Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[A Horse With No Name]

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

That was quite the bitchslap, Eric.

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up!

I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.

[Cla68]

Hmmm. SV, while you're in the mood for "transparency", why don't you go ahead and post all of the emails froom 2006-2008 in which you asked editors to assist you in edit wars by reverting other editors, or asking for support at AfDs or RfAs in which you had taken a stance on, or asked for help in ramming through a change to a policy page? Your actions during that time are some of the reasons why Wikipedia's governance is so broken. Yes, you significantly helped create the problem, now a few people are trying to fix it. Why are you trying to stand in the way?

As Casliber just reminded you on his talk page, RfCs generally last for at least a month. I think you should relax and allow the RfC to flow for at least that amount of time. In the meantime, this council will try to get some work done. I think you have some more productive things to do than in engage in shrill advocacy for your position on the talk pages of the various arbitrators and Rootology's talk page?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th July 2009, 11:40pm

[Kelly Martin]

I think you have some more productive things to do than in engage in shrill advocacy for your position on the talk pages of the various arbitrators and Rootology's talk page?

What makes you think that?

[Kato]

The majority of the community is wrong.

The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

In stark contrast to Durova and SlimVirgin, of course.

We're back to the "vested contributors" thing again. How does an online encyclopedia rid itself of two turbulent tyrants who have caused so much trouble?

[Casliber]

Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up!

I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.

Damn, have to fix that. I hate being in Australia and waking up to 100s of emails every morning......

[Cedric]

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

I couldn't read that without thinking of this:

Better keep an eye on that poisonous mercury vapor reservoir. It might blow up!

[everyking]

The majority of the community is wrong.

The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

In stark contrast to Durova and SlimVirgin, of course.

We're back to the "vested contributors" thing again. How does an online encyclopedia rid itself of two turbulent tyrants who have caused so much trouble?

"Turbulent tyrants"? The ArbCom announces out of nowhere that it's creating a new council under its control as a mechanism to direct project development, then ignores the overwhelming opposition of the community, and you're describing those two as tyrants? Seriously?

[gomi]

I posted my comment in the RFC, if nothing else some people will have a giggle.

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

For those of us who like these things preserved, here is Eric's comment as a whole (Lar restored the first para only):

This advisory committee may be a good idea. It may not be a good idea. I can't say for certain, and it really ought to be under more community scrutiny than it received when first proposed. Arbcom may or may not do good for Wikipedia with added control over governance. There still is no effective or reliable method of resolving disputes over content, and pointless, wasteful arguments continue to occur every day.

However........I can say one thing with reasonable certainty. The original proposer of this RFC, SlimVirgin, has been a disaster for Wikipedia. She is a notorious manipulator, sock operator, and canvasser, and would naturally oppose anything that gives Arbcom more control over this wiki---and takes away any control she has. (Please remember, she was recently banned for six months. This RFC has the faint whiff of a revenge campaign against the Arbcommers who voted to ban her.) I have similar feelings about Durova, who has engaged in roughly similar edit-wars and manipulation, and been upbraided for it by Arbcom in the past. If people continue to vote the SV/Durova way, rather than according to their own opinions and consciences, there will be no valid discussion, just rubberstamping.

They are long-time, jealous, aggressive pursuers of control on-wiki, and have left a trail of destruction in many disputes they have been heavily involved in. Anyone who doesn't think this is valid is invited to examine the many discussions about, and criticisms of, them on Wikipedia Review: 1 2

I feel that both SV and Durova should have no say in an actual, official-looking community vote on the existence of this advisory committee, because they have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy and high-handed. They have already made their opinions clear, and the canvassing going on here is toxic. I feel that if those two continue on their current path, they will cause further damage to Wikipedia's public image. Further, their most reliable and well-known supporters, such as Crum375 and Ironholds, also ought to be restricted from any such vote.

Amusing, to say the least. It lasted for all of three minutes before "the bitch deleted it".

[Milton Roe]

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

It was an NPA = No Personal Attacks:

However........I can say one thing with reasonable certainty. The original proposer of this RFC, SlimVirgin, has been a disaster for Wikipedia. She is a notorious manipulator, sock operator, and canvasser, and would naturally oppose anything that gives Arbcom more control over this wiki---and takes away any control she has. (Please remember, she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin recently banned for six months]. This RFC has the faint whiff of a revenge campaign against the Arbcommers who voted to ban her.) I have similar feelings about Durova, who has engaged in roughly similar edit-wars and manipulation, and been upbraided for it by Arbcom in the past. If people continue to vote the SV/Durova way, rather than according to their own opinions and consciences, there will be no valid discussion, just rubberstamping.

The first sentence reminded me a lot of Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

It does bring up a question of what constitutes a personal attack. The question was whether SlimVirgin was a disaster for Wikipedia, not whether or not L.M. is a waste of space and disaster for planet Earth.

If invidious editors cannot be pointed out as such on WP without violation of NPA, then how is it to be done?

I think it can be safely said that Eric did rather badly violate AGF.

[A Horse With No Name]

Amusing, to say the least. It lasted for all of three minutes before "the bitch deleted it".

I do like the gratuitous slam against Ironholds. I don't know who Crum is, but I know that Ironholds is one of those dimwitted British teenagers who keep trying to run headfirst into RfA. Compared to Ironholds, our man Shappy is a junior version of Malleus. (That is a compliment, by the way.)

[One]

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

Well said.

Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.

There are two problems with "consensus" on Wikipedia. The first is that a small number of individuals can derail any discussion for any reason. The second is the super-majorities required to pass anything. We can do nothing about the second problem, but I think a committee could get a productive agenda-driven dialog going.

[Milton Roe]

There are two problems with "consensus" on Wikipedia. The first is that a small number of individuals can derail any discussion for any reason. The second is the super-majorities required to pass anything. We can do nothing about the second problem, but I think a committee could get a productive agenda-driven dialog going.

Only to be squashed later, when it comes time to implement. Lucy holding the football for Charley Brown again.

Once at a conference I heard this dude from DARPA come up with this idea that development of drugs for space-use (antiradiation, antiweightless bone loss stuff) could be fast-tracked in the DARPA way. DARPA is the ultimate think-tank, inasmuch as they only pay consultants for two years, then send them back to whereever they came from, so there's always turnover and no entrenchment. And they can get very creative results in rapid time, when no biology is involved (see their robot car challenges). Anyway this guy said it "ought to be possible" for DARPA to get drugs "through the FDA" in a small fraction of the time.

Now, I knew the story of the FDA vs. the U.S. Military. The FDA made them throw away a million units of frozen stockpiled blood, because this method of preservation had never been approved by them. The FDA is even tougher than Iraq and Afghanistan, because your weapons are useless. The fighting is all done on paper, according to FDA rules. It doesn't matter who you are. Your best bet is to bribe them, and the military has a hard time with that, when it's agency of their own government.

So, I asked Mr. Astronaut Major DARPA Weenie if he'd ever actually gotten the FDA to fast track a drug, yet. One example. He admitted they hadn't yet, but they were planning to. I told him not to wear a spacesuit while waiting, or he'd need many a diaper.

That was years ago. DARPA never did get any drugs though the FDA.

This has something to do with what you're trying to do there on Wikipedia, but I've forgotten what.

[A Horse With No Name]

Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.

Yeah, but the only person you chose with a brain and a body was LaraLove. Nothing wrong with that choice, no siree.

But the other choices -- Fuchs? Giano? DGG? JoopersCoopers? (Jooper who?) MBisanz? That's not diverse, that's dreary. Ridiculous. Uninspired. Zzzzz. Compared to those guys, Xeno is Mr. Excitement.

There are plenty of fun guys you could have packed into the council: Roux, ThuranX, Baseball Bugs, Neurolysis, Shappy, Ottava, Stifle, Thumperward (provided he isn't sober, of course) and that loveable lummox Tanthalas39. Hell, imagine what Wikipedia would look like if that gang got their hands on the keys!

You messed up, One. You had your chance and you Shankboned us. Ouch!

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Tue 14th July 2009, 1:04am

[Cla68]

Rootology just asked SV to come clean about all of her secret communications in the past. SV declines to address that request.

Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going. The council members are able and willing to try to make it work. The ArbCom appears to want to continue to give it a try. Hopefully, some of the other editors, such as Everyking and Roux, who presented alternate ideas in the RfC will have some success with their efforts to promote their ideas.

[Kelly Martin]

Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going.

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

SlimVirgin's motivations are obvious here: she has agendas to forward, and effective governance working toward a goal of writing an unbiased encyclopedia is almost certainly going to interfere with that. What amazes me is that, given all the evidence of this, nobody in Wikipedia's ostensible leadership has been willing to admit that this is the case and tell her where to stuff it. I suppose because they're all afraid that she'll rally her support base to manufacture a false consensus in her favor, just as she has so many times before. You'd think that people aware of this problem would realize the folly of consensus-based governance... and yet they don't.

I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?

[Sarcasticidealist]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?

We are. I have to say, though, I've noticed you taking rather a less detached tone to all of this than I'm accustomed to seeing from you -- almost as if you still had a little of the amazing creature in you yourself...

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Tue 14th July 2009, 6:14am

[Cla68]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I also agree that Iridescent, Everyking, and Tony1 don't fall into either category.

[Orderinchaos]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

[A Horse With No Name]

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

If I knew that you were going to be so wishy-washy, I would've brought my laundry and a box of soap flakes.