Slimvirgin/Felonious Monk/JzG case, ArbCom stalling, or just lazy? Options

[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?

[Moulton]

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

[Cla68]

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

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?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

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.

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:

...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 evidence of Narcissism.

• /Template_1 – FeloniousMonk barnstar cluster issued: 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  
• /Template_2 – ScienceApologist barnstar cluster issued: 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_3 – Dragons flight science barnstar issued: 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_4 – Natalinasmpf barnstar cluster issued: 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_5 – Vsmith barnstar cluster issued: 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_6 – William M. Connolley barnstar cluster issued: 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[Cla68]

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

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."

[Moulton]

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

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 Cluster B Personality Disorders. 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 Anankastic Personality Disorder, too.

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

[LaraLove]

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.

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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?).

[Kelly Martin]

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.

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.

[UserB]

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.