Giano Wars: Revenge of the ArbCom, More Soap Opera than Space Opera, though Options

[dtobias]

I think it's time to update Kato's list...

We should create a game. Where we follow the names of the "uninvolved parties" on each case to see if we get a Full House.

A Full House is

1. DocG (Scott Macdonald)
2. SlimVirgin
3. Sticky Parkin
4. Jehochman
5. ElonkaD
6. Jossi
7. DTobias
8. Ryan Postlethwaite
9. Durova
   
10. Privatemusings
11. Tony Sidaway
12. Alex Bakharev
13. MONGO
14. ElinorD/Wikitumnus
15. Fred Bauder

*Struck names are people who have already commented on this latest case.

The Reviewer who is the first to spot a Full House and shouts "House" on a thread receives a Wikipedia Review prize.

[Hipocrite]

Overall I'd say this is mostly hyperbole... after all, what evidence is there that the POV-pushers in question are being paid specifically to do things like edit WP? I'm sure a lot of them are, of course - I just don't see how it can be proven in the majority of cases, if the people are being reasonably careful.

They're not being paid specifically to do things like edit WP. They are being paid by various fringe organizations to do PR. NEW ENERGY FOUNDATION, INC. (not for profit), for instance, supports one Jed Rothwell (d.b.a. LENR-CANR.org(?)), who is the organizing factor behind the ongoing unsolved problems at the Cold Fusion (IS REAL!) article.

Aaron Blake, for example, is the Marketing Director of The Focus Fusion Society (not for profit), and VP of Marketing at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc (for profit). He's also ABlake, whose contributions have been almost exclusively to his bosses wikipedia page (his boss was banned from making contributions).

I have more, of course. How many do we need?

[InkBlot]

I really think ArbCom would be best off vacating any standing decisions on Giano, and enacting a self-prohibition on admin actions by the committee.

When I was an arbitrator, there was a general understanding that we should refrain from using admin tools in cases that were not absolutely obvious, because it could create problems if the incident in question ended up at the ArbCom. That's part of why there's the whole "arbcom requested enforcement" thingy.

This really needs to be stamped on FT2's monitor. He needs to either be an arb, or an admin, but trying to do both at the same time just keeps making things worse.

[Peter Damian]

Recently, I advised Giano to take the red pill and wake up from Wikipedia's exploitative life-sapping addictions. Long ago, I publicly called for Slim to lay down her power-books and move on. Just about everyone here asked Peter Damian to stay away from WP. And today I advised FT2 that he was drowning, and to cut his losses before he sinks like a stone. And I don't even edit WP!

OK, just supposed I had given up in Dec 2007 and not brought the issues of the oversights up on this forum, and all the other things. We would have known far less if I had given up.

But I am giving up now, by the way, as mentioned before. I've got most of what I wanted, it's time for others to continue the fight.

[taiwopanfob]

This really needs to be stamped on FT2's monitor. He needs to either be an arb, or an admin, but trying to do both at the same time just keeps making things worse.

This gives rise to an almost certainly unoriginal suggestion: why not disable the Godlike Powers of sitting arbitrators, lest they be tempted by the Dark Side?

[Milton Roe]

This really needs to be stamped on FT2's monitor. He needs to either be an arb, or an admin, but trying to do both at the same time just keeps making things worse.

This gives rise to an almost certainly unoriginal suggestion: why not disable the Godlike Powers of sitting arbitrators, lest they be tempted by the Dark Side?

You mean their individual powers, as opposed to the powers they have when acting collectively? That's an interesting thought.

I'm a Jeffersonian, in believing that the only safe thing to do with power is to diffuse it as much as possible, since it does indeed corrupt. And that is why I grow suspicious of people on WP who seem to be (in the words of somebody commenting on Rlevse's Arb bid) "hat-collectors."

In the US Federal system we don't allow people to be governors, senators, presidential cabinet members, and so on, all at the same time. Some of this is by law, some by custom. But we all know it's not good.

I'd certainly support a motion which forbade arbitrators to wear any other hat but "administrator" during their term. If this inhibits some high-mucky-mucks from running, so be it.

In fact, I'd like to see a general WP "two hat rule" for any given language Wiki. You can be an admin and have any ONE other official title, at any given time. If you take another, you have to give up one (I presume the admin hat will be permanent, and always the one underneath).

And no gaming the system by making hats heirarchical, so some of them subsume all powers of lower ones, and add yet more. That may be the military model, but we need the political model worse.

[Kelly Martin]

I'd certainly support a motion which forbade arbitrators to wear any other hat but "administrator" during their term. If this inhibits some high-mucky-mucks from running, so be it.

I think revoking their adminstratorships during their tenure as arbitrators would be meritorious. I would do the same for everyone involved in the FA/GA process.

I'd also suggest breaking up the admin rights bundle into smaller bits and not letting people have more than one "set" of bits. You can do blocks, or you can do deletions, but not both.

[Doc glasgow]

Doc's "ArbCom is always right" stance is looking more lonely than ever

Why is it every time you attempt to caricature me you get it so fantastically wrong?

Arbcom go it wrong on Giano. They were wrong on hounding Tony and Kelly off wikipedia. Wrong on not putting the boot in to vested users. Wrong on not acting against perpetual abuse by various admins. Wrong on their pandering to the (not so large) masses with equivocation. Most of the so called problems we now have are entirely of arbcom's making, and I have no confidence in the capacity of Brad and co to see the bigger picture.

Look, maybe I bore you and you can't be bothered reading me. Fine. But since you don't, please stop trying to sum me up.

[Kelly Martin]

They were wrong on hounding Tony and Kelly off wikipedia.

Beg to differ with you about that.

[Viridae]

Doc's "ArbCom is always right" stance is looking more lonely than ever

They were wrong on hounding Tony and Kelly off wikipedia.

Not comenting on the Kelly bit but they certainly weren't wrong to remove that troll (at least temporarily) from wikipedia.

[everyking]

Doc's "ArbCom is always right" stance is looking more lonely than ever

Why is it every time you attempt to caricature me you get it so fantastically wrong?

Arbcom go it wrong on Giano. They were wrong on hounding Tony and Kelly off wikipedia. Wrong on not putting the boot in to vested users. Wrong on not acting against perpetual abuse by various admins. Wrong on their pandering to the (not so large) masses with equivocation. Most of the so called problems we now have are entirely of arbcom's making, and I have no confidence in the capacity of Brad and co to see the bigger picture.

Look, maybe I bore you and you can't be bothered reading me. Fine. But since you don't, please stop trying to sum me up.

I suppose what I actually meant in representing your viewpoint (and I tried to come up with something more precise in a subsequent post) was "the ArbCom is always right (as long as it acts forcefully in its role as an elite at odds with the community)". In other words, you think the ArbCom is right when it follows its natural inclinations to behave abusively to hard-working contributors, to ignore the feelings of the broader community, and to protect abusive administrators. You think it's wrong when it allows itself to be influenced to do the right thing.

I'm sorry for the lack of precision the first time around, but don't you think it's forgivable? If someone argues that a dictator is not oppressive enough and allows himself to be excessively influenced by popular feeling, I think it's natural to say that the person's stance is "the dictator is always right", even though technically he is arguing that the dictator is wrong.

[Kato]

We should create a game. Where we follow the names of the "uninvolved parties" on each case to see if we get a Full House.

A Full House is

1. DocG (Scott Macdonald)
2. SlimVirgin
   
3. Sticky Parkin
4. Jehochman
5. ElonkaD
6. Jossi
7. DTobias
8. Ryan Postlethwaite
9. Durova
   
10. Privatemusings
11. Tony Sidaway
    
12. Alex Bakharev
13. MONGO
14. ElinorD/Wikitumnus
15. Fred Bauder

*Struck names are people who have already commented on this latest case.

The Reviewer who is the first to spot a Full House and shouts "House" on a thread receives a Wikipedia Review prize.

Ha, well yes. Although Tony's really pretty gone these days.

Indeed, I haven't seen him in Brad's tea shop for a while.

You can still win secondary prizes for a "trick". If you see this first you can call it if you wish:

1. Jehochman
2. ElonkaD
3. Durova

For a "line / run / straight", you need:

1. SlimVirgin
2. Jossi
3. MONGO
4. ElinorD/Wikitumnus
5. Fred Bauder

If you see that you can call "Line" on the thread.

54 "uninvolved parties" now sticking their interfering beaks into the matter to no good purpose - but still no Durova to complete a three-way-trick. Dammit, I've got a vacation in Bali riding on this...

A Full House and Straight are looking unlikely now.

[Doc glasgow]

Doc's "ArbCom is always right" stance is looking more lonely than ever

Why is it every time you attempt to caricature me you get it so fantastically wrong?

Arbcom go it wrong on Giano. They were wrong on hounding Tony and Kelly off wikipedia. Wrong on not putting the boot in to vested users. Wrong on not acting against perpetual abuse by various admins. Wrong on their pandering to the (not so large) masses with equivocation. Most of the so called problems we now have are entirely of arbcom's making, and I have no confidence in the capacity of Brad and co to see the bigger picture.

Look, maybe I bore you and you can't be bothered reading me. Fine. But since you don't, please stop trying to sum me up.

I suppose what I actually meant in representing your viewpoint (and I tried to come up with something more precise in a subsequent post) was "the ArbCom is always right (as long as it acts forcefully in its role as an elite at odds with the community)". In other words, you think the ArbCom is right when it follows its natural inclinations to behave abusively to hard-working contributors, to ignore the feelings of the broader community, and to protect abusive administrators. You think it's wrong when it allows itself to be influenced to do the right thing.

I'm sorry for the lack of precision the first time around, but don't you think it's forgivable? If someone argues that a dictator is not oppressive enough and allows himself to be excessively influenced by popular feeling, I think it's natural to say that the person's stance is "the dictator is always right", even though technically he is arguing that the dictator is wrong.

You have me wrong again - because you wrongly presume to speak for the community.

I'm actually calling on the community's elected body to start dealing forcefully with the small unmandated power cliques of vested users who keep throwing their weight about so that the vast majority of users can get on with writing an encyclopedia. I'm calling for an end to mollycoddling idiots who play power games by screaming loudly for personal justice under the pretence of being the voice of the masses, with no evidence that any except the motivated minority even care.

There's just been an election. If masses of people share your views then they should have put up or shut up. I didn't see your name. (And before you remind me that mine wasn't there, I do not presume that the community agrees with me - I just presume that arbcom have more of a mandate than me, and should exercise it occasionally to speak it over my, or your, voice)

[everyking]

You have me wrong again - because you wrongly presume to speak for the community.

I'm actually calling on the community's elected body to start dealing forcefully with the small unmandated power cliques of vested users who keep throwing their weight about so that the vast majority of users can get on with writing an encyclopedia. I'm calling for an end to mollycoddling idiots who play power games by screaming loudly for personal justice under the pretence of being the voice of the masses, with no evidence that any except the motivated minority even care.

There's just been an election. If masses of people share your views then they should have put up or shut up. I didn't see your name. (And before you remind me that mine wasn't there, I do not presume that the community agrees with me - I just presume that arbcom have more of a mandate than me, and should exercise it occasionally to speak it over my, or your, voice)

It's laughable to hear you talk about "writing the encyclopedia". As a matter of regular practice, the ArbCom punishes hard-working content contributors for engaging in criticism while rewarding or excusing abusive admins who are loyal to the existing order of things, but generally contribute little to the encyclopedia--and if you got your way, the ArbCom would be doing even more of that, wouldn't it? I think the situation would become unbearable for a large portion of the site's serious content editors.

As for the election, I'm quite happy with how it turned out. Are you?

[everyking]

Given Scott's stated commitment to cutting out the drama and focusing on encyclopedia writing, I thought I would check to see what sort of articles he'd been writing recently:

Unfortunately, he's got no article contributions in his last 50 edits, except for his nomination of the David Gerard article for deletion (drama!). His last 50 edits overwhelmingly involve scolding and lecturing other editors for disagreeing with him about arbitration issues (drama!). Well, maybe that's just a fluke; how about the previous 50? Eight out of those 50 are article edits, although none of those appear to be substantial edits.

[michael]

Wikichecker shows that Scott's last 500 edits consists of about 20% articlespace and 60% to his user talk/portal/wikipedia space.

[Doc glasgow]

Given Scott's stated commitment to cutting out the drama and focusing on encyclopedia writing, I thought I would check to see what sort of articles he'd been writing recently:

Unfortunately, he's got no article contributions in his last 50 edits, except for his nomination of the David Gerard article for deletion (drama!). His last 50 edits overwhelmingly involve scolding and lecturing other editors for disagreeing with him about arbitration issues (drama!). Well, maybe that's just a fluke; how about the previous 50? Eight out of those 50 are article edits, although none of those appear to be substantial edits.

Wow.

I pull you up for your repeated and unmerited presumption that the "community" agrees with you, and because you have no answer you attack the messenger.

I am what I am, but that does not make you the voice of the community, nor even of those who do write the encyclopedia.

Am I happy with the election results? I have no idea. However, I certainly accept them, and I promise that in 11 months I will not be claiming that I, and not those elected, am the authentic voice of the community.

[Milton Roe]

Am I happy with the election results? I have no idea. However, I certainly accept them, and I promise that in 11 months I will not be claiming that I, and not those elected, am the authentic voice of the community.

Good for you. But without a decent democratic election with registered voters and a reasonable campaign to see that everybody is informed, it would silly for anybody to claim that a wikipedia "election" was the "voice of the community."

Of course, we didn't (couldn't) have really good instruments in place in the last arb election to prevent double voting, because we rely on checkuser to catch seasoned socks. Few people have that, so it's not effective. You think every voter was checkusered? Even checkuser isn't nearly as good as a personal ID (which you need in a real election). And there's so much squeeling from some people when checkusers check people without "probable cause" that you'd think it was comparable to breaking down your home door and going through your underwear (sock?) drawer. See SlimVirgin's complaining on Wiki-en-L last July about Lar's check of Wikitumnus and Crum375. This has a chilling effect.

In addition, may I remind you that most normal methods in democratic elections are banned on WP? I saw daily tags on the top of my screen asking for donations to WMF during the arb election, but for a general election which the "community" was supposed to be making, I saw nothing to point me to a vote-in-progress. Did I miss it? A decent tag-box would show up every day and contain a link taking you straight to the voting site, with a short explanation on how to vote. Instead, voting was made nearly as difficult as possible. Even if you made it to many pages about the election, you had to realize that the phrase "voting is now open" contained an Easter-egg link in the word "voting" to get you to the polling place. That feature was either designed by a programmer-nerd (the kind we keep in back and don't let speak to the customers), or else it was a deliberate attempt to screen voters. Which is fine if you admit to it, but don't use the word "community."

And finally, no election is an election if active general campaigning is outlawed. What that does, is hand campaigns over to people who have backchannel networks which aren't open to public view, and Wikipedia contains plenty of those. But that's not the "community" unless by "community" you mean the bunch of insiders who figure they control (and should control) the administration machinery of Wikipedia. It doesn't represent anything close to the community of presently-active registered editors.

[everyking]

Given Scott's stated commitment to cutting out the drama and focusing on encyclopedia writing, I thought I would check to see what sort of articles he'd been writing recently:

Unfortunately, he's got no article contributions in his last 50 edits, except for his nomination of the David Gerard article for deletion (drama!). His last 50 edits overwhelmingly involve scolding and lecturing other editors for disagreeing with him about arbitration issues (drama!). Well, maybe that's just a fluke; how about the previous 50? Eight out of those 50 are article edits, although none of those appear to be substantial edits.

Wow.

I pull you up for your repeated and unmerited presumption that the "community" agrees with you, and because you have no answer you attack the messenger.

I am what I am, but that does not make you the voice of the community, nor even of those who do write the encyclopedia.

Am I happy with the election results? I have no idea. However, I certainly accept them, and I promise that in 11 months I will not be claiming that I, and not those elected, am the authentic voice of the community.

By the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia community, I hereby award you, Scott MacDonald, the December 2008 Useless Editor Award. I apologize for the belated recognition.

[Milton Roe]

By the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia community, I hereby award you, Scott MacDonald, the December 2008 Useless Editor Award. I apologize for the belated recognition.

Somey? Surely we need a "busted, rusted barnstar" symbol for this honor.