2014 Greg Kohs Case at Arbcom

[Cedric]

Seems Brad made an implied legal threat against Greg or he implied he might make a legal threat some time in the future or something.

Brad was once a force for good. Now he's reaching Raul Paul levels of delusional.

I am not seeing that at all. I've have never detected any sign that Ira was ever a true "force for good" on Wikipedia, despite his occasional, prolix and ineffective attempts to reason with essentially unreasonable people. It could be that the arrogance of office has made him somewhat more bold and less circumspect than what he used to be, but other than that I see no change.

Seems Brad made an implied legal threat against Greg or he implied he might make a legal threat some time in the future or something.

He's just linking to the thing he wrote before. DFTT.

And if you actually read his legalistic blathering, Ira Matetsky mostly concludes that what I do on Wikipedia could hardly rise to a criminal case, and it maybe, just maybe if you squint your eyes at it, could possibly be the focus of a civil lawsuit. If the Wikimedia Foundation ever filed a civil lawsuit against me, I have a few friends who are millionaires who would probably assist me in publicizing the folly the WMF was pursuing, and my counter-suit in the civil action would likely end up costing the Foundation a few million dollars.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if there are a few people at the WMF that are quite aware of this, although I suspect most view Greg as The Wiki Anti-Christ who must be countered at every turn. As for Ira, I would be surprised he chose to directly confront or threaten Greg. He has more than sufficient cause to know that cannot work as intended. I'm sure his remarks were purely for domestic consumption.

[Vigilant]

Given what we've seen of the quality of editors, it may be no mean stretch to call him the finest legal mind on wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

Bizarre. Universally agreed to be one of Wikipedia’s stupidest rules, they want to enforce it.

What should be kept in mind is that a banned editor is not, regardless of merit, allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. If we could implement some technical measure that would make it entirely impossible for them to edit at all, we would do so. Such a measure does not exist, so removal when detected is the next best solution. I would agree that in rare cases, such that reverting the banned editor would restore a copyvio or a BLP problem, it might be desirable to keep their edit, but in the majority of cases, edits made by a banned editor in defiance of the ban should not stand. Evaluation of one's edits on the merits of those edits happen when one is not subject to a ban; if the same happens when one is banned, there is no functional difference between being banned or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If such an extremely determined seriously disruptive editor discovers that they can get away with evading the ban, because every time they do so a significant proportion of their edits will remain, then they will continue to evade the ban. The one chance of stopping them is to make it clear to them that evading their ban is a waste of their time, because everything they do will simply be reverted. Of course, that means that sometimes we lose some good edits, but the fact that the editor is banned means that the community has decided that the editor is so disruptive that the loss of such good edits is outweighed by the benefit of deterring the disruption that the editor does. Keeping edits by such a banned editor purely on the basis of an opinion as to how constructive individual edits are, without regard to the whole context of the editor's history that led to the ban, is very likely to have a net negative effect on the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And even worse,this is how they detect it.

Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or otherwise evading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user.
Link

Right, so editing articles about philosophy and the history of science and semantics and so on is one of my ‘behaviours’. So if I choose to go back to Wikipedia and edit in my specialist area, they will spot this and block me and revert the edits? How does that help? And if the behaviour simply is editing those articles competently, and if every editor who edits those subjects competently gets blocked, how exactly does this help?

I haven’t touched Wikipedia for practically two years, but I am strongly tempted to go back just to prove how stupid this is. Just pick an area where something is really really bad, improve it, make known the fact that they are being improved, and take it from there. Remember, I was never banned for problems with content contribution, merely for getting into an argument with one of the nastier gangmasters.

[Vigilant]

I think that aptly demonstrates whether they are trying to build an encyclopedia or running an MMORPG.

[Randy from Boise]

With respect to Peter's point above: ArbCom could have cracked down on Smallbones and similarly-minded extremists to make such inarguably positive contributions by unpersons possible, but instead Dave Craven & Co. put up a big green light on such lunatic behavior.

I'm really disappointed in Dave's pedantic adherence to the most conservative interpretation of WP site policy. He didn't push one inch for change. Very, very disappointing...

If you boys want to have bans, first you have to have registration verification and sign-in-to-edit. Then we can talk. Otherwise, "banning" is nothing but a game and a joke.

RfB

[Vigilant]

With respect to Peter's point above: ArbCom could have cracked down on Smallbones and similarly-minded extremists to make such inarguably positive contributions by unpersons possible, but instead Dave Craven & Co. put up a big green light on such lunatic behavior.

I'm really disappointed in Dave's pedantic adherence to the most conservative interpretation of WP site policy. He didn't push one inch for change. Very, very disappointing...

If you boys want to have bans, first you have to have registration verification and sign-in-to-edit. Then we can talk. Otherwise, "banning" is nothing but a game and a joke.

RfB

Spot on.

[Peter Damian]

Newyorkbrad mentions 'joe jobs'. That doesn't strictly apply here, as someone deliberately imitating a banned user to stir up trouble should themselves be banned, and the reputation of the banned user is unlikely to be much affected. Joe jobs are more a concern at the actual stage a ban is proposed (i.e. before someone is banned), as imitating someone to get them banned in the first place is more likely and in such cases SPI may be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, so someone imitating me by making good quality edits to philosophy articles should themselves be banned? That's f--king ridiculous. Pardon me.

[eppur si muove]

All these Wikilawyers are just following the example of the so-called "people's judge".

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial … If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. … That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, “It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.”

They all shrink back at the horror of the thought that AN/I is populated by would be members of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad lying and bullying their way to the outcomes they want.

And here is Denning unintentionally commenting on the injustice of the "community":

We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied.

[Poetlister]

Given what we've seen of the quality of editors, it may be no mean stretch to call him the finest legal mind on wikipedia.

Certainly the finest since Fred Bauder, and I'll be brave enough to call him better than Fred.

[Notvelty]

Seems Brad made an implied legal threat against Greg or he implied he might make a legal threat some time in the future or something.

Brad was once a force for good. Now he's reaching Raul Paul levels of delusional.

I am not seeing that at all. I've have never detected any sign that Ira was ever a true "force for good" on Wikipedia, despite his occasional, prolix and ineffective attempts to reason with essentially unreasonable people. It could be that the arrogance of office has made him somewhat more bold and less circumspect than what he used to be, but other than that I see no change.

I guess I'm coming at it from his dealings in the 2006 period. If pressed, I guess I agree that he's not acted directly for change, but in that era, his approach meant that others could. Had he not been around, I do not think that action against the GW sock army, for example, could have taken place, even if he did not take that action himself. It was Brad, I believe, who allowed others to take the ground away from the "DennyColt" style approach... which has now come back again with the likes of Smallbones and Coretheapple.

More recently, this benefit of his involvement appears to have disappeared.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

With respect to Peter's point above: ArbCom could have cracked down on Smallbones and similarly-minded extremists to make such inarguably positive contributions by unpersons possible, but instead Dave Craven & Co. put up a big green light on such lunatic behavior.

I'm really disappointed in Dave's pedantic adherence to the most conservative interpretation of WP site policy. He didn't push one inch for change. Very, very disappointing...

RfB

If David Craven / Worm That Turned (T-C-L) had decided otherwise, he would have interfered with the fun of Demiurge1000 (T-C-L).

viewtopic.php?p=109059#p109059

Has anyone here mentioned the current case request related to banned users (i.e. Greg and/or people suspected of being Greg) posting on Jimbo's talk page? Currently heading for "Accept".

Also discussed on Jimmy Wales' talk page.

Removing statements by IP with the editorial summary like "reverting banned user" is often used by Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), who does not appear to be listed as a party to the case, yet.

Some of Demiwit's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =601702073
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598492497
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598492031
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598491456
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598481616
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598475192
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598470955
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598470193
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598468391
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597130735
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597130070
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596691830
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596691135
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596689748
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596651811
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596378261
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =595072234

I don't list reverts where an IP identifies as Kumioko (at least not obviously, to my tired eyes).

While some of the reverts may have been reasonable, Demiurge1000's frequently abusive edit-summaries have been counter-productive (and contrary to WP:Civility and WP:Don't feed the trolls and WP:Ban):

• A person so disgusting that they would take advantage of the sorrow of a young person's death to try to advance their own sick agenda)
  Jimbo already told you no - that you have the gall to come here again after your disgusting behaviour was exposed is even worse
  Jimbo already closed this banned editor's new attempt at self-glorification... "disgusting" is right and they have not changed.
  Still WP:BAN and still disgusting as noted.
  Yes, and a lovely menage it is.
  Reverted 2 edits by Cla68 (T-C-L): Rv banned user.

Other abusive edit summaries and trolling by Demiwit have been discussed in other threads, but this specialty seems to have been missed.

Expecting a RoboCop (T-H-L) to violate its (secret) fourth directive is an exercise in disappointment, Tim. "Any attempt to arrest an officer of OCP results in shutdown."

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Given what we've seen of the quality of editors, it may be no mean stretch to call him [Newyorkbrad (T-C-L)] the finest legal mind on wikipedia.

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

Once a lawyer has been paid, he has to work in the best interests of the client, according to my sources: From the previous Breaking Bad video, the crucial hiring was truncated.

[thekohser]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

Positively not. (I think.)

[thekohser]

What should be kept in mind is that a banned editor is not, regardless of merit, allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. If we could implement some technical measure that would make it entirely impossible for them to edit at all, we would do so. Such a measure does not exist...[/url]

Oh, come on now... have you lost your thinking cap? You could chop off my hands, for example. I promise I will no longer edit Wikipedia if you just slice off my hands. Heck, "blade" is in your name!

[Randy from Boise]

What should be kept in mind is that a banned editor is not, regardless of merit, allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. If we could implement some technical measure that would make it entirely impossible for them to edit at all, we would do so. Such a measure does not exist...[/url]

Oh, come on now... have you lost your thinking cap? You could chop off my hands, for example. I promise I will no longer edit Wikipedia if you just slice off my hands. Heck, "blade" is in your name!

The only way to ban a person is to end the culture of anonymity and the culture of free-and-simple mass registration. Proving identity at the time of registration, limiting accounts to one per customer and shutting down the rest, wiping the slate of unused sock accounts clean, requiring sign-in-to-edit — all these things done simultaneously could shut down any particular editor with a ban in fairly short order.

You wanna ban paid editors, Wikipedia, or to never cross paths with noisy dissidents or crazed POV warriors or lunatics? Restrict accounts and require sign in.

Anything short of that is doomed to fail.

Of course, those things — if WMF decided to require them through Terms Of Use — would come at the cost of losing a certain number of anonymity-obsessed core participants.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

What should be kept in mind is that a banned editor is not, regardless of merit, allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. If we could implement some technical measure that would make it entirely impossible for them to edit at all, we would do so. Such a measure does not exist...[/url]

"Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders".

[Newyorkbrad]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

[EricBarbour]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Admit it, you'd like to be paid, wouldn't you?

[Vigilant]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Not even in slightly stained TShirts?

[Cla68]

Instead of handing out admonishments and warnings, ArbCom should direct the parties in question to each take one of the core articles, like Fire or Soil, to FA status before they are allowed to return to editing whatever they want to. I understand that that would apply to me also since I'm a party for more than my share of cases.

[EricBarbour]

Instead of handing out admonishments and warnings, ArbCom should direct the parties in question to each take one of the core articles, like Fire or Soil, to FA status before they are allowed to return to editing whatever they want to. I understand that that would apply to me also since I'm a party for more than my share of cases.

And if wishes were horses, we could strap the arbitrators to wild mustangs, and slap the animals on their asses. Ride like the wind, baby.

[Vigilant]

Instead of handing out admonishments and warnings, ArbCom should direct the parties in question to each take one of the core articles, like Fire or Soil, to FA status before they are allowed to return to editing whatever they want to. I understand that that would apply to me also since I'm a party for more than my share of cases.

And if wishes were horses, we could strap the arbitrators to wild mustangs, and slap the animals on their asses. Ride like the wind, baby.

I'd use four per arb and send them to the cardinal points.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

With respect to Peter's point above: ArbCom could have cracked down on Smallbones and similarly-minded extremists to make such inarguably positive contributions by unpersons possible, but instead Dave Craven & Co. put up a big green light on such lunatic behavior.

I'm really disappointed in Dave's pedantic adherence to the most conservative interpretation of WP site policy. He didn't push one inch for change. Very, very disappointing...

RfB

If David Craven / Worm That Turned (T-C-L) had decided otherwise, he would have interfered with the fun of Demiurge1000 (T-C-L).

viewtopic.php?p=109059#p109059

Has anyone here mentioned the current case request related to banned users (i.e. Greg and/or people suspected of being Greg) posting on Jimbo's talk page? Currently heading for "Accept".

Also discussed on Jimmy Wales' talk page.

Removing statements by IP with the editorial summary like "reverting banned user" is often used by Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), who does not appear to be listed as a party to the case, yet.

Some of Demiwit's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =601702073
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598492497
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598492031
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598491456
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598481616
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598475192
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598470955
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598470193
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =598468391
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597130735
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597130070
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596691830
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596691135
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596689748
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596651811
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596378261
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =595072234

I don't list reverts where an IP identifies as Kumioko (at least not obviously, to my tired eyes).

While some of the reverts may have been reasonable, Demiurge1000's frequently abusive edit-summaries have been counter-productive (and contrary to WP:Civility and WP:Don't feed the trolls and WP:Ban):

• A person so disgusting that they would take advantage of the sorrow of a young person's death to try to advance their own sick agenda)
  Jimbo already told you no - that you have the gall to come here again after your disgusting behaviour was exposed is even worse
  Jimbo already closed this banned editor's new attempt at self-glorification... "disgusting" is right and they have not changed.
  Still WP:BAN and still disgusting as noted.
  Yes, and a lovely menage it is.
  Reverted 2 edits by Cla68 (T-C-L): Rv banned user.

Other abusive edit summaries and trolling by Demiwit have been discussed in other threads, but this specialty seems to have been missed.

Expecting a RoboCop (T-H-L) to violate its (secret) fourth directive is an exercise in disappointment, Tim. "Any attempt to arrest an officer of OCP results in shutdown."

My comment was unfair. Recently not only did Worm That Turned (T-C-L) propose the deletion of the WP:List of Banned Users (T-H-L) but also noted the incredibility of Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)'s claim to have needed the list to identify a sock that he had repeatedly identified.

Credit where credit is due.

My apologies.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Employed or venerated as consiglieri?

[Konveyor Belt]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Of course, pay in this context refers strictly to monetary gain. Putting it another way: NYB, have you ever been compensated for your services in any way possible?

[HRIP7]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Of course, pay in this context refers strictly to monetary gain. Putting it another way: NYB, have you ever been compensated for your services in any way possible?

D'oh. This ain't the inquisition. Disclosure: Sue Gardner bought me (along with a dozen others) a meal once.

[Anroth]

Did it include pudding?

[Vigilant]

Has NYB ever been paid for legal services by the WMF?

No.

Of course, pay in this context refers strictly to monetary gain. Putting it another way: NYB, have you ever been compensated for your services in any way possible?

D'oh. This ain't the inquisition. Disclosure: Sue Gardner bought me (along with a dozen others) a meal once.

What's she like in person?
I have a hard time watching her video online.

[NativeForeigner]

With respect to Peter's point above: ArbCom could have cracked down on Smallbones and similarly-minded extremists to make such inarguably positive contributions by unpersons possible, but instead Dave Craven & Co. put up a big green light on such lunatic behavior.

I'm really disappointed in Dave's pedantic adherence to the most conservative interpretation of WP site policy. He didn't push one inch for change. Very, very disappointing...

If you boys want to have bans, first you have to have registration verification and sign-in-to-edit. Then we can talk. Otherwise, "banning" is nothing but a game and a joke.

RfB

Note my comment and Brad's response. Hopefully this is something we can look at. (though it is worth noting that banning policy is community based)

[Peter Damian]

(though it is worth noting that banning policy is community based)

In what sense 'community based'? In what sense does the crowd of ne'er do wells and tricoteuses who hang around the drama boards count as a 'community'? Do you people actually, really really believe this?

[Hex]

D'oh. This ain't the inquisition. Disclosure: Sue Gardner bought me (along with a dozen others) a meal once.

What's she like in person?
I have a hard time watching her video online.

I had the chance to chit-chat with Sue a little bit after a wiki meetup of some kind circa 2008. She was very personable.

[COOLSTORYBRO.JPG]

[Konveyor Belt]

The case is just about ready to close.

[Randy from Boise]

Mr. T got his hiney spanked: indeffed from the drama pages and Jimbotalk and missing an indef ban from Wikipedia by a 5-4 margin. That's more severe than I anticipated. It is pretty clear that Mr. T's song and dance is wearing thin on Wiki... (He has already been banned from WPO so I won't bring up his mama or daddy or elderberries or hamsters, as much as I might like to do that...)

Here's the final scorecard:

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tarc restricted

1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[40][41] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, Oct. 12, 2014 (UTC−7)

Tarc restricted and warned

1.2) Tarc is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.

Passed 6 to 0, with 3 abstentions at 10:27 am, Oct. 12, 2014 (UTC−7)

Smallbones warned

3) Smallbones is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, Oct. 12, 2014 (UTC−7)

Hell in a Bucket warned

4) Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, Oct. 12, 2014 (UTC−7)

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ing_Policy[/link]

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Aww, screw it, I can't resist...

[EricBarbour]

Aww, screw it, I can't resist...

Yep, that's Arbcom. A Python sketch that never ends, and no one laughs at.

[Randy from Boise]

Aww, screw it, I can't resist...

Yep, that's Arbcom. A Python sketch that never ends, and no one laughs at.

Naaah. More like a low budget, off-Broadway stage rendition of Brazil...
RfB

[Jim]

Mr. T got his hiney spanked: indeffed from the drama pages and Jimbotalk and missing an indef ban from Wikipedia by a 5-4 margin. That's more severe than I anticipated. It is pretty clear that Mr. T's song and dance is wearing thin on Wiki... (He has already been banned from WPO so I won't bring up his mama or daddy or elderberries or hamsters, as much as I might like to do that...)

Or, you could always, you know, just not gravedance like that.

I'm, obviously. in no real position to preach here. I've made my dislike for certain posters here, and there, quite obvious, sometimes vocally. I'm done with it now, though, in both places - it achieves close to nothing for me any more.

There have been some great things done here, to expose the disgracefulness of the other place. They are admirable. This place is a huge step forward from the "Review", in terms of attitude and participation. Those of you who steered it that way deserve great praise. You know who you are.

I just don't think it can be fixed, or destroyed, this way (whichever you fancy).

Or maybe it can, and it just isn't for me any more...

Either way, all of you, please be well.

[Randy from Boise]

Mr. T got his hiney spanked: indeffed from the drama pages and Jimbotalk and missing an indef ban from Wikipedia by a 5-4 margin. That's more severe than I anticipated. It is pretty clear that Mr. T's song and dance is wearing thin on Wiki... (He has already been banned from WPO so I won't bring up his mama or daddy or elderberries or hamsters, as much as I might like to do that...)

Or, you could always, you know, just not gravedance like that.

I'm, obviously. in no real position to preach here. I've made my dislike for certain posters here, and there, quite obvious, sometimes vocally. I'm done with it now, though, in both places - it achieves close to nothing for me any more.

There have been some great things done here, to expose the disgracefulness of the other place. They are admirable. This place is a huge step forward from the "Review", in terms of attitude and participation. Those of you who steered it that way deserve great praise. You know who you are.

I just don't think it can be fixed, or destroyed, this way (whichever you fancy).

Or maybe it can, and it just isn't for me any more...

Either way, all of you, please be well.

Truuuuusssssst me, that was a 1 on the scale of 10 of what I felt like doing...

Take care.

RfB

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Mr. T got his hiney spanked: indeffed from the drama pages and Jimbotalk and missing an indef ban from Wikipedia by a 5-4 margin. That's more severe than I anticipated. It is pretty clear that Mr. T's song and dance is wearing thin on Wiki... (He has already been banned from WPO so I won't bring up his mama or daddy or elderberries or hamsters, as much as I might like to do that...)

Or, you could always, you know, just not gravedance like that.

I'm, obviously. in no real position to preach here. I've made my dislike for certain posters here, and there, quite obvious, sometimes vocally. I'm done with it now, though, in both places - it achieves close to nothing for me any more.

There have been some great things done here, to expose the disgracefulness of the other place. They are admirable. This place is a huge step forward from the "Review", in terms of attitude and participation. Those of you who steered it that way deserve great praise. You know who you are.

I just don't think it can be fixed, or destroyed, this way (whichever you fancy).

Or maybe it can, and it just isn't for me any more...

Either way, all of you, please be well.

Live long and prosper

He was always the most --- human of us

[NativeForeigner]

(though it is worth noting that banning policy is community based)

In what sense 'community based'? In what sense does the crowd of ne'er do wells and tricoteuses who hang around the drama boards count as a 'community'? Do you people actually, really really believe this?

I meant this in the context of "arbcom can't unilaterally overarchingly change banning policy and community norms."

I do believe those who hang around the drama boards count as a community. Regardless of competence or their proclivity towards knitting betwixt guillotinings, but they certainly are " a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc."

[Peter Damian]

(though it is worth noting that banning policy is community based)

In what sense 'community based'? In what sense does the crowd of ne'er do wells and tricoteuses who hang around the drama boards count as a 'community'? Do you people actually, really really believe this?

I meant this in the context of "arbcom can't unilaterally overarchingly change banning policy and community norms."

I do believe those who hang around the drama boards count as a community. Regardless of competence or their proclivity towards knitting betwixt guillotinings, but they certainly are " a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc."

Yes, but this is not what Wikipedians intend to convey when they talk about The Community, silly boy. This is what they want to convey.

"Wikipedia isn't a technological innovation at all; it's a social innovation. What we figured out between 1995 and 2001 was not new technology. We had the Web already, but we discovered the basic idea of how to organise a community. … How do people trust each other? How do people feel about society? Many, many people report that when they've been involved in some kind of online mailing list or other things like that, gee, it's so hostile. There are so many hostile communities on the Internet. One of the reasons is because this philosophy of trying to make sure that no one can hurt anyone else actually eliminates all the opportunities for trust. … So the most important thing about the process is to understand that all of the rules [of Wikipedia] are social. … Let's take these ideals of Wikipedia and bring them out to lots and lots of people in lots and lots of areas far beyond simply encyclopedias. I think the genuine communities, like Wikipedia, will be built on love and respect. But it's really important … to remember that Wikipedia is not about technology, it's about people. It's about leaving things open-ended, it's about trusting people, it's about encouraging people to do good. These communities, I believe, are going to be the norm on the Internet. People have seen that some of the old models are really unhealthy. Wikipedia shows us a really powerful means to move forward to empower lots of people to do good work, cooperatively.
(Jimmy, quote in The Wikipedia Revolution xvi).

[Peter Damian]

There is also this delusional idea (see quote above) that Jimmy somehow reinvented human nature around 2001, and discovered how to make ‘communities’ work. I think it’s actually the reverse. A lot of the development of society and legal systems was probably the result of fixes to problems they had encountered along the way, probably in pre-history. Let’s take the problem that a small group of people are able to exercise a disproportionate influence on how retribution (I won’t cal it justice) is dispensed. The solution was to create a judiciary, a set of independent people who could hear a case dispassionately, and to decide the important cases using 12 people selected at random to try to ensure impartiality.

Wikipedia threw away this model, on the basis that people really trust each other, that people are basically good and wouldn’t gang up on people and beat them up.

[Poetlister]

I do believe those who hang around the drama boards count as a community. Regardless of competence or their proclivity towards knitting betwixt guillotinings, but they certainly are " a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc."

People who hang around the drama boards are rarely among those who contribute much in terms of content or even good gnoming, who are the real community here to build an encyclopaedia.

[Randy from Boise]

There is also this delusional idea (see quote above) that Jimmy somehow reinvented human nature around 2001, and discovered how to make ‘communities’ work. I think it’s actually the reverse. A lot of the development of society and legal systems was probably the result of fixes to problems they had encountered along the way, probably in pre-history. Let’s take the problem that a small group of people are able to exercise a disproportionate influence on how retribution (I won’t cal it justice) is dispensed. The solution was to create a judiciary, a set of independent people who could hear a case dispassionately, and to decide the important cases using 12 people selected at random to try to ensure impartiality.

Wikipedia threw away this model, on the basis that people really trust each other, that people are basically good and wouldn’t gang up on people and beat them up.

The nasty side of human nature is dealt with most effectively in William Golding's Lord of the Flies.

There is a broad basic truth that "people are basically good" idea, which is why Wikipedia continues to improve and grow. But there is also a malicious dark side to human behavior, vicious tendencies which are accentuated by Wikipedia's cult of anonymity...

RfB

[thekohser]

...which is why Wikipedia continues to improve...

And subvert otherwise rational minds!

[Thracia]

...which is why Wikipedia continues to improve...

And subvert otherwise rational minds!

It does seem to be Wikipedia's big lie (T-H-L).

[Poetlister]

But there is also a malicious dark side to human behavior, vicious tendencies which are accentuated by Wikipedia's cult of anonymity...

RfB

One of the main reasons for the problems on Wikipedia. Definitely one of your best observations.

[Konveyor Belt]

I have initiated a Clarification request regarding Tarc here:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

I have initiated a Clarification request regarding Tarc here:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (T-H-L)

Why bother? Plus, TP (I keep wanting to call him "Toilet Paper") has already caved.

@Tarc: I consider it to be a reasonable compromise. You avoid a block and your thread gets discussed. Works in your favor.--v/r - TP 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

[Randy from Boise]

I have initiated a Clarification request regarding Tarc here:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (T-H-L)

As anyone who has followed his act is aware, Tarc is going to spin and shade and willfully misinterpret anything that is not specified with 100% crystal clarity. On the other hand, ArbCom likes to make use of easy, lazy platitudes in their decisions. Thus we have a topic ban against posting to AN/I which is not a topic ban because it indicates there are "normal exceptions" which apply without spelling them out.

RfB