Options

[HRIP7]

Two posts this morning attacking the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee on the Foundation list:

Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review? By Robert Alvarez

Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from
posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on
Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting the
opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against
Wikipedia contributers by banned users.

I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).

One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Will Beback By James Heilman

We appear to have a problem with Arbcom. We have an editor who has
contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the previous 7 years, making
more than 100,000 edits and generating a couple of featured articles. Than
in a vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a
specific religious movement.

The foundation is spending large sums in an attempt to attract productive
editors to the project. Arbcoms actions seem counterproductive to these
efforts. Is it time that we look at rearranging how arbcom works? Issues
that have a significant effect on Wikipedia should not be left to a group
of 12 but should go to the community for consensus.

[SB_Johnny]

Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review? By Robert Alvarez

<snip...> the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Presumably "banned means banned" is one of those fundamental principles?

[Selina]

It's funny how these things tend to go in circles: Some people who worship the WP system really want an enemy to rail against in the same way others need religion, and they pick WR - but and at the same time, we get people accusing us of "working with" arbcom too, when they actually do take constructive criticism to heart and reconsider bad decisions - in the same way Jimmy Wales PBUH himself recommends people do... You just can't win

[A Horse With No Name]

Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review? By Robert Alvarez

Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from
posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on
Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting the
opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against
Wikipedia contributers by banned users.

I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).

One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Human stupidity appears to be something of a bottomless pit - no matter how deep you descend, you will never be able to hit the bottom.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 11th March 2012, 12:13pm

[mbz1]

Two posts this morning attacking the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee on the Foundation list:

Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review? By Robert Alvarez

Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from
posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on
Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting the
opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against
Wikipedia contributers by banned users.

I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).

One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Will Beback By James Heilman

We appear to have a problem with Arbcom. We have an editor who has
contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the previous 7 years, making
more than 100,000 edits and generating a couple of featured articles. Than
in a vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a
specific religious movement.

The foundation is spending large sums in an attempt to attract productive
editors to the project. Arbcoms actions seem counterproductive to these
efforts. Is it time that we look at rearranging how arbcom works? Issues
that have a significant effect on Wikipedia should not be left to a group
of 12 but should go to the community for consensus.

What John Vandenberg did for Edward Buckner?

Besides John Vandenberg is not in govcom now, is he?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 11th March 2012, 1:04pm

[lilburne]

What John Vandenberg did for Edward Buckner?

Besides John Vandenberg is not in govcom now, is he?

He got the blacklist of the logicmuseum lifted, and although he dithered he was one of the 8.

[dtobias]

The BADSITES mindset will never die, I guess.

[carbuncle]

Has no one seen "ARBCOM 3"? Inspired by the blockage of Scotty Berg (T-C-L-K-R-D) and started by frequent WR contributor Silver Seren.

[Shalom]

Has no one seen "ARBCOM 3"? Inspired by the blockage of Scotty Berg (T-C-L-K-R-D) and started by frequent WR contributor Silver Seren.

Good for Will Beback for getting blocked. Now he can move on with his life, and Wikipedia is one step closer to being destroyed. Yeah!

[Peter Damian]

He got the blacklist of the logicmuseum lifted, and although he dithered he was one of the 8.

Yes, correct. John kindly helped, but his reason for helping was the absurdity of a non-profit site (The Logic Museum) almost entirely dedicated to the publication of difficult to locate primary sources in Latin, such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Anon_NL_16135 , or quality-controlled translations such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Oc..._Logicae/Book_I , or aids to deciphering late 13th century manuscripts such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Category:Worcester_13_images . All published under a free license.

The site by definition falls within the core objectives of the wiki movement, and is entirely in line with the "fundamental principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation." John Vandenberg saw the absurdity of the ban and (without any request from me) successfully helped to remove the link blacklist.

The fact that WMF members are criticising his actions demonstrate how far this 'movement' has departed from its core values (which I strongly believe in).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 11th March 2012, 3:11pm

[mbz1]

He got the blacklist of the logicmuseum lifted, and although he dithered he was one of the 8.

Yes, correct. John kindly helped, but his reason for helping was the absurdity of a non-profit site (The Logic Museum) almost entirely dedicated to the publication of difficult to locate primary sources in Latin, such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Anon_NL_16135 , or quality-controlled translations such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Oc..._Logicae/Book_I , or aids to deciphering late 13th century manuscripts such as this http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Category:Worcester_13_images . All published under a free license.

The site by definition falls within the core objectives of the wiki movement, and is entirely in line with the "fundamental principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation." John Vandenberg saw the absurdity of the ban and (without any request from me) successfully helped to remove the link blacklist.

The fact that WMF members are criticising his actions demonstrate how far this 'movement' has departed from its core values (which I strongly believe in).

Then the statement that John helped a banned editor is even more absurd. John helped Wikipedia to acquire more free knowledge.

[Wikitaka]

"Roberto Alvarez" is probably a pseudonym of PaoloNapolitano, Prioryman or another infamous WR hater....

[carbuncle]

"Roberto Alvarez" is probably a pseudonym of PaoloNapolitano, Prioryman or another infamous WR hater....

"Paolo" didn't hate WR - he's just a troll, using current feelings about WR to get folks on WP riled up. Sadly, many folks on WP have a rather limited ability to see the obvious and a rather dim view of WR, so his trolling worked.

[mbz1]

"Roberto Alvarez" is probably a pseudonym of PaoloNapolitano, Prioryman or another infamous WR hater....

It is not even about WR, it is more about "banned means banned".
Sometimes they even cannot understand to what level of idiocy they rise in their perusing "banned means banned".
For example I am not going to make socks and contribute to wikipedia ever again because I still cannot wash off me my prior experience with that inmates run asylum, but, if a banned editor was able to forget what was done to him and wrote a few articles, what is the point to delete these articles a few years after they were created, as it was done here? Some of these were already re-written.

Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=477629728 what Iridescent said about such situations:

@Brad—your comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=prev&oldid=477476854 here] are thoughtful, but they're missing a very important point. The strict enforcement of "banned means banned" doesn't actually work; the reason it appears to work is that those admins who do enforce it are flat-track bullies. The two highest profile cases of banned users who made significant contributions using sock accounts and then saw those articles deleted thanks to the strict enforcement of [[WP:CSD#G5]] both wrote in low-traffic areas, where the deletion of the articles had no particular impact on Wikipedia. If you (or anyone) genuinely believes that "edits made by banned users must be reverted and any page created by them should be deleted" (which is ''not'' what [[WP:Banning policy]] actually says), then head on over to [[Boeing 747]] (most of which was written by [[User:Dereks1x|Dereks1x]] socks post-ban), and remove everything added by socks. If you're willing to delete ''[[River of Renewal: Myth and History in the Klamath Basin]]'' but not to stubbify [[Boeing 747]], you need to ask yourself why. – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#660066">iridescent</font>]] 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably for expressing such "irrational" thoughts Iridescent was voted off the island.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 11th March 2012, 6:06pm

[EricBarbour]

One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Spoken like a true fascist. Or a member of a bizarre religious cult.

We appear to have a problem with Arbcom. We have an editor who has
contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the previous 7 years, making
more than 100,000 edits and generating a couple of featured articles. Than
in a vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a
specific religious movement.

Mr. Heilman, you disgust me. Willie was banned because he abused the process of your own sainted
"encyclopedia", over and over and over, with great impunity.

I'll say it again: this is exactly what happened to DMOZ. Corrupt evil people took over, forced out all
the critics and "apostates", and turned it into their private playground. Complete with paid editing
(but only for the insiders), massive corruption, and a badly biased and slanted database.

[Selina]

A little offtopic but yeah, I should throw these in there, I bookmarked em a while ago:
• shoemoney.com/2007/08/26/dmoz-extortion
• yoast.com/the-dmoz-mob-strikes-again
• corruptdmozeditor.com/2004/12/sabotaging-competitors-dmoz-listing.html

... With the rest of the posts/the topic, well. yeah. I think it's the same in all internet communites where the system allows too much abuse without transparency, it inevitably gets abused... What I'd love to see is some truly decentralised form of moderation etc, that doesn't just become lord of the flies. Where can a balance be struck between the problems of abusive admins ala prisonexp.org and mob/herd behaviour that punishes dissenting views ala lord of the flies? It's a good question for this site, too... It's a problem with the whole internet.

[Wikitaka]

"Roberto Alvarez" is probably a pseudonym of PaoloNapolitano, Prioryman or another infamous WR hater....

"Paolo" didn't hate WR - he's just a troll, using current feelings about WR to get folks on WP riled up. Sadly, many folks on WP have a rather limited ability to see the obvious and a rather dim view of WR, so his trolling worked.

Wikipedia is the playground of the intelligent troll looking to fool WP admins with an average IQ of 60....

[Web Fred]

So they don't understand the concept of; when a site opens criticising tour whole purpose then isn't it a good idea to get people in there who can actually answer those criticisms and defend WP?

Dumbasses

As for productive editors getting the banhammer, so fucking what, now they know how I felt!

[A Horse With No Name]

Besides John Vandenberg is not in govcom now, is he?

Is it true that John Vandenberg sleeps with curlers in his hair?