Fred is Fried, Synaptic re-uptake dangerously depleted Options

[GlassBeadGame]

Fred responds to a question about why ArbCom is taking so much time to decide anything.

[WikiEN-l] Arbcom
fredbaud at waterwiki.info fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Sun Oct 14 00:07:01 UTC 2007

Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases.

In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?

Fred

[jorge]

I think we all know why the Arbcom is falling apart. Because they have dared to question the actions of the users known as "Jayjg" and "SlimVirgin".

[GlassBeadGame]

It is time for WP to get rid of ArbCom by WMF action. It needs to be replaced by neutral dispute resolution professionals that act independent of Mr. Wales and without fear or favor of the dysfunctional social networking community.

[WordBomb]

I think we all know why the Arbcom is falling apart. Because they have dared to question the actions of the users known as "Jayjg" and "SlimVirgin".

It would be interesting to figure out what percentage of former Wikipedia editors attain that status by SlimVirgin/Jayjg related "burn out."

We'd have to divide the group up into those who were burnt out in the sense that their interactions with SlimVirgin left them feeling exhausted and eager to leave, and those -- like most of us -- who had their account methodically doused with gasoline and set alight, thus being burned out.

Phrasing the distinction in a sentence:
SlimVirgin leaves some, like Fred Bauder, burnt out from Wikipedia;
while others, like myself, are burned out of Wikipedia.

[GlassBeadGame]

I just looked over wikien-l, Fred's statement is all the rage. No good comments, other than one reminder of Mr. Wales' appointment of Essjay to ArbCom. The only response they are capable of is a still greater role admins and the community in addressing (I won't say resolving) disputes. WP is overwhelmed by disputes between admins and user who are not assimilated into the "community." That is why conflict resolution becomes such a non-credible source of repression (eg Badsites.) To be credible the process must be neutral and independent of the "community." But in typical WP manner they believe that anything can be accomplished by biased amateurs.

* edited by Nathan: Wale's = Wales'

[guy]

I'm sure that there are enough competent editors on Wikipedia to make an effective ArbCom. All we need is some mechanism to get them on and some of the current incumbents off. If only the WR admins got to appoint ArbCom!

[Messedrocker]

It is time for WP to get rid of ArbCom by WMF action. It needs to be replaced by neutral dispute resolution professionals that act independent of Mr. Wales and without fear or favor of the dysfunctional social networking community.

To get professional mediators, Wikimedia would need to, like, pay actually money for that. That's not going to happen.

[Kato]

To get professional mediators, Wikimedia would need to, like, pay actually money for that. That's not going to happen.

Hence in the meantime, what is perhaps the world's most prominent source of information will continue to be arbitrated by an irresponsible, chaotic process committing disastrous error after disastrous error.

And people wonder why Wikipedia Review makes such a big deal of WP's failings?

[GlassBeadGame]

It is time for WP to get rid of ArbCom by WMF action. It needs to be replaced by neutral dispute resolution professionals that act independent of Mr. Wales and without fear or favor of the dysfunctional social networking community.

To get professional mediators, Wikimedia would need to, like, pay actually money for that. That's not going to happen.

Finally, somebody raises this point. Responding is better than putting up a straw-man. Of course they would have to pay. Do you really, like, think you can responsibly operate the 9th largest website without spending money? Disputes are a serious problem on WP and resolving them requires a serious commitment of resources.

[Messedrocker]

To get professional mediators, Wikimedia would need to, like, pay actually money for that. That's not going to happen.

Hence in the meantime, what is perhaps the world's most prominent source of information will continue to be arbitrated by an irresponsible, chaotic process committing disastrous error after disastrous error.

And people wonder why Wikipedia Review makes such a big deal of WP's failings?

Personally, I'd like to see people being able to resolve their own conflicts. Wikipedia is inherently screwed in this respect, as there will always be people who absolutely fail at interacting with other people, and others see this as a disruption and they resort to a game of blocky-blocky-ban.

Another thing is, there are people who are probably really, really good at writing articles, but they just can't deal with other people. If they're banned, they can't write articles anymore, but if they stay, everyone gets pissed off.

There's all this dramatic bullshit and no one left to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes I wish I could ban like a hundred people and get away with it.

[alienus]

It is time for WP to get rid of ArbCom by WMF action.

On the one hand, ArbCom is utterly corrupt and WP would be a better place without it. WP needs genuine conflict resolution, not this farce.

On the other, if it were disbanded, then I could never return to WP. You see, when I left rather than pretend to defend myself against an RfC whose conclusion was preordained, I swore that I would only come back if I were appointed to ArbCom. This way, I'd have enough raw power to defend myself.

Having said this, I'm willing to make the sacrifice if Jimbo is. Deal?

Al

[Messedrocker]

Finally, somebody raises this point. Responding is better than putting up a straw-man. Of course they would have to pay. Do you really, like, think you can responsibly operate the 9th largest website without spending money? Disputes are a serious problem on WP and resolving them requires a serious commitment of resources.

I'm not saying they shouldn't -- I seriously think they should consider hiring on professional mediators for their projects. But why do they care what I think, or what Wikipedia Review thinks?

[guy]

Personally, I'd like to see people being able to resolve their own conflicts. Wikipedia is inherently screwed in this respect, as there will always be people who absolutely fail at interacting with other people, and others see this as a disruption and they resort to a game of blocky-blocky-ban.

Another thing is, there are people who are probably really, really good at writing articles, but they just can't deal with other people. If they're banned, they can't write articles anymore, but if they stay, everyone gets pissed off.

I advised someone in a mediation once. It started badly when the mediator was blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned user, then someone who had already expressed strong views on the topic offered to take over and had to be declined. And once the mediation got going, the other side completely rejected arguments based on Wikipedia policies, insisting that all that mattered was upholding their POV. The mediator seemed incapable of knocking any sense into them or even trying to find a compromise.

Sometimes I wish I could ban like a hundred people and get away with it.

I'm sure we could find someone you could go to who'd tell you how to do it.

[GlassBeadGame]

I advised someone in a mediation once. It started badly when the mediator was blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned user, then someone who had already expressed strong views on the topic offered to take over and had to be declined.

You can't make better stuff up.

[nobs]

I'm still on mod at Wikien-1, so here's my two cents:

[redacted] to English 4:13 pm

Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 14 13:11:09 UTC 2007

On 10/13/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases. In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should >consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?

Fred If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.

When ArbCom started down this road, agreeing to Accept a case against a high level Admin, then allowed the high level Admin to remove herself from the case, rename the complaining party as the defendant and substitute a third party as complainant, how do you undo such naked abuse of process?

↑ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin, Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept); Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude, Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".

[nobs]

This post has been edited by nobs: Sun 14th October 2007, 10:27pm

[alienus]

I'm sure that there are enough competent editors on Wikipedia to make an effective ArbCom. All we need is some mechanism to get them on and some of the current incumbents off. If only the WR admins got to appoint ArbCom!

And they'd be easy to find: the competent ones are the editors who've given up and/or been kicked out.

Al

[everyking]

I proposed a delegate-to-committee solution like that about two years ago. There are different ways it could be done: have the ArbCom itself appoint committees of non-arbitrators for individual cases; have the ArbCom appoint committees which would operate over an extended period of time, each handling a number of cases; have the community elect an expanded ArbCom, and then break it into committees (either on the long-term or individual case basis); etc. Parties to a case could even have a choice as to what committee to use, which they'd have to agree on (offering an opportunity for them to work together to make a decision, giving equal weight to both parties, undermining the typical current system of strong plantiff-weak defendant, and increasing the odds of a mutually agreeable solution). Other measures I'd like to see would be a reduction of all ArbCom terms to one year and removal of arbitrators if they are inactive or only slightly active, with immediate replacement by the next person down on the list of candidates by votes. Another idea along these lines to consider would be a "reset" option, whereby cases would get restarted under a new committee if the old committee failed to reach a decision in an appropriate length of time.

This post has been edited by everyking: Mon 15th October 2007, 4:36am

[nobs]

Newsflash: NPOV goes in the Trash

Fred Bauder wrote:

> many of us like Michael Moore
> very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved.
> Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the
> unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like)
> yields removal of the link

> Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose
> viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.

How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?

_______________________________________________

Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.

Fred

So it's a structural problem. Solution? Create Arbitration Gestapo Committee's of Wikipedia's pimply faced Admins; by the time they reach age 22, according Newsmax, a reputable and verifiable source, then they will reach the average age of Wikipedia's internal self regulatory and policy making Arbitration Committee. So while we have glaring examples of how ArbCom, NPOV, and a host of others policies never amounted to more than a sham, what is the solution? expand the whole sham structure.

This would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact Ferdreal Courts have encouraged internal self regulation, rather than overturn the Law.

[Viridae]

I'm sure that there are enough competent editors on Wikipedia to make an effective ArbCom. All we need is some mechanism to get them on and some of the current incumbents off. If only the WR admins got to appoint ArbCom!

Not a WR admin, but I would enjoy seeing Joseph100 on arbcom.

[LamontStormstar]

I think we all know why the Arbcom is falling apart. Because they have dared to question the actions of the users known as "Jayjg" and "SlimVirgin".

links please.

For Jayjg I thought he just stopped editing so that would thus make him immune.