The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Manipulation of BLPs, now open
Rating  5
It's the blimp, Frank
post Tue 23rd August 2011, 7:17pm
Post #81


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



Awesome.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Mon 29th August 2011, 5:06pm
Post #82


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



It looks like this case really will lead nowhere. Now they have proposed decisions which say basically that editors should all follow Wikipedia policies and if there is a problem, they should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. That's quite remarkable -- right back to square one.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank: Mon 29th August 2011, 5:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Tue 30th August 2011, 3:57pm
Post #83


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 29th August 2011, 5:06pm) *

It looks like this case really will lead nowhere. Now they have proposed decisions which say basically that editors should all follow Wikipedia policies and if there is a problem, they should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. That's quite remarkable -- right back to square one.

I take it you read Brad's comments about this, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._by_Arbitrators

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare: Tue 30th August 2011, 4:17pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Tue 30th August 2011, 5:19pm
Post #84


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 30th August 2011, 3:57pm) *

I take it you read Brad's comments about this, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._by_Arbitrators

QUOTE
If these disputes continue, it may be that ultimately we have to say something about them
I think that's a foregone conclusion, since Will Beback is all over the talk pages denying that any BLP violations have taken place.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm
Post #85


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:

1. Will Beback, by his statement here still just doesn't get it about BLPs. In beginning research for the RfC, I see that Will has what appears to be a years-long, ongoing approach like this towards BLPs.

2. After a recent content RfC in one of the LaRouche articles returned an almost unanimous response to remove a bunch of pejorative material from the article that Will had been trying to keep in, he keeps trying to find a way to keep it all somehow. So, his war on LaRouche is ongoing.

3. After asking all those confrontational questions in the Cirt RfC about editors' religious beliefs, he has kept at it with other editors. This battleground, win-at-all cost mentality towards imposing the content he wants to impose just isn't compatible with what is supposed to be Wikipedia's collaborative model.

4. His attempts on the talk and workshop pages of this ArbCom case and the Jayen/Cirt case to manipulate the scope and results and spin the decisions to fit his editing agenda show that he has no intention of stopping what he is doing.

5. Of all the Wikipedia admins who were notorious for treating Wikipedia as their personal property back in 2005 and 2006, banning editors at will (WordBomb, for example), and using off-wiki mailing lists to coordinate their actions (such as my RfA and the Cyberstalking/Durova fiasco), Will Beback is the only who doesn't appear to have altered his behavior one iota. Most, if not all, of the others, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, JzG, etc have amended their editing and administrative behavior in response to demands from the community. Will Beback appears to be the lone holdout.

6. Judging by the response here, the community is tired of Will's battleground, wikilawyering, win-at-all cost approach to participating in Wikipedia. He hasn't listened and responded to previous attempts at dispute resolution. Perhaps this RfC will do it. I should have it ready and posted in a month or two.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:07am
Post #86


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 4:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback.


Please, NYB, give me a break. In the face of incontrovertible evidence that the BLP policy is being routinely violated, the response of the arbcom was to say, "Gee, maybe there's a problem. We hope that some other branch of the Wikipedia dispute resolution machinery will solve it, maybe. OK, we're going home now." So in the face of such impotence, someone else endeavors to do something about the massive unsolved problem, and you want to complain about it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mathsci
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:16am
Post #87


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed 8th Apr 2009, 6:52am
From: South of France
Member No.: 11,217

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:


What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:17am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 1:57am
Post #88


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 5:16pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:
What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?

You, possibly.

All this is so funny. McWhiney whines, and the Mighty Arbcom plays pocket pool. It still amazes me that
anyone would be foolish enough to hire Brad for his "legal acumen", because it bloody well isn't on
display anywhere on Wikipedia.

I'd devote a whole chapter to McWhiney, but he just isn't important enough. He's a successful minor
bully in a society of bullies. He only deserves 2 paragraphs.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 3rd September 2011, 2:00am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 4:56am
Post #89


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 8:16pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:


What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?


http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=283906

Because ArbCom is more concerned about stopping the yelling and the screaming than dealing with the actual problem. dry.gif

Though, maybe I am being too hard on NYB and even the ArbCom in general. The ArbCom is only a judicial body bound by the insane and mercurial policies and procedures formed by the Wikipedia Community. The entire Wikipedia Community (not just ArbCom) is to blame for people like Beback, Mantanmoreland, Jayjg, Slim Virgin, etc. to behave as they do and get away with it. Also, ArbCom has to deal with the sociopolitical aspects as well as determining who is right and wrong (by Wikipedia's standards in which YMMV). Will Beback has been around a long time and is an administrator. He may not have the sociopolitical power he once wielded, but it is still difficult to desysop or sanction someone like Beback without some considerable backlash. Cla has made a lot of enemies since Mantanmoreland and his clashes with the Anti-ID Cabal and the Global Warming Wars. Look what SirFozzie went through trying to prove that Mantanmoreland was up to no good. People were hysterical, accusing him of harassment and proxying for an evil banned user. It took a huge toll on him even though he was right. Cla may very well be right. We here are sure he is right. But being right does not make you popular. Unpopular people cause chaos even if they are right and the community may reject such people just to keep the peace. Cla is not an administrator and has few powerful friends to argue on his behalf. Strangely, from my perspective, actual writers on Wikipedia are seen as "expendable cogs" who can be easily replaced. Perhaps, if anything, NYB is (knowingly or unknowingly) saying to Cla "You may be right, but I see the writing on the wall and it is not looking too good for you."

The Wikipedia Community want their Barabbas (Will Beback) and are willing to crucify Cla68 while Pontius Pilate (ArbCom)* gives them what they want. dry.gif hrmph.gif

*Please, no "Biggus Dickus" jokes. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 5:41am
Post #90


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:16am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:


What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?


Mainly because of what I wrote in point #5. To borrow Christopher Booker's compelling observation, we all of us, see the world in terms of stories/narratives. Wikipedia Review definitely has several recurring narratives with which its regulars view Wikipedia's history, culture, and structure. Point #5 is a narrative I have, shared by some others, shaped by my experiences and observations from five years of participation in Wikipedia. That narrative is influencing how I interpret and act on the situation with Will Beback.

Thus, I felt it important to mention as one of the reasons for doing what I'm doing. Wikipedia's administration and community, however, as inferred by The Joy's words above, have never acknowledged this narrative, as expressed in point #5, as being true. Therefore, if I bring it up in Wikipedia I would be violating the letter of the No Personal Attacks policy. Also, Wikipedia participants are supposed to be focusing on building a 'pedia, right? Progression. So, constantly bringing up past editor behavior is considered unhelpful, which is an understandable view.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sat 3rd September 2011, 6:03am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 6:08am
Post #91


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 9:56pm) *

The Wikipedia Community want their Barabbas (Will Beback) and are willing to crucify Cla68 while Pontius Pilate (ArbCom)* gives them what they want.
I think you may be overstating the case. I have been watching some of the brawls that erupt in the wake of Will's shitting-on-BLPs behavior, and I see no one rushing to his defense. No SlimVirgin, no Georgewilliamherbert, no Tom Harrison. It's not like a few years ago. I think that the BLP policy is becoming more fashionable among the members of the [ahem] community, and only a few holdouts like Cirt and Will fail to detect the change in the direction that the wind is blowing. At least, I hope that's what is going on. What do you think, NewYorkBrad?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mathsci
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 7:37am
Post #92


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed 8th Apr 2009, 6:52am
From: South of France
Member No.: 11,217

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 5:41am) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:16am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 11:23pm) *

Here, Newyorkbrad expresses concern about me starting an RfC draft on Will Beback. I'll explain my rationale below:


What was is that prevented you posting this on wikipedia?


Mainly because of what I wrote in point #5. To borrow Christopher Booker's compelling observation, we all of us, see the world in terms of stories/narratives. Wikipedia Review definitely has several recurring narratives with which its regulars view Wikipedia's history, culture, and structure. Point #5 is a narrative I have, shared by some others, shaped by my experiences and observations from five years of participation in Wikipedia. That narrative is influencing how I interpret and act on the situation with Will Beback.

Thus, I felt it important to mention as one of the reasons for doing what I'm doing. Wikipedia's administration and community, however, as inferred by The Joy's words above, have never acknowledged this narrative, as expressed in point #5, as being true. Therefore, if I bring it up in Wikipedia I would be violating the letter of the No Personal Attacks policy. Also, Wikipedia participants are supposed to be focusing on building a 'pedia, right? Progression. So, constantly bringing up past editor behavior is considered unhelpful, which is an understandable view.


I don't agree with your logic. Wikipedia has changed, BLP policy has changed and people change. 2006 is a long time back and things were very different then.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 6:42pm
Post #93


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE
Future dispute resolution
4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist after the case is closed, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued.


What do you mean, if? The decision does nothing to resolve them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 9:04pm
Post #94


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:37am) *
Wikipedia has changed, BLP policy has changed and people change. 2006 is a long time back and things were very different then.

Yes, they were different. Your "Glorious Project" was booming, new users were showing up to write useful articles about all kinds of subjects, and very few Wikipedians spent inordinate amounts of time wargaming, gawking at various slow-motion traffic accidents (AN/I, Arbcom, SlimVirgin, Mantanmoreland etc.) and pretending to "edit" an "encyclopedia".

Now the "encyclopedia" is in decline. BLPs are still often used to defame people, but now it's difficult to repair them because the wargamers have taken over. Because no one with expertise, or even a drop of common sense, wants to edit articles. New article creation is declining, new users are declining, blocks of new users are through the roof, and certain biases are hopelessly baked into the database. Meanwhile, the subjects arrogant young males want to talk about -- military history, football, cartoons and comic books, and Doctor Who -- are getting top-notch treatment.

(By the way, Mathsci, you incredible bastard, did you know that only 1.7% of English Wikipedia's entire database is about science? And only 0.6% of it is about mathematics? There is far more about professional wrestling on Wikipedia than there is about both science AND math.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Beer me
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 10:56pm
Post #95


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 19th Dec 2010, 6:07pm
Member No.: 35,937



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 2:04pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 12:37am) *
Wikipedia has changed, BLP policy has changed and people change. 2006 is a long time back and things were very different then.

Yes, they were different. Your "Glorious Project" was booming, new users were showing up to write useful articles about all kinds of subjects, and very few Wikipedians spent inordinate amounts of time wargaming, gawking at various slow-motion traffic accidents (AN/I, Arbcom, SlimVirgin, Mantanmoreland etc.) and pretending to "edit" an "encyclopedia".

Now the "encyclopedia" is in decline. BLPs are still often used to defame people, but now it's difficult to repair them because the wargamers have taken over. Because no one with expertise, or even a drop of common sense, wants to edit articles. New article creation is declining, new users are declining, blocks of new users are through the roof, and certain biases are hopelessly baked into the database. Meanwhile, the subjects arrogant young males want to talk about -- military history, football, cartoons and comic books, and Doctor Who -- are getting top-notch treatment.

(By the way, Mathsci, you incredible bastard, did you know that only 1.7% of English Wikipedia's entire database is about science? And only 0.6% of it is about mathematics? There is far more about professional wrestling on Wikipedia than there is about both science AND math.)


Amen, beautifully put Eric.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sat 3rd September 2011, 11:34pm
Post #96


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 10:04pm) *


(By the way, Mathsci, you incredible bastard, did you know that only 1.7% of English Wikipedia's entire database is about science? And only 0.6% of it is about mathematics? There is far more about professional wrestling on Wikipedia than there is about both science AND math.)


OTOH Last week an old friend dropped me into some group of like minded friends of his. Its all home-schooling, UFO, slaves to the Reptilians, David Ike, twelve-fold DNA helixes, big foot, and the bigger picture.

Having seen the nonsense I feel thoroughly dirty.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Thu 8th September 2011, 12:45am
Post #97


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This discussion provides a sterling example of the intransigence of the BLP-manipulators.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th 11 14, 6:06am