QUOTE(MBisanz @ Tue 29th September 2009, 3:42pm)
They did just go through the WMC-Abd case where it is likely that such a temporary desysop would have actually prevented a permanent desysop, so I am not certain the situation is as clear as you indicate.
I've argued that ArbComm should immediately suspend the admin bit of any administrator who is accused of misbehavior involving use of tools, of sufficient believability that a case is opened; where an admin is involved in noncontroversial use of tools for some critical function, they might be suspended for all other purposes without actually lifting the bit itself. I.e., the suspension would be "voluntary," and it would be understood that violation would result in immediate actual desysopping (pending final decision).
However, in this case, there has been little evidence presented of actual abuse by Piotrus, and given ArbComm's extreme reluctance to even suspend bits, even in the presence of actually shown -- and accepted by ArbComm as such -- recusal failure, we then can suspect selective enforcement.
What I see happening is an extreme reaction to off-wiki communication that may influence on-wiki action. Quite properly, the oligarchy recognizes this as a severe threat to their power, for they cannot directly control off-wiki coordination, and they can only sanction what comes to light through clumsiness; i.e., the least dangerous off-wiki coordination is the most likely to be found. I'd see the strong response as coming from frustration at inability to control a situation.
The events alleged to be a result of improper coordination are actually thin, and the kind that would result from practically any communication, on or off-wiki. An editor notes an edit war situation arising at an article. if the editor noted this on-wiki, on another editor's talk page, that other editor might well show up and assist. Would this be improper? Not generally. But if the same communication happened on the mailing list, it's now evidence of improper coordination?
The whole approach is an error and, ultimately, a blind alley. Human beings function better when they consciously coordinate and cooperate. The chaotic Wikipedia model attempted to depend on lack of coordination as supposedly encouraging neutrality; the theory would be that if you can't call in your friends, then you will negotiate consensus. But when a set of friends share articles in their watchlists, and regularly support a position, the effect of conscious coordination appears without necessarily the consciousness. Cabal without conspiracy. Then, to oppose the cabal, other editors might cooperate, and this new cooperation can also be considered a cabal, and if they consciously cooperate, why, they can be sanctioned if the conscious cooperation can be proven.
I've read some of the mailing list involved, and ArbComm notes that most traffic is innocuous. This was not a list created as a cabal. The kinds of communication that took place, that could lead to some fear of conscious coordination, were the kinds that would occur if people simply talk with each other about their work on Wikipedia, and the problems that they encounter. In so talking, sometimes editors would say things that they wouldn't say on-wiki, and that then such conversations, taking place with some expectation of privacy, would be revealed, is highly offensive. I've been reading a little case law on the revelation of private mail, and applying that here, there was no compelling interest that ArbComm would have that would warrant consideration of the off-wiki evidence; now the drafting arb, Coren, has specifically referred to posts in the list, which anyone seeking to understand the decision would then want to read, and the archive can be found on the internet.
ArbComm seems to excuse this by claiming that no "hacking" was involved, on the theory that it was a list member who revealed the mails. Arbs are aware that there is an issue, but the motion to disallow the evidence was rejected, while waiting for Newyorkbrad to forumlate some alternative, which didn't happen, and now the proposed decision does cite specific mails, without revealing the content of those mails, i.e., what statements were actually objectionable.
And it is looking like a series of editors are going to be banned for activities that are less serious than what ArbComm routinely excuses; I'd see the theory behind this as an attempt to discourage off-wiki communication, because such communication will inevitably lead to some level of coordination. They will fail, and in the process they will do significant damage to the project. What they are doing is banning the most knowledgeable and active editors on one side of a highly contentious set of issues, and this inevitably results in bias. After three month site bans, there are year-long topic bans. Nothing I've seen so far even remotely justifies this directly; I conclude that we are seeing Rule 0 violations, that kind of disproportionate response is typical when the real offense cannot be stated.
The biggest "sin": treating Wikipedia as a battleground. In other words, if you describe the project as what it is in certain areas, and behave according to that understanding, you are an offender. Meanwhile, take a look at the prominent image at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam (T-H-L-K-D) and then try to say, with a straight face, "Wikipedia is not a battleground."
(1) Some aspects of Wikipedia will necessarily involve strong measures.
(2) However, such measures, and the processes they involve, are always dangerous. Admins have told me how participating in dealing with spam led them to suspect a spam motive behind every edit, and to start treating anyone who was possibly a spammer with berzerker zeal.
(3) Content battles are normal and natural. Trying to stop "battling" is trying to stop humans from being human.
(4) If neutrality is desired, what must be provided is dispute resolution process; "combatants" are frequently unable to manage this on their own; expecting combatants to be masters of DR process and, at the same time, able to apply the principles to cases where they are personally involved, is utterly unrealistic. It's a skill that some might indeed develop. If they survive long enough. Most people will need help, and blame and rejection and warning and blocking aren't help and they certainly don't resolve disputes, they merely bury them, making them invisible for a time.
(5) Notice the lack of disputatious editing at cold fusion, for the most part, recently. So did it work, banning Pcarbonn, JedRothwell, and myself, not to mention ScienceApologist? Sure, when you ban an entire side of a dispute, the only editors with sufficient knowledge to balance an article from reliable sources, you can make "peace," but at the cost of neutrality. (It took me about six months to come up to speed on the topic, reading sources every day, and I'm continuing to find stuff, including mainstream peer-reviewed secondary source, supposedly the gold standard, totally ignored and assumed to be absent by the "majority POV editors" there. ArbComm accepted and cited as evidence against me, showing "tendentious editing," what was a blatant deception by a party to the case, easily shown, and ignored the contrary evidence, making no comment on it. Essentially, ArbComm ignored the content dispute, but accepted and cited evidence that depends on content positions as evidence of tendentiousness. Yes, that's a contradiction. It's unlikely that the evidence was actually read, in fact, it was cited because it supported
impressions, and that's what I've long seen when the incompetent end up in positions of authority.
(6) As pointed out in a recent publication, Wikipedia has Dispute Resolution that doesn't resolve disputes. There is a theoretical basis for this, which better-informed editors will sometimes explain, but the problem is that it worked, sometimes, when the community was smaller and more united. It's presumed to continue to work in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. These are common phenomena in organizations like Wikipedia. That source relies on the canard that Wikipedia was considered impossible, but obviously works. No, the success of Wikipedia was predictable, in fact, by those who understood on-line process and organizational characteristics, but also its failures, which can easily be traced to structural defects, unsurprising due to the naivete of the founders, also very predictable. Kohser has pointed out that basic business ethics were disregarded; it's also true that basic organizational theory, well developed in the last part of the twentieth century, about how to foster consensus -- real consensus -- was neglected.
It's a bit like defending the aviation industry against accusations of failure to build safe aircraft, by pointing out the old and false theoretical rejections of the possibility of flight based on shallow analysis.
This post has been edited by Abd: 
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
carbuncle Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? 
