Betacommand RFAR #3 Options

[that one guy]

With all the drama over at the MF/Civility case and some interesting happenings over at the TG case, this one sort of got left behind though now it's at voting.

we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...acommand_banned

Where the hell did that come from?

[EricBarbour]

"Betacommand is a divisive figure" MY ASS.

He's been stirring up shit for more than four years. And Arbcom, in their staggering patheticness,
is now helping him. December 2007, anyone?

BC is a major example of how sick and raving mad the glorious Wikipedia "community" really is.
He has intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies. And the shit boils on, year after year.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

"Betacommand is a divisive figure" MY ASS.

He's been stirring up shit for more than four years. And Arbcom, in their staggering patheticness,
is now helping him. December 2007, anyone?

BC is a major example of how sick and raving mad the glorious Wikipedia "community" really is.
He has intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies. And the shit boils on, year after year.

Eric, surely the fact that BC has "intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies" means that he is, ipso facto, divisive on Wikipedia.

If you think that I was expressing pleasure about ArbCom apparently letting BC escape without a ban once again, you're wrong. Like you, I have a low opinion of BC and his supporters. My interest here is in the unusual public fractiousness of the Arbitration Committee in this case, and what that means for the upcoming year.

[EricBarbour]

Eric, surely the fact that BC has "intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies" means that he is, ipso facto, divisive on Wikipedia.

Just to amplify: I was being ironic. This goes far, far beyond "divisive". By showing how deep and
hopeless the divisions in Wikipedia (and now Arbcom) are, BC's case makes a perfect demonstration
that Wikipedia should be shut down entirely, and all the Arbcommers ("reformers" or not) need to be
kicked to the curb. This is the kind of petty shit that eventually causes outright civil war.

Another thing Wikipedia is, but won't admit: a slow-motion gang war.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

Just to amplify: I was being ironic. This goes far, far beyond "divisive". By showing how deep and
hopeless the divisions in Wikipedia (and now Arbcom) are, BC's case makes a perfect demonstration
that Wikipedia should be shut down entirely, and all the Arbcommers ("reformers" or not) need to be
kicked to the curb. This is the kind of petty shit that eventually causes outright civil war.

Another thing Wikipedia is, but won't admit: a slow-motion gang war.

Right, sorry; I'm sure I would have picked up on that if we were having this conversation face-to-face and not in a text-only medium.

I agree with your point that this is a prime example of Wikipedia's dysfunctional nature. It's interesting that ArbCom is scheduled to decide a case about Malleus, a similarly polarizing user (regardless of whether or not he's a Giano wannabe), shortly after this one. The intractable divisions over users like these, or issues like Flagged Revisions and Unreferenced BLPs, suggest that Wikipedia's consensus model is at the very least a deeply flawed way to run a website. But when the alternative rule by fiat would put in charge either a divided committee (the community writ small) or the bumbling, incompetent Jimmy Wales, it's hard not to see the whole thing as hopeless.