And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case Options

[Abd]

HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that?

I was kidding. In reality, I have no idea what happened to your Preview.

How could you kid about something so Serious as preventing me from free XPRSSHUN!

Seriously, I just tried to edit the original post to add the additional two sentences. It did preview (I didn't save it.) Weird thing was, I had shut my browser down , reloading WR, and it still did the same thing, but it doesn't seem to be doing it now.

The Universe Is Against Me! That explains a lot....

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 15th July 2011, 1:42am

[carbuncle]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

Will is being aided in his pursuit of WR by User:Prioryman.

I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my email with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

[-DS-]

but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action.

ArbCom is being particularly unresponsive recently. I'm told by a fellow indefinitely blocked user that his emails have been similarly ignored.

[melloden]

We're testing our prototype tldrometer.

Very clever. Frustrate him to death by a sudden inability to see a Preview, and I finally tried just saving the damn thing, it gave me a blank post. So I cut it down until I finally found that only the last sentences caused it to not save. HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that?

I was kidding. In reality, I have no idea what happened to your Preview.

That's quite alright. Abd has no idea what happened to his sense of humor, either.

[Abd]

Abd has no idea what happened to his sense of humor, either.

Right. Please, somebody say something funny so I can locate it. It's got to be in here somewhere. When it laughs, then I can whack it with a banhammer. Ready?

Meanwhile, some here seem to have no ability to appreciate deadpan. There are those unfortunates. Life must be very hard for them, because the Really Funny Jokes don't have "Joke" written on their foreheads.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 17th July 2011, 5:25pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Not to worry. We plan to appoint one of the mods to thoroughly explain all jokes so that subtlety and nuance will no longer be a factor.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The comment on the RfC talk page by Will Beback

It is lost on Will Beback that there might be a difference between chatter in a local bar, and comments in a decision-making process for an encyclopedia.

Not really. He knows the difference. He's quite accomplished at changing the subject, when the topic of a discussion is not to his liking. He's attempting to "shoot the messenger" through guilt by association with BADSITES.

[Abd]

Not to worry. We plan to appoint one of the mods to thoroughly explain all jokes so that subtlety and nuance will no longer be a factor.

Thanks, HKOS. Got it! I won't be disturbed by that sense of humor for a while, until it can unflatten itself.

[Rhindle]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

[gomi]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

The primary difference on Wikipedia being that everyone is a bad guy with a folding chair and there are no referees.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

His basic argument is that since no editor is ever unjustly banned, the grave threat to the project is the banned editors -- they're out there somewhere, plotting evil. And since it is known that there are banned editors at the Review, and the Review is against the POV pushers, then all loyal Wikipedians must rally in defense of the POV pushers, such as Cirt or Will, because they are the last bastion of support for the ideals of Wikidom. Don't discuss the POV pushing, no matter how often Cla68 brings it up. Discuss only the need to close ranks against the BADSITES. Think of the children.

[Rhindle]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

His basic argument is that since no editor is ever unjustly banned, the grave threat to the project is the banned editors -- they're out there somewhere, plotting evil. And since it is known that there are banned editors at the Review, and the Review is against the POV pushers, then all loyal Wikipedians must rally in defense of the POV pushers, such as Cirt or Will, because they are the last bastion of support for the ideals of Wikidom. Don't discuss the POV pushing, no matter how often Cla68 brings it up. Discuss only the need to close ranks against the BADSITES. Think of the children.

Sounds like McCarthy, but instead of commies it's banned users and/or WR posters.

Edit: Uh-oh, I posted on a Cirt thread so I guess I'm on his enemies list now.

This post has been edited by Rhindle: Sun 17th July 2011, 8:16pm

[HRIP7]

The following motion has now been proposed:

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.

Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing?

[Abd]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

The primary difference on Wikipedia being that everyone is a bad guy with a folding chair and there are no referees.

I noticed a strange phenomenon well over twenty years ago, with "on-line conferencing" as it was called. For the first time, there was a complete record of interactions, so arguments over "what happened" should not take place.

What I saw was that people didn't change their habits based on this new situation. The same social dramas arose, and people took sides, and it didn't matter what had actually happened.

What occurs is that people form interpretations of what happened, and believe those interpretations, these interpretations become "what happened." And then, even if they look back, the interpretations, the story of what happened, become filters through which they perceive that evidence. The distortion can become drastic.

Should someone come along who looks at the evidence and analyzes it without an axe to grind, they will then judge this person as biased, if they don't like the analysis.

So I saw this phenomenon in the 1980s, with an early on-line community. It's the Wikipedia story, and it's repeated over and over.

In RfAr/Abd and JzG, I had compiled, for RfC/JzG 3, a list of JzG edits to cold fusion pages. It was just to show involvement, and mostly it was just a pile of diffs with his edit summaries, very little additional comment. It was complete, not cherry-picked.

It was condemned by his friends as if it had been an attack. If an Arb hadn't compiled the same thing, using software, presenting it independently, I don't know what would have happened in that RfAr.

JzG's friends, I think, assumed that his edit summaries had been written by me, or cherry-picked by me at best, to make him look bad. That kind of assumption about anyone involved in conflict, that they must, ipso facto, be biased, is larded through DR process as it actually takes place on Wikipedia.

What surprised me about the ArbComm leaks on that case was the extent to which ArbComm was quite ready to ban me, even then. From the case itself, as openly expressed, the only admonishment was that I'd taken too long to file the case! So, in the future, I didn't take so long!

And in the next case, RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, the ArbComm majority took over. Enough of this Abd nonsense, ban him! Which is what they wanted to do wiith RfAr/Abd and JzG but it would have looked entirely too bad, since the actual case was open and shut.

The next case provided plenty of cover, since the issues were far more complex. There are plenty of signs that most arbs didn't read the evidence.... why bother, when it's so obvious that Abd is a Troublemaker with a capital T?

That's just my story, folks, there are many such stories in the Wiki City. ArbComm is simply behaving like a normal collection of unsophisticated people, dropped in over their heads. There are a few who are, in fact, smarter than that, but it's overwhelmed by the majority.

ArbComm is quite what all those years of my experience would suggest to me would be created by the structure that was set up. It's not a surprise, they are not specially Bad People. Just ordinary people, dropped into and having chosen to participate in an abusive structure. It eats them.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The following motion has now been proposed:

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.

Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing?

Yes. It looks to me that all editors who desire to use WP as a soapbox for rootin', tootin', BLP-violatin' agenda-driven activism and COATRACK construction view the Cirt case as a watershed for the continuation of their activities, and they will raise a hue and cry that he is being Wikihounded and persecuted. The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it.

[Abd]

Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing?

In RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, I proposed that ArbComm act to keep cases as narrow as possible. To broaden cases to "examine the behavior of all involved" necessarily broadens and confuses them, and it chills participation.

Rather, suppose editor RandyFromBoise has a complaint about AdministratorAnyBody. Randy files a case, having attempted dispute resolution without success. Administrator claims that Randy is the one misbehaving. However, Randy and Administrator are independent editors. "He made me do it" is recognized, when it's children involved, as a deficient excuse! Rather, if Administrator does claim misbehavior by Randy, Administrator can file an independent case, and it will be examined independently.

Cases could certainly refer to each other, and use each other as evidence, and even findings from one case can be incorporated into another, it is not that everything would need to be examined twice. But each case should stand on its own, and what would be relevant in the case against Administrator, say, would be the Administrator's behavior, not Randy's. If Randy was, say, uncivil, Randy could be admonished or sanctioned in RfAr/Randy, considering the circumstances. Likewise Administrator in RfAr/Administrator.

The amalgamation is done on the belief that there is a single issue, the conflict between Randy and Administrator, and that resolution with respect to one would be resolution with respect to the other. In real life, civil cases are amalgamated when they do involve the same decisions of fact and law, but not on the very loose connections as on Wikipedia; ArbComm seems to believe that by reducing the number of cases, they are reducing their case load. No. What they are doing is making cases so complex, with complex issues linked, that clear and sensible decisions become almost impossible for mortals to find.

They also need to drastically limit what evidence is presented, it should be vetted and filtered, there is vast scope for good clerking. They likewise don't understand this, so case pages grow all out of readable proportions, and provide no clear justification for decisions, hence real decisions are made ... on the mailing list!

(I argued that arbitrators should appoint their own clerks, long story. It's part of my concept of what functional wiki structure would look like, documented hierarchies of influence and trust.... Instead of the secret defacto ones.)

My proposal was treated as one more example of how Abd writes too much....

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 17th July 2011, 8:59pm

[Abd]

The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it.

Yes. Eventually they may do something, if pushed hard enough. And when they do something, it is too much.

It is as if they were given blasters with three settings: Admonish, Desysop, and Ban. They have no concept of creating easily enforceable remedies, they wouldn't know one if it bit them on the ankle.

They admonish, then, with no care for actually determining that the editor or sysop actually understands the issues and will refrain from the activity in the future. They rarely suspend tools, i.e., order the sysop to restrict tool usage, and they certainly don't set up enforcement provisions for this that are not in themselves disruptive.

So an admin apologizes. They often don't even bother to look for that! Great! So, were I an arbitrator, I'd ask the sysop for suggestions on what to do if an agreement is violated, how it will be interpreted. I'd ask the editor to name what seems to be mostly called a mentor on Wikipedia, someone trusted by both the editor and ArbComm, to intervene if the editor violates the agreement, with an ad hoc ruling. And I'd allow any admin to enforce that decision, immediately, under Arbitration Enforcement rules, all subject to appeal through some reasonable appeal process. If this was a sysop, the status would be suspended, i.e, there would be an order issued, probably by the mentor, to cease all tool usage as described, immediately, and if this was violated, tool removal would be immediate. The steward would simply look at a small set of references to the policy pages and to the agreement by the sysop involved.

For something like an example of how this might work, see the standard stop agreement that I agreed to as part of my current request for custodianship, stalled because of SBJ's opposition. In it, I make, effectively, all other Wikiversity my mentors, should they choose to act. A similar agreement could cover adminship on Wikipedia, with a named mentor, who would have the right to name additional mentors, and provisions could exist for ArbComm-appointed mentors if the position becomes vacant, i.e., the original mentor is no longer active.

Truly resolving disputes on Wikipedia requires flexible options, but those have generally been considered ineffective or abandoned or impossible. Lack of imagination, lack of willingness to try new solutions.

[The Joy]

Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.

His basic argument is that since no editor is ever unjustly banned, the grave threat to the project is the banned editors -- they're out there somewhere, plotting evil. And since it is known that there are banned editors at the Review, and the Review is against the POV pushers, then all loyal Wikipedians must rally in defense of the POV pushers, such as Cirt or Will, because they are the last bastion of support for the ideals of Wikidom. Don't discuss the POV pushing, no matter how often Cla68 brings it up. Discuss only the need to close ranks against the BADSITES. Think of the children.

Sounds like McCarthy, but instead of commies it's banned users and/or WR posters.

Edit: Uh-oh, I posted on a Cirt thread so I guess I'm on his enemies list now.

Indeed. The only time I may have run across one of Cirt's accounts was when I was researching Scientology for a college project and Wikipedia had loads of anti-Scientology documents. Then Justanother (T-C-L-K-R-D) /Justallofthem (T-C-L-K-R-D) went around trying to sanitize or delete them, IIRC. Sadly, Wikipedia was one of the few online resources at the time that I could find that tried to discuss Scientology. The CoS was very good at keeping anti-CoS sites down and the CoS's own sites didn't tell me anything about basic CoS belief systems or even an "Idiot's Guide to Scientology." Well, that and I was a young college student and I really had no time to research the topic thoroughly, so there probably was more out there, but I didn't look too deeply.

I really noticed Cirt when he (?) started making forays into Featured Articles, a dangerous territory fraught with danger, and clashed with Geogre and friends. I haven't followed his recent actions lately, but he does suffer from a very common problem on Wikipedia. He doesn't understand the culture. You can say "Hey! I'm following the rules, so you can't be mad at me or sanction me!" and yet make people pissed off at you. Wikipedia was founded as a lax environment with few hard-line rules and many still have that spirit. If you go to Giano and say "Your article does not meet current FA standards and I will send it to FAR if it does not improve," you are not going to be his friend or gain his cooperation. Instead, you should go to him politely and say "Hello, Giano. I was reading your article and I was very impressed by it. I found some magnificent resources that could supplement it. Would you care to work together and see if we can make the article even more spectacular? I would be honored by your participation in this endeavor." You can't charge in like a rhino demanding things. You have to treat people like human beings and not machines or cogs. Consider human feelings and try to bond with them. Reach out and be their brother or sister! You know, wax the chicken... or something.

People like Betacommand, TreasuryTag, AdjustShift, Cirt, Roux, and others act like hard-line, apocalyptic, mechanical, stiff bureaucrats and that really goes against the basics of human interaction. Social capital on online communities is even more important than following arbitrary rules. You need to consider a communities norms and mores and understand the spirit of the community and its goals. I don't really know how to explain this to Cirt and others like him and have them take it to heart. Or maybe I just did?

[HRIP7]

The following motion has now been proposed:

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.

Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing?

Yes. It looks to me that all editors who desire to use WP as a soapbox for rootin', tootin', BLP-violatin' agenda-driven activism and COATRACK construction view the Cirt case as a watershed for the continuation of their activities, and they will raise a hue and cry that he is being Wikihounded and persecuted. The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it.

What an elegant summary. Care to run for arbcom? I'll vote for you.

Oh shit ... they banned you.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Oh shit ... they banned you.

Well, it wasn't the ArbCom that banned me. It was Will Beback and JoshuaZ, who banned me on behalf of their 2-person Community.