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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Betacommand RFAR #3
that one guy
post Fri 6th January 2012, 2:44pm
Post #1


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



With all the drama over at the MF/Civility case and some interesting happenings over at the TG case, this one sort of got left behind though now it's at voting.

we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...acommand_banned

Where the hell did that come from?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Fri 6th January 2012, 3:18pm
Post #2


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 6th January 2012, 2:44pm) *

With all the drama over at the MF/Civility case and some interesting happenings over at the TG case, this one sort of got left behind though now it's at voting.

we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...acommand_banned

Where the hell did that come from?

They want to get rid of him. And now they have a means to do so.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 6th January 2012, 3:20pm
Post #3


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



Little-known secret - Betacommand himself is a bot.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ego Trippin' (Part Two)
post Fri 13th January 2012, 8:43pm
Post #4


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun 13th Feb 2011, 3:07am
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413



QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 6th January 2012, 10:18am) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 6th January 2012, 2:44pm) *

With all the drama over at the MF/Civility case and some interesting happenings over at the TG case, this one sort of got left behind though now it's at voting.

we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...acommand_banned

Where the hell did that come from?

They want to get rid of him. And now they have a means to do so.


This is a very unusual situation. I think it's fair to say that ArbCom typically issues decisions in one of two ways. One: They know how they as a committee will resolve a case when they accept it, and, after allowing the parties to present evidence, they use that evidence to support their pre-determined conclusions. Or two: After accepting a case, they discuss it privately in order to coalesce around a solution before proceeding to public formal voting, thus maintaining an outward appearance of unanimity or near-unanimity.

But this time, despite the lengthy period of about two months between the acceptance of the case and the presentation of the proposed decision, the committee is very publically fractured over how to proceed. Some arbitrators are set on banning Betacommand; others are dead-set against doing so. Some, for whatever reason, want to convert the "community sanctions" to ArbCom sanctions; others think that's laughable. The only "remedy" which looks like it will pass essentially bans Betacommand from editing except for running bots.

My question is this: Is this messy proposed decision an indication of what the upcoming ArbCom term will look like? On the one hand, Betacommand is a divisive figure for the unwashed ANI-drama-mongering masses, so perhaps the same is true for ArbCom and the fractiousness will be limited to this case. On the other hand, two of the new arbitrators -- SilkTork and to a lesser extent Courcelles -- seem interested in shaking things up a bit, resisting the urge to swiftly ban Betacommand and instead initiating different proposals. SilkTork has even challenged ArbCom's authority a little bit (see here and here). Perhaps SilkTork this year will behave in a way not unlike the manner in which people envisioned Iridescent behaving last year.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 13th January 2012, 9:12pm
Post #5


blah
*********

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



"Betacommand is a divisive figure" MY ASS.

He's been stirring up shit for more than four years. And Arbcom, in their staggering patheticness,
is now helping him. December 2007, anyone?

BC is a major example of how sick and raving mad the glorious Wikipedia "community" really is.
He has intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies. And the shit boils on, year after year.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ego Trippin' (Part Two)
post Fri 13th January 2012, 9:30pm
Post #6


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun 13th Feb 2011, 3:07am
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 13th January 2012, 4:12pm) *

"Betacommand is a divisive figure" MY ASS.

He's been stirring up shit for more than four years. And Arbcom, in their staggering patheticness,
is now helping him. December 2007, anyone?

BC is a major example of how sick and raving mad the glorious Wikipedia "community" really is.
He has intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies. And the shit boils on, year after year.


Eric, surely the fact that BC has "intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies" means that he is, ipso facto, divisive on Wikipedia.

If you think that I was expressing pleasure about ArbCom apparently letting BC escape without a ban once again, you're wrong. Like you, I have a low opinion of BC and his supporters. My interest here is in the unusual public fractiousness of the Arbitration Committee in this case, and what that means for the upcoming year.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 13th January 2012, 9:39pm
Post #7


blah
*********

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Fri 13th January 2012, 1:30pm) *

Eric, surely the fact that BC has "intractable admin friends, and intractable admin enemies" means that he is, ipso facto, divisive on Wikipedia.

Just to amplify: I was being ironic. This goes far, far beyond "divisive". By showing how deep and
hopeless the divisions in Wikipedia (and now Arbcom) are, BC's case makes a perfect demonstration
that Wikipedia should be shut down entirely, and all the Arbcommers ("reformers" or not) need to be
kicked to the curb. This is the kind of petty shit that eventually causes outright civil war.

Another thing Wikipedia is, but won't admit: a slow-motion gang war.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ego Trippin' (Part Two)
post Fri 13th January 2012, 10:03pm
Post #8


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun 13th Feb 2011, 3:07am
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 13th January 2012, 4:39pm) *

Just to amplify: I was being ironic. This goes far, far beyond "divisive". By showing how deep and
hopeless the divisions in Wikipedia (and now Arbcom) are, BC's case makes a perfect demonstration
that Wikipedia should be shut down entirely, and all the Arbcommers ("reformers" or not) need to be
kicked to the curb. This is the kind of petty shit that eventually causes outright civil war.

Another thing Wikipedia is, but won't admit: a slow-motion gang war.


Right, sorry; I'm sure I would have picked up on that if we were having this conversation face-to-face and not in a text-only medium.

I agree with your point that this is a prime example of Wikipedia's dysfunctional nature. It's interesting that ArbCom is scheduled to decide a case about Malleus, a similarly polarizing user (regardless of whether or not he's a Giano wannabe), shortly after this one. The intractable divisions over users like these, or issues like Flagged Revisions and Unreferenced BLPs, suggest that Wikipedia's consensus model is at the very least a deeply flawed way to run a website. But when the alternative rule by fiat would put in charge either a divided committee (the community writ small) or the bumbling, incompetent Jimmy Wales, it's hard not to see the whole thing as hopeless.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd 10 14, 1:32am