QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05am)
QUOTE(Deputy Cabal Ringleader @ Fri 4th December 2009, 8:36am)
Just so it's not all "take", here's my "give". One of my major plots for next year included taking part in the WikiCup. Even if I am topic banned from my primary area of expertise, I thought I can give most editors (including the few participating arbitrators) a run for their money. But you know, after today, even if I am not banned, I am having second thoughts: after all, I am receiving so much love from Wikipedia, I feel, how to put it... too overwhelmed to contribute. What do you think?
You're hinting that you might not participate in something on WP because WP doesn't love you enough? You know where you're posting, right?
I'm sure he does, Carbuncle. And I fully understand how he feels. I poured about two years of intensive work into Wikipedia, and, in the end, the committee that was supposed to be the last stop on dispute resolution did not resolve the dispute at all, it simply banned me, even though, if they bothered to read the actual evidence and independently consider it, they'd have seen that I was very careful to follow dispute resolution process, and, indeed, part of the "problem" was that I was effective at it, i.e., real consensus was found in the end. Which those who were promoting what's been called Majority POV didn't like.
Because the EE editors were kind enough to admit me to their private mailing list, I've seen what they discuss. Not every message is "nice." Some show problems. Surprise. A group of editors sharing an interest in EE issues includes some who don't really get the collaborative process. But Piotrus clearly did, and believed in it. I did as well, and from a few decisions, expected support from ArbComm in spite of a crowd of mutually-aligned editors (I called it a Cabal -- horrors! -- and I was very careful to state that being a member of a "Cabal" was not a charge of misbehavior, and that caution was completely disregarded, one of the "findings" against me was that I'd made charges without substantiating them. But what I'd actually charged was "involvement," not "reprehensible collaboration," and the point was that the tidal wave of "ban him" comments were not coming from neutral editors, as shown by prior participation, and I did, indeed, present that evidence.)
The first arb to comment and make proposals in my case was Bainer, and, while his comments weren't perfect, he did quite a good job compared to what came later, and I accepted *everything* he suggested and proposed. I had no problem with mentorship. But then less cautious arbitrators piled in and Bainer was overwhelmed. Carcharoth waited and asked questions, good ones. But Carcharoth was likewise overwhelmed by the tide of knee-jerk arbitrator responses that boiled down to "I don't like him, he's the cause of us having to consider this mess, and he isn't contrite, might complain again if he's abused again...."
ArbComm is badly broken, and the process and system are badly broken, and it's burning out and spitting out editors right and left.
Disputes are not resolved by banning parties. They are resolved by finding consensus. Consensus process was underway, and it was working, albeit slowly, and ArbComm interfered with it by banning the only truly active and knowledgeable editor remaining on one side, having banned the other before -- for no good reason in that case as well, it was based on off-wiki comments that supposedly demonstrated an "agenda." What was the agenda? Well, to ensure that the article reflected Wikipedia policy on reliable source, which. because this was a science article (cold fusion), would lead to a different article balance than reliance on popular media sources. But that was successfully framed by Pcarbonn's accuser (JzG!) as the classic "media is biased" view, which it wasn't. Rather it was a position resulting from a disconnect between what is in popular media or tertiary sources and what is in peer-reviewed secondary source, the supposed gold standard for science articles, which for a long time has favored cold fusion as a reality.
Now, I come off my three-month site ban in a few days, probably in time to vote in the ArbComm election. Will I even bother to vote? Why? Do I care who wins?
Wikipedia, personified by ArbComm, did not care about me, why should I care about it?
But I might vote for Jehochman. He is an example, by the way of how I was able, following the intention and literal prescriptions of dispute resolution process, to convert apparent opponents into friends, he had originally wanted me banned for "disruption." And I have to give credit to Jehochman for being sufficiently open to that. ArbComm tossed all that in the trash. My real crime? Probably that I have opinions about how to reform Wikipedia process to make it more efficient, more effective, and more fair. Otherwise I cannot explain the ban against participation in disputes where I was not an originating party. Essentially, I'd seen some disputes and had actually resolved them; but in one case the dispute went to ArbComm, which supported my position in its decision. But I was an outsider challenging administrative abuse. (If you challenge administrative abuse, by a popular administrator, you are an outsider no matter how long you have been editing and no matter how correct you are according to policy and guidelines). That was not to be allowed. Finding of fact underneath the ruling? Not necessary, apparently, and the same massive dysfunction exists with the pending EE mailing list decision.
On-wiki misbehavior is assumed from off-hand private comments, which have been cherry-picked from a massive archive, as if someone had placed a mike in a bar and caught a conversation between Wikipedia editors blowing off steam. ArbComm should never have allowed the list contents to be mentioned on-wiki, and there may have been violations of law involved; when the smoke clears, we may be able to see better. When they have banned an editor, the editor no longer has a motivation to abstain from legal action.
You never improve the project by banning an editor, compared to other possible options, banning should be a method of absolute last resort, and it often creates far more mess than other options, consider Scibaby. Massive damage. Cause? Administrative abuse, unaddressed, at the beginning, a ban by an involved admin, supported then by other involved administrators, initially. And then, of course, if the banned editor refuses to just go away quietly, it's then "block violation," and enforcement widens some. The blocked editor is supposed to appeal to ArbComm, and, from what I've seen, snowballs have a better chance in hell than a naive blocked editor does of seeing a fair hearing there. And sometimes even a very knowledgeable, experienced editor, when the mob is screaming, doesn't get a fair hearing. And that would be Piotrus, for sure.
I have occasion frequently to talk with experts in various fields. The opinion is almost universal that Wikipedia is utterly unreliable and that trying to fix it, for an expert, is impossibly tedious and difficult. And ArbComm is making it worse, not better.
I see only one path to a solution. Off-wiki organization. "Cabals." Lots of them! Ultimately, they would be disclosed on-wiki, that could easily be incentivized; if Wikipedia were actually following wikitheory as exemplified in the guidelines and policies, "cavassing" and other forms of coordination would be only helpful, not harmful.
Isn't it odd that Wikipedia finds it reprehensible to inform and consult with others who are knowledgeable on a topic regarding a dispute? Isn't that what should be done? When I had questions on cold fusion (I was almost completely naive on the topic in January of 2009, even though I had a science background and had been quite aware in 1989-1990 of the issue, but I'd concluded like nearly everyone else that the original findings were mistakes), I asked experts. That was later called "meat puppeting" for one of these experts. Who was improperly and abusively banned by JzG, that action was part of what was covered by that ArbComm case. But, of course, that didn't lift the ban.....
And we've seen the same kind of charges in the EE case. The mailing list is a group of people interested in and knowledgeable on EE issues. They are not all "Polish," though certainly some are. They are open to participation by people not "politically" aligned with them. I've seen no improper coordination, even under the silly standards that have been set up.
(If we don't make decisions by vote, please explain to me again why canvassing is a problem? Okay, I'll answer the question. Because lazy administrators sometimes make decisions by vote count. And *that* is the problem, not canvassing. That covers RfA as well, of course, and RfA is a place where votes definitely are counted. And badly. I know editors who rigorously avoid involvement in any conflict because they know that it can result in negative RfA votes, which means that even if they know clearly what's going on, they won't express their opinion, because they'd like to pass that high bar of 70% or more. And then, of course, what happens is that once elected, admins show their true colors, which we didn't know before, and the system makes removal of the privilege extremely difficult, which it shouldn't be -- actually "suspension" should be much more common, whenever there is a serious charge accepted by ArbComm for review. I would argue that any faction that musters a significant percentage of the community to support a candidate for admin should be allowed to elect one. One-third? And the *arguments* should be acceptable to the closing bureaucrat that the admin would not abuse the tools.
Piotrus did not abuse his tools, as far as I've seen, and no evidence of tool abuse was given in a finding of fact.
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
carbuncle Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? 
