The ArbCom mailing list has a leak, SlimVirgin wants to call a plumber Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Virginia Slim is taking an interest in Wikipedia:Private correspondence, as are other cabal VIPs.

[Jonny Cache]

Virginia Slim is taking an interest in Wikipedia:Private correspondence, as are other cabal VIPs.

The abject nonsense on the PC page illustrates one of the delusions that arises from preaching to a choir that grows stupider and stupider every day through a Process Of Cabalized Artificial Selection (WP:POCAS). Even the members of the Cabal who direct the selection process begin to delude themselves into thinking that the rest of the world is just that stupid and has any difficulty at all seeing what they're really doing.

Jonny

[Moulton]

One of the features of an agonistic drama is that the agonizers who occupy different faces of the Vexagon are generally unable to reckon an accurate model of their antagonists or craft an insightful appreciation of the system dynamics that drive their burbling liminal social drama.

[Jonny Cache]

One of the features of an agonistic drama is that the agonizers who occupy different faces of the Vexagon are generally unable to reckon an accurate model of their antagonists or craft an insightful appreciation of the system dynamics that drive their burbling liminal social drama.

I think that you may be confusing «Agonistic Drama» with «Agnostic Drama», but never mind that now, the gist of what you say above is an issue that I have been peircuing with some dedication for the last couple of decades, writing up some of my reflections while I worked on a Capstone-Tombstone type dissertation proposal in Systems Engineering at Oakland University (that's in Oakland County, Michigan) circa 1993–2003.

The critical turning point — and yar indeed is the craft that is built to pass it — is the point where a system rigged out with an Interpretive Framework (IF) is able to reflect on that very contingency to the degree that it begins to fit itself out with a Reflective Interpretive Framework (RIF).

Here is a pertinent passage from my dissipation proposal, "Inquiry Driven Systems" —

An interpretive framework (IF) is set to work when an agent or agency becomes involved in its organization and participates in the forms of activity that make it up. Often, an IF is founded and persists in operation long before any participant is able to reflect on its structure or to post a note of its character to the constituting members of the framework. In some cases, the rules of the IF in question forbid the act of reflecting on its form. In practice, to the extent that agents are actively involved in filling out the requisite forms and taking part in the step by step routines of the IF they may have little surplus memory capacity to memorandize the big picture even when it is permitted in principle.

Source. Jon Awbrey, “Inquiry Driven Systems, § 1.3.3.5. A Formal Approach”

In the case of Wikipedia, we are dealing with a system that falls under the description of a Deliberately Unreflective Framework (DUF), that is, an IF in which "the rules of the IF in question forbid the act of reflecting on its form".

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 7th December 2007, 6:04am

[Moulton]

In the case of Wikipedia, we are dealing with a system that falls under the description of a Deliberately Unreflective Framework (DUF), that is, an IF in which "the rules of the IF in question forbid the act of reflecting on its form".

That would explain why, in my RfC, my Objectives for Participation were unappreciated.

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

[Jonny Cache]

In the case of Wikipedia, we are dealing with a system that falls under the description of a Deliberately Unreflective Framework (DUF), that is, an IF in which "the rules of the IF in question forbid the act of reflecting on its form".

That would explain why, in my RfC, my Objectives for Participation were unappreciated.

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

Yes, of course.

What you did, almost reflexively, is exactly what umpteen years worth of curricular transformation and professional development in Systems Thinking have been working to make Second Nature in its Nurturees — what various other disciplines promote under the rubrics of the Boulder Model or the Reflective Practitioner.

Second Un-Naturally, all of that is pure anathema to Wikipediots.

Jon Awbrey

[Moulton]

OK, so you and I are both products of graduate level studies in Systems Theory, and we have incorporated what we learned into our professional practices and careers.

And you say those practices are anathema to Wikipedia, which explains why we both produced an allergic reaction among conventional Wikipedians.

So now I'm working at my secondary objective, which will either replicate your comparable experience, or possibly reveal incrementally more insight into the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by Wikipedia's current policy, culture, and organizational architecture.

This would be a good place for you to make a prediction as to the probable outcome of my Request for Arbitration, based on your empirical model to-date.

[Jonny Cache]

OK, so you and I are both products of graduate level studies in Systems Theory, and we have incorporated what we learned into our professional practices and careers.

And you say those practices are anathema to Wikipedia, which explains why we both produced an allergic reaction among conventional Wikipedians.

So now I'm working at my secondary objective, which will either replicate your comparable experience, or possibly reveal incrementally more insight into the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by Wikipedia's current policy, culture, and organizational architecture.

This would be a good place for you to make a prediction as to the probable outcome of my Request for Arbitration, based on your empirical model to-date.

And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought

Who do you think I am — DennyColt ???

No, I started climbing Wikipedia's Sicklied O'er Conflict Resolution Ascent To Erewhon's State (WP:SOCRATES) from the bottom, like any terminally naive person would do, and so I never got any higher than the rungs of WQA, 3O, and RFC before I found myself being shoved off the ladder.

But I did learn enough from that experience to realize that there is no such thing as winning on such a crooked board, that even what looks like a momentary gain will only serve to lend legitimacy to a game that will rob you of your gains at some future spin of the crooked wheel.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 3rd December 2007, 7:56pm

[Moulton]

Yah, I get that WP is demonstrably falling short of best practices, but our current task is to characterize and model the inefficacies in terms of likely scripts in these Quixotic quests.

[Jonny Cache]

Yah, I get that WP is demonstrably falling short of best practices, but our current task is to characterize and model the inefficacies in terms of likely scripts in these Quixotic quests.

Once again, it may be falling short of best practices for developing information content, but it is right on target with best practices in all of the most perennial con games known to con artists everywhere.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 3rd December 2007, 8:12pm

[Somey]

what did doc do? he's always been an easily approachable person on irc... maybe i can get him to revisit whatever happened?

He did a good thing, actually - I believe you misunderstood that bit slightly. AB was saying that "not everyone who uses pseudonyms is unwilling to hear/address complaints," in response to Daniel's long-held assertion that identifiable people have little recourse against attacks by people acting anonymously. In other words, s/he (AB) was effectively responding to a completely different assertion than the one that was stated. (And s/he does that a bit more than I might prefer, to be honest...)

Doc wrote that "you cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people," which is something good that we don't often hear from the WP folks. Of course, it just as readily applies to anyone here too, including myself... The problem is always that qualifying word, "actionable."

[wikiwhistle]

Technically it's quite hard to say anything in an actionable way if the person you are saying it about doesn't know your real name, address etc.

So it would depend on how much the forum concerned is prepared to back you up in not revealing your real world details if the details are demanded of them.

This is not always a bad thing by any means- for instance on forums where people discuss abusive cults and cult leaders, so that others are warned about them. They need to use the person's and group's everyday name, so people know who they're talking about.

This is part of what the Electronic Freedom Foundation work for. Lucky for people in the US, they have more freedom of speech than the UK.

One example case was where someone uploaded to youtube a french investigative documentary about the Landmark Forum. Youtube were faced with demands from LF to reveal the person's identity. The EFF supported the person and luckily Youtube declined to out them.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/1327232 (actually they used DMCA threats against Youtube at one point as one of their tactics.)

Of course I know it is not nice at all if you are on the receiving end, especially if someone is spreading lies about you.

[Moulton]

WP has two guidelines about publishing false and defamatory material. The WP:BLP applies to biographical articles, and WP:NPA applies to discussion pages referring to other WP editors. The admins are generally expected to abide by and enforce those guidelines.

But in RfCs and related proceedings, editors and admins routinely publish false and defamatory characterizations of editors with whom they have adversarial relationships.