Slimvirgin/Felonious Monk/JzG case, ArbCom stalling, or just lazy? Options

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?

They have to give the Cabal time to Cannibalize all of the plaintiffs.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?

Yes. Most of them.

ARBCOM will finish this up when most people have grown apathetic and disinterested. It's their typical MO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...8_announcements

JzG has returned after a month and a half to add a wikibreak to his talk page.

Meanwhile, Tony Sidaway continues to troll the Talk:Proposed decision page., archiving sections on a whim and annoying Lar.

Making lots of edits isn't manipulative. That's a ridiculous statement. A person who has lots to say makes lots of edits. A person who has less to say says less. It's a matter of choice. You started this discussion with a gross misstatement of my views, which I corrected. I apologise to the community for not leaving it there, but being sucked into a pointless discussion.

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

what account may that be?

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Yeah, "Pune" my arse...

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

This post has been edited by ThurstonHowell3rd:

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

Why not? I'm sure he has some personal point of view that needs to be advanced.

Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?

I could not understand what the hell the case was about when it was requested and was surprised that Arbcom accepted it. I think that a wiser group probably would not have accepted it. I think they probably realize that now.

If anyone can attempt to explain the point of this arbitration, what could be resolved, and why it's so important to the functioning of an encyclopedia, I'd be happy to read it.

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

He's done it before. c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cruftbane

Could someone please initiate RfC/Systemic_Corruption.

JzG will be editing under another account. It's what he always does when it looks like he might get called on his bullshit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I find it hard to believe he would be editing if he could not use his administration powers.

He's done it before. c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cruftbane

He has also edited anonymously, as in the celebrated Big Boob edits.

Well, still no Arb activity on the case. And Francisco Franco is still dead.

Has there been any recent explanation anywhere (I don't read any of the mailing lists, normally) as to WTF is going on?

Well, still no Arb activity on the case.

Looks like Tony Sidaway is trying his best to turn it into a giant clusterfuck. When will someone make a Tony Sidaway Drama Queen Barnstar to carry over the proud Usenet tradition? Perhaps we should have a design contest for it.

When I returned yesterday from a week away from the Internet I was a little surprised to see that no proposed decision has been started yet. But, no big deal. I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Workshop/Merged

I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Workshop/Merged

So do I. Is there any chance that the final verdict will resemble it?

I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Workshop/Merged

So do I. Is there any chance that the final verdict will resemble it?

One can only dream, eh?

One can only dream, eh?

I suppose it's not Kosher to dream of a Kafkaesque nightmare for all the other jerks in this lunatic social drama.

you can not be serious

While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

you can not be serious

While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

Well, golly, if you want some fresh evidence of egregious abuse of power, I have some recent outrages I could share with you.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

you can not be serious

While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was "sick as a parrot".

you can not be serious

While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

He uses "unsanctionable"... it did pop-up in my spell checker.

Does he mean 'not sanctionable'?

Or, does he mean 'can't undo sanctions that are in place now'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...oposed_decision

At least the community has the right reaction to Sam's motion.

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was "sick as a parrot".

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was "sick as a parrot".

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.

I think he meant this. I have to say that you do have an amazing knack for recalling every single thing someone has said about you on the internet, Greg.

Sam Blacketer is the one who hoped I was "sick as a parrot".

Which points to a broken promise by Danny to pay 5 editors $100 each for improving articles. Somewhat dishonest, but then this is Wikipedia.

I think he meant this. I have to say that you do have an amazing knack for recalling every single thing someone has said about you on the internet, Greg.

<sigh>I know that was the comment, but what did the comment itself refer to? He was gloating over an edit for payment competition (as linked in that message) sponsored by Danny (aka a for profit company, aka Veropedia) that has not paid up since the competition closed in December. The dishonesty of that makes the gloating doubly ironic for someone in such high standing as an arbitrator.

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.

What would be the point?

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.

What would be the point?

Probably none, but I still wonder.

This post has been edited by Rhindle:

I wonder if anyone is going to start a vote of no confidence in the arbcom.

What would be the point?

Probably none, but I still wonder.

Judging on the ArbCom RfC, nothing would happen. Even Jimbo, whose relevance to current activities at Wikipedia is paper-thin at this point, seems safe. There are too many people invested in the status quo who can prevent consensus for a new model through simple disruption and filibustering.

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.

ArbCom stalling, or just lazy?

yes, yes, and cowardly, and neutered and in deraliction of duty.

Thatcher writes.:
<--I'd like to suggest that if the case is dismissed, it would be possible to file a new case, and I would further suggest that to be effective, any case should be specific, narrowly targeted and with reasonable expectations for outcome. Cases of the type All these people are bad, please tar and feather them are never handled well, even with lower profile editors.


I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.

If this isn't a case for de-sysoping, I don't know what is.

as had to be done in the Weiss case, skip the fucking arbcom already and go directly to the community.

it stuns me how stupid people are to repeatedly go before an inherently crooked arbcom and expect a different result every time.

Fucking unbelievable.

FM, SV, and JzG aren't open to recall, so it'll be next to impossible for the community to do anything about it.

This post has been edited by that one guy:

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.

Changes often happen when people in general are "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore." Whether this rises to that level remains to be seen.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.

Well, he was a clerk. Was - I didn't realize til he mentioned about a week ago that he had just resigned his clerkship. Wonder why?

Looks like we're down to quoting the Declaration of Independence -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224677989

So who's George III? And is Cla68 Thomas Paine? Or is it Giano (actually I think Giano is Samuel Adams).

To be serious, I don't see any way for a violent revolution against the WP aristrocracy unless productive contributors turn into vandals, pending a change of governance. Little chance of that.

I'm probably John Jay. Or maybe that's giving myself too much credit.

Yeah, this doesn't contribute much to the conversation.

as was done in the Gary case, WP community including its thousands of admins can just read the RFC material, ban JzG, desysop FM/SV/Jayjg, and get on with it.

then let's put up Gerard for a review of his "Overstock-Utah-etc" actions.

topped off with a speedy RFA for Cla68.

arbcom is a moot point. let them email each other, and arbcom clownmeritus's raul and bawdy all they want.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

thing is, how can jzg/fm/sv get desysoped?

how did I get unblocked and Gary banned?

Wp admins reviewed the diffs for themselves and took action. After enough visibility to those diffs was given via RFC's, admin talk pages, etc, not one of the crooked had the "got my back?" action to do anything about it.

a small bully clique was outmanned by WP'ians armed with diffs. They came, they saw Arbcom bullshit, they took action anyway.

and Tony/Jenny wins this month's "Baghdad Bob" award. Could someone forward it to him from the current and former Arbcommers (you know, the ones that refused to do anything about Gary Weiss)?

and Tony/Jenny wins this month's "Baghdad Bob" award. Could someone forward it to him from the current and former Arbcommers (you know, the ones that refused to do anything about Gary Weiss)?

Better forward that to RegenerateThis.

to change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.

But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

to change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.

But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

Well, is anyone up for the role of Elector of Saxony?

Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

the same hundreds of folks who had my back without me asking for it via a soopersekret Jayjgmail, and got Gary back for extended egregious abuse.

Folks who can read and apply their own community's rules evenly.

To change the historical context being used, and to further make a WP:POINT to Slim & Gang (recently pared down after Gary and his socks took a community hike), Cla68 is the Martin Luther in this drama, and his RFC(s) have nailed the WP Corruption to the door.

But Luther needed powerful German princes for protection, else he would have been Zweiback (auf-der-Herr-Bruno). Who on Wikipedia is watching Cla68's back to make sure he's not toast?

Well, is anyone up for the role of Elector of Saxony?

Who will play the role of Stephen Langton?

Piper: what I'm saying is there's no method that I'm aware of for the community to desysop outside of recall requests.

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

External campaigns against SlimVirgin

For completeness, I should note that the site over which Cla68 was blocked last year is far from being the only one that focusses heavily on SlimVirgin. There are several such, all presenting as fact highly speculative about her identity and her motives for editing Wikipedia.

One such is Wikipedia Review, which has a whole subforum devoted to SlimVirgin (one of about a dozen subforums devoted to Wikipedians, two of which are arbitrators or former arbitrators).

The SlimVirgin forum of Wikipedia Review contains some 80 topics, and over 2,000 reply postings. Titles such as "SlimVirgin Deathwatch", "100 Reasons to feel sorry for Slim ..", and "Slim - Moreschi - Wiki Smack Down !!" are probably indicative of the level of discourse.

Cla68 and others have apparently used this subforum to canvass for attention to discussions on Wikipedia. Several other users of that forum claiming to be named well known Wikipedians also use it.

There are other attack sites, but that one appears to be the only discussion board dedicated to attacking this Wikipedian.

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

External campaigns against SlimVirgin

For completeness, I should note that the site over which Cla68 was blocked last year is far from being the only one that focusses heavily on SlimVirgin. There are several such, all presenting as fact highly speculative about her identity and her motives for editing Wikipedia.

One such is Wikipedia Review, which has a whole subforum devoted to SlimVirgin (one of about a dozen subforums devoted to Wikipedians, two of which are arbitrators or former arbitrators).

The SlimVirgin forum of Wikipedia Review contains some 80 topics, and over 2,000 reply postings. Titles such as "SlimVirgin Deathwatch", "100 Reasons to feel sorry for Slim ..", and "Slim - Moreschi - Wiki Smack Down !!" are probably indicative of the level of discourse.

Cla68 and others have apparently used this subforum to canvass for attention to discussions on Wikipedia. Several other users of that forum claiming to be named well known Wikipedians also use it.

There are other attack sites, but that one appears to be the only discussion board dedicated to attacking this Wikipedian.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it is untrue, but this is Tony "never let the facts get in the way of a good troll" Sidaway. Moving on...

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

Emphasis mine. I'm tempted to actually read his entire evidence section after this case closes, just for the guaranteed lulz.

Hmm, just looked over it. Surprising number of diffs considering who made it. Was expecting better. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Tony continues to "beef" his evidence up:

Emphasis mine. I'm tempted to actually read his entire evidence section after this case closes, just for the guaranteed lulz.

Hmm, just looked over it. Surprising number of diffs considering who made it. Was expecting better. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Even the diffs can't hide the fact that it's utter, misrepresented, misleading rubbish! My favourite bit is:

Severe personal attack on SlimVirgin: "a once-respected contributor".

in analysis of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186980994 this by Cla.

I'm sure Tony's never called anyone anything worse than that, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Sam speaks.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.

Sam speaks.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.

Dad: "My son does some nice things sometimes, so I don't punish him when he breaks the rules."

School: "Punishing Johnny would be harmful to his self esteem so we think it's ok for him to cheat on tests."

Boss: "Bob steals from the company, but he did a bang up job with that project last year, so we don't want to fire him."

Whatever.

I wonder how well Thatcher is dialed into the heartbeat of the arbcom. Characterizing this case as a tar-and-feathering circus is wild rhetoric that brushes off and basically legitimizes the well documented abuses of SV, FM and JzG.

Thatcher undoubtedly knows as much about SV, FM and JzG as anyone - he has both ears firmly on the ground.

he has both ears firmly on the ground

Which tells you a lot about what's in between.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Lar, you naughty boy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224831512

Heh

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.

You seem to assume that if the case was not dismissed, that there would be some sanctions and desysoppings. Suppose they voted on some real proposals and the result was Cla was sanctioned for harassing SV, and SV, JzG and FM got off scot-free--would you be happier? Dismissal is a more neutral result than people realize. "most of these complaints are old and things are better lately" is not the same as "parties X, Y and Z are not guilty."

Sam speaks.

"Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration"

Bottom line: some editors can break the rules because we agree with their contributions to the "encyclopedia." Shocking, I'm sure. News at eleven.

Come on, now! We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the rule of law is over-rated. Even if you can't see this now, rest assured that if you were an Arbitrator, you would have no doubt of its truth.

In this thread, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:

I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.

Come on, now! We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the rule of law is over-rated. Even if you can't see this now, rest assured that if you were an Arbitrator, you would have no doubt of its truth.

Yes, the Rule of Law is over-rated.

It's only at the half-way mark to the highest levels of ethical reasoning.

If I were on ArbCom, I would mandate that anyone seeking to exercise a position of authority or responsibility (including editing of mainspace articles) be required to obtain a passing grade in at least one of the higher rungs above the middle rung on the ladder of development of ethical reasoning.

In this thread, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:

I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.

And you predicted that on Friday the 13th, no less!

fucking outrageous. there is no reason to dismiss the case, other than the size perhaps. even then it can be solved by splitting the cases up.

You seem to assume that if the case was not dismissed, that there would be some sanctions and desysoppings. Suppose they voted on some real proposals and the result was Cla was sanctioned for harassing SV, and SV, JzG and FM got off scot-free--would you be happier? Dismissal is a more neutral result than people realize. "most of these complaints are old and things are better lately" is not the same as "parties X, Y and Z are not guilty."

I really think that it's a bad idea to dismiss. Another example of epic fail. This case has been dragging on for weeks. It sat idle for how long? Like two months. Yes, a lot of the evidence is old, but it's to give context and show the long-term pattern of abuse that is an on-going problem. I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.

In this thread, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:

I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.

And Tony, don't forget Tony!

In this thread, a number of us speculated on the outcome of this case. In my analysis, Jpgordon, Morven, and Charles Matthews were very unlikely to sanction FelonyMonk or SlimeVirgin. I was uncertain about the rest, but Blacketer seems to have declared his intentions -- that is 4 of the 8 arbs, so there is little hope of a meaningful verdict here. Also, as noted, Blnguyen almost always goes along with the majority. This leaves James Forrester, the only plausibly sane arb, swinging in the wind, with the rather dubious and somewhat psychotic companionship of FT2.

Given all of this I will repeat my prediction from then:

I think that after another month or so, a bunch of non-action decisions will be made, nothing will be done, and there will be hugs all around. Cla68 will go back to editing, but will now be hectored at every turn by Slim's posse, until he leaves WP. Slim will re-surface from the self-imposed semi-exile and start manipulating the system with renewed vigor. The whole thing will take the rest of the year to play out.

I do agree that it will take the rest of the year to play out, but I don't think Cla eventually leaving because of Slim resurfacing will be an outcome. Slim seems incapable of manipulating the system for the same reasons the arbcom is incapable of hearing the case... The community has simply gotten too large and unmanageable and the outside world's awareness of their follies has become too acute for them to be able to act effectively.

I for one am not concerned with the committee not hearing the case. When they voted to accept so quickly, I thought that the arbs just intended for a fast and dirty railroading of Cla. But the community was on them, used the opportunity to present incontrovertible evidence against SV and FM, which made it impossible for the arbs to act, as those two, you all know, were part of the tight network that always worked in collusion with the arbs, citing them in policy and such, enforcing arbitration decisions as if they were law, and culling adminship nominations in favor of sycophants dedicated to perpetuating their collective regime. The arbs could never realistically act against SV or JzG; they were all central parts of a corrupt system that essentially worked to enforce ArbCom and Jimbo's grip on authority, but which could only operate effectively while ordinary editors believed that their actions were "for the benefit of the encyclopedia."

Now that its obvious, due to the many public scandals brought upon by their own unchecked hubris, to be otherwise, their formerly loyal support system of thousands is now collectively exasperated. For the ArbCom to redeem themselves would be like cutting off an arm. An arm that was once strong and powerful, but which has developed a severe case of gangrene. To save their body, the Arbs have to issue sanctions to, and thereby sever their relationship with, SV and co., but individually and collectively they are not up to the task, and so with their silence their credibility further drains away, and the lumbering RFC gathers more comments like a rolling stone.

I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.

A year ago, I don't think this case would have been accepted. I think that rage against the Cabal among rank-and-file Wikipedians is slowly, slowly approaching the boiling point.

Now that its obvious, due to the many public scandals brought upon by their own unchecked hubris, to be otherwise, their formerly loyal support system of thousands is now collectively exasperated. For the ArbCom to redeem themselves would be like cutting off an arm. An arm that was once strong and powerful, but which has developed a severe case of gangrene. To save their body, the Arbs have to issue sanctions to, and thereby sever their relationship with, SV and co., but individually and collectively they are not up to the task, and so with their silence their credibility further drains away, and the lumbering RFC gathers more comments like a rolling stone.

Since there has been no (correct me if I'm wrong) legitimate successful re-election ever of an Arbitrator besides Fred Bauder, and the following terms expire December 2008:

1. James F
2. Blnguyen
3. Thebainer
4. Charles Matthews
5. Morven (already said he's not running again)

And the following expire in December 2009:

1. FloNight
2. Kirill
3. Paul August
4. UninvitedCompany
5. Jpgordon

The Arbcom shortly is going to look drastically different. I'd bet that anyone who runs and legitimately pushes through as a "Change" candidate is going to do fantatically well. Any candidate that pushes a platform to give control back away from the old Jimbo model to something more overseen and mandated by the community is going to be a lock. The only way to stop this building avalanche would be if Jimbo personally stepped in to do something to keep it the Old Way, and people would collectively crap their pants and fire him if he did that to short circuit the election. The WMF won't be able to do anything either, to support Jimbo or the AC on that, either, since the WMF can't interfere locally with such things. The Section 230 chain stops them.

The handling of cases like this, IRC, and probably others that I missed are going to wreak havoc long term with the power status quo on Wikipedia, and the old guard are going to be helpless to stop it, since they're always in the end as bound by that little birdy called consensus as everyone else is, no matter how much some protest it (Tony). December 2008/December 2009 are going to be very interesting.

I'm honestly shocked that things are turning out the way that they are, here. It's not exactly rocket science to manipulate crowds and opinions. Politicians have been doing it for thousands of years. But the so called Old Guard isn't even trying anymore this year, like they're resigned to the way this is all turning out, or simply don't care anymore. I wonder if people are getting over the idea of power on the site, since it can't realistically be held without fighting 24x7x365 to hold it?

I can't imagine the community accepting a dismissal. Of course, what would happen, really? I think if the ArbCom weren't already lacking faith from the community, there'd probably be a lot of huffing and some proposals for the first few days following the dismissal, then everyone would get bored or distracted and wonder off and nothing would happen. But this would be the cherry on top, srsly. This would complete the 2008 series of ArbCom failures that I think would really just send the community over the edge.

Banned editors aren't the only ones that are fed up to their eyeballs with admins getting away with this sort of stuff. Other admins are sick of it, too. These veteran admins that feel immune to process need to be handled. And if this case is dismissed, it just reaffirms their belief that they can get away with anything... because they really can.

A year ago, I don't think this case would have been accepted. I think that rage against the Cabal among rank-and-file Wikipedians is slowly, slowly approaching the boiling point.

A year ago, they might still have been able to do what they wanted to, which was essentially what they tried to do with Orangemarlin, but which today they felt they couldn't do in front of the community, probably because expectations of a "fair trial" would get in the way.

It occurs to me that if arbcom does turn out to be a picture of impotence and pass that dismissal, it will end up in fron the the community. Community based sanctions have progressed a long way.

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

Yes, but slim and friends are going to argue they're not open to recall all the way to the bank.

What are the chances of getting a steward to act on community consensus, to set a precedent for desysop outside of ArbCom or AOR? Lar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

More recent tag-team edit warring by Slim and Crum. They like to use the "per talk" edit summaries, even though the the discussion on the talk page clearly doesn't support their position.

How can Arbcom justify not applying some kind of edit warring restriction on Slim? She's sitting there doing it while her case is in progress. How much more blatant can she be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

More recent tag-team edit warring by Slim and Crum. They like to use the "per talk" edit summaries, even though the the discussion on the talk page clearly doesn't support their position.

How can Arbcom justify not applying some kind of edit warring restriction on Slim? She's sitting there doing it while her case is in progress. How much more blatant can she be?

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...rown_Dog_affair

This post has been edited by Viridae:

Yeah, desysopping is hard, but how about this:

FM is pretty damn weak here, has stacks of evidence against him, and has been socking (even though people are too discrete to point it out). I think he could get community banned with or without the bit. I doubt FM or JzG could, but I think it's not impossible for FM to be.

If he blocked for a decent length of time desysopping would seem pretty uncontroversial.

Maybe we're not there yet though.


Edit:

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...rown_Dog_affair

Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.

This post has been edited by One:

Yeah, desysopping is hard, but how about this:

FM is pretty damn weak here, has stacks of evidence against him, and has been socking (even though people are too discrete to point it out). I think he could get community banned with or without the bit. I doubt FM or JzG could, but I think it's not impossible for FM to be.

If he blocked for a decent length of time desysopping would seem pretty uncontroversial.

Maybe we're not there yet though.


Edit:

Prepare for fireworks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...rown_Dog_affair

Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.

Socking?

Viridae, I think MONGO's comment will get a lot of support. Good luck. ArbCom might find a use for the case yet.

Mongo's statement was useless. 3RR and a longstanding dispute? Did he even read why they were blocked?

I suppose some people will say that he should have warned first, but should it be necessary to warn an administrator not to participate in a month-long tag-team edit war? Shouldn't they know better already?

Crum hadn't edited that page for a bit, but since he's been warring on it for a month there's no doubt he would go right back to reverting. It's not like he would have suddenly decided to stop on his own.

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Socking?

B identified Odd nature as a sockpuppet of Felonious Monk on the basis of contribs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....B7_contribs.29

The Arbitration Committee completely ignored it:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=Odd+nature

We've since discovered that Odd nature edits from FM's employer, even moving with him when he changes jobs:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=111714

The only evidence to the contrary was…well, he told people it wasn't true.

Assume good faith!

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Socking?

B identified Odd nature as a sockpuppet of Felonious Monk on the basis of contribs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....B7_contribs.29

The Arbitration Committee completely ignored it:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=Odd+nature

We've since discovered that Odd nature edits from FM's employer, even moving with him when he changes jobs:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=111714

The only evidence offered to exonerate FM was…well, he told people it wasn't true.

Assume good faith!

LOL. Is odd nature blocked?

It looks like Crum reverted ten times, against four different editors. Seven of those times he was citing talk page consensus that did not exist.

If that's not edit warring worth blocking over, I'm not sure what is.

LOL. Is odd nature blocked?

Of course not. Unlike Orderinchaos, who at least had the decency to quit socking upon being caught and let go, the socking continues as before. Why shouldn't it? According to the arbitrators, the rules are, if you're an administrator and get caught socking, and then make up a story that explains it, nothing happens. He's just following the rules.

If that's not edit warring worth blocking over, I'm not sure what is.

Regular users are blocked on a similar basis all the time. Administrators should be held to at least the same standards as are ordinary users. However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

Yep.

However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...rown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point? He seems to have become a bitter, sad joke - he only comes out to rant incoherently once in a while. He's like one of those naked hermits who lives in a cave and throws poop at anyone who approaches.

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point? He seems to have become a bitter, sad joke - he only comes out to rant incoherently once in a while. He's like one of those naked hermits who lives in a cave and throws poop at anyone who approaches.

Heh. Unfortunately the vast majority of those commenting on ANI will believe anything they read - and never bother to look at the evidence to see if it is correct or not.

Is MONGO credible to or respected by anyone at this point?

I imagine that if you found Mongo on your side in a dispute, it would be handy to sit back and let him do all the poo flinging. That's pretty much his role on WP now; he flings poo on behalf of his buddies, and in return his buddies form the "consensus" that keeps him from getting blocked too much. It's a symbiotic relationship, you see. JzG serves a similar purpose.

I've noticed. Sort of reminds me of Giano in a way, though Giano goes whatever way he wants to and no one can really stop him.

Mongo was Gary Weiss's #1 Friend that wasn't his own sock. They used to carry on a "conversation" on a subpage to try and mock those who pointed out Gary's Wikiabuses.

Within a month after I first edited "naked short selling", Mongo, on behalf of Gary, put me up for a sock check, complete with a dozen diffs that showed nothing related to what Mongo was accusing me of, counting on that most admins would be too lazy to actually read the diffs.

What an asshole.

However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...rown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

Oh wow, a Wikipedia Review user archived that section. I'm waiting for the accusations of my ulterior motive, because heck, I wouldn't have a clue what it is.

However, a week seems unnecessarily harsh (as I would say for most regular users as well.)

Well, the time is mostly beside the point. He doesn't have to stay blocked for any longer that it takes for him to promise to stop his ridiculous edit warring. I trust that Viridae would have done the same for any user.

Yep.

Yes, of course. MONGO's claim that you're out to get Crum doesn't survive scrutiny (and it didn't on ANI.) As you say, the only reason you're in ArbCom with Slim is that the Arbitration Committee merged the two cases.

No Wikipedia discussion is complete, it seems, without attacking the Wikipedia Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...rown_Dog_affair
You'd think they were dedicated to criticizing us, rather than vice-versa.

Oh wow, a Wikipedia Review user archived that section. I'm waiting for the accusations of my ulterior motive, because heck, I wouldn't have a clue what it is.

Not before Sidaway got in his poisonous comment along the lines of anyone posting here who is not abusing anyone is clearly supporting the abuse. Sidaway, you need to get a life.

Not before Sidaway got in his poisonous comment along the lines of anyone posting here who is not abusing anyone is clearly supporting the abuse. Sidaway, you need to get a life.

Follow Sidaway's link: it refers to Encyclopedia Dramatica, not the Wikipedia Review:

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?

What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?

Wikistalked. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What does it mean to "be closely monitored"?

Wikistalked. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Like the subpage that (I think) PouponOnToast was keeping of links to posts made here. Is he still indef blocked?
[Edit] Yes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

As even Bauder must know, WP administrators who edit on ED rarely use their WP names.

i just noticed the thread about Felonius and Odd Nature.

Same person.

Can't get much more blatant than that data presented.

He also double-voted and used a sock abusively, and should be held accountable for that like any other wikipedian should. So who's going to enforce WP rules on that.

The continued selective enforcement off WP rules (abusive socking should be one of the biggest offenses, after BLP vandalism, that should merit instant banning for all accounts involved.

WP has its priorities entirely fucked up.

BLP vandalism (much of it for weeks/months) is its #1 liability.

Abusive socking is the #1 threat to "community consensus" etc, the supposed single most important concept behind how Wikpedia is supposed to "work".


The former almost always gets a euphemistic "try a sandbox edit instead, please don't call movie actresses anal sex fiends from now on. Cheers! Love you!", when it should get a shoot-on-sight permaban.

The latter, likewise. No matter who does it.

The most consistent thing about wikipedia is its inconsistency.

"Karma 8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

As even Bauder must know, WP administrators who edit on ED rarely use their WP names.

Well, if Wikipedia admins have Infragard© tools, they can ID people in that manner.

I think they do.