Cla68 Deathwatch, ArbCom gets its chance to shoot him down Options

[Moulton]

With all due respect, I am obliged as a scientist to remain skeptical of all theories, and continue to carefully examine the evidence and reasoning for any proposed theory in accordance with the protocols of the scientific method.

The General Theory of Wikipedia asserts that it will chase off any kind of talent, ability, real-world expertise, external reputation or any other manifestation of real value.

Evidence for this theory is legion.

Evidence against?

Here, here and here, although to be fair, it's only evidence against if you concede that the subject in question has any talent, ability, real-world expertise, external reputation or some other grudgingly acknowledged manifestation of real value — a poorly grounded concession that may well get you quickly laughed out of the house.

And then there is also the more convincing case of Poetlister, for which I don't have the link to the evidence immediately at hand, but look for it here and here.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 25th May 2008, 6:49pm

[Cedric]

Does B have a history with FM? B's section seems especially powerful to me; almost a third of FM's administrative acts look pretty dubious. The section highlights both FM's admin abuse and POV pushing in less than two pages. I hope that it isn't tainted by an ongoing grudge.

That's my concern. There are some legitimate issues here of abuse of the administrative tools that need to be heard. But the problem is every time SV or JzG forgot to say "please", "thank you", or "mother may I" is now being documented and it's making the whole thing look like a farce.

My strong preference is that everything prior to 2007 be deleted and any alleged example of incivility that doesn't involve either profanity or a threat be deleted. Most of the alleged examples of incivility aren't the least bit incivil and the problem is that if there are 300 diffs purporting to be incivility and 50 of them really are horribly incivil and vile comments, no arbiter is going to pay attention to them because there's so much background noise.

Irrelevant. It matters not how Cla68 constructs his case. He is naught but banfodder. The only "justice" that can be expected here is "just us" (i.e., show trial "justice"). At best, it will be Mannisox all over again. As for the worst, just use your imagination.

[One]

Editor William M. COInnolley proposed several bizarro world remedies where JzG, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk are commended for their work as editors and administrators. Dan T's reaction made me chuckle:

You guys seem to have ArbCom confused with the people who hand out barnstars... the headlines of this group of proposals remind me of the newspaper headline in one of the Back to the Future movies that switched between "Doc Brown Commended" [for scientific achievements] and "Doc Brown Committed" [to an asylum] depending on how history was changed. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[Moulton]

Where the hell did I leave my Flux Capacitor?

[Achromatic]

Rapidly turning into another Mantan-like farce. People submitting opinions and possibilities and theorizing without a single citation of anything as "Evidence" (to wit, Tony I've-Got-A-Long-Fictitious-Spaceship-Name-As-A-Handle Sidaway and Fill).

Fill's is, in particular, vile. He doesn't make one remark on the issues at hand other than to get on his soapbox and rant how Cla68 is apparently trying to view himself as "above" Jimbo and Arbcom, and the chilling effect of what might happen if someone were maybe to go to the media, a claim that's not at all borne out in evidence, and then just carries on with random and gratuitous character assassination.

[taiwopanfob]

Here, here and here, although to be fair, it's only evidence against if you concede that the subject in question has any talent, ability, real-world expertise, external reputation or some other grudgingly acknowledged manifestation of real value — a poorly grounded concession that may well get you quickly laughed out of the house.

The first source is an unsuccessful unblock, for the usual reasons.

The second is more or less the same.

The third appears to be yet more, with the possible difference that yes, you might just get to edit the encyclopedia -- if you are willing to have the WikiGun held to your WikiHead the entire time.

So I'd say that all of these are more in support for the GToW than against.

And then there is also the more convincing case of Poetlister, for which I don't have the link to the evidence immediately at hand, but look for it here and here.

The GToW predicts you won't last long. Maybe it'll be wrong in your and Poetlister's case, but it appears to be right more often than wrong.

[Kato]

Rapidly turning into another Mantan-like farce. People submitting opinions and possibilities and theorizing without a single citation of anything as "Evidence" (to wit, Tony I've-Got-A-Long-Fictitious-Spaceship-Name-As-A-Handle Sidaway and Fill).

Fill's is, in particular, vile. He doesn't make one remark on the issues at hand other than to get on his soapbox and rant how Cla68 is apparently trying to view himself as "above" Jimbo and Arbcom, and the chilling effect of what might happen if someone were maybe to go to the media, a claim that's not at all borne out in evidence, and then just carries on with random and gratuitous character assassination.

See below:

Ten Reasons Why ArbCom Doesn't Matter

1. ArbCom is creature of Mr. Wales, the last vestige of the Cult of the Godking;
2. The processes and procedures of ArbCom are amateurish and slipshod;
3. It encourages meddling and humiliation by allowing anyone to comment in disputes in which they have no standing and nothing relevant to contribute;
4. It is utterly lost in discerning the difference between evidence, opinion and rumor;
5. By confusing it's role as the trier of fact with that of investigator they take on a star-chamber character;
6. Community over-involvement in the process brings in all the evils of the dysfunctional social networking community;
7. It is openly a respecter of persons and influence and not a provider of equal application;
8. It's collaborative authoring methods leads to atomized, disjointed, incomprehensible and inconsistent decisions;
9. It declines application of it's own decisions as precedent, denying guidance to those depending on it's decisions, and;
10. It is lead by and intimately tainted from it's inception by a legal professional who left practice after receiving discipline for a serious and unresolved ethical lapse.

[Moulton]

The first source is an unsuccessful unblock, for the usual reasons.

The second is more or less the same.

The third appears to be yet more, with the possible difference that yes, you might just get to edit the encyclopedia -- if you are willing to have the WikiGun held to your WikiHead the entire time.

So I'd say that all of these are more in support for the GToW than against.

Oh I quite agree the preponderance of the evidence is for the GToW, but there is a glimmer of evidence against it buried in there, and that's what you asked for.

The GToW predicts you won't last long. Maybe it'll be wrong in your and Poetlister's case, but it appears to be right more often than wrong.

Oh, I have no illusions about being welcomed back with open arms. That's not even a back-burner goal of the "I have a dream" variety.

But I'm interested in discovering whether vile miscreants like me have any grudging civil rights in WikiWorld.

By the way, is GToW written up any place? I'd love to have a copy of the executable code. Source code would be even better, if it's open source.

[dtobias]

The "evidence" phase of an ArbCom case does seem to consist of digging up whatever dirt you can find on whichever of the parties to the case you happen to dislike (and maybe a few non-parties too for good measure), then moistening it with the liquid of your choice (blood, sweat, tears, bile, urine, ...) to make mud that you then sling at the parties in the hope that something sticks.

[One]

That list is classic, but we need a replacement for #10. I never thought Fred Bauder's involvement was very corrupting. If anything, I think that the departed arbs with legal training inserted at least a third-hand appreciation for process, which is almost utterly lacking among the others.

Since Wikipedia policy loathes formalism, the Arbs are inclined to ignore arguments about boring real-world procedural questions about things like standing, precedent, and evidence. Their role, as they see it, is simply to get the Right Result--that is, the result the helps Wikipedia best build an encyclopedia. This is an almost-impossible empirical questions, but common law courts didn't do a bad job by setting down and tweaking rules thought to promote peace in the Kingdom. A court could make a mistake, but this would be borne out by its uniform application over time, and the rule would be changed.

If ArbCom actually did something like this, it wouldn't be such a pernicious institution. Instead, precedent is eschewed, and offenses are ignored whenever the Arbs think they might lead to the Wrong Result (that is, when the Bad Guys would score a small victory against the Best Editors). Pleas for equal application are interpreted as harassment against the site's Best Editors.

In this way, Cla68's RfC against JzG is "harassment." Opinions like Filll's are actually the only evidence ArbCom cares about--it's perfectly fine evidence for what the Best Editors think about Cla68.

[KamrynMatika]

That list is classic, but we need a replacement for #10.

It can be joined by anyone who's been around for a year and hasn't said anything controversial? People aren't elected on the basis of their judgement, they're elected because they haven't pissed anyone off

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Sun 25th May 2008, 9:56pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Instead, precedent is eschewed, and offenses are ignored whenever the Arbs think they might lead to the Wrong Result (that is, when the Bad Guys would score a small victory against the Best Editors). Pleas for equal application are interpreted as harassment against the site's Best Editors.

In this way, Cla68's RfC against JzG is "harassment." Opinions like Filll's are actually the only evidence ArbCom cares about--it's perfectly fine evidence for what the Best Editors think about Cla68.

BTW, the Cla68 and JzG cases are now merged.

[Milton Roe]

Where the hell did I leave my Flux Capacitor?

See if it got mifsiled in the Fux Clapacitor drawers.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Instead, precedent is eschewed, and offenses are ignored whenever the Arbs think they might lead to the Wrong Result (that is, when the Bad Guys would score a small victory against the Best Editors). Pleas for equal application are interpreted as harassment against the site's Best Editors.

In this way, Cla68's RfC against JzG is "harassment." Opinions like Filll's are actually the only evidence ArbCom cares about--it's perfectly fine evidence for what the Best Editors think about Cla68.

BTW, the Cla68 and JzG cases are now merged.

Let the clusterfuck begin.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Let the clusterfuck begin.

As a public service, I will periodically provide a link to the evidence page, which may now change names if they rename the case.

[Giano]

ArbCom will accept, will say that they are only investigating Cla68, and not the behavior of all involved, and then ban him from editing Wikipedia space except with reference to featured articles.

He's going to be Giano'ed!?!

No, I don't think they will try that dirty little trick again. They had their fingers burnt and reputations too badly exposed to risk that one again.

Giano

[Moulton]

What interests me here is the definition or characterization of the phrase "the way we do things here."

Back when Bell Labs was reviewing its own cultural norms with a view to crafting a culture more hospitable to women and minorities, the definition of "culture" was often given as "the way we do things here."

In my capacity as an Anthropologist From Mars, I've been struggling for 10 months now to get a handle on Wikipedia Culture.

Now I gather that the cultural model is in flux and difficult to apprehend, even for those who have long been enmeshed in it.

No wonder I'm having such a hard time wrapping my brain around the meaning of "the way we do things here [on Wikipedia]."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Instead, precedent is eschewed, and offenses are ignored whenever the Arbs think they might lead to the Wrong Result (that is, when the Bad Guys would score a small victory against the Best Editors). Pleas for equal application are interpreted as harassment against the site's Best Editors.

In this way, Cla68's RfC against JzG is "harassment." Opinions like Filll's are actually the only evidence ArbCom cares about--it's perfectly fine evidence for what the Best Editors think about Cla68.

BTW, the Cla68 and JzG cases are now merged.

Let the clusterfuck begin.

We are now looking at the all-star Cla68/SV/FM/JzG/Viridae summer blockbuster.

[Aloft]

There's talk of adding Crum375 as a party too.

[Neil]

Let the clusterfuck begin.

As a public service, I will periodically provide a link to the evidence page, which may now change names if they rename the case.

The case won't be renamed now, or at least not until it is closed.

There's talk of adding Crum375 as a party too.

Tony Sidaway had also decided to add himself as a party "per own long custom" - a custom which nobody but Sidaway understood - but his name was subsequently removed.

This post has been edited by Neil: Tue 27th May 2008, 9:16am