QUOTE(One @ Tue 9th March 2010, 10:27am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th March 2010, 1:48pm)
And you persist in day-after-day participation on an ineffective, inept ArbCom (for free!) that daily seems more about throwing weight around than actually arbitrating intellectual disputes that might arise in the construction of an English encyclopedia.
Lots of editors here persist, One is unusual in being both active here and sorta active on ArbComm. I was persisting, again, for a while. I'm amused that being blocked, I can't withdraw my current RfAr/Clarification there, but simply requested it on my Talk page. At that point only Newyorkbrad had commented, but it had become obvious to me that I wasn't going to get the clarification needed, unless it was clarification on the lines of "Don't bother with what the restriction passed by the last ArbComm actually said, it's the intention that counts, and the arbs who intended to allow you some editing freedom lost. Go away! You may edit still, as long as you keep quiet when you see someone being mugged by one of us or someone we support." Which is fine, at least it is clear. Just so the arbs realize what they are effectively asserting; perhaps they don't. That's why I have one more step, and if that step results in a site ban, so be it. They won't have any excuse but a simple, clear, focused RfAr alleging blatant recusal failure, and if they reject it, I'm then completely clear of any responsibility to pursue it. It's not about the admin in question, he seems to be not a bad sort. It's about policy. I won't be asking for anything but a confirmation -- or rejection or clarification -- of policy.
And if ArbComm can't do that, what, precisely, is it for? [Cue standard WR responses]
QUOTE
I also note the lack of self-awareness between your comment and your signature -- "no comment on Wikipedia personalities". It is to laugh.
QUOTE
You got me there. Poor self-control and self-awareness, I guess.
Thanks again for persevering. Now that your message has reached even me (through my inch-think ArbCom skull), I think you can take a break. Thanks!
As I retreat from on-wiki activity, it will become clearer to those who are interested what my "agenda" has been. There have been plenty of editors like One who have done their best to improve the project and have turned out to be ineffective, in the end. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem, in fact. Just stating it is difficult, I doubt I could do it in 25 words or less, though we might have a contest....
Here is just a hint: The project depends upon the volunteer labor of hordes of editors, and even many administrators. Any sane person, unless given good working conditions, would stay away. Therefore, as noted in a recent amusing video mentioned on enwiki-l, anyone who does this, more than a little, is a bit crazy or obsessive or has some agenda. To become an administrator means getting the approval of this community, which means you can't merely be a generally trustworthy person, who might understand, for example, what recusal policy would require.
Sane people with some time on their hands occasionally make it into the select group, but they are outnumbered. Maybe even outnumbered greatly. Classic (Sufi) method of handling insanity: put the insane person together with ten sane people. Keep them in contact for an extended period. Human beings are social animals, we are designed to
usually become sane under those conditions. But ... if the insane people outnumber the sane, it doesn't work. One sane person cannot overcome a larger number of crazies. Indeed, it's perfectly reasonable under those conditions to consider the sane person "crazy." For even trying! Instead, leaving the asylum is the normal sane response, if it's possible. And it is, indeed, possible for me to pull that Watchlist link off my browser favorites.
Because there is such a gap between the ideals of Wikipedia and the realization, it may be possible to rescue the project, but not by immersing oneself in it. It has to be done outside. And you will be seeing more of me on this, I hope.
It's only about one day out of a week that I even think it's possible.
Ah! The problem. Wikipedia depends on those crazies. Confront them, they may leave. That's why if there are two dozen editors screaming that Abd should be banned, as they have ever since I began directly confronting admin abuse, given some clear cases, the decision does not depend on whether Abd was right or not. It's simple math. If we offend the two dozen, we will, it's easy to think, get much less editing labor going into the project. Greatest good for the greatest number.
It's an old argument. It's defective, but to see through it takes what few Wikipedia editors, administrators, and apparently arbitrators have: perspective and depth. It took over two thousand years for modern society to build structures that even made it possible to move beyond the mob, and even there it's quite shaky. It's known how to do it. But not in the community that built Wikipedia, largely; there are traces of the knowledge in the policies and guidelines, but it did not get built in in a way that could protect what's necessary to protect. And the core became hostile to any solutions that would do this, for classic reasons.
Shoemaker's Holiday flames out
