Manipulation of BLPs, now open Options Rating

[EricBarbour]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work.

[RMHED]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work.

I'm very much hoping the same is true of Capitalism, one good push now and the whole corrupt system could crumble.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Chutzpah in Action

First, the set-up:

Yesterday, an RfC was closed without consensus at LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D). All nine respondents had agreed with Jayen that there were BLP issues in the article, which is OWNed by Will Beback. Will argued relentlessly with each of the editors who commented, until the whole thing ground to a halt.

A similar fate befell the RfC started by ResidentAnthropologist at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D), on similar BLP/coatracking grounds.

And right now, Will is playing "bait the newbies" at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche.

Now for the punch line:

Brad, it's my understanding that Cla68 is planning to post much of the same evidence he presented in his Arpil request to open a "Lyndon LaRouche 3" case. That case was reject by the ArbCom. You specifically noted the lack of an ongoing dispute and found insufficient evidence to open a case.[1] Is this case a backdoor way of presenting the same evidence again? There have not been any significant disputes or dispute resolution efforts since then, so I don't see how it would be more appropriate now than five months ago. Will Beback talk 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

[Abd]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work.

Prediction: More and more of Wikipedia will be protected. The action will move to Wikiversity, where balance is systemic, i.e., the allowed depth doesn't cause conflict in the same way it does on Wikipedia (various points of view may be represented on WV, forks are encouraged, and so is original research and actual discussion of topics.) As participant exercises, Wikipedia articles may be drafted, but if users can't agree on a draft, multiple drafts will be created.

Then RfC will be used on Wikipedia to decide if any of the drafts are better than the existing WP article. That's a Yes/No decision that can ultimately result from a thorough consensus process, with full information.

Hasn't been done yet. Might take another year, but it's what I expect to see.

If there are multiple drafts, Range voting might be used, which is a bit more sophisticated than Yes/No.

I just started up a School:Election Science, at WV, and invited a pile of voting system experts to participate. We'll see what comes of that. Wikipedia has been hostile to expertise, Wikiversity welcomes it. Yeah, Randy from Boise can still pop in with inanities, but it's much easier to handle this on Wikiversity. I can't remember the last time I saw persistent revert warring on WV. It's stupid and useless there, there are better ways.

[Rhindle]

I strongly object to being named by Cla68 on this page. It is abusive. There has been no prior dispute resolution between us whatsoever. I am busy and do not have time to address any evidence or participate in this case. Jehochman Talk 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But I have plenty of time to talk about it from the sidelines!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

There's a real catfight going on. Does that mean that there is hope that the case might accomplish something?

[NuclearWarfare]

There's a real catfight going on. Does that mean that there is hope that the case might accomplish something?

Well, seeing how all of 600 words of evidence have been submitted, that's looking unlikely.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Cla68 has tantalizing placeholders.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I hope this isn't too far off topic -- I somehow think it isn't.

This is very funny, but not as funny as this.

[Cla68]

I hope this isn't too far off topic -- I somehow think it isn't.

This is very funny, but not as funny as this.

Thank you. Reading that MfD page had me laughing out loud. Why did Will remove this quote? Perhaps, because he was the one who uttered it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The complaints about the skimpy evidence seem to be justified. The case does name a list of parties, some of whom are allegedly guilty of manipulating BLPs, others whose names appear because they apparently don't think BLPs should be manipulated. The evidence given by Collect shows that there is a problem, but it doesn't address any of the named parties as far as I can tell. Tryptofish is going off in another direction altogether.

[lilburne]

The evidence given by Collect shows that there is a problem, but it doesn't address any of the named parties as far as I can tell.

He let him self down by listing problems with the Melanie Philips article though.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Actually, I missed one -- he goes after Will Beback for adding this to an article after it had been removed by Off2RioRob from another article. Then the funny part comes on the workshop talk page where WB tries to act surprised and says "no one claimed it was a BLP violation." Evidently, "no one" refers to this guy.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Here's a good side show. What strikes me about the great debate between Beback and Collect is that neither of them wants to bring up the obvious issue of article ownership.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

I prefer to think of it as a vehicle for shedding light on misdeeds to which Wikipedia officialdom is turning a blind eye. But I know, I know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

[Detective]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

Much as I hate to agree with Jehochman, he does have a point. A list of the names of all the "Notable editors" forums is displayed by just one click on the main page of this forum. The equivalent would be that you could click somewhere on the Wikipedia Main Page and get a list of editors in particular disfavour. If you can do that, I've never seen it. Also, I assume that these forums are Google-able, whereas WP:AN is not.

Then again, anything on WP obviously gets vastly more exposure than things here.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Jehochman complains about the Wikipedia Review:

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt.

Mr. Jehochman, may I ask how this is different than the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, other than that the target list is different?

Much as I hate to agree with Jehochman, he does have a point. A list of the names of all the "Notable editors" forums is displayed by just one click on the main page of this forum. The equivalent would be that you could click somewhere on the Wikipedia Main Page and get a list of editors in particular disfavour. If you can do that, I've never seen it.

Here's the page you have been waiting for: Wikipedia:LTA. There's not a link on the Main Page, but the cognoscenti will find it.

[EricBarbour]

Here's the page you have been waiting for: Wikipedia:LTA. There's not a link on the Main Page, but the cognoscenti will find it.

Another thing about the Wiki-Clods: they can't even agree to keep a single master list of their enemies.

Don't forget this one and this one......

[Herschelkrustofsky]

ResidentAnthropologist has provided a helpful survey of Will's cattiness. But I am on the edge of my seat, awaiting the promised contributions by Count Iblis:

The BLP policy leads to censorship and should therefore be abolished
(Evidence to be presented tomorrow)
Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring
(Evidence to be presented tomorrow)

Please tell me he's serious.