Fred Bauder tips his hand, So you CAN get away with more in Wikiland? Options

[GlassBeadGame]

WP:PART OF LIFE
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder, senior ArbCom hand, and my personal last hope for any possibility of sane process in working out disputes on WP throws it in with these few words.


WP can no longer pretend to be an intellectual pursuit. There is no rule of law in addressing disputes. It is only a respecter pseudonymous "persons." Ideas don't matter. It is nothing but another social networking site. It just a part of life. If some innocent kid who thinks he's here to write an encyclopedia gets in the way, too bad.

And by the way it not "great editing" that matters its only the accumulation of RPG status.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Tue 1st May 2007, 5:55pm

[Jonny Cache]

WP:PART OF LIFE

That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder, senior ArbCom hand, and my personal last hope for any possibility of sane process in working out disputes on WP throws it in with these few words.

WP can no longer pretend to be an intellectual pursuit. There is no rule of law in addressing disputes. It is only a respecter pseudonymous "persons". Ideas don't matter. It is nothing but another social networking site. It just a part of life. If some innocent kid who thinks he's here to write an encyclopedia gets in the way, too bad.

And by the way it not "great editing" that matters its only the accumulation of RPG status.

Any way you spell it, it's called elitism ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 1st May 2007, 6:16pm

[Somey]

And by the way it not "great editing" that matters its only the accumulation of RPG status.

Giano does seem to be a special case, though, if not a clear exception. His articles really are quite good (relatively speaking), and he doesn't generally write about controversial subjects, either, which IMO helps him enormously.

Remember, this all started over a year ago with the pedophile userbox incident, when Giano got righteously indignant - to an almost absurd degree - over the actions of User:Carnildo (who blocked him - Giano's first block, IIRC?), and to a lesser extent, User:Karmafist, who among others was merely trying to apply policy correctly and even-handedly. Giano has never forgiven anyone involved, AFAIK. I don't think he's ever even accepted the possibility that the person who created the userbox in question, User:Joeyramoney, might have done it either as a joke or as a simple exercise in bad taste, meant to shock people purely for the amusement value. I could be wrong about that, but I've seen little evidence to suggest it.

Once again, this is predictable Maintenance-Phase-Shift behavior: Writing and research talent is devalued in favor of loyalty, defender-mentality, and sheer willingness to put up with huge amounts of crap. Giano has plenty of the former, but none of the latter - eventually, he will be driven out, no question about it.

[Uly]

Wait, they were talking about Giano? I thought they were talking about Kelly.

It's so difficult to tell the difference these days.

[Somey]

Wait, they were talking about Giano? I thought they were talking about Kelly.

I'm pretty sure they were talking about Giano. Kelly Martin didn't make a single edit to the page in question, and the blocks occurred right after this was posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=127259872

I agree with Cyde, I think deletion is probably for the best. It must be difficult for her to be relegated to the sidelines. I know Kelly's attention seeking antics are becoming increasingly boring but she is now a powerless spent force and it is probably kindliest to ignore the clumsy put-downs and her incontinent and impotent vocal outpourings. I know that is difficult when one is on the receiving end but I intend to try and advise others to do the same. While some may feel she richly deserves banning I think that would be needlessly cruel, and she is too old to be expected to change. New editors come and go all the time and, outside of her increasingly small clique, if people don't rise to her comments , her disruption and the ensuing offence it causes will be curtailed.

Meanwhile, Giano's enmity towards Doc_glasgow goes back quite a ways - predictably, Doc was the first person to ever block Giano II, spoiling his then-pristine block record... as Giano II. Doc also has made a point of defending the use of IRC for on-the-spot block-related conferencing, which Giano finds rather displeasing indeed.

[Rootology]

Thoughts...

* The IRC Thing: I also think it's distasteful to hash out and decide on major courses of action off-wiki, such as on IRC. There are 1,000+ admins, and how many are in #en-admin? ArbCom stuff, sure, go to your private list. But other stuff, like blocks? Bad form. Everyone needs to be in the loop.

* Fred Bauder/classism: That really is disappointing, as it's an endorsement of classism on Wikipedia. The 'system' should treat all people evenly. Even if it doesn't, you can't say crap like that if you're in a vaunted position like ArbCom. Thankfully Morven shot that down in his statement. Matthew Brown I think endorsed that decision to Arbterminate me for alleged off-wiki actions, but he still always struck me as one of the good ones (from what I've seen).

* Giano: He's been playing the role of the village fool or court jester since all that insane stuff--I gave up keeping track of it. It was just too complex and too incestuous. But the fool or court jester often speaks wisdom. I think Giano makes generally fantastic points (George too) but often so dramatically that it detracts in the end and just incites everyone.

* Kelly Martin: I won't dispute that on copyright stuff she did some great work, but her problem is that she only works well with people that she "likes". Everyone else gets snippiness, coarseness, and donkey punched. That's a sure fire way to make sure that everyone knows you, everyone talks about you, but you don't get much done in the end.

[gomi]

Actually, I'm in favor of classism on Wikipedia, and elsewhere, when the classes are based on merit. Wikipedia's classism is based on bullying, power-grabs, back-room politicking, and generally idiotic application of a venal and self-serving set of rules. Would that Wikipedia have a worthy "elite".

[Herschelkrustofsky]

WP:PART OF LIFE
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

And by the way it not "great editing" that matters its only the accumulation of RPG status.

This is not exactly breaking news. The shamelessly inequitable way in which Fred enforces policy has been a known quantity for some time. It was the hallmark of the three ArbCom cases I was party to.

Incidentally, I like your formulation, "acculumation of RPG status." That would be "role playing games"? I suspect that this is what Jimbo was hinting at whent he spoke of "karma whores."

[GlassBeadGame]

This is not exactly breaking news. The shamelessly inequitable way in which Fred enforces policy has been a known quantity for some time. It was the hallmark of the three ArbCom cases I was party to.

I never heard it so nakedly expressed.

Incidentally, I like your formulation, "acculumation of RPG status." That would be "role playing games"? I suspect that this is what Jimbo was hinting at whent he spoke of "karma whores."

Yes. Role playing game.

[Somey]

Incidentally, I like your formulation, "acculumation of RPG status." That would be "role playing games"? I suspect that this is what Jimbo was hinting at whent he spoke of "karma whores."

I've been giving this some thought recently...

I'm more than willing to admit that a karma-point system would have been bad for Wikipedia during the Growth Phase. It would have meant even lower-quality articles than they've got now, since it would have institutionalized the practice of giving positive/negative reinforcement based on behavior, as opposed to writing or editing talent.

But now that WP has entered the Maintenance Phase (i.e., territorialism leading to endless petty conflict, and I realize this is the third time today I've used that term), a karma-point system would be a good thing, because it would help to alleviate the breakdown of civility that's inherent in the new phase. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it would at least help. Maintaining civility, even artificially, would also delay the equally-inevitable Decline and Abandonment Phase, possibly for several years.

The idea of "whoring" karma would really just be an inevitable byproduct of the new system, but that too might actually be a good thing. In effect, the system would provide a built-in, cost-free incentive to be nice to others, and even if that niceness was completely phony, it would be better than the alternative. Those who work the system for gain would therefore, by definition, be the "nicest" people of all, right?

I know it sounds really, really stupid, but think about it. WP really is a role-playing game, and they really ought to just admit it at this point. I know they won't, and in many ways I'm glad they won't, but it's something to think about at least.

[papaya]

I'm not sure I would interpret Bauder's remark as an endorsement of the situation. He tends to be a bit laconic.

Giano is another example of how the social dynamics of Wikipedia are messed up. He breaks the paradigm in a big way, because he is proof that not everyone's work is of equal value. SO: does the community put up with his inability to play nice, in order to get the work out of him? Or does the community jump all over him for being a jerk, hoping to replace him when he stomps off?

[Somey]

SO: does the community put up with his inability to play nice, in order to get the work out of him? Or does the community jump all over him for being a jerk, hoping to replace him when he stomps off?

There's actually a third, though far, FAR less likely option: Give him what he wants. Clear his block record, discontinue use of the admins' secret IRC channel (at least for decision-making purposes), and apologize to him for having treated him like a "troll" when all he was doing (from his perspective) was protecting Wikipedia from "pedophiles" and other (presumably dangerous-and-harmful) elements.

Remember, they have no real reason to think that appeasement would only increase his demands. Giano is not Hitler, and Giano's WP to-do list is not the Sudetenland. For that matter, Daniel Brandt isn't Hitler either, last I checked... It just seems like they'd all infinitely prefer to have endless conflict and drama over trivialities and petty personal animosities, because that's simply how they all enjoy spending their time.

It gets them through the day, I guess...

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm not sure I would interpret Bauder's remark as an endorsement of the situation. He tends to be a bit laconic.

I looked long and hard at those few brief words for any hint of irony. I didn't want to see Fred this way. Nope. Is is not there. I don't know if Fred likes it this way or not. But he is perfectly willing to conduct business, including ArbCom and negotiations, this way.

[Robster]

WP:PART OF LIFE
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder, senior ArbCom hand, and my personal last hope for any possibility of sane process in working out disputes on WP throws it in with these few words.

In fairness, another ArbCom member, Matthew Brown, smacked Fred upside the head thusly:

A quick note from a sitting Arbitrator that nobody has a free pass. NOBODY. Acting like you do is inviting us to show you how you don't.

In deciding remedies, we are of course influenced by the totality of someone's contribution to the project. This is not a free pass and the more you come up before arbcom, especially if it's for the same reasons as before, the less we will consider the positive since clearly the negative is not being worked on.

So it's not a "free pass" as much as it is "more rope". That's not perfect, but it's a little closer to fair, I suppose...

[Nathan]

As to what Morven said...read the rest of it.

In deciding remedies, we are of course influenced by the totality of someone's contribution to the project. This is not a free pass and the more you come up before arbcom, especially if it's for the same reasons as before, the less we will consider the positive since
clearly the negative is not being worked on.

That's bullshit. It's pretty obvious they don't consider a user's contributions. I'm proof of that.

[GlassBeadGame]

WP:PART OF LIFE
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder, senior ArbCom hand, and my personal last hope for any possibility of sane process in working out disputes on WP throws it in with these few words.

In fairness, another ArbCom member, Matthew Brown, smacked Fred upside the head thusly:

A quick note from a sitting Arbitrator that nobody has a free pass. NOBODY. Acting like you do is inviting us to show you how you don't.

In deciding remedies, we are of course influenced by the totality of someone's contribution to the project. This is not a free pass and the more you come up before arbcom, especially if it's for the same reasons as before, the less we will consider the positive since clearly the negative is not being worked on.

So it's not a "free pass" as much as it is "more rope". That's not perfect, but it's a little closer to fair, I suppose...

Of course that is what you are suppose to say. Any idiot can know to say that. What is interesting is that Fred, no idiot and law trained, didn't say it. He's probably the only person in ArbCom who truly understands what a fair process looks like. He doesn't characterize WP and ArbCom that way.

Is Morvan seen as more fair in actual practice?

(I posted this while Nathan was posting his above. I really think he said it better.)

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:02am

[Joseph100]

WP:PART OF LIFE
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."

---Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder, senior ArbCom hand, and my personal last hope for any possibility of sane process in working out disputes on WP throws it in with these few words.


WP can no longer pretend to be an intellectual pursuit. There is no rule of law in addressing disputes. It is only a respecter pseudonymous "persons." Ideas don't matter. It is nothing but another social networking site. It just a part of life. If some innocent kid who thinks he's here to write an encyclopedia gets in the way, too bad.

And by the way it not "great editing" that matters its only the accumulation of RPG status.

There is law in Wikipedia ... its "Jungle Law". Wikipedia is a lost cause, and any effort or energy spent with it should be spent in trying to shut it down or to destroy it because Wikipedia is out of control. Its culture of lying, deceit, hate, vindictiveness is so inbred and endemic that there is no reforming such pungent rotting carcass.

It's like a mad dog that needs be put down for good of the neighborhood.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The idea of "whoring" karma would really just be an inevitable byproduct of the new system, but that too might actually be a good thing. In effect, the system would provide a built-in, cost-free incentive to be nice to others, and even if that niceness was completely phony, it would be better than the alternative. Those who work the system for gain would therefore, by definition, be the "nicest" people of all, right?

But then again, doesn't this basically describe the system as it stands? There have been interesting discussions here of a formula for attaining adminship, where the aspiring plebes carefully avoid making any meaningful contributions while concentrating on voting in other persons' RfAs and finding other purely bureaucratic ways to brown-nose, while piling on the perceived bad guys.

[Jonny Cache]

To Be Or Not To Be ???

Methinks there be a word gone missing from the subtitle ...

Jonny OCD

[GlassBeadGame]

To Be Or Not To Be ???

Methinks there be a word gone missing from the subtitle ...

Jonny OCD

Yes.