Abd-William M. Connolley, The Cabal strikes back Options

[Abd]

With WMC desysopped and admonished, one would expect that any banning / blocking actions made by him will now be reconsidered, if not simply undone outright. Can we expect this to happen?

With respect to most decisions, never. Some, however, may end up seeing the light of day again. It is not automatic, the presumption will be that most of his decisions were valid. Case-by-case, if someone brings it up. there is some possibility that this decision will be of help. As you your situation, Guido, if you bring it up, I predict you lose. Wikipedia isn't ready, AFAIK, to revisit its mistakes. Someone well placed, with high skill, might pull it off. Had this been my cause, maybe I could have done it. And maybe not. ArbComm, because it had seen two cases involving me (actually there was a third as well) in a few months, may have assumed that I went out looking for trouble. Actually, I didn't. But, as often happens, Trouble found me. I knew about WMC for more than a year, and Raul654. I saw the Cab in operation and documented it more than a year ago. My conclusion was that the time was not ripe to challenge the involved administrators. However, sometimes events overtake; it became necessary before I was ready.

So I did challenge it, and I won, it appears, but at some cost, which is what happens when a battle is prematurely joined. Up to me, no battle, things would have changed with hardly any notice. The problem is not the Cab, it's defective structure. Until ArbComm realizes this, and stops imagining that it resolves conflicts by banning editors -- it has a whole panalopy of tools that would be available if the arbitrators were more perceptive -- disruption will continue, with slow progress here and there.

One would also hope that the Arbcom learns from these procedures, that users standing accused should always be heard before a decision is taken.

If so many of us had not been silenced, WMC could have been stopped a lot sooner. And, you know, he is just one. There are more administrators out there that behave in a similar fashion, and can continue because their victims do not get heard.

This could be fixed. If anyone is interested in how, email me.

If we are going to change the world, it has to be easy. I should put that on my sig here. You know, the single most effective thing I did during the case was a small edit to Talk:Cold fusion during the case. That was easy. Writing is also pretty easy for me, but time-consuming. What so many wanted, that I edit it down, is certainly possible, but hard. Too much work, basically, for me, in the context, impossible. I did it here and there, some noticed. But the Cab really didn't care, they get even more upset with my short edits.

One of the biggest problems for me during the case was that I was still trying to advise ArbComm. I get to stop doing that now.... individuals, yes, but only those who want to hear.

[Grep]

WMC seems to have decided to moon the jury. ... He may well succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Which indeed he has done. Just to make sure, he now has a whole attack page devoted to slagging off ArbComm, presumably in case he ever feels an urge to try and stage a comeback.

[Abd]

Just to make sure, he now has a whole attack page devoted to slagging off ArbComm, presumably in case he ever feels an urge to try and stage a comeback.

Right. I understand. There is something that only a few on Wikipedia understand. People become very talkative when they are opposed by many. When you think you are in the majority, you are winning, you don't have to say very much. You can blow off that stupid fringe editor with some smart comment. But when it all turns against you, suddenly you will say a lot about how stupid the system is and ArbComm is, etc.

So when you see someone shooting their mouth off, apparently crazy, sometimes it's because they are losing, or think they are. Sometimes they've been set up for it. With one sentence, someone skilled at it can make three or four allegations that take many, many words to answer. So you either answer or you don't. Most find it difficult not to answer, though this is what is commonly advised. The common advice depends on the availability of others to defend you. When that assumption breaks down, so does Wikipedia.

I'm a little different. I write a lot and I DGAF if I'm "winning" or not. Usually. It's true that during the RfAr, the early stages especially, I wrote a lot, and very much of it was in response to the massive Cab pouring in. When there are a dozen editors writing, some voluminously, making up or negatively framing everything you have ever done, well, it has an effect, and I also knew that it would have an effect on ArbComm. Had there been more community response at that point, I would have written a lot less, I suspect. At that point, there were only two, besides myself, countering the flood. Then Ikip showed up and helped a bit, but only on the anti-WMC side, which really wasn't my point, though it's okay. WMC really was abusive, for a long time, it's been obvious (and, remember, I was completely neutral and maybe a bit prejudiced toward WMC's "side" when I first concluded that), and it remains embarrassing that so many arbitrators were still scratching their heads trying to figure out what the fuss was about.

But, in the end, it's all perfect. To finish the Bob Dylan quote from another post,

Don't think twice, it's all right.

And another slogan from one of my favorite places,

Progress, not perfection.

[The Joy]

ugh - with WMC desysopped, expect to see backlogs at WP:AN3

from what I saw, his work there was always pretty spot on.

Don't worry. Brad is fighting to prolong the ordeal. WMC still has a chance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312695812

[Abd]

One would also hope that the Arbcom learns from these procedures, that users standing accused should always be heard before a decision is taken.

It's not that simple, Guido. Those accused had an opportunity to be heard. However, about what? Basically, the case goes up and we didn't know what ArbComm was going to consider. I brought the case, but, overlooked by almost all is that I was not asking ArbComm to reverse a ban. There was no ban, only WMC's bluster, in effect at the time. I'm quite sure that, long term, the community will not decide that administrators can create strict bans. However, right or wrong, that wasn't the case brought. The case brought was for ArbComm to decide if WMC could properly ban me, given prior involvement between us.

By not defining the case and by permitting testimony on irrelevant issues, ArbComm, as it has done before, allowed the case to become very, very complicated. It is because of a case like this that so many editors will not even consider taking a case up to ArbComm, it's way too risky. It's very clear to me: the "plaintiff" in a case should never be on trial, except as necessary to impeach plaintiff evidence, and this should be very narrow (and ArbComm sanctions on a plaintiff or other participating editors limited to misbehavior during the case). If the community had a problem with me, down to an individual editor having a problem with me, there is process for that, which was not followed. Had there been a prior RfC/Abd, the issues would have been clear when someone brought a case against me, if it was necessary.

And then I would have known exactly what I had to answer. Leave it vague, with someone like me, I'm off to the races. With a handful of contrary parties, I'd probably have sat on my hands.

Again, a major defect: ArbComm was mostly passive during the case. Thus none of us knew what ArbComm was thinking, what direction their decision might go. Few arbitrators commented on the Workshop page. When bainer, who had clearly studied the whole case, started drafting proposed decisions, it looked amazingly positive. Note that bainer is almost a voice crying in the wilderness at the end. That is diagnostic. Bainer made, in my view, mistakes, but he had the substance more solidly than anyone else. Carcharoth did not completely disappoint.

The only reason that WMC is being desysopped is that he blocked me during the case. It got their attention. But this was only mildly surprising. When I made the edit, I thought it about fifty percent that he'd actually go ahead and block. It was completely consistent with his prior behavior, but what I didn't know was how far he'd go. I'm not going to say it was stupid, because he may not care. If you are burned out but just don't know how to retire, it's not stupid to do something to cause involuntary retirement.

What might have happened without that edit would have been an admonishment for some of his actions, and probably the same result as now for me. The Cold fusion stuff looks like tendentious editing, and in order to see through that, one has to get involved with the content, Cold fusion is a very unusual situation, counter-intuitive, where the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature, overall, and practically all the recent peer-reviewed secondary source (and there is plenty) supports what seems to be the minority view.

While, to those who have been abused, admonishment may seem shockingly mild, it's understandable. Some administrators have put in a huge amount of service, and arbs know this; but arbs don't necessarily see the down side, and it's difficult to present it. When it can be presented, and when genuinely useful editors have been blocked, they will act; many desysoppings take place over the block of an administrator, or wheel-warring. Now, WMC wheel-warred with Jennavecia, I presented evidence of that, and pointed to it in several places, plus here (and some arbs were reading this) but there is no sign that ArbComm even noticed. WMC routinely used his tools while involved with Global warming, for years, including the block of Scibaby. Not mentioned.

If so many of us had not been silenced, WMC could have been stopped a lot sooner. And, you know, he is just one. There are more administrators out there that behave in a similar fashion, and can continue because their victims do not get heard.

It is extremely difficult to address the kind of abuse that WMC was known for. Usually, he was acting against a vulnerable editor with some minority point of view, and Wikipedia hasn't figured out how to functionally handle "POV-pushing." So it tends to block editors who betray a strong minority POV, if they get uppity. Until the Cold fusion situation, I had never attached myself strongly to a minority POV, so I was less vulnerable. One might note that there was little serious claim of my supposed Cold fusion POV-pushing in RfAr/Abd and JzG. (But the same editors, basically, already wanted me banned, from what they supported in RfC/JzG 3).

Here is one of the serious problems: if an article is imbalanced toward "majority POV," an attempt to balance it can easily be seen as POV-pushing toward the minority POV. Until the community and ArbComm recognize the problem, stability will prove elusive, and editor after editor will burn out or be banned, one or the other.

ArbComm can and should make decisions by majority rule, but standard deliberative process provides that any member who is part of the majority on a decision may move reconsideration, and if any other member of a deliberative body seconds that, the question is up again as if never decided. Deliberative bodies make mistakes, they make decisions based on inadequate evidence, they make decisions based on necessity, i.e., to make some decision where postponing decision is itself harmful. What is known is that sometimes a motion to reconsider may be seconded only with difficulty, but, later, there is unanimity in support of the change. ArbComm is not succeeding in fostering consensus in the community because it is not leading by example, seeking true consensus. Notice that some of the arbitrators signed on to findings where they did not agree with parts of it, just to avoid prolonging the case. That's false consensus, in fact. It's not that endless dispute should continue, no, but findings, in particular, are subsidiary to actual decisions.

Further, if ArbComm is advisory (which it is, no matter how routinely the advice is followed by those with buttons), advice by majority is not the same as advice by unanimity. To treat it the same is dangerous. Decisions by mere majority should not be long-standing, and Principles or FoFs by majority are very questionable.

Consider this: the principles and findings more or less existed, for the most part, stable, at a point when it was not clear that I would be subject to any sanction other than mentorship and some kind of admonishment. A proposal to site ban me for a month was not gaining a majority, though it might have. Suddenly, with no difference in findings, I was to be site banned for three months. This is, in fact, proof that remedies don't depend on findings of fact and principles. Rather, it depended on a quick judgment, only vaguely specified by several arbitrators, of my statement of "what I had learned," in response to Carcharoth's question. And what I'd stated violated no policies or guidelines, nor did it indicate any intention to violate them.

Except for one: Rule 0. (See User:Abd/Rule 0 (T-H-L-K-D) while it lasts, sometimes user essays by banned editors vanish, with or without MfDs). Since there was general agreement that the big problem with me was prolixity, that I might, even if only in my own user space, still be prolix, meant that I wasn't "getting it." There is no rule against prolixity, and attempts to create one haven't been popular. But it violates one of the unwritten rules, thou shalt not irritate editors by writing too much. I've seen this rule as long as I've been on-line, which goes back to the WELL (T-H-L-K-D). It's a rule that the equivalent made sense with face-to-face meetings, where lengthy speeches are indeed disruptive.

But it doesn't make sense with mailing lists and conferencing and discussion, where (mailing list) one can simply not read the mails from a boring editor, one does not even have to see them (mail filter) or (WP discussion) where many options are available, from simply not reading, to collapsing or otherwise refactoring Talk, and I never objected to refactoring Talk, I always cooperated with it, and, indeed, I offered to self-revert *everything*, which surely would have solved any possible legitimate "Talk page domination" issue.

No, prolixity isn't the real issue. Prolixity explains why some don't read me, not why some are so strongly opposed. And I've seen this many times before. I do well in groups that are tolerant of diversity, usually, and not so well in groups that demand uniformity or strong compliance with social norms. One would think that Wikipedia would be the former, but, in fact, in certain critical ways, it is not. It has become extremely conservative, repressively so, as I would have expected from the structure.

I'll be doing a debriefing on this affair, I'm not sure where I will put it except that it won't be on Wikipedia. Most arbitrators seemed to think that I'd have had trouble respecting a mentor, which was one of the most stupid of opinions expressed. On the other hand, it may well have been true that simple mentorship wouldn't have stopped "the disruption," because some of the disruption, at least, was necessary, and it will happen with or without my name attached.

I am not the only person with more than one eye.

[No one of consequence]

Admins are meant to facilitate other peoples' editing by curbing bad behavior and its results (vandalism, edit warring, botched page moves, etc.) Admins who find themselves defending the status quo, the house POV, or the One Truth, are in a bad place.

[Abd]

Don't worry. Brad is fighting to prolong the ordeal. WMC still has a chance!
Brad's vote not to close yet.

Ah, Brad. He's been puzzled more than once by editor behavior that shouldn't be puzzling at all, for one who knows people. So I'll turn to Brad, this is for him: Brad wrote, about the three-month ban for me:

Support, but candidly, I'm quite miserable about this whole affair. Abd has a great deal of valuable article content to contribute (on topics such as parliamentary procedure and voting methods, among others), and I'm bewildered by why Abd has chosen to use his talents in less productive ways despite the good-faith advice he's received from a number of people. I've carefully scoured much of what Abd has written both on-wiki and on Wikipedia Review in the past several days, and unfortunately, see only the likelihood of more of the same, or potentially even escalation. This is just one of a few similar situations coming to a head this week, and about all of them I am sad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Brad, my understanding of parliamentary procedure and voting methods is something I have, not because of academic study, but by long experience with application in voluntary communities. I saw that I could make limited contributions to articles themselves, but could make a better contribution by helping enable others to contribute, and long-term. I did gain wide experience with articles, as was earlier suggested, but then I stumbled across Cold fusion. Because I had sufficient science background to understand the issues, I was familiar with the events of 1989, but I'd become skeptical by 1990 like most others who didn't stay up on the research, I began reading, and found what I found, which is pretty much what anyone who starts out in my condition and is somehow drawn to do the work is likely to find, and I now had an article before me, on an important topic, that was pretty bad, with the most knowledgeable regular editor banned and the most knowledgeable expert, who only contributed to Talk, also banned. (Citizendium's article is better, possibly a bit biased toward the positive, but not a lot. Guess who wrote most of it?)

So I did start article work, and it was very difficult. There is a Cab, Brad, and they do not work collaboratively, they resist it. Certainly it is possible that SuperEditor would have done better than I, but I did quite well, given the conditions, and it was prematurely interrupted by WMC after only a month or so of major effort. There was a mediation moving for a while; it seems to have been abandoned by the mediator. It would, I predict, have validated the supposedly outrageous edits I made; one that had been called by LeadSongDog a clear example of my insane POV-pushing was already accepted. That's over for now. I'm now COI, and you do know my position on COI editors, I hope.

Now, as to escalation, that's interesting. You are right. I'm escalating. How does one escalate beyond ArbComm? I'll leave it to your imagination at this point, Brad, but if you ask me by email, not only will I explain it to you fully, but you will be invited to participate. Consider this: how disruptive was I while escalating to ArbComm? You know or should know that I didn't edit war on the RfAr pages. You should know and apparently don't that the "first block" was a result of an edit where I fully expected no consequence, given WMC's prior opinion regarding SA's edits and the complete lack of interest on the part of the community in blocking him for harmless edits under ban. And SA was, in fact, pushing the edges. I was not, I was, I believed, cooperating with the community ban. Then, with the second block, yes, I knew that WMC might block me, but this wasn't considered by me to be harmful, it might even be helpful. I believed that, at that point, I was not banned, and I'd say that the ensuing events proved that. The edit itself was harmless, and if you and other arbitrators had paid more attention to what ensued, you might have saved yourself some future trouble with Enric Naval and Verbal.
So I'm escalating, but, remember, proper escalation is good for the community, isn't it? Haven't I been advised about that? I'm an effective proxy -- a different kind -- for all those editors who have been unjustly blocked and banned, and they are legion. So I'll be setting an example for them and perhaps blazing a trail. How can a banned editor escalate beyond a dysfunctional ArbComm? Is it possible? How will we know if someone doesn't try? Pcarbonn tried to appeal to Jimbo, with the usual result. But I have other ideas, some short-term, some very long-term.

Let me put it this way. If it isn't easy, I won't bother. If it isn't easy, it would be useless anyway. If getting good decisions at Wikipedia depends on some special skill, skills that few editors possess, and as long as AMA stays salted, it's useless. ArbComm could fix this, but how likely is that, Brad, if they aren't nudged?

One thing that is clear about me: I'm not what people expect me to be, hardly ever. Not my friends, and not others. My friends, overall, are pleased that I transcend their expectations; others really don't like their expectations transcended, and this goes way back, Brad, this didn't start with Wikipedia, it didn't start with me, it didn't start with Socrates, and it probably started long before recorded history. But maybe it can end. The success of democracy, so far, has been a measure of how successful we have been in moving beyond the prison of expectations.

So... for fun, I'll end this with a quotation from the cold fusion skeptic, Nate Hoffman, writing in 1995. Hoffman was a true skeptic, just as skeptical of knee-jerk rejection of experimental results as he was of the conclusion that the Pons-Fleischmann effect was nuclear in origin. After describing weak experiments purporting to show low energy nuclear reactions, where he is quite dismissive, he turns and describes several experiments that are "interesting," with no apparent artifacts. His book, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, A Guide for the Perplexed about Cold Fusion, published by the American Nuclear Society with support from the Electric Power Research Institute (which funded much early research on cold fusion, and which ended up seeming very negative on it), has this dialogue between the Young Scientist, who is very, very skeptical, and the Old Metallurgist, who is skeptical but willing to acknowledge what isn't known:

YS: These experiments "sans artifacts" haven't convinced me.

OM:Perhaps you don't want change for your paradigms.

[Abd]

Admins are meant to facilitate other peoples' editing by curbing bad behavior and its results (vandalism, edit warring, botched page moves, etc.) Admins who find themselves defending the status quo, the house POV, or the One Truth, are in a bad place.

There are many highly experienced Wikipedians who know this, No one of consequence, so why is the situation as bad as it is? By that I mean exactly the words, it's not an implication that everything is bad, it isn't. Most administrators seem to have a general understanding of this, but many don't, and it's like pulling teeth to deal with the ones who don't. It could be made easy, but that's not happening, because ....?

That's a rhetorical question, you know.

Wikipedia is, as I wrote during this case, murder on experts, and not just fringe experts, but experts in general, unless they happen to fall in with and be supported by a member or members of the Cabal (Jimbo's original term for the administrative corps), or perhaps some highly experienced editor. And then that expert's POV dominates (and experts have POVs, hardly an expert doesn't).

[Grep]

Wrapping up soon!

WMC's attack page was taken to MFD by Lord Dundreary (T-C-L-K-R-D) but promptly rejected by MZMcBride on the grounds that the nomination was a bad-faith sock-puppet of Arkady Renkov (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which must be true, because WMC said so. No-one troubled to do a Checkuser, even though that's what the blocking notice says. After all, even a cabal member on the way out has some privileges.

The Mathsci team are continuing to bicker on the decision talk page, hoping for a white knight to rescue them.

WMC's talk page is starting to fill up with crocodile-tear commiserations (possibly premature) on his desysopping. With "friends" like that ...

[Appleby]

And then that expert's POV dominates (and experts have POVs, hardly an expert doesn't).

The expert's POV is often to reject nonsensical fringe theories so that's a good thing.

[Lar]

Wrapping up soon!

WMC's attack page was taken to MFD by Lord Dundreary (T-C-L-K-R-D) but promptly rejected by MZMcBride on the grounds that the nomination was a bad-faith sock-puppet of Arkady Renkov (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which must be true, because WMC said so. No-one troubled to do a Checkuser, even though that's what the blocking notice says. After all, even a cabal member on the way out has some privileges.

The Mathsci team are continuing to bicker on the decision talk page, hoping for a white knight to rescue them.

WMC's talk page is starting to fill up with crocodile-tear commiserations (possibly premature) on his desysopping. With "friends" like that ...

How would you know if anyone "troubled to do a checkuser" or not? Do you have access to the CU log?

The nom was by a sockpuppet, CU findings confirm it. Those noms tend not to stand. MzMcbride was right to close it on those grounds. However, it has been reopened by someone who is not a sockpuppet (to the best of my knowledge, anyway)...

[Grep]

How would you know if anyone "troubled to do a checkuser" or not? Do you have access to the CU log?

The nom was by a sockpuppet, CU findings confirm it. Those noms tend not to stand. MzMcbride was right to close it on those grounds. However, it has been reopened by someone who is not a sockpuppet (to the best of my knowledge, anyway)...

A checkuser on 21 different users within a couple of hours? I doubt it. Have you seen those mythical "CU findings"? Do you not realise just how many checkuser reports are either sloppy work, quick glances or just I-expect-it's-a-sock-anyway? Do you still believe in the fairy-tale about the "considerable skill and experience to investigate cases"?

However, kudos to the bold non-sockpuppet who reopened the case.

[Lar]

Have you seen those mythical "CU findings"?

Yes. Then I ran checks myself. Based on that, I would be willing to corroborate these particular findings if directly asked to do so, on wiki.

Do you not realise just how many checkuser reports are either sloppy work, quick glances or just I-expect-it's-a-sock-anyway? Do you still believe in the fairy-tale about the "considerable skill and experience to investigate cases"?

There are some reports that could be better, yes, far better in some cases, and there are some cases where CU has been used inappropriately.

I'm not sure about fairy tales though. CU isn't magic pixie dust, but sometimes the preponderance of evidence does suggest a particular outcome. In my judgment, this was one of those cases, and even if the puppet master was misidentified (I am not alleging that, just saying "even if") there was considerable abusive socking going on there, the block was warranted, and so was the removal of the MfD.

I decline to go into specifics of why I feel that way, as always.

However, kudos to the bold non-sockpuppet who reopened the case.

I'll be sure to let him or her know the next time I'm talking to him or her.

[Grep]

Well, I guess we just have to take your word for it then.

[Lar]

Well, I guess we just have to take your word for it then.

The entire CU cabal, you mean, all 37+ of us.... because any other CU that wants to review my assertions and my work, or that of the original CU, is welcome to do so, as always.

I could well be wrong but it's not my considered opinion, at this time, based on the evidence available to me.

You're not going to be able to assail the truth of any of that. Take my word for it.

[Grep]

You're not going to be able to assail the truth of any of that. Take my word for it.

Oh dear. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

[Lar]

Well, I guess we just have to take your word for it then.

The entire CU cabal, you mean, all 37+ of us.... because any other CU that wants to review my assertions and my work, or that of the original CU, is welcome to do so, as always.

I could well be wrong but it's not my considered opinion, at this time, based on the evidence available to me.

You're not going to be able to assail the truth of any of that. Take my word for it.

Oh dear. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

Go ahead and deconstruct what I said, see if you can explicitly refute any of it. Put simply, you can't. No offense, but the number of checkusers, that we can and do review each other's work, that I am open to review, and that I formed an opinion based on what I saw, but might be wrong? None of it is assailable.

I realise that interferes with your political agenda. Oh well.

(edit: this was supposed to be an edit to my previous post but it's better structured as a reply)

[Grep]

I realise that interferes with your political agenda.

What political agenda? We're in agreement that Checkuser has been used incompetently, corruptly and untruthfully in the past -- it's hardly "politics" to suggest that it will continue to be so in the future, it's common sense.

[Mathsci]

It's all over now ... until the next Global Warming flare-up in a few months time.

It was a good result concerning Abd which in 3 months time will give him the chance to discover new restful parts of WP if he is so minded. I hope he gives up the idea of his company for the sake of his own well-being.

I'm not sure that WMC has been treated fairly - it's true that he was provoked to make an avoidable mistake (as I was, but in a much more minor way).

Other ArbCom cases I've participated in have been far more constructive, particularly the PHG case, where it was possible to discuss things amicably with PHG, his mentor Angus and Elonka. This case was not like that at all.

[Lar]

I realise that interferes with your political agenda.

What political agenda? We're in agreement that Checkuser has been used incompetently, corruptly and untruthfully in the past -- it's hardly "politics" to suggest that it will continue to be so in the future, it's common sense.

We are all human and we are none of us perfect.

Where I think we disagree is how prevalent the incompetence, corruption and untruth is. I suspect you think it rather more prevalent than is actually the case, which is mostly harmless. I hope I don't think it less prevalent than is actually the case, which would be bad.