FT2 vs. SlimVirgin, The end is near! Options

[Shalom]

I can't make this up. SlimVirgin might be desysopped for unblocking Giano.

Read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...:_re_SlimVirgin

[Hipocrite]

The FT2, Charles Matthews axis of ArbCom believes their actions are sacrosanct. This is an example of their whiney petulance at anyone disagreeing with them - shades of OrangeMarlin, SLRubenstein, Vanished user. The patten is that one of the two freakishly anti-encyclopedia Arbitors does something, it gets undone, and then, using their Arcom mailing list, they campaign other Arbitors to back them up. Because the opposing parties don't get to see what falsehoods FT2 and CM are peddling about them, and because FT2 and CM will agressively create findings and remidies on the proposed decision page (skipping the workshop and evidence page entirely), and arbcoms desire to present a unanimous face, they are able to get this done.

I'm shocked FT2 didn't just recuse himself and work entirely through their mailing list and Charles. He's the most ham-handed manipulator ever. Why he didn't have one of his pet admins file the case (Elonka is the obvious candidate), why he didn't recuse - it's pure hubris.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm shocked FT2 didn't just recuse himself and work entirely through their mailing list and Charles. He's the most ham-handed manipulator ever. Why he didn't have one of his pet admins file the case (Elonka is the obvious candidate), why he didn't recuse - it's pure hubris.

FT2 simply is not as bright as he likes to think he is*, after his ill-fated previous attempt to steam-roller ArbCom into taking a decision that in retrospect turned out not to have been an ArbCom decision but something of his own doing, you would have thought he had learnt his lesson. The pure failure to recognise not that he had a conflict of interest, but that even with the gubbins he spouts that others would not call him on this conflict, speaks volumes. One can only think he had DG or similar in the background egging him on, telling him black is white and 2 + 2 = 5. FT2 is definitely someone who once he believes he is right simply cannot hear any criticism - well it must be wrong if he doesn't agree so why take any notice?

I believe in modern parlance this is known as an epic fail.


*And we can thank our lucky stars that... for those of a certain age, though I think I've used that line before.

[Kato]

*And we can thank our lucky stars that... for those of a certain age, though I think I've used that line before.

Dean Friedman - where is he now? Actually, I knew someone who was still a massive fan of Dean Friedman well into the new millennium and went to see him tour about 6-7 years ago - so he's obviously still in circulation somewhere. Ugh.

Anyway, SlimVirgin writes:

Overturning a block once is not wheel-warring. By the ArbCom's own definition, wheel warring is the repeated overturning of an admin action. There is also no obligation for admins to discuss blocks before overturning them, especially when they feel the block is clearly wrong. All attempts (including by myself) to change WP:BLOCK to prohibit unblocking without discussion have failed — admins want to retain the right to overturn a block immediately, where they feel in good faith that it cannot be justified

.

Yet last year, when Jimbo banned Miltopia and Zscout370 undid the ban, Jimbo wrote:

For those who have not followed along. I banned a longtime abusive problem user who had slipped through the cracks by being just annoying enough to get indef blocked and reinstated multiple times, and I asked for calm over the weekend. Zscout370 instead wheel warred with me by unblocking and making snide remarks. Well, no. Admins don't do that. Not to any admin.--Jimbo Wales 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

[Kelly Martin]

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

Obviously, it's "wheel warring" when an admin reverses a Jimbo-block, but not wheel-warring when two ordinary admins reverse one another. Obviously, FT2 is claiming Jimbo-nature; the question is whether the rest of the Arbcom (or Jimbo himself) will ratify this claim.

[dogbiscuit]

So who is right? Jimbo Wales or SlimVirgin?

Obviously, it's "wheel warring" when an admin reverses a Jimbo-block, but not wheel-warring when two ordinary admins reverse one another. Obviously, FT2 is claiming Jimbo-nature; the question is whether the rest of the Arbcom (or Jimbo himself) will ratify this claim.

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

This should not be this hard, should it?

[Kelly Martin]

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

There are no rules. The best we can hope for is to deduce first-approximation predictions as to how the system will behave when it is excited in various ways. Do not mistake these empirical observations for rules; there is nothing whatsoever about these hypotheses that binds anyone in Wikipedia to act consistent with them.

It has long been touted as a strength of the Wikipedia system that it has no fixed, formal rules (including by myself, back in the dark days when I was an admin). And certainly this is true, if you happen to be one of the powerful elites within its system; not having rules to follow is a major bonus, especially for those with power. However, it makes life rather difficult for anyone who is trying to actually get something real done within that environment; the lack of any real predictability means that so much of one's time is spent dealing with the environment, and that means so much less time spent on getting productive work done.

[Cla68]

The answer has to be "none of the above". If the system is so messed up that those at its pinnacle cannot interpret and apply rules in a rational and transparent way then that tells us that it might just be a problem with the rules.

There are no rules. The best we can hope for is to deduce first-approximation predictions as to how the system will behave when it is excited in various ways. Do not mistake these empirical observations for rules; there is nothing whatsoever about these hypotheses that binds anyone in Wikipedia to act consistent with them.

It has long been touted as a strength of the Wikipedia system that it has no fixed, formal rules (including by myself, back in the dark days when I was an admin). And certainly this is true, if you happen to be one of the powerful elites within its system; not having rules to follow is a major bonus, especially for those with power. However, it makes life rather difficult for anyone who is trying to actually get something real done within that environment; the lack of any real predictability means that so much of one's time is spent dealing with the environment, and that means so much less time spent on getting productive work done.

This is the core of the problem with Wikipedia and what has led to this ridiculous situation. FT2 is obviously flailing away at trying to establish ArbCom as a legitimate, effective governance body in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he's making mistakes in doing so. He stuck his head out a little too far in the OrangeMarlin case and was called on it. He did the same again with Giano's 55-hour block. Giano's block wasn't given by the ArbCom committee, it was given by FT2 trying to act on behalf of the committee before obtaining formal support from the rest of the comittee members. SV may have recognized this and acted on it.

If Wikipedia had a few more rules, and a governance body with a clear charter and formal power to enforce them, then perhaps there wouldn't be as much of this political, dramatic nonsense. The "lack of predictibility" includes the unfair and uneven way in which the current "rules" are applied to different volunteers (i.e. editors) and is incredibly distracting, time-consuming, and frustrating to deal with, and may be the biggest obstacle to keeping Wikipedia from becoming something truly credible.

[Moulton]

If Wikipedia had a few more rules, and a governance body with a clear charter and formal power to enforce them, then perhaps there wouldn't be as much of this political, dramatic nonsense. The "lack of predictability" includes the unfair and uneven way in which the current "rules" are applied to different volunteers (i.e. editors) and is incredibly distracting, time-consuming, and frustrating to deal with, and may be the biggest obstacle to keeping Wikipedia from becoming something truly credible.

While having clearly defined rules which apply equally to all players is better than having a pre-Hammurabic tribal ochlocracy, that only changes the flavor of the resulting drama. Instead of having liminal social drama in response to a breach of (unwritten) expectations, one has courtroom-style drama instead.

To evolve all the way from anachronistic mob rule to a modern well-regulated governance model, Wikipedia would have to advance through the Rule of Law stage to the next higher echelon in the Kohlberg-Gilligan Model to the level of a Social Contract.

Frankly, the odds of that happening in my lifetime are nil to nonexistent. To arrive at an ethical governance model, the participants have to be schooled in ethical reasoning. Notwithstanding the irony that Wikipedia advertises itself as the sum of all human knowledge, the vast majority of the admins don't even grok the fundamental concepts of the Rule of Law, let alone the more advanced concepts of the Foundations of Ethics. To advance to ethics, the participants would have to master functional reasoning. That's not gonna happen with the current population of Homo Schleppians, as most people simply don't have that much mathematics or philosophy under their headbands.

[Cla68]

It looks like the Committee is going to take FT2's side on this, in spite of the recent revelations. And Fred's "creative new sanctions" don't appear to be appreciated.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 25th November 2008, 2:28am