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.

After just over four days, another arb weighs in.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)

After just over four days, another arb weighs in.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)

That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.

I can only imagine the mail list is going nuts over this case now.

I can only imagine the mail list is going nuts over this case now.

No of course not, that would be Off-WP organised attacking of Wikipedians, and Tony Jenny won't have any of that.

Here, criticism of Wikipedia, and the edits made there, and the treatment of the editors there, is out in the open for all to see. Some people really don't like their actions on Wikipedia being exposed. Take FeloniusMonk/Odd Nature. He's been recently exposed via incontrovertible IP evidence as an abusive sockster. Bet he and his Wikielite friends really don't like that.

Apparently, that's not beneficial to the Wikielite. It's better for them if things get swept under the rug, not talked about like that crazy Uncle no one talks about at family reunions, and all the other loose cannon fire is discussed on elite mailing lists so the Peasants don't get the "wrong" idea about the Nobility.

I'd wager that the Cla68's of WP would stand behind all of their edits on WP, even though they don't have friends to "oversight" the more unpleasant ones. Jayjg and SlimVirgin? Not so much.

I'd also wager that Cla68 would not make a 24th hour complete and utter lie about an RFA candidate being loosely associated with a bogeyman (the "same state" incident) in order to torpedo an RFA. Jayjg (24th hour Tor Incident) and SlimVirgin (24th hour SameStateAsWordbomb incident) ? Not so much.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

After just over four days, another arb weighs in.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)

That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.

if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

Viridae's Very Civil Obediance of WP Processes is no sueymission, it's standing up for what's right in a civil, lawoftheland, proper way. You can't just let continued systematic hyprocrisy-filibustering-disingenious-chewbacca defense-thumbsinears by the people supposedly entrusted by the community as arbs and/or longtime standing admins to continue if its wrong and you can prove it.

I'd also wager that Cla68 would not make a 24th hour complete and utter lie about an RFA candidate being loosely associated with a bogeyman (the "same state" incident) in order to torpedo an RFA. Jayjg 24th hour Tor Incident) and SlimVirgin (24th hour SameStateAsWordbomb incident) ? Not so much.

This false assertion was based upon a photograph on Cla68's userpage which was taken in Utah- hardly enough to claim that Cla68 lives in Utah, and even were it so, this alone would hardly be enough to assert an off-WP connection with anyone else who lives in Utah. Still, I see no reason to doubt that Slim believed it when she said it, it was not intentionally a lie (and what a lame one it would have been, as it was falsified so easily.) What is missing here - as so often on Wikipedia - is an apology. That's what keeps these assumptions of nefarious motives alive.

What I see, in retrospect, is a very sincere but ill-informed and misguided hysteria surrounding WordBomb. Most everyone believed it, repeated it uncritically, and amplified one another - most everyone save Cla68. He should be recognized for resisting groupthink and exercising good judgment when others didn't.

The Arbitration Committee is very unlikely to do so, because nothing is more important to them then pretending that they were right all along. Tony Sidaway is the voice of the ArbCom in this respect, insisting that they were wise and just in the manner of the emperor's new clothes.

false assertion? a very convenient assertion, used as a lie against Cla68 to guarantee the Queen Bee (back then, the hive aint what it used to be) would get the drones to sting Cla68's well-deserved adminship into the ground.

I saw Cla68's skiing in Utah photo on his page. I've been skiing in Utah too. So have millions of others. Many of them were blocked by David Gerard just for living in Utah, lol.

No, what really angers Slim about Cla68 is that Cla68 has pointed out on WP, and rightly so, that Slim, right around the time she gained her adminship, was abusively socking as Sweet Blue Water by double voting.

if I'm Cla68, and I had my RFA torpedoed by an admin who had abused WP rules as serious as abusive socking, then had the nerve to intentionally accuse me of being a <insert WP bogeyman du jour here>, I'd damn well point out the abuses of my false accuser. Damn right I would. Cyde thought so too.

It got covered up, like every other abuse of the currently In-crowd. Good thing WR is here to show the diffs before crooked wikpedians cover them up.

Whistleblowers should be rewarded when their claims prove to be true. Not bullied, squelched, and lied about with vague unsupported accusations by fey blowhards acting as smokescreens for silent starchamber coverup squads.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

false assertion? a very convenient assertion, used as a lie against Cla68 to guarantee the Queen Bee (back then, the hive aint what it used to be) would get the drones to sting Cla68's well-deserved adminship into the ground.

I saw Cla68's skiing in Utah photo on his page. I've been skiing in Utah too. So have millions of others. Many of them were blocked by David Gerard just for living in Utah, lol.

For the record, I was snowboarding in Utah, not skiing. Big difference for us snowboarders (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) . I didn't put a date on the photo because I couldn't remember when it was taken. I've gone snowboarding in Utah a couple of times. I think that picture was taken at Snowbasin on the gondola above the Olympic downhill course, but I can't say for sure. I removed the picture because my wife didn't like it.

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

After just over four days, another arb weighs in.

(Seriously, though, good on Morven. I would have preferred a somewhat swifter response on this, and the episode has done more to hurt my regard for Arb Comm than has any other, but it appears that on this narrow issue they're poised to eventually make the right decision.)

That's only because Viridae has forced the issue. He's on a suicide mission. He'll let the Arb Comm take himself out if it means they'll have to act on the rest.

if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

Viridae's Very Civil Obediance of WP Processes is no sueymission, it's standing up for what's right in a civil, lawoftheland, proper way. You can't just let continued systematic hyprocrisy-filibustering-disingenious-chewbacca defense-thumbsinears by the people supposedly entrusted by the community as arbs and/or longtime standing admins to continue if its wrong and you can prove it.

I didn't say it wasn't for a good cause!

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

Certainly, Wikipedia promotes a opportunistic approach to making one's case, one which is amply on display in the evidence page of the arbitration.

I have three questions:

Would you agree that her fear of WordBomb and "stalking" (whatever the inadequacies of the term) was her primary concern, as she has invariably (to my knowledge) represented it, or would you suggest some other reason for her opposition?

If you would agree with this characterization, is it reasonable to allow that this fear compromised her judgment?

Finally, if she were to apologize, would it make a difference?

that would make a good story wouldn't it.

funny how patrick byrne is never mentioned when it comes to slimvirgin.

yeah, it's just a total coincidence that slimvirgin just happened to get involved with protecting weiss on wp at all costs (no matter how many editors were collaterally damaged), and had a negative experience with byrne in school. total coincidence. Just like the total coicidence of Jayjg oversighting some ugly material slim put into her ex-boss's BLP.

but let's all propagate a convenient white lie that lets everyone pretend that there aren't some rotten apples in the admin barrel. lies making up for past lies. it's all wikigood in the world of wikpeida ethics.

i doubt Cla68 cares what slim does with the rest of her wikilife, as long as it doesn't involve lying cheating and stealing adminships from honest editors.

If I'm on Arbcom, I tell people to stop doing bad things (which has obviously happened behind closed wikidoors with Slim), and tell people with justifiable grudges to move on, with assurances that they won't be wronged again by the same person(s). And that no one else will either.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

if viridae's on a "suicide mission", then what are the JzG's, Tony's, and Mongo's on? They've been on a self-credibility-destroying mission for as long as i can go back in their edit histories.

In a nut shell, that's wikipedia's biggest problem. An editor's credibility/reputation isn't related to their accuracy, judgment, foresight or the value of their contributions. Instead, an editors reputation depends on who their buddies are, which side they fight on, how fun they are on irc and how devious they are on the secret mailing lists and chatrooms. It's the worst part of Wikipedia's culture and it has to change before other problems can be addressed.

I'll view Cla's successful adminship as a sign of progress.

I still believe that SV knew she was, at a minimum, stretching the truth with that statement. Even if not, she knew that it was a ridiculous example of poisoning the well and she apparently felt she was above any type of accountability or ethical standards for making statements such as that.

Certainly, Wikipedia promotes a opportunistic approach to making one's case, one which is amply on display in the evidence page of the arbitration.

I have three questions:

Would you agree that her fear of WordBomb and "stalking" (whatever the inadequacies of the term) was her primary concern, as she has invariably (to my knowledge) represented it, or would you suggest some other reason for her opposition?

If you would agree with this characterization, is it reasonable to allow that this fear compromised her judgment?

Finally, if she were to apologize, would it make a difference?

If SV was really afraid that I was supporting someone who was stalking her, I think she would have handled it much differently. My RfA occurred several months after I had been involved in discussion on the Weiss talk page and in an ANI thread about some uncivil editing on Mantanmoreland's part. In both cases, SV's comments towards me were extremely polite and professional. I thought the matter was closed. I had taken the Weiss article off of my watchlist and had decided not to get involved with any other discussions surrounding Mantanmoreland, deciding that I had better things to do than to continue involvement in that issue. During that time, SV never hinted that she thought that I had some hidden agenda or that I was supporting someone that she had a personal problem with.

So, when she got my RfA extended and made those comments, I was completely taken by surprise. From the sudden change in tone of her comments after her silence on the matter for several months, I believed her actions in my RfA were simple retaliation for getting involved in the Weiss issue, and an attempt to suppress an editor who had some knowledge of what was going on there.

An apology probably would have fixed it. After I posted the self-RfC on myself, I thought that it made her actions look so ridiculous and indefensible that she would have no choice but to apologize. Unfortunately, she chose to try to defend her actions, and a few other editors, infamous around here, chose to support her defense.

Now, this isn't about me anymore. Others have told me of other, good editors who have left the project or almost left because of her bullying and attacks. I myself have observed the way she treats or has treated some of the project's best editors, like Tim Vickers or Sandy Georgia, among many others, and find it just absolutely despicable. She owes a lot more people besides me an apology. In fact, I would say, much like OrangeMarlin recently did, that she needs to apologize to everyone for the way she has acted since the time she started participating in Wikipedia. Of course, a true apology also requires a promise not to repeat the behavior.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

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?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.

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?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.

What about a "process" of politely asking an admin on their own talk pages to resign. I'd think once a couple hundred do that, the admin would assume that community consensus is against their continued adminship, and resign.

The community grants adminship. Via petition to an admin, they should be able to take it away. Give an admin a chance to resign, and if they don't present a petition that gives an arbitrator ample reason to believe that community consensus (a substantial majority, not a clique) is against that person continuing as an admin.

Arbcom should have nothing to do with it up front. They didn't grant the adminship in the first place. They arbitrate community conflicts that disrupt the progress of wikipedia and aren't being resolved through regular community discussion.

This is also in-line with requiring admins to re-apply for admin via RFA at reasonable intervals. Lifetime privilege leads to abuse, godkings, and admins with a litany of abuses of power like JzG, Gerard, Jajyg, and Slim. This is a concept that even the English realised was in the best interests of its "community" after a group of abused, bullied, and exploited ancestors of Wikipedians told King George to take his tea and "fuck off". Gandhi's approach would be more advisable in this instance, lol.

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for editors, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain editors?

Cla, we have tried to explain to you that narcissists do not have moments of epiphany, and they do not repent. THEY HAVE NO SHAME. Nor do psychopaths and sociopaths, who are the same sort of animal, but worse. And these people are extremely common, making up about 1% of the population. You may have wondered why you haven't met any. The answer is you have-- you just missed making the connection. These people don't act like Hannibal Lecter in real life. They act like SlimVirgin, JzG, Jimbo, etc. JoshuaZ and Essjay. Probably almost every really, really bad administrator you've ever dealt with on WP has this problem.

These people do not admit to being wrong. These people do not believe they ARE often wrong. They go through multiple jobs, multiple marriages, etc, as other people realize they cannot be dealt with (sometimes without making the diagnosis either!), and each time they take some "hide " (as in pound of flesh) off the other party, or organization. They file lawsuits. They file workers comp suits. They have the worst and nastiest divorces and always get >75% of what there is in a joint relationship. Sometimes they are found as scam artists. But they can run giant corporations, also. They can be president. Whatever they have, however, they feel entitled to more. To the narcissist, the world and life are one long string of unfairnesses, to which they respond with retaliation, no matter how long the time frame. In relationships, they are either at your feet, or at your throat. (of course, usually the first before the second). They worship or hate. They tend to be paranoid, because they never do understand why the world doesn't treat them as the princes and queens they feel they deserve to be treated as.

Narcissistic personality disorder:

...a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige.

In whatever venue they happen to work in. If that's Wikipedia, then there you are.

I can only say this so many times. Certain things are like the idea of "three" which my cat will never figure out. And as for a human, the idea of "three" may well be an apriori. I can't show you what "three" is, except to show you examples of tuples, ad nauseam, until you make an abstraction beyond the things themselves. My cat never will do that. Likewise, I can show you narcissists on WP until the cows come home, and if you aren't capable of believing that such creatures exist, you'll never get it. You'll never understand them or how they can do what they do, without ever learning anything.

Let me tell you a story about one. A guy who works for me off and on, just lost all his money. His credit cards are maxed and he has no equity left in his house. He may eventually be out of that house and back to renting. His family can't help him because they're all in the same boat, despite making a lot of money in the real estate market in the last decade, before the recent bubble burst.

So where did all the money go? Turns out they all had some family member who was the golden boy investment broker. He promised each and every one of them that they would get 10% return PER MONTH on money they invested with him. He had a foolproof scheme. They bought into it, because he was family. I suppose you know how this ends. (No, nobody consulted me about this 300% per year investment operation-- it wasn't MY family). It was, of course, a Ponzi/pyramid scheme. Later investors were paid off from the investments of earlier investors, until one day there was no money left. The banks came and took all the toys of the scam artist, but he was millions in the red and those millions came from everybody in a very large extended family. No doubt he could be prosecuted, but that won't get the money back.

So the guy is telling me about this. He's in his late 50's and has no retirement savings: they're gone. He's saying "How could this guy do this to us? What was he thinking?" And the answer is: "He wasn't thinking about YOU." Not in the least. That's actually POSSIBLE. That's what kind of a person he IS. The particular guy who lost all his money and told me the story, is as honest as the day is long, which is why I employ him. So he's the perfect mark for this second type. And I don't know if he ever will understand.

So. Are YOU getting it?

MR

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

A trial (especially a Spammish Inquisition) is highly unlikely to yield an authentic epiphany and genuine repentance.

Think of Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, or Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It takes a well-crafted (and sometimes custom-crafted) story to bring some people out of the dark side.

We might have to reprise some Dr. Seuss tales here.

To the narcissist, the world and life are one long string of unfairnesses, to which they respond with retaliation, no matter how long the time frame. In relationships, they are either at your feet, or at your throat. (of course, usually the first before the second). They worship or hate. They tend to be paranoid, because they never do understand why the world doesn't treat them as the princes and queens they feel they deserve to be treated as.

Narcissistic personality disorder:

...a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige.

Here is your evidence of Narcissism.

• /Template_1 – FeloniousMonk barnstar cluster issued: 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  
• /Template_2 – ScienceApologist barnstar cluster issued: 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_3 – Dragons flight science barnstar issued: 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_4 – Natalinasmpf barnstar cluster issued: 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_5 – Vsmith barnstar cluster issued: 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  
• /Template_6 – William M. Connolley barnstar cluster issued: 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about repentance.

Repentance has to be preceded by an epiphany.

Someone has to midwife the epiphany.

I think I read or heard somewhere that an epiphany leading to repentance usually needs to be initiated by a significant emotional event (SEE) that causes sufficient self-reflection to occur. I believe the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia is supposed to provide that SEE for participants, whether by RfC, RfAR, or some other formal mechanism. But, what if it doesn't with certain participants?

A trial (especially a Spammish Inquisition) is highly unlikely to yield an authentic epiphany and genuine repentance.

Think of Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, or Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It takes a well-crafted (and sometimes custom-crafted) story to bring some people out of the dark side.

We might have to reprise some Dr. Seuss tales here.

I remember a psychologist acquaintance of mine telling me that people with severe narcissistic personality disorder (and I'm not identifying anyone in particular as having this condition) are almost impossible to treat, i.e. "cure."

Cluster B (Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic) Personality Disorders

I remember a psychologist acquaintance of mine telling me that people with severe narcissistic personality disorder (and I'm not identifying anyone in particular as having this condition) are almost impossible to treat, i.e. "cure."

Yes. That tends to be true of all Cluster B Personality Disorders. It can take ten years of therapy by a gifted psychotherapist to bring someone out of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, or Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Look at all the drama whores on the English Wikipedia. That's prima facie evidence of Histrionic Personality Disorder.

The English Wikipedia is a hotbed of Cluster B types, plus Anankastic Personality Disorder, too.

If we were living in Biblical times, we'd be using quaint terms like "wickedness" to characterize that culture.

If we were living in Biblical times, we'd be using quaint terms like "wickedness" to characterize that culture.

Yep. I can forgive Durova a lot, just for this one image:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Jimbogoesswimming.jpg/301px-Jimbogoesswimming.jpg)

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?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.

if the community can ban users from WP entirely or restrict their editing then, logically, it can desysop as well.

Cluster B (Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic) Personality Disorders

It can take ten years of therapy by a gifted psychotherapist to bring someone out of ... Borderline Personality Disorder.

Wonderful.

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?

ArbCom is the process for the removal of sysops on en:wp. There is no other process. AOR is voluntary and non binding (although we have seen that sysops who go against their word tend to be treated rather harshly in the court of public opinion...) and stewards will not enforce it.

Anything else I could speak of would be hypothetical.

if the community can ban users from WP entirely or restrict their editing then, logically, it can desysop as well.

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

This post has been edited by One:

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

Of course, there's also the community vote...

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

Most don't care very much. The most abusive ones are the ones who care the most, and they are the loudest. Few admins would vigorously support such a change, and you can't get very far without that. When I was an admin, I argued in favor of the implementation of a community desysopping mechanism, and I think I may have been the only admin at the time who did so. (And isn't it ironic that I'm the one who ended up being desysopped--albeit outside of process?) There should be broader support by this time, but I doubt it's enough.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

Well, the proposal's doomed to failure for the same reason that all remotely controversial Wikipedia policy proposals are doomed to failure, and it has nothing to do with self-interest: it's that there's an unspecified but unreasonably high threshold for policies to be adopted, and that there's no clear process for creating policy. That's why I don't participate much in policy development - when I see a proposal worth supporting, like this one, I drop by and express my support, but I don't hang around to refute the opposers - it's not worth the effort, and Wikipedia's structure guarantees they'll win anyway.

These people don't act like Hannibal Lecter in real life. They act like SlimVirgin, JzG, Jimbo, etc. JoshuaZ and Essjay. Probably almost every really, really bad administrator you've ever dealt with on WP has this problem.

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both. Guy C. actually became user:JzG from "Jus zis Guy," which is actually a clever reference to his own name and the works of Douglas Adams (who would have thought he'd have it in him). So he started with a G and ended up with both J and G. How it happened for Jayjg I don't want to know. And look at the contortions Essjay went through to do it... and how well it worked for him, till he screwed up in other ways. Jpgordon, we're just going to have to put down to parental precog visions of Axis of Weasle future....

Anyway, Cla68, I have the official answer to how you're going to pass that next RfA. You must become Glajay68. A true name of power. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

MR

N.B. It occurs to me that names like Jay Gould and Stephen Jay Gould would translate into great Wiki Names of Power. So I haven't given up the gonzo idea that this J/G addition thing is a totally subconscious "desire to appear more Jewish" or maybe even "more like Jimbo" username transformation, as a way to kiss up to Cabal power. No? Crazy? Okay, fine, then YOU explain it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

PS. And the brand new name of Tony/Anticipation of a New Drawma's Arrival, The..... is... ?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

All of this leads one to wonder -- is there any list of n editors (for any value of n, and editors, not admins), who hold enough sway on Wikipedia such that all of them boycotting (or starting to complain, or vandalize, or god knows what) simultaneously would force whomever to institute some systematic change?

I mean would 50 top editors do it? 100? 200?

I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.

Stripping Tyrant-for-Life status from admins by making them stand again every year or two, or instituting some other kind of term limits would solve at least a few of the worst problems on Wikipedia, and Kelly Martin's random jury pool idea would solve many others, but it does not appear that either of those ideas will ever get a fair hearing, much less be implemented, in the post-apocalyptic warlord society that is Wikipedia.

I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.

Well, you're leaving out the Board of Trustees, unless you're trying to restrict "whomever" to one person. But the Board's a small enough body that, unlike the community, it actually could act. Absent that, the Arb Comm could probably also make some significant change by overstepping its authority, provided it did it gradually and incrementally enough. But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.

I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.

Well, you're leaving out the Board of Trustees, unless you're trying to restrict "whomever" to one person. But the Board's a small enough body that, unlike the community, it actually could act. Absent that, the Arb Comm could probably also make some significant change by overstepping its authority, provided it did it gradually and incrementally enough. But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.

What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.

I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority for himself.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.

I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority.

Jimbo may have the residual power to do this, but I don't think he has either the intellectual capacity or the motivation. Crafting a compromise that would not be met with a riot would be challenging even for someone skilled, and I also believe that Jimbo is not benefited by a smoothly running Wikipedia. A better Wikipedia that spontaneously grew, for example, an editorial board or something that looked like Olde Media would surely diminish his income from speaking fees.

Personally, I think it's flipping stupid there's no way to recall admins outside of AOR. Even then the amount of admins recalled are few and far between. A couple of times though an admin that made a stupid move was in CAT:AOR, one was Durova surprisingly enough for the !! block and Kwsn for his Giano block. Durova resigned her's and arbcom said get it back the normal way, Kwsn practically is gone from the project now it seems.

What's especially frustrating is that pleas to Jimbo to do something about it get answered with, "The current system is fine." If Jimbo would come out and say, "ArbCom is doing a good job dealing with user conduct issues, and now I'm going to establish similar committees to govern policy and content disputes," there would, of course, be some complaints, but I think it would get done as Jimbo said it. In spite of the serious blows to his credibility over the last six months or so, he still has the position and power to do this if he desired.

My suspicion is that he probably doesn't, unless the Foundation is prepared to back him up and say that he has the power to do that sort of thing, even against community consensus. A couple of weeks ago I tried starting a page clarifying just what Jimbo's authority was on the English Wikipedia and whence he derives that power, but it hasn't come to much. I thought the Foundation would be able to clarify the question to some degree, so I asked Cary Bass (he struck me as the most appropriate staff member, though I'm not expert on the division of responsibilities within the WMF office) - here's the result of that endeavor. In point of fact, I had requested Jimbo's comments already, but he didn't seem interested in providing them.

In summary, it's completely unclear what formal power Jimbo wields, and nobody in a position to do so seems interested in clarifying it.

I know that I've advocated removing Jimbo from the ArbCom election process, but I'm not contradicting myself. I think he can make decisions to form and implement committees and/or other governance bodies. But, he can then let the community run them instead of holding final appointment authority for himself.

Replace "Jimbo" with "the WMF Board" and you've described the key plank of my election platform (sorry, I had to point that out).

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

But you've identified the fundamental problem: it's not that Wikipedia's run by a cabal, or that Wikipedia's run by a mob, or that Wikipedia's run by 14 year old admins. It's that Wikipedia is neither run nor runnable.

Yes, but the absence of systematic "runnability" (to use your term) leads to factionalism, i.e. the fact that certain groups of editors ("cabals", for lack of a better term) run certain parts of Wikipedia. As you well know, attacking animal rights articles, Judaica, or articles about Israel-Palestine trigger a powerful immune response, whether it is centrally coordinated or not. I don't pay attention, but I'm told the same is true for Pokemon articles.

Wikipedia is like Web Side Story, with rival street gangs staking out their territory and fending off intruders by kiboshing them with the WP:Rules. Each local cabal is an ad hoc ochlocracy unto itself. The whole thing gives me a bad case of dyspepsia.

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous

Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.

In summary, it's completely unclear what formal power Jimbo wields, and nobody in a position to do so seems interested in clarifying it.

Jimmy views his role on the English Wikipedia as that of God-King. His power is unlimited and granted to him by divine right, and may be limited only to the extent that he chooses to limit it himself.

Keel de Boolsheet

]Jimmy views his role on the English Wikipedia as that of God-King. His power is unlimited and granted to him by divine right, and may be limited only to the extent that he chooses to limit it himself.

Is it time for a tauroctony, yet?

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both.

I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

Gregore Jimbo Zapper

I can see it now. Action Comix! Gregore Jimbo Zapper v. Zyklon B. Pussyphart.

Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

There are obviously a lot of admins who need to be desysopped, but it needs to be done carefully. The preferable way would be via arbcom, but sadly, it has demonstrated that it is highly inconsistent in its application of sanctions and that's being generous.

I don't have the right answer - I have no idea what it is. But I really think that lynchmob-based desysopping is worse than the present system of adminship for life.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

Yes, but, first, 50 people is enough to block any change in Wikipedia's broken "consensus-based" environment, and second, while most of the admins in question have nothing to worry about, they have been convinced by the propaganda that they might be put at risk at some time in the future, and so object themselves. It's rather like how many people are in favor of eliminating estate taxes, even though there is no plausible chance they will ever be in a situation to pay them, because they believe against all logic that they will someday be rich enough to have to pay them.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

There are obviously a lot of admins who need to be desysopped, but it needs to be done carefully. The preferable way would be via arbcom, but sadly, it has demonstrated that it is highly inconsistent in its application of sanctions and that's being generous.

I don't have the right answer - I have no idea what it is. But I really think that lynchmob-based desysopping is worse than the present system of adminship for life.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

That last suggestion is a very good one.

Gag Me With a Spoon

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

That last suggestion is a very good one.

On Wikiversity, admins are called custodians.

On LambdaMoo, they were called janitors.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

Compare janitorial custodians and public servants to how Hammurabi envisioned himself.

Now go look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder one more time. [Neener.]

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

Admins are already politicians; they had to be in order to become admins in the first place.

While the argument you give is the canonical "good Wikipedian" reason why there can't be any sort of recall procedure, it's nonsense. If an act that is required by "policy" is widely unpopular, then either the policy is wrong, or the community has its head up its ass. If the former, then the admin should not be attempting to enforce a wrongheaded policy; if the latter, then the admin should be seeking to change attitudes in the community through reason and discussion, instead of through force. The current system, in which admins batter the community with sticks whenever the community disagree with the admins, is broken in so many different ways, and the lack of admin recall just exacerbates the situation.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

Putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. People will quickly learn that admins, by whatever name you call them, have more power than non-admins.

Gag Me With a Spoon

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

That last suggestion is a very good one.

On Wikiversity, admins are called custodians.

On LambdaMoo, they were called janitors.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

Compare janitorial custodians and public servants to how Hammurabi envisioned himself.

Now go look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder one more time. [Neener.]

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".

Gandhi called public officials servants.

That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

Wikipedia is like Web Side Story, with rival street gangs staking out their territory and fending off intruders by kiboshing them with the WP:Rules. Each local cabal is an ad hoc ochlocracy unto itself. The whole thing gives me a bad case of dyspepsia.

Dude, you are SO far off base. It's not any homage to West Side Story.

(IMG:http://www.massbia.com/images/articles/quadrophenia.jpg)

It's this.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob)

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job. An admin who cleans up inappropriate fair use images is going to earn the ire of everyone who doesn't understand/care about the image use policy and just wants Wikipedia to be a fan site for their TV show or favorite band. An admin who closes a controversial AFD is guaranteed to annoy a few people on one side or the other.

My biggest fear isn't so much losing the bit myself (although I admit that might be a side effect), but, rather, the chilling effect it would have on taking any potentially unpopular action. In short, it would turn admins into politicians.

Admins are already politicians; they had to be in order to become admins in the first place.

While the argument you give is the canonical "good Wikipedian" reason why there can't be any sort of recall procedure, it's nonsense. If an act that is required by "policy" is widely unpopular, then either the policy is wrong, or the community has its head up its ass. If the former, then the admin should not be attempting to enforce a wrongheaded policy; if the latter, then the admin should be seeking to change attitudes in the community through reason and discussion, instead of through force. The current system, in which admins batter the community with sticks whenever the community disagree with the admins, is broken in so many different ways, and the lack of admin recall just exacerbates the situation.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

Putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. People will quickly learn that admins, by whatever name you call them, have more power than non-admins.

For once, Kelly, I completely agree.

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

If you could develop a consensus to implement a procedure for desysoping admins on English Wikipedia, it'd be implemented. There's not an exemption, there's a consensus to not desysop except by ArbCom, or at least a lack of consensus to desysop in any other fashion.

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

If you could develop a consensus to implement a procedure for desysoping admins on English Wikipedia, it'd be implemented. There's not an exemption, there's a consensus to not desysop except by ArbCom, or at least a lack of consensus to desysop in any other fashion.

Well, no, theres not a consensus not to do it. Theres simply no "written" process to do it, at this time. If the community decided to desysop someone, it would happen, if there was consensus to do it, and the AC or Jimbo or the WMF couldn't do but "jack" and "shit" about it, to paraphrase Bruce Campbell. Everything has to be by consensus, full stop. It's a rule from the Foundation.






Further, can someone please force Tony to stop trolling the Proposed Decision talk page? He's like a nonstop fart now, choking out everything with his adorable pet views.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

The admins on Wikipedia are neither civil nor servile.

Gandhi called public officials servants.

That was scarcely his idea; the standard term in Britain is Civil Servants.

The admins on Wikipedia are neither civil nor servile.

Be careful not to generalise, even for the sake of pithy wordplay.

And the admins on Wikipedia not servants; they are volunteers.

Further, can someone please force Tony to stop trolling the Proposed Decision talk page? He's like a nonstop fart now, choking out everything with his adorable pet views.

You might as well try to command the tide not to rise.

And add Jpgordon and Jayjg. And what's with the J and G thing, anyway? Statistically a boatload of these crappy admins have a J or G in their usernames, sometimes both.

I really belong in this Cabal of theirs, my first and middle initials being "G" and "J", of course.

What screen name could I come up with, Milton?

Greg

GJayKosher, of course. You're halfway there already. If you can just figure out how to get a Zocky or ZScout Z in there (like the X for Roman Catholics and the old Nation of Islamites), you'll be perfect. JzG, for example, is genius. GjzKosher would totally rule over, say, LukeTraif. The only thing worse would be something starting with Abu.

I'm looking at WW's hivemind list of outed admins and influential folks, which is the only unbiased selection list I have (unbiased from my point of view, since I had nothing to do with who is on there). I see that Sj (not to be confused with Essjay), JzG, and Jareth all got J's into their usernames that weren't there originally in their birth names. It's Jimbo homage or something else. Out of 86, there are 8 usernames on WW Hivemind that start with J, which is 9%. Now, j is a rather late addition to English, being a recent decendent of i (hence the dots over both); so if you look in the dictionary or the phonebook, or even a list of possible baby given male names (assuming most admins are still male), you won't find anything close to 9% J's (although this last will be the closest, what with all the the Jims, Jeremys and Jasons). Statistically, I think the Hivemind J incidence is very unlikely to be chance (it's hard to run a chi-square because I haven't decided what to use for my baseline control group-- perhaps chosen usernames on THIS forum?). There's certainly selection bias somewhere, but I can't tell where. And cause-and-effect could run in any direction, or this effect could just be a confounder for something else.

--M. G. Jay Roe

The Flying J

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob)

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

All the other projects seem to run just fine with community desysop.

Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.

In a smaller project where there are fewer admins to consider, every active user can realistically be expected to comment on every adminship or de-adminship. But on a large project , 20 highly opinionated users can show up right at the beginning of an RFA (or RF-deA) and have a disproportionate effect on the final outcome, even if they might be the only 20 people that, all things being equal, would hold that opinion. Part of it is that nobody wants to back the "losing side" and part of it is that nobody bothers doing research once it looks like the outcome of the RFA is decided. (When I see a New England Patriots-like score on an RFA, I don't even bother clicking on contributions.)

So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling. In a small project, your 20 wiki friends is 2 wiki friends, so it doesn't have the same stigma.

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

There is no rule, "Foundation" or otherwise, that requires that Wikimedia projects be run by "consensus". The English Wikipedia continues to utilize its bizarre facsimile of consensus because it serves its ruling classes for that state of affairs to persist, and for no other reason.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Not only does this ludicrous trope ignore the suggestions of term limits for admins, but it serves as a tacit acknowledgment that admins will be abusive, and therefore should have tenure for life, like Supreme Court justices or Idi Amin. I can't think of a more brainless response to this issue than lip-syncing with the cabal to the tune of this hollow, repudiated idea.

So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling.

As noted before, this is a fundamental problem with everything on Wikipedia, why exempt admins from it? If they were subject to it, perhaps it would change.

You'd think, but the majority of admins will fight tooth and nail against it because they're worried about their own bit.

Do you really think so? If I really tried, I could probably list 50 admins who would be in any danger of community recall if such a process existed, and that's being pretty generous, since I frankly think that the worst any kind of ANI discussion would lead to for any admin is "no consensus to de-admin, defaulting to leaving as admin". That leaves more than 1,500 whose bit is in no particular danger (and, by the way, I include both of us in that list - naive?).

This is partially right. LaraLove misspoke about "the majority of admins."

For every admin with a WR subforum there are literally 150 admins without one. Most of these are scarcely even mentioned here, and even the marginally controversial ones are at the end of a long tail. I agree that 50 is a generous figure.

THAT SAID: she's probably right on the substance. The controversial admins are also the most prolific in the Wikipedia space, and they are the most likely to vote on such a drama-magnet proposal. If all admins voted, it might pass. But among the self-selected crusaders it's probably doomed.

I don't think that the admins with a subforum here are the only admins that risk being desysoped (though I have no specific names in mind). And I don't speak on just the current poor admins who deserve to be desysoped. Personally, I think a lot of admins, and even admin hopefuls, reject these proposals because the future is uncertain, and as mentioned above, most, I think, prefer adminship be for life.

Currently, desysops come in only the most extreme cases of abuse, yet admins like some of those with subforums here can get away with disgusting amounts of shameful behavior and abuse of tools and retain the bit. While we don't want a system that can be easily gamed, we want one that will keep admins on better behavior. A system where the arguments are thoroughly weighed would be ideal. Arguments to desysop should be specific to abuse of tools, with diffs to support. Any votes that support desysop that are not based on clear and proven abuse of administrative privileges should be discarded as completely irrelevant. Leaving stewards with the discretion

I don't know if such a system can be created in a community this large, but something other than ArbCom has to be established. Around the time I gained adminship, these discussions (including the establishment of AOR) were once again on-going. The majority of admins I noticed commenting used the existence of ArbCom as the reason we don't need anything else. I feel that reasoning is now outdated, as ArbCom is well on its way to finding the community has lost all faith in them.

So if you wanted to get someone without a support network (or a "cabal") desysopped, all you have to do is get 20 of your wiki-friends to show up right after the RF-deA goes live. Chances are that the drive by votes will fall in line with the majority. That abuse is my issue with it and it's a problem soley due to scaling. In a small project, your 20 wiki friends is 2 wiki friends, so it doesn't have the same stigma.

Indeed, so many human problems over recorded history have come from scaling problems, where people try to take systems (like Communism or tribalism) which work naturally in small groups like families and clans, and just scale them up to groups sizes where people are strangers, without any modification. It's disasterous. And here we see WP, repeating the same-old disasters. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Argghhh. Thus, the Review. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

And yes, the problem has come up before in human society and the solutions for it are at least a millennium old: see Althing, for example. One needs something approximately like a proportionally representational parliament, or failing that, at least some type of liquid democracy and proxie voting so power doesn't concentrate to those non-term-limited oligarchs with too much time on their hands to game the system. It's bad enough in parliamentary democracies as is, even with term limits and no anonymity. Wiki is just that much worse, due to the anonymity, cronyism lack of a voter recall mechanism, and the ever-present possiblity of ballot box stuffing.

So it all comes back to anonymity. Solve that, and the democratic mode problems solve themselves, because they've already had a lot of work done on them, which can simply be ported/borrowed from already-successful large institutions, both public and private.


MR

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.

Sure this would scale well. Look:

Based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suc...andidacies#2008

* June: 554 supports on 8 successful, 69.25 avg
* May: 1451 supports on 18 successful, 80.61 avg
* April: 1608 supports on 16 successful, 100.5 avg
* Total: 3613 supports on 42 successful, 86.02 avg
* 55% of 86.02 = 47.31 for April-June 08.

Why not base it on a rolling average of the preceding average supports for the past 3-6 months? That way everyone is on the same exact standards, fairly. Took less than 3 minutes to pull these with a calculator. Do the same for arbs, cats and everyone else.

So, you would need a dead minimum of 47 to qualify the recall and then it would need to finish passing above that over 55%. You would need a substantial number of people calling for the recall. Limit the recall to users with x edits/tenure like RFAR voting (heck, just use the same exact metrics) and that's pretty fair and scalable then. Frighteningly so. The ratio needed would update each time and if you're feeling frisky you can adjust the 55% along the axis of the support percentages that are average out over the given months. It would be kids stuff for a bot writer to draft this and the super simple numbers to community recall/deadmin would constantly be current with what the community standards are to sysop in the first place.

Summary...

Based on what Amerique and Until 1=2 said at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ame...ommunity_recall it would require a minimum of 75% support on a qualified user recall to have it pass, like a regular RFA. So if I was an admin TODAY, it would require with my slight tweak a minimum of 47 plus established users (using the standards on who gets to vote for Arbcom elections) to say "Root sucks" within 7 days, and then it would require a finished passing percentage of 75% of those same established users for me to lose my bit. It would be virtually impossible for any lightweight, trivial, or frivilous recall to succeed. No cabal anywhere is that powerful in 2008 on Wikipedia. Not even remotely close.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Not only does this ludicrous trope ignore the suggestions of term limits for admins, but it serves as a tacit acknowledgment that admins will be abusive, and therefore should have tenure for life, like Supreme Court justices or Idi Amin. I can't think of a more brainless response to this issue than lip-syncing with the cabal to the tune of this hollow, repudiated idea.

Agreed. The whole "good admins create enemies" claim is ridiculous. Good admins will gain more supporters than enemies, just through helping solve problems.

The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.

Not everything scales well. Ruling by general consensus works great for a team of 5. It works very poorly for a discussion with 500 people offering opinions.

Sure this would scale well. Look:

Based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suc...andidacies#2008

* June: 554 supports on 8 successful, 69.25 avg
* May: 1451 supports on 18 successful, 80.61 avg
* April: 1608 supports on 16 successful, 100.5 avg
* Total: 3613 supports on 42 successful, 86.02 avg
* 55% of 86.02 = 47.31 for April-June 08.

Why not base it on a rolling average of the preceding average supports for the past 3-6 months? That way everyone is on the same exact standards, fairly. Took less than 3 minutes to pull these with a calculator. Do the same for arbs, cats and everyone else.

So, you would need a dead minimum of 47 to qualify the recall and then it would need to finish passing above that over 55%. You would need a substantial number of people calling for the recall. Limit the recall to users with x edits/tenure like RFAR voting (heck, just use the same exact metrics) and that's pretty fair and scalable then. Frighteningly so. The ratio needed would update each time and if you're feeling frisky you can adjust the 55% along the axis of the support percentages that are average out over the given months. It would be kids stuff for a bot writer to draft this and the super simple numbers to community recall/deadmin would constantly be current with what the community standards are to sysop in the first place.

It's a good patch suggestion, but in actual operation, the first time a JzG gets booted there's going to be recount whining to make Florida 2000 look like a high school student election. Also, there remains the problem which is sort of equivalent to "incumbent franking privilege" where admins already in office have access to all kinds of back-channel vote-recruitment devices that are absolutely non-transparent. It would take a lot to get over these. However, for some really bad eggs, I think it could be done.

So: anything to throw the rascals out! Formally suggest your idea at the WP:VP!!! At least seeing the opposition will smoke out the "real Cabal" once again. We have to recount our enemies every once and a while, and there's no way to do a "villain roll-call" quite like floating a good reform suggestion at VP, just to see who speaks against it.

MR

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

While the funny rhetoric language is nice, keeping this down to banging out "solution" language rather than rhetoric is probably more useful to everyone.

I keep reading what I wrote above, and it keeps seeming impossible to game to me. If I were an admin and someone tried to recall me today, they would need 47 supports to even qualify it. Don't get 47 supports in 7 days, it's over. If you get *JUST* 47+ supports, you'd need at least this to desysop me:

support oppose total count percentage
47 15 62 75.81%

So... the bare threshold to qualify constantly changes based on current community RFA practices. That means old timers never get a bum deal. And frankly, to get bare minimum numbers like that will be HARD, and any desysop would sure as hell get more than 62 total responses. I can't see more than 1-2 people a year at best losing their bit like this, but the option would have legitimate teeth for people to not be bad.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Here's one example. Crawling through page histories, I frequently come across one admin, The Anome. He's been one for 5 years. He's made over 75,000 edits and his bot, twice as many. He's not mentioned once on WR.

Actual suggested policy:

1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.

I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Here's one example. Crawling through page histories, I frequently come across one admin, The Anome. He's been one for 5 years. He's made over 75,000 edits and his bot, twice as many. He's not mentioned once on WR.

Yes. To be fair, police tend to get shot in the line of duty more than firemen. Thus, admins who come in for criticism will always claim they're being singled out due to "police" more than fire work-- or because because they hand out tickets like the highway patrol, instead of universally admired homicide detective guys who aren't in the business of "revenue enhancement."

But here's the difference: admins can easily switch from highway patrol to detective to paramedic and fire rescue, if things get too hot. So some guy who's always getting accused of nighsticking a handcuffed suspect, probably likes that beat, probably likes doing patrolcar and probably likes perp-thumping. But if that is the case, they'd better find something else to do, or else get off "public service" entirely.

There's a bigger problem with community desysopping (aka desysopping by lynch mob) and that's that active admins are often going to be unpopular, not for doing anything wrong, but for doing their job.

I want to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous canard once and for all. This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

In the case of both dogcatchers and Wikipedia admins, proper duties well-executed will cause little or no rancor among the masses, as is immediately evident in the case of 80% of the Wikipedia admins today. To use another metaphor, Wikipedia goes on and on about admin being "mop and bucket" work -- when was the last time a "lynch mob" organized to string up the office janitor?

Well, there are two problem with that analogy. For one, nearly the entire electorate goes their entire life without the local sheriff, dog-catcher, or judge taking any action that affects them. And even the ones that do (say, someone who doesn't like a ruling made by the judge) have to buy advertising time in order for their opinion to affect how someone else is going to vote.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

In the real world, 25% of the electorate is going to show up to vote and the .0001% that you the sheriff have arrested don't make a lick of difference. But on Wikipedia, .01% of the electorate is going to show up to vote and the .001% that are ticked off because you deleted an image six months ago is a pretty high percentage of them.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

B, did you read my idea above, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?

Even if 30 fanboys showed up (would it really be that many, especially if we applied Arb voting standards for tenure?), the mathematical odds alone of them even qualifying the bullshit recall are nonexistant. It would today by my example take 47 fanboys to even qualify the attempt to "get" me. Even if my other "enemies" showed up, unless I was consistently a total douchebag in my adminnery, would I really get more than 47 people screaming for my head? Then it would require the buy-in of a ton of other vetted users, to reach the 75%+ threshold Amerique proposed. It would never happen to me unless all of Wikipedia fell asleep.

With my suggested stupidly basic rolling number idea that I added to Amerique's proposal, the odds of a bad recall costing someone their user status are nonexistent. How strong is the strongest "solid" cabal now on WP? 10? 15? 20 at the absolute most? The process would be quite safe by math.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

Well, there are two problem with that analogy. For one, nearly the entire electorate goes their entire life without the local sheriff, dog-catcher, or judge taking any action that affects them. And even the ones that do (say, someone who doesn't like a ruling made by the judge) have to buy advertising time in order for their opinion to affect how someone else is going to vote.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

This will tend to an anti-deletionist move, for the reasons you note. You can't keep everybody happy without letting everybody (and that means fanboys too) put up the content they like. But I'm for doing that, anyway. Gasp. Why NOT give more people what they like, so long as it doesn't bother somebody else? The anti-deletionist position is very much the libertarian one.

It's possible to please a lot of people, because WP is not paper. A lot of ticked off people who are ticked off because some group wiped out their favorite subject on the basis of non-notabity (IMNOTTINTERED or IDONTLIKEIT), are going to have to be catered to, more than they are. But so what? Since WP is not paper, you'll never notice the cruft. It's not as though the cruft stuff piles up in the stacks and hides the science journals, like it would in a physical library. Yes, we may have to somewhat redefine what we mean by (general) "encyclopedia," but we're doing that anyway, are we not? It won't hurt if we go farther. I've always had a suspicion that the cruft-killers are secretly in league with, or at least are winked at, by Wikia, which wants the cruft put THERE, so it can make money off it. I suggest we just leave it all, right were it is, as created for free, as a labor of love by people who like it. Jimbo and friends don't deserve to make all the money off it. If you don't want to look at it, then don't.

Now, there's some stuff that has to go, like the worst kinds of porn (pedo, zoo, etc) which are going to get the foundation in legal trouble, and (likewise) all the BLP stuff, which is nearly all defamation-bait. But I very much doubt that any admin active in deleting that kind of stuff will be up for much exposure to recall.

MR

(It occurs to me that there's the question which is an elephant in the room, which is what Jimmy Wales DOES fairly deserve for his significant role in creating WP. Okay, perhaps not much more than Sanger. But Sanger got nothing but a few months salary and then the boot. But that may only mean Sanger fairly deserves more. Jimbo has already collected quite a lot, and is due for much more. I expect opinions will differ widely here on WR as to how much Jimbo is due, even if relieved of all power, from here on out. Thoughts?)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

B, did you read my idea above, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?

Even if 30 fanboys showed up (would it really be that many, especially if we applied Arb voting standards for tenure?), the mathematical odds alone of them even qualifying the bullshit recall are nonexistant. It would today by my example take 47 fanboys to even qualify the attempt to "get" me. Even if my other "enemies" showed up, unless I was consistently a total douchebag in my adminnery, would I really get more than 47 people screaming for my head? Then it would require the buy-in of a ton of other vetted users, to reach the 75%+ threshold Amerique proposed. It would never happen to me unless all of Wikipedia fell asleep.

With my suggested stupidly basic rolling number idea that I added to Amerique's proposal, the odds of a bad recall costing someone their user status are nonexistent. How strong is the strongest "solid" cabal now on WP? 10? 15? 20 at the absolute most? The process would be quite safe by math.

Intriguing proposal. Oddly, I'd think the various cabals could get behind it if their joint numbers would allow them to take out someone like Alison or Sir Fozzie. I'd bet Mongo or Filll would be the first ones behind the trigger of such a process if it were ever implimented.

On the other hand, with Wikipedia, deleting one fair use image can earn you the ire of every fan boy from that particular television show and, when your RFdeA comes up, those fan boys all get unlimited free advertising time to paint you in the worst possible light.

B, did you read my idea above, that I posted to Amerique's proposal page?

Intriguing proposal. Oddly, I'd think the various cabals could get behind it if their joint numbers would allow them to take out someone like Alison or Sir Fozzie. I'd bet Mongo or Filll would be the first ones behind the trigger of such a process if it were ever implimented.

I don't think they would be able to pull the trigger on any one admin for being, say, a WR user. I mean, they could pull the trigger to start the process, but just like any shenanigans at RFA tends to make the RFA super visible and draw in people like a ton of bricks, a desysop recall by default will be in that state. No cabal is going to be able to manipulate 100+ people to their own ends. It would be a total gamble.

Taking that in mind, any admin who was a troublemaker consistently, that somehow kept scraping by or escaping from sanction under the Arbs, would be removed theoretically under this system. Like I said above, though, what is that? I'd bet someone 250 edits on an article of their choice if more than 1-2 people per year were successfully removed under a model like the one I offered.

This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

Of course, none of these worthies is elected in the British Isles.

This is like saying that you shouldn't elect local sheriffs or dog-catchers -- or judges -- for Rand's sake, because after they exercise their duties for a year or so they will be so unpopular no one will re-elect them. What utter bull.

Of course, none of these worthies is elected in the British Isles.

Per this week's Economist, that is about to change, correcting problems with the lackadaisical nature of Britain's local police forces and (I'm not sure how they get there) the alarming rise in knife-wielding yobs around London.

Per this week's Economist, that is about to change, correcting problems with the lackadaisical nature of Britain's local police forces and (I'm not sure how they get there) the alarming rise in knife-wielding yobs around London.

You mean Brit police aren't like Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz?

Actual suggested policy:

1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.

I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things. If an admin wants to submit their next RfA two or three weeks before their term is up in order to avoid an interruption to their privileges, it wouldn't make any difference, IMO (I think it would be a good sign that they plan ahead, rather than react after-the-fact). On the other hand, if an admin wants to take a break from the responsibility for any length of time between terms, that should be fine, too.

For that matter, it would be interesting if the RfA candidate can request admin privileges for whatever length of time they want (as long as they specify it). After all, term lengths are pretty arbitrary anyway. In reality, that system would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but it could possibly work.

I like to mull things over for a while, but I might consider submitting a proposal if no-one beats me to it.

The bigger question: If everything in Wikipedia is required (Foundation rules) to be decided by consensus, why is this one thing--removal of permissions--exempt on English Wikipedia?

There is no rule, "Foundation" or otherwise, that requires that Wikimedia projects be run by "consensus". The English Wikipedia continues to utilize its bizarre facsimile of consensus because it serves its ruling classes for that state of affairs to persist, and for no other reason.

Concur, Wikipedia is not governed by consensus. Whenever there is a notice of something coming up for a "vote" a set of self appointed "guardians" show up to give their opinion about subjects in which they have no knowledge and in subject areas in which they have never written an article. The real editors don't express an opinion because they are too busy writing articles and don't want to get involved in protracted battles.

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area. And, comments for an ANI should be limited to those involved in the controversy and uninvolved administrations who will be giving a decision. Such a proposal would have the approval of the vast majority of Wikipedians but would never pass "consensus"... for obvious reasons.

Original recall proposal thread by Amerique split off to here.

Actual suggested policy:

1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.

I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things. If an admin wants to submit their next RfA two or three weeks before their term is up in order to avoid an interruption to their privileges, it wouldn't make any difference, IMO (I think it would be a good sign that they plan ahead, rather than react after-the-fact). On the other hand, if an admin wants to take a break from the responsibility for any length of time between terms, that should be fine, too.

For a number of reasons it is problematic for an administrator to continue his work while his RFA is in progress. For example, if the administrator blocks someone who votes against him. It would be best if the administrator stopped his administration work while the voting is in progress.

It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things.

The (not particularly defensible) logic was that an enforced vacation makes people think about the role, and whether they really want to continue in it. It makes re-applying not the default, and not re-applying for office a much less drama-laden thing. It would serve to remind that editing is the goal, not admining.

Actual suggested policy:

1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.

I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

The increased number of RfAs would be a problem, but I think that there is a big enough population on WP that the increase can be managed. It would also likely force admins to be more careful regarding how they treat editors, thus reducing drama from more minor issues and helping retain editors. On the other hand, I think community recall is likely to be too drama-laden, thus becoming far more of a sinkhole for editors' time.

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area.

Bad idea, because these are largely self-selected fans and/or detractors, not subject-matter experts. Example: should Pokemon-related deletions be handled only by those who've worked in the subject area? It would be impossible to delete anything (and almost is anyhow.)

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

To how many pointless conflicts is Wikipedia committing merely by retaining JzG as an administrator?

All in all, I think the site would probably see an eventual drop in conflicts over admin behavior, thus helping to balance out the increased RfA load.

To how many pointless conflicts is Wikipedia committing merely by retaining JzG as an administrator?

Exactly. How many RfAs could have been finished with equivalent time that has been spent on these two pages alone? Consider not only how much time people have spent contributing to it, but the rest reading through the bulk of that material trying to make sense of everything. That is a massive amount of time, when, under terms, the admins in question would have simply changed their behavior or failed an RfA re-election long ago.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

Actual suggested policy:

1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;

2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;

3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;

4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.

5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.

6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.

I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.

One result of implementing this type of policy would be substantial increase in the amount of community time that would be spent in evaluating and voting/commenting on the reconfirmation RfAs -- of which there could wind up being at least a couple each week -- time that could, at least in theory, otherwise be spent in mainspace. I also don't see the rationale for a mandatory gap period between successive administrator terms.

But don't some of the other projects already do this? I mean the reconfirmation part. As for the gap, I tend to agree with you, but I do see some merit in taking some time off to do other things besides fixing problems.

The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.

I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

Edit: I made this proposal on my blog, back in 2006.

This post has been edited by Kelly Martin:

I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.

But don't some of the other projects already do this? I mean the reconfirmation part.

Yes, for example Meta and English Wikisource.

There is an argument that there are so many admins on WP that the system would be swamped by confirmations, but I'm not convinced.

The more I consider the various problems with admins, the more I consider instituting terms as the best solution. For one, it would reduce the "burnout" problem, since admins would have a specific end date. It would also be a bit less of a stigma to not be re-elected than recall processes, and the admin can just not run again if they so choose. It would be interesting if, instead of committing to voluntary recall during their RfAs, admin candidates started declaring a date on which they would have their privileges revoked.

I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

Kelly lecturing about creating content? Jeezzz. Do you have a link for that babe, I could use a good laugh.

I once suggested that admins would have to have a "quiet period" after each term during which they could not run for admin -- I think I wrote it up as three months on and one month off. The idea is that they should spend that month off working on writing content. A few people liked it, most everyone else said it was a terrible idea.

The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.

Or to go around censoring and threatening great FA writers who suggest that admins actually do some work.

The admins who write content don't need to relinquish their tools to do so. The admins who don't write content would just use their time off to hang around ANI and tell other admins what they should be doing.

Yes, I believe someone mentioned that to me at the time. You are, of course, correct. Nonetheless, I think some sort of term limits are appropriate.

There is an argument that there are so many admins on WP that the system would be swamped by confirmations, but I'm not convinced.

That is the standard Good Wikipedian argument against introducing any sort of reconfirmation process on the English Wikipedia. It is, of course, complete bollocks; while there would be some initial organizational friction, it will mainly serve to enmesh the Usual Dramatists in fundamentally harmless activity (running about voting on every RfA), which will ensure that they have no time to annoy people who are actually editing the encyclopedia. Then, after the initial paroxysm is over and half the administrative pool is not reconfirmed, people will realize that it's not going to as bad as they once thought.

When I ran admin activity reports, only something like 30% of the English Wikipedia's admins actually do anything; many of them have left the premises. But all these absent admins are still counted as part of the pool of admins who will need to be reconfirmed every n months, by people trying to forward the idea that we can't possibly have confirmation proceedings because it will require too much administrative effort.

This just in from Tony/Ant/Jenny:

If there is any evidence to support the above tirade, it should be submitted, else this is simply a broad-brush attack aimed at those with whom Alec and his allies happen to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225821685

Because Tony would never do that, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables. Or should be.

This post has been edited by FCYTravis:

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables.

See user:JessieW, who called himself the "Juggling Janitor," and was one of the better admins. Alas, if you see his TALK page, he realized that Hilman (a collection of rather intelligent math-savvy users who wrote articles on general relativity before they realized this was KoolAide) was right. So Jessie basically quit like Hilman did.

Being an admin on Wikipedia is fighting the barbarian hordes and cleaning up the Augean stables, using the wooden swords, syrofoam space helmet, and Jiffywipes in your admin kit. Jimbo and WMF could actually raise the drawbridge and make visitors to The Castle use the footbridge, but that would interfere with his notion of a castle open to everyone. And besides, it's not him doing the work and bleeding, it's you.

So they're leaving the Grail-light on at Castle Anthrax. It's up to you if you're on a quest and feel you need to go in and spank their bottoms. Boy scout ones or not.

MR

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

"votes" on articles should be limited to persons who have worked on an article in the subject area.

Bad idea, because these are largely self-selected fans and/or detractors, not subject-matter experts. Example: should Pokemon-related deletions be handled only by those who've worked in the subject area? It would be impossible to delete anything (and almost is anyhow.)

I was thinking "subject area" would be defined as something much larger than say just Pokeman articles. But, I don't see a fundamental problem with the editors of Pokeman articles being the ones who decide what articles about Pokeman should exist.

In the extreme case, their are a couple of editors who don't engage in ANY article writing but yet show up to decide whether someone else's article should be deleted. Even a rule that someone needs at least "X" article contributions in any subject area whatsoever to vote on whether an article should be deleted would be an improvement.

If it were up to me, we would make some more basic changes - for one, change the name "admin" to "maintenance user" so that it ceases to be a status symbol. I think a good chunk of the drama goes away right there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The "admin" symbol is a mop and bucket - why not call it "janitor?"

I mean, that's... really most of what we do with the tools - cleaning up the Wikipedian stables.

See user:JessieW, who called himself the "Juggling Janitor," and was one of the better admins. Alas, if you see his TALK page, he realized that Hilman (a collection of rather intelligent math-savvy users who wrote articles on general relativity before they realized this was KoolAide) was right. So Jessie basically quit like Hilman did.

Being an admin on Wikipedia is fighting the barbarian hordes and cleaning up the Augean stables, using the wooden swords, syrofoam space helmet, and Jiffywipes in your admin kit. Jimbo and WMF could actually raise the drawbridge and make visitors to The Castle use the footbridge, but that would interfere with his notion of a castle open to everyone. And besides, it's not him doing the work and bleeding, it's you.

So they're leaving the Grail-light on at Castle Anthrax. It's up to you if you're on a quest and feel you need to go in and spank their bottoms. Boy scout ones or not.

MR

But is a castle a good analogy? I believe that there are improvements that need to be made, such as Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, but I disagree with portraying WP as under attack. That's just too similar to how many of the most abusive editors on WP like to portray things.

But, I don't see a fundamental problem with the editors of Pokeman articles being the ones who decide what articles about Pokeman should exist.

Taxwoman complained once (the post seems to have been deleted) that people were voting to delete articles she'd created, or even unilaterally turning them into redirects, who didn't have a clue what the articles were about so couldn't know if they were important.

Jpgordon receives a dressing down on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to his statement

... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But is a castle a good analogy? I believe that there are improvements that need to be made, such as Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, but I disagree with portraying WP as under attack. That's just too similar to how many of the most abusive editors on WP like to portray things.

Wikipedia is under attack. They are the world's largest volunteer org, and they have their share of real vandals and real nuts (both within and without the org). Also, they themselves are no geniuses, and they run the thing like a fiefdom. No, this does not excuse their abusiveness. Like all bad administrators everywhere (see Bush Administration), they blame real terrorism for their taking self-serving "anti-terror" measures, which end up being treatments that are worse than the disease.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Somebody finally posts something useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ls_by_User:Shii

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin awarded a free trip to Bermuda

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is instructed to give SlimVirgin a free trip to Bermuda and pay for her to stay there as long as she likes, provided she does not use a computer during her stay. The Wikimedia Foundation will also pay for SlimVirgin to have infinite martinis. SlimVirgin may return to Wikipedia as soon as she promises not to post any more hypothetical job interviews to WP:AN/I.

Jpgordon receives a dressing down on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to his statement

... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the drunken tongue lashing The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Somebody finally posts something useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ls_by_User:Shii

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin awarded a free trip to Bermuda

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is instructed to give SlimVirgin a free trip to Bermuda and pay for her to stay there as long as she likes, provided she does not use a computer during her stay. The Wikimedia Foundation will also pay for SlimVirgin to have infinite martinis. SlimVirgin may return to Wikipedia as soon as she promises not to post any more hypothetical job interviews to WP:AN/I.

And B turns up to call it "trolling". Hell, might as well use the case pages for lulz, it's not like they're being used for anything else.

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".

The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

And B turns up to call it "trolling". Hell, might as well use the case pages for lulz, it's not like they're being used for anything else.

I'd rather not give arbcom any more ammunition for ignoring the case ... and putting forth silly suggestions does just that. I said nearly two months ago on this board when expressing concerns about presentations consisting mostly of sour grapes from 2 years ago that it could easily be a distraction.

Here's what I said then: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...21&#entry103321

One necessary component of getting arbcom to do something useful is give them concise statements and diffs that show unignorably bad actions. At the very least, when they choose to ignore it, they can't say with a straight face that it's stale or too much crap to sift through.

Adding nonsensical proposals to the workshop and adding trivial stuff from 2 years ago that really wasn't very incivil to begin with just lets arbcom ignore the whole thing. Don't get me wrong - they could do that anyway, but at least without lots of junk in there, it's more obvious what they are doing.

One necessary component of getting arbcom to do something useful is give them concise statements and diffs that show unignorably bad actions. At the very least, when they choose to ignore it, they can't say with a straight face that it's stale or too much crap to sift through.

Have you worked your way through the material from mid-June summarized here?

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the drunken tongue lashing The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

(IMG:http://www.tcf.ua.edu/classes/Jbutler/T440/MalteseFalcon01/thumbnails/MalteseFalcon_069_jpg.jpg)

Here's to plain speaking and clear understanding, Kasper.

Jpgordon receives a dressing down on his talk page, in response to his asking Jayvdb to resign as a clerk. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back links to his statement

... what jpgordon did to John Vandenberg was deplorable and absolutely ruinous to an already farcical proceeding. Jayvdp attempts to maintain some semblance of order on those ridiculous ArbCom subpages by blocking the most disruptive and unhelpful of the bunch--something, mind you, that our lazy, timid and impotent ArbCom committee refuses (among many other things) to do. So how does Gordon reward the only one who's actually doing his job? By booting Jay from his position for possessing the cajones to do the needful. Nice. And those truant, irresponsible bozos are busy administering Neosporin (e.g., promptly and unanimously desysopping Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me), while ignoring a gaping wound that has been festering for months. Shame on all of you voting for these layabouts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon is hopelessly beyond reason. He has repeatedly shown that he treasures trolls and has nothing but contempt for productive contributors. To resign at his request is misguided, as it suggests respect for his opinion.

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".

The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Wikipedia would be greatly improved if many of the admins would just shut up. Perhaps admins could be given a monthly quota of words they are allowed to use. The way to remove the "status" associated with being an admin is to stop them from expending so many words.

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the drunken tongue lashing The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Drunken tongue lashing? For telling an Arb to do their job (or do anything for that matter)? If you think this is a tongue lashing, you should look at some of the stale evidence against JzG.

Gotta say that the Fat Man is one of my favorite Wikipedians. My sense of humor agrees with his posts, and his commendation of Tony Sidaway gave me belly laughs. Plenty of editors wrung their hands and called Tony a troll, but no user pegged him as well as the Fat Man did.

What's in a name? (etc, etc). I would say "administrator" is no more staus-laden a term than "custodian"; the term "administrator/admin" on Wikipedia, though, is a secondary, Wikipedia-specific meaning that has nothing to do with administration.

If sysops were called "custodians", then you could simply replace every mention of the term "admin" with the term "custodian", and nothing substantive would have changed, except everyone would be complaining about "custodians", rather than "admins".

The problem is that "administrator" has picked up a 'status' meaning on the internet at large outside of wikipedia, and it often means someone with more substantive power over the site than an "admin" on Wikipedia - on forums and other sites it traditionally means "the people who own the server / pay the bills".

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Wikipedia would be greatly improved if many of the admins would just shut up. Perhaps admins could be given a monthly quota of words they are allowed to use. The way to remove the "status" associated with being an admin is to stop them from expending so many words.

You want them to stop discussing admin matters in public? That would be a disaster. Without having to worry about the community's reaction, there would be far more bans with far less cause, and admins would become vastly more powerful. Only people with the right connections--the ability to privately make a successful appeal to a certain admin--would have any hope of being unbanned.

You want them to stop discussing admin matters in public? That would be a disaster. Without having to worry about the community's reaction, there would be far more bans with far less cause, and admins would become vastly more powerful. Only people with the right connections--the ability to privately make a successful appeal to a certain admin--would have any hope of being unbanned.

Hardly. It is rather that the number of words written, the number of irrelevant issues brought up, and the attacks among the participants in this case are excessive and destructive. Regardless of what Arbcom decides or does not decide to do in this case Wikipedia afterwords will be a worse place.

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Funnily enough, just hours ago the admins here were being berated for not having vast reams of public discussion about a particularly problematic user.

The big difference between admins on Wikipedia versus elsewhere is in how much they talk. On typical message boards the admins are invisible because any sanctions they impose are done in private and they don't engage in any discussions. Now contrast this with Wikipedia where admins expend thousands of words expressing their opinions on the conduct of Wikipedians and engage in multiple week discussions on what should be done with some problematic users.

Funnily enough, just hours ago the admins here were being berated for not having vast reams of public discussion about a particularly problematic user.

If you read some of the notices posted to ANI you will find numerous cases of gross injustice and many instances of stupid and abusive administrators, but no notice is given because no high profile names are involved. On the other hand, a couple of questionable words by Giano will result in the expenditure of thousands and thousands of words.

If you read some of the notices posted to ANI you will find numerous cases of gross injustice and many instances of stupid and abusive administrators, but no notice is given because no high profile names are involved. On the other hand, a couple of questionable words by Giano will result in the expenditure of thousands and thousands of words.

There's not much drama to be had in a cop beating up some random civilian. People only care when it's a politician's kid or something. Wikipedia is no different than real life in that regard.

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

This post has been edited by Jonathan:

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in Highways 2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the "case" once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

As long as you WR trolls are discussing the verbal abuse of members the Arbitration Committee by certain portly troublemakers, allow me to direct your attention to the drunken tongue lashing The Fat Man (a self-satisfied Giano-wannabe who couldn't write an article to save his life) inflicted upon Sam Blacketer a yesterday.

Drunken tongue lashing? For telling an Arb to do their job (or do anything for that matter)? If you think this is a tongue lashing, you should look at some of the stale evidence against JzG.

Gotta say that the Fat Man is one of my favorite Wikipedians. My sense of humor agrees with his posts, and his commendation of Tony Sidaway gave me belly laughs. Plenty of editors wrung their hands and called Tony a troll, but no user pegged him as well as the Fat Man did.

Um, I think "Obesity" probably is the Fat Man, actually, judging by post style and content, and by user name. But he's one of my favourites too.

Has FeloniousMonk quit Wikipedia? He hasn't edited since WP:AN undid a block of his.

Um, I think "Obesity" probably is the Fat Man, actually, judging by post style and content, and by user name. But he's one of my favourites too.

Man, he got me. Sarcasm doesn't exist on my planet.

Has FeloniousMonk quit Wikipedia? He hasn't edited since WP:AN undid a block of his.

It's just over a week. Just over five days for his sock. Premature.

This post has been edited by One:

Odd Nature also poofed the day after kwsn proposes that Fm and ON are socks. Figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Give Privatemusings and Dorftrottel a barnstar of good humor!

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)

I think it's the best use of the Reward Board since this offer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Give Privatemusings and Dorftrottel a barnstar of good humor!

(I wonder what Thekohser will think!)

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.

Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.

Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

Welcome to the Review, Bob Boy! This has been an unending topic of conversation since I've joined and long before.

The short answer is that Kohs was promoting an external business venture, whereas Wikipedians who answer the Reward Board are just looking for a little cash as extra incentive to approve Wikipedia. The long answer would require yet another debate on whether there's any substantive difference between the Reward Board and Wikipedia Review.

Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

Wow, I didn't know that we had a need for Remedial Paid Editing 101.

Your reading assignment, Bob: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16793247/

I didn't know that there were people actually offering money in Wikipedia to complete articles on certain topics. Looks to me like a good way for a poor college student (like I was at one time) to earn enough money for a night out after 20 hours of work or so on the computer.

Wait, what? WTF is the difference between the Wikipedia:Reward board and what Greg Kohs was doing?

Well, these are not conflict-of-interest offers. You have, for example, somebody offering money for articles about Furries ($150 for a featured article-class article, which BTW is the highest amount I see on the list), but not about himself or his business. Or, another guy wants improvement in any article about Judaica, Alaska, or South Park. (One supposes he likes Kyle a lot).

The main thing all this has in common, is work flows TO the foundation. The foundation never pays out for editing, but it allows OTHER people to donate time or money or anything else (no, I haven't seen an offer of sex yet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) ) to YET OTHERS for editing that is guaranteed not to directly benefit anybody BUT the foundation.

Even more worthy of note in this regard is the Bounty Board. Any user can make donation to the WMF in another user's name for a given editing job done. So Cla68, if you can improve Fecal Matter (note the second cap, so this handily directs to the band, not the substance, so no need for a dab) to FA status, I can donate $10 in your name to WMF. Everybody wins. Unlike Kohs' evil scheme, which would introduce paid POVs into the pristine WP which now is mercifully free of any POV.

Hope that helps.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Well, these are not conflict-of-interest offers. You have, for example, somebody offering money for articles about Furries ($150 for a featured article-class article, which BTW is the highest amount I see on the list), but not about himself or his business. Or, another guy wants improvement in any article about Judaica, Alaska, or South Park. (One supposes he likes Kyle a lot).

Yes, Milton is spot-on in his analysis of the Reward Board. With the Reward Board, we know for absolute certain that the people offering the money have only the neutral, free content interests of the Foundation project at heart. The offers are made selflessly by long-time, trusted Wikipedians, such as this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

That seems generous. I could decide it in one minute with one sentence, no reward necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

Is it allowable to set conditions; e.g. "only if JzG is desysoped and urged to seek treatment?"

Is it allowable to set conditions; e.g. "only if JzG is desysoped and urged to seek treatment?"

(IMG:http://www.thelegality.com/wp-content/gag1.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in Highways 2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the "case" once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Ugh, hurry up and decide something already, Arbcom. It's been two months now, this is just embarassing. Even if it's a completely wrong, brainless and stupid decision, at least that will provoke serious discussion about getting fucking rid of the thing and allowing the community to show Arbcom yet again how idiotic and moronic the current system of Arbs are.

Meh, that's nothing. It took over three months before the non-decision decision in Highways 2 (a/k/a The Road Cabal 2; a/k/a IfYouDriveOnItWeOwnIt 2) was issued. Our favorite angry Norwegian bachelor wheat farmer, UninvitedCompany, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the "case" once he belatedly realized how mind-numbingly trivial and stupid it was. However, to be fair (if that word can ever be applied to anything ArbCom does), it should be noted that this "case" was pending at the same time as the great blitherandditherfest that was the Mannisox non-decision decision. I should not be surprised if other members here can come up with more protracted and idiotic examples.

In sum, strictly SOP. Nothing to see here; move along now.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their self-appointed leader is a very good walled gardener:

(IMG:http://www.marcgordon.net/Being%20there1.jpg)

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very clinched today"

Also, he makes sure to cite himself as the authority on editing road articles.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their self-appointed leader is a very good walled gardener:

(IMG:http://www.marcgordon.net/Being%20there1.jpg)

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very clinched today"

Also, he makes sure to cite himself as the authority on editing road articles.

Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Why is WikiProject U.S. Roads allowed to claim such WP:OWNership?

Because their self-appointed leader is a very good walled gardener:

(IMG:http://www.marcgordon.net/Being%20there1.jpg)

"The Interstate Highway System articles look very clinched today"

Also, he makes sure to cite himself as the authority on editing road articles.

Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Yes, the very same.

Isn't he the one who took down SPUI? If I recall correctly, it was a fight over naming conventions - "Highway 46 (Ohio)" vs. "Ohio highway 46" - with edit warring that racked up tens of thousands of reverts.

Yes, the very same.

What name is he editing under now? I'm getting nostalgic for his Gay sex, Anal, All night bannar.

Ahhh... the good old days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rew...ion.2FC68-FM-SV

There is now a reward offered to end this case by August 14.

This arbcom case might need its own subforum.

Ryulong has blocked one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Ryulong has blocked one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Meaning, in this case, "you're a sockpuppet of someone, and I can't be bothered to find out who, so after two edits, the second of which disses a cabal member, you're OUT!"

Ryulong has blocked one of the biggest donors to Privatemusings' reward effort, for being "disruptive".

Meaning, in this case, "you're a sockpuppet of someone, and I can't be bothered to find out who, so after two edits, the second of which disses a cabal member, you're OUT!"

That would absolutely appear to be the case here, although Alison (our friend) has apparently determined that the account is "Wikipedia Review again". That makes Ryulong's actions okay, you know?

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. Oh well.

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. Oh well.

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

In one week will come the three month mark since this case was opened and yet Arbcom has still done nothing. Oh well.

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

Very true. But in the end, it's the fault of the "community." By its nature it is incapable of unifying in any meaningful way to take action, there are always enough counter-agents willing to halt much-needed reform. The fact that most people never get involved and stay ignorant of the power structure doesn't help.

They are and have always been uniquely incapable of dispute resolution, which is what is sorely needed in this situation. All they know is how to condemn Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, towards whom they adopt an adversarial relationship. Since that they don't wish to condemn either Slim or Cla68, and are incapable of making anyone whole, they're stuck.

As a low-budget attack machine, completely incompetent at the thing it claims to do, the Arbitration Committee should be deleted.

Well, to be cynical a moment, you might consider that the thing is INTENDED to be something other than what it named. They need a low-budget attack machine, but can't exactly call it WP:ATTACKMACHINE, now can they?

It's a lot like the law. Socially-acceptable money-extraction revenge-machine is highly descriptive. But TORT is actually the name it goes by.

It's actually shameful that they've let it go on this long with nothing. And I tend to agree with the assessment that it's a matter of SV support on ArbCom, leading them to ignore the case because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. It says multitudes about the character of these people. And the longer they leave it festering, the more pissed off the community following the case becomes.

When your choice is to stay loyal to a clique of abusive admins and editors, or please the greater community by fulfilling the duty they appointed to you, the decision seems like an easy one. But then, things aren't always as they seem.

Death by ArbCom

Apparently, in this political game, it's about seniority and who you know.
It's plugging your ears with your fingers and humming a children's song.
It's curling up in the corner and closing your eyes tight,
Because if you can't see it, then it can't see you, right?
It's effort and energy wasted, and a great deal of time lost.
It's truth discovered, but at what cost?
Any sitting idly by, waiting with bated breath,
Will find that before there is a result, they experience their own death.

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

Very true. But in the end, it's the fault of the "community." By its nature it is incapable of unifying in any meaningful way to take action, there are always enough counter-agents willing to halt much-needed reform. The fact that most people never get involved and stay ignorant of the power structure doesn't help.

As far as I know, the community almost unanimously holds Cla68 in high regard and wants SV and the gang to be reined in. The exceptions are the abusers themselves. The community isn't the problem; the problem is that the ArbCom doesn't listen to it.

Socially-acceptable money-extraction revenge-machine is highly descriptive. But TORT is actually the name it goes by.

Abusing the law is a popular way to extort lunch money from the widow next door.

Lawyers have a very simple method:

First they shake you up.

Then they shake you down.

Looks like SV's other ArbCom case will be over shortly, a fact that she's not happy over, saying on the Foundation-L list that she requested that the case be extended through the end of August (ArbCom has stated they want all evidence in by Sunday (ie, today), and was rebufffed in no uncertain terms by ArbCom.

Looks like SV's other ArbCom case will be over shortly, a fact that she's not happy over, saying on the Foundation-L list that she requested that the case be extended through the end of August (ArbCom has stated they want all evidence in by Sunday (ie, today), and was rebufffed in no uncertain terms by ArbCom.

And she seems to be complaining about cliqueism... how ironic. And Privatemusings is on that list taking Slim's side (somewhat, at least) and being blasted and smeared by David Gerard.

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have printed copies of checkuser reports laying about my house. While I'm sure that will stir Slimmy's paranoia to previously unrealized levels, it's entirely untrue, and to be honest I'm getting tired of being batted around in wikipolitical debates as a convenient Satan.

Also, this thread has just passed 10,000 views, which puts it in the top 5 all-time WR popular thread count (which admittedly hasn't been updated in a while). This is somewhat impressive, given that there has been essentially no news on the topic for some time, but on the other hand, anything that drags on this long is bound to get a lot of page views.

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?

If this case somehow is still open in December 2008, any sitting Arb that has the temerity to re-run I'd venture would get shot down in some fairly epic flames, unless it's disclosed in public that there is some kind of honest to goodness war in the backend Arb channels over this case... for a year.

It's beginning to look like this will be with us for a while. I can see the current Arbs just punting this to the next batch in ... what? ... January?

If this case somehow is still open in December 2008, any sitting Arb that has the temerity to re-run I'd venture would get shot down in some fairly epic flames, unless it's disclosed in public that there is some kind of honest to goodness war in the backend Arb channels over this case... for a year.

At this point, I think they would be crucified anyways. If there is truly a backend war, by now, just vote your honest opinion and let the chips fall where they may.

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have printed copies of checkuser reports laying about my house. While I'm sure that will stir Slimmy's paranoia to previously unrealized levels, it's entirely untrue, and to be honest I'm getting tired of being batted around in wikipolitical debates as a convenient Satan.

ahem...

Yeah, maybe he's not all that clear on the modern-day meaning of the word "folder"...

But on the other hand, is it really all that different?

You know, I wonder if it'll be closed soon after the Lar/SV case if SV ends up getting dinged in some part. Her pollitical capital would take a big hit, and ArbCom would have very little dissent if they punish her.

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.

yes, but all of that supposes that she does indeed have evidence to present...This exchange would tend to support the idea that she doesn't have any and she's stalling.

In the time SlimV spent writing all those emails to foundation-l complaining about having no time to prepare her evidence, she could have prepared her evidence.

Demanding continuances in order to "prepare one's case" after one has had ample opportunity to do so, and spent that time visibly doing anything other than preparing it, is a good way to demonstrate bad faith. The ArbCom has some experience in this regard, and I don't think they've erred in denying her motion for an extension of time.

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.

You know, I wonder if it'll be closed soon after the Lar/SV case if SV ends up getting dinged in some part. Her pollitical capital would take a big hit, and ArbCom would have very little dissent if they punish her.

You forget the Jimbo factor.

Jimbo would wipe any such decision off the map.

And in this case, there's no Giano™, braving the Godking wrath™.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.

Just mostly.

The ArbCom isn't all stupid.

Just mostly.

No argument.

Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

This post has been edited by Neil:

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.

There is hope for the case up until the moment someone starts an Arbcom Rain subsection there.

"Arbcom Rain
Some cases end and others run for months"

Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

Well, SlimVirgin does. See this here thread where she gets all mid-legal on Foundation-L's ass concerning it.

Changed my mind; nobody (not even me) wants to read about the Data Protection Act

Well, SlimVirgin does. See this here thread where she gets all mid-legal on Foundation-L's ass concerning it.

Okay, well, the quick summary of my lengthy discussion of the UK's Data Protection Act (I used to teach people about it - and the FOI Act, and (spit) ISO 9001) while working for the NHS) was that it doesn't apply because 1) Wikipedia is in the US, 2) even if it weren't, by submitting content to the website of an organisation you are voluntarily releasing your IP address (which fulfills the consent requirements of the DPA), and the organisation is permitted to retain such personally-identifiable information if there is a relevant business need (eg, protecting the website from abuse), for a set duration of time (q.v. "data retention".

The only way SV could consider the DPA to be applicable would be if the WMF moved to the UK (or anywhere in the EU, as the Data Protection Acts are all broadly similar), and then a checkuser released a user's IP address to a third party without the explicit consent of the IP address user. All this presumes the IP address is not dynamic (as dynamic IPs are not even considered "personally identifiable information").

So, it is, in summary, a nonsense.

This post has been edited by Neil:

NYB is now active in the Cla-FM-SV case. Will there be a proposed decision now?

NYB is now active in the Cla-FM-SV case. Will there be a proposed decision now?

If Brad can't reign in the circus, no one can, and CLA-FM-SV will be a standard question on the December elections...

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have...

Wow, this sounds a bit like someone making up nonsense, that time claiming that I have gone around to various online directories and listings, posting false information about Florence Devouard.

Does that sound familiar to you, Kelly?

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

But I finally understand the underlying problem, now the Cla has explained it. You see, they can't decide whether to follow traditional, Shotokan, or full-contact rules. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)

I have one or two more things to add to the evidence that have occured recently - will post them tonight.

Kind of sad for ArbCom that they really haven't done anything since Brad left. They've only done the one case on Yorkshirian since Brad's absence. Maybe now something will happen.

If there's no finality to the issues raised in the SV/FM/JzG/Cla case, it won't look great for the ArbCom and the tensions will remain.

That's not quite true. There have been a few other cases decided in the past three-plus months, most notably the "Footnoted quotes" case. (Not commenting on any other issue in the thread.)

I completely forgot. But there was so much resistance to the BLP part of the ruling, I thought the remedies to the case have been largely ignored by the Community? I can't believe I forgot about the Geogre-Connolly case too.

Oh, and welcome back to Wikipedia, by the way!

Yep, completely ignored. The "special enforcement log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

Yep, completely ignored. The "special enforcement log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

I, personally, find this fact to be very funny. It's like nonviolent resistance.

Yep, completely ignored. The "special enforcement log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

This guy has some excellent advice about the special enforcement ruling.

Yep, completely ignored. The "special enforcement log" has a grand total of 0 entries.

This guy has some excellent advice about the special enforcement ruling.

I don't get it.

That joke about Ackbar originates from here, I believe.

That joke about Ackbar originates from here, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

That joke about Ackbar originates from here, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in Ackbar and Jeff's Cryonics Hut.. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something this character needs on a permanent basis.

That joke about Ackbar originates from here, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in Ackbar and Jeff's Cryonics Hut.. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something this character needs on a permanent basis.

While I never turn down an opportunity for a good Admiral Ackbar joke or reference (my favorite: Robot Chicken, the Ackbar breakfast cereal: "Your tastebuds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"), lets get the thread back on topic.

That said, when this RFAR was proposed someone should have posted,

==Statement by [[User:XYZ]]==
Its a trap! ~~~~

That joke about Ackbar originates from here, I believe.

Thanks. Nothing enhances the humor of a joke like having it explained. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

It can be annotated. for those who are culturally impaired. Ackbar actually may hail from Decapodia dispite the official bio, and his exact words are reported to be "It's a trap, maybe." Following which the rest of the crew say "Yeah, we got that." He often hangs out with Jeff, who is cryonically frozen from the 20th century, as detailed in Ackbar and Jeff's Cryonics Hut.. "Where the elite beat the heat and avoid meeting St. Pete." Similar to Carbonite Feezing, which is something this character needs on a permanent basis.

While I never turn down an opportunity for a good Admiral Ackbar joke or reference (my favorite: Robot Chicken, the Ackbar breakfast cereal: "Your tastebuds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"), lets get the thread back on topic.

That said, when this RFAR was proposed someone should have posted,

==Statement by [[User:XYZ]]==
Its a trap! ~~~~

Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.

On the topic of the omnibus RFAR, you would think that they could propose some really obvious remedies to get the ball going, that nobody could object to. Stuff like "Viridae is prohibited from reversing any administrative action taken by JzG. He may bring any action he believes inappropriate to WP:AN instead." - but no, they are off building sandcastles or something.

Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.

If that happens, someone using the special enforcement would be a sure test of the Arbcom's authority. If Admin Bob does this, and multiple other admins tear him a new one and undo it, then the Arbcom HAS to step in to uphold, support, and defend Bob and the authority of their BLP enforcement if Bob's actions under their ruling fits what they called for. If they don't, special enforcement and the authority of the Arbcom immediately goes down the toilet, regardless of what Jimmy says to the contrary.


I'm honestly shocked some admin that doesn't like special enforcement HASN'T done this as a test.

Okay, in plain language, then. The community will rip apart the first admin to use special enforcement with their bare hands. If I am wrong about this, expect use of it to shoot up after the first few test cases.

If that happens, someone using the special enforcement would be a sure test of the Arbcom's authority. If Admin Bob does this, and multiple other admins tear him a new one and undo it, then the Arbcom HAS to step in to uphold, support, and defend Bob and the authority of their BLP enforcement if Bob's actions under their ruling fits what they called for. If they don't, special enforcement and the authority of the Arbcom immediately goes down the toilet, regardless of what Jimmy says to the contrary.


I'm honestly shocked some admin that doesn't like special enforcement HASN'T done this as a test.

I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways. Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?

I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways.

That is an impossible scenario. Even if it was uncontroversial, there are some people utterly opposed to it, and given that aside from Jimmy's unproven/untested statement the other day that the community has no power over Arbcom, more than one person would force it as a test case. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't. As for the Arbcom keeping silent, they can try, but if precedent gets set in a way they won't like, then whats the point of being an Arbcom? If they don't defend it they've lost.

Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?

Some people have personal moral fiber, I suppose.

I would expect ArbCom will remain pretty silent, and allow it to be decided that the admin was misusing the policy. Then, you can get out your torches and pitchforks without being guilty of treason. The only way it would go is it the case was so uncontraversial you could get a consensus to take the action anyways.

That is an impossible scenario. Even if it was uncontroversial, there are some people utterly opposed to it, and given that aside from Jimmy's unproven/untested statement the other day that the community has no power over Arbcom, more than one person would force it as a test case. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't. As for the Arbcom keeping silent, they can try, but if precedent gets set in a way they won't like, then whats the point of being an Arbcom? If they don't defend it they've lost.

I cannot fathom what was going through the minds of the ArbCom members when they wrote up that decision. Perhaps one might choose to enlighten us. Perhaps not. I am also unsure how attached Arbcomi is to it, they might not care enough to save it.

I mean, one where you could get a consensus at WP:AN to impose a topic ban or whatever special measure you want, without "special enforcement". You might be right, but I am not sure many people would come out just for the principle of opposing special enforcement on a clear case.

Why would anyone then choose to stick their neck out?

Some people have personal moral fiber, I suppose.

Maybe. But I am only speaking here about cases where they could get what they wanted without sticking their neck out anyways. Few (if any) people will want to accept possibly risky responsibility for something that can happen without them assuming liability.

NYB is on the case, and we have only a few more days. Turns out the answer to this OP's question is: probably just lazy.

The arbitrators have been actively discussing this case. I anticipate that a proposed decision will be posted, by me or another arbitrator, within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NYB is on the case, and we have only a few more days. Turns out the answer to this OP's question is: probably just lazy.

The arbitrators have been actively discussing this case. I anticipate that a proposed decision will be posted, by me or another arbitrator, within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposed decision is a good start, at least the arbs get the opportunity to vote up or down on each issue. If anyone can propose a suitable compromise to the whole mess, it's NYB.

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?

As far as the original poster's question goes, my guess is the arbs are at a stalemate. The "let's pretend this never happened" motion to dismiss filed a month ago certainly suggests as much.

As far as the original poster's question goes, my guess is the arbs are at a stalemate. The "let's pretend this never happened" motion to dismiss filed a month ago certainly suggests as much.

Much the same predicted in this thread. Everybody will get a hug. Except Cla68.

but no, they are off building sandcastles or something.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgBMFwVeIGI&feature=related

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.

If there is any censoring of SV or FM, at all, in the case, NYB's participation on Wikipedia Review is guaranteed to be raised on their part (either by them or by acquaintances)

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.

There would just be another case in two months, and another two months later, and so on, and so forth, until they actually dealt with it. Or the next ArbCom, or the one after that.

Half-assed sanctions may push the timescales back, but delays work badly for the old-timers, because they just do not get recruits like the young ones.

If the only thing Brad accomplishes though is to communicate to the community that the ArbCom has not forgotten about the case, that they are actually discussing it rather than doing body shots in a shady Bismark, North Dakota bar, he will restore a lot of community's confidence in ArbCom. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know.

(Not all of it though. The would definitely require the "Nuke them all from orbit" remedy.)

I jsut hope, for Brad's sake, he doesn't take the easy way out and push for everything to be stale. To pretend there aren't significant problems with the major players in this case would be very problematic.

There would just be another case in two months, and another two months later, and so on, and so forth, until they actually dealt with it. Or the next ArbCom, or the one after that.

Half-assed sanctions may push the timescales back, but delays work badly for the old-timers, because they just do not get recruits like the young ones.

If the only thing Brad accomplishes though is to communicate to the community that the ArbCom has not forgotten about the case, that they are actually discussing it rather than doing body shots in a shady Bismark, North Dakota bar, he will restore a lot of community's confidence in ArbCom. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know.

(Not all of it though. The would definitely require the "Nuke them all from orbit" remedy.)

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Indeed, they are already lining up with offers of praise.

But if Brad is received as God, the rest of the committee with at least bask in his limelight as angels.

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Indeed, they are already lining up with offers of praise.

This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Indeed, they are already lining up with offers of praise.

This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

Nay, the Devil himself.

Oh, how cute, Anthony is making up nonsense again, this time claiming that I have...

Wow, this sounds a bit like someone making up nonsense, that time claiming that I have gone around to various online directories and listings, posting false information about Florence Devouard.

Does that sound familiar to you, Kelly?

If she hasn't acknowledged this yet, she's not going to, and you're just wasting bytes by continuing to bring it up.

My guess: she did it for the lulz.

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Indeed, they are already lining up with offers of praise.

This all suggests to me that the assessments of Daniel Brandt as a demonic, annihilating figure were premature.

Nay, the Devil himself.

Well I'm just glad those nasty boils finally cleared up.

Congrats to NYB on a well played "depart and return," more than can be said for most who employ that particular maneuver. His social networking influence will certainly increase. Shame his reasoning, as demonstrated here, was pretty good. At Wikipedia he will evaluated for his network capital and not the quality of his thoughts. The sycophants will ultimately wear him down.

I think the only faith coming out of this will be in Brad himself.

Indeed, they are already lining up with offers of praise.

But if Brad is received as God, the rest of the committee with at least bask in his limelight as angels.

I don't know about that. I think jpgordon has definitely lost quite a bit of standing with the greater community thanks to the crap he pulled over Sidaway's block. His term's not up until the end of next year, but if he decides to run again, he will certainly be receiving a "Hell no" from me.

If there is any censoring of SV or FM, at all, in the case, NYB's participation on Wikipedia Review is guaranteed to be raised on their part (either by them or by acquaintances)

I recommend the "I was just there to chew them out for criticizing WP. Then, to chew them out for outing me. Certainly not for social interaction, since they're all trolls. And the lipstick on the collar could have come from anywhere... "

If there is any censoring of SV or FM, at all, in the case, NYB's participation on Wikipedia Review is guaranteed to be raised on their part (either by them or by acquaintances)

I recommend the "I was just there to chew them out for criticizing WP. Then, to chew them out for outing me. Certainly not for social interaction, since they're all trolls. And the lipstick on the collar could have come from anywhere... "

Given how badly Brad got screwed over on Wikipedia Review in the end, anyone stupid, foolish, or childish enough to raise Brad's posting on WR as a response of any sort to any possible sanctions he may propose on SV, CLA, or FM will deserve to take a ride on the short bus.

I mean, honestly. I'd love to see someone try to honestly bad mouth Brad over that--I triple dog dare them, if they feel like literally taking their Wikipedia political capital and standing, tearing it up, throwing it in a campfire to burn, and then urinating on the fire to put out the ashes. Because that's the equivalent of what it would be. And thats NOT hyperbole.

If there is any censoring of SV or FM, at all, in the case, NYB's participation on Wikipedia Review is guaranteed to be raised on their part (either by them or by acquaintances)

I recommend the "I was just there to chew them out for criticizing WP. Then, to chew them out for outing me. Certainly not for social interaction, since they're all trolls. And the lipstick on the collar could have come from anywhere... "

Given how badly Brad got screwed over on Wikipedia Review in the end, anyone stupid, foolish, or childish enough to raise Brad's posting on WR as a response of any sort to any possible sanctions he may propose on SV, CLA, or FM will deserve to take a ride on the short bus.

I mean, honestly. I'd love to see someone try to honestly bad mouth Brad over that--I triple dog dare them, if they feel like literally taking their Wikipedia political capital and standing, tearing it up, throwing it in a campfire to burn, and then urinating on the fire to put out the ashes. Because that's the equivalent of what it would be. And thats NOT hyperbole.

Some of the editors (at least one) involved in this case seem to be on a quest to lose friends and alienate people ™ these days, so this is not a good bet.

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more often as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

This post has been edited by One:

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

RfAr and Workshops always struck me a very strange means to address a dispute. A better approach would be to choose a person to broker each of the various sides of the dispute. Have people direct diffs, evidence or other persuasive material to the selected person who would weed out irrelevant, inflammatory, and low value material. Then have the Arbs work from that record to render a decision. The current procedure is chaos and invites malicious intermeddlers, distinguished from the officious intermeddlers who would still run the show.

well-being of the project

Just to clarify the concern I'm getting at here:

If a Wikipedia user leaks or advertises some high level information to the news media--for example, how Danny has "leaked" information on Jimbo and the WMF--some users will take a proposal if worded like this as an endorsement to sanction over it. Am I misreading this?

Well, having read through, I note two things, NYB has managed to capture the essence of some of the problems, stating them in an impersonal way (though it doesn't really help too much, at least it is face saving for some of the protagonists, which I would hope they appreciate).

That some of these things need saying, given what has always been the supposed policy of the site reflects just how far some behaviour has gone - I am thinking of the current state of AN & AN/I where some appalling comments are being made and no administrator seems to have authority enough to slap them down without being subjected to the same invective.

So, wise words of which I generally approve, but I am afraid that the community who should be taking the slap on the wrists to heart will be unable to recognise their own failings.

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

The ideas behind these principles look fine, but here's my issues with them:

* Why is it necessary to come up with a new set of principles for everyone arbcom case? Why can't a set of fundamental principles be defined and reused in every case?
* These "principles" use too many words and get into too many details. Something which is a fundamental principal can be stated clearly and succinctly in a few words. As examples consider the "Bill of Rights" and the "Ten Commandments". Something like "Thou shall not kill" and "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" are succinct statements of principles.

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

The ideas behind these principles look fine, but here's my issues with them:

* Why is it necessary to come up with a new set of principles for everyone arbcom case? Why can't a set of fundamental principles be defined and reused in every case?
* These "principles" use too many words and get into too many details. Something which is a fundamental principal can be stated clearly and succinctly in a few words. As examples consider the "Bill of Rights" and the "Ten Commandments". Something like "Thou shall not kill" and "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" are succinct statements of principles.

NYB is not YAHWEH or James Madison, nor should he be expected to be.

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

The ideas behind these principles look fine, but here's my issues with them:

* Why is it necessary to come up with a new set of principles for everyone arbcom case? Why can't a set of fundamental principles be defined and reused in every case?
* These "principles" use too many words and get into too many details. Something which is a fundamental principal can be stated clearly and succinctly in a few words. As examples consider the "Bill of Rights" and the "Ten Commandments". Something like "Thou shall not kill" and "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" are succinct statements of principles.

I believe many of these principles (maybe most) are reused. Sometimes they're modified a bit. See the dialog on the Harassment principle between SG and NYB.

But yeah, many of the arbitrators dislike the idea of precedent. I think the rationale is that they don't want to be in a bind that they might be intellectually nudged into a position that will hurt the encyclopedia later on. There's also a widespread (codified, actually) suspicion of formalism, lawyering, ect.

I hope that the ArbCom gets over this. They should make approximations about what sorts of rules will best benefit an encyclopedia, then apply them evenly until it becomes clear that a new rule or exception is needed. We would hope that optimal rules would emerge from this kind of common law. Most importantly, it gives the project predictability, which is very good for the encyclopedia. As it is, every case is a pseudopolitical crapshoot.

[Moderator's note: I split the digression on External Criticism Sites to its own thread -- gomi]

I believe many of these principles (maybe most) are reused. Sometimes they're modified a bit. See the dialog on the Harassment principle between SG and NYB.

I think there are significant ones that are new or newly formulated. Some really significant ones indeed, I think. But it might be good to note which ones are straight lifts, which are minor tweaks and which are novel.

I believe many of these principles (maybe most) are reused. Sometimes they're modified a bit. See the dialog on the Harassment principle between SG and NYB.

I think there are significant ones that are new or newly formulated. Some really significant ones indeed, I think. But it might be good to note which ones are straight lifts, which are minor tweaks and which are novel.

I probably should have done that when I posted them. But if I try to go back and do it now, I'll get three hours worth of edit conflicts, unless I protect the page or something.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you may ignore it."

You're the best person to do this. It would take anyone else ages to figure out where it all came from. If you can make notes in advance, protect the page, and throw them all up in a few minutes.

Or just edit them all through an edit conflict (that is, revert the whole page, adding the notes), with an explanation that all ec comments should be restored.

I think it would be really helpful, and would probably answer a lot of questions preemptively.

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more often as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

I've always thought of the Workshop as kind of odd. Imagine a real-life courtroom where after hearing all the testimony and evidence the judge has everyone in the courtroom propose what could be done which would include the judge, jury, parties, and the audience. A parade of people saying what should happen. But then again, wikipedia is not real life.

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more often as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

I've always thought of the Workshop as kind of odd. Imagine a real-life courtroom where after hearing all the testimony and evidence the judge has everyone in the courtroom propose what could be done which would include the judge, jury, parties, and the audience. A parade of people saying what should happen. But then again, wikipedia is not real life.

Concur. If someone has no personal involvement in the case they should be required to keep quiet.

Jesus, I thought things were going fairly well at the new NYB workshop - that is, until MONGO showed up and started dragging his knuckles all over the page, fucking it up. What reasonable person wants to engage in a discussion with MONGO?

I think NYB's set of proposals is excellent. Some of them would have very positive ramifications for administrative conduct if they were adopted in general practice, and if nothing else, they offer a good framework for deciding the case.

Jesus, I thought things were going fairly well at the new NYB workshop - that is, until MONGO showed up and started dragging his knuckles all over the page, fucking it up. What reasonable person wants to engage in a discussion with MONGO?

I didn't see much issue with MONGO's contributions to the page (except for maybe "The best way to "fix" Wikipedia and or problematic editors is to do so on Wikipedia," which is obviously a sadly inaccurate claim), but who is Jc37? I find his contributions to this page to be counter-productive... a nuisance, even.

New York Brad, if posting the identities of Wikipedia contributors is worthy of sanction, most of your colleagues should resign. I propose an amendment to your principles stating that those who've outed others, such as the arbitrators themselves, aren't protected by this clause. Or, if the committee were to find the integrity and the nerve to be honest about what it really believes, an amendment stating that the Arbitrators are not so bound, but may out others at their discretion,. What do you think?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more often as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

I've always thought of the Workshop as kind of odd. Imagine a real-life courtroom where after hearing all the testimony and evidence the judge has everyone in the courtroom propose what could be done which would include the judge, jury, parties, and the audience. A parade of people saying what should happen. But then again, wikipedia is not real life.

You mean like an amicus brief? (OK, I get that briefs are not allowed from anonymous spectators who just sprang into existence, but third party comment is not totally unknown even in law, and especially when the outcome affects non-parties.)

Gomi made a similar point. If ArbCom were a court of equity, I would agree, but it's not for two reasons.

First was expressed most famously by Lar. Wikipedia doesn't DO due process. It's not a country, it doesn't trade in human rights. It's an effort to build an encyclopedia, and the worst sanction is to kick users off (at least until they can figure out how to evade it). So erroring on the side of banning is not analogous to erroring on the side of guilt in a criminal trial. Arbs should do what's best for the encyclopedia as if users had no rights. Granted, they should act in a matter that most users find "fair," so that Arbs have respect to do their job correctly, but except at the margins fairness doesn't matter. Should they care if a manifest troll is given a full-length arbitration with all the trimmings? No.

The second reason is especially tied to the usefulness of outside commentary. See, there's not really such thing as consensus in a community with many more members than you have digits. therefore, without a fiat from Jimbo or fudged declaration, no new policy gets made. Except for ArbCom. Because of Wikipedia's inability to change by "consensus," Arb holdings are relatively important. ArbCom has a kind of legislative function, and I think it's highly desirable to let the community comment on their work, even if most of the comments are from the involved cliques.

The main importance of NYB's proposals are that they give some semblance of Wikipedia striving to work to a moral standard.

I've been pondering how best to express this, but it dawned on me that Wikipedia has much in common with a cold War East European state in the way it operates: everything for the good of the state; citizens spying on and reporting on other citizens; a party elite who have no stature in law but in fact have privileges unattainable by the rank and file; ranks of people working at trawling through files looking for evidence of work against the party; anyone who dares to criticise the state is a traitor; once you have a stain on your record, it is indelible, you are never going to attain any stature; although actions are excused for the good of the state, it is obvious to observers that they do not advance the needs of the state.

I do find it interesting that as a social experiment, instead of evolving to a libertarian ideal, it has, like communism for all its ideals, become a police state.

I don't believe that anyone has ever criticised NYB for his moral stance, just his naivety in dealing with the problems of Wikipedia. It will be interesting whether the change in balance I have perceived, where the old guard hold less sway, is enough for fair minded individuals to get behind the changes. As I've said before, I do believe that Wikipedia is redeemable, but it needs a fundamental change in mindset to allow it to strive for an ethical stance in its approach to doing business.

Odd Socracy Questions Wikipedia's ad hoc Ochlocracy

The main importance of NYB's proposals are that they give some semblance of Wikipedia striving to work to a moral standard.

The appalling absence of ethics or moral standards on Wikipedia motivated WAS 4.250 to start the Wikiversity Learning Project on the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia.

I've been pondering how best to express this, but it dawned on me that Wikipedia has much in common with a cold War East European state in the way it operates: everything for the good of the state; citizens spying on and reporting on other citizens; a party elite who have no stature in law but in fact have privileges unattainable by the rank and file; ranks of people working at trawling through files looking for evidence of work against the party; anyone who dares to criticise the state is a traitor; once you have a stain on your record, it is indelible, you are never going to attain any stature; although actions are excused for the good of the state, it is obvious to observers that they do not advance the needs of the state.

Here is evidence of that kind of politicking. Anyone care to speculate who our charming carpetbagger is, and why he's planting a colonist's flag on the shores of Wikiversity?

I do find it interesting that as a social experiment, instead of evolving to a libertarian ideal, it has, like communism for all its ideals, become a police state.

More like an ad hoc ochlocracy.

I don't believe that anyone has ever criticised NYB for his moral stance, just his naivety in dealing with the problems of Wikipedia. It will be interesting whether the change in balance I have perceived, where the old guard hold less sway, is enough for fair minded individuals to get behind the changes. As I've said before, I do believe that Wikipedia is redeemable, but it needs a fundamental change in mindset to allow it to strive for an ethical stance in its approach to doing business.

That fundamental change in mindset amounts to an epiphany the likes of which Homo Schleppians have not achieved since the transformations of Gautama Siddhartha ⇒ Buddha, Saul ⇒ Paul, Gamaliel ⇒ Christianity, or John Newton ⇒ Amazing Grace.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Comparing Wikipedia to a police state is rather unfair. Most businesses are rather like a police state, because the purpose of the business is to produce profit through organized activity toward a specific goal, not just to improve the well-being of the employees. Wikipedia, like any other business, is a purposeful organization, with specific goals that everyone involved can reasonably be expected to spend all, or at least most, of their time in the organization striving toward.

Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica allows its employees to put whatever they want on the company's web pages? How do you think they'd handle it if one employee called another vicious names over the company email system? Or found that an editor was deliberately pushing a minority point of view in every article he worked on? Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Thanks. I always liked /Workshop. Keeps users in the loop. Proposals are often refined with input (well, when it doesn't turn into a pseudo vote, anyway). I think it should be used more often as a way for Arbs to preview community response.

I was afraid the workshop would depart from ArbCom along with its most consistent user, Fred Bauder.

I've always thought of the Workshop as kind of odd. Imagine a real-life courtroom where after hearing all the testimony and evidence the judge has everyone in the courtroom propose what could be done which would include the judge, jury, parties, and the audience. A parade of people saying what should happen. But then again, wikipedia is not real life.

I can understand your point. But remember, whenever there is a major arbitration case, a thread almost invariably pops up here in which various people make suggestions about what the arbitrators should say and do in the case. Why would we want a system where uninvolved people can make these suggestions here, or anywhere else, but not on Wikipedia?

New York Brad, if posting the identities of Wikipedia contributors is worthy of sanction, most of your colleagues should resign. I propose an amendment to your principles stating that those who've outed others, such as the arbitrators themselves, aren't protected by this clause. Or, if the committee were to find the integrity and the nerve to be honest about what it really believes, an amendment stating that the Arbitrators are not so bound, but may out others at their discretion,. What do you think?

I think (1) that I've expressed my personal opinion that your situation last year was not handled well, (2) that I believe if it came up now it would be handled differently, (3) that it was not at all a typical situation of "outing" or linking an editor to his real name, and (4) the fact that a policy or norm of behavior may have been misapplied in a given instance does not mean that it should never be applied again, especially by people who had nothing to do with that instance, or this would mean that standards of user conduct must immediately sink to the level of the worst action ever taken.

Comparing Wikipedia to a police state is rather unfair. Most businesses are rather like a police state, because the purpose of the business is to produce profit through organized activity toward a specific goal, not just to improve the well-being of the employees. Wikipedia, like any other business, is a purposeful organization, with specific goals that everyone involved can reasonably be expected to spend all, or at least most, of their time in the organization striving toward.

Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica allows its employees to put whatever they want on the company's web pages? How do you think they'd handle it if one employee called another vicious names over the company email system? Or found that an editor was deliberately pushing a minority point of view in every article he worked on? Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Well, my point was that some of the ways of running Wikipedia have evolved into a rather odd way. In the various companies I have worked at, we were expected to do our job, and there was a normal management reporting structure to assess whether we were succeeding in our aims. All the places I worked in, you built trust in each other. Sure things went wrong and you covered yourself, but there was not the atmosphere of entrapment, for example (and I do concede that some of WRers' jaundiced views may be exaggerated compared with the day to day Wikipedian experience).

I have no problem at all with Wikipedia implementing proper management and control systems. The problem I have is that Wikipedia's systems give the appearance to me of having been subverted for personal aims rather than the advancement of the production of a sound encyclopedia.

I think the analogy is sound in another respect: many of the people we are critical of in Wikipedia I am sure are honourable and kind people in real life, yet in the Wikipedia world, they are behaving in a different way and yet are convinced they are acting appropriately. I think of Lives of Others, where the lead character believed he was doing good and righteous work of the state until his eyes were opened.

I believe there is a very narrow gap between the rules and behaviour that can make Wikipedia work in a reasonable fashion, and those that exist, de facto, that are leading it to having an unsavoury atmosphere. For example, if people took what NYB was proposing and implemented the spirit, then 80% of the criticism of this site could disappear and the remainder could focus on academic issues rather than the game show we have today. And with rational treatment of each other, Wikipedians might be able to have rational discussions on how to resolve issues like ethical treatment of living or dead people without it descending into defensive, BADSITEs drama.

Jesus, I thought things were going fairly well at the new NYB workshop - that is, until MONGO showed up and started dragging his knuckles all over the page, fucking it up. What reasonable person wants to engage in a discussion with MONGO?

How is this a helpful comment?

MONGO has as much right to voice his opinion as anyone else. You don't have to agree, but making disparaging remarks here isn't helpful. ... I've counseled MONGO (and Rootology too, for that matter) to forgive and forget, to move on, to put the past behind him, not to bring up old stuff over again. This doesn't help. It validate's MONGO's view of this site as nothing more than an attack site. and enables him to drown out any actually relevant messages. Why drown the signal in the noise? Why give your critics free ammo? Criticise actions, sure, but cut the personal insults.

I believe there is a very narrow gap between the rules and behaviour that can make Wikipedia work in a reasonable fashion, and those that exist, de facto, that are leading it to having an unsavoury atmosphere. For example, if people took what NYB was proposing and implemented the spirit, then 80% of the criticism of this site could disappear and the remainder could focus on academic issues rather than the game show we have today. And with rational treatment of each other, Wikipedians might be able to have rational discussions on how to resolve issues like ethical treatment of living or dead people without it descending into defensive, BADSITEs drama.

In other words, complex systems are sensitive to relatively small changes in initial conditions or operating rules... or even the notion that civilization is a thin veneer?

I've been a member of communities that turned unpleasant, and its... well... unpleasant.

I've counseled MONGO (and Rootology too, for that matter) to forgive and forget, to move on, to put the past behind him, not to bring up old stuff over again.

"Forgive... sounds good; Forget; I don't think I could." -- Dixie Chicks

----------------
Now playing: Dixie Chicks - Not Ready to Make Nice
via FoxyTunes

I've counseled MONGO (and Rootology too, for that matter) to forgive and forget, to move on, to put the past behind him, not to bring up old stuff over again.

"Forgive... sounds good; Forget; I don't think I could." -- Dixie Chicks

----------------
Now playing: Dixie Chicks - Not Ready to Make Nice
via FoxyTunes

You don't have to actually forget. You just have to act like you did. Not an easy trick. But highly recommended, if you can pull it off. I'm not a christian by any stretch of the imagination but "turn the other cheek" and the golden rule seem like good ideas to me. They probably nicked them from somewhere, I guess. On the other hand... "vengeance is mine" sayeth the lord? not so much...

You don't have to actually forget. You just have to act like you did. Not an easy trick. But highly recommended, if you can pull it off. I'm not a christian by any stretch of the imagination but "turn the other cheek" and the golden rule seem like good ideas to me. They probably nicked them from somewhere, I guess. On the other hand... "vengeance is mine" sayeth the lord? not so much...

No, as the Methodists never fail to point out, "Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord" can also be used as a couterweight to the idea of human payback.

Not that payback isn't sometimes necessary. On Wikipedia however, where information is as immortal as a Catholic idea of the human soul, or (if you will) any great work of art which is copied to multiple places and has multiple stewards, the payback for grudges is often exaggerated far beyond appropriateness.

Consider: if anything a thief or murderer took from you, could be restored, to perfection, at the mere click of a channel changer, would you be so concerned with vengeance-debts? No. And yet, that's what we're fighting about, on WP. I have to remind myself of this regularly, also.

Did you ever see the end scene in the Sally Field film Places in the Heart where everything is restored as all the actors' characters, living and dead, come back on screen for a sort of curtain-call? Well, that's Wikipedia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

No, as the Methodists never fail to point out, "Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord" can also be used as a couterweight to the idea of human payback.

Yeah, well, my Christian brothers historically have done a splendid job of improving the world, what with the colonization and the slavery and the complete ignorance or avoidance of the simple little thing called "What would Jesus do?" which is to not act like a total asshole to the world. Honestly, if people that believed actually acted like it--and I don't mean by going to church, watching Fox News, and contributing to the Republican Party here in the USA--but actually ACTING like what they falsely claim to be, the world would be a really chill, brotherly love sort of place where many less bad things would happen.

I'm going to the beach.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

[ I'm not a christian by any stretch of the imagination but "turn the other cheek" and the golden rule seem like good ideas to me. They probably nicked them from somewhere, I guess.

The ancient Egyptians' version of ethics of reciprocity may be the earliest recorded.

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."

No, as the Methodists never fail to point out, "Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord" can also be used as a couterweight to the idea of human payback.

Yeah, well, my Christian brothers historically have done a splendid job of improving the world, what with the colonization and the slavery and the complete ignorance or avoidance of the simple little thing called "What would Jesus do?" which is to not act like a total asshole to the world. Honestly, if people that believed actually acted like it--and I don't mean by going to church, watching Fox News, and contributing to the Republican Party here in the USA--but actually ACTING like what they falsely claim to be, the world would be a really chill, brotherly love sort of place where many less bad things would happen.

I'm going to the beach.

Errmm, when the Christians reached the Americas they found several large empires not only practicing slavery, but fighting wars for the express purposes of obtaining captives for giant human sacrifice ceremonies in which thousands of people had their hearts ripped out. Even the Spanish were shocked. Part of the reason the Spanish conquistadors got the job done was the spread of European infectious disease, but the other part, rarely mentioned, is that native combat in the Americas, pre-European, was conditioned to hurt the opposition, not kill them. These clubs and such didn't do much to Spanish armor. But the reason there were so many clubs was for the purpose of captive taking, and the purposes of that, was to obtain captives for sacrifice.

So don't talk to me about Chrisitians. If you'd like to see what happens without it, consider the games of ancient Rome, which are so alien to us that we still don't quite believe them. The thing that MAKES them alien to us now, is Christianity. Say what you like about it.

Read more about the rape of Nanking, please, and the Japanese warfare experiments on live subjects (generally Chinese). It puts Mengele to shame. The Japanese scientists actually generated good data. Which the allies exchanged for not hanging them.

And no, all this doesn't fit neatly with the Marxist idea that all the evil in the world was generated by English capitalists in tophats. Sorry.

Say, have you met Flash? He was telling us how the Iranians are really not interested in making a bomb, and how that was all Western hegemonist propaganda. Right before Iran threw all inspectors out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You don't have to actually forget. You just have to act like you did. Not an easy trick. But highly recommended, if you can pull it off. I'm not a christian by any stretch of the imagination but "turn the other cheek" and the golden rule seem like good ideas to me. They probably nicked them from somewhere, I guess. On the other hand... "vengeance is mine" sayeth the lord? not so much...

No, as the Methodists never fail to point out, "Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord" can also be used as a couterweight to the idea of human payback.

Not that payback isn't sometimes necessary. On Wikipedia however, where information is as immortal as a Catholic idea of the human soul, or (if you will) any great work of art which is copied to multiple places and has multiple stewards, the payback for grudges is often exaggerated far beyond appropriateness.

Consider: if anything a thief or murderer took from you, could be restored, to perfection, at the mere click of a channel changer, would you be so concerned with vengeance-debts? No. And yet, that's what we're fighting about, on WP. I have to remind myself of this regularly, also.

Did you ever see the end scene in the Sally Field film Places in the Heart where everything is restored as all the actors' characters, living and dead, come back on screen for a sort of curtain-call? Well, that's Wikipedia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Interesting: first we had "post"-coldwar models of Wikipedia and now we have neo-Catholicism. As with many poetic images, there is truth here, but I wonder if this is merely intellectual pondering.

You see, the truth in the "post"-coldwar model is that Wikipedia is inherently built on polarization. It's become us verses them. Now, it is also true that the number of checkusers, admins, stewards, arbcom members and the like posting here has clouded this picture a bit (and if this is something that they set out to do, I take my hat off to them, since it's the only way to dispel this image on both sides), but the situation remains polarized. Can WP society function without a polarized adversary? I wonder. It seems to fulfill some sort of need, on a psychological level. If we are not part of them, then we must be part of us. Defining the enemy helps define who the good guys are.

Now, getting back to the Catholic aspect of things: what is the worst possible thing for a practicing Catholic? Give up? Okay, I'll tell you:

It's excommunication: the ritual act of saying "you are not part of us. You are damned and will burn in Hell for all eternity". What keeps happening over and over again? excommunication.

Now, I know that (probably) the majority of editors on En:Wp are probably not Catholic (actually it would seem that WPs in languages from prominently Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy (they dissolved their Arbcom) and France are cooler about these things, since they know firsthand what a psychological catch-22 these attitudes represent), but everybody who is Catholic knows that there are no greater sticklers for Catholic Dogma than converts (CF Saint Paul and all of that).

The point of all of this: well, the pattern up to this point was to exclude any and all people who force those in positions of power to doubt that 1. the project was really as important as they believed and 2. that they were really as indispensable as they had thought. Anyone doing this was ritually murdered through the process of excommunication through banning.

Now, it would appear that this arbcom decision would tend to say (in so many words) that WP is only an encyclopedia, so it doesn't give you the right to shit on people and even if you've given your entire existence over to this idea, if you break the rules you're treated just like those who are...excommunicated...

I personally can't find fault with either position (as a matter of fact, my initial reaction is "It's about time")....However, I would like to caution those making these types of decisions right now that the longterm psychological effects might be much more violent than they expect, as we are not dealing with people who are...all there...

The point is: the more I look, the more I see psychological acting out of rage, of the need to feel important, of the need to leave a "lasting mark" by those who have, to put it gently, perhaps not succeeded at the game of life.

How are they going to react to an Arbcom decision which basically tells them that they need to take a reality check?

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

Interesting: first we had "post"-coldwar models of Wikipedia and now we have neo-Catholicism. As with many poetic images, there is truth here, but I wonder if this is merely intellectual pondering.
...
The point is: the more I look, the more I see psychological acting out of rage, of the need to feel important, of the need to leave a "lasting mark" by those who have, to put it gently, perhaps not succeeded at the game of life.

How are they going to react to an Arbcom decision which basically tells them that they need to take a reality check?

I think there are interesting thoughts in all three views, and the reality is that in something as big as Wikipedia, there are likely to be each of these things going on. Whether the ills of these aspects can be cured by a set of rules?

At the risk of using the M word, Moulton has been saying for some time that rule based systems are doomed to failure. I'm not convinced that it is rules per se, they are the excuse, but it is disappointing that there is no shared ethical point of view that allows people to perceive a common ground of unacceptable practices.

Interesting: first we had "post"-coldwar models of Wikipedia and now we have neo-Catholicism. As with many poetic images, there is truth here, but I wonder if this is merely intellectual pondering.
...
The point is: the more I look, the more I see psychological acting out of rage, of the need to feel important, of the need to leave a "lasting mark" by those who have, to put it gently, perhaps not succeeded at the game of life.

How are they going to react to an Arbcom decision which basically tells them that they need to take a reality check?

I think there are interesting thoughts in all three views, and the reality is that in something as big as Wikipedia, there are likely to be each of these things going on. Whether the ills of these aspects can be cured by a set of rules?

At the risk of using the M word, Moulton has been saying for some time that rule based systems are doomed to failure. I'm not convinced that it is rules per se, they are the excuse, but it is disappointing that there is no shared ethical point of view that allows people to perceive a common ground of unacceptable practices.

I think that the majority of WP admins function on an ethical level and, indeed, understand why these sorts of behavioral problems are unacceptable. I would like to believe that we are talking about the actions of a minority of admins and/or users who believe that they are above the rules imposed on all users because of their perceived "value to the project" or their perceived "experience". It seems to me that the evidence given in this case proves the most informed WP users are against this attitude of "not being bound by the rules".

However, the main issue here is one of "saving face". Everybody knows that the usual suspects are guilty as sin: that's been proven by the evidence provided. But how do you resolve the issue without causing these longterm contributors to lose face?

I am convinced more and more that the only solution is going to be one which is resolved behind the scenes, because any "public" humiliation is going to create the necessity for "public" retaliation. And this does not solve the problem: it makes it worse.

The best solution is one which creates the least drama, while being the most effective. And this solution is probably going to be non-public. But it could still be extremely effective in solving the problems.

Now, what would happen if the faulty parties were still allowed to pretend to be admins and were not publicly "desyssoped", but were...denied access to the tools?

Wouldn't this solve both problems? Nobody would have to know and they could just keep pretending, which is what they need to do in the first place?

Of course, this wouldn't solve the various article ownership issues and the like....but if one cannot block, one cannot enforce one's POV. At least, that's how I see it.

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

For those of you just joining us:

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

So don't talk to me about Chrisitians. If you'd like to see what happens without it, consider the games of ancient Rome, which are so alien to us that we still don't quite believe them. The thing that MAKES them alien to us now, is Christianity. Say what you like about it.

Read more about the rape of Nanking, please, and the Japanese warfare experiments on live subjects (generally Chinese). It puts Mengele to shame. The Japanese scientists actually generated good data. Which the allies exchanged for not hanging them.

...and read about the Spanish Inquisition too, while you're at it. Horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of just about all religions and ideologies that have ever existed, and good things have been done in the name of most of these things too. This only shows that humans can do both good and evil, and use all sorts of things to justify what they do. It doesn't prove that Christianity is inherently better or worse than any of the other ideologies.

Newyorkbrad just posted 22 proposed principles

Nice work, NewYorkBrad, although I would say that Ncmvocalist had already provided you with a good basic outline. The acid test will be the findings of fact -- I hope that Ncmvocalist's work may serve as a model for that as well.

Go, Thatcher, go!

So don't talk to me about Chrisitians. If you'd like to see what happens without it, consider the games of ancient Rome, which are so alien to us that we still don't quite believe them. The thing that MAKES them alien to us now, is Christianity. Say what you like about it.

Read more about the rape of Nanking, please, and the Japanese warfare experiments on live subjects (generally Chinese). It puts Mengele to shame. The Japanese scientists actually generated good data. Which the allies exchanged for not hanging them.

...and read about the Spanish Inquisition too, while you're at it. Horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of just about all religions and ideologies that have ever existed, and good things have been done in the name of most of these things too. This only shows that humans can do both good and evil, and use all sorts of things to justify what they do. It doesn't prove that Christianity is inherently better or worse than any of the other ideologies.

No, the problem is orthodoxy in all its forms. It all boils down to that: It's the idea that there is us and there is them (once again, polarization) and we are better than them.

It seems that WP is no better than any number of human experiments. What's the solution?

Well, we have a short-term problem and a long-term problem.

The short-term problem is best dealt with by dessyoping all guilty parties in secret, while allowing them to pretend that they aren't. If there is any more drama on WP right now, it's going to explode. And it's not going to be pretty.

The long-term solution requires a long honest analysis of the problems, and gradual reform of the institution as a whole. This will still be extremely painful, but if it's allowed to play out over an extended period of time, it may work. However, it goes without saying that this will mean that many longterm contributors who are used to special privileges will leave the project.

Is this a problem? I personally do not think so.

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

How is this a helpful comment?

Come on now Lar. Posters are under no obligation to be "helpful." I assume you mean "helpful" to Wikipedia. You are in no position to chastise them without subjecting yourself to this type of criticism yourself. Sorry if this not likely to be seen as helpful.

Down with boyscout imperialism.

How is this a helpful comment?

Come on now Lar. Posters are under no obligation to be "helpful." I assume you mean "helpful" to Wikipedia. You are in no position to chastise them without subjecting yourself to this type of criticism yourself. Sorry if this not likely to be seen as helpful.

Down with boyscout imperialism.

You have to admit that Lar is helpful. This can be a positive thing.

I say let him ask the question. The answer might be even more interesting....

Now, what would happen if the faulty parties were still allowed to pretend to be admins and were not publicly "desyssoped", but were...denied access to the tools?

Wouldn't this solve both problems? Nobody would have to know and they could just keep pretending, which is what they need to do in the first place?

Of course, this wouldn't solve the various article ownership issues and the like....but if one cannot block, one cannot enforce one's POV. At least, that's how I see it.

But surely somebody would NOTICE that SlimVirgin hadn't blocked anybody in ages, even though actively editing. I don't think anyone is going to believe she's suddenly developed inhuman powers of self-control, all-of-a-sudden. Or is suddenly blissed out with Buddha-nature. I can imagine the resultant conversation on her TALK page:

"Hey, Slimmy, why no blocks in ages? Are you gellin'?"
"Yep, no more yellin'. My pride is swellin' how well I'm gellin'.
"Even if I'm rebellin'?"
"Hey, even if you're hellin'! I'm excellin' at gellin'. It's just compellin' how well I'm gellin.'
"You're not sellin' me you're gellin'. I think there's something you're not tellin'"
"No, I'm dwellin' with gellin'. It's the only thing propellin'....."
"Bleh, you don't have the tools, do you? HAHA. Neener! Here's a picture of my ass: --> (*)

Goes downhill from there.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

So don't talk to me about Chrisitians. If you'd like to see what happens without it, consider the games of ancient Rome, which are so alien to us that we still don't quite believe them. The thing that MAKES them alien to us now, is Christianity. Say what you like about it.

Read more about the rape of Nanking, please, and the Japanese warfare experiments on live subjects (generally Chinese). It puts Mengele to shame. The Japanese scientists actually generated good data. Which the allies exchanged for not hanging them.

...and read about the Spanish Inquisition too, while you're at it. Horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of just about all religions and ideologies that have ever existed, and good things have been done in the name of most of these things too. This only shows that humans can do both good and evil, and use all sorts of things to justify what they do. It doesn't prove that Christianity is inherently better or worse than any of the other ideologies.

It's not the attrocity, for you can find always authority doing the worst to SOMEBODY (usually a heretic and dissenter from the dominant meme, whatever that is, even if it's official atheism). No, the Spanish Inquisition isn't special. What is special is when a society reaches the point that death-games, ala the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Romans, are no longer simply entertainment. Remember, the inquisition, which was deadly serious, didn't do anything that the Romans didn't do to please tens of thousands of ordinary people, the way we watch Olympics or baseball. By the time we got the 20th century, you couldn't do that anymore; something had changed. Hitler and Stalin and Mao killed a lot of people, but they had better tools, and YET they did it as far away from cities and crowds as they could get. The Romans would have done what the Nazis did, for the general public, while they ate popcorn (or whatever the snacking Roman crowds ate-- probably bread and boiled eggs). Nero had Christians covered with pitch and burned alive for torches at parties, and along roads, to provide light.

Now, if you think I'm crediting Christianity completely for this, without a nod toward Christianity's Jewish underpinnings, or without taking note of very many worthy empathic Eastern traditions, too, I'm not. Also, I'm personally a fan of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, neither of whom believed in any kind of personal God or religion in that sense. But the world does improve over time. And credit needs to go to the major philosophical movements which have driven it. Christianity's been a major influence in the West, and most of Christianity has not been the inquisition. That happened when one particular group of Christians got power, and THEN had that power threatened. That's the worst of all possible situations, but shouldn't be confused for what the masses enjoy.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.

There is hope for the case up until the moment someone starts an Arbcom Rain subsection there.

"Arbcom Rain
Some cases end and others run for months"

An ArbCom born without a brain?

I see there is now silliness on the Proposed Decision talk page about rickrolling and Chuck Norris. Maybe we should all pledge to post one silly Internet meme per day on that case page until the ArbCom issues a decision.

There is hope for the case up until the moment someone starts an Arbcom Rain subsection there.

"Arbcom Rain
Some cases end and others run for months"

An ArbCom born without a brain?

ArbCom sex? "Somebody is going to get screwed; the question is just how, and how long will it take?"

There once was a queer from Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room
And the rest of the night
Had a terrible fight
About who would do what, and to whom

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

NYB is about to post Proposed Findings, the new section is up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ings_of_fact_11

Nature of the case
1) This case originated as a request to review the conduct of Cla68, submitted by FeloniousMonk with the later support of SlimVirgin. The case was accepted to review the conduct of each of these editors. Subsequently, Viridae filed a separate request for arbitration against JzG. That request was deemed to involve overlapping issues with the earlier request, and the scope of this case was expanded to review the behavior of these two editors as well.

Cla68
2) (A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. The volume and quality of his contributions to the encyclopedia are outstanding and his dedication to the project is clear. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.

((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) In addition to his mainspace contributions, Cla68 has been active in project space, where he has often been critical of the actions of Wikipedia administrators. Some of his contributions in this arena have been positive ones, including his work in uncovering the deception discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland and in drawing attention to some of the issues underlying that dispute.

© Cla68 has at times failed to assume good faith with regard to the character and actions of administrators and other editors with whom he disagrees, and at times has suggested the opposite. He has not always been mindful of our norm against alleging that another Wikipedian is acting in bad faith or intentionally working against the best interests of the project, unless there is substantial evidence against a good-faith explanation. The presumptive explanation for most disputes or disagreements on Wikipedia is that two or more editors have honestly held, good-faith but differing views on the merits of an issue. Cla68 could readily have made at least most of his valid or arguable criticisms of Wikipedia and administrators with whom he disagreed on a given issue (such as the Mantanmoreland dispute) without asserting or implying that they had acted in bad faith.

(D) Cla68 has been engaged in a protracted series of disputes with SlimVirgin. Although many of Cla68's criticisms of SlimVirgin fell within the realm of reasonable discussion, there have been other instances in which his rhetoric was clearly excessive or uncivil. For example, Cla68 acted within policy by creating a userspace draft of a request for comment on SlimVirgin, but many of the section headings and edit summaries that he used in the page were intemperate or uncivil. Cla68 later apologized for these excesses in the RfC draft.

(E) In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names could be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to "out" the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. Cla68 later explained that his statement was intended only to warn the users of the possibility that such outing and publicity might occur as a result of the actions of others, although the forum in which Cla68 made the statement would not seem to be one that he would naturally have chosen had his primary intention been to alert these users that they were at risk. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully. He has made no further statements that could reasonably be taken as potential outing threats in the ensuing months.

FeloniousMonk
3) (A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia. He has been an administrator since August 2005 and has invested substantial time and effort in the project.

((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) FeloniousMonk has been a party to several prior cases decided by this committee. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu, decided in 2005, FeloniousMonk was "admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, decided in 2006, he was "counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way."

© Within recent months, FeloniousMonk has used administrator tools in several matters where he could reasonably be considered as an "involved" administrator, such as the protection of Rosalind Picard and Phyllis Schlafly and blocks of User:Schlafly.

(D) Although some of instances of disputed administrator actions by FeloniousMonk cited in the evidence in this case can be considered debatable as to whether he was involved in an underlying content or conduct dispute, FeloniousMonk should have been especially careful to avoid protecting or blocking in matters where he was or could reasonably be perceived as involved, in view of the prior express admonition by this committee that he should avoid this practice.

(E) FeloniousMonk has at times failed to assume the good faith of those with whom he disagrees in disputes on Wikipedia, particularly in controversies concerning intelligent design and related matters, and has made certain uncivil comments to and concerning other editors.

JzG
4)(A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other contributions, he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources.

((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) As a result of his administrator work on some of our most sensitive articles, JzG has been subjected to significant incidents of harassment both on and off Wikipedia (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher).

© Over a period of more than one year, JzG has persistently made numerous uncivil comments and personal attacks directed at other editors, frequently including obscene and vulgar language and abuse. Often the incivil and offensive comments have been contained in edit summaries so that they are permanently contained in the page histories. Often, although not always, the inappropriate comments have accompanied otherwise proper commentary, edits, or administrator actions, and the comments are often, although again by no means always or nearly always, directed at users exhibiting problematic behavior, but this generally is not a mitigating circumstances. JzG has continued to make these types of comments even after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 called his attention to substantial community concern about his style and several users characterized it as conduct unbecoming an administrator.

(D) JzG has taken several overly harsh administrator actions and made unnecessarily rude comments to new editors, thereby reducing the chance that potentially valuable contributors will continue editing Wikipedia.

(E) JzG has taken a series of wikibreaks in an attempt to reduce the stress that sometimes accompanies his editing Wikipedia, and has taken other steps in an attempt to address the civility issues as self-described in March 2008

This is what is there so far. I find the FM section a little too light towards FM, considering that most of the evidence of bad conduct in this case comes from FM's actions. Plus there's no mention in the Cla68 section that he's been subject to as much abuse and horrible behaviour directed towards him as the others, and it hints way too much that Cla will get a big punishment while certain others (maybe not JzG or FM) will get away with it.

If the alleged hounding by Cla68 warrants a mention, the alleged hounding OF Cla68 needs to mentioned. His contributions to the encyclopedia are just as valuable as Slim, Guy, and Gerard (far more in some cases).

Comparing Wikipedia to a police state is rather unfair. Most businesses are rather like a police state, because the purpose of the business is to produce profit through organized activity toward a specific goal, not just to improve the well-being of the employees. Wikipedia, like any other business, is a purposeful organization, with specific goals that everyone involved can reasonably be expected to spend all, or at least most, of their time in the organization striving toward.

Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica allows its employees to put whatever they want on the company's web pages? How do you think they'd handle it if one employee called another vicious names over the company email system? Or found that an editor was deliberately pushing a minority point of view in every article he worked on? Why should Wikipedia be any different?

This is right. Wikipedia suffers from too little control, not totalitarian leadership. Comparing, say, check users to brown shirts is absurd hyperbole (considering that every damn site on the internet does modest things like track their users). Wikipedia's main fault is giving the keys to the kingdom to any moron with a tor proxy.

Individual users can and do behave abusively, but--if anything--they're enabled because Wikipedia utterly lacks rational central control structures. Wikipedia allows the petty thugs to appoint themselves into positions of influence. This is a vacuum of leadership, not a police state.

This post has been edited by One:

Comparing Wikipedia to a police state is rather unfair. Most businesses are rather like a police state, because the purpose of the business is to produce profit through organized activity toward a specific goal, not just to improve the well-being of the employees. Wikipedia, like any other business, is a purposeful organization, with specific goals that everyone involved can reasonably be expected to spend all, or at least most, of their time in the organization striving toward.

Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica allows its employees to put whatever they want on the company's web pages? How do you think they'd handle it if one employee called another vicious names over the company email system? Or found that an editor was deliberately pushing a minority point of view in every article he worked on? Why should Wikipedia be any different?

This is right. Wikipedia suffers from too little control, not totalitarian leadership. Comparing, say, check users to brown shirts is absurd hyperbole (considering that every damn site on the internet does modest things like track their users). Wikipedia's main fault is giving the keys to the kingdom to any moron with a tor proxy.

Individual users can and do behave abusively, but--if anything--they're enabled because Wikipedia utterly lacks rational central control structures. Wikipedia allows the petty thugs to appoint themselves into positions of influence. This is a vacuum of leadership, not a police state.

The analogy does hold good though, in that there was a legitimate leadership that was brought down because it was perceived as ineffective. The power vacuum is exactly the problem. The totalitarians are not the official leadership, they are another bunch of people who have usurped power.

I was in Munich in July. Near Potsdamer Platz there is a road where set into the cobbles is a streak of golden cobbles. This is to commemorate those who avoided going past a plaque commemorating the failed coup at the site. As the Brown Shirts gained power, anyone passing the plaque was supposed to give a Nazi salute. People turned down a side street to avoid it, and as this became noticed, people were beaten or killed for doing so. This was not the actions of the government of the time, it was the bright idea of those who sought to ingratiate themselves with the leadership.

In China, a lot of the corruption is not official but is tolerated within the power structures until such time as it becomes an embarrassment or the person falls out of favour. China will quite happily then permanently and publicly terminate the person's state membership.

And finally, isn't that one of the problems of the Communist theory, there is meant to be a power vacuum, there is not meant to be anyone in charge - the people decide what to do for the good of the people, the power structures to implement the change to communism are supposed to have faded away - yet out of that a totalitarian state evolves, with none of those in power being within the control of the people.

Proposed remedies

[edit] Parties admonished and instructed

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 2 below. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further review and sanctions

2) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this case, as it does over any arbitration case. In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectation, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be made after 30 days. The committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances. In the event that any such further proceedings are necessary, the excessive delays that have taken place in this case will not be permitted to recur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 1 above. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Present company excluded, the truant arbitration committee has refused to touch this case with a 10 furlong pole for many months. What makes you think they'll even attempt to address any of our concerns when this bad penny turns up again in 30 days?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors counseled

3) Editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm like, so surprised! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Proposed remedies

[edit] Parties admonished and instructed

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 2 below. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further review and sanctions

2) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this case, as it does over any arbitration case. In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectation, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be made after 30 days. The committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances. In the event that any such further proceedings are necessary, the excessive delays that have taken place in this case will not be permitted to recur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 1 above. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Present company excluded, the truant arbitration committee has refused to touch this case with a 10 furlong pole for many months. What makes you think they'll even attempt to address any of our concerns when this bad penny turns up again in 30 days?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors counseled

3) Editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm like, so surprised! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Wonder if JW's had a word in his ear?

Disappointing, there's going to have to be a revolt at this point.

Proposed remedies

[edit] Parties admonished and instructed

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 2 below. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further review and sanctions

2) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this case, as it does over any arbitration case. In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectation, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be made after 30 days. The committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances. In the event that any such further proceedings are necessary, the excessive delays that have taken place in this case will not be permitted to recur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This is a baseline remedy which I believe, at this time, may provide a reasonable resolution of this case in conjunction with remedy 1 above. Other arbitrators may of course propose more or less severe remedies against one or more of the parties, in their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Present company excluded, the truant arbitration committee has refused to touch this case with a 10 furlong pole for many months. What makes you think they'll even attempt to address any of our concerns when this bad penny turns up again in 30 days?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors counseled

3) Editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm like, so surprised! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This will not bring closure to all concerned. Terribly disappointing. This decision will only encourage the revenge-seekers to continue their campaign against Cla68.

I suppose the Arbitration Committee isn't about making unpopular, but necessary decisions. It instead is determined not to upset long-term editors (Giano excluded) no matter the evidence of complete incivility and unprofessional behavior.

These proposed remedies simply enforce that when you come into conflict with an abusive long-term user like SlimVirgin, you should just shut up and go back to whatever it is you were doing before you stuck your nose in that editor's damn business. Forget policy, forget the community, and forget honesty and decency. It's gone. Long gone. Long time gone! And if you try to fight this, no one will give a care and you may as well consider yourself banned, because no one's going to help you. How many times has that woman harangued people editing Jewish and Animal Rights articles? How many times has she backed POV pushers and they backed her? How many times has she used Wikipedia as a revenge platform to viciously attack her enemies who have done her no harm and had adhered to policy? How many times has the Review catalogued these offenses and all she's gotten at the most is a warning? What a load of crap!

But, I know the pattern. We at the Review have been through it many times before:

WR: "There it is!"
ArbCom: "What? Behind the long-term editor?"
WR: "It IS the long-term editor! She's got a mean-streak a mile wide! She has large pointy teeth... LOOK AT THE BONES!"
ArbCom: "Oh, get stuffed!"
WR: "I'm warning you!"

For goodness sakes', ArbCom, the phantom menace is right before you, but you won't do a doggone thing about it because it might upset people. Good grief! You weren't elected to be popular. You were elected to enforce policy created by the Community, and SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk, and JzG have repeatedly broken policy and they've been called on it many times. If you cannot enforce policy, then you should resign.

Wonder if JW's had a word in his ear?

Why, yes.

Hey, Jimbo! Stop daydreaming of pussy and do some work.
(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/jimmyindia.jpg)

Proposed remedies

Parties admonished and instructed

Further review and sanctions

Other editors counseled

Hee hee. As predicted -- "hugs all around".

What a f%(*ing bankrupt institution, Arbcom. Yeesh.

I suppose the Arbitration Committee isn't about making unpopular, but necessary decisions. It instead is determined not to upset long-term editors

In a nutshell, yes.

Whichever arbiters are principally responsible for that kind of mindset need to be dragged out of town tied to the back of jpgordon's horse, and castigated in public for basically enabling widespread nonsense going back all the way to Mantanmoreland's arrival (if not earlier).

Since they all read this, I think it's past due time for one or more arbs or subscribers to arbcom-l to register here totally anonymously and start spilling "state secrets".

Nothing else is going to fix things.

One can only hope they're serious when they say that future offences will be taken seriously. (Ha ha ha. Who am I kidding?)

The really stunning aspect to me is this case in the context of the Everyking case from a few years ago. Everyking considered allowing some deleted revisions to be seen, and was "temporarily" desysopped for three years. In those three years, folks like FeloniousMonk, SlimVirgin, and JzG have done more abusive things than perhaps 99% of the rest of the administrator corps, and they get what will undoubtedly amount of a 30 day parole where Slim will continue to sparingly use her tools and JzG will probably go on another Wikibreak.

And with no community way to actually repair that damage, nothing will change, and the project gets screwed. I've been deferential to Wikipedia for a long time, but this is beyond reasonable at this point.

I assume, 'cause Brad's one of the good guys, that the discussions did not come to any sort of consensus on how to handle it - that's the worst condemnation of the ArbCom imaginable. That with such a clear slam-dunk of a case, they couldn't find the backbone to stand up and act when it clearly mattered.

"Hugs all around" remedies almost always mean that the ArbCom is divided, with one faction wanting to hang one side and the other faction wanting to hang the other. Neither faction has enough support to push their preferred remedies through.

"Hugs all around" remedies almost always mean that the ArbCom is divided, with one faction wanting to hang one side and the other faction wanting to hang the other. Neither faction has enough support to push their preferred remedies through.

It didn't fly in Mantanmoreland and it's not going to fly here - if they're not prepared to set up an actual vote and show everyone who's in what faction, what's the point of arbcom still existing at all?

"Hugs all around" remedies almost always mean that the ArbCom is divided, with one faction wanting to hang one side and the other faction wanting to hang the other. Neither faction has enough support to push their preferred remedies through.

It didn't fly in Mantanmoreland and it's not going to fly here - if they're not prepared to set up an actual vote and show everyone who's in what faction, what's the point of arbcom still existing at all?

It's slightly better than "Jimbo desysops at random" or "Once a sysop, always a sysop", which are what the alternatives are that could actually be implemented.

Proposed remedies

Parties admonished and instructed

Further review and sanctions

Other editors counseled

Hee hee. As predicted -- "hugs all around".

What a f%(*ing bankrupt institution, Arbcom. Yeesh.

A bit premature - I assume you're looking at the workshop page, as the proposed decision is still empty. At this point it's still theoretically anybody's game

No offence Random, but it is going to be "Hugs all around". I would be surprised if we even got a "Viridae and JzG are to leave each other the fuck alone" remedy, which is about the most uncontroversial actual action I could imagine.

Ah well. Next ArbCom election, I will only vote for editors who are certifiably crazy, or do not give a fuck what people think of them. Future Perfect at Sunrise, that is the kind of guy who needs to run for ArbCom.

It's slightly better than "Jimbo desysops at random" or "Once a sysop, always a sysop", which are what the alternatives are that could actually be implemented.

At this point, I don't see how it's discernably different from those.

No offence Random, but it is going to be "Hugs all around".

I don't doubt that, but today (there being no new development) was an odd time for gomi to announce it.

It's slightly better than "Jimbo desysops at random" or "Once a sysop, always a sysop", which are what the alternatives are that could actually be implemented.

At this point, I don't see how it's discernably different from those.

Fear keeps most of the low-level admins in line.

Fear of that battlestation.

It's slightly better than "Jimbo desysops at random" or "Once a sysop, always a sysop", which are what the alternatives are that could actually be implemented.

How does that differ from what exists presently, again?

Giano for ArbCom is looking better every day.

Giano for ArbCom is looking better every day.

And Kurt Weber.

It's slightly better than "Jimbo desysops at random" or "Once a sysop, always a sysop", which are what the alternatives are that could actually be implemented.

How does that differ from what exists presently, again?

In real life, cops do not give speeding tickets to other cops, or various powerful people. And if you catch them on a bad day, maybe 1km/h over the limit will get you a tickey, and all these things. This is not the same as tickets handed out at random, even though there is a random element to it.

How badly you have to misbehave to earn ArbCom's ire does depend on your social standing, and sometimes I think they are plain grouchy (or feeling generous). An element of randomness is not the same as randomness.

Of course, it is not all that much better, so maybe it is hard to see if you do not want to. But I do not think anything better will happen. Of course, if ArbCom insists on following a crash course towards the community, who knows?

Of course Wikipedia needs a mandatory recall procedure. But it will not happen (and probably would not work if it was made). The only choice, I think, is to let ArbCom keep attacking the community, and hope the community votes crazy people in next go 'round.

Otherwise, what? ArbCom steps so far out of line that they get a Jimbo-smackdown? Impossible! The community revokes ArbCom's power? They do not even realize they empowered it! Naw, if ArbCom left nothing would step in to fill its place.

Giano for ArbCom is looking better every day.

And Kurt Weber.

I would drink to that.

Giano for ArbCom is looking better every day.

And Kurt Weber.

I would drink to that.

Kurt is the only one apart from Greg that I voted for in the board elections. He at least has a sense of humour/has wiki in perspective.

The arbcom should have Kurt and TFA on it at least (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I would've said 'Private Musings' too, but he's slightly gone to the dark side.

what exactly is "the dark side"

what exactly is "the dark side"

Presently defined by opposition to Everyking's RFA, it is. Not primarily interested in writing encyclopedia, these people are. No memory, they have. Vindictive weenies and suckups, they are.

Arbcom should have Kurt and TFA on it at least (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I would've said 'Private Musings' too, but he's slightly gone to the dark side.

ME on Arbcom???

I'm sure that would be a huge hit!

I'd shake 'em up, all right!

Arbcom should have Kurt and TFA on it at least (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I would've said 'Private Musings' too, but he's slightly gone to the dark side.

ME on Arbcom???

I'm sure that would be a huge hit!

I'd shake 'em up, all right!

Of course, should you get the necessary votes, Jimbo would never even consider using his veto... (the same might be true of Giano, too)

what exactly is "the dark side"

Presently defined by opposition to Everyking's RFA, it is. Not primarily interested in writing encyclopedia, these people are. No memory, they have. Vindictive weenies and suckups, they are.

May the POV forks be with you.

Brad, my boy, you've let me down with the "Group Hug" proposal.

What's the over/under going to be on this whole mess ending back at arbcom? 60 days?

Hopefully it will satisfy SOMEONE, even if not everyone. I think people are undervaluing the effect that these particular findings (and they will change in some respects in the final version) might have in affecting the future behavior of the parties in question; and if changed behavior does not follow, I am deadly serious in stating that further sanctions would quickly result. The decision I post will be my considered view of the best available disposition of this case at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I expect that you will satisfy SV, FM, JzG and their supporters. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh BURN.

Incidentally, jpgordon voted, with quite a few abstentions (I don't know why).

Shocking but true — I don't yet see any mention of that rootkit that MI5 slipped onto Slim's Macintosh by using an asset from Cambridge who knew her (Patrick, no doubt).

This whole ArbCom thing about "evidence" is quite bizarre when you start out with the assumption that real-world identities, activities, and history are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Why not just build up a complete fantasy instead of pretending to look at evidence? Oh wait, what am I saying? That happens all the time!

ArbCom in Wonderland.

Oh BURN.

Huh?

If there are two sides to this story, then NYB has been told off by both sides.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

James F. has chimed in as well. He's with Brad on the all-important "minor edits exist" controversy, but he opposed the other two on two findings. James F. could not support the "subjective" statements in these:

2)(A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. Over a period of years, he has made outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia, as measured both by volume and quality. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.

6) (A) Viridae (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has contributed both in mainspace, where he has created several articles, and as an administrator, which he has been since November 2006.

On the other hand, Jame F. had no problem endorsing the following statements in full:

3)A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia...

4) (A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other valuable contributions, for more than two years he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources...

5) (A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. She has made strong content contributions including tens of thousands of edits spanning a range of subject-matters, including important contributions to several featured articles. She has also contributed greatly to the development of several major Wikipedia policies, including the policy on biographies of living persons...

James F's message to Cla68 and Viridae: you are not valued contributors to Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235252500

Jim62sch thinks he can post on the Proposed decision page and remains unapologetic about it on his talk page.

Regardless of what happens in the future, it's clear that there are a few arbs who would resist applying any sanctions to SV and the others, and at least one or two who would resist vehemently. If the ArbCom couldn't get past that resistance this time, I have little faith that it will do so in the future, except perhaps if the composition of the ArbCom improves in January. With all due respect to Brad, he went about this quite wrong. He should have presented proposals of varying severity, which would have ranged from stern warnings to desysoppings and strict civility restrictions. Then we all could have seen unambiguously who wanted to solve this problem and who wanted to give these problem admins a pass, and the community could hold the latter group responsible if the ruling was inadequate.

With all due respect to Brad, he went about this quite wrong. He should have presented proposals of varying severity, which would have ranged from stern warnings to desysoppings and strict civility restrictions. Then we all could have seen unambiguously who wanted to solve this problem and who wanted to give these problem admins a pass, and the community could hold the latter group responsible if the ruling was inadequate.

Fred used to do this. It tended to pull the disagreement out into the open where it could be aired and occasionally resolved. Brad's approach here seeks to bury the disagreement under a group hug, which calms ruffled feathers but does nothing to resolve the dispute.

It would seem like that should be the policy in all cases. The whole pre-canned proposed decision seems stupid. The goal isn't to make friends and hugs, it's to end things for the betterment of the project--not the betterment of the Arbcom or the parties.

James F. has chimed in as well. He's with Brad on the all-important "minor edits exist" controversy, but he opposed the other two on two findings. James F. could not support the "subjective" statements in these:

2)(A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. Over a period of years, he has made outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia, as measured both by volume and quality. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.

6) (A) Viridae (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has contributed both in mainspace, where he has created several articles, and as an administrator, which he has been since November 2006.

On the other hand, Jame F. had no problem endorsing the following statements in full:

3)A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia...

4) (A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other valuable contributions, for more than two years he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources...

5) (A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. She has made strong content contributions including tens of thousands of edits spanning a range of subject-matters, including important contributions to several featured articles. She has also contributed greatly to the development of several major Wikipedia policies, including the policy on biographies of living persons...

James F's message to Cla68 and Viridae: you are not valued contributors to Wikipedia.

This is the Wikipedia Gold Double Standard.

James F. has chimed in as well. He's with Brad on the all-important "minor edits exist" controversy, but he opposed the other two on two findings. James F. could not support the "subjective" statements in these:

2)(A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. Over a period of years, he has made outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia, as measured both by volume and quality. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.

6) (A) Viridae (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has contributed both in mainspace, where he has created several articles, and as an administrator, which he has been since November 2006.

On the other hand, Jame F. had no problem endorsing the following statements in full:

3)A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia...

4) (A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other valuable contributions, for more than two years he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources...

5) (A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. She has made strong content contributions including tens of thousands of edits spanning a range of subject-matters, including important contributions to several featured articles. She has also contributed greatly to the development of several major Wikipedia policies, including the policy on biographies of living persons...

James F's message to Cla68 and Viridae: you are not valued contributors to Wikipedia.

This is the Wikipedia Gold Double Standard.

Flagrant game play like this is why James F is not suited to be an arbiter, and this is a question that multiple people will ask him in the elections should he choose to run again foolishly.

"Why could you not support the 'subjective' for these two editors, but you could for these other two?"

I've asked James.

Hi James, on the proposed findings, you wrote that you cannot support the subjective findings that Cla and Viridae are valuable contributors. However, you were able to support the same subjective language for the other parties. Is your concern with using subjective analysis at all, or is your concern that the specific parties are not valuable contributors to Wikipedia? The disparity is confusing and seems unexplained. rootology ©(T) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Rootology:

At the very least it's some black marks in the ID permant record...meh. I'd hope for some more teeth, but that'd be a bit foolish.


And I'll be doing the exact same thing whenever the Lar/SV case closes (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

I've asked James.

Thanks, Root. I enjoyed Duk's reply. James F's last 500 mainspace edits have occurred since June 2006, and most of them appear to be automatically-assisted recategorizations! I disagree with everyking that Arbs must have >50% of mainspace editing, but that's such a low absolute figure (<20 per month) that he could not possibly be in touch with the realities on the ground. Editing has continued to evolve over these last two years.

No wonder Cla68's mainspace work is worthless to James F.

What in the world made Jehochman withdraw his SV desysopping proposal on the grounds that SV was the victim of severe harassment and deserves special consideration? I didn't think Slim had any more Victim of Harassment cards left in her hand to play.

----------------
Now playing: Laura Branigan - Living a Lie
via FoxyTunes

What in the world made Jehochman withdraw his SV desysopping proposal on the grounds that SV was the victim of severe harassment and deserves special consideration? I didn't think Slim had any more Victim of Harassment cards left in her hand to play.

----------------
Now playing: Laura Branigan - Living a Lie
via FoxyTunes

Admonishment after admonishment after admonishment...

What in the world made Jehochman withdraw his SV desysopping proposal on the grounds that SV was the victim of severe harassment and deserves special consideration? I didn't think Slim had any more Victim of Harassment cards left in her hand to play.

She doesn't. In this Croisures à la Victime (les Bal des Victimes) She's down to having other people play them for her. The Les Misérables card in her Mille Bournes deck makes her Increvable. She can't be stopped. Only a greater victim with more victim points could do it, sort of like with Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Still not easy.

But I want to see her do the Madame du Barry scene again by herself, just once more, for old times' sake.

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

Haha - won't argue with that from my perspective - it might be arguably correct. But Cla? One of most prolific article writers with a truckload of FAs to his name? Compared to FM who should have been desysopped a long time ago judging by the evidence on the evidence page? Do you thinkhe has even seen he evidence page?

I'm with you there. One could argue that JzG's assholery is merely cute English fun, and can state that SV couldn't have abused her tools since she rarely uses them, but the evidence against FM should be enough to get him desysoped and banned. If FM crawls out of this and back to his old behavior, I intend to hold NYB to his word.

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

The blindingly obvious thing here (that apparently needs to be explained to James F.) is that the project needs people like Cla68; editors like him are its heart and soul. The administrator, bureaucratic and arbitrator class exist, in my opinion, to serve people like him. James on the other hand is not really needed. In fact he is doing great harm to the project with votes like that mentioned above. Wikipedia would be better off without him; in fact, I honestly believe Greg Kohs is doing Wikipedia more good than him. I'm sure James is going to have a wonderful career as a magnificently mediocre mid-level civil servant; perhaps he should start focusing his energies in that direction.

James F. just lost my vote for whatever he might want me to vote for in the future. How can you say some contributors are valued and others are not? Obviously Brad intended that all contributors are valued, but some contributors also behave in problematic ways, and those behaviors need to be improved. If Brad thought for a moment that his wording would be used as a litmus test to say some contributors are valued and others are not, I don't think Brad would have written it in that language. These should have been the least controversial proposed findings of facts in the whole case.

I'm at a loss for words on James F.'s thought process.

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

This is a wonderful quote because it makes his viewpoint on this case so clear.

I'm at a loss for words on James F.'s thought process.

If he couldn't vote across the board for all five to be "valued contributers," the smart thing to do would be to abstain on all five, sticking to his "subjective" rationale. By picking and choosing, on the other hand, he just about destroys NYB's attempt to kumba-ya this mess to the next arbcom. Good grief, even real-life judges and arbitrators don't try to be this transparent about their animosity towards one party or another.

This post has been edited by DevilYouKnow:

I'm at a loss for words on James F.'s thought process.

Huh? Thought process? What thought process?? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

This is a wonderful quote because it makes his viewpoint on this case so clear.

If he was planning on running in December 08 again, this just cost him the election, I'd wager.

James F. clarified. Cla68 and Viridae are valued, in the same sense that vandals are valued. Thanks, James!

This is a wonderful quote because it makes his viewpoint on this case so clear.

If he was planning on running in December 08 again, this just cost him the election, I'd wager.

Who would have voted for him anyway? This is a guy who once told me it was "terrifying" that I had not been "enculturated" by Wikipedia after several years on the site, while expressing confidence that I would be "enculturated" at some point in the future. Apparently, James F. doesn't believe that writing content and participating in processes has much, if anything, to do with the Wikipedia culture; I guess it's more about IRC, kowtowing to the ArbCom and/or Jimbo, or something like that. No surprise to me, then, that he feels a hard-working content contributor is about as valuable as a vandal. What I find terrifying is that someone with such warped priorities can hold a position of power.

Sam Blacketer has now weighed in. He has declined to follow James F's example, agreeing with NYB and Jpgordon that all five are valued. He does add, interestingly, that SlimVirgin is an "over-scrutinised editor," so how she marks her edits doesn't matter. He also agrees with NYB and James F. that minor edits exist, but they're used differently by different editors.

Looks like this might be over soon. Four months to conclude that we're all OK, and that minor edits might exist. Hallelujah!

I hope NYB's serious about revisiting this if there are future issues. It would be good to revisit this in a case with a sane number of issues, so that Arbs might actually look at the evidence. This was ill-conceived from day one. It might also be good to revisit this after the next election cycle.


James F.
It seems that in the elections 32 months ago, Jimbo appointed the top eight by percentage of support, then he created three new seats for those running for re-election. James F (#9), Jayjg (#15), and Fred Bauder (#12). I like to look these up because Everyking seem to have the dubious distinction of supporting seemingly every bad admin, but he did oppose James. He was second against him, in fact. Love Lar's analysis on the candidates back then. "Everyking is right about the inisidious effect of IRC as a backchannel/elitist vehicle."

This post has been edited by One:

Sam Blacketer has now weighed in. He has declined to follow James F's example, agreeing with NYB and Jpgordon that all five are valued. He does add, interestingly, that SlimVirgin is an "over-scrutinised editor," so how she marks her edits doesn't matter. He also agrees with NYB and James F. that minor edits exist, but they're used differently by different editors.

Looks like this might be over soon. Four months to conclude that we're all OK, and that minor edits might exist. Hallelujah!

I hope NYB's serious about revisiting this if there are future issues. It would be good to revisit this in a case with a sane number of issues, so that Arbs might actually look at the evidence. This was ill-conceived from day one. It might also be good to revisit this after the next election cycle.


James F.
It seems that in the elections 32 months ago, Jimbo appointed the top eight by percentage of support, then he created three new seats for those running for re-election. James F (#9), Jayjg (#15), and Fred Bauder (#12). I like to look these up because Everyking seem to have the dubious distinction of supporting seemingly every bad admin, but he did oppose James. He was second against him, in fact. Love Lar's analysis on the candidates back then. "Everyking is right about the inisidious effect of IRC as a backchannel/elitist vehicle."

Now, come on, my record's not that bad; I was also right at the top of the list of those opposing Jayjg and Fred, for example.

I know. I'm just joking with you. A lot of the worst didn't show their colors until after getting the bit. If I were as prolific as you, I would have supported more stinkers myself.

James F.
It seems that in the elections 32 months ago, Jimbo appointed the top eight by percentage of support, then he created three new seats for those running for re-election. James F (#9), Jayjg (#15), and Fred Bauder (#12). I like to look these up because Everyking seem to have the dubious distinction of supporting seemingly every bad admin, but he did oppose James. He was second against him, in fact. Love Lar's analysis on the candidates back then. "Everyking is right about the inisidious effect of IRC as a backchannel/elitist vehicle."

...thats all sort of prophetic, isn't it?

Interestingly, I finally finished reading the bulk (but not the million diffs) of the Evidence page this weekend.

I have a feeling that--and not taking sides here, since I'm friends to semi-friends with people on both sides of this all--but if anyone of the five people in the Omnibus case pull any shit after this like is detailed in the case's evidence, I think that they're seriously fucking themselves and will find themselves on a high-speed case from the Arbs with no recusals, no matter how much the sycophantic handful of arbs try to oppose it and protect them.

I'm beginning to suspect the merger/omnibusing was an utterly political move by their protecters to protect their favored person of the five and their egos/pride and to give them the best chance of a (to the public) discrete final warning, if things worked out right. And, it seems like it did.

I'm thinking the five will wisely shut up for the time being as far as their "foes" are concerned, if they know whats good for them. If they don't, and it begins to all bubble around again from the various angles involved, they better hope the next case doesn't get submitted after January 1st, 2009, when five of the current Arbitrators are gone and powerless to stop acceptance/rejection.

The political maneuvering of the next few months will be curious. If each of the five "stays good" by current accepted popular community norms (not the Comedy Show arbcom norms), there is zero chance of them seeing a single sanction of any sort in 2008. If they are perceived to act out in any way post-2008, in a prolonged fashion like they did that led up to this case, they're in a world of trouble.

The next time these cases come up they won't be an Omnibus. If they know whats good for them, they'll do everything they can to avoid to this. The existing evidence sections will be an AC death sentence.

I have a feeling that--and not taking sides here, since I'm friends to semi-friends with people on both sides of this all--but if anyone of the five people in the Omnibus case pull any shit after this like is detailed in the case's evidence, I think that they're seriously fucking themselves and will find themselves on a high-speed case from the Arbs with no recusals, no matter how much the sycophantic handful of arbs try to oppose it and protect them.

I think you're right and that's the reason that I'm generally satisified with how the case is going. I'll say more once it's closed.

Sam Blacketer has now weighed in. He has declined to follow James F's example, agreeing with NYB and Jpgordon that all five are valued. He does add, interestingly, that SlimVirgin is an "over-scrutinised editor," so how she marks her edits doesn't matter.

I think that if she is dishonest about the content her edits (and edit summaries matter far more for that IMO than the minor edit button), it should not matter whether or not she is effective in deceiving anyone.

Sam Blacketer has now weighed in. He has declined to follow James F's example, agreeing with NYB and Jpgordon that all five are valued. He does add, interestingly, that SlimVirgin is an "over-scrutinised editor," so how she marks her edits doesn't matter.

I think that if she is dishonest about the content her edits (and edit summaries matter far more for that IMO than the minor edit button), it should not matter whether or not she is effective in deceiving anyone.

Yeah, I think it's weird that the case moved in that direction. There's not a ton of evidence on it, and even SV's harshest foes aren't up in arms over her use of the "minor" checkmark. It probably only came up because of James F's comment that minor edits shouldn't even exist. I wonder how many of the four months was spent debating this contentious issue. Proof again that the Arbs matter more than the evidence.

Anyhow, I'm with you and Cla68. If the Arbs actually keep their word about hearing further abuse, a discrete case would nail these editors.

Yeah, I think it's weird that the case moved in that direction. There's not a ton of evidence on it, and even SV's harshest foes aren't up in arms over her use of the "minor" checkmark. It probably only came up because of James F's comment that minor edits shouldn't even exist. I wonder how many of the four months was spent debating this contentious issue. Proof again that the Arbs matter more than the evidence.

James F has a point about minor edits - it's too subjective to do anything about editors who are perceived as overusing them. The rule is more or less that one is only supposed to mark an edit as minor when one thinks their edit is a noncontroversial tweak. Like fixing a typo. But beyond that, odds are that most editors disagree what's "minor" and what's not. Edit wars erupt all the time over the use of one adjective.

Slim may mark things as minor because, in her mind, her edits are uncontroversial -- after all, she thinks she's 100% right, as she's the expert on animal rights, Israel, and other topics she WP:OWNS. Pushing her POV isn't that big a deal ... to her. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by DevilYouKnow:

this just in....

cla68 is stil in the right
slimvirgin will still do anything wikilegal to get her way
jzg is still an unhinged nutjob
fm is still a abusive-sockpuppetmaster-coldbusted

carry on, as you were.

The last time I was in a group hug, I woke up next day with a terrible rash.

That's funny — the last time I had a terrible rash, I woke up the next day in a group hug.

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

I now have to agree with Cla68. It's a win for Wikipedia.

A slow, toothless win that basically amounts to a warning, but still a win.

Looking at the sections on the editors, it's quite clear that the Arbs are displeased with FM's repeated screwups. Five subheadings of negative findings; no other editor has so many. The committee notes that even with his low number of admin acts, he still manages to violate policies. My impression is that if he doesn't straighten up, he's going to lose his bit lickity split.

Meanwhile, they praise Cla68's work on Mantanmoreland, which I just noticed now. To repeat: ArbCom praised a user for exposing Mantanmoreland. I find that astonishing. The worst findings they lodge against him are the posts here, which he clarified upon notice that it could be interpreted as a threat, some "intemperate" headings in a draft RFC, and generic assumptions of bad faith.

Viridae fares even better. With Sam B's recent vote, the finding of incivility is failing at 1-2-1.

JzG's incivility findings, in contrast, are very clear: "© Over a period of more than one year, JzG persistently directed uncivil comments and personal attacks at other editors." ect. 4-0.

I'm going to have to take back some of what I said ArbCom. They read the evidence (or at least NYB did). Their remedies may be lax, but their understanding of the case is grounded in reality. That's something, I guess.

James explains again deep in this section:

I regret that my actions have been interpreted in the way they have (as attacks in any way on Cla68 or Viridae); it was not my intent.

When we were shaping the case, I had originally intended (and had highlighted my intent) to vote against all of the subjective comments. However, it became plain to me that it would have been hypocritical to fail to support what were essentially re-wordings of FoFs for which I had voted over the past four years. Thus I was left to make empty comments with which I did not particularly agree, and had to judge my varying level of discomfort as to whether I could go ahead; in two cases, I felt unable so to do.

Again, I apologise for how my point of view has been so coarsely, and inaccurately, conferred, but I fear that I cannot un-ring this bell. My remorse will have to suffice.
James F. (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So: He really did intend to oppose all subjective findings, but that would be hypocritical with his past support of SV/FM/JzG. But he has never supported Cla68/Viridae, so was free to vote his strong anti-subjective stance with them. Of course this begs the question about why it's less hypocritical to oppose subjective findings in two cases.

Anyhow, thanks for the explanation James! It's not any sort of attack, just a matter of discomfort. Some people prefer silk to satin, and you prefer FeloniousMonk to Cla68. I can understand that. You have to stick to your intellectual integrity. Otherwise you might do something terribly inconsistent like treat parties before you equally on their merits.

This post has been edited by One:

This is so disappointing. To see what little some have to do to get banned (and I'm not speaking about the_undertow, but the non-admin editors), compared to the massive amount of inappropriate editing others can get away with over a period of years is just disheartening.

James F's explanation makes no sense. If he can't vote fairly, recuse.

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

cla68 is stil in the right
slimvirgin will still do anything wikilegal to get her way
jzg is still an unhinged nutjob
fm is still a abusive-sockpuppetmaster-coldbusted

carry on, as you were.

That about nails it. And to add insult to injury, the denouement of the whole thing is being obscured by the ridiculous Poetlister re-do, and SlimVirgin has emerged from her self-imposed exile to bloviate self-righteously on that topic.

As predicted, Arbcom exists purely to ratify and support the status quo on Wikipedia, nothing more. What a bunch of gutless and clueless losers.

As predicted, Arbcom exists purely to ratify and support the status quo on Wikipedia, nothing more. What a bunch of gutless and clueless losers.

The only reason this case is taking so long is that they need to be certain they know what the status quo is. It wouldn't do to be mistaken about that.

SlimVirgin believes that, ultimately, all criticism of her in the ArbCom case can be traced back to the Poetlister sockmaster and dismissed accordingly.

See her predictable user subpage as well as my related comments in the Poetguy thread. This is vintage Slim.

Oh, Slim knows all about how women talk and think.

Check out her magisterial account of "Poetgate" here. This is classic stuff; we learn, among many other things, that:

* That Poet was clearly a man because women would never be interested in such crass topics as, um, Fucking machines
* SV equates herself to a "lynching" victim
* That Poetguy invented the "meme" that Slim is an abusive admin out of thin air and brought it here where the rest of you mindless drones promptly joined in on the persecution
* That Lar (who she claims hates her) and Cla68 and are taking up Poetguy's mantle whenever they criticize her

Apparently her own behavior didn't remotely factor into the current ArbCom case at all. It was all the doing of Mr. B_______ and his minions. I would ask Slim to marry me; like Poetlister herself, SV is smart, pretty and into the same websites I'm into, but I prefer women who are capable of a few micrograms of self-reflection.

Obviously they were stalling on this case and also on the SV-Lar case because they thought that the Poetgate would solve their problem.

Well, I don't see that happening. SV has been done wrong by Poetguy....but she's done a heck of a lot of wrong to other editors.

So, this action only yields more drama, certainly not a solution.

Anyone want to predict a quiet closing of the two cases while all the Poetpeople are distracting everyone? You would have thought JW would have learned to bury bad (or even just controversial) news by now...

This post has been edited by maiawatatos:

Anyone want to predict a quiet closing of the two cases while all the Poetpeople are distracting everyone? You would have thought JW would have learned to bury bad (or even just controversial) news by now...

Duh...it's not going to make a lot of noise when the case is closed because we already know what the result will be. Likewise for SlimVirgin-Lar, I think we all know ArbCom will say nothing bad happened and will decline to give much detail because of checkuser privacy issues. I'm not being prophetic or cynical, but at this stage of the game the result is predictable.

SlimVirgin believes that, ultimately, all criticism of her in the ArbCom case can be traced back to the Poetlister sockmaster and dismissed accordingly.

See her predictable user subpage as well as my related comments in the Poetguy thread. This is vintage Slim.

Oh, Slim knows all about how women talk and think.

Check out her magisterial account of "Poetgate" here. This is classic stuff; we learn, among many other things, that:

* That Poet was clearly a man because women would never be interested in such crass topics as, um, Fucking machines
* SV equates herself to a "lynching" victim
* That Poetguy invented the "meme" that Slim is an abusive admin out of thin air and brought it here where the rest of you mindless drones promptly joined in on the persecution
* That Lar (who she claims hates her) and Cla68 and are taking up Poetguy's mantle whenever they criticize her

Apparently her own behavior didn't remotely factor into the current ArbCom case at all. It was all the doing of Mr. B_______ and his minions. I would ask Slim to marry me; like Poetlister herself, SV is smart, pretty and into the same websites I'm into, but I prefer women who are capable of a few micrograms of self-reflection.

SV still won't admit that there is anything to the evidence I've presented in the case. That's worrying. If she corrects her behavior, then the case, no matter what the remedies passed by the arbs end up being, was successful as least as far as she's concerned. I get the impression that she considers the case to be some kind of personal duel, and therefore can't admit to any of the evidence against her no matter what. Again, that's not a show stopper as long as she changes her behavior. If she doesn't, NYB has made it fairly clear that as long as he's an arb he'll do his best to make sure some real sanctions get dropped the next time. I believe him.

[snip]
I believe him.

Someone like you is born every minute.

I get the impression that she considers the case to be some kind of personal duel, and therefore can't admit to any of the evidence against her no matter what.

I'm certain that this is a correct assessment. But at the same time, SV has a standard arsenal of tactics: she never responds to any evidence of misconduct on her part, and will dependably change the subject to whatever straw man is handy, in this case, the Fake Poets Society. Or, she may demand an investigation into your hidden motives for presenting the damning evidence.

SlimVirgin is like the Republican party, only negative campaigning. In other words, she just attacks the other party, never ever looks at her self, or says what she can do better, because the queen is of course perfect!

Sounds more like the Democrat party to me.

Sounds more like the Democrat party to me.

Democrats are the real republicans

I don't believe my eyes.....

I don't believe my eyes.....

The group hug has teeth? Color me surprised.

I don't believe my eyes.....

The group hug has teeth? Color me surprised.

Well, I guess a third isn't so bad.

1 away from passing. Wow.

Well I'll be!

1 away from passing. Wow.

What's up with Blnguyen/Yellow Monkey? No one's a better article contributor, and he has commendably little interest in wiki drama, but what the hell is he doing on the ArbCom?

It's no real surprise that SV gets away scotfree with everything as usual. Sure, they cut off a meatpuppet, but it still has plenty of tendrils.

1 away from passing. Wow.

What's up with Blnguyen/Yellow Monkey? No one's a better article contributor, and he has commendably little interest in wiki drama, but what the hell is he doing on the ArbCom?

Paul August was also not interested in wikidrama. He wasn't an outstanding article writer, but he's very good, and he keeps a cool head in tough situations. He just got tired of the daily grind of ArbCom after almost two years.

Someone argued that people least interested in wikidrama make good arbitrators. I'm not sure, but there's some truth there. Blnguyen hasn't made any colossal bad moves that I can remember.

I'm pleased to see the arbitrators voting to desysop FM. With the community in agreement almost unanimously, it's good that they're putting up for a yea or nay, and so far it's 4-0 yea. This is nothing personal with FM, whom I've had no interaction with, but more a comment on process.

It's no real surprise that SV gets away scotfree with everything as usual. Sure, they cut off a meatpuppet, but it still has plenty of tendrils.

Give it time. People know how she works now cause of the case, so she has very little room for error.

It's no real surprise that SV gets away scotfree with everything as usual. Sure, they cut off a meatpuppet, but it still has plenty of tendrils.

Give it time. People know how she works now cause of the case, so she has very little room for error.

Though some are trying to put the spin that the anti-SV evidence is all ultimately part of a BADMEME promoted by the PoetGuy sockfarm, and needs to be disregarded.

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - Give Me All Night
via FoxyTunes

What's up with Blnguyen/Yellow Monkey? No one's a better article contributor, and he has commendably little interest in wiki drama, but what the hell is he doing on the ArbCom?

... Blnguyen hasn't made any colossal bad moves that I can remember ...

Blnguyen is a first rate editor and arbitrator. I've only seen him do something stupid once.

Interesting that once this proposal was made, it quickly gained three more votes. It's also interesting that thebainer moved first--an Arb who doesn't get an excessive amount of love around here. I also applaud him for opposing subjective findings for all users, not just those he dislikes. His explanation is perfect: bainer emphasizes that no one's getting off (Brad's vision of the line in the sand stands for the others), but FM is well over it. I also love the contrast between Cla68 and FM, which is probably the starkest in the case.

Moral of the story: be bold, arbitrators!

It's the correct call, incidentally. The evidence against FM is the deepest of the lot. It could be argued that JzG and SV haven't really abused their tools, but no one could sanely say that about FM.

If any arbitrators are still around: please look at the evidence against FM. If that's not abuse (and abuse after ArbCom warnings, no less), then abuse does not exist.

This post has been edited by One:

Now just SV and we actually can move on writing encyclopaedia again

The evidence against FM is the deepest of the lot. It could be argued that JzG and SV haven't really abused their tools, but no one could sanely say that about FM.

Let's not forget that the most damning evidence against Felonious Monk is not found in this case, but in a prior case, in which it was inexplicably and incompetently ignored, and in the pages of the Review:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=113067

User:Odd nature is, to all appearances, an abusive sockpuppet of Felonious Monk, and must be blocked.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I mentioned that to FT2.

B believed that the committee was pointedly ignoring that evidence, so chose not to resubmit it. I wish Durova sunk her teeth into it like Mantanmoreland.

Don't worry, I can assure you that Odd nature's next abusive sock edit will be his last.

If OddNature goes up for adminship, I hope someone brings up the sock evidence.

Blnguyen hasn't made any colossal bad moves that I can remember.

It's hard to fuck up when you don't show up for work.

What's up with Blnguyen/Yellow Monkey? No one's a better article contributor, and he has commendably little interest in wiki drama, but what the hell is he doing on the ArbCom?

... Blnguyen hasn't made any colossal bad moves that I can remember ...

Blnguyen is a first rate editor and arbitrator. I've only seen him do something stupid once.

I believe Blnguyen sometimes votes at the last minute before ArbCom cases close.

I thought this case was basically wrapped up, so this proposal about FM comes as a pleasant surprise. I feel that congratulating the arbitrators on this move would be sort of like congratulating them on being able to feed themselves and tie their own shoes, though.

This post has been edited by everyking:

What's up with Blnguyen/Yellow Monkey? No one's a better article contributor, and he has commendably little interest in wiki drama, but what the hell is he doing on the ArbCom?

... Blnguyen hasn't made any colossal bad moves that I can remember ...

Blnguyen is a first rate editor and arbitrator. I've only seen him do something stupid once.

Renamed to YellowMonkey, for the record.

He's a good guy. Very uninterested in drama and infighting. He's written a bucketload of FAs about cricket and Vietnamese history (more important than four months of non-arbitration? I'll say).

I think his comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ris...rats_and_thanks sums it up as well as I could.

User:Odd nature is, to all appearances, an abusive sockpuppet of Felonious Monk, and must be blocked.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Odd nature, aka Centaur of Attention, aka Blogger Skip, aka Jaime F. now appears to be a co-worker of Paul Mitchell at Macy's San Francisco IT Center. My theory is that Paul Mitchell hired Jaime F. at Wells Fargo, and the two of them went on to Macys. The evidence is found in the Apache logs, which shows two distinctly different computers, and the letter to the editors that Jaime F. sent to the HardNewsCafe at Utah State University.

James F (!) supported the desysop proposal, meaning it passes unless somebody else opposes. I would really love to find out what has been going on in private with this case.

This post has been edited by maggot3:

James F (!) supported the desysop proposal, meaning it passes unless somebody else opposes. I would really love to find out what has been going on in private with this case.

I honestly don't want to know. I've spent enough time reading the public comments on the case talk pages, and if the email archives were opened, I couldn't help but blow another 5 to 10 hours reading them. No thanks.

James F (!) supported the desysop proposal, meaning it passes unless somebody else opposes. I would really love to find out what has been going on in private with this case.

In past private discussions, James had agreed with my identification of FM as an abusive admin. In general, it is not hard to convince James that someone ought not continue to be an admin; he is something of a hanging judge wannabee.

That's ironic. James F. abstains on the Cla68/Viridae "did good work" proposals, and then goes and does that. Even if someone opposes, as it stands it passes.

In past private discussions, James had agreed with my identification of FM as an abusive admin. In general, it is not hard to convince James that someone ought not continue to be an admin; he is something of a hanging judge wannabee.

Are you sure he's just not extremely malleable by social pressure (as opposed to a 'hanging judge')?

I honestly don't want to know. I've spent enough time reading the public comments on the case talk pages, and if the email archives were opened, I couldn't help but blow another 5 to 10 hours reading them. No thanks.

Stop me before I read drama again!

----------------
Now playing: Kelly Clarkson - Don't Waste Your Time
via FoxyTunes

Are you sure he's just not extremely malleable by social pressure (as opposed to a 'hanging judge')?

I don't think James really cares much about social pressure. However, he is aware that he can't exercise power too very much in ways that will annoy the masses, so he tends to refrain from public displays of power, instead manipulating things behind the scenes. Definitely takes after Jimbo.

If none of the votes there change and even if the remaining two arbs (brad and someone else - not sure who) vote against it, this passes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Monk_desysopped

So speculation time - what took so long to post something like that when it is an almost unanimous decision?

Viridae, the voting in for the proposed decision is not like the votes to accept a case. It's based on pure majority, not a net vote. Either way, since there are two arbs that will not vote on the case regardless (flonight and kirill), the motion passes since the most possible number of active arbs there can be is 13, for a highest possible majority needed to pass of 7. With Jpgordan and yellowmonkey supporting now, opposing will not necessarily stop the proposal.

If none of the votes there change and even if the remaining two arbs (brad and someone else - not sure who) vote against it, this passes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Monk_desysopped

So speculation time - what took so long to post something like that when it is an almost unanimous decision?

Good question. I would have liked to see the arbitrators post proposals to desysop FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin. They could vote oppose, unanimously even, but at least they would vote because the proposals have significant support on the Workshop.

Apparently the arbitrators want to show a unified front. They will do almost anything to avoid the appearance that one arbitrator disagrees with another arbitrator on a significant proposal. I'm aware that arbitrators disagree publicly about many things, for example whether to continue the sanctions on Giano, but this time they must have said "Let's agree on everything before we say anything."

Apparently the arbitrators want to show a unified front. They will do almost anything to avoid the appearance that one arbitrator disagrees with another arbitrator on a significant proposal. I'm aware that arbitrators disagree publicly about many things, for example whether to continue the sanctions on Giano, but this time they must have said "Let's agree on everything before we say anything."

This is not new.

If none of the votes there change and even if the remaining two arbs (brad and someone else - not sure who) vote against it, this passes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Monk_desysopped

So speculation time - what took so long to post something like that when it is an almost unanimous decision?

FT2 is also missing, which I find interesting. Perhaps the two on WR are the least likely to do something perceived as a WR-endorsed act. FT2 hasn't even touched this proposed decision.

Judging by Thebainer's comment, NYB had a vision of the case as the ultimate line-in-the-sand warning. Perhaps nobody wanted to offend that vision.

This post has been edited by One:

this time they must have said "Let's agree on everything before we say anything."

This time? This has been the standard operating policy for quite some time. And to be fair, by keeping their divisions unclear, they make it somewhat harder for people to try to leverage them further apart by working those divisions. It also makes it easier for them to get reelected.

It also makes it easier for them to get reelected.

Has anyone ever actually been reelected?

It also makes it easier for them to get reelected.

Has anyone ever actually been reelected?

People have got back onto Arbcom after standing for re-election; this is not quite the same.

It also makes it easier for them to get reelected.

Has anyone ever actually been reelected?

I don't think so. Someone did a proper history of ArbCom appointments here on WR a month or two ago. James F. was reappointed by Jimbo but technically did not "win" reelection. It should be noted that most arbitrators do not seek reelection, and some resign before their terms are up. I honestly think reelection plays a minimal role, if any, in the mind of almost all arbitrators. FT2 can't be thinking about what might happen at a hypothetical reelection 2 years from now, and even if so, chances are he'll hang up the uniform like almost everyone else does when the time comes.

Maybe the terms need to be shorter

I thought Raul was reelected after his initial six-month term.

And, yes, the terms need to be shorter. Why would they want to be reelected anyway? Most Arbs can't stay active for much longer than a year at a time.

Maybe the terms need to be shorter

I concur. 1.5-2 years seems about right. Everyking says 1 year is enough, and he might be right.

I thought Raul was reelected after his initial six-month term.

And, yes, the terms need to be shorter. Why would they want to be reelected anyway? Most Arbs can't stay active for much longer than a year at a time.

Raul was the only one, Rebecca did end up being re-elected after appointment, UninvitedCo also won an election after being appointed.

History here

I thought Raul was reelected after his initial six-month term.

And, yes, the terms need to be shorter. Why would they want to be reelected anyway? Most Arbs can't stay active for much longer than a year at a time.

Raul was the only one, Rebecca did end up being re-elected after appointment, UninvitedCo also won an election after being appointed.

History here

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.

For what it's worth, nobody has been elected to a full three-year term after serving a full three-year term. Raul654 is the only one who has tried.

I've only followed about five other ArbCom cases as closely as I've followed this one. Of all the cases I can remember, I think this one has the best resolution.

It looks like it's resolved, anyway. Everything is passing. NYB's "line in the sand" approach has been roundly endorsed, with an explanation point in the form of FM's desysop. The remedies, if not as strong as some would want, are made with an apparent awareness of the evidence. In addition to NYB's perceptive outline, Thebainer and FayssiF have made some sharp observations, and a strong majority finds that Viridae's behavior was fully within acceptable limits.

The case looks done, and done well, so why hasn't anyone moved to close?

Is it just the slight revision on Cla68 (E)? Some Arbitrators have suggested omitting the words, "The Committee has no evidence that Cla68 has made any further comments of this nature in the ensuing months."

Is Newyorkbrad hoping to get FT2's participation, so that much of the case would be unanimous? FT2's apparently been busy with PoetHorde (or as Docknell and Peter Damian might say, FT2's busily engaged in Wikipedia's police state, or something). But I wonder if NYB wants unanimity to send a message that nobody should test the patience of ArbCom.

Or maybe NYB is continuing to weigh FM's desysop. He's edited the page since Thebainer proposed it, but has not weighed in.

Or perhaps one of the Arbs has something else up their sleeve.

Any ideas?

I am ammused by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Monk_desysopped where once again, MONGO (and DHeyward) shows how incredibly blind he can be to that which is starring him in the face. See also the Matanmoreland case. MONGO hates WR so much that his brain appears to explode at the mention of it.

This post has been edited by Viridae:

I am ammused by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Monk_desysopped where once again, MONGO (and DHeyward) shows how incredibly blind he can be to that which is starring him in the face. See also the Matanmoreland case. MONGO hates WR so much that his brain appears to at the mention of it.

His brain appears to disappear?

My favorite comment was this wan note:

Support 1.1 after today's wholly inappropriate block. Also, since it seems to matter these days, I am neither a current nor former member of Wikipedia Review. ATren (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But ATren, we have milk and cookies! Well, eye-candy anyway, sometimes.

MR

Fixed, thanks.

1 vote from finished at long last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Motion_to_close

And 5 votes to close.

FM is editing very infrequently. Think he will quit entirely?

And 5 votes to close.

FM is editing very infrequently. Think he will quit entirely?

Likely go edit with a sock. He still has allies with the Anti-ID Cabal. He'll just have to edit silently and slowly return to the ranks.

1 vote from finished at long last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Motion_to_close

Felonius Monk to be desysopped (2 cheers). Nothing much, for anybody else except "admonishment". Guy/JzG is just under stress. Slimmy has been subject to harassment in the past, so nothing she does is ever bad. Surprise. Sometimes, it may create the mere perception of badness, but even that's debatable.

(D) From time to time, SlimVirgin has edited certain articles or policies in a fashion that has created at least a perception that she seeks to exercise excessive control over their contents, and has edited in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.

Support:
Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The crux of the matter. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So there you are. Seven out of eight dentists who've examined SlimVirgin's teeth say that there's only a perception of a bite. The eighth can't even see why there would be a perception of it.

This is probaby the most massively documented evidence of Wikipedia admin article ownership and tagteam editwarring in the history of the site. At least two RfA's were poisoned by it. But nothing is to be done about it. Cla68 is welcome to run again (good luck there). Slim, Jayjg and Jpgorgon (the Kabal core) are officially untouchable. And so long as he's under STRESS, so is Guy.

Now, back to editing, you slackers.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

1 vote from finished at long last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Motion_to_close

Felonius Monk to be desysopped (2 cheers). Nothing much, for anybody else except "admonishment". Guy/JzG is just under stress. Slimmy has been subject to harassment in the past, so nothing she does is ever bad. Surprise. Sometimes, it may create the mere perception of badness, but even that's debatable.

(D) From time to time, SlimVirgin has edited certain articles or policies in a fashion that has created at least a perception that she seeks to exercise excessive control over their contents, and has edited in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.

Support:
Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The crux of the matter. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So there you are. Seven out of eight dentists who've examined SlimVirgin's teeth say that there's only a perception of a bite. The eighth can't even see why there would be a perception of it.

This is probaby the most massively documented evidence of Wikipedia admin article ownership and tagteam editwarring in the history of the site. At least two RfA's were poisoned by it. But nothing is to be done about it. Cla68 is welcome to run again (good luck there). Slim, Jayjg and Jpgorgon (the Kabal core) are officially untouchable. And so long as he's under STRESS, so is Guy.

Now, back to editing, you slackers.

Proving collaberation like that is difficult.

Proving collaberation like that is difficult.

Yeah, well if it's so *&%$#ing difficult, why have Slim and Jay and Jp had absolutely no problem divining that others are doing it, and banning or threatening them for it? Methinks I smell ye double-standard.

Practically the entire ArbCom decission practically said outright "Okay admin X is an old soldier, so by now they have the unwarrented shooting of a few non-coms due them. Hell, that's why officers carry sidearms anyway; everybody knows that."

It also makes it easier for them to get reelected.

Has anyone ever actually been reelected?

It's not fair to confront an Arbcommie with the truth.

Proving collaberation like that is difficult.

Yeah, well if it's so *&%$#ing difficult, why have Slim and Jay and Jp had absolutely no problem divining that others are doing it, and banning or threatening them for it? Methinks I smell ye double-standard.

Practically the entire ArbCom decission practically said outright "Okay admin X is an old soldier, so by now they have the unwarrented shooting of a few non-coms due them. Hell, that's why officers carry sidearms anyway; everybody knows that."

Oh im not making excuses for people - the link is pretty clear there. Arbcom doesn't deal with slight unknowns in a consistent manner though.

Well, this decision is fairly significant if the ArbCom is willing and able to enforce it. The next time if SV attempts to intimidate someone on the talk page of an animal rights article by saying something like, "I don't think you know the subject and sources very well and you should stop following me around with your uninformed opinions", I expect it to be reported and for her, at least, to be threatened with a block by an ArbCom member.

One thing that's significant about this case is that, without it if someone called SV a liar it would justifiably by labeled as a personal attack. Now, if SV stretches the truth again someone can say, "SV, you have a history of lying" and include a link to my evidence section listing the instances where she has clearly lied, and it won't be a personal attack because it will include strong evidence reinforcing the accusation. I think one of the most ironic things about SV's participation in Wikipedia is her clearly stated interest in western philosophy, but at the same time her apparent inability to behave in an ethical manner.

Even if FM starts or continues editing quietly with a sock, at least he can't misuse his admin tools anymore to further the IDCab's ridiculously juvenile agenda. And, the next time and if JzG tells a newbie editor to "F-off" or fully protects the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article and then removes criticism that he personally disapproves of I expect him to be desysopped.

Time will tell.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

Well, this decision is fairly significant if the ArbCom is willing and able to enforce it. The next time if SV attempts to intimidate someone on the talk page of an animal rights article by saying something like, "I don't think you know the subject and sources very well and you should stop following me around with your uninformed opinions", I expect it to be reported and for her, at least, to be threatened with a block by an ArbCom member.

Even if FM starts or continues editing quietly with a sock, at least he can't misuse his admin tools anymore to further the IDCab's ridiculously juvenile agenda. And, the next time and if JzG tells a newbie editor to "F-off" or fully protects the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article and then removes criticism that he personally disapproves of I expect him to be desysopped.

Time will tell.

We can but hope.

Well, this decision is fairly significant if the ArbCom is willing and able to enforce it. The next time if SV attempts to intimidate someone on the talk page of an animal rights article by saying something like, "I don't think you know the subject and sources very well and you should stop following me around with your uninformed opinions", I expect it to be reported and for her, at least, to be threatened with a block by an ArbCom member.

One thing that's significant about this case is that, without it if someone called SV a liar it would justifiably by labeled as a personal attack. Now, if SV stretches the truth again someone can say, "SV, you have a history of lying" and include a link to my evidence section listing the instances where she has clearly lied, and it won't be a personal attack because it will include strong evidence reinforcing the accusation. I think one of the most ironic things about SV's participation in Wikipedia is her clearly stated interest in western philosophy, but at the same time her apparent inability to behave in an ethical manner.

Even if FM starts or continues editing quietly with a sock, at least he can't misuse his admin tools anymore to further the IDCab's ridiculously juvenile agenda. And, the next time and if JzG tells a newbie editor to "F-off" or fully protects the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article and then removes criticism that he personally disapproves of I expect him to be desysopped.

Time will tell.

Please run for Arbcom Cla

Well, this decision is fairly significant if the ArbCom is willing and able to enforce it. The next time if SV attempts to intimidate someone on the talk page of an animal rights article by saying something like, "I don't think you know the subject and sources very well and you should stop following me around with your uninformed opinions", I expect it to be reported and for her, at least, to be threatened with a block by an ArbCom member.

One thing that's significant about this case is that, without it if someone called SV a liar it would justifiably by labeled as a personal attack. Now, if SV stretches the truth again someone can say, "SV, you have a history of lying" and include a link to my evidence section listing the instances where she has clearly lied, and it won't be a personal attack because it will include strong evidence reinforcing the accusation. I think one of the most ironic things about SV's participation in Wikipedia is her clearly stated interest in western philosophy, but at the same time her apparent inability to behave in an ethical manner.

Even if FM starts or continues editing quietly with a sock, at least he can't misuse his admin tools anymore to further the IDCab's ridiculously juvenile agenda. And, the next time and if JzG tells a newbie editor to "F-off" or fully protects the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article and then removes criticism that he personally disapproves of I expect him to be desysopped.

Time will tell.

Please run for Arbcom Cla

If I ran for ArbCom and was elected I would have to recuse myself from any case involving the IDCab members or SV and the current or former members of her clique.

Please run for Arbcom Cla

If I ran for ArbCom and was elected I would have to recuse myself from any case involving the IDCab members or SV and the current or former members of her clique.

So? recuse yourself. You'd improve the ethics of the group regardless.

Re: time will tell

Linda Mack is a liar.
Chuck Ainsworth aint.

carry on....

Please run for Arbcom Cla

If I ran for ArbCom and was elected I would have to recuse myself from any case involving the IDCab members or SV and the current or former members of her clique.

So? recuse yourself. You'd improve the ethics of the group regardless.

As much as I'd like to see him on the ArbCom, if he wants to move in that direction he should pass RfA first. The case is over now, and I'm pretty confident he'd pass, perhaps resoundingly. I don't know if he's interested, but I've been hoping to see another Cla nomination for a long time.

I will enjoy seeing the hysterical opposers and the IDcab being shot down at Cla's RfA. The arb case has been pretty definitive.

I will enjoy seeing the hysterical opposers and the IDcab being shot down at Cla's RfA. The arb case has been pretty definitive.

It should happen soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...239486725#Admin

I suspect that this statement by NYB may be, at least in part, a response to my post last night in this thread about my take on the significance of the case decision. I believe that NYB makes a good point. Unless SV, JzG, or FM does something really wrong in the future, I'm going to try very hard not to comment any further, either here or on Wiki, about their past actions.

From reading all of this, plus Brad's general comment there at the end, my take is that the AC is going to be doing a lot more Final Warning type things in the future and then dropping big hammers, because I suspect they're frankly sick of a LOT of the bullshit in general and misbehavior from the "higher ranks", and the drama it spawns. I also have a feeling that as a lot of the protectors of the, er, traditional "higher ranks" are either leaving the AC or are going to have an uphill battle to get back in (barring Jimmy burning more political capital, and a lot at that), they're going to be more and more outnumbered.

All that drama wastes EVERYONE'S time. Just my participation in that stupid Palin wheel RFAR has caused me to edit like about 200, 300 times more than I usually do. I could have written a featured article in that time (maybe, or probably 2-4 GAs), and thats just me.

All of the ego tripping and pointless dramawhoring in general just makes everything such a time sink...

This is beginning to feel like the Arbitration Committee with balls that people were hoping for in January. Hopefully it lasts.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

I suspect that this statement by NYB may be, at least in part, a response to my post last night in this thread about my take on the significance of the case decision. I believe that NYB makes a good point. Unless SV, JzG, or FM does something really wrong in the future, I'm going to try very hard not to comment any further, either here or on Wiki, about their past actions.

Well, NYB makes a good point only if you buy into the misbegotten Wikipedia notion of "good faith", and reject such notions as "a preponderance of the evidence". NYB's instruction to "go forth and sin no more" is redolent of the very wiki-politics that got us into this mess to begin with, that is, allowing special privileges for those who are powerful, where lesser editors would have been banned long before -- without a five-month long pseudo-judicial process.

A behaviour seen in the past will now become even more evident with SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- acting through proxies. They will support various admins in various ways, converse with them off-wiki, and share around the burden of threatening and blocking those who oppose them. Slim, for example, has made only 1 indef block since Feb 2 of this year, and that to someone who wrote a nasty sexual epithet on her talk page. Jayjg continues to use his Checkuser status only when it suits him politically (you won't find him next to Alison in the trenches fighting Grawp) and when he can say "likely" without anyone asking him what that means.

So sure, its good news that FM is de-admined, and yes, drawing Slim's edting practices into a brighter light will do some good, especially when she bumps into established editors like Cla68, but it does nothing to end the admin-abuse side of things and the dictator-for-life nature of the admin role, both of which especially afflict new editors.

What is Jpgordon referring to here?

What is Jpgordon referring to here?

They won't give Cla68 his stolen bit, but I think somebody wants to bestow upon JzG and SimVirgin the wiki purple heart. ♥

What is Jpgordon referring to here?

Arbcom's final chance to really screw up this case.

Jayjg continues to use his Checkuser status only when it suits him politically (you won't find him next to Alison in the trenches fighting Grawp) and when he can say "likely" without anyone asking him what that means.

Speak of the devil. Jayjg just mass-banned all of Will Beback's opponents at the LaRouche articles, using his standard MO.

Subsequent edit: Oh, I see that you anticipated my comment. JzG and John Nevard are throwing a party.

Jayjg continues to use his Checkuser status only when it suits him politically (you won't find him next to Alison in the trenches fighting Grawp) and when he can say "likely" without anyone asking him what that means.

Speak of the devil. Jayjg just mass-banned all of Will Beback's opponents at the LaRouche articles, using his standard MO.

Subsequent edit: Oh, I see that you anticipated my comment. JzG and John Nevard are throwing a party.

One guesses that JzG's stress level will down nothing, in no time. Nothing like having the court toss out all charges on grounds of termporary insanity. And now you're cured.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Jpgordon (remember; the only arb.com member to find absolutely NOTHING wrong with Slimys behaviour), is now out gunning for Cla68 here:

"What's particularly important in what Brad has said is regarding the evidence in the case. It's common -- entirely too common -- for people to pile all sorts of things onto evidence pages in contentious cases like this. That ArbCom does not comment on a piece of evidence does not mean ArbCom in any way endorses the evidence, or the conclusions the submitter of the evidence wished us to arrive at. I strongly advise all parties to put every aspect of this behind them, and find something encyclopedic to work on. And let's not pretend we're in a vacuum here; behaving politely toward fellow editors on Wikipedia, and then trashing them on Wikipedia Review, does not constitute what any reasonable person would consider civil behavior. Look at it like this: sure, you can have your own expectations of civility in your own home, and the guy next door can have his own policies; but even if the guy next door is quite polite when he visits you, if he puts up signs at his own house saying what a creep you are, you're not going to feel very good about working alongside him in any venue. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]"

Josh, (yeah, after the Gustav von Humpelschmumpel block we know that you lurk out there. In the dark..): Have you read any of the evidence at all? Do you think behaviour, like the lies of SV and Jay which made KimvdLinde leave WP, do you really think that is acceptable? Are you that blind? Just asking.

If Jp includes off wiki mailing lists, then it's all good and gravy to me.

If Jp includes off wiki mailing lists, then it's all good and gravy to me.

JPGordon's comments, if directed at me, aren't really fair since they come after I committed not to discuss the parties in the case without good reason anymore. But, perhaps JP didn't see my post here before he added his remarks.

Jpgordon (remember; the only arb.com member to find absolutely NOTHING wrong with Slimys behaviour), is now out gunning for Cla68 here:

"And let's not pretend we're in a vacuum here; behaving politely toward fellow editors on Wikipedia, and then trashing them on Wikipedia Review, does not constitute what any reasonable person would consider civil behavior. Look at it like this: sure, you can have your own expectations of civility in your own home, and the guy next door can have his own policies; but even if the guy next door is quite polite when he visits you, if he puts up signs at his own house saying what a creep you are, you're not going to feel very good about working alongside him in any venue. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]"

Poor jpgordon has missed out on what is usually the essence of civility--- you don't say everything you think about somebody, to their face. And usually what we think of politicians publically is not what we think of them personally, as any politician can tell you. If I have a sign on my lawn that says "Down with idiot Mayor Fudgeberry!" I hope that my neighbor Mr. Fudgeberry understands politics. After all, he did make the decission to use his power and his name, in a public arena. There are consequences to this.

And even that is the wrong analogy for much of what happens here at WR. Quite often, abusive editors on WP are anonymous, unlike politicians. And so (often) are the people who criticize them, here on the dastardly Wikipedia Review. In the case where one pseudonym is criticizing another pseudonym, jpgordon's attitude is more like:

"How dare you! The nom-de-plume I think you use to write letters to the editor, has called the nom-de-plume I use for my public writing, a nutcase! And done so on a well-known website, somewhere else! Why sir, that's not only uncivil, it's nearly libel!"

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Right. Jpgordon, have you ever considered taking on a public persona like FatSlob, so that people can be free to criticize the actions of that persona of yours when it wields power on WP, without you feeling personally persecuted?

Oh, you would feel personally persecuted anyway? Well, then you DO have a problem.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Cla68 and Jayjg trade allegations on the talk page.

Cla68 claims to represent those afraid to speak out, who might feel freer after this case.

Jayjg also claims to represent those afraid to speak out, and their fears are well-founded, whereas Cla68's are not.


EDIT: Cla68 replies citing evidence of reprisals.

This post has been edited by One:

Cla68 and Jayjg trade allegations on the talk page.

Cla68 claims to represent those afraid to speak out, who might feel freer after this case.

Jayjg also claims to represent those afraid to speak out, and their fears are well-founded, whereas Cla68's are not.


EDIT: Cla68 replies citing evidence of reprisals.

There's clearly somebody here on WR that Jayjg, jpgordon and MONGO are plenty pissed off at, and think is still editing politely on WP without any disruption or trolling, so therefore they can't get their usual game-y grip on. And they just hate that. Because they want power, and they want to exert power everywhere in what they think they rule.

I wonder who the poor bastard might be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Ideas?

There's clearly somebody here on WR that Jayjg, jpgordon and MONGO are plenty pissed off at, and think is still editing politely on WP without any disruption or trolling, so therefore they can't get their usual game-y grip on. And they just hate that. Because they want power, and they want to exert power everywhere in what they think they rule.

I wonder who the poor bastard might be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Ideas?

Probably you.

There's clearly somebody here on WR that Jayjg, jpgordon and MONGO are plenty pissed off at, and think is still editing politely on WP without any disruption or trolling, so therefore they can't get their usual game-y grip on. And they just hate that. Because they want power, and they want to exert power everywhere in what they think they rule.

I wonder who the poor bastard might be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Ideas?

Probably you.

Ya think? My spider-sense is tingling, and eventually I may be asked to climb the Reichstag. Or else.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

One point that NYB and JP are making is that just because someone has a section in their evidence labled, for example, "So-and-so is a misanthrope", it doesn't mean that that editor is necessarily a misanthrope. As far as the arbs are concerned, the party in question is only a misanthrope if the arbs pass a specific finding that that is, indeed, the case. I understand why NYB and JP would want to make this clear.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

I love Jayjg. That cat is old school and unperturbed by the prevailing distaste for his once-powerful cadre.

While the SVs and Crums and FMs of the world keep have attempted, to some degree, to keep their heads down and their mouths shut, Jayjg still carries about his business like it's 2005. My hat is off to him.

The Fat Man--somewhat hyperbolically--wrote about a "cultural upheaval" on Wikipedia against the atmosphere of bullying and impunity cultivated by the likes of Jayjg. Even if there is a revolution in progress, he'll sleep right through it and feel none the worse when he awakens.

I came from a very religious family; at church they often enjoined us young people to be "Steadfast and Immovable." They would have loved my man Jay.

One thing that's significant about this case is that, without it if someone called SV a liar it would justifiably by labeled as a personal attack. Now, if SV stretches the truth again someone can say, "SV, you have a history of lying" and include a link to my evidence section listing the instances where she has clearly lied, and it won't be a personal attack because it will include strong evidence reinforcing the accusation.

Many of the links in your "lying" section may have been mere errors on Slim's part. A "lie" would be something more like, "no, I wasn't Sweet Blue Water" - something about which the speaker can be presumed to know the correct answer. Inaccuracies are bad, but not necessarily lies. For example, some months ago I presumed that WJBscribe had oversighted the FT2 zoophilia diffs, but WJBscribe didn't have oversight. That wasn't a "lie", though I imagine you'd have listed it as one, and it was corrected as soon as it was pointed out to me. A lapse of ethical practice, but not one of ethical intent.

And I'm not certain the word is out on that last diff in your evidence section - still checking it out. Some of it, at least, is quite true, (and at least as some of the material has been deleted, lack of evidence might not even equal an inaccuracy, much less a lie.) It's unwise to be so distrustful of SlimVirgin that you assume all her enemies to be invariably honest; see "Poetlister".

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

What is particularly astonishing in its arrogance and audacity is that Jayjg never submitted any evidence (pro or con) in the case, nor participated in any of the debates over it that have been raging for the last five months. He waltzes in at the last minute with this kind of ridiculous accusation in order to --- what? --- sour the victory a little, I suppose.

What's ultimately shameful is that Jayjg wasn't a named party in this case. He has become far more dangerous than Slim, is more highly placed, and has more powerful armor. Slim, at least for the moment, seems duly chastened and is editing and adminning well within the bounds of propriety (not that this makes up for past misdeeds).

There's clearly somebody here on WR that Jayjg, jpgordon and MONGO are plenty pissed off at, and think is still editing politely on WP without any disruption or trolling, so therefore they can't get their usual game-y grip on. And they just hate that. Because they want power, and they want to exert power everywhere in what they think they rule.

I wonder who the poor bastard might be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Ideas?

Probably you.

Ya think? My spider sense is tingling, and eventually I may have to climb the Reichstag.

Well, you have focused on Jpgordon, SlimVirgin and Jayjg with your cabal counter and you've mentioned you still edit several times. Good thing you didn't keep that link to your real WP account in your profile long enough for them to see it.

What is particularly astonishing in its arrogance and audacity is that Jayjg never submitted any evidence (pro or con) in the case, nor participated in any of the debates over it that have been raging for the last five months.

You can bet your ass he's been lobbying heavily behind the scenes. Why present evidence in public where it can be refuted?

One thing that's significant about this case is that, without it if someone called SV a liar it would justifiably by labeled as a personal attack. Now, if SV stretches the truth again someone can say, "SV, you have a history of lying" and include a link to my evidence section listing the instances where she has clearly lied, and it won't be a personal attack because it will include strong evidence reinforcing the accusation.

Many of the links in your "lying" section may have been mere errors on Slim's part. A "lie" would be something more like, "no, I wasn't Sweet Blue Water" - something about which the speaker can be presumed to know the correct answer. Inaccuracies are bad, but not necessarily lies. For example, some months ago I presumed that WJBscribe had oversighted the FT2 zoophilia diffs, but WJBscribe didn't have oversight. That wasn't a "lie", though I imagine you'd have listed it as one, and it was corrected as soon as it was pointed out to me. A lapse of ethical practice, but not one of ethical intent.

And I'm not certain the word is out on that last diff in your evidence section - still checking it out. Some of it, at least, is quite true, (and at least as some of the material has been deleted, lack of evidence might not even equal an inaccuracy, much less a lie.) It's unwise to be so distrustful of SlimVirgin that you assume all her enemies to be invariably honest; see "Poetlister".

I'm really trying not to comment anymore on this, but I will defend myself...
Put yourself in the place of the person that she's talking to. In one those diffs, she accuses someone who was taking her to task on the "see also" section on one of her articles. She says, "You really shouldn't be moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. Now, he wasn't doing that. If I were him, I would be really angry at that mischaracterization. It's also a gross exaggeration of what he was doing. A gross exaggeration is also known as a lie. There are different levels of lying to be sure, but that was a lie she was using to try to intimidate someone who was disagreeing with her.

Instead of saying it here, I've written up my summation of what this case means to me on my Wikipedia user page. For what it's worth.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

Put yourself in the place of the person that she's talking to. In one those diffs, she accuses someone who was taking her to task on the "see also" section on one of her articles. She says, "You really shouldn't be moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. Now, he wasn't doing that. If I were him, I would be really angry at that mischaracterization. It's also a gross exaggeration of what he was doing. A gross exaggeration is also known as a lie. There are different levels of lying to be sure, but that was a lie she was using to try to intimidate someone who was disagreeing with her.

In your evidence section, you characterized Slim's statement as follows:

"During content dispute over "see also" section, accuses editor of, "moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. Editor's user history shows no evidence of doing this.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Evidence#Lying

That is itself an inaccuracy, as she'd stated that he shouldn't be doing that, not that he had a track record of doing so. Not that I think her comment was useful, but it's hardly "lying."

For that matter, I don't think much of most of the evidence against you, either. ArbCom puts people in a ring and invites them to attack one another with anything they can; hence this is generally what people do. It's a disgraceful way to treat volunteer contributors.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Put yourself in the place of the person that she's talking to. In one those diffs, she accuses someone who was taking her to task on the "see also" section on one of her articles. She says, "You really shouldn't be moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. Now, he wasn't doing that. If I were him, I would be really angry at that mischaracterization. It's also a gross exaggeration of what he was doing. A gross exaggeration is also known as a lie. There are different levels of lying to be sure, but that was a lie she was using to try to intimidate someone who was disagreeing with her.

In your evidence section…
…you characterized Slim's statement as follows:

"During content dispute over "see also" section, accuses editor of, "moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. Editor's user history shows no evidence of doing this.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Evidence#Lying

That is itself an inaccuracy, as she'd stated that he shouldn't be doing that, not that he had a track record of doing so. Not that I think her comment was useful, but it's hardly "lying."

For that matter, I don't think much of most of the evidence against you, either. ArbCom puts people in a ring and invites them to attack one another with anything they can; hence this is generally what people do. It's a disgraceful way to treat volunteer contributors.

A lot of the evidence presented against cla was pretty much rhetoric and misrepresentation.

ArbCom puts people in a ring and invites them to attack one another with anything they can; hence this is generally what people do. It's a disgraceful way to treat volunteer contributors.

Good description of WP processes. It is refreshing that someone would think of contributors in terms of being volunteers instead of "part of the community." Now the Red Cross gives it's volunteer blood donors juice and cookies after the blood letting. It might be good if Wikipedia did the same. Also best to never let the public see the volunteer's blood dripping from the mouths of "the community." That won't do at all.

ArbCom puts people in a ring and invites them to attack one another with anything they can; hence this is generally what people do. It's a disgraceful way to treat volunteer contributors.

Good description of WP processes. It is refreshing that someone would think of contributors in terms of being volunteers instead of "part of the community." Now the Red Cross gives it's volunteer blood donors juice and cookies after the blood letting. It might be good if Wikipedia did the same. Also best to never let the public see the volunteer's blood dripping from the mouths of "the community." That won't do at all.

please expound on why the constructs of "the community" and "a bunch of volunteers" are mutually exclusive.

and don't bite me, if you've already explained this for the umpteenth time. I'm fairly new here.

ArbCom puts people in a ring and invites them to attack one another with anything they can; hence this is generally what people do. It's a disgraceful way to treat volunteer contributors.

Good description of WP processes. It is refreshing that someone would think of contributors in terms of being volunteers instead of "part of the community." Now the Red Cross gives it's volunteer blood donors juice and cookies after the blood letting. It might be good if Wikipedia did the same. Also best to never let the public see the volunteer's blood dripping from the mouths of "the community." That won't do at all.

please expound on why the constructs of "the community" and "a bunch of volunteers" are mutually exclusive.

and don't bite me, if you've already explained this for the umpteenth time. I'm fairly new here.

I think this is a pretty fresh topic. My initial thinking is that a volunteer is a person who wants to help WMF make an encyclopedia. They have not signed up for any cult like hivemind. The could reasonably expect some direction, supervision and support from the non-profit they are assisting. The non-profit would normally be expected to accept some level of responsibility for the conduct of a volunteer, almost as much as for an employee.

Now a "community member" is someone who wandered into this web 2.0 internet service provider that has been come under the influence of a shady gang of misfits with rituals, rules, cliques, and even warlords. There is a disconnect between the "community member" and the non-profit. No expectation of fostering or support from the non-profit. No acceptance of responsibility by the non-profit.

And of course you get juice and cookies as a volunteer. You just get lame "barnstars" from "the community."

So ArbCom is raising a new section for conduct on arbitration pages. It doesn't point any fingers (there's no finding of fact to match), but it apparently refers to Jim62sch's comments here, which NYB found to be "unacceptable and inappropriate and represent precisely the sort of input that is unhelpful on an arbitration page, or any other page."

Meanwhile, the Wikipedian who has an amusing name posted an amusingly-titled response, Practice what you preach, ArbCom. It's your courtroom; attempt to maintain some order. User apparently refers to Tony Sidaway, who ArbCom was happy to let troll away on the case. Clerk John Vandenberg suggested Tony move along, so jpgordon lost all confidence in this clerk and asked for his resignation. Moreover, user suggests that the spectacle of the case was enhanced by ArbCom's own delays.

The Fat Man makes some good points, I think.

This post has been edited by One:

The Fat Man makes some good points, I think.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Good description of WP processes. It is refreshing that someone would think of contributors in terms of being volunteers instead of "part of the community." Now the Red Cross gives it's volunteer blood donors juice and cookies after the blood letting. It might be good if Wikipedia did the same. Also best to never let the public see the volunteer's blood dripping from the mouths of "the community." That won't do at all.

IIRC the Red Cross only gives out juice and cookies because they got tired of all the donors fainting as they tried to leave. The juice boosts blood sugar and thus alertness.

The fatman does make good points there.

It ain't over till The Fat Man sings.

FT2 votes, bringing many items to unanimity. He also proposes a new section actually apologizing for ArbCom's delay, but as of this moment it looks doomed.

FT2 agrees with most of the propositions, and also declines to find Viridae uncivil although he does caution that some of his remarks could be considered uncivil. Does have an interesting additional note on Viridae:

In particular, a perceived tendency to take quite questionable actions unilaterally, often based upon dubious off-site views of banned users or furthering their wishes/agendas, has affected his reputation, and also given rise to a significant number of criticisms and threads at ANI and elsewhere.

No comment on whether the perception is accurate.

Also has cautionary words toward Cla68 about his "conspiracy theory" approach that threatens to offset all of his good work.

Finally, there's FT2's lone dissent in regards to "participation on other websites," but I can't quite make out what he's saying. It looks like an allusion to Poetlister's tactics though. I guess he now thinks it was a bad idea to let Poetlister back in, and wants to drop a note on this ArbCom under the heading related to WR? Seems like a non sequitur here, unless he's actually saying it's bad for people to "proxy edit" good edits from a banned user.

FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Insufficiently acknowledges a line, to my mind. This is a case where "comment on the edit not the editor" may sometimes be a problem in practice if not in theory. There is a well known tactic where some banned disruptive or harassing users, once banned, switch to posting "good" edits to taunt or game rather than because of reform. A ban in such cases might genuinely mean editors should not have to put up with their presence, whether in person or by proxy. With ~1700 admins and thousands of users an edit can usually find someone prepared to post it. Proxy editing in this situation will often discourage and undermine our better editors on some disputed topic, who may typically have undergone extreme long-term stress to be rid of a problem. As a result, there will be some cases where "banned should mean banned".

Does this mean if Kohs points out some absurdity on Wikipedia, we should not fix it because it will continue some Wikipedian's "extreme long-term stress"? We should just wait until one of those thousands of editors fixes it independently? Or is this indeed just about the PoetBlock? God, I hope it's the latter, because allowing users to veto suggestions thought to come from banned users--whether the suggestions are good or bad--seems like a very bad idea.

This post has been edited by One:

Finally, there's FT2's lone dissent in regards to "participation on other websites," but I can't quite make out what he's saying. It looks like an allusion to Poetlister's tactics though. I guess he now thinks it was a bad idea to let Poetlister back in, and wants to drop a note on this ArbCom under the heading related to WR? Seems like a non sequitur here, unless he's actually saying it's bad for people to "proxy edit" good edits from a banned user.

FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Insufficiently acknowledges a line, to my mind. This is a case where "comment on the edit not the editor" may sometimes be a problem in practice if not in theory. There is a well known tactic where some banned disruptive or harassing users, once banned, switch to posting "good" edits to taunt or game rather than because of reform. A ban in such cases might genuinely mean editors should not have to put up with their presence, whether in person or by proxy. With ~1700 admins and thousands of users an edit can usually find someone prepared to post it. Proxy editing in this situation will often discourage and undermine our better editors on some disputed topic, who may typically have undergone extreme long-term stress to be rid of a problem. As a result, there will be some cases where "banned should mean banned".

Does this mean if Kohs points out some absurdity on Wikipedia, we should not fix it because it will continue some Wikipedian's "extreme long-term stress"? We should just wait until one of those thousands of editors fixes it independently? Or is this indeed just about the PoetBlock? God, I hope it's the latter, because allowing users to veto suggestions thought to come from banned users--whether the suggestions are good or bad--seems like a very bad idea.

I'm almost certain it's an allusion to HeadlyDown or whatever his name is.

[Moderator's note: Various off-topic posts speculating about a WR editor's WP identity were moved to the Tar Pit. -- gomi]

Well, hopefully the case will close soon now so I can finally archive some of the threads on my user talk page. I can't archive many of them now because they're linked to evidence in the case.

And of course you get juice and cookies as a volunteer. You just get lame "barnstars" from "the community."

Wasn't the barnstar originally some sort of Ninja weapon?

The case is officially closed now! Was anybody betting in a pool on exactly when this would happen (and whether it would precede the heat death of the universe)?

The case is officially closed now! Was anybody betting in a pool on exactly when this would happen (and whether it would precede the heat death of the universe)?

It closed the same year it started. Collective hurrah for ArbCom, I say.

The case is officially closed now! Was anybody betting in a pool on exactly when this would happen (and whether it would precede the heat death of the universe)?

I had bagsed Christmas Eve. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

The case is officially closed now! Was anybody betting in a pool on exactly when this would happen (and whether it would precede the heat death of the universe)?

Hooah.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

From Meta

01:22, 24 September 2008 Nick1915 (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:FeloniousMonk@enwiki from Sysops to (none) ‎ (per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&...usMonk.40enwiki)

The case is officially closed now! Was anybody betting in a pool on exactly when this would happen (and whether it would precede the heat death of the universe)?

It closed the same year it started. Collective hurrah for ArbCom, I say.

I remember when this case started in May. I was traveling at a conference, but since John Vandenberg, the clerk, asked everyone to submit their evidence within a week, I complied. It took me many more hours to compile my ultimately useless evidence than I could have predicted.

Who knew that four months later, Brad would be back on Arbcom, Paul August and UninvitedCompany would retire from Arbcom, John Vandenberg would be pressured to resign from his clerking duties for a stupid reason, I'd get called nasty things by someone commenting on the case because I post on WR, Wikipedia would elect two new bureaucrats, Dorftrottel (who participated in the case) would quit and start over as Everyme, Sceptre (who has the last comment on the case talk page, complaining that it's already been three months) would get banned, Arbcom itself would come under fire after the FT2/Orangemarlin affair, and I'd be long gone from my public role on Wikipedia, soaking up knowledge in graduate school?

It's been a long, long time.

So has FM left wikipedia? He hasn't edited for a few weeks and hardly edited before that for a few months.