Moreschi for ARBCOM!!, ...Now that Durova is out of the race, we need a new candidate! Options

Okay, I know, you'll scratching your heads and wondering if I've finally gone stark raving mad. I was the first one to bring up the doings of Signor Moreschi here even back before he was an admin. I've had quite a few swipes at him in the past and I still have misgivings. However, there is one major point which makes me think that he should get the WR nomination:

He was the first person to really "let the cat out of the bag" about the "soopersekrit soopahspky group" and was instrumental in getting the information out.

He's stood up to Jimbo a number of times in the past, is extremely vocal about the idea that Jimbo's role is going to have to change and is generally a pain in the ass to people who he thinks are abusing their power. For example, look at his Wikithoughts page :

# There are 3 steps on the ladder of religious cruelty. Firstly, they sacrificed their loved ones as burnt offerings to the Godking, if those loved ones broke the holy commands. Later, they sacrificed their own most deep passions and desires - for the sake of the Godking. And then was what left? In their final passion of frenzy, of brutal, nihilistic cruelty, didn't they then have to sacrifice the Godking himself? On the altar of repression and stupidity?

Plus he was one of the three that nominated Kelly Martin for admin. The guy's got moxy. Even Kelly thinks so.

Now, this doesn't mean that after he is elected that I'll stop taking swipes at him. But I really think that he's our man.

So, Moreschi in 2007? Here's his statement. Here's his questions page.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Tue 27th November 2007, 10:08am

Moreschi for ArbCom?! I don't know about that one.

The idea takes a bit of getting used to.

You can't say that he doesn't tell it like it is:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086106.html

Oh? I remain to be convinced. Why, then, did Durova think it quite alright to post her evidence to !! to this list? Why do we have good people, like Krimpet, being attacked on this mailing list? Why do we have two of our finest, Thatcher131 and Alison (now a CU), signing up to this list and then rapidly unsubscribing when they find it wasn't, after all, that it was cooked up to be. In fact, Alison memorably described it as chock-full of "bitterness, anger and wikipolitics". Oh dear.

And why, then, did we think it quite alright to set up a bastard child to wpcyberstalking, wpinvestigations-1? This little list I know quite a lot about - I've seen some truly bizarre and quite terrifying conversations, including some posts that make you wonder how on earth something like the block of !! didn't happen a lot earlier. Sockpuppet paranoia, investigation obsession, weird suggestions for the CUs galore - it's got the lot, baby. In fact, Thatcher summed this wretched list up very nicely: "...unhelpful and possible dangerous development. Blocks and such should be
discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary
circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases
should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose,
rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper
perspective."

Wikipedia is not a MMORG for SlimVirgin to play webmaster to.

CM

Moreschi has taken a good stand on this issue, I admit, but in general I disagree with him too strongly about too many things for me to support him. Please note also that he has a history of being very antagonistic about WR. On my last RfA in Feb., he said of me: "continued Wikipedia Review participation, with posts that contain some less-than-plesant material, is a no-no for me". He was one of only a handful of oppose voters to mention WR in their reasoning, and I have no idea what he thinks I have posted here that is "less-than-pleasant".

Moreschi has taken a good stand on this issue, I admit, but in general I disagree with him too strongly about too many things for me to support him. Please note also that he has a history of being very antagonistic about WR. On my last RfA in Feb., he said of me: "continued Wikipedia Review participation, with posts that contain some less-than-plesant material, is a no-no for me". He was one of only a handful of oppose voters to mention WR in their reasoning, and I have no idea what he thinks I have posted here that is "less-than-pleasant".

Yes, I was the first person to post about him here, so I'm well placed to be in the "nay-sayers"....but I have to say that he's the right person in the right place now.

He's letting all of their dirty little secrets out the bag.

I think that we need him in Arb-com. Regardless of what you personally think of him, think of the alternatives...

Moreschi? No way.

Moreschi? No way.

I don't think the Fieryangel is denying that he's been rather onerous in the past... she's just trying to point out that maybe he's not so bad when he's not editing articles about opera.

Then again...

He doesn't seem to have much of a chance anyway - he's currently running at 51 percent, and given his opposition to the cabal over the lasty couple of weeks, Jimbo isn't likely to appoint him directly.

Moreschi has taken a good stand on this issue, I admit, but in general I disagree with him too strongly about too many things for me to support him. Please note also that he has a history of being very antagonistic about WR. On my last RfA in Feb., he said of me: "continued Wikipedia Review participation, with posts that contain some less-than-plesant material, is a no-no for me". He was one of only a handful of oppose voters to mention WR in their reasoning, and I have no idea what he thinks I have posted here that is "less-than-pleasant".

Yes, I was the first person to post about him here, so I'm well placed to be in the "nay-sayers"....but I have to say that he's the right person in the right place now.

He's letting all of their dirty little secrets out the bag.

I think that we need him in Arb-com. Regardless of what you personally think of him, think of the alternatives...

Better to concentrate on Giano. He (Giano) can win (the election if not the appointment) if his supporters can show some discipline and strategy, however unlikely that might be.

Most people are pleased to receive praise and displeased to receive criticism. That's just human nature.

But anyone who assumes the role of exercising political power, including power to affect the status or standing of others, must appreciate that most people are displeased to have others exercise such power over them.

I suppose a lot of people naively waltz into Wikipedia imagining that it's a collegial and egalitarian enterprise, only to be rudely awakened to encounter the unpleasance of the dominance hierarchy there.

The backlash reaction generates a fair amount of mutual displeasure; the dominance hierarchy puts a short leash on those who are not sufficiently subservient to the dominant power players, and those placed on such a short leash push back by taking to the blogs, to the mainstream press, and to sites like WR to build a collective case against the questionable practices of the Wikipedia power structure.

To my mind, the worst of this struggle could have been avoided or ameliorated through the medium of a functional social contract, but for reasons unbeknownst to me, the dominant hierarchy tends to reject that concept in favor of the existing model of burbling conflict.

To my mind, the worst of this struggle could have been avoided or ameliorated through the medium of a functional social contract, but for reasons unbeknownst to me, the dominant hierarchy tends to reject that concept in favor of the existing model of burbling conflict.

It's what always happens in communist-type theories, where it is assumed that taking away hierarchy will result in fairness. The most unscrupulous people abuse this assumption to make themselves head of a de factohierarchy, which everyone ideologically denies the existence of. And once this has been established, it's to their advantage to never recognize the actual power structure. Any influence gained by formal recognition would be far offset by the expectance of accountability.

I'm still trying to figure out how Jimbo can be Objectivist, and still hold this weird pseudo-Communist theory that throwing people together with no established hierarchy works well.

You can replace a hierarchical power structure with a collegial model, but the collegians still need mutually agreed upon protocols for arriving at collective decisions. That's the role of a Social Contract -- to spell out the agreed-upon protocols for organizing the collegial system.

You can replace a hierarchical power structure with a collegial model, but the collegians still need mutually agreed upon protocols for arriving at collective decisions. That's the role of a Social Contract -- to spell out the agreed-upon protocols for organizing the collegial system.

I'm not so sure about that. Such structures work when you're organizing intelligent people who are mostly not evil. Wikipedia, however, has few intellectuals (however much they pretend they do), and attracts people who actively intend to compromise it for their personal gain. It's not clear that the same structure will work here.

I'm still trying to figure out how Jimbo can be Objectivist, and still hold this weird pseudo-Communist theory that throwing people together with no established hierarchy works well.

Jimbo Wales, Objectivistman.

You can replace a hierarchical power structure with a collegial model, but the collegians still need mutually agreed upon protocols for arriving at collective decisions. That's the role of a Social Contract -- to spell out the agreed-upon protocols for organizing the collegial system.

I'm not so sure about that. Such structures work when you're organizing intelligent people who are mostly not evil. Wikipedia, however, has few intellectuals (however much they pretend they do), and attracts people who actively intend to compromise it for their personal gain. It's not clear that the same structure will work here.

Quite so on your first point. To function consistently at the level required for the referenced Social Contract Model, one must have ascended to the fifth rung on the 7-stage Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral Development.

Moreschi? No way.

It depends on what you're trying to do - improve ArbCom or not.

You can replace a hierarchical power structure with a collegial model, but the collegians still need mutually agreed upon protocols for arriving at collective decisions. That's the role of a Social Contract -- to spell out the agreed-upon protocols for organizing the collegial system.

I'm not so sure about that. Such structures work when you're organizing intelligent people who are mostly not evil. Wikipedia, however, has few intellectuals (however much they pretend they do), and attracts people who actively intend to compromise it for their personal gain. It's not clear that the same structure will work here.

You are both right. That's Wikipedia's problem. It invited everyone to edit, to get started up. Now it needs to transition into a multi-tiered system of contributors, professional editors and administrative oversight (no, not that kind of oversight - people who monitor administrator behavior who are bipartisan, and professionally paid - A team of "anti-Cary Bass"s**), which has various links to universities and think tanks who can discuss and debate (on their own nickle) some of the finers points of the articles.

That would be a true open system model. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open system, but in reality it is a haven of collusion and conformity which veers towards mediocrity. Collusion and conformity are evident in most organizations, but the really good ones manage to retain the creativite elements (people) without losing the structure. Hewlett Packard was famous for juggling this tradeoff years ago with the "HP Way", but between workstation, PC and component prices dropping and Carly's merger and the Agilent selloff, that's gone. Google is sort of the new creative friendly company, though they don't make an issue of their management processes. You read more about the dogs at work, and dry cleaning delivery in the office (and free professional masseuses at the desk) but much of that speaks to how cash-loaded they are, not to innovative management.

** Just to pause for a short reflection on how freakish it is that Foundation employee Cary Bass was part of the super secret cyberinvestigations list no. 2. He should rightfully be checking behavior, to prevent the grade-school cliquishness that is so problematic at Wikipedia. But Bass was picked based on his prior dedicated Wikipedia cabal membership, so his contribution is a collossal failure. As for intellectual - I don't think he has a degree.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 5th December 2007, 5:23pm