O, how the mighty have fallen!, WMC trolling to be banned. Options

[Abd]

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. WMC has been waving a big red flag in front of the community, daring it to block him, engaging in behavior that with any other editor, would have resulting in immediate warnings and blocks.

I've seen this before: an editor is popular with some segment of the community, and basically gets away with murder for years, sometimes. Once he was desysopped -- as a result of outrageous behavior that should have resulted in desysopping (or his agreement to stop) years earlier -- there was no more any particular reason for him to appear sane. As an admin, he could block editors he had disagreements with and then yawn and feign disinterest, letting others run interference; many times, there were AN reports and the like, and his cabal faction would pile in and prevent consensus from forming. I'd see 50-50 comments, but the cabal faction would then claim that he'd been "vindicated." Not.

He started out by raking ArbComm over the coals for daring to remind him that admins don't do what he'd been doing. He'd actually left them no choice, by blocking me in the middle of the case I'd filed over his claim that he could block me Whenever He Pleased.

Burned-out admins seem to develop some kind of death wish, and set up conditions to be removed from their misery. Since he wasn't otherwise banned, he still was tempted to do the same old same old, but just as an ordinary editor now. But it hasn't worked so far, he's still not banned.

He's been blocked, now, since the case was filed, twice. I predict more, he's obviously defiant, and he's been that way since the case close.

I find the unblock reason, September 11, 2009, of ‎(consensus at WP:AN suggests blocking admin was involved; block therefore inappropriate), to be fascinating. Claiming involvement of a blocking admin, with ordinary editors, never flies, and the cabal faction claimed again and again stuff like, "Well, okay, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but the community hasn't rejected the action itself." In theory, a claim of involvement should never, in itself, reverse an admin action, and I saw precedent for this again and again, and it's correct. However, a claim of involvement can and should allow unblock without it being considered wheel-warring, if supported by a discussion. Was it?

See discussion on the admin's talk page. The AN discussion was noted there by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, a common supporter of WMC. The discussion of the event on the admin talk page indicates strongly that the admin was not involved.

See the AN report..

At the time of the unblock, there had been agreement that the block was involved by Cla68, who later, on the talk page cited above, said it was an error, and Mr. Z-man. This was only a 12-hour block, and the unblock was not discussed with the blocking admin before being reversed. The report had been open less than an hour before JulianColton acted based on "agreement" there. Improper. So what else is new?

It was only a few days later that WMC was desysopped.

The latest drama is at General sanctions

He's also under an ArbComm sanction now against mentioning me on-wiki. ArbComm, in its typical myopia, hasn't looked at the real situation, WMC has not been the worst offender. I didn't ask for that sanction, ArbComm has this tendency to assume that any dispute is personal, and has a great reluctance to address obvious factional problems, no matter how bad and how obvious they become.

That's because such problems are difficult, and they are volunteers, and don't have the support they'd need to handle it. I suggested how they could get that support, but they apparently imagine that I do this to gain some personal advantage, and if they just control my behavior, everything will be peachy keen. Not. So they neglect the advice and then wonder why the same problems keep coming back.... Okay, let's now ban this editor, maybe that will fix it. Nope? Must be another problem editor, how about this one?

The situation is getting worse, much worse, rapidly. I'll post about that elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I've been watching Bill a bit, and it's true, he does like to flaunt his A-holishness.

[Lar]

That's because such problems are difficult, and they are volunteers, and don't have the support they'd need to handle it. I suggested how they could get that support...

I'll bite. How?

[Abd]

That's because such problems are difficult, and they are volunteers, and don't have the support they'd need to handle it. I suggested how they could get that support...

I'll bite. How?

Okay, thanks for asking. This is long. It just might take some reading to begin to address difficult issues!

Let's start with what's needed, then look at how to get it. ArbComm behaves half like a passive court, depending on plaintiffs to bring cases, typically against defendants. Then the parties savage each other before ArbComm, and anyone else who cares to drop by. While ArbComm pages are better designed for deliberative process than other pages, it's still extremely primitive and a huge waste of time, with little to show for the effort in terms of organized evidence and arguments, too often. Clerking is extremely weak. There was edit warring in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley and over the notifications, and practically nothing was done about it. There were pile-ins with hosts of arguments that were about my misbehavior, as if the case was filed over my misbehavior. It wasn't. It was a very simple case: was WMC involved in dispute with me, did he ban and block me, being involved, and was that proper? Whether or not I deserved to be blocked was actually irrelevant, except possibly as to remedy. I.e., if an admin is involved and blocks improperly, but the block was in the end good, at most the remedy might be a troutslap: it looks bad, it encourages the blocked editor to believe that Wikipedia is unfair, etc. But if the block was a bad block, it could be grounds for sanction all the way up to desysopping or maybe even more than that.

(Piotrus was not only desysopped but site-banned for very little actual use-of-tools while involved, and, in fact, I'm not convinced that any of his use of tools was improper. So, WTF?)

So I suggested that ArbComm should narrow the focus of cases, and focus primarily on the issue brought before them, and not allow random editors to widen the scope with laundry lists of charges that then require even more defense in response, etc. Yes, this would mean more cases, perhaps a lot more cases, but they would be much easier to resolve. It's what real courts do. They only amalgamate cases when it truly is more efficient. A basic principle of deliberative process is to decide one narrow issue at a time.

If ArbComm is going to function as a kind of dispute resolution process that actually settles disputes, it must establish a clear basis for its decisions. That's a lot of work! But without it, "dispute resolution" might just be as well accomplished by tossing a coin, or, more to the point, just designating a single arbitrator by some random process to take a case and individually investigate and decide it. This actually happens, already, the assigned arb, but then, in my second RfAr, the rest of the committee proceeded to ignore what that arb found and instead started making proposals that were clearly not based in an understanding of the evidence. It was just what they wanted. Good process that is documented, step by step, would make this plain if it happens. (You could fake such process, but that would be risky. The walls have ears.)

So, then, ArbComm can't depend on the community to provide all the evidence. It's a huge job to collect evidence for an RfAr, and an even bigger job to do so impartially. I did it quite impartially with RfC/GoRight, and that's what got me in trouble with the Cabal, originally. So what is normal is that the evidence presented has been cherry-picked, by someone with an axe to grind. The EEML arbitration was the most outrageous example, because it was largely an arbitrator who did the cherry-picking, and he had a declared agenda: set an example so that others wouldn't set up off-wiki discussion groups....

So how would ArbComm vet evidence? Or collect it? Clerks. I'd suggest that each arbitrator appoint clerks who are responsible to the arbitrator. It would make excellent prep for adminship, actually. It is possible that these clerks could be assigned certain admin privileges, such as the ability to see deleted edits, on the authority of ArbComm. While there might still be open pages for comments, etc., the core ArbComm process pages would not be open to general editing. Rather, all submissions would have to be vetted by an arbitrator or arbitrator's clerk. With the present software, there would be open submissions pages with strict rules: no debate there, just submissions of evidence and arguments intended for the actual Arb pages.

And then as to conduct during cases, if needed, there would be duty clerks (bailiffs). A *schedule* so that the pages are being continuously watched. I do think it might be best for this if there are, again, "court administrators" who have the necessary tools to address and prevent disruption. As is typical of a bailiff, the action of the bailiff is subject to immediate review when needed. A bailiff who acts outside the allowed scope would immediately be relieved of duty while the matter was investigated, but within the scope (maintaining order on ArbComm pages), there would be broad discretion, because any action can be undone. Normally, a bailiff wouldn't have to block but would warn. However, for efficiency, continuing to act up in a court will get you immediately removed. Never permanently removed. Unless you actually harm people or property, even contempt of court is only a short protective confinment, unless there is continued contempt. (A questionable practice used to compel testimony... but that's an argument for another place!)

Basically, ArbComm, to become more efficient and reliable -- and it needs both -- must take control of its own process. That's standard for committees everywhere else!

Arbitrators are elected to the committee based on substantial community trust (for better or worse). The community has no means for real deliberative process, except as is occasionally organized by some editors. It only has ArbComm, at present, with even the possibility, largely unrealized.

I'm seeing now that disruption at ArbComm may go unnoticed for days,. if it is ever noticed, and it often isn't. ArbComm is becoming little better than a noticeboard. Arbitrators may take days to even begin to notice that a case has been filed, meanwhile the request becomes a coatrack, with no clerk supervision.

And much of what is going on is apparently invisible. While certainly there should be some matters discussed privately, the secrecy seems to be way excessive. I can understand why ArbComm would want to consider certain matters off-wiki, precisely because on-wiki, the presumption is that everyone can comment. That presumption is the basic error. A court would never allow more than one person to address the court at a time, and it chooses what testimony to allow, and there is a great deal of control over how it happens. On-line process can allow more than one "speaker" at a time, but it's very easy to go too far with that so that a process becomes an unmanageable mess, unreadable.

Variation on an old saw: when everyone can comment, nobody can comment. That is, nobody can punch through the noise, unless they do something dramatic, as I did by defying WMC's illicit ban of me from Cold fusion. I didn't know for sure that he'd block me, but I certainly knew it was possible and he was threatening it, so .... why not find out?

Yes. It was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but it was a violation of the general principle that one does not barge ahead without consensus. Except that everyone was disregarding that principle but me! So I said, enough, and gave notice that I wasn't going to respect the ban any more, and waited a decent time, then made an innocuous edit....

I was, of course, blocked immediately by WMC. But I was sleeping. Let me say, it was painless. I woke up and found that I'd been unblocked, and my edit, which he'd reverted out, had been reverted back in by the admin unblocking me.

And then another party to the case revert warred it out. A Talk page post, simply pointing to a section in history in response to a query. Party to case revert warring during the case over the article of conflict. It was really just as serious an offense, in a way, as WMC's action. Ignored, and ArbComm relied on that editor's evidence in deciding I'd been "tendentious."

My point is that ArbComm cannot actually settle disputes unless it does one of two things: facilitate the parties coming to an agreement, perhaps by appointing binding arbitrators. (real arbitrators!) or by carefully investigating, both vetting evidence presented by the community and independently gathering it, asking all parties questions, etc.

Some arbitrators and others were nonplussed because I didn't seem to accept that I'd done something wrong. Actually, I did make lots of mistakes. Try to do anything difficult, you will make mistakes. But they were just not the ones that ArbComm imagined it had found by relying upon evidence that it obviously didn't bother to confirm in detail.

The evidence they relied on was provided by Enric Naval, and it actually contained something, specifically cited by the arbitrator who wrote the finding, that was only Enric Naval quoting himself in RfAr/Fringe science, where he presented an argument that was not only misleading as to factual basis, easily seen by reading the sources, and which was using this evidence to make an argument that ArbComm explicitly rejected in that case.

I pointed this out on the Talk page. Ignored. I assume that the arbitrators are overwhelmed, not that they are vicious or really stupid. But if they did see all this, I'd have to conclude, "Vicious, Stupid, or both."

I vote for overwhelm, which is why I suggest possible remedies.

Currently, I"m at RfAr/Clarification trying to make sense out of the MYOB remedy that seems to have been invented in that case. Like a lot of new inventions, it has a few bugs. Originally, it had a fail-safe: a mentorship clause. But the majority could not agree on establishing mentorship. It might have put them off their feed that I was eager for it! Fritzpoll had volunteered (it was before he ran for ArbComm; in fact, he told me that he ran because of what he saw happen in my case.)

So when mentorship and possible mentorship was brought up in the first AE request over this ban, ArbComm's solution? Strike the clause. Thus guaranteeing that any unclarity in interpretation would lead to more disruption. They are continually shooting themselves in the foot!

They have the idea that a mentor is kind of like a probation officer. This model requires accepting guilt, and editors may not believe that they were actually guilty of anything. They might even be right, but a mentor establishes a gateway between the community and an editor, and it's best if this is (1) someone the editor trusts! and (2) someone who knows how to function harmoniously in the community. Fritzpoll again, as an arbitrator, offered to mentor me, but the Committee apparently turned it down. Even though he was automatically recusing anyway over anything involving me. (Like Cool Hand Luke, for possibly the same reason.)

I'm noticing that the relatively sane editors who used to be relatively common seem largely missing. I don't think it's just me. I think the project is bleeding its best talent, and fairly rapidly.

If something is not done to address the structural problems, and ArbComm is just a part of it, I expect that a point of no return will be reached and the project will collapse with surprising speed. At a certain point the burden of maintenance on those left behind will start to increase exponentially, so they will burn out even more rapidly, etc. Wikipedia has been a kind of Ponzi scheme, depending on "fresh investment." At a certain point the pool of willing investors dries up. What's happening, when decay becomes exponential, is not directly visible until it's too late, it's the classic lily pond problem. (Pond is being covered by lily pads; if they cover the whole pond, the fish will die. If the pads double surface every day, what does the pond look like a day before the covering date? Definitely, in danger. But a day before? Well, it's only one-fourth covered, plenty of time....)

It's ironic, actually, I'm in agreement with WMC's POV on global warming, more or less. I just also believe in neutrality and scientific method and trust that with full deliberation, consideration as complete as possible, we'll come up with the best answer. And I was no different with Cold fusion, got topic-banned for my trouble.

I haven't written all the ideas, by far. For example, subcourts, panels that deal with specific areas of conflict, regularly. ArbComm could establish these. It does something by setting up discretionary sanctions, but it did that for Cold fusion, then banned the only editor who'd actually have used it. Me. Instead, an editor supposedly violated something that could have fallen under discretionary sanctions, Pcarbonn. But it wasn't taken there. JzG, who was *highly involved*, file an AN topic ban request, presented a pile of utterly misleading evidence, and then Future Perfect commented approving the ban, then later decided to close it an notify Pcarbonn. Who left in total disgust. He'd done nothing wrong. He's a COI editor and had acted in accordance with COI policy.... Ahem. It's one of the things currently bugging me. Seriously disruptive editor, former admin, who still gets away with blantant POV pushing, supported by the same editors who egged him on when he was an admin....

[EricBarbour]

Damn, that's funny.

Result concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

* I do not believe this to be a legitimate request, within the scope of the probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
* I don't either. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
* This board is not capable of reviewing an editor's entire contribution history. If you want to make a case that they are politely disruptive by engaging in circular discussion, please point out specific threads using permanent links. Please also consider whether it would be useful to start an RFC on each editor. Before you do that, find a second party to review each editor's contribution history, and if necessary approach each editor and try to coax them towards productive contributions. Jehochman Brrr 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
* Suggest that WMC be warned not to file frivolous requests or requests that give the appearance of revenge, and that WMC be further warned that the next such may result in sanctions, such as, for example, disallowance of further filings, as we have done to other editors when adjudged to have been filing requests unreasonably. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Connolley, you incredible toad. Give it up.

[Abd]

WMC, in spite of his long experience, seemed to have no concept of how to deal with conflict, if he couldn't just revert or block. He may actually have been serious, but that's an old ploy. I'd seen him do it before. What's your evidence about this editor? "special:contributions..." snippy soundbites he could do. Actually presenting evidence? His basic position when he had the tools was "I don't need no stinkin' evidence, I'm right, only crazy POV-pushers would disagree."

It's embarrassing. He was way too used to winning with no effort. It's hard dealing with having to actually convince neutral editors, with, like, cogent arguments. They just don't get it like the right-thinking crowd does. Where did they all go, anyway? Has everyone gone insane?

I know just how he feels.

And now, the award, please.

WMC block log, 48 hours.

C'mon, Dr. Connolley, you can do better than that! I got a week from Future Perfect for criticizing him. I got 3 months from ArbComm for pointing out that you were a little block-happy. It's not hard to get indeffed, there are plenty of long-time editors who've achieved that level.

But if you really want to go for the gold, you'll have to learn some lessons from Scibaby. Now, that's editing! I'd say that in that contest, you lost. But there is still time left!

Just remember, Have Fun!

You had the misfortune to fall into a pocket of sanity, there are still a few, probably will be for a while, though it is getting very difficult to coalesce them.

Somebody tell WMC he's welcome here. He can be as cranky as he likes. At least I think he can. I'd love to meet him, almost wish I drank beer so we could have one together.

Dealing with WMC was much more fun than the more superficial assholes who supported him and who enabled his abuse. They'll be much tougher to disempower, because they aren't as straight as WMC, who was very open about who he was and what he was doing.

He'd been stating very openly and clearly for a long time what he was doing, and that it violated policy, whoof! -- he must not really mean it, after all, every time he was taken to AN, his actions were confirmed, must be no problem there, he's just a bit gruff, don't mind him. But of course that was a lie. His actions weren't actually confirmed, most of the time, the Cabal merely managed to disrupt any complaint by turning on the reporter and showing up in enough numbers, it would only take five or six, to make the report inconclusive so it would pass into the archive with no close.

That continues to amaze me, admins can openly state what shows they will violate recusal policy, and if you don't like it, go eff yourself, and nothing happens. And it's getting worse, that's becoming clear to me.

I commented in an AN/I report with clear evidence of harassment of an editor based on off-wiki threats, and that was completely ignored, except, of course, by the harasser and the Cabal, which made me the topic, filed an AE request, blocked the harassed editor for trying to make a chatty, friendly comment to Guy Chapman (Call the Police! He's Outing Guy!), filed a topic ban request on the harassed editor, etc.

I really need to add to the Guy topic here. He's back to his old tricks. Next, I expect him to blame me for every vandalism edit to the project, because I encouraged vandals and spammers and block evaders by trying to be nice to them. He's blaming me for LirazSiri's conflict of interest edits, even though, just as JzG did, I warned LS against them, warned LS for his incivility, even though it was clear that the recent incivility was a response to very serious harassment.

And nobody on-wiki seems to care about the blatant harassment, very probably motivated by off-wiki conflict, but, in any case, accompanied by serious extortion. Once upon a time, there would have been action on this. But the neutral editors who used to show up at AN/I don't any more. Not that I blame them, it's been a cesspool for years.

Process. AN/I was designed as 911 for administrators. It should not be a discussion board, period, it should index to discussions, where discussions are needed. Administrators don't need to discuss, for example, edit warring over a speedy close of an abusive AfD, where a sock puppet was reverting the admin closing, the admin properly didn't block but went to AN/I for a neutral action, and the deletionists promptly turned AN/I into a kind of DRV, asked, "Well, is the topic notable?" and everyone started debating that, meanwhile the AfD was open (in fact, the admin should have protected it shut and gone to AN/I with it, noting that his action could be considered involved, but to avoid disruption he was acting first) and editors started commenting and so it couldn't be closed and then a huge number of editors, from all the flap on AN/I started commenting, with half the community voting Keep for process reasons (to discourage abusive renons) and half voting Delete on substance (after all, IAR!) and a close of Delete based on arguments (though both sets of arguments were valid and there was no consensus). There never was a decision at AN, and while a discussion started, speculating on who the puppet master was, and it was clear this was a returning disruptive editor, nothing was done, the reports closed with no action, and it took quite some time before this editor's defiance and trolling of response from me finally motivated me to find the proof and file an SSP report, at which point he caved and fled. Leaving egg all over the face of the deletionists who'd been thrilled with KillerOfCruft, who, big surprise, changed his name to Allemandtando, who was actually the same editor as Fredrick day, who was a master at stirring up the shit at AN/I, he could do it as IP and nobody would notice that they'd just been sicced on someone Fd wanted to take out.

Very simple. Wikipedia does need an intermediate layer of protection, a Trusted Editor layer. Autoconfirmed is not enough to control the noise. Reports from others would go on an Open Complaint page. That page would be handled similarly to AIV. All reports would receive a disposition from a Trusted Editor, according to guidelines developed for the purpose. Any report with possible merit would be transferred to the action Incident noticeboard, quickly. Admins could watch the Open Complaint page if they want and act directly, but more admins would watch the Noticeboard. There should be, indeed, duty admins, watching the page at specified times. Not exclusively, but so that there is no time that is not covered. An admin, seeing a report, would "take a ticket," i.e., mark it as the equivalent of "officer dispatched to investigate."

No debate on AN/I. Period. That's not what it was designed for, and not how it should be used. An uninvolved admin would take a ticket, investigate, act as the situation requires, and report that back. Debate over action would go elsewhere. Those debates would be indexed through the AN/I page, but it would be very clean. And fast.

Hmmph. I come here to talk about WMC and end up rambling on about AN/I, and I've got other stuff to do and no time to figure out what to leave and what not.

To do anything to fix Wikipedia process requires process that does not exist. Bootstrapping. My opinion is it has to come from outside the wiki. From WMF would be a possibility, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It can't come from Wikipedia Review, though WR could really help. I'm intuiting that something as simple as a mailing list hierarchy, with appropriate filtering as I've described a few times, might be able to pull it off. Among other things, if it gets some admin participation, it could become the 911 that AN/I should have been, and the charges of canvassing or cabalism could easy be handled (by setting up the process so that it's fair, open, and transparent, as needed. -- there are hints in the fact that admins often act based on reports here and I've seen no serious flak over it.)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Bill should simply be topic-banned from anything having to do with climate or the environment.

[Abd]

Bill should simply be topic-banned from anything having to do with climate or the environment.

Sure.

But as a complete topic ban, that's overkill, such bans usually are. He might need to end up there, but the start would be simply a declaration that, as someone as involved with the topic as he is, he should follow COI rules. That principle, actually, should be pursued with experts in general!

My cold fusion topic ban should be that, not a complete ban on discussion, which excludes expert opinion. Then the focus can become behavior in discussion, and that can be addressed as needed, to expand the ban.

I invented self-reversion as a way for editors under even a strict ban to still make useful contributions. It could be self-reversion, which is very useful because it sets up conditions that encourage cooperation (for the edit to be effective, another editor must approve it by reverting it, taking responsibility for it, and arguments that editors would "meat puppet" so it's a Bad Idea don't get that, then, if the edit was abusive, the reverting editor is responsible and should come under possible sanction as well).

But there is another device which doesn't require the editor to self-revert: bot reversion.

To topic ban an editor, there is a protected page with bot control data. Editor, Category, Namespace, etc. Any edit matching the criteria for an editor on the list would be bot-reverted, and this would be logged under a page for that editor. Easy to follow.

(The filters already exist to some degree, abuse filters. Some antispammer admins are now using it instead of blacklisting, it is a much more flexible tool that doesn't prohibit editors from adding legitimate external links.)

Anyone interested in enforcing a topic ban could look at the list of reverted edits and see if they were actually abusive, and "abusive" would become a strong standard. Anything that might be good faith editing could simply remain untouched and no block response would be needed, no disruption.

I've said this again and again: I suggested this to a banned editor, he took the suggestion (which greatly defused his anger at being banned), he made a major edit to an article under ban, and the very editor who had demanded his ban ended up reverting back in the edit. In other words, conflict was resolved. And the result was consensus and article improvement.

But when I did a self-reverted edit violating WMC's unilateral ban, he blocked me. Pure punishment for defiance, he thought, though I wasn't actually defying him, he'd previously stated that it was "stupid" to block for harmless edits, no matter if the editor was banned. Depends on whose ox is being gored, apparently. Except I wasn't goring any oxen, I was just trying to fix a reference error.

And then the Cabal piled in with "a ban is a ban is a ban," and a lot of nonsense, self-reversion was discredited without there being any actual harm shown (other than their screaming about it), and thus the wiki moved on, having dumped yet another possibility for reform that would have been easy, simple, requiring no major consensus, just improved understanding.....

"Will self-revert per ban" evinces cooperation, not defiance. I proposed it for ScienceApoligist, originally, because he was making "harmless edits" that were actually calculated to weaken the boundaries of his ban. That's what WMC supported. But when a single, isolated harmless edit was made that wasn't a part of such an agenda, he blocked.....

He was confronted on this, and he wrote, once his original comment about stupidity was revealed, "I see I've nailed my colors to the yardarm."

Nobody paid attention (but me and a couple of other editors.) It was comments like that which made me like WMC. He was very honest, in that way. He was saying that his actions revealed that he had an agenda, his 'colors.' And that he'd made that plain and clear.

Of course, that was utterly incompatible with being an administrator. But it took months and a whole lot of disruption, huge disruption, before ArbComm figured that out.

Efficient, accessible, thorough process that seeks and finds true consensus. How to do that on a large scale? And that's my expertise, in fact, it's something I've been working on for thirty years. And that's the real reason I'm working on Wikipedia. It is for the ultimate goal, the project, the encyclopedia, but it's not direct article work, it's enabling better work on articles by others. I rescued quite a few editors from being blocked or banned, and that's what ArbComm shut down with it's MYOB ban. I was good at it. Too good, apparently.

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

[GlassBeadGame]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

That might be true of real consensus but it not true of the token used to simulate consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) in the virtual game known as "encyclopedia" as played on Wikipedia. The difference is, as Twain would say, between lightening and the lightening bug.

[MBisanz]

I invented self-reversion ...

And I invented the Internet, with all its tubes and portals.

[Milton Roe]

Result concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren
* This board is not capable of reviewing an editor's entire contribution history. If you want to make a case that they are politely disruptive by engaging in circular discussion, please point out specific threads using permanent links. Please also consider whether it would be useful to start an RFC on each editor. Before you do that, find a second party to review each editor's contribution history, and if necessary approach each editor and try to coax them towards productive contributions. Jehochman Brrr 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

* Nay, this board is capable of all things and my mouth cannot say a limit to the strength of this board, and of the power it its loins. This board is mighty, and hath less and less for it to do, with each day that passeth. Therefore, bring unto this board every problem that though findest upon the face of Wikipedia, that we may KNOW them. Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? Yea, the candyass board can, because we mix it with love and maketh the world to taste good. Even so. Doc glasgow, Most Days, 2010.

[Abd]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

That might be true of real consensus but it not true of the token used to simulate consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) in the virtual game known as "encyclopedia" as played on Wikipedia. The difference is, as Twain would say, between lightening and the lightening bug.

That's correct. That's why structures that seek real consensus and measure it (i.e., estimate it, it need not be perfect) are necessary. Absolutely, Wikipedia "consensus" is thoroughly inadequate, in reality. Consensus requires process, generally. Very small groups can sometimes find it without formal process, but the possibility of that declines rapidly with group size, unless effective structures are established. The adhocracy of Wikipedia, unaided, cannot do it, it was impossible from the beginning.

More accurately, a kind of consensus does arise sometimes there, but the process is horrifically inefficient, making it completely unreliable. Techniques were developed and documented well over a hundred years ago, largely for use with majority rule, but the same principles apply. In the 20th century, there was even more work done, exploring methods for finding broader consensus, and I came to the conclusion that what was needed, in general, was synthesis based on majority rule but a cultural understanding of the value of complete consensus as a goal, to be pursued within systems that value complete consensus, without overvaluing it so much that efficiency is lost. That takes hierarchical structure that escalates discussion as needed, efficiently, up through "filters."

(A filter here is just a person who decides whether to pass on information or not. A basic filter in standard deliberative process is the requirement that a proposal be seconded for being debated. Another is that when a new proposal is made that requires study, the matter is referred to committee for a report. The committee does not decide, actually, it simply studies and reports. It advises, and when it cannot find coherent advice, it reports on the nature of any disputes. Mostly deliberative process, then, consists of three layers: a base layer of general membership, a committee layer, and a general assembly layer. For large scale hybrid direct-representative democracy, more layers are needed, and there are ways to set this up, in effect, from the bottom instead of imposing it from the top. I'll avoid more detail now, I have to clean up Aubrey's vomit. He really should stop drinking.)

[GlassBeadGame]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

That might be true of real consensus but it not true of the token used to simulate consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) in the virtual game known as "encyclopedia" as played on Wikipedia. The difference is, as Twain would say, between lightening and the lightening bug.

That's correct. That's why structures that seek real consensus and measure it (i.e., estimate it, it need not be perfect) are necessary. Absolutely, Wikipedia "consensus" is thoroughly inadequate, in reality. Consensus requires process, generally. Very small groups can sometimes find it without formal process, but the possibility of that declines rapidly with group size, unless effective structures are established. The adhocracy of Wikipedia, unaided, cannot do it, it was impossible from the beginning.

More accurately, a kind of consensus does arise sometimes there, but the process is horrifically inefficient, making it completely unreliable. Techniques were developed and documented well over a hundred years ago, largely for use with majority rule, but the same principles apply. In the 20th century, there was even more work done, exploring methods for finding broader consensus, and I came to the conclusion that what was needed, in general, was synthesis based on majority rule but a cultural understanding of the value of complete consensus as a goal, to be pursued within systems that value complete consensus, without overvaluing it so much that efficiency is lost. That takes hierarchical structure that escalates discussion as needed, efficiently, up through "filters."

(A filter here is just a person who decides whether to pass on information or not. A basic filter in standard deliberative process is the requirement that a proposal be seconded for being debated. Another is that when a new proposal is made that requires study, the matter is referred to committee for a report. The committee does not decide, actually, it simply studies and reports. It advises, and when it cannot find coherent advice, it reports on the nature of any disputes. Mostly deliberative process, then, consists of three layers: a base layer of general membership, a committee layer, and a general assembly layer. For large scale hybrid direct-representative democracy, more layers are needed, and there are ways to set this up, in effect, from the bottom instead of imposing it from the top. I'll avoid more detail now, I have to clean up Aubrey's vomit. He really should stop drinking.)

Shorter and better answer: No. Consensus is not possible on Wikipedia.

[Abd]

I invented self-reversion ...

And I invented the Internet, with all its tubes and portals.

Wow. Pleased to meet you, MBisanz. I didn't realize. But does this mean that you are actually Al Gore? Are you sure you want this to be known?

I only invented a narrow application of self-reversion, as a means for a banned editor to make a useful contribution without unduly complicating ban enforcement. In fact, it should make ban enforcement easier. If it was proposed before, I'd love to know it. That's often true with ideas I come up with independently.

Very simple: self-reverted edits should be considered intrinsically non-disruptive and non-violating, unless specifically found to be so on clear evidence. Like if a banned editor post to my Talk page, "Muslim scum," that's vandalism and ban violation. If the editor posts "Muslim scum" and self-reverts "per ban of Banned Editor," which is what I've recommended, that is no more harm than the edit would have been not self-reverted and is actually less. And it identifies the IP as the banned editor, maybe, which could be faked, *so the edit should not be treated as a ban violation without proof that it was actually the banned editor.* And there is no emergency. Even if this was a BLP.

That's the worst case that I can think of, someone uses self-reversion to say grossly uncivil stuff. Self-reversion there makes things a little better, not a little worse. I'd immediately look at the contribs for that IP and see if there was other stuff, not self-reverted, needing attention. Real vandals, quite simply, are not going to self-revert.

Then, of course, an editor topic banned may use self-reversion to effectively propose a POV edit. But, self-reverted, that's just where it would end up anyway, if editors are paying attention. But with self-reversion, they don't have to pay attention! It becomes voluntary. No work is created that isn't voluntary. It is the equivalent of "proposals from this editor must be seconded, or they will be ignored," but it's much more efficient than a banned editor making a suggestion about, for example, a spelling fix. (IP, I wouldn't bother with self reversion for a clearly noncontroversial edit, but editing with my account under a ban, I would).

Really, that this was not immediately accepted at [[WP:BAN]] shows how much the place has fallen apart. The original response was Yawn. I.e., almost no response. But when I was blocked for a self-reverted harmless edit, the same community that had supported ScienceApologist for making harmless edits, not self-reverted, to articles under ban piled in to scream "a ban is a ban is a ban." Does this mean that the "consensus was .... rejected?" No, it means that Wikipedia doesn't actually seek consensus! Because that requires that proposals actually be considered in detail, and not just rejected knee-jerk. Knee-jerk rejection means, obviously, no-consensus, but that's not the end. It's *not consensus.* And the solutions are actually obvious to anyone who has worked in democratic organizations that do seek consensus, but which also know traditional process, and there are plenty of them.

By the way, if I'm site-banned, always possible, I would then consider myself completely free to use self-reversion to edit under ban. I do not consider that I need community approval to do something that should be treated as non-disruptive, and if they want another Scibaby, simply ban me and go after my self-reverted edits, it would be fun. Do it enough to show me that there is no utility in self-reversion, I might stop self-reverting. But I'd give the community a chance to do it right.

I don't do it now because, as long as I'm accepted as an editor, and I use that account, I'm obligated to respect the community rules, no matter how abusive I might think they are. Except for clear IAR requirements, for which I'm quite willing to risk ban. I just did, encountering a very rare situation that I considered, and still consider, a serious risk to the project and the community.

For a project which advertises itself as the "sum of human knowledge," there are fundamental requirements that cannot be defined away by internal rules. Let's think of the unblocked WP community as an "article consensus" and the real community as humanity, whose knowledge is being represented truly or not. There are things we will not tolerate.


This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Shorter and better answer: No. Consensus is not possible on Wikipedia.

Quite correct. But that is a rough equivalent of only half of what I said, the easy part to express. GBG, if you can condense the other half, even if it were still longer than one sentence, my hat will be off to you. One sentence that actually does it, do you need a job?

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/vomit.gif)

It's not actually about me or even about my ideas. If the structures are set up, I assume that those structures will come up with better ideas than I could even dream of. Consensus is powerful and wise. It is not the "lowest denominator" that some fear; for consensus includes the opinions of the wise and experienced. Why not? It's synthesis, not this or that.

Thanks, Jon. If more people would pick up and repeat the most important parts of my best writing, this would all get more efficient. People could skip my tomes without losing anything at all. Sorry about you throwing up, though. Perhaps you should stop doing whatever made you sick.

[victim of censorship]

That's because such problems are difficult, and they are volunteers, and don't have the support they'd need to handle it. I suggested how they could get that support...

I'll bite. How?

SONG SEZ IT ALL!

[A Horse With No Name]

I'll bite.

Mmmmm....kinky! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

For a project which advertises itself as the "sum of human knowledge," there are fundamental requirements that cannot be defined away by internal rules. Let's think of the unblocked WP community as an "article consensus" and the real community as humanity, whose knowledge is being represented truly or not. There are things we will not tolerate.

Rules, schmules...WP makes it up as it goes along. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Mathsci]

Abd has now been blocked for one week for failing to adhere to the promises he made to Sandstein.

[Abd]

Abd has now been blocked for one week for failing to adhere to the promises he made to Sandstein.

Wow! I'm hard pressed to guess. I commented in an Rfar/clarification about the situation. I filed that, and the involved editor commented there. I'll be fascinated to see what reason was given. This is lovely. Was I blocked for commenting in an RfAr where I'm the originating party? How to twist that out of the sanction, I'm looking forward to seeing.

What happens if they throw a block party and nobody shows up? Am I blocked if I don't try to edit?

I was once held in a drunk tank for a time. I was in, shall we say, a state. I was right where I wanted to be. Was I in jail? Well, no more than the guards. Maybe less. And when I thought it was time to leave, I walked to the door, it opened, and I walked into the next room where I was photographed for the book. A few years later, I happened to see the booking photo. Remarkable. It was a peak experience. Freedom. Don't leave home without it.

These idiots really think they have authority!