FT2 vs. SlimVirgin, The end is near! Options

[The Adversary]

And lets hope they do no discover the rest of her "family", like Princess Venetia

Giano really does like drama, doesn´t he?

[Hipocrite]

The FT2, Charles Matthews axis of ArbCom believes their actions are sacrosanct. This is an example of their whiney petulance at anyone disagreeing with them - shades of OrangeMarlin, SLRubenstein, Vanished user. The patten is that one of the two freakishly anti-encyclopedia Arbitors does something, it gets undone, and then, using their Arcom mailing list, they campaign other Arbitors to back them up. Because the opposing parties don't get to see what falsehoods FT2 and CM are peddling about them, and because FT2 and CM will agressively create findings and remidies on the proposed decision page (skipping the workshop and evidence page entirely), and arbcoms desire to present a unanimous face, they are able to get this done.

I'm shocked FT2 didn't just recuse himself and work entirely through their mailing list and Charles. He's the most ham-handed manipulator ever. Why he didn't have one of his pet admins file the case (Elonka is the obvious candidate), why he didn't recuse - it's pure hubris.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm shocked FT2 didn't just recuse himself and work entirely through their mailing list and Charles. He's the most ham-handed manipulator ever. Why he didn't have one of his pet admins file the case (Elonka is the obvious candidate), why he didn't recuse - it's pure hubris.

FT2 simply is not as bright as he likes to think he is*, after his ill-fated previous attempt to steam-roller ArbCom into taking a decision that in retrospect turned out not to have been an ArbCom decision but something of his own doing, you would have thought he had learnt his lesson. The pure failure to recognise not that he had a conflict of interest, but that even with the gubbins he spouts that others would not call him on this conflict, speaks volumes. One can only think he had DG or similar in the background egging him on, telling him black is white and 2 + 2 = 5. FT2 is definitely someone who once he believes he is right simply cannot hear any criticism - well it must be wrong if he doesn't agree so why take any notice?

I believe in modern parlance this is known as an epic fail.


*And we can thank our lucky stars that... for those of a certain age, though I think I've used that line before.

[Kato]

*And we can thank our lucky stars that... for those of a certain age, though I think I've used that line before.

Dean Friedman - where is he now? Actually, I knew someone who was still a massive fan of Dean Friedman well into the new millennium and went to see him tour about 6-7 years ago - so he's obviously still in circulation somewhere. Ugh.

Anyway, SlimVirgin writes:

Overturning a block once is not wheel-warring. By the ArbCom's own definition, wheel warring is the repeated overturning of an admin action. There is also no obligation for admins to discuss blocks before overturning them, especially when they feel the block is clearly wrong. All attempts (including by myself) to change WP:BLOCK to prohibit unblocking without discussion have failed — admins want to retain the right to overturn a block immediately, where they feel in good faith that it cannot be justified

.

Yet last year, when Jimbo banned Miltopia and Zscout370 undid the ban, Jimbo wrote:

For those who have not followed along. I banned a longtime abusive problem user who had slipped through the cracks by being just annoying enough to get indef blocked and reinstated multiple times, and I asked for calm over the weekend. Zscout370 instead wheel warred with me by unblocking and making snide remarks. Well, no. Admins don't do that. Not to any admin.--Jimbo Wales 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

[Kelly Martin]

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

Obviously, it's "wheel warring" when an admin reverses a Jimbo-block, but not wheel-warring when two ordinary admins reverse one another. Obviously, FT2 is claiming Jimbo-nature; the question is whether the rest of the Arbcom (or Jimbo himself) will ratify this claim.

[dogbiscuit]

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

Obviously, it's "wheel warring" when an admin reverses a Jimbo-block, but not wheel-warring when two ordinary admins reverse one another. Obviously, FT2 is claiming Jimbo-nature; the question is whether the rest of the Arbcom (or Jimbo himself) will ratify this claim.

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

This should not be this hard, should it?

[JoseClutch]

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

Obviously, it's "wheel warring" when an admin reverses a Jimbo-block, but not wheel-warring when two ordinary admins reverse one another. Obviously, FT2 is claiming Jimbo-nature; the question is whether the rest of the Arbcom (or Jimbo himself) will ratify this claim.

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

This should not be this hard, should it?

Do not try to follow the rules; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

There are no rules. Then you'll see, that it is not the rules that are followed, it is only yourself.

[Moulton]

All attempts (including by myself) to change WP:BLOCK to prohibit unblocking without discussion have failed — admins want to retain the right to overturn a block immediately, where they feel in good faith that it cannot be justified.

Where SV uses the legal phrase "retain the right" I think she really means "retain the discretion" because the decision to block or unblock is purely a matter of personal discretion, without regard to modern concepts of civil rights or due process. The discretion to govern according to whim and caprice is a throwback to the age of tribal chieftans, before humankind worked out such concepts as civil rights, evidence-driven beliefs, and due process. Note that commonly used rationales for blocking, such as "disruption" or "incivility" are two of the most vague and subjective notions imaginable. Just the other day, someone remarked that satire is not an instance of incivility (although Jimbo characterized my atrocious song parodies as incivility worthy of a block on Wikiversity, even though they only appeared on an obscure blog that no one reads).

Note, also, that SV at least recognizes that the rationale for a block must be justified. Even Hammurabi, in his very first law ever carved into stone tablets, stipulated that a person could not be banned without proving just cause.

When admins with marginally different perceptions of "disruption" or "civility" can arrive at polar opposite decisions about blocking, one is into a chess game full of drama, suspense and high dudgeon.

Chess is a very civil war game, where one blocks and banishes the other guy's chess pieces until all that's left is the anguished grimace of the Cheshire Cat.

In the End of Days, who will play the role of the Punim of the Cheshire Cat?

[One]

Quite bluntly, if a single user like SlimVirgin can overrule the ArbCom or the enforcement of its rulings, WP will decent in chaos and anarchy very quickly. ...

As far as I can tell, very few people actually believe this. SirFozzie and Jehochman don't say that SlimVirgin is challenging the institution of ArbCom--they claim that SlimVirgin's unblock is bad because it was made without community consensus. "Overruling ArbCom" is FT2's shtick, and almost his shtick alone. A single involved admin's blocks should not receive the full authority of ArbCom.

As she often does, Kelly Martin puts this well above.

[Kato]

The timeframes of this latest spiraling Blocking Drama coincide almost identically with last year's similar events.

And thus, the circus of the Arbitration Committee elections obviously serve as a "silly season" - or one long Beltane Ritual - where Drama addicts are free to hype themselves up into a frenzy, with the sure knowledge that revenge and momentous relief can be had on the election pages. All these performers; FT2, Slim, David Gerard, Giano, Jehochman, etc are in overdrive as the countdown to the dramatic opening of the election warms up.

Last year, Durova, that Mercury guy (?) and maybe a couple of others became the great sacrificial lambs necessary to satisfy the dramatic bloodlust during this silly season. My money is on Charles Matthews and Jehochman to play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern this year. With NewYorkBrad announcing their demise when all the dust has settled.

Then it can all start again, replayed with perhaps a different cast - or even much of the same cast?

[Kelly Martin]

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

There are no rules. The best we can hope for is to deduce first-approximation predictions as to how the system will behave when it is excited in various ways. Do not mistake these empirical observations for rules; there is nothing whatsoever about these hypotheses that binds anyone in Wikipedia to act consistent with them.

It has long been touted as a strength of the Wikipedia system that it has no fixed, formal rules (including by myself, back in the dark days when I was an admin). And certainly this is true, if you happen to be one of the powerful elites within its system; not having rules to follow is a major bonus, especially for those with power. However, it makes life rather difficult for anyone who is trying to actually get something real done within that environment; the lack of any real predictability means that so much of one's time is spent dealing with the environment, and that means so much less time spent on getting productive work done.

[Peter Damian]

And lets hope they do no discover the rest of her "family", like Princess Venetia

Giano really does like drama, doesn´t he?

Villa Cimbrone I know it well my dear. But have you read the comments? Somewhat disturbing

One brackets the delightful villa

One adds some photographic and videographic likenesses

One has graciously added a category and corrected to Commonwealth English rather than American English spelling as per MoS

morning to you, Mr Joopercoopers. I dictate this as I recline in my tester, eating bonbons. My life is not easy, you know. I had a devil of a job unwrapping them

No doubt distracted by the sight of me reclining in my flimsy, diaphonous finery, my man makes a few typographical errors

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I find it ironic that all the usually anti-SV folk around here are taking her side here. Not that I disagree with them - FT2 has screwed up... just something I found interesting.

She's definately wrong about Will Beback not being a troll.

[Peter Damian]

Getting amazingly vitriolic now.

Details for FayssalF

For once, this isn't about the user who was the subject of that block. If others wish to add him to the case I can't stop them, but I have made strenuous efforts to avoid doing so, and feel it's unproductive to drag in a user who has no need to be here and must be fed up of this page.
I refute any element other than deterrence. It was as light as could be done (given past blocks and activities) and still credibly feel it might be taken on board as a seriously intentioned and possibly effective deterrent of the ongoing, and very likely future, violations. The block was exceptionally reasonable, and carefully explained.

For details why the block was decided at 55 hours, see the original block notice. Although some users did not agree with blocking, of those that did, not one said that 55 hours was inappropriate. Administrators and non-administrators who spoke up to support it either explicitly, or implicitly: Tznkai, Will Beback, jayron32, Jdforrester, Sticky Parkin, Apoc2400, Elonka, Fred Bauder, LessHeard vanU.


To recap, for once this isn't about the user blocked. It isn't even about the failure to discuss the block. It's about the judgement, actions, tool use, and rationale of SlimVirgin, in undertaking a disruptive and damaging intervention in Arbitration Enforcement, an improper unblock, and sub-standard adminship and judgement despite numerous past RFARs. Specifically:

flagrant breach of multiple wiki policies, norms and Arbitration processes that are used to protect editors from arbcom-restricted behaviors by others,
an attempt to damagingly disrupt the backstop of arbitration, its enforcement process, which is heavily used and tightly demarcated, in a sensitive case, without appropriate cause or even consensus,
exceptional poor judgement, with a mishmash of spurious or extreme bad faith (a type of problem which the admin has been found at fault in not one, but 4 separate Arbitration cases),
objected to by multiple users (two other credible users wanted to file an RFAR or drafted one; details by email on request to avoid retaliation/backlash against them).
And that when asked to justify it, the admin's response was apparently to:

move attention away from their actions,
decline to discuss seriously the concerns raised by others,
repeat the same conduct here as warned in the same prior cases, namely bad faith and spurious assertions in lieu ("mooning the jury") and
skipping past the point that by Arbcom Enforcement page criteria and norms (and their own tacit admission, I think), the edits were in fact in violation -- in which case they were being appropriately handled at AE.
probably also, to express a hope that this will not be counted as "wheel warring" as well.
Separate and arguably more important than SlimVirgin herself, there is a need to reassert in the wake of this, the fact that Arbitration Enforcement, at least until it is replaced, is part of the Arbitration process, and is tightly defined in its purpose and handling.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[Kato]

Why is this "amazingly vitriolic"? Almost everything there seems to be true.

SlimVirgin's latest antics come after Slim's ally Slruberstein pulled a similar calculated move against Charles Matthews, and can be seen in light of her wrath against Arbcom following the Lar case.

So Slim is simply doing what she always did - she's undermining anyone who crosses her, and gathering the troops to do the same. She's done this to Herschelkrustofsky, SandyGeorgia, Charles Matthews and a whole bunch of other people in the past. Slim won't be "beaten" in this game - and this is what she does to regain the upper hand. This isn't about some noble defense of "article writers" - this is just old fashioned SlimVirgin power games. All sorts of people have - and could in future - be subject to the same aggressive campaign. In this case, it seems the wrath is turned on the Arbitrators and this is a calculated move to undermine them.

FT2 writes:

To recap, for once this isn't about the user blocked. It isn't even about the failure to discuss the block. It's about the judgement, actions, tool use, and rationale of SlimVirgin, in undertaking a disruptive and damaging intervention in Arbitration Enforcement, an improper unblock, and sub-standard adminship and judgement despite numerous past RFARs. Specifically:

* flagrant breach of multiple wiki policies, norms and Arbitration processes that are used to protect editors from arbcom-restricted behaviors by others,
* an attempt to damagingly disrupt the backstop of arbitration, its enforcement process, which is heavily used and tightly demarcated, in a sensitive case, without appropriate cause or even consensus,
* exceptional poor judgement, with a mishmash of spurious or extreme bad faith (a type of problem which the admin has been found at fault in not one, but 4 separate Arbitration cases),
* objected to by multiple users (two other credible users wanted to file an RFAR or drafted one; details by email on request to avoid retaliation/backlash against them).

.

and

And that when asked to justify it, the admin's [SlimVirgin's] response was apparently to:

* move attention away from their actions,
* decline to discuss seriously the concerns raised by others,
* repeat the same conduct here as warned in the same prior cases, namely bad faith and spurious assertions in lieu ("mooning the jury") and
* skipping past the point that by Arbcom Enforcement page criteria and norms (and their own tacit admission, I think), the edits were in fact in violation -- in which case they were being appropriately handled at AE.
* probably also, to express a hope that this will not be counted as "wheel warring" as well.

That's not to say you would want any of these people anywhere near a genuine reference work - most of the arbitrators such as FT2 included.

[Milton Roe]

Sometimes the admin crowd reminds me of the Lord of the flies bunch.

No!!! That really would be scary, all right.

Probably we should have a count of the number of new people who show up and make this observation. You get intelligence points for doing it; on the other hand, it's sort of a necessary insight which everybody has to go through on their own.

I was pondering one of these early witchhunts the other night, after a special on the History Channel. I had long known of some of the history of the Athenian Alcibiades, who one historian describes as a sort of combination of JFK and George Patton (if you can imagine this). Just before his Sicilian expedition in 415 BC there was an incident in Athens where the hermai (statues of Hermes with other symbols) were defaced. After which, there was an absolutely classic witchhunt, ala Salem and McCarthyism. Everybody blamed everybody else, seeking to gain political advantage; people gave up their associates out of fear for themselves, etc. Alcibiades was about to leave for Sicily and rightly suspected this was going to be used to smear him after he left, but he was unsuccessful at forcing a public trial where he could defend. After he left, it was held and his property was confiscated and he was sentenced to death in absentia. This, in democratic Athens! This caused him to defect to Sparta in the first of a dramatic series of moves which you really have to read to believe.

Anyway, leaving Alcibiades, I have to reiterate my belief that the large brain of humans was developed for throwing rocks and for social gameplaying, influding witchfinding. We're not rational animals; we're WITCHFINDING animals. That's what we do. Except for team-hunting (which is now approximated by team sports) and foodprocessing that's most of what we do in public. In private, add childcare and trying to get laid. Our social system is shifting networks of trying to figure out who to blame for the latest screwup. "Primitive religion" consists almost entirely of this.

Wikipedia's social structure is but an example, and a somewhat infuriating one, since the characters are semi-anonymous and their antics are so transparent. It's sort of a toy-witchfinding exercise in a bottle, as has also been pointed out (like reality TV where people are voted off the show or the island or whatever, regularly). We love these faux bloodsports because they resonate with the social processing structure of our brains.

So, on Wikipedia, they gang up and toss somebody ELSE out, regularly. It may even be SlimVirgin one day, sooner or later. There's no end to it. And yes, it's entertaining to us and the WP hoi polloi But where is the good? This is really the most primitive tribal state of humans, surviving even Athenian democracy (which was better than Wikipedian democracy). Surviving even American-style democracy, as we saw with Japanese internment, McCarthy, and this last spasm post-9/11 (now ending with the Obama election, methinks). Fortunately, in America, these things only last less than a decade, before people come to their senses. On Wikipedia, the whole experiment is only about as old as 9/11. Will it mature any faster than American society? I look at the long history of mankind, where this goes as far into the written record as you care to look, and probaby much much farther into prehistory--- and I despair.

Milton

[Newyorkbrad]

On Wikipedia, the whole experiment is only about as old as 9/11. Will it mature any faster than American society? I look at the long history of mankind, where this goes as far into the written record as you care to look, and probably much much farther into prehistory--- and I despair.
Milton

Looking into prehistory for analogies to Wikipedia? Milton, meet Moulton.

[Milton Roe]

On Wikipedia, the whole experiment is only about as old as 9/11. Will it mature any faster than American society? I look at the long history of mankind, where this goes as far into the written record as you care to look, and probably much much farther into prehistory--- and I despair.
Milton

Looking into prehistory for analogies to Wikipedia? Milton, meet Moulton.

Yeah, except that I'm right and Moultin isn't.

WP is not a binary legal system like Hamurabi's. It's as far from that as you can get, and yet it's even more dysfunctional. I know what Moultin is trying to say (I think) but he's comparing apples and oranges.

But where WP does resemble Hamurabi is in its obscessing with finding evildoers and figuring out how to find them guilty (there's even the witch-in-water test in Hamurabi, ala Python). So this social "motor" I hope is apparent. Perhaps so much so that I waste my time pointing it out.

[Son of a Yeti]

So, on Wikipedia, they gang up and toss somebody ELSE out, regularly. It may even be SlimVirgin one day, sooner or later. There's no end to it. And yes, it's entertaining to us and the WP hoi polloi But where is the good? This is really the most primitive tribal state of humans

So it seems I was right. Sorry for not being original. There is only so many universally known novels/movies one can use as examples

I'll try to be more original this time: Isn't WP social structure similar to that of present day Somalia?

Discuss

[Shalom]

Back on topic, the arbitrators still have not proposed a motion to admonish or desysop SlimVirgin, and Newyorkbrad is still thinking about what to write. The arbitrators are really in a difficult position here, and I don't envy them. If I were in their position, I'd need another day or two to consider the various options.

They have said that SlimVirgin must be very careful with her use of administrator tools -- in effect, a warning that the next incident of wheel warring or other abuse would result in removal of her access. The terms were not stated specifically, but everyone has a general sense of what admins should and should not do. Technically, by the rules of Arbitration Enforcement, SlimVirgin should not have unblocked Giano because community consensus did not support it at that time, and an admin is not empowered to undo an enforcement of an existing ArbCom remedy. That being said, if SlimVirgin had not unblocked, there's a decent chance someone else would have unblocked at some point because Giano blocks tend not to last. She makes a valid point that at least some of the diffs were not so much incivility but sarcasm. (It should be noted that SlimVirgin's definition of civility is somewhat more permissive than mine; this explains her own conduct as well as her endorsement of Giano's conduct.)

So the rulebook says to desysop SlimVirgin. Except that there's no precedent for desysopping an admin who contravenes an "arbitration enforcement" ruling; and furthermore, when a very similar situation (the "Sarah Palin protection wheel war") came to ArbCom, where two admins unprotected the article while it was under review at arbitration enforcement, those admins were not desysopped. Those admins did not have a prior history of problems, but SlimVirgin does, so maybe that counts against her, but viewing this case in a vacuum, there's no precedent to desysop, and perhaps no precedent to define it as "wheel warring".

On the other hand, if ArbCom lets it pass with an admonishment or less than that, it ends up looking weak, as if it can't enforce its own rules: both the Giano civility parole and the warning to SlimVirgin. FT2 is concerned that ArbCom should not look weak; other Arbs don't care much about that (nor should they). It would be viewed with disdain, as if a preferred admin could get away with something that a less preferred admin (think of Prodego) might be seriously in trouble for.

On balance, if ArbCom didn't desysop SlimVirgin already, I don't think they will now. Whether they should or should not, I cannot say.