http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...436468206#Cults

It's odd how the Arbs have rejected the Lyndon LaRouche 3 and Cirt cases, yet seem perfectly happy to accept one that is those two rolled into one.

different request, same assholes throwing shit

ResidentAnthropologist has framed it in an unusual way; there doesn't seem to be any sort of requested solution, just a description of a bunch of conflicts with the request to ArbCom that they sort it out. This comment by MathSci is actually to the point:


This is an adorable comment by Georgewilliamherbert:

If I were an admin, I would Block em' all and let Arbcom sort it out.

A case like this shows just how dysfunctional Wikipedia currently is. A large percentage, perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the editors who have opined on that case request are probably activists to some extent in some topic area in Wikipedia. How could ArbCom clear-up a problem that deep-rooted without being able to fundamentally alter how WP is administered?

I'll use wikispeak so that the participants might better understand.

The problem with all these issues is that each entry is built up of WP:RECENTISM each of the contested sections are sourced from news articles that are reacting to a specific event, they are either contemporaneous with the principle subject or they are a regurgitation of the old accounts. Hardly any of them are based on considered analysis of the event over an extended period. Point in case santorum, there are a bunch of sources contemporary with the initial event (primary RECENTISM), then a bunch of sources a couple of years later when the media become aware of the google bomb (secondary RECENTISM), then a bunch of modern source when he announces he may stand for office (teriary RECENTISM). All of those sources are simply repeating the reaction to the initial event.


The LaRouche articles are similarly constructed. A huge amount of sourcing from when the press became interested him when he first stood for Pressy. Then other bouts of dwindling interest in subsequent elections. Personally I'd be amazed if, given his far left background, one would find any positive commentary from an American press during a presidential election. You are only going to find that in increasingly obscure and self documentary left factional polemics. What you have in that article is a piling on, where quotes from one mainstream critic follows quotes from another mainstream critic, which is followed by quotes from another mainstream critic. The result is WP:UNDUE bloat whose obly saving grace is TL;DR. Adding more positive or more neutral stuff in there isn't going to help except make it even more TL;DR. You can balance two things by either adding more stuff to the light side, or taking stuff off the heavy side. The WP process only allows addition.


The science stuff where it impacts individuals, especially those at the periphery of the main controversy is similarly constructed from piling on of quotes by critics, its like building a biography of Richard Dawkins and including a bunch of quotes from Southern Baptist snake handlers, and assorted fundamentalist nitwits.

Just like "Murder on the Orient Express" you are all guilty.

Right. That's why they bury their heads in the sand. It's much more comfortable.

There is an obvious solution: facilitate DR, set up real dispute resolution process, facilitated by experts, or at least by people with good success in finding consensus (as quite distinct from deciding what side of a dispute is "wrong" and blocking that side). Enforce behavioral restrictions with graduated remedies that encourage cooperation and discourage battle. Distinguish between battle and "pov-pushing," i.e, expressing a pov, as if the latter were a bad thing.

Clarify and enforce recusal policy. I argued that any admin should recuse on request. On recusal, an admin proceeds as any other editor, they may file complaints, etc. Allow emergency bypass of recusal rules upon prompt notice, declaring emergency, and consultation. "Emergency" would only allow short blocks.

Administrators should have clear policy to follow which would both enable and protect them. I saw an admin desysopped for blocking an editor while allegedly involved, but the admin had immediately consulted. Errors should be allowed.

Suspend admin privileges for recusal failure, unless the admin acknowledges the failure and shows understanding and acceptance of the policy. Suspend admin privileges immediately upon a showing of cause to believe that there has been recusal failure without proper process being followed. Suspension should not be considered and should not require a finding of guilt.

"Suspending admin privileges" may include flexible injunctions, i.e, orders to not use tools in some specific area, and would only involve actual lifting of the tools if the orders are violated.

Indeed, injunctions should be used far more liberally as an alternative to blocking. Set up full deliberative process for appeals of restrictions. Develop a user set, clerks, whose task would be to neutrally organize deliberations, making the process intelligible, instead of the tangled threaded mass that often results.

Respect editors, they are more likely to return this with respect. If not, well, you do what you can do.

ArbComm followed, itself, highly defective process that boiled down, too often, to personal likes and dislikes.

Create a Wikipedia Assembly, either using delegable proxy or, if secret ballot is to be used, Asset Voting. The Assembly, elected in this way, would fully represent the interested editorial community, and would then allow authenticated and efficient communication between the full community and the WMF. Let the Assembly elect ArbComm and appoint whatever executives are needed.

Let the Assembly determine its own operating rules, as is standard with any deliberative body.

It does seem to be bogged down by persons arguing over how to define the issues. It seems pretty simple to me. Call it either "activist coatracking" or "attack articles." "Attack articles" is probably the simplest way to go. Just lay down the law and say that articles about controversial groups or individuals are restricted to a certain length, and that dubious allegations made by critics may be presented only in the most stripped down summary form. Add to that topic bans for the most notorious offenders (Cirt, Beback, SlimVirgin) and the problem is solved.