The Cabal Strikes Back ... again, Sphilbrick RfA Options

[Abd]

I'm struck by the constellation of cabal editors (the global warming/anti-pseudoscience cabal) showing up to oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick. Many of the !votes are without reason, and these editors are strongly indicating that it has to do with climate change, in various places, requesting immunity, etc. (rather stupidly, by the way. If they are blocked for ban violation, it would be an enforcement action, not to be undone by another admin unilaterally, promise or not; if they realize that, they are trying to bait an admin into promising, ScienceApologist has done stuff like that before).

So what did Sphilbrick do? It looks like he did what ArbComm ended up doing much more forcefully, tell the truth about what the cabal had been doing for years.

ScienceApologist, who isn't topic banned, came right out and pointed to the Great Sin: User:Sphilbrick/Robert Watson incident timeline. Sphilbrick didn't write the timeline, rather she merely assisted with formatting. ScienceApologist calls the page an "attack page." I've seen that from the cabal before. Even neutral evidence pages, mostly diffs with edit summaries, have been called "attack pages." I.e., pointing to the actual behavior of editors, quoting their own words, without adding blaming text, is "attack." They don't see the irony.

This page is about a revert war that took place during the Climate Change arbitration. It seems reasonably neutral, but it is possible that the evidence is cherry-picked, that would be the worst of it. I can't figure out who, exactly, is being "attacked," as ScienceApologist so firmly asserts.

But anyone who helped to make it known what the Cabal had been doing is an enemy, and is to be made to suffer for it. Given the length of the disruption and the depth of it and the damage that was done, ArbComm was extraordinarily lenient, and, so, these editors feel free to cause as much problem as possible.

The RfAr is running 29:6:2 at the moment (with one weird Support in the Oppose section, I didn't count it), but it's possible as many as two dozen cabal-affiliated editors could show up. Or not. The fuss being made about those pure votes could create watchlist traffic that would attract them, even without any off-wiki coordination (I've never seen proof of such, though a little evidence re WMC and Hipocrite). On the other hand, the only argument of any substance being made in opposition is that of ScienceApologist, and it's preposterous on the face. So increased attention may help the RfA.

[Emperor]

Annex.

[Cla68]

For those who want to see young admins argue about what to do about it. If Sphilbrick keeps his cool he should pass. Nevertheless, I'm suprised that no one has done anything yet about those topic banned editors ganging up and retaliating against an editor who sometimes opposed their antics within the CC articles.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Lar]

For those who want to see young admins argue about what to do about it. If Sphilbrick keeps his cool he should pass. Nevertheless, I'm suprised that no one has done anything yet about those topic banned editors ganging up and retaliating against an editor who sometimes opposed their antics within the CC articles.

Other than voting support, what can be done that has any chance of actually helping? I feel sorry for Sphilbrick... speaking truth to cabals is never fun and most messengers get shot. (or at least shot at)...

That said I think there's a good chance this editor will pass RfA. Many folk are tired of this particular cabal and will vote support. I think.

[Abd]

For those who want to see young admins argue about what to do about it. If Sphilbrick keeps his cool he should pass. Nevertheless, I'm suprised that no one has done anything yet about those topic banned editors ganging up and retaliating against an editor who sometimes opposed their antics within the CC articles.

Her cool, apparently.

It's clear that this is a Climate Change related action. But I dislike that these editors, if not blocked, would not be allowed to express their opinion. I do think that those opinions should be flagged, just in case there is a 'crat who closes, having been on vacation on Mars for a few months.

I haven't researched the activity of SPhilbrick in detail, but every thing I saw seemed quite neutral, including that evidence page (which she did not compile, apparently, but helped format. Aiding the enemy, the cabal sees that as.). It will be interesting to see if other cabal editors show up.

Schulz !voted neutral. Interesting. Has bit still, wants to keep it, probably. But couldn't possibly support.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

If WMC, Hipocrite, and ScienceApologist are the "cabal", then, well, the term is now ridiculous.

Malleus or Giano have more people supporting them on off hours for petty stuff. Hell, even I have more people supporting my various actions when needed.

[Tarc]

It was like moving mountains last year to finally get that cut n dried (IMO) "Oppose, too many admins" retard off the boards last year, DougsTech. No one will touch this proposal.

[Abd]

For those who want to see young admins argue about what to do about it. If Sphilbrick keeps his cool he should pass. Nevertheless, I'm suprised that no one has done anything yet about those topic banned editors ganging up and retaliating against an editor who sometimes opposed their antics within the CC articles.

Other than voting support, what can be done that has any chance of actually helping? I feel sorry for Sphilbrick... speaking truth to cabals is never fun and most messengers get shot. (or at least shot at)...

That said I think there's a good chance this editor will pass RfA. Many folk are tired of this particular cabal and will vote support. I think.

My observation about this whole sequence, including my own involvement, is that the part of the core community that used to go for basic wiki principles (there was a whole ethos that made it work better in certain ways, though not efficiently and not without continued struggle) mostly burned out. At one point, I'd have had far more support than I did in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. ArbComm, predictably, interpreted the lack of support as a sign of deviance and disruptiveness, and, of course, anyone who stood up to the cabal would cause "disruption."

Underneath all this is, my guess, a kind of panic that Wikipedia will lose the core volunteers that stave off the end game. The community has lost the intelligence that could really address the long-term issues. It would probably be easier to fork than to save Wikipedia As It Is. Let this open mess continue and do what it will, sliding into chaos or otherwise; set up, independently, a governance structure that fulfills the vision of neutrality and let it govern the participation of those who join it, and let the true wisdom of crowds come out; it only comes out when structure selects for wisdom and trustworthiness, and maintains that against the natural tendencies to the formation of self-interested oligarchies.

And then use the product of Wikipedia as an entry point for a process that does nothing but improve, like a ratcheted gear that can only turn in one direction.

I assume that such a fork, because one of the things it would be aiming for is consistency with expert knowledge -- without worshipping it, and adjudicating between experts so that all expert opinion is reflected properly -- and anonymity is probably inconsistent with this, would require that accounts would be real name identified (absent special permission that a community might allow for serious security reasons -- and I'd not allow such accounts any privileges other than to make suggestions and point to sources. A dozen such accounts would have no more weight than one.)

Citizendium should have gone this way! It's not too late, Larry! Properly done, this would make Citizendium, immediately, superior to Wikipedia. I've described it elsewhere: The fork would automatically transfer all pages to the fork, but, once a fork page has been approved by the local process, changes from Wikipedia would become Pending Changes. Such pending pages, pending approval, would be flagged as unapproved, not considered reliable.

It's important that the local page not backslide; at every point, once a page has been locally approved (by whatever process, but it could be pretty efficient), it never goes backwards. If someone improves the Wikipedia page so that it's better -- again, according to local process -- then the Wikipedia revision becomes the local one, in toto or in part, as locally decided.

Unlike one of the prior forks, however, local process can independently improve pages. That might also be through Flagged Revisions, with a process for approval that isn't just "one trusted editor liked it."

A new community would need to face the basic problem with consensus process: if it takes a consensus to change, whenever the status quo favors a minority, consensus rule becomes minority rule.

I'm led inexorably to these principles:
1. Voting. Majority rule.
2. A community that values consensus, that sees a decision by a mere majority as unsatisfactory and only temporary, and needing some sort of continued consideration and effort to find a consensus solution.
3. Voting requires a defined set of eligible voters.
4. Voting requires an informed electorate. That is impossible as a routine matter for a large electorate. The classic solution is representation, the formation of empowered committees. Full electorate voting should be limited to situations where a major decision must be made, and consensus cannot be found at a lower level.
5. Long-term consideration of these problems led me to delegable proxy. Similar consideration, well over a century ago, led Lewis Carroll to what we now call Asset Voting.
6. If anyone wants to set up a truly representative system that does not require "parties" or "factions" to function, but which will function quite well in their presence, they should look at Asset Voting. It is trivially easy to set up and can be run as a "continuous election." It can be used with traditional peer assemblies, or with delegable proxy (where participation in high-level decision involves variable voting power, based on proxy assignments), or as a hybrid that routinely functions as if a peer assembly, but that can incorporate "tweaks" when low-level voters want to express something different from what their effective representative does.
7. Filtering is key. Process where anyone and everyone can fill pages with comments is doomed to gross inefficiency. It seems "democratic," but the effect is the opposite. However, it's possible to have systems where everyone is represented, and has a means of access that's filtered. In delegable proxy or Asset voting, the filter (for information flowing in both directions, though individuals can always bypass the filter for incoming information) is freely chosen.
8. My own organizational ideas are not crucial. There could be more than one fork, organized through different principles. I just think that my ideas are more likely to lead to success, but the proof will be in the pudding. I think they are powerful enough that there would be no need for more than one fork, if it's organized properly.

[Abd]

If WMC, Hipocrite, and ScienceApologist are the "cabal", then, well, the term is now ridiculous.

Malleus or Giano have more people supporting them on off hours for petty stuff. Hell, even I have more people supporting my various actions when needed.

That's a totally ignorant comment. WMC and Hipocrite were core cabal. ScienceApologist was also, but wasn't mentioned by me in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley because he was banned from Fringe science topics at the time, all his activity was old by then. But he came back, and has been, lately, even worse than before. Same agenda.

The cabal has been heavily damaged. That one, anyway. However, they are still dangerous, and can still pull off actions when the community isn't watching for it. The core cabal in question could muster something on the order of two dozen admins and editors when needed, which was ordinarily enough to torpedo almost anything on Wikipedia, short of ArbComm, and even at ArbComm, when they came out in force on a topic where ArbComm was clueless and Didn't Want to Know, they could prevail. Numbers do count when those with the power to vote don't independently investigate.

For an example, see RfC/JzG 3. As I recall the numbers, about two dozen editors supported the conclusion that Abd should be banned for filing it. About one dozen supported the RfC evidence, one way or another, as showing use of tools while involved. And the evidence was open and shut, and the filing didn't do anything more than point to the evidence and suggest -- use of tools while involved. So: 2:1 ban Abd for raising the issue. Consensus? No, participation bias. When this went to ArbComm, the cabal only feebly opposed, the evidence was too clear, and the danger to the cabal too small, only one admin was at risk, and he handily avoided it by retiring temporarily. You'd think that ArbComm would be wise to this trick! They admonished him, but neglected to require that he acknowledge the problem. Totally stupid, guaranteed to fail. He did become a little more careful, though. He didn't use his tools to whack editors he didn't like, he used his influence and ability to rouse the rabble. Result the same.

I was only successful then because this went to ArbComm. If this had been an AN filing by JzG, trying to ban me, it would have worked, almost certainly. And, in fact, it did, about a month ago....

Basically, JzG knows what arguments can convince inattentive administrators and editors.....

[Avirosa]

How is any of this anything more than schoolyard gossip ? If it weren't for the Kohser's digging away at the WMF 'body bureaucratic' and Awbrey's entertaining and occassionally instructive ruminifications I wouldn't waste my time looking at anything on WR anymore.

A.virosa

This post has been edited by Avirosa:

[thekohser]

As already mentioned... this isn't a General Discussion, it is Annex material.

[A Horse With No Name]

As already mentioned... this isn't a General Discussion, it is Annex material.

It's not even that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Hell, even this is more interesting! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

I haven't researched the activity of SPhilbrick in detail, but every thing I saw seemed quite neutral, including that evidence page (which she did not compile, apparently, but helped format. Aiding the enemy, the cabal sees that as.).

He is male, actually, and makes no big secret of his real life identity—he is (or was) a publishing actuary. I was somewhat amused by this little story of his, which I think is worth taking a look at.

[Abd]

I haven't researched the activity of SPhilbrick in detail, but every thing I saw seemed quite neutral, including that evidence page (which she did not compile, apparently, but helped format. Aiding the enemy, the cabal sees that as.).

He is male, actually, and makes no big secret of his real life identity—he is (or was) a publishing actuary. I was somewhat amused by this little story of his, which I think is worth taking a look at.

It's Stephen, then. Someone (Iridescent?) had used "she." Threw me off.

The RfA is looking pretty solid. Even if the cabal masses, I doubt that they could stop it now. It is now 67/9/7, which is reasonably secure unless SPhilbrick does something stupid or it turns out that he has a Horrible Secret. I've estimated the cabal at two dozen editors, and five have already voted. So they could, perhaps, add 19 from the cabal, and the cabal almost always drags in some of the clueless or distracted. But for that to swing the result would take very low new votes to support, and I see no sign that the well of support has been tapped out. People will log in over the week.

Hipocrite's been really funny. Complaining about a vague comment from Diego Grez about hypocrisy. Uh, why did Hipocrite pick that user name? Like, what was he (?) thinking?

[Eva Destruction]

It's Stephen, then. Someone (Iridescent?) had used "she." Threw me off.

Huh? I've never heard of the guy until now.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As already mentioned... this isn't a General Discussion, it is Annex material.

OK. the customer is always right.

[Subtle Bee]

So I guess our own Doc Glasgow (yes, he's ours, and it's "important", as you shall see...) overstepped in it, blocking Hippocrite & WMC for their RFA votes. I think it was a bad decision, though I've hardly followed the GW messiness - they're allowed to vote, but not allowed to mention The Case (and they don't, technically), but if they vote for reasons they decline to state they can be blocked for coming too close to the line -which means they're not allowed to vote based on their own criteria, which is ludicrous. Doc, you're most welcome to clarify if I've done you a disservice.

To Doc's credit, he put the blocks on AN/I for review, and ultimately reversed himself - but not before catching an enormous faceload of grief. Some good drama there, but the best part is Harvester Boris pointing out Doc's WR contributions. Back on D's talkpage, Tony Sidaway shows up for "a brief word" that's a cross between a booster club meeting and HUAC, and there's even a demand to name names. It's great dialogue, a few highlights:

If you're short of venues, for heaven's sake, just ask and I'll open a thread at my blog and you and your mates can have a public discussion care of Wordpress. These people are poison, which is why they're banned. Why give them the time of day? --TS 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know how I feel them. I know some people--even arbitrators--want to mix with the people who founded that forum. I don't, and I do think less of you that you grace these people with your attention. They do not want Wikipedia to thrive. They do not like us. Why do you do this? --TS 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, what do I, as a Wikipedia editor, get out of the knowledge that you are willingly exposing yourself to people who you admit only wish harm on Wikipedia? --TS 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

[...]I spent a lot of time believing you could be trusted. Hey, remember that? Assumption of good faith doesn't work so well when you do bad things. What could you say on the troll forum that you could not say in a location that wasn't run by trolls? It isn't as if I, or anybody else, forced you to go there. Why did you decide to associate with the trolls? I won't let this go.

I honestly had no idea what kind of company I was keeping. What'd we ever do to Tasty?

[Text]

This user is bad news, has been for a long time, yet has been, rather obviously, protected. Like ScienceApologist, in fact, or WMC.

Protecting crackheads is important because they create all the funny stuff. Funny depending on people's tastes. Some people could just find it very depressing or whacked.

[tarantino]

So I guess our own Doc Glasgow (yes, he's ours, and it's "important", as you shall see...) overstepped in it, blocking Hippocrite & WMC for their RFA votes. I think it was a bad decision, though I've hardly followed the GW messiness - they're allowed to vote, but not allowed to mention The Case (and they don't, technically), but if they vote for reasons they decline to state they can be blocked for coming too close to the line -which means they're not allowed to vote based on their own criteria, which is ludicrous. Doc, you're most welcome to clarify if I've done you a disservice.

To Doc's credit, he put the blocks on AN/I for review, and ultimately reversed himself - but not before catching an enormous faceload of grief. Some good drama there, but the best part is Harvester Boris pointing out Doc's WR contributions. Back on D's talkpage, Tony Sidaway shows up for "a brief word" that's a cross between a booster club meeting and HUAC, and there's even a demand to name names. It's great dialogue, a few highlights:

If you're short of venues, for heaven's sake, just ask and I'll open a thread at my blog and you and your mates can have a public discussion care of Wordpress. These people are poison, which is why they're banned. Why give them the time of day? --TS 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know how I feel them. I know some people--even arbitrators--want to mix with the people who founded that forum. I don't, and I do think less of you that you grace these people with your attention. They do not want Wikipedia to thrive. They do not like us. Why do you do this? --TS 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, what do I, as a Wikipedia editor, get out of the knowledge that you are willingly exposing yourself to people who you admit only wish harm on Wikipedia? --TS 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

[...]I spent a lot of time believing you could be trusted. Hey, remember that? Assumption of good faith doesn't work so well when you do bad things. What could you say on the troll forum that you could not say in a location that wasn't run by trolls? It isn't as if I, or anybody else, forced you to go there. Why did you decide to associate with the trolls? I won't let this go.

I honestly had no idea what kind of company I was keeping. What'd we ever do to Tasty?

That's rich. Tony "Sherilyn" Sidaway is one of the world's most preeminent trolls. That "the wikipedia community" lets him run rampant on their project and lecture others on their failings is just another sign of how hopeless it has become.

[Kelly Martin]

Ain't Tony cute?