Ritchie333

[mendaliv]

Being Jewish is not going to help your cause. In the WMF's view, there are already too many Jews editing.

Seriously? Are we looking at a WMF equivalent of a Jewish quota (T-H-L)?

[Kumioko]

Being Jewish is not going to help your cause. In the WMF's view, there are already too many Jews editing.

Seriously? Are we looking at a WMF equivalent of a Jewish quota (T-H-L)?

Not Jewish, the WMF just want more Transgender, Females, liberals and anyone that might now how to increase donations.

[Vigilant]

Being Jewish is not going to help your cause. In the WMF's view, there are already too many Jews editing.

Seriously? Are we looking at a WMF equivalent of a Jewish quota (T-H-L)?

Not Jewish, the WMF just want more Transgender, Females, liberals and anyone that might now how to increase donations.

Jewish is the new White.

They’re probably CIS patriarchy stooges too.


While I’m more than willing to accommodate people’s preferences for how they want to be addressed, the current situation is unsustainable. A tiny sliver of trolls like Yaniv and Fae using the equivalent of white guilt to try and assert themselves into controlling positions won’t last long and will engender an enormous backlash.

Similarly, these virtual signaling “working groups” (goddamn what an oxymoron) are about to rupture the WMF and teh communitah with their ridiculous overreach. There is a coming pushback that’s going to be glorious.

[eagle]

While I’m more than willing to accommodate people’s preferences for how they want to be addressed, the current situation is unsustainable. A tiny sliver of trolls like Yaniv and Fae using the equivalent of white guilt to try and assert themselves into controlling positions won’t last long and will engender an enormous backlash.

Similarly, these virtual signaling “working groups” (goddamn what an oxymoron) are about to rupture the WMF and teh communitah with their ridiculous overreach. There is a coming pushback that’s going to be glorious.

You are forgetting "Hale's Law": any push back, even reasoned argument, against an assertion (or power grab) made in the vague spirit of diversity is per se "harassment" and/or an illegal personal attack and/or an OUTING attempt. It used to be that discrimination based on sex, gender, race, national origin meant exactly "a disparate treatment on account of …". However, post-modernists now claim that discrimination cannot be claimed if it is targeted against a member of a privileged group. The courts do not read the laws in that manner, so we are in for some interesting debates.

[Kumioko]

A bit off topic here but the way I look at it is if you can replace one demographic with another and doing so makes the term offensive, then the previous term is, by extension, also racist and should be considered offensive.

For example, just to name a few, how would these be perceived:
- White Entertainment Television (WET)
- Caucasian American College Fund
- Go to Wikipedia and look up Gay Pride, Black Pride, Hispanic pride and then compare them to the description of White Pride.
- Etc.

Fae should be cruising for a ban with his POV pushing but, in the current environment of Wikipedia and the WMF's laughable attempt at inclusiveness (that will only alienate the rest of the community) he will likely be embraced as a savior!

[Poetlister]

Well I want a hard Brexit (any type will do)

Most people of my acquaintance would suffer very badly from a hard Brexit, but YMMV.

[Poetlister]

Not Jewish, the WMF just want more Transgender, Females, liberals and anyone that might now how to increase donations.

The proportion of females among Jews is probably close to the proportion among other people. The proportion of liberals is probably a lot higher. I don't know about transgender people.

[Jans Hammer]

Well I want a hard Brexit (any type will do)

Most people of my acquaintance would suffer very badly from a hard Brexit, but YMMV.

My mileage doesn't vary. I would likely be financially worse off with a no deal Brexit. I believe that the outcome of the biggest turnout referendum in the UK must be respected. I also believe that the EU - and especially the unelected Commission - is a very dangerous, undemocratic structure.

[nableezy]

A bit off topic here but the way I look at it is if you can replace one demographic with another and doing so makes the term offensive, then the previous term is, by extension, also racist and should be considered offensive.

Nope. When a historically underrepresented group essentially forces their way into some industry they are not being racist. BET is a thing because African-Americans were not targeted as a demographic by such channels as MTV. Ebony is a magazine because Life was racist as shit and there was both nobody targeting the demographic or representing them in any positive way. It isn't racist when an oppressed people rise up and take their own piece of the pie.

[Kumioko]

Well it's also true that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are college age white males. So maybe Wikipedia and the WMF are being racist.

[Ritchie333]

Looks like Chrissy might have been a bit of a dick with rollback...
linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source[/link]

Seems to be a common theme. Here is another thread where they first say "I didn't use rollback, stop threatening me!", then when given a diff that shows they did, remove the thread.

[Vigilant]

While I’m more than willing to accommodate people’s preferences for how they want to be addressed, the current situation is unsustainable. A tiny sliver of trolls like Yaniv and Fae using the equivalent of white guilt to try and assert themselves into controlling positions won’t last long and will engender an enormous backlash.

Similarly, these virtual signaling “working groups” (goddamn what an oxymoron) are about to rupture the WMF and teh communitah with their ridiculous overreach. There is a coming pushback that’s going to be glorious.

You are forgetting "Hale's Law": any push back, even reasoned argument, against an assertion (or power grab) made in the vague spirit of diversity is per se "harassment" and/or an illegal personal attack and/or an OUTING attempt. It used to be that discrimination based on sex, gender, race, national origin meant exactly "a disparate treatment on account of …". However, post-modernists now claim that discrimination cannot be claimed if it is targeted against a member of a privileged group. The courts do not read the laws in that manner, so we are in for some interesting debates.

Vigilant’s Corollary is going to be a beast.

[Newyorkbrad]

But they still need to follow the arbitration policy, and they're not doing so.

Take them to Arbcom!

LOL

There was a case before the Supreme Court recently, earlier this term, that got dispensed of on the shadow docket (i.e., the sheet of orders denying things without opinion) in a way that caught my eye.

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.” The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

In case you're counting, that's 7 recusals, and this was October 1, 2018 (so before Kavanaugh took office). The case is just titled Johnson v. United States, so I got curious and checked the docket.

This guy must've thought he was really clever. It turns out he named all the justices except Gorsuch as parties (I believe because he filed the original suit before Gorsuch took office), as well as a bunch of judges on the Federal Circuit and Court of Federal Claims (the orders of which are appealed to the Federal Circuit). So what happened was the justices who were named in the suit recused, because they shouldn't preside over a case involving themselves (no matter how frivolous and vexatious it is), and the one remaining justice determined there was no quorum, and therefore by law the appeal was to be affirmed (but not in a way that made it national precedent). It's quite a clever way of dealing with someone trying to be clever.

And for those in doubt, the lawsuit was absolutely frivolous.

There are one or two of these each Term, typically in frivolous cases where a litigant has sued all the Justices, but occasionally where there are multiple recusals for other reasons in more serious cases. (By statute, a quorum of the Supreme Court is six.). Section 2109 was originally enacted to deal with the unique scenario in United States v. Alcoa (T-H-L) (1944), in which the Court lacked a quorum on a direct appeal from a district court in an important antitrust case.

[Poetlister]

I also believe that the EU - and especially the unelected Commission - is a very dangerous, undemocratic structure.

The EU is not run by the Commission. The most powerful bodies are the Council of Ministers, consisting of the democratically appointed ministers of each country, and the European Parliament, democratically elected by the electorate at large. Further, the Commission is controlled by the Commissioners, appointed by the governments of the member states and approved by the parliament. Sorry if this is off topic.

[GoldenRing]

I also believe that the EU - and especially the unelected Commission - is a very dangerous, undemocratic structure.

The EU is not run by the Commission. The most powerful bodies are the Council of Ministers, consisting of the democratically appointed ministers of each country, and the European Parliament, democratically elected by the electorate at large. Further, the Commission is controlled by the Commissioners, appointed by the governments of the member states and approved by the parliament. Sorry if this is off topic.

Soooooo... quick check, which of those bodies is able to propose legislation? Which is able to propose budgets? Which is able to negotiate treaties?

This is rather like saying the United States is not run by the president and his cabinet. Gosh, in the USA, legislators are even allowed to propose laws!

[Jans Hammer]

I also believe that the EU - and especially the unelected Commission - is a very dangerous, undemocratic structure.

The EU is not run by the Commission. The most powerful bodies are the Council of Ministers, consisting of the democratically appointed ministers of each country, and the European Parliament, democratically elected by the electorate at large. Further, the Commission is controlled by the Commissioners, appointed by the governments of the member states and approved by the parliament. Sorry if this is off topic.

I am politically aware and active in the UK and have been for over 30 years. You have your opinion - I have mine. Neither of us is likely to persuade the other and here certainly is not the place to attempt to do so. Suffice to say I think you are wrong. As for the other EU bodies - I voted for one small permanent minority subset in the parliament. The COM is essentially a Franco-German carve up. Beyond that I have no wish to debate this here.

[Poetlister]

This is rather like saying the United States is not run by the president and his cabinet.

That's fair enough. The president is elected by the people, and the cabinet is appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, also elected.

[Randy from Boise]

This is rather like saying the United States is not run by the president and his cabinet.

That's fair enough. The president is elected by the people, and the cabinet is appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, also elected.

No, the President is elected by the presidential electors, who are elected on a state-by-state basis based upon the number of congressional representatives and senators are allotted to each state, a constitutionally-fixed number which overrepresents sparsely-populated rural states and underrepresents populous metropolitan states. These are elected by the people.

The cabinet is appointed by the president and rubber-stamped by the senate.

The system produces results in practice in which a (right wing) minority party can attain supremacy despite being outvoted in total.

RfB

[Ritchie333]

Just a quick update.

I have had a couple of emails from various arbs, with a variety of views. Some think I'm utterly outrageous for hurting the feelings of the Wikimedia DC social clique, others are more reasoned and think I have been treated pretty badly. I also had a chat with WereSpielChequers at the last London meetup and he agrees I've been used as a punchbag for certain groups to throw their weight around.

In any case, they all want me to come back and edit at some point. The problem is, I just can't get motivated to do so. There's a whole wide world out there that has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia, and if more long-term people (particularly those attracted to the dramah-affected areas of the project) took sabbaticals, the project would be better off for it.

PS: Has anyone else noticed that Martinevans123 (T-C-L) jumped ship about the same time I did?

[Vigilant]

Walk away.

The social scene at en.wp is brain cancer waiting to happen.

[Sophie]

Martinevans123's disappearance coincided with the Evidence phase of the Fram case so may be related to that? He's been blocked for socking in the past so is probably still around under a different (or reincarnated) persona.

[Jans Hammer]

PS: Has anyone else noticed that Martinevans123 (T-C-L) jumped ship about the same time I did?

Strange thing to identify with. Is he a sock of yours?

[Alex Shih]

Yeah, unfortunately Ritchie simply has too many "enemies" that does nothing but "maintenance" bullshit. While that's usually okay, there has to be mutual respect that's proportional to the kind of work that you do.

[Earthy Astringent]

The social scene at en.wp is brain cancer waiting to happen.

Editing Wikipedia causes brain cancer.

[Ritchie333]

Editing Wikipedia causes brain cancer.

Has the Daily Mail had that as a headline?

[Randy from Boise]

Editing Wikipedia causes brain cancer.

Has the Daily Mail had that as a headline?

Somehow I doubt that brain health is a major concern of Daily Mail readers...

RfB

[Poetlister]

Editing Wikipedia causes brain cancer.

Has the Daily Mail had that as a headline?

If not, it ought to, considering its contempt for Wikipedia since the decision to deprecate it as a reliable source while retaining the Sun.

[Randy from Boise]

Editing Wikipedia causes brain cancer.

Has the Daily Mail had that as a headline?

If not, it ought to, considering its contempt for Wikipedia since the decision to deprecate it as a reliable source while retaining the Sun.

Rome wasn't built in a day. </jk>

RfB

P.S. I will reiterate that I think the entire doctrine of "reliable sources" (and its corollary, "prohibited sources") is 190-proof horseshit.

[Poetlister]

P.S. I will reiterate that I think the entire doctrine of "reliable sources" (and its corollary, "prohibited sources") is 190-proof horseshit.

Unfortunately, that concept is a necessary consequence of "anyone can edit" and the deprecation of experts. Nobody would expect Encyclopaedia Britannica to lay down rules about which sources contributors are allowed to use, because all the articles are written by experts.

[Jans Hammer]

P.S. I will reiterate that I think the entire doctrine of "reliable sources" (and its corollary, "prohibited sources") is 190-proof horseshit.

Unfortunately, that concept is a necessary consequence of "anyone can edit" and the deprecation of experts. Nobody would expect Encyclopaedia Britannica to lay down rules about which sources contributors are allowed to use, because all the articles are written by experts.

Aye. But EB experts are paid.

[Osborne]

P.S. I will reiterate that I think the entire doctrine of "reliable sources" (and its corollary, "prohibited sources") is 190-proof horseshit.

Unfortunately, that concept is a necessary consequence of "anyone can edit" and the deprecation of experts. Nobody would expect Encyclopaedia Britannica to lay down rules about which sources contributors are allowed to use, because all the articles are written by experts.

[Osborne]

Aye. But EB experts are paid.

As there should be paid (hired) editors and admins in Wikipedia too. Without that what we get? "Volunteer" admins working full-time, having their bills paid by... well, guess which industry/politics groups, hiding behind the mob-pleasing idea of self-regulation.

[Randy from Boise]

P.S. I will reiterate that I think the entire doctrine of "reliable sources" (and its corollary, "prohibited sources") is 190-proof horseshit.

Unfortunately, that concept is a necessary consequence of "anyone can edit" and the deprecation of experts. Nobody would expect Encyclopaedia Britannica to lay down rules about which sources contributors are allowed to use, because all the articles are written by experts.

On this we agree.

t

[Randy from Boise]

Aye. But EB experts are paid.

As there should be paid (hired) editors and admins in Wikipedia too. Without that what we get? "Volunteer" admins working full-time, having their bills paid by... well, guess which industry/politics groups, hiding behind the mob-pleasing idea of self-regulation.

I think most serious volunteers are well-intentioned fanatics about certain subjects of interest who do what they do both as a pastime and as a means of contributing to a greater good.

The "mob" does indeed self-regulate. When this process comes into conflict with the perceived business objectives of the inept tech corporation that has grown out of the project's side -- well, that's where the problems begin...

RfB

[Osborne]

I think most serious volunteers are well-intentioned fanatics about certain subjects of interest who do what they do both as a pastime and as a means of contributing to a greater good.

Though I'm not talking about the "well-intentioned fanatics", who are a minority. I also did not mean the good-faith, dedicated editors, who are more than a minority.
To reiterate, I'm specifically talking about a a different minority, who don't contribute to the pedia, only "regulate" it. Part of that "regulation" is to support the pov of their benefactors, who pay their full-time efforts.

The "mob" does indeed self-regulate.

Indeed they do. The problem is: how they do it is flawed (mob-rule), resulting in the present oligarchic, elitist, slowly declining community, hostile to anything new, unable and unwilling to keep up with times. The wmf's ineptness, and focus on donations is just a reflection of the community's elite, but the community in itself is the cause of its own issues.

[10920]

PS: Has anyone else noticed that Martinevans123 (T-C-L) jumped ship about the same time I did?

I did not notice.

[Poetlister]

The "mob" does indeed self-regulate.

Indeed they do. The problem is: how they do it is flawed (mob-rule), resulting in the present oligarchic, elitist, slowly declining community, hostile to anything new, unable and unwilling to keep up with times. The wmf's ineptness, and focus on donations is just a reflection of the community's elite, but the community in itself is the cause of its own issues.

Yes, sometimes, maybe most of the time, self-regulation works very well. Sometimes the place looks like Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies.

[Jans Hammer]

Ritchie unretired today....

[Ritchie333]

Ritchie unretired today....

Thanks for letting me know, I had no idea!

[Vigilant]

Back on the smack.

[Ritchie333]

Back on the smack.

Codeine and paracetamol actually Vig, so close enough.

[Randy from Boise]

Back on the smack.

Codeine and paracetamol actually Vig, so close enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eCMN8sx4xs

Gang of Four - Glass [1979]

Look through the window
Look through the window
Look through the window
I'm looking through a pane of glass
Look through the window (and what do you see? )
Look through the window (and what do you see? )
Look through the window (and what do you see? )
I'm looking through a pane of glass
I'm so restless
I'm so restless
I'm so restless
We talk about this and we talk about that
I'm so restless (I'm bored as a cat)
I'm so restless (I'm bored as a cat)
I'm so restless (I'm bored as a cat)
We talk about this and we talk about that
Light myself
Light myself
Light myself
Nicotine really goes to my head
Light myself (up a cigarette)
Light myself (up a cigarette)
Light myself (up a cigarette)
Nicotine really goes to my head
If you're feeling all in take some asprin
If you feel in a mess put your head on a head rest
Your back on a back rest, foot on a foot rest
Or your arm on an arm rest or your leg on a leg rest
Your back on a back rest, if you feel in a real mess
When you're feeling all in take some asprin
Or some paracetamol
Always thought life should be so easy
It seems that I have misunderstood
Nothing I do can seem to please me
What I say don't sound so good
I always thought
I always thought
I always thought
It seems that I have misunderstood

RfB

[Alex Shih]

Gee, Ritchie, you really have no integrity! All jokes aside, if you find motivations to edit Wikipedia again, that's always a good thing. In my case I'll probably wait until some nasty people at ArbCom are fully flushed out

[Randy from Boise]

Gee, Ritchie, you really have no integrity! All jokes aside, if you find motivations to edit Wikipedia again, that's always a good thing. In my case I'll probably wait until some nasty people at ArbCom are fully flushed out

There aren't that many Arbcom members left... To whom exactly are you referring?

RfB

[Alex Shih]

All of them. Carcharoth's comment here is a fabulous reading material for me.

[Beeblebrox]

I do think "throw the bums out" might be the theme of this years arb election.

The problem will be finding people with sense but who somehow actually want the job.

[Moral Hazard]

All of them. Carcharoth's comment here is a fabulous reading material for me.

I repeat my guess, on how this Arb behaved so badly.

WMF legal told them how to conduct the case and warned them that they could be personally liable if they failed to follow WMF legal's advice.

[Vigilant]

I do think "throw the bums out" might be the theme of this years arb election.

The problem will be finding people with sense but who somehow actually want the job.

How many people would support a finding of violations of WP:ADMINCOND on the part of ARBCOM, separately and collectively?

[Randy from Boise]

All of them. Carcharoth's comment here is a fabulous reading material for me.

I repeat my guess, on how this Arb behaved so badly.

WMF legal told them how to conduct the case and warned them that they could be personally liable if they failed to follow WMF legal's advice.

Nah, I think the most simple explanation is probably the most likely...

T&S wanted to invent a new "secret complaint" process to Super Friendly Space harassment victims and publicized it to a couple lists populated with political players.

Complaints were filed against Fram on behalf of a well-connected contributor for whom T&S had already (demonstrably) gone to bat.

Shit hit the fan.

Bureaucrats scurried and the matter was punted to Arbcom for investigation/ratification.

Arbcom was too dim to insist upon regular procedure; T&S predictably protected their Very Special Complainants.

Nature ran its course.

There hasn't been any indication at all from Arbcom that WMF Legal threw weight.

tim

[10920]

I don't know if it was "Legal" that threw weight, but I have no doubt that WMF made it clear what ArbCom could and could not do in this case.

If any of the worms had a spine, they would have resigned under protest.