Manipulation of BLPs, now open Options Rating

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The aptly named "Manipulation of BLPs" case is now open. Since Cirt has his own case, I predict that the star of the show will be Will Beback. The issue is described as follows:

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs (that is, the use of articles to enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals prominent in a particular area of conflict); to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs; to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia; and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Do you think that Willie and Hochman have actual legitimate fears that something may come of this?

[No one of consequence]

Do you think that Willie and Hochman have actual legitimate fears that something may come of this?

At the present time, no. The only one presenting evidence in the BLP case is Waalkes (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who, as a new editor with few edits, would be barred from participating under the same proposal advanced in the Cbrick77 (T-C-L-K-R-D) situation. This is probably not a bad thing. While I understand the misgivings about Beback's behavior, it is not appropriate that the evidence against him comes from an account that is either (1) a newbie with little experience in dispute resolution, (2) an alternate account evading scrutiny, or (3) a reincarnation of a banned user. If Waalkes is the only person who thinks that Wil has behaved inappropriately, then there shouldn't be a case at all.

(Note that the proposal to bar newbies from RFAR allows for the editor to request a waiver from any arbitrator to offer a case.)

On the other hand, if someone else wants to step forward and offer evidence, Arbcom should definitely open a case.

It seems that there was a lot of interest in a BLP case, at least until the Cirt case was opened. Whoever else wanted to have a case on BLPs in general seems to have disappeared.

[lilburne]

On the other hand, if someone else wants to step forward and offer evidence, Arbcom should definitely open a case.

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

You can look at this exchange that I had with them back last February when I quizzed them about the process, and what I got was flannel. Now you can read the whole exchange just start search the page for 'lilburne' or you can just skip to my summary of it.

But it really isn't about WBB, SV, Cirt, or any of the rest. It is the process that can proceed year after year, and result in articles like that one, that is in need of fixing not just these editors.
Berlinski is another one where for years the owners of the article have known that he isn't really ID, for one he doesn't believe that God had anything to do with it. But they fought tooth and claw to keep him as leader of the ID movement. Though to their credit they did give up on that one.

Its the process, policies, and the way the site operates that is the problem, the individual editors are just turning the handle of the sausage machine, and ArbCom doesn't appear to be the venue for fixing any of it.

[EricBarbour]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work.

[RMHED]

It is a pointless waste of time. The system is broke and arguing about individuals is plain stupid. because even if one beat up on WBB and SV it doesn't fix the other editors doing the same thing in other places.

Agreed. Arbcom isn't a venue for much of anything, in fact. Telling people to do something here
really doesn't work either. The problems are systemic, and they discourage new users. Wikipedia's
peak of editing and "collaboration" was in 2007-08, and now it's done. Jut a matter of a few years
before it collapses completely.

English Wikipedia is headed off a cliff, and they refuse to admit it. Bloody fools. Instead of dealing
with the coming end, they are inflating editcounts with bots and creating useless stubs that no one
will ever expand. Yeah, that'll work.

I'm very much hoping the same is true of Capitalism, one good push now and the whole corrupt system could crumble.