of non-notabity (IMNOTTINTERED or IDONTLIKEIT), are going to have to be catered to, more than they are. But so what? Since WP is not paper, you'll never notice the cruft. It's not as though the cruft stuff piles up in the stacks and hides the science journals, like it would in a physical library. Yes, we may have to somewhat redefine what we mean by (general) "encyclopedia," but we're doing that anyway, are we not? It won't hurt if we go farther. I've always had a suspicion that the cruft-killers are secretly in league with, or at least are winked at, by Wikia, which wants the cruft put THERE, so it can make money off it. I suggest we just leave it all, right were it is, as created for free, as a labor of love by people who like it. Jimbo and friends don't deserve to make all the money off it. If you don't want to look at it, then don't.

Now, there's some stuff that has to go, like the worst kinds of porn (pedo, zoo, etc) which are going to get the foundation in legal trouble, and (likewise) all the BLP stuff, which is nearly all defamation-bait. But I very much doubt that any admin active in deleting that kind of stuff will be up for much exposure to recall.

MR

(It occurs to me that there's the question which is an elephant in the room, which is what Jimmy Wales DOES fairly deserve for his significant role in creating WP. Okay, perhaps not much more than Sanger. But Sanger got nothing but a few months salary and then the boot. But that may only mean Sanger fairly deserves more. Jimbo has already collected quite a lot, and is due for much more. I expect opinions will differ widely here on WR as to how much Jimbo is due, even if relieved of all power, from here on out. Thoughts?)

Posted by: Mr. Mystery

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:56pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:45pm) *

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.


B, did you read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18890&view=findpost&p=113660, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?

Even if 30 fanboys showed up (would it really be that many, especially if we applied Arb voting standards for tenure?), the mathematical odds alone of them even qualifying the bullshit recall are nonexistant. It would today by my example take 47 fanboys to even qualify the attempt to "get" me. Even if my other "enemies" showed up, unless I was consistently a total douchebag in my adminnery, would I really get more than 47 people screaming for my head? Then it would require the buy-in of a ton of other vetted users, to reach the 75%+ threshold Amerique proposed. It would never happen to me unless all of Wikipedia fell asleep.

With my suggested stupidly basic rolling number idea that I added to Amerique's proposal, the odds of a bad recall costing someone their user status are nonexistent. How strong is the strongest "solid" cabal now on WP? 10? 15? 20 at the absolute most? The process would be quite safe by math.


Intriguing proposal. Oddly, I'd think the various cabals could get behind it if their joint numbers would allow them to take out someone like Alison or Sir Fozzie. I'd bet Mongo or Filll would be the first ones behind the trigger of such a process if it were ever implimented.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:21pm) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:56pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:45pm) *

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.


B, did you read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18890&view=findpost&p=113660, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?


Intriguing proposal. Oddly, I'd think the various cabals could get behind it if their joint numbers would allow them to take out someone like Alison or Sir Fozzie. I'd bet Mongo or Filll would be the first ones behind the trigger of such a process if it were ever implimented.


I don't think they would be able to pull the trigger on any one admin for being, say, a WR user. I mean, they could pull the trigger to start the process, but just like any shenanigans at RFA tends to make the RFA super visible and draw in people like a ton of bricks, a desysop recall by default will be in that state. No cabal is going to be able to manipulate 100+ people to their own ends. It would be a total gamble.

Taking that in mind, any admin who was a troublemaker consistently, that somehow kept scraping by or escaping from sanction under the Arbs, would be removed theoretically under this system. Like I said above, though, what is that? I'd bet someone 250 edits on an article of their choice if more than 1-2 people per year were successfully removed under a model like the one I offered.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:54pm) *

This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

Of course, none of these worthies is elected in the British Isles.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:25pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 6:54pm) *

This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.
Of course, none of these worthies is elected in the British Isles.

Per this week's Economist, that is about to change, correcting problems with the lackadaisical nature of Britain's local police forces and (I'm not sure how they get there) the alarming rise in knife-wielding yobs around London.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:27pm) *

Per this week's Economist, that is about to change, correcting problems with the lackadaisical nature of Britain's local police forces and (I'm not sure how they get there) the alarming rise in knife-wielding yobs around London.


You mean Brit police aren't like Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz?

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:37pm) *

Actual suggested policy:

QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.


I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things. If an admin wants to submit their next RfA two or three weeks before their term is up in order to avoid an interruption to their privileges, it wouldn't make any difference, IMO (I think it would be a good sign that they plan ahead, rather than react after-the-fact). On the other hand, if an admin wants to take a break from the responsibility for any length of time between terms, that should be fine, too.

For that matter, it would be interesting if the RfA candidate can request admin privileges for whatever length of time they want (as long as they specify it). After all, term lengths are pretty arbitrary anyway. In reality, that system would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but it could possibly work.

I like to mull things over for a while, but I might consider submitting a proposal if no-one beats me to it.

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 14th July 2008, 10:44am) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 14th July 2008, 3:40pm) *

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?
There is no rule, "Foundation" or otherwise, that requires that Wikimedia projects be run by "consensus". The English Wikipedia continues to utilize its bizarre facsimile of consensus because it serves its ruling classes for that state of affairs to persist, and for no other reason.

Concur, Wikipedia is not governed by consensus. Whenever there is a notice of something coming up for a "vote" a set of self appointed "guardians" show up to give their opinion about subjects in which they have no knowledge and in subject areas in which they have never written an article. The real editors don't express an opinion because they are too busy writing articles and don't want to get involved in protracted battles.

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area. And, comments for an ANI should be limited to those involved in the controversy and uninvolved administrations who will be giving a decision. Such a proposal would have the approval of the vast majority of Wikipedians but would never pass "consensus"... for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Rootology

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19187

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:37pm) *

Actual suggested policy:

QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.


I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.


One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE

It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things. If an admin wants to submit their next RfA two or three weeks before their term is up in order to avoid an interruption to their privileges, it wouldn't make any difference, IMO (I think it would be a good sign that they plan ahead, rather than react after-the-fact). On the other hand, if an admin wants to take a break from the responsibility for any length of time between terms, that should be fine, too.

For a number of reasons it is problematic for an administrator to continue his work while his RFA is in progress. For example, if the administrator blocks someone who votes against him. It would be best if the administrator stopped his administration work while the voting is in progress.



Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 1:55pm) *
It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things.

The (not particularly defensible) logic was that an enforced vacation makes people think about the role, and whether they really want to continue in it. It makes re-applying not the default, and not re-applying for office a much less drama-laden thing. It would serve to remind that editing is the goal, not admining.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:37pm) *

Actual suggested policy:

QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.


I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.


One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

The increased number of RfAs would be a problem, but I think that there is a big enough population on WP that the increase can be managed. It would also likely force admins to be more careful regarding how they treat editors, thus reducing drama from more minor issues and helping retain editors. On the other hand, I think community recall is likely to be too drama-laden, thus becoming far more of a sinkhole for editors' time.

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:46pm) *

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area.

Bad idea, because these are largely self-selected fans and/or detractors, not subject-matter experts. Example: should Pokemon-related deletions be handled only by those who've worked in the subject area? It would be impossible to delete anything (and almost is anyhow.)

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:18pm) *

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

To how many pointless conflicts is Wikipedia committing merely by retaining JzG as an administrator?

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 11:18pm) *

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

To how many pointless conflicts is Wikipedia committing merely by retaining JzG as an administrator?

Exactly. How many RfAs could have been finished with equivalent time that has been spent on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop pages alone? Consider not only how much time people have spent contributing to it, but the rest reading through the bulk of that material trying to make sense of everything. That is a massive amount of time, when, under terms, the admins in question would have simply changed their behavior or failed an RfA re-election long ago.

Posted by: prospero

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:56pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:37pm) *

Actual suggested policy:

QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.


I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.


One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

But don't some of the other projects already do this? I mean the reconfirmation part. As for the gap, I tend to agree with you, but I do see some merit in taking some time off to do other things besides fixing problems.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:05pm) *
The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.
I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

Edit: I made this proposal on my http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-english.html, back in 2006.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 15th July 2008, 5:20am) *
I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.
The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(prospero @ Tue 15th July 2008, 12:11pm) *

But don't some of the other projects already do this? I mean the reconfirmation part.

Yes, for example Meta and English Wikisource.

There is an argument that there are so many admins on WP that the system would be swamped by confirmations, but I'm not convinced.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 15th July 2008, 5:20am) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 7:05pm) *
The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.
I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

Kelly lecturing about creating content? Jeezzz. Do you have a link for that babe, I could use a good laugh.



QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Tue 15th July 2008, 5:26am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 15th July 2008, 5:20am) *
I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.
The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.

Or to go around http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=prev&oldid=73930927 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=prev&oldid=73945200 great FA writers who suggest that admins actually do some work.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Tue 15th July 2008, 12:26pm) *
The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.
Yes, I believe someone mentioned that to me at the time. You are, of course, correct. Nonetheless, I think some sort of term limits are appropriate.


QUOTE(guy @ Tue 15th July 2008, 1:22pm) *
There is an argument that there are so many admins on WP that the system would be swamped by confirmations, but I'm not convinced.
That is the standard Good Wikipedian argument against introducing any sort of reconfirmation process on the English Wikipedia. It is, of course, complete bollocks; while there would be some initial organizational friction, it will mainly serve to enmesh the Usual Dramatists in fundamentally harmless activity (running about voting on every RfA), which will ensure that they have no time to annoy people who are actually editing the encyclopedia. Then, after the initial paroxysm is over and half the administrative pool is not reconfirmed, people will realize that it's not going to as bad as they once thought.

When I ran admin activity reports, only something like 30% of the English Wikipedia's admins actually do anything; many of them have left the premises. But all these absent admins are still counted as part of the pool of admins who will need to be reconfirmed every n months, by people trying to forward the idea that we can't possibly have confirmation proceedings because it will require too much administrative effort.

Posted by: theseoldshades

This just in from Tony/Ant/Jenny:

QUOTE
If there is any evidence to support the above tirade, it should be submitted, else this is simply a broad-brush attack aimed at those with whom Alec and his allies happen to disagree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FC68-FM-SV%2FProposed_decision&diff=225828644&oldid=225821685

Because Tony would never do that, right? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: FCYTravis

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:22am) *

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables. Or should be.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(FCYTravis @ Wed 16th July 2008, 12:41pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:22am) *

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables.

See user:JessieW, who called himself the "Juggling Janitor," and was one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesseW Alas, if you see his TALK page, he realized that Hilman (a collection of rather intelligent math-savvy users who wrote articles on general relativity before they realized this was KoolAide) was right. So Jessie basically quit like Hilman did.

Being an admin on Wikipedia is fighting the barbarian hordes and cleaning up the Augean stables, using the wooden swords, syrofoam space helmet, and Jiffywipes in your admin kit. Jimbo and WMF could actually raise the drawbridge and make visitors to The Castle use the footbridge, but that would interfere with his notion of a castle open to everyone. And besides, it's not him doing the work and bleeding, it's you.

So they're leaving the Grail-light on at Castle Anthrax. It's up to you if you're on a quest and feel you need to go in and http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-11.htm Boy scout ones or not.

MR

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 14th July 2008, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Mon 14th July 2008, 9:46pm) *

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area.

Bad idea, because these are largely self-selected fans and/or detractors, not subject-matter experts. Example: should Pokemon-related deletions be handled only by those who've worked in the subject area? It would be impossible to delete anything (and almost is anyhow.)

I was thinking "subject area" would be defined as something much larger than say just Pokeman articles. But, I don't see a fundamental problem with the editors of Pokeman articles being the ones who decide what articles about Pokeman should exist.

In the extreme case, their are a couple of editors who don't engage in ANY article writing but yet show up to decide whether someone else's article should be deleted. Even a rule that someone needs at least "X" article contributions in any subject area whatsoever to vote on whether an article should be deleted would be an improvement.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th July 2008, 2:00pm) *

QUOTE(FCYTravis @ Wed 16th July 2008, 12:41pm) *

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 14th July 2008, 5:22am) *

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables.

See user:JessieW, who called himself the "Juggling Janitor," and was one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesseW Alas, if you see his TALK page, he realized that Hilman (a collection of rather intelligent math-savvy users who wrote articles on general relativity before they realized this was KoolAide) was right. So Jessie basically quit like Hilman did.

Being an admin on Wikipedia is fighting the barbarian hordes and cleaning up the Augean stables, using the wooden swords, syrofoam space helmet, and Jiffywipes in your admin kit. Jimbo and WMF could actually raise the drawbridge and make visitors to The Castle use the footbridge, but that would interfere with his notion of a castle open to everyone. And besides, it's not him doing the work and bleeding, it's you.

So they're leaving the Grail-light on at Castle Anthrax. It's up to you if you're on a quest and feel you need to go in and http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-11.htm Boy scout ones or not.

MR

But is a castle a good analogy? I believe that there are improvements that need to be made, such as Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, but I disagree with portraying WP as under attack. That's just too similar to how many of the most abusive editors on WP like to portray things.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Wed 16th July 2008, 10:11pm) *

But, I don't see a fundamental problem with the editors of Pokeman articles being the ones who decide what articles about Pokeman should exist.

Taxwoman complained once (the post seems to have been deleted) that people were voting to delete articles she'd created, or even unilaterally turning them into redirects, who didn't have a clue what the articles were about so couldn't know if they were important.

Posted by: tarantino

Jpgordon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=226695190#Jayvdb on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back&diff=prev&oldid=226555500#Heaven_sent_--.3E_expelled_from_heaven

QUOTE
... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 16th July 2008, 1:25pm) *

But is a castle a good analogy? I believe that there are improvements that need to be made, such as Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, but I disagree with portraying WP as under attack. That's just too similar to how many of the most abusive editors on WP like to portray things.

Wikipedia is under attack. They are the world's largest volunteer org, and they have their share of real vandals and real nuts (both within and without the org). Also, they themselves are no geniuses, and they run the thing like a fiefdom. No, this does not excuse their abusiveness. Like all bad administrators everywhere (see Bush Administration), they blame real terrorism for their taking self-serving "anti-terror" measures, which end up being treatments that are worse than the disease.

Posted by: Castle Rock

Somebody finally posts something useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Modest_proposals_by_User:Shii

QUOTE

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin awarded a free trip to Bermuda

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is instructed to give SlimVirgin a free trip to Bermuda and pay for her to stay there as long as she likes, provided she does not use a computer during her stay. The Wikimedia Foundation will also pay for SlimVirgin to have infinite martinis. SlimVirgin may return to Wikipedia as soon as she promises not to post any more hypothetical job interviews to WP:AN/I.

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 20th July 2008, 2:52pm) *

Jpgordon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=226695190#Jayvdb on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back&diff=prev&oldid=226555500#Heaven_sent_--.3E_expelled_from_heaven
QUOTE
... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Blacketer&diff=226709750&oldid=226129932 The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Posted by: Bob Boy

QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sun 20th July 2008, 9:47pm) *

Somebody finally posts something useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Modest_proposals_by_User:Shii

QUOTE

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin awarded a free trip to Bermuda

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is instructed to give SlimVirgin a free trip to Bermuda and pay for her to stay there as long as she likes, provided she does not use a computer during her stay. The Wikimedia Foundation will also pay for SlimVirgin to have infinite martinis. SlimVirgin may return to Wikipedia as soon as she promises not to post any more hypothetical job interviews to WP:AN/I.



And B turns up to call it "trolling". Hell, might as well use the case pages for lulz, it's not like they're being used for anything else.

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Neil @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:17pm) *

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".


The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

Posted by: UserB

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Sun 20th July 2008, 11:09pm) *

And B turns up to call it "trolling". Hell, might as well use the case pages for lulz, it's not like they're being used for anything else.


I'd rather not give arbcom any more ammunition for ignoring the case ... and putting forth silly suggestions does just that. I said nearly two months ago on this board when expressing concerns about presentations consisting mostly of sour grapes from 2 years ago that it could easily be a distraction.

Here's what I said then: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18138&st=40&p=103321&#entry103321

One necessary component of getting arbcom to do something useful is give them concise statements and diffs that show unignorably bad actions. At the very least, when they choose to ignore it, they can't say with a straight face that it's stale or too much crap to sift through.

Adding nonsensical proposals to the workshop and adding trivial stuff from 2 years ago that really wasn't very incivil to begin with just lets arbcom ignore the whole thing. Don't get me wrong - they could do that anyway, but at least without lots of junk in there, it's more obvious what they are doing.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(UserB @ Mon 21st July 2008, 12:08am) *
One necessary component of getting arbcom to do something useful is give them concise statements and diffs that show unignorably bad actions. At the very least, when they choose to ignore it, they can't say with a straight face that it's stale or too much crap to sift through.

Have you worked your way through the http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia#Specific_Cases_Illustrating_the_Endemic_Problems?

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 21st July 2008, 2:54am) *

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Blacketer&diff=226709750&oldid=226129932 The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.


IPB Image

Here's to plain speaking and clear understanding, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0008847/quotes.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 20th July 2008, 7:52pm) *

Jpgordon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=226695190#Jayvdb on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back&diff=prev&oldid=226555500#Heaven_sent_--.3E_expelled_from_heaven
QUOTE
... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)



Jpgordon is hopelessly beyond reason. He has repeatedly shown that he treasures trolls and has nothing but contempt for productive contributors. To resign at his request is misguided, as it suggests respect for his opinion.

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(Random832 @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:30pm) *

QUOTE(Neil @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:17pm) *

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".


The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Wikipedia would be greatly improved if many of the admins would just shut up. Perhaps admins could be given a monthly quota of words they are allowed to use. The way to remove the "status" associated with being an admin is to stop them from expending so many words.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 21st July 2008, 2:54am) *

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Blacketer&diff=226709750&oldid=226129932 The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Drunken tongue lashing? For telling an Arb to do their job (or do anything for that matter)? If you think this is a tongue lashing, you should look at some of the stale evidence against JzG.

Gotta say that the Fat Man is one of my favorite Wikipedians. My sense of humor agrees with his posts, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=220459572 gave me belly laughs. Plenty of editors wrung their hands and called Tony a troll, but no user pegged him as well as the Fat Man did.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 25th July 2008, 6:10am) *

QUOTE(Random832 @ Sun 20th July 2008, 8:30pm) *

QUOTE(Neil @ Mon 14th July 2008, 2:17pm) *

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".


The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Wikipedia would be greatly improved if many of the admins would just shut up. Perhaps admins could be given a monthly quota of words they are allowed to use. The way to remove the "status" associated with being an admin is to stop them from expending so many words.


You want them to stop discussing admin matters in public? That would be a disaster. Without having to worry about the community's reaction, there would be far more bans with far less cause, and admins would become vastly more powerful. Only people with the right connections--the ability to privately make a successful appeal to a certain admin--would have any hope of being unbanned.

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 24th July 2008, 10:54pm) *
You want them to stop discussing admin matters in public? That would be a disaster. Without having to worry about the community's reaction, there would be far more bans with far less cause, and admins would become vastly more powerful. Only people with the right connections--the ability to privately make a successful appeal to a certain admin--would have any hope of being unbanned.

Hardly. It is rather that the number of words written, the number of irrelevant issues brought up, and the attacks among the participants in this case are excessive and destructive. Regardless of what Arbcom decides or does not decide to do in this case Wikipedia afterwords will be a worse place.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 25th July 2008, 6:10am) *

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Funnily enough, just hours ago the admins here were being berated for not having vast reams of public discussion about a particularly problematic user.

Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd

QUOTE(guy @ Fri 25th July 2008, 3:05am) *

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 25th July 2008, 6:10am) *

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Funnily enough, just hours ago the admins here were being berated for not having vast reams of public discussion about a particularly problematic user.

If you read some of the notices posted to ANI you will find numerous cases of gross injustice and many instances of stupid and abusive administrators, but no notice is given because no high profile names are involved. On the other hand, a couple of questionable words by Giano will result in the expenditure of thousands and thousands of words.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 25th July 2008, 7:49am) *
If you read some of the notices posted to ANI you will find numerous cases of gross injustice and many instances of stupid and abusive administrators, but no notice is given because no high profile names are involved. On the other hand, a couple of questionable words by Giano will result in the expenditure of thousands and thousands of words.
There's not much drama to be had in a cop beating up some random civilian. People only care when it's a politician's kid or something. Wikipedia is no different than real life in that regard.

Posted by: Jonathan

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Jonathan @ Fri 25th July 2008, 10:39am) *

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2/Proposed_decision#Motion_for_dismissal once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(One @ Thu 24th July 2008, 11:25pm) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 21st July 2008, 2:54am) *

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Blacketer&diff=226709750&oldid=226129932 The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Drunken tongue lashing? For telling an Arb to do their job (or do anything for that matter)? If you think this is a tongue lashing, you should look at some of the stale evidence against JzG.

Gotta say that the Fat Man is one of my favorite Wikipedians. My sense of humor agrees with his posts, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=220459572 gave me belly laughs. Plenty of editors wrung their hands and called Tony a troll, but no user pegged him as well as the Fat Man did.
Um, I think "Obesity" probably is the Fat Man, actually, judging by post style and content, and by user name. But he's one of my favourites too.

Posted by: Heat

Has FeloniousMonk quit Wikipedia? He hasn't edited since WP:AN undid a block of his.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Mon 28th July 2008, 2:55am) *

Um, I think "Obesity" probably is the Fat Man, actually, judging by post style and content, and by user name. But he's one of my favourites too.

Man, he got me. Sarcasm doesn't exist on my planet.


QUOTE(Heat @ Mon 28th July 2008, 3:01am) *

Has FeloniousMonk quit Wikipedia? He hasn't edited since WP:AN undid a block of his.

It's just over a week. Just over five days for his sock. Premature.

Posted by: that one guy

Odd Nature also poofed the day after kwsn proposes that Fm and ON are socks. Figures.

Posted by: Rhindle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

Posted by: Shalom

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 30th July 2008, 4:57pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.


I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Give Privatemusings and Dorftrottel a barnstar of good humor!

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 30th July 2008, 5:01pm) *

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)

I think it's the best use of the Reward Board since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reward_board&diff=162049910&oldid=160397172.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 30th July 2008, 9:01pm) *

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 30th July 2008, 4:57pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.


I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Give Privatemusings and Dorftrottel a barnstar of good humor!

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)


I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.

Posted by: Bob Boy

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th July 2008, 6:38pm) *

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.


Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

Posted by: Shalom

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 30th July 2008, 9:17pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th July 2008, 6:38pm) *

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.


Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?


Welcome to the Review, Bob Boy! This has been an unending topic of conversation since I've joined and long before.

The short answer is that Kohs was promoting an external business venture, whereas Wikipedians who answer the Reward Board are just looking for a little cash as extra incentive to approve Wikipedia. The long answer would require yet another debate on whether there's any substantive difference between the Reward Board and Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 30th July 2008, 9:17pm) *

Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?


Wow, I didn't know that we had a need for Remedial Paid Editing 101.

Your reading assignment, Bob: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16793247/

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 30th July 2008, 6:17pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th July 2008, 6:38pm) *

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.


Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

Well, these are not conflict-of-interest offers. You have, for example, somebody offering money for articles about Furries ($150 for a featured article-class article, which BTW is the highest amount I see on the list), but not about himself or his business. Or, another guy wants improvement in any article about Judaica, Alaska, or South Park. (One supposes he likes Kyle a lot).

The main thing all this has in common, is work flows TO the foundation. The foundation never pays out for editing, but it allows OTHER people to donate time or money or anything else (no, I haven't seen an offer of sex yet sad.gif ) to YET OTHERS for editing that is guaranteed not to directly benefit anybody BUT the foundation.

Even more worthy of note in this regard is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board. Any user can make donation to the WMF in another user's name for a given editing job done. So Cla68, if you can improve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_Matter (note the second cap, so this handily directs to the band, not the substance, so no need for a dab) to FA status, I can donate $10 in your name to WMF. Everybody wins. Unlike Kohs' evil scheme, which would introduce paid POVs into the pristine WP which now is mercifully free of any POV.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 30th July 2008, 11:50pm) *

Well, these are not conflict-of-interest offers. You have, for example, somebody offering money for articles about Furries ($150 for a featured article-class article, which BTW is the highest amount I see on the list), but not about himself or his business. Or, another guy wants improvement in any article about Judaica, Alaska, or South Park. (One supposes he likes Kyle a lot).


Yes, Milton is spot-on in his analysis of the Reward Board. With the Reward Board, we know for absolute certain that the people offering the money have only the neutral, free content interests of the Foundation project at heart. The offers are made selflessly by long-time, trusted Wikipedians, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.94.149.169.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 30th July 2008, 9:57pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.


That seems generous. I could decide it in one minute with one sentence, no reward necessary.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 30th July 2008, 9:57pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.


Is it allowable to set conditions; e.g. "only if JzG is desysoped and urged to seek treatment?"

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 30th July 2008, 11:28pm) *

Is it allowable to set conditions; e.g. "only if JzG is desysoped and urged to seek treatment?"


IPB Image

Posted by: prospero

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 26th July 2008, 1:44pm) *

QUOTE(Jonathan @ Fri 25th July 2008, 10:39am) *

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2/Proposed_decision#Motion_for_dismissal once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(prospero @ Fri 1st August 2008, 6:03pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 26th July 2008, 1:44pm) *

QUOTE(Jonathan @ Fri 25th July 2008, 10:39am) *

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2/Proposed_decision#Motion_for_dismissal once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rschen7754 is a very good http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Walled_garden&diff=next&oldid=175630953:
IPB Image

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very http://cmap.m-plex.com/user/rschen7754/ today"


Also, he makes sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EXfaktor&diff=prev&oldid=206143203 on editing road articles.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

QUOTE(Cedric @ Fri 1st August 2008, 7:38pm) *

QUOTE(prospero @ Fri 1st August 2008, 6:03pm) *

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rschen7754 is a very good http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Walled_garden&diff=next&oldid=175630953:
IPB Image

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very http://cmap.m-plex.com/user/rschen7754/ today"


Also, he makes sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EXfaktor&diff=prev&oldid=206143203 on editing road articles.


Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Fri 1st August 2008, 11:43pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Fri 1st August 2008, 7:38pm) *

QUOTE(prospero @ Fri 1st August 2008, 6:03pm) *

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rschen7754 is a very good http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Walled_garden&diff=next&oldid=175630953:
IPB Image

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very http://cmap.m-plex.com/user/rschen7754/ today"


Also, he makes sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EXfaktor&diff=prev&oldid=206143203 on editing road articles.


Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Yes, the very same.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 2nd August 2008, 6:58am) *

QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Fri 1st August 2008, 11:43pm) *

Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Yes, the very same.

What name is he editing under now? I'm getting nostalgic for his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=21141279 bannar.

Ahhh... the good old days.

Posted by: thekohser


QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 30th July 2008, 4:57pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.


Ryulong http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Bear_Rock_Cafe one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 2nd August 2008, 9:58pm) *
Ryulong http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Bear_Rock_Cafe one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Meaning, in this case, "you're a sockpuppet of someone, and I can't be bothered to find out who, so after two edits, the second of which disses a cabal member, you're OUT!"

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 3rd August 2008, 2:33am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 2nd August 2008, 9:58pm) *
Ryulong http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Bear_Rock_Cafe one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Meaning, in this case, "you're a sockpuppet of someone, and I can't be bothered to find out who, so after two edits, the second of which disses a cabal member, you're OUT!"


That would absolutely appear to be the case here, although Alison (our friend) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong#User:Bear_Rock_Cafe that the account is "Wikipedia Review again". That makes Ryulong's actions okay, you know?

Posted by: Derktar

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#August_16th

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Derktar @ Sat 9th August 2008, 10:47pm) *

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#August_16th

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 9th August 2008, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(Derktar @ Sat 9th August 2008, 10:47pm) *

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#August_16th

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

Very true. But in the end, it's the fault of the "community." By its nature it is incapable of unifying in any meaningful way to take action, there are always enough counter-agents willing to halt much-needed reform. The fact that most people never get involved and stay ignorant of the power structure doesn't help.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 9th August 2008, 3:58pm) *

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

Well, to be cynical a moment, you might consider that the thing is INTENDED to be something other than what it named. They need a low-budget attack machine, but can't exactly call it WP:ATTACKMACHINE, now can they?

It's a lot like the law. Socially-acceptable money-extraction revenge-machine is highly descriptive. But TORT is actually the name it goes by.

Posted by: LaraLove

It's actually shameful that they've let it go on this long with nothing. And I tend to agree with the assessment that it's a matter of SV support on ArbCom, leading them to ignore the case because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. It says multitudes about the character of these people. And the longer they leave it festering, the more pissed off the community following the case becomes.

When your choice is to stay loyal to a clique of abusive admins and editors, or please the greater community by fulfilling the duty they appointed to you, the decision seems like an easy one. But then, things aren't always as they seem.



Death by ArbCom

Apparently, in this political game, it's about seniority and who you know.
It's plugging your ears with your fingers and humming a children's song.
It's curling up in the corner and closing your eyes tight,
Because if you can't see it, then it can't see you, right?
It's effort and energy wasted, and a great deal of time lost.
It's truth discovered, but at what cost?
Any sitting idly by, waiting with bated breath,
Will find that before there is a result, they experience their own death.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Derktar @ Sun 10th August 2008, 12:09am) *

Very true. But in the end, it's the fault of the "community." By its nature it is incapable of unifying in any meaningful way to take action, there are always enough counter-agents willing to halt much-needed reform. The fact that most people never get involved and stay ignorant of the power structure doesn't help.


As far as I know, the community almost unanimously holds Cla68 in high regard and wants SV and the gang to be reined in. The exceptions are the abusers themselves. The community isn't the problem; the problem is that the ArbCom doesn't listen to it.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 9th August 2008, 7:17pm) *
Socially-acceptable money-extraction revenge-machine is highly descriptive. But TORT is actually the name it goes by.

Abusing the law is a popular way to http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/08/odd-socracy-tackles-condos-ad-hoc.html.

Lawyers have a very simple method:

First they shake you up.

Then they shake you down.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Looks like SV's other ArbCom case will be over shortly, a fact that she's not happy over, saying on the Foundation-L list that she requested that the case be extended through the end of August (ArbCom has stated they want all evidence in by Sunday (ie, today), and was rebufffed in no uncertain terms by ArbCom.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sun 10th August 2008, 6:47am) *

Looks like SV's other ArbCom case will be over shortly, a fact that she's not happy over, saying on the Foundation-L list that she requested that the case be extended through the end of August (ArbCom has stated they want all evidence in by Sunday (ie, today), and was rebufffed in no uncertain terms by ArbCom.


And she seems to be http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045192.html... how ironic. And Privatemusings is on that list taking Slim's side (somewhat, at least) and being blasted and smeared by David Gerard.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have printed copies of checkuser reports laying about my house. While I'm sure that will stir Slimmy's paranoia to previously unrealized levels, it's entirely untrue, and to be honest I'm getting tired of being batted around in wikipolitical debates as a convenient Satan.

Posted by: gomi

Also, this thread has just passed 10,000 views, which puts it in the top 5 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12953 (which admittedly hasn't been updated in a while). This is somewhat impressive, given that there has been essentially no news on the topic for some time, but on the other hand, anything that drags on this long is bound to get a lot of page views.

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 11th August 2008, 9:51am) *

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?


If this case somehow is still open in December 2008, any sitting Arb that has the temerity to re-run I'd venture would get shot down in some fairly epic flames, unless it's disclosed in public that there is some kind of honest to goodness war in the backend Arb channels over this case... for a year.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 11th August 2008, 12:53pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 11th August 2008, 9:51am) *

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?


If this case somehow is still open in December 2008, any sitting Arb that has the temerity to re-run I'd venture would get shot down in some fairly epic flames, unless it's disclosed in public that there is some kind of honest to goodness war in the backend Arb channels over this case... for a year.


At this point, I think they would be crucified anyways. If there is truly a backend war, by now, just vote your honest opinion and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 11th August 2008, 4:35pm) *

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have printed copies of checkuser reports laying about my house. While I'm sure that will stir Slimmy's paranoia to previously unrealized levels, it's entirely untrue, and to be honest I'm getting tired of being batted around in wikipolitical debates as a convenient Satan.


http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19710&view=findpost&p=119846

Yeah, maybe he's not all that clear on the modern-day meaning of the word "folder"...

But on the other hand, is it really all that different?

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

You know, I wonder if it'll be closed soon after the Lar/SV case if SV ends up getting dinged in some part. Her pollitical capital would take a big hit, and ArbCom would have very little dissent if they punish her.

Posted by: Neil

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.

Posted by: Carruthers

QUOTE(Neil @ Mon 11th August 2008, 7:15pm) *

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.


yes, but all of that supposes that she does indeed have evidence to present...This exchange would tend to support the idea that she doesn't have any and she's stalling.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Neil @ Mon 11th August 2008, 2:15pm) *

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.
Demanding continuances in order to "prepare one's case" after one has had ample opportunity to do so, and spent that time visibly doing anything other than preparing it, is a good way to demonstrate bad faith. The ArbCom has some experience in this regard, and I don't think they've erred in denying her motion for an extension of time.

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Mon 11th August 2008, 11:33am) *

You know, I wonder if it'll be closed soon after the Lar/SV case if SV ends up getting dinged in some part. Her pollitical capital would take a big hit, and ArbCom would have very little dissent if they punish her.

You forget the Jimbo factor.

Jimbo would wipe any such decision off the map.

And in this case, there's no Giano™, braving the Godking wrath™.

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 11th August 2008, 8:03pm) *

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.


Just mostly.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 11th August 2008, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 11th August 2008, 8:03pm) *

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.
Just mostly.
No argument.

Posted by: Neil

Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

Posted by: Bob Boy

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Tue 12th August 2008, 11:15am) *

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.


There is hope for the case up until the moment someone starts an Arbcom Rain subsection there.

"Arbcom Rain
Some cases end and others run for months"

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Neil @ Tue 12th August 2008, 8:07am) *
Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

Well, SlimVirgin does. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19769 where she gets all mid-legal on Foundation-L's ass concerning it.

Posted by: Neil

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 12th August 2008, 8:18pm) *

QUOTE(Neil @ Tue 12th August 2008, 8:07am) *
Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

Well, SlimVirgin does. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19769 where she gets all mid-legal on Foundation-L's ass concerning it.


Okay, well, the quick summary of my lengthy discussion of the UK's Data Protection Act (I used to teach people about it - and the FOI Act, and (spit) ISO 9001) while working for the NHS) was that it doesn't apply because 1) Wikipedia is in the US, 2) even if it weren't, by submitting content to the website of an organisation you are voluntarily releasing your IP address (which fulfills the consent requirements of the DPA), and the organisation is permitted to retain such personally-identifiable information if there is a relevant business need (eg, protecting the website from abuse), for a set duration of time (q.v. "data retention".

The only way SV could consider the DPA to be applicable would be if the WMF moved to the UK (or anywhere in the EU, as the Data Protection Acts are all broadly similar), and then a checkuser released a user's IP address to a third party without the explicit consent of the IP address user. All this presumes the IP address is not dynamic (as dynamic IPs are not even considered "personally identifiable information").

So, it is, in summary, a nonsense.

Posted by: Rhindle

NYB is now active in the Cla-FM-SV case. Will there be a proposed decision now?

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 13th August 2008, 7:14pm) *

NYB is now active in the Cla-FM-SV case. Will there be a proposed decision now?


If Brad can't reign in the circus, no one can, and CLA-FM-SV will be a standard question on the December elections...

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 11th August 2008, 12:35pm) *

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have...


Wow, this sounds a bit like someone making up nonsense, that time claiming that I have gone around to various online directories and listings, posting false information about Florence Devouard.

Does that sound familiar to you, Kelly?

Posted by: The Joy

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:45am) *

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.


That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 13th August 2008, 8:45pm) *

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

But I finally understand the underlying problem, now the Cla has explained it. You see, they can't decide whether to follow traditional, Shotokan, or full-contact rules. wink.gif

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 14th August 2008, 1:55pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:45am) *

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.


That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)


I have one or two more things to add to the evidence that have occured recently - will post them tonight.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 13th August 2008, 11:55pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:45am) *

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.


That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)


I completely forgot. But there was so much resistance to the BLP part of the ruling, I thought the remedies to the case have been largely ignored by the Community? I can't believe I forgot about the Geogre-Connolly case too.

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_shall_return to Wikipedia, by the way!

Posted by: maggot3

Yep, completely ignored. The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

Posted by: Neil

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Thu 14th August 2008, 10:08am) *

Yep, completely ignored. The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log" has a grand total of 0 entries.


I, personally, find this fact to be very funny. It's like nonviolent resistance.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Thu 14th August 2008, 5:08am) *

Yep, completely ignored. The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Ackbar has some excellent advice about the special enforcement ruling.

Posted by: Neil

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 2:45pm) *

QUOTE(maggot3 @ Thu 14th August 2008, 5:08am) *

Yep, completely ignored. The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Ackbar has some excellent advice about the special enforcement ruling.


I don't get it.

Posted by: cyofee

That joke about Ackbar originates from http://www.itsatrap.net/, I believe.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(cyofee @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:53am) *

That joke about Ackbar originates from http://www.itsatrap.net/, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. sad.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 6:56am) *

QUOTE(cyofee @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:53am) *

That joke about Ackbar originates from http://www.itsatrap.net/, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. sad.gif

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in http://web.archive.org/web/20050313161311/http://www.mich.com/%7Edrhanna/ajcryonics.htm. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoughtwax/2635563316/ needs on a permanent basis.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:00am) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 6:56am) *

QUOTE(cyofee @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:53am) *

That joke about Ackbar originates from http://www.itsatrap.net/, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. sad.gif

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in http://web.archive.org/web/20050313161311/http://www.mich.com/%7Edrhanna/ajcryonics.htm. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoughtwax/2635563316/ needs on a permanent basis.


While I never turn down an opportunity for a good Admiral Ackbar joke or reference (my favorite: Robot Chicken, the Ackbar breakfast cereal: "Your tastebuds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"), lets get the thread back on topic.

That said, when this RFAR was proposed someone should have posted,

==Statement by [[User:XYZ]]==
Its a trap! ~~~~

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 14th August 2008, 11:33am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:00am) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 6:56am) *

QUOTE(cyofee @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:53am) *

That joke about Ackbar originates from http://www.itsatrap.net/, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. sad.gif

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in http://web.archive.org/web/20050313161311/http://www.mich.com/%7Edrhanna/ajcryonics.htm. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoughtwax/2635563316/ needs on a permanent basis.


While I never turn down an opportunity for a good Admiral Ackbar joke or reference (my favorite: Robot Chicken, the Ackbar breakfast cereal: "Your tastebuds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"), lets get the thread back on topic.

That said, when this RFAR was proposed someone should have posted,

==Statement by [[User:XYZ]]==
Its a trap! ~~~~


Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.

On the topic of the omnibus RFAR, you would think that they could propose some really obvious remedies to get the ball going, that nobody could object to. Stuff like "Viridae is prohibited from reversing any administrative action taken by JzG. He may bring any action he believes inappropriate to WP:AN instead." - but no, they are off building sandcastles or something.

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:41am) *

Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.


If that happens, someone using the special enforcement would be a sure test of the Arbcom's authority. If Admin Bob does this, and multiple other admins tear him a new one and undo it, then the Arbcom HAS to step in to uphold, support, and defend Bob and the authority of their BLP enforcement if Bob's actions under their ruling fits what they called for. If they don't, special enforcement and the authority of the Arbcom immediately goes down the toilet, regardless of what Jimmy says to the contrary.


I'm honestly shocked some admin that doesn't like special enforcement HASN'T done this as a test.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 14th August 2008, 11:51am) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:41am) *

Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.


If that happens, someone using the special enforcement would be a sure test of the Arbcom's authority. If Admin Bob does this, and multiple other admins tear him a new one and undo it, then the Arbcom HAS to step in to uphold, support, and defend Bob and the authority of their BLP enforcement if Bob's actions under their ruling fits what they called for. If they don't, special enforcement and the authority of the Arbcom immediately goes down the toilet, regardless of what Jimmy says to the contrary.


I'm honestly shocked some admin that doesn't like special enforcement HASN'T done this as a test.


I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways. Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?

Posted by: Rootology

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:07am) *

I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways.


That is an impossible scenario. Even if it was uncontroversial, there are some people utterly opposed to it, and given that aside from Jimmy's unproven/untested statement the other day that the community has no power over Arbcom, more than one person would force it as a test case. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't. As for the Arbcom keeping silent, they can try, but if precedent gets set in a way they won't like, then whats the point of being an Arbcom? If they don't defend it they've lost.

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:07am) *

Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?


Some people have personal moral fiber, I suppose.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 14th August 2008, 12:13pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:07am) *

I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways.


That is an impossible scenario. Even if it was uncontroversial, there are some people utterly opposed to it, and given that aside from Jimmy's unproven/untested statement the other day that the community has no power over Arbcom, more than one person would force it as a test case. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't. As for the Arbcom keeping silent, they can try, but if precedent gets set in a way they won't like, then whats the point of being an Arbcom? If they don't defend it they've lost.

I cannot fathom what was going through the minds of the ArbCom members when they wrote up that decision. Perhaps one might choose to enlighten us. Perhaps not. I am also unsure how attached Arbcomi is to it, they might not care enough to save it.

I mean, one where you could get a consensus at WP:AN to impose a topic ban or whatever special measure you want, without "special enforcement". You might be right, but I am not sure many people would come out just for the principle of opposing special enforcement on a clear case.

QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 14th August 2008, 12:13pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 9:07am) *

Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?


Some people have personal moral fiber, I suppose.


Maybe. But I am only speaking here about cases where they could get what they wanted without sticking their neck out anyways. Few (if any) people will want to accept possibly risky responsibility for something that can happen without them assuming liability.

Posted by: One

NYB is on the case, and we have only a few more days. Turns out the answer to this OP's question is: probably just lazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status

Posted by: DevilYouKnow

QUOTE(One @ Thu 14th August 2008, 8:28pm) *

NYB is on the case, and we have only a few more days. Turns out the answer to this OP's question is: probably just lazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status


A proposed decision is a good start, at least the arbs get the opportunity to vote up or down on each issue. If anyone can propose a suitable compromise to the whole mess, it's NYB.

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 27th June 2008, 9:28am) *

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?


As far as the original poster's question goes, my guess is the arbs are at a stalemate. The "let's pretend this never happened" motion to dismiss filed a month ago certainly suggests as much.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(DevilYouKnow @ Thu 14th August 2008, 7:32pm) *
As far as the original poster's question goes, my guess is the arbs are at a stalemate. The "let's pretend this never happened" motion to dismiss filed a month ago certainly suggests as much.

Much the same predicted in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18718. Everybody will get a hug. Except Cla68.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 14th August 2008, 11:41am) *

but no, they are off building sandcastles or something.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgBMFwVeIGI&feature=related

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.

Posted by: Neil

If there is any censoring of SV or FM, at all, in the case, NYB's participation on Wikipedia Review is guaranteed to be raised on their part (either by them or by acquaintances)

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 15th August 2008, 8:39am) *

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.


There would just be another case in two months, and another two months later, and so on, and so forth, until they actually dealt with it. Or the next ArbCom, or the one after that.

Half-assed sanctions may push the timescales back, but delays work badly for the old-timers, because they just do not get recruits like the young ones.

If the only thing Brad accomplishes though is to communicate to the community that the ArbCom has not forgotten about the case, that they are actually discussing it rather than doing body shots in a shady Bismark, North Dakota bar, he will restore a lot of community's confidence in ArbCom. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know.

(Not all of it though. The would definitely require the "Nuke them all from orbit" remedy.)

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 15th August 2008, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 15th August 2008, 8:39am) *

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.


There would just be another case in two months, and another two months later, and so on, and so forth, until they actually dealt with it. Or the next ArbCom, or the one after that.

Half-assed sanctions may push the timescales back, but delays work badly for the old-timers, because they just do not get recruits like the young ones.

If the only thing Brad accomplishes though is to communicate to the community that the ArbCom has not forgotten about the case, that they are actually discussing it rather than doing body shots in a shady Bismark, North Dakota bar, he will restore a lot of community's confidence in ArbCom. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know.

(Not all of it though. The would definitely require the "Nuke them all from orbit" remedy.)


I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 15th August 2008, 10:02am) *

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status

But if Brad is received as God, the rest of the committee with at least bask in his limelight as angels.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 15th August 2008, 7:11am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 15th August 2008, 10:02am) *

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status
This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

Posted by: JoseClutch

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th August 2008, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 15th August 2008, 7:11am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 15th August 2008, 10:02am) *

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status
This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

Nay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th August 2008, 3:07am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 11th August 2008, 12:35pm) *

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have...


Wow, this sounds a bit like someone making up nonsense, that time claiming that I have gone around to various online directories and listings, posting false information about Florence Devouard.

Does that sound familiar to you, Kelly?


If she hasn't acknowledged this yet, she's not going to, and you're just wasting bytes by continuing to bring it up.

My guess: she did it for the lulz.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 15th August 2008, 9:24am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th August 2008, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 15th August 2008, 7:11am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 15th August 2008, 10:02am) *

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Status
This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

Nay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job


Well I'm just glad those nasty boils finally cleared up.

Congrats to NYB on a well played "depart and return," more than can be said for most who employ that particular maneuver. His social networking influence will certainly increase. Shame his reasoning, as demonstrated here, was pretty good. At Wikipedia he will evaluated for his network capital and not the quality of his thoughts. The sycophants will ultimately wear him down.