Manipulation of BLPs, now open Options Rating

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

[SpiderAndWeb]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

How do I access the mailing list mentioned in Motion 2?

[-DS-]

I wish I had started my latest "good hand" sock earlier. Now I can't do a goddamned thing about this without drawing suspicion. (I attracted enough of that just by voting in an AFD, and I don't want anymore thank you very much. I want to get this one to admin)

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

How do I access the mailing list mentioned in Motion 2?

I think the question is whether it exists yet.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

What about SlimVirgin? I think she has been lying low, because she can smell the climate of outrage over the BLP abusers. If this arbcom case doesn't address her past activities, she can just start up again after the dust settles.

[No one of consequence]

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

What about SlimVirgin? I think she has been lying low, because she can smell the climate of outrage over the BLP abusers. If this arbcom case doesn't address her past activities, she can just start up again after the dust settles.

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

[Detective]

Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

ArbCom will not be modifying the BLP policy, or any other policy. It is not within their remit to do so. What they can and probably will do is make up a set of guidelines for their own benefit when considering future cases where BLP is an issue. These guidelines may or may not be consistent with the current BLP policy, or what people think that the policy is (not always the same thing). If they're inconsistent, well, that's ArbCom for you.

[No one of consequence]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

What makes this case tricky from the Arbs' point of view is that the alleged chronic POV-bashers are admins. Admins represent a privileged caste. If the BLP abusers were from the proletariat, they might be banned without a second thought. But when admins are caught violating policy, the unconscious reflex is to accuse the whistle-blowers of being stalkers, harassers, and so forth. The Arbs are trying to resolve what is for them a delicate situation, where the evidence of malfeasance on the part of Cirt, Will Beback, SV etc. is very strong, and the Arbs need to make it appear like they are taking it seriously without intruding upon the privileged status of the admins. This will be a test of whether we are dealing with the "old," Fred Bauder-era ArbCom, or a new, reformed ArbCom that will actually respond to demands from the "community" for uniform enforcement of existing policies.

Some of the admins in question have made no effort to disguise their hostility toward the BLP policy. Here are two helpful examples:

1. The news and entertainment media frequently mix editorial commentary with their news coverage of controversial persons. This practice is questionable in a newspaper, but antithetical to the writing of an encyclopedia. The pro-defamation faction, however, relies on this sort of thing, and they react with outrage if its inclusion is challenged under BLP. SlimVirgin: "The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors." diff

2. The BLP policy explicitly discourages the use of allegations against public figures that are made by anonymous sources. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. However, when Will Beback is called on his incessant use of such material, he takes evasive action:
Will Beback: "It's standard across Wikipedia to use reports in reliable sources, even when those reports use anonymous sources." diff

[No one of consequence]

Admins represent a privileged caste.

Not to me. (I think I'm wholly or partly responsible for 5 or 6 desysoppings, I forget.)

I wonder what would happen if I re-engaged on WP and decided to police BLP complaints. Do I have enough hit points to make a block against an admin stick? But it's a thought experiment only, I have no intention of re-engaging to the level needed for such a trial.

[lilburne]

It sounds like they are not looking to punish any particular person for past activities but to examine past editing practices and set new best practice guidelines for the future. If you have an account and want to participate in the case, go ahead and post some diffs against SV, or any other editor engaged in the same thing. But don't expect any sanctions to arise out of this case. Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

Obviously there is nothing unclear about BLP policy. The statement of scope, as written, suggests that they do not intend to hand out sanctions in this round, but rather to examine BLP editing in general. I hope I have read it wrong. Otherwise this exercise will be a profound waste of time.

Of course it is a waste of time. To change anything would result in ... changing something, and the site is incapable of doing that. There are far too many wikifiddlers looking to add their regurgitated little bit of current news to some article or other.

The BLP problems can mostly be sourced to polemical news reporting as entertainment. Whilst there is a system where editors think that "If its sourced somewhere I can add it" there will be BLP concerns. A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

Interesting idea -- you can only use material that has "stood the test of time." It would probably get rid of "the bulk," but not all. The BLP-bashers invest ungodly numbers of hours searching old archived press coverage to try to find the really nasty, inflammatory stuff. The problem is that there are increasingly tertiary sources that do that work for them, and publish compendia of old defamations. And since these are books, they have been sanctified as RS.

[lilburne]

A simple rule that the only RS with respect to controversial facts or opinions about BLP are those sources published 12 months after the event described. The bulk of the BLP horrors would disappear at a stroke. That means all TV and newspaper chatter contemporaneous with an event are unreliable and cannot be used. Contemporaneous sources maybe be used for undisputed matters of facts.

Interesting idea -- you can only use material that has "stood the test of time." It would probably get rid of "the bulk," but not all. The BLP-bashers invest ungodly numbers of hours searching old archived press coverage to try to find the really nasty, inflammatory stuff. The problem is that there are increasingly tertiary sources that do that work for them, and publish compendia of old defamations. And since these are books, they have been sanctified as RS.

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

I can think of a few admins who can filibuster for weeks on that topic, until you find yourself exhausted and off editing some list article.

[Abd]

If the Daily Post article of June 1 1976 is not a reliable source for a controversial fact or opinion, having it quoted in a book of published on June 1 2011 does not suddenly make it a reliable source for the controversial fact or opinion.

I can think of a few admins who can filibuster for weeks on that topic, until you find yourself exhausted and off editing some list article.

A lot of mischief is done by failure to understand RS and notability policy. If something is quoted in independent RS, it's been "noticed." There is now secondary source. That increases its potential usability on Wikipedia. It's a complex issue.

The nature of the book would matter, for example. That something appears in reliable source does not make it a "fact." Usually it will establish it as the notable opinion of the one issuing the opinion, or at least as something alleged to be that person's opinion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Abd, I think you are sort of missing the point here. BLPs are held to a different standard than other sorts of articles. For example, opinions about living persons, by other persons living or no, may not belong in BLPs. Rumors definitely do not belong in BLPs, although in other sorts of articles, they may be entirely appropriate if they meet the notability threshold. A published rumor about an episode of "Family Guy" may be just dandy in the relevant article.

BLPs, on the other hand, are supposed to be "written conservatively." The BLP manipulators, however, argue that the same standards that are used for other articles ought to apply to BLPs as well, opening the door for the rumors, gossip, opinion, and so forth that are their stock in trade.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Rather, expect a new set of behavioral guidelines with which to drag offenders to the bar in the future.

What, the BLP policy as it stands is considered unclear?

ArbCom will not be modifying the BLP policy, or any other policy. It is not within their remit to do so. What they can and probably will do is make up a set of guidelines for their own benefit when considering future cases where BLP is an issue. These guidelines may or may not be consistent with the current BLP policy, or what people think that the policy is (not always the same thing). If they're inconsistent, well, that's ArbCom for you.

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

[No one of consequence]

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

Call me foggy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The problem is that Arbcom does not have a meeting of the minds about what the case is for. Kiril has a different goal than JV and whoever drafted the "scope" statement. I would prefer that they march right in and bust some heads (which apparently makes Will nervous). If they want to do a fact-finding mission and bust heads later, I can live with it, as long as they actually follow through with the head-busting. The worst option would be to try and do both at the same time, with two factions of Arbitrators pushing different agendas.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is a big debate about this now on this page. Kirill says "The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered." Will Beback seems very nervous and asks several times "Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?" But then it goes into a fog of bureaucratic proposals.

Call me foggy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The problem is that Arbcom does not have a meeting of the minds about what the case is for. Kiril has a different goal than JV and whoever drafted the "scope" statement. I would prefer that they march right in and bust some heads (which apparently makes Will nervous). If they want to do a fact-finding mission and bust heads later, I can live with it, as long as they actually follow through with the head-busting. The worst option would be to try and do both at the same time, with two factions of Arbitrators pushing different agendas.

The problem is that they bought the initial formulation from ResidentAnthropologist, which coyly says, "This group of editors is abusing the hell out of BLPs, and this other group is being mean to them by calling attention to it. Which group do we like?" Unless they just admit that BLP abuse is going on and proceed with a normal case, this will be a profound waste of time, as Thatcher/No One put it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will has his undies in a bunch and is agitating for them not to do that.

[radek]

<snip> For example, opinions about living persons, by other persons living or no, may not belong in BLPs. <snip>

That's not actually what BLP policy says. For example, some opinions of David Duke or David Irving by others certainly belong in the respective articles - just not any old opinions. In fact even for boring ol' researchers that no one's heard of, criticism of their research by others certainly belongs in the respective article (in some cases its inclusion is essential for neutrality). It's just that all of this has to come from "high quality sources" and if there's a question as to a source's reliability then one should err on the side of caution. And attribute.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

[No one of consequence]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

John and Kiril have been silent for a while. I wonder if the Arbs are discussing this on the mailing list, trying to come up with a coherent plan of action here. (I don't suppose Malice has current list access? Oh well.)

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[EricBarbour]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

John and Kiril have been silent for a while. I wonder if the Arbs are discussing this on the mailing list, trying to come up with a coherent plan of action here. (I don't suppose Malice has current list access? Oh well.

McWhiney should have been banned years ago. You know it and I know it and everyone
on this forum knows it.

So here's the rub: I predict that Arbcom will flop around like a dead fish for a few weeks,
and someone will close the case as "unresolved" or slap his wrist ever-so-lightly.

They are only "useful" when the miscreant has no extra-sleazy admin buds to back him up.
That should be posted on the top of the arbcom page, if there is any truth in advertising.

[NuclearWarfare]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

John and Kiril have been silent for a while. I wonder if the Arbs are discussing this on the mailing list, trying to come up with a coherent plan of action here. (I don't suppose Malice has current list access? Oh well.

McWhiney should have been banned years ago. You know it and I know it and everyone
on this forum knows it.

So here's the rub: I predict that Arbcom will flop around like a dead fish for a few weeks,
and someone will close the case as "unresolved" or slap his wrist ever-so-lightly.

They are only "useful" when the miscreant has no extra-sleazy admin buds to back him up.
That should be posted on the top of the arbcom page, if there is any truth in advertising.

Wait, who is McWhiney?

[The Adversary]

Wait, who is McWhiney?

Look it up on the Hive-Mind (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (Hersh missed an "m", though)

[Milton Roe]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

John and Kiril have been silent for a while. I wonder if the Arbs are discussing this on the mailing list, trying to come up with a coherent plan of action here. (I don't suppose Malice has current list access? Oh well.

McWhiney should have been banned years ago. You know it and I know it and everyone
on this forum knows it.

So here's the rub: I predict that Arbcom will flop around like a dead fish for a few weeks,
and someone will close the case as "unresolved" or slap his wrist ever-so-lightly.

They are only "useful" when the miscreant has no extra-sleazy admin buds to back him up.
That should be posted on the top of the arbcom page, if there is any truth in advertising.

Wait, who is McWhiney?

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Will_McWhinney_Jr.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Wait, who is McWhiney?

Look it up on the Hive-Mind (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (Hersh missed an "m", though)

I beg your pardon?

[The Adversary]

Wait, who is McWhiney?

Look it up on the Hive-Mind (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (Hersh missed an "m", though)

I beg your pardon?

My bad! Sorry for my lacking English; I didn´t get the pun at once.
Now back to school. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

[Milton Roe]

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

(IMG:http://s288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/prettyhorse3.jpg)

[Cla68]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

The sheer scale of the anti-cult, anti-demogogue, and other activist activity that Will has been involved with over the years in Wikipedia will take a lot more than 500 words and 50 diffs to show in an evidence section. I get the sense that WP's administration is just waiting for someone to put it all together to justify a topic ban for Will on everything but basket weaving and Norteño music (no offense to the editors who edit those topics).

Incredibly, he's still at it, even when facing an ArbCom case clearly requested with him in mind. When this sketchy BLP material was removed from the LaRouche article, Will immediately added it to a another LaRouche article. His attempts to manipulate the ArbCom case remind me a lot of how Mantanmoreland used to act whenever admin spotlight was shown on his actions.

[No one of consequence]

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

(IMG:http://s288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/prettyhorse3.jpg)

OT, but WTF is that?

[A Horse With No Name]

OT, but WTF is that?

It's my brother-in-law. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Jagärdu]

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

(IMG:http://s288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/prettyhorse3.jpg)

OT, but WTF is that?

A seahorse, of course.

[Jagärdu]

So here's the rub: I predict that Arbcom will flop around like a dead fish for a few weeks,
and someone will close the case as "unresolved" or slap his wrist ever-so-lightly.

They are only "useful" when the miscreant has no extra-sleazy admin buds to back him up.
That should be posted on the top of the arbcom page, if there is any truth in advertising.

That sounds about right. This case isn't just going nowhere it already has gone nowhere. Note the confusion around its drafting (which remains), the feet dragging to get it going, and once it did get going the case was graced with a newbie posting evidence right off the bat. Nobody seems concerned about this one, including the otherwise ever so mindful HersfoldArbClerkBot. But in all seriousness how likely is it that this person also contributes here? Congratulations whoever you are ...

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Vigilant]

This is shaping up as a standard arbcom matter with a popular (in some circles) senior editor.

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

It's so often repeated it's gone beyond a cliche.

I would venture a guess that there is an implicit arrangement, a hidden social contract, wherein the editor in trouble goes away for a bit and the arbcom can play a bit ignorant and the problem just ... goes ... away.

The editor doesn't get any severe sanctions for showing up and arguing (creating drama and strife are always bad) and the arbcom doesn't have to be the big meanie (aka, do their fucking job for a change) and everyone who matters (not the great unwashed masses, heaven forbid) walks away satisfied by the kabuki theater.

That's where my money is.

[Jagärdu]

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

So what you're saying is that Cirt is Cbrick77. Ding, ding, ding.

Wouldn't that be fun.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Jagärdu]

This is shaping up as a standard arbcom matter with a popular (in some circles) senior editor.

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

It's so often repeated it's gone beyond a cliche.

I would venture a guess that there is an implicit arrangement, a hidden social contract, wherein the editor in trouble goes away for a bit and the arbcom can play a bit ignorant and the problem just ... goes ... away.

The editor doesn't get any severe sanctions for showing up and arguing (creating drama and strife are always bad) and the arbcom doesn't have to be the big meanie (aka, do their fucking job for a change) and everyone who matters (not the great unwashed masses, heaven forbid) walks away satisfied by the kabuki theater.

That's where my money is.

So is Cirt just laying low, or is he starting to develop a new account like he did when he switched over from Smee? I mean maybe his life is in danger again. I'm still not certain I believe it ever was. Malice, aren't there any emails from the list discussing Cirt's off wiki problems when he was Smee? There just has to be.

[Milton Roe]

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

(IMG:http://s288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/prettyhorse3.jpg)

OT, but WTF is that?

A seahorse, of course.

Something definitely fishy about it for sure.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

This is shaping up as a standard arbcom matter with a popular (in some circles) senior editor.

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

It's so often repeated it's gone beyond a cliche.

I would venture a guess that there is an implicit arrangement, a hidden social contract, wherein the editor in trouble goes away for a bit and the arbcom can play a bit ignorant and the problem just ... goes ... away.

The editor doesn't get any severe sanctions for showing up and arguing (creating drama and strife are always bad) and the arbcom doesn't have to be the big meanie (aka, do their fucking job for a change) and everyone who matters (not the great unwashed masses, heaven forbid) walks away satisfied by the kabuki theater.

That's where my money is.

The Cirt case was hived off, and also has its own thread here.

[Vigilant]

So what you're saying is that Cirt is Cbrick77. Ding, ding, ding.

Wouldn't that be fun.

It would be funny, but there's no need for it.

Cirt keeps quiet for a month and nothing comes of this.

Disclaimer: I've never had any contact/conflict with Cirt of any kind. I'm just watching from the sidelines and eating popcorn.

The thing that's really funny is that, from any reasonable outside perspective, Cirt is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
* He OBVIOUSLY wrote political hit pieces with an eye towards attempting to move the debate on the ground.
* He is clearly writing promotional articles about businesses either for money or for other considerations.
* He is so, so clearly an edit warrior with honed skills at wikilawyering who has driven multiple editors from the site with his "dispute resolution" skills (laughably named).

Any of these would be enough to indef/community ban a lesser editor. Will Beback is pulling out the stops to make sure that whatever lands on Cirt is full of feathers instead of the much deserved lead.

The sideshow here is the dancing around the topic of admins/senior editors and the extra privileges and consideration they are accorded.

I may die from a popcorn overdose in the next few days.

[Jagärdu]

So what you're saying is that Cirt is Cbrick77. Ding, ding, ding.

Wouldn't that be fun.

It would be funny, but there's no need for it.

Cirt keeps quiet for a month and nothing comes of this.

Disclaimer: I've never had any contact/conflict with Cirt of any kind. I'm just watching from the sidelines and eating popcorn.

The thing that's really funny is that, from any reasonable outside perspective, Cirt is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
* He OBVIOUSLY wrote political hit pieces with an eye towards attempting to move the debate on the ground.
* He is clearly writing promotional articles about businesses either for money or for other considerations.
* He is so, so clearly an edit warrior with honed skills at wikilawyering who has driven multiple editors from the site with his "dispute resolution" skills (laughably named).

Any of these would be enough to indef/community ban a lesser editor. Will Beback is pulling out the stops to make sure that whatever lands on Cirt is full of feathers instead of the much deserved lead.

The sideshow here is the dancing around the topic of admins/senior editors and the extra privileges and consideration they are accorded.

I may die from a popcorn overdose in the next few days.

Not much to add to that summary, except that there has been a very slow, but steadily growing crowd of people who are fed up with this. Back in the early days it was pretty much just Cirt against a bunch of NRM members and maybe a handful of concerned citizens. That handful does seem to have grown. Jimbo, quite notably, got involved in a couple of these situations, including the Daryl Wine Bar incident, and it wasn't to support Cirt. DGG seems to have turned firmly against Cirt's activities despite being an inclusionist. And so on. This current situation is just a teaser though. I think you'll be able to get even fatter off of popcorn when the sequel comes out, whenever that is.

Ach, so. But it was EricBarbour's pun, not mine.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. I knew Mr. Ed. Mister Ed was a friend of mine. And Will is no Mr. Ed.

(IMG:http://s288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/prettyhorse3.jpg)

OT, but WTF is that?

A seahorse, of course.

Something definitely fishy about it for sure.

There is nothing quite as embarrassing as sticking your hoof in your gills.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will is clearly hoping to shape the way the case is heard.

The sheer scale of the anti-cult, anti-demogogue, and other activist activity that Will has been involved with over the years in Wikipedia will take a lot more than 500 words and 50 diffs to show in an evidence section. I get the sense that WP's administration is just waiting for someone to put it all together to justify a topic ban for Will on everything but basket weaving and Norteño music (no offense to the editors who edit those topics).

Incredibly, he's still at it, even when facing an ArbCom case clearly requested with him in mind. When this sketchy BLP material was removed from the LaRouche article, Will immediately added it to a another LaRouche article. His attempts to manipulate the ArbCom case remind me a lot of how Mantanmoreland used to act whenever admin spotlight was shown on his actions.

Cirt has gone to ground and hasn't edited since July 25. He'll stay quiet until about a month after the arbcom cases are over. Arbcom will get played with the, "but Cirt hasn't edited..it's just not fair to pass judgement...I sure hope he doesn't leave...we should just close these cases while doing nothing..." card.

Cirt knows how to play possum, which is a clever tactic. I don't think Will Beback is capable of pulling that off. When challenged, he gets more manic, more fanatical, and more territorial about the articles he WP:OWNs.

[RMHED]

I don't think Will Beback is capable of pulling that off.

Yeah, Will Beback probably even struggles to pull himself off.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I think what Jehochman says here is actually correct.

[Jagärdu]

I think what Jehochman says here is actually correct.

Jehochman is correct? Time to build that bomb shelter.

[Daniel Brandt]

Multiple choice question: Why is Arbcom unable to examine the BLP issue, and should disqualify itself as utterly incompetent, and admit that the BLP issue cannot be solved given the nature of Wikipedia specifically, and Web 2.0 crowdsourcing in general?

A. The Brandt case is too embarrassing for Wikipedia and would invite adverse publicity.

B. Brandt is banned and everyone on Arbcom is prohibited from mentioning his name.

C. The Brandt bio is scraped and still available all over the web, which means that any BLP remediation efforts by Wikipedia, at any given time, cannot solve the problem for the BLP victim. Wikipedia does not claim copyright on the defamatory and/or privacy-invasive information it publishes, the Foundation disclaims all responsibility, and no one can stop the scrapers even if the article is deleted.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Can someone tell me what is meant by "SEO-like activities" in this post?

[Jagärdu]

Can someone tell me what is meant by "SEO-like activities" in this post?

Search Engine Optimization

[EricBarbour]

Can someone tell me what is meant by "SEO-like activities" in this post?

Search Engine Optimization

In other words, one of the Most Evil Things You Can Mention On Wikipedia.

A phrase they like to toss around whenever they want to harass Greg Kohs again. Because they're
convinced that he's editing WP just to get higher search results for certain information (which is
somewhat true--if you could get massive Googlejuice just by posting something on a website run
by a third party, wouldn't you do it too?)

Of course, this is also why Willie-Poo and Cirt spent so much time posting Bad Things about
"evil men" like LaRouche and Scientologists--because they, too are doing exactly what Greg does.
The difference: Greg is honest, not out to defame someone, and unwilling to play psychopolitics
with the WP Gang--which, of course, means that he's Public Enema Number One in that
Wiki-Freaky-Deaky Show.

Well? Anyone want to disagree?

[No one of consequence]

Well? Anyone want to disagree?

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Kohs in this case. If you read the evidence in the Cirt case and the Cirt RFC/U, it appears that the allegations include adding information and links to biographies to raise their google ranking, when such biographies also contain improperly included negative information.

[Jagärdu]

Well? Anyone want to disagree?

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Kohs in this case. If you read the evidence in the Cirt case and the Cirt RFC/U, it appears that the allegations include adding information and links to biographies to raise their google ranking, when such biographies also contain improperly included negative information.

Indeed, I'm unsure what this has to do with Kohs, though it's pretty amusing how often he gets linked to anything brought up on this board. Time to start a game of 6 degrees of Kohs? Though to the point, anyone who pushes a POV, especially creating articles on topics that probably shouldn't be covered is engaging in this. Usually I don't think people are even intelligent enough to understand the full potential of what they are doing, just trying to cram their shitty POV down everyone else's throat. I do believe that Cirt understands what he's up to. 100%.

[EricBarbour]

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Kohs in this case.

It doesn't, I was just using him as a counterpoint example of their hypocrisy.

Plus, Willie and Hochman are already demanding that the case be closed.

Comment by parties:

It looks like nothing further productive can be done. Let's close this case, and bring any lingering concerns about policy to WT:BLP, or about specific incidents to WP:BLPN. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and no on can agree on what its scope is or should be. If there are genuine disputes that require the committee's attention it'd be best to start over with a fresh request. Will Beback talk 06:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Do you think that Willie and Hochman have actual legitimate fears that something may come of this?

[No one of consequence]

Do you think that Willie and Hochman have actual legitimate fears that something may come of this?

At the present time, no. The only one presenting evidence in the BLP case is Waalkes (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who, as a new editor with few edits, would be barred from participating under the same proposal advanced in the Cbrick77 (T-C-L-K-R-D) situation. This is probably not a bad thing. While I understand the misgivings about Beback's behavior, it is not appropriate that the evidence against him comes from an account that is either (1) a newbie with little experience in dispute resolution, (2) an alternate account evading scrutiny, or (3) a reincarnation of a banned user. If Waalkes is the only person who thinks that Wil has behaved inappropriately, then there shouldn't be a case at all.

(Note that the proposal to bar newbies from RFAR allows for the editor to request a waiver from any arbitrator to offer a case.)

On the other hand, if someone else wants to step forward and offer evidence, Arbcom should definitely open a case.

It seems that there was a lot of interest in a BLP case, at least until the Cirt case was opened. Whoever else wanted to have a case on BLPs in general seems to have disappeared.

[Jagärdu]

It seems that there was a lot of interest in a BLP case, at least until the Cirt case was opened. Whoever else wanted to have a case on BLPs in general seems to have disappeared.

Trust me, that was by design. I'll have to hand it to arbcom here, because it looks like they did manage, in the end, to make a lot of the mess they didn't want to deal with go away by simply ignoring editors, creating confusion, and taking a long time to do anything. I wouldn't be surprised if having Cirt wait to respond in his case isn't by design as well. If not arbocom's then certainly his, but I have a feeling it is in the best interest of both parties and that there is an agreement in place. Not over arbcom-L of course ... since they surely learned that lesson. As I said previously I think people need to stay tuned for the sequel if they want to see anything really happen.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Whoever else wanted to have a case on BLPs in general seems to have disappeared.

Maybe others are simply discouraged by the way the case is formulated, which seems to preclude any actual corrective action.

[No one of consequence]

Whoever else wanted to have a case on BLPs in general seems to have disappeared.

Maybe others are simply discouraged by the way the case is formulated, which seems to preclude any actual corrective action.

Hence the argument for closing the case and starting fresh. I suggest closing the case and posting a notice to the effect that "Arbcom is aware of complaints of improper editing of biographies that go beyond the present Cirt-Jayen case, but we recognize that the manner in which we opened the BLP case was flawed. It was not sensible to try and hold an omnibus/kitchen sink case. Any editor who wishes to file an arbitration case under the usual rules and procedures may do so, and such requests will be evaluated individually."

[lilburne]

On the other hand, if someone else wants to step forward and offer evidence, Arbcom should definitely open a case.

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

You can look at this exchange that I had with them back last February when I quizzed them about the process, and what I got was flannel. Now you can read the whole exchange just start search the page for 'lilburne' or you can just skip to my summary of it.

But it really isn't about WBB, SV, Cirt, or any of the rest. It is the process that can proceed year after year, and result in articles like that one, that is in need of fixing not just these editors.
Berlinski is another one where for years the owners of the article have known that he isn't really ID, for one he doesn't believe that God had anything to do with it. But they fought tooth and claw to keep him as leader of the ID movement. Though to their credit they did give up on that one.

Its the process, policies, and the way the site operates that is the problem, the individual editors are just turning the handle of the sausage machine, and ArbCom doesn't appear to be the venue for fixing any of it.

[EricBarbour]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[RMHED]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

I'm very much hoping the same is true of Capitalism, one good push now and the whole corrupt system could crumble. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

(IMG:http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7551/126854stripsunday.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Chutzpah in Action

First, the set-up:

Yesterday, an RfC was closed without consensus at LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D). All nine respondents had agreed with Jayen that there were BLP issues in the article, which is OWNed by Will Beback. Will argued relentlessly with each of the editors who commented, until the whole thing ground to a halt.

A similar fate befell the RfC started by ResidentAnthropologist at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D), on similar BLP/coatracking grounds.

And right now, Will is playing "bait the newbies" at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche.

Now for the punch line:

Brad, it's my understanding that Cla68 is planning to post much of the same evidence he presented in his Arpil request to open a "Lyndon LaRouche 3" case. That case was reject by the ArbCom. You specifically noted the lack of an ongoing dispute and found insufficient evidence to open a case.[1] Is this case a backdoor way of presenting the same evidence again? There have not been any significant disputes or dispute resolution efforts since then, so I don't see how it would be more appropriate now than five months ago. Will Beback talk 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

[Abd]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Prediction: More and more of Wikipedia will be protected. The action will move to Wikiversity, where balance is systemic, i.e., the allowed depth doesn't cause conflict in the same way it does on Wikipedia (various points of view may be represented on WV, forks are encouraged, and so is original research and actual discussion of topics.) As participant exercises, Wikipedia articles may be drafted, but if users can't agree on a draft, multiple drafts will be created.

Then RfC will be used on Wikipedia to decide if any of the drafts are better than the existing WP article. That's a Yes/No decision that can ultimately result from a thorough consensus process, with full information.

Hasn't been done yet. Might take another year, but it's what I expect to see.

If there are multiple drafts, Range voting might be used, which is a bit more sophisticated than Yes/No.

I just started up a School:Election Science, at WV, and invited a pile of voting system experts to participate. We'll see what comes of that. Wikipedia has been hostile to expertise, Wikiversity welcomes it. Yeah, Randy from Boise can still pop in with inanities, but it's much easier to handle this on Wikiversity. I can't remember the last time I saw persistent revert warring on WV. It's stupid and useless there, there are better ways.

[Rhindle]

I strongly object to being named by Cla68 on this page. It is abusive. There has been no prior dispute resolution between us whatsoever. I am busy and do not have time to address any evidence or participate in this case. Jehochman Talk 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But I have plenty of time to talk about it from the sidelines!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There's a real catfight going on. Does that mean that there is hope that the case might accomplish something?

[NuclearWarfare]

There's a real catfight going on. Does that mean that there is hope that the case might accomplish something?

Well, seeing how all of 600 words of evidence have been submitted, that's looking unlikely.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Cla68 has tantalizing placeholders.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I hope this isn't too far off topic -- I somehow think it isn't.

This is very funny, but not as funny as this.

[Cla68]

I hope this isn't too far off topic -- I somehow think it isn't.

This is very funny, but not as funny as this.

Thank you. Reading that MfD page had me laughing out loud. Why did Will remove this quote? Perhaps, because he was the one who uttered it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The complaints about the skimpy evidence seem to be justified. The case does name a list of parties, some of whom are allegedly guilty of manipulating BLPs, others whose names appear because they apparently don't think BLPs should be manipulated. The evidence given by Collect shows that there is a problem, but it doesn't address any of the named parties as far as I can tell. Tryptofish is going off in another direction altogether.

[lilburne]

The evidence given by Collect shows that there is a problem, but it doesn't address any of the named parties as far as I can tell.

He let him self down by listing problems with the Melanie Philips article though.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Actually, I missed one -- he goes after Will Beback for adding this to an article after it had been removed by Off2RioRob from another article. Then the funny part comes on the workshop talk page where WB tries to act surprised and says "no one claimed it was a BLP violation." Evidently, "no one" refers to this guy.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Here's a good side show. What strikes me about the great debate between Beback and Collect is that neither of them wants to bring up the obvious issue of article ownership.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

I prefer to think of it as a vehicle for shedding light on misdeeds to which Wikipedia officialdom is turning a blind eye. But I know, I know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

[Detective]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

Much as I hate to agree with Jehochman, he does have a point. A list of the names of all the "Notable editors" forums is displayed by just one click on the main page of this forum. The equivalent would be that you could click somewhere on the Wikipedia Main Page and get a list of editors in particular disfavour. If you can do that, I've never seen it. Also, I assume that these forums are Google-able, whereas WP:AN is not.

Then again, anything on WP obviously gets vastly more exposure than things here.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

Much as I hate to agree with Jehochman, he does have a point. A list of the names of all the "Notable editors" forums is displayed by just one click on the main page of this forum. The equivalent would be that you could click somewhere on the Wikipedia Main Page and get a list of editors in particular disfavour. If you can do that, I've never seen it.

Here's the page you have been waiting for: Wikipedia:LTA. There's not a link on the Main Page, but the cognoscenti will find it.

[EricBarbour]

Here's the page you have been waiting for: Wikipedia:LTA. There's not a link on the Main Page, but the cognoscenti will find it.

Another thing about the Wiki-Clods: they can't even agree to keep a single master list of their enemies.

Don't forget this one and this one......

[Herschelkrustofsky]

ResidentAnthropologist has provided a helpful survey of Will's cattiness. But I am on the edge of my seat, awaiting the promised contributions by Count Iblis:

The BLP policy leads to censorship and should therefore be abolished
(Evidence to be presented tomorrow)
Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring
(Evidence to be presented tomorrow)

Please tell me he's serious.