Examining Arbcom 2015

[Triptych]

We had some decent discussion on the elections, but hardly anything on the results and aftermath. Here is the new crew, there are a few more of them: 15.

AGK (BASC) (wikiagk AT gmail.com)
Courcelles
DeltaQuad
DGG
Dougweller
Euryalus (BASC)
GorillaWarfare (gorillawarfarewikipedia AT gmail.com)
Guerillero
LFaraone
NativeForeigner
Roger Davies (roger.davies.wiki AT gmail.com)
Salvio giuliano
Seraphimblade (BASC)
Thryduulf (BASC)
Yunshui

I marked whom is in the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). The other committee is the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) but that listing doesn't appear to have been updated. Where an arbitrator publicly states his or her email on the subcommittee page or on his or her userpage, I marked that.

There are also some former (2014) arbitrators choosing to stay involved on the Gamergate arbitration. The Arbcom charter says they can do that on any case that carries over to the new year. It also happens to mean they stay on the secretive Arbcom mailing list and are able to read anything else there. It's not clear to me who has chosen to linger on that case, so I can't really mark those.

An interesting thing about this Arbcom is that Jimbo Wales wasn't ceremonially involved. In past years the election results were courtesy-notified at his talkpage, and then he would undertake the pageantry of officiously appointing the new ones, however I saw no sign of that this time.

So there're the arbs. Anyone care to kick things off with a discussion of one? Do you see any villains in there? Any heroes?

[thekohser]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

[Jim]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Well I've always found him very pleasant and thoughtful, and I believe he's a librarian.

But then he never me from a WikiEvent - that could make a difference to my perception.

Very disappointed with the lack of contribution from him, so far, to the Wifi case, given he has relevant knowledge, and, being recused, is free to comment.

He'll probably get round to it, AGF and all that...

[Randy from Boise]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Meh, maybe yes, maybe no.

RfB

[Notvelty]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Meh, maybe yes, maybe no.

RfB

There are only two types of arbcommer: weasel and... wait.. no.. only one type.

[Triptych]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Meh, maybe yes, maybe no.

He was among the organizers of the NYC Wikimania event that last-minute-uninvited The Kohser. When asked for a reason for that move, he wouldn't give one, claiming IIRC that Newyorkbrad and WMF Legal had advised him not to speak on the point.

It's a matter of simple decency to be able to tell somebody why he or she was barred from a public function, so I'd say DGG is a weasel. If he wasn't ready to give a reason, he should have said "heck no, I'm not going to uninvite him then." So weasel, surely, however there's not really enough there to say the man is a coward. The Kohser is justified in being personally offended and annoyed though, so I don't blame him much for the strong words.

Looking at DGG now in the arb context, he does have some thoughtful writings at or linked from his userpage, one concludes "Arbcom must be willing to enforce strong sanctions against established members of the community who are unable or unwilling to conform to standards of civilized interaction." So we see the civility debate there. I'm concerned about uneven application of civility rules. You have an Eric Corbett who is poked and taunted enough to call someone a "cunt" now and then, but how do you punish that when Beeblebrox is not only just saying "fuck off" but actually advocating for *others* to say it, as well you get your Dennis Browns slyly calling new editors "dicks" while calculatedly taking them to WP:AN/ANI while they exploit the newbies' defensive anger to get the blocks, as well you got your Bwilkinses and heaven know what atrociously uncivil things they are saying. So I'm wary of civility emphasis because I think it's liable to just be another scheme used against common editors, while administrators insult others all day long.

Another thing I note about DGG is he was among those that eliminated the RFC/U community process. He like others of them argued "let's do away with this now, and figure out a replacement later." Of course we're still waiting on that replacement and probably still will be years from now. So perhaps he's not much of a thinker after all, we'll have to see.

[Lukeno94]

I think a lot of people have been wound up by others to the point of saying "fuck off" on Wiki. I know I've done it more than once. Then again, I also have a tendency to call myself a fucking idiot in edit summaries... maybe I should be blocked for being incivil about myself?

RfC/U didn't work because it was far too easy to ignore, most of the time, and that's one of the reasons that I voted to abolish it. I don't think there ever will be a replacement for RfC/U, because we all know that the community would never come to a consensus on anything that major. Some would want a DRN-style thing for users, others would want a mini-ArbCom, and some would want ANI v2.0...

[Triptych]

I think a lot of people have been wound up by others to the point of saying "fuck off" on Wiki. I know I've done it more than once. Then again, I also have a tendency to call myself a fucking idiot in edit summaries... maybe I should be blocked for being incivil about myself?

RfC/U didn't work because it was far too easy to ignore, most of the time, and that's one of the reasons that I voted to abolish it. I don't think there ever will be a replacement for RfC/U, because we all know that the community would never come to a consensus on anything that major. Some would want a DRN-style thing for users, others would want a mini-ArbCom, and some would want ANI v2.0...

I don't want this thread derailed from its Arbcom 2015 focus, so I'll keep this short, but I would be in favor of a strict rule that profanity is a WP:CIV violation. No fuss, no muss, and limited opportunity for bad admins to do selective enforcement. Wikipedia has child, women, and elderly editors and they don't need to be subjected to a bunch of profanity, even if the infringer was raised in a vernacular where profanity was innocuous emphasis or listened to comics such as Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle and surely a lot of non-black ones that made it funny. Just find another way to say whatever it is.

On the question of RFC/U's demise and the unwillingness and incapability of its demisers to come up with a replacement, well you have to ask the question "where will the disputes formerly addressed in RFC/Us go?" There is no place for them to go to other than Arbcom or WP:AN/ANI. I don't think Arbcom really wanted the demise of the RFC/U process, but it's probably a fair thing to say that it was really a power-grab by WP:AN/ANI regulars such as Robert McClenon who initiated RFC/U's destruction discussion. McClenon is there in WP:AN/ANI even right there today calling for people to be blocked. It's also no secret that he decided to try to destroy RFC/U immediately when it was used to discuss then-administrator Bwilkins. He didn't try to kill it after the dozens of times the past couple years it was used to discuss common editors. He's a admin lapdog and proponent of the "imperial administrator" line of thought. WP:AN/ANI is a lawless, rules-less, charter-less, mobbing, and illegitimate environment that even Arbcom doesn't dare confront.

Enough of the DGG and related discussion, why don't we look at Doug Weller next?

[Lukeno94]

Problem is, whilst I agree that the children are an issue, you're being sexist there by including women in it, and elderly people definitely like to curse as much as anyone.

But yes, let's look at some of the others on ArbCom. I remember Dougweller coping some criticism here... but not what it was. (Long breaks from anything WP related, and hectic real life recently does that to me)

[Triptych]

Problem is, whilst I agree that the children are an issue, you're being sexist there by including women in it, and elderly people definitely like to curse as much as anyone. But yes, let's look at some of the others on ArbCom. I remember Dougweller coping some criticism here...

Saying "don't curse around women" doesn't make me sexist any more than holding a door for one, or offering one my seat on mass transportation vehicle. Prolonged ogling of women, or pushing them into gender-stereotype roles, and so forth is sexist.

NOW, as to Mr. Weller. I'll cheat by quoting myself from my Arbcom election guide:

Dougweller: Retiree after career of "social work (in New York and London), ten years as a University Lecturer and local authority administration, all of which have involved working with people, education and at times mediation." Three years as an editor, followed by five so far as administrator. Doesn't articulate any goal at Arbcom, says he'll just walk in with an open mind. Heavily active on Usenet in the 1990s in archaelogy groups. Request for adminship was nearly unanimous. Did some expert-level talk at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact a week ago. Recent edits mainly administrative, with moderate content watchdogging and deleting, minor content addition. Earliest edits are, expectedly, content-oriented mainly archaeological and historical.

"Just walk in with an open mind," boy that's pretty lackluster. By his contributions though, he's active this year, looks like 15 to 20 per day, and not robotic in character either. Not "Twinkle" etc. Weller comments his edits descriptively. He is not a regular at the administrator noticeboard dens of iniquity, but pops up there now and then. He says he is an "Eguor Admin." That's an association from like a decade ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Eguor_admins) in which the admin pledges to act against intentional or inadvertent cabals, and offer wrongly blocked editors a chance to make their case in a calm environment. There's a lot of admins that say they are Equor but it means nothing to them, just a bumper sticker slogan, or another club to join. Don't know about Mr. Weller.

[DanMurphy]

On Mr. Goodman ("DGG"). He's both an ultra-inclusionist and a huge crowd sourcing koolaid drinker (these two things probably go together). Was the major non-insane enabler of Ikip (T-C-L) and A Nobody (T-C-L), names that will probably be remembered by many of you. He was also a big defender of the WP:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion (T-H-L) breaching thing a few years ago (brief synopsis - a few experienced Wikipedia editors created deliberately horrible and confusing articles on topics that Wikipedia's system would probable deem "notable" as a means to play gotcha with the new page patrollers; many if not most of these "articles" have not been touched since, and are at best out of date, i.e. Polar Golfer (T-H-L)).

His basic view is that all Wikipedia needs to "work" is lots of editors and lots of articles, and to get rid of any people who he thinks might drive contributors away (though it never occurs to him that many are driven away by having to deal with the rantings of Hello Kitty fanboys and girls etc... he would almost certainly take a "Hang 'em High" approach to someone like Corbett, and act to protect someone like "Ikip") He is not stupid, however, and will probably do the right thing when it comes to the rare case involving child protection (for instance) that comes before him.

However, Goodman and the rest of them are largely irrelevant. The personalities change a little from one Arbcom to another, and almost certainly individual "cases" will have different outcomes based on these personalities. But nothing the Arbitration Committee has done for at least the seven or so years I've followed Wikipedia goings on has had any kind of meaningful positive or, I would argue, negative effect on Wikipedia. They don't address structural problems, or even try to address them. The mechanism itself is a failure, and the general drift of all arbcoms has been it represents fans of/protectors of the status quo (though I acknowledge the status quo drifts a little bit over time).

While the biases of a Goodman - or anyone else on the committee - will have an impact on individual case outcomes, I don't think it matters in any real sense at all. The arbitration committee is Wikipedia itself, writ small.

[Anthonyhcole]

...

However, Goodman and the rest of them are largely irrelevant. The personalities change a little from one Arbcom to another, and almost certainly individual "cases" will have different outcomes based on these personalities. But nothing the Arbitration Committee has done for at least the seven or so years I've followed Wikipedia goings on has had any kind of meaningful positive or, I would argue, negative effect on Wikipedia. They don't address structural problems, or even try to address them. The mechanism itself is a failure, and the general drift of all arbcoms has been it represents fans of/protectors of the status quo (though I acknowledge the status quo drifts a little bit over time).

While the biases of a Goodman - or anyone else on the committee - will have an impact on individual case outcomes, I don't think it matters in any real sense at all. The arbitration committee is Wikipedia itself, writ small.

I think the character and intelligence of arbitrators are relevant. They can do a lot more (than I've yet seen) to improve the ethos at en.Wikipedia. They need to take content into account more - and nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned. Gangs of editors who offer blind, knee-jerk support to their buddies in any and all disputes regardless of the merits, need blanket interaction bans.

They should pro-actively clean up the admin corps. Obvious bullies need to be instantly de-sysopped. There are admins in (aforementioned) mutual-blind-support gangs, enabling their buddies to have their way in content disputes, that need to be de-sysopped.

Arbcom can do a lot to improve things. They just need to realise they may, and choose to do it when the opportunity arises.

[DanMurphy]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned. Gangs of editors who offer blind, knee-jerk support to their buddies in any and all disputes regardless of the merits, need blanket interaction bans.

Sure. But who will bell the cat/guard the hen-house/watch the watchers?

Define "tendentious" and "gangs of editors" and "knee-jerk support."

Not tweaking you - I'm sure you catch my drift, even if you don't agree.

(On "interaction bans" however... Just, no. Always viewed this as beyond insane - at least if you don't want to set up an interminable layer of game playing and probing, as has amply been demonstrated down the years).

Arbcom can do a lot to improve things. They just need to realise they may, and choose to do it when the opportunity arises.

I guess they "could." But the system of selection and promotion is set up to prevent the elevation of people that might - and if they did try, open insurrection becomes more likely. The Wikimedia Foundation fiat that gives them their power, such as it is, I suspect would be withdrawn very quickly if they did.

[Anthonyhcole]

Arbcom can do a lot to improve things. They just need to realise they may, and choose to do it when the opportunity arises.

I guess they "could." But the system of selection and promotion is set up to prevent the elevation of people that might ...

Well, yes.

...and if they did try, open insurrection becomes more likely. The Wikimedia Foundation fiat that gives them their power, such as it is, I suspect would be withdrawn very quickly if they did.

No. I don't follow you there. Insurrection may be a consequence - but I can't see what form it would take. And does anyone really care about "editors" who would rise up to protect gangs of blind supporters, bullying admins and obvious tendentious editors?

I'm not optimistic. I'm saying they can change things; not they will.

Define "tendentious" and "gangs of editors" and "knee-jerk support."

Tendentious editing would involve a clear history of disregard for en.Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Gangs of editors would be, for example, Wehwalt, Montanabw, Neutralhomer, Mark Arsden and a few others who habitually follow each other around chiming in in support of each other when they know nothing about the dispute and can't string together a coherent argument for their support. One or two instances are of course fine and normal. But when there is a clear pattern of it over an extended period - as in their case - I'd first interaction ban them and if that became remotely troublesome, simply ban them. Iban was the compassionate response, but if, as you say, they're more trouble than they're worth, then a simple site ban would suffice. "Knee-jerk support" is defined in my explanation of gangs - basically jumping into a new dispute and supporting their mate while demonstrating no grasp whatever of the actual issue at hand. Only problematical if there is a clear pattern over a significant period. But very problematical then.

[thekohser]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned.

I think it's a fitting symbol of the standard Wikipediot, that they think a "permanent ban" which can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, is either simple or permanent.

[Triptych]

On Mr. Goodman ("DGG"). He's both an ultra-inclusionist and a huge crowd sourcing koolaid drinker (these two things probably go together)... His basic view is that all Wikipedia needs to "work" is lots of editors and lots of articles, and to get rid of any people who he thinks might drive contributors away... He is not stupid, however, and will probably do the right thing when it comes to the rare case involving child protection (for instance) that comes before him.

However, Goodman and the rest of them are largely irrelevant. The personalities change a little from one Arbcom to another, and almost certainly individual "cases" will have different outcomes based on these personalities. ...general drift of all arbcoms has been it represents fans of/protectors of the status quo... While the biases of a Goodman - or anyone else on the committee - will have an impact on individual case outcomes, I don't think it matters in any real sense at all. The arbitration committee is Wikipedia itself, writ small.

That was an interesting breaching experiment you linked. I wonder how those established editors coordinated that and if anybody tried to punish them for socking. The right thing for any arb to do regarding child protection is to summarize what he or she has noticed and send it to WMF Legal, Philippe what's-his-name, and Lila Tretikova, with a note requesting confirmation of receipt and a statement saying "I am completely untrained to handle child endangerment matters."

I agree with you that the successive Arbcoms seem to behave about the same and are enforcers of the status quo. I was cheered though when Bwilkins was finally desysoped late last year. That is the first time I know of that an administrator was desysoped for bullying rank-and-file editors. Oh, they didn't describe it as such, but if you looked at the evidence and so forth, that's what it was. The traditional Arbcom approach is "protect the administrator, punish the editor, and we don't care about any silly details."

Let me think, was there any new arb that campaigned intending to shake things up at all? ... Courcelles said vaguely and limply he wanted to do some reorganization of the subcommittees, but didn't say what. DGG muttered about improving speedy-deletion policies, apparently to put some restraints on the hyperactive deleters.

Euryalus wants "swifter acceptance of cases alleging admin misconduct," yay, but will he actually implement that? The way to do that is to originate an admin review process that is not this cumbersome and huge 4 stage schedule for cases like Gamergate and Race and IQ etc. Put it on a tight 10-day schedule. 7 days for charges and rebuttals, then 3 days for arb questions and decisions. Euryalus has sort of common ground on that with Salvio, though Salvio's idea is a community-based mandatory desysop process. The option that is more doable for Arbcom is the former: craft a streamlined admin misconduct process of its own.

[Triptych]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned. Gangs of editors who offer blind, knee-jerk support to their buddies in any and all disputes regardless of the merits, need blanket interaction bans.

Sure. But who will bell the cat/guard the hen-house/watch the watchers? Define "tendentious" and "gangs of editors" and "knee-jerk support." Not tweaking you - I'm sure you catch my drift, even if you don't agree.

Yeah, good grief, "tendentiousness bans?" It sounds like the endorsement of some administrators' god-like reasoning "I will now perma-block you because I judge your attitude will drive off more good contributors than your contributions are worth." What arrogance. Go by policies and explain their moves is what they should be doing.

[MoldyHay]

That was an interesting breaching experiment you linked. I wonder how those established editors coordinated that and if anybody tried to punish them for socking.

No, but there was some blocking of editors who nominated the obviously-trolling articles for speedy deletion.

[Peter Damian]

Tentative support speaking for myself only, though a new member of arb com, (and based on only what I have seen from the outside) I see this as dealing not with cases of gross misuse of tools in a specific incident, which as far I can judge arb com has handled adequately, but with generally subpar administrative behavior, which I doubt that arb com handles at all--nor would I personally want it to. That's the sort of judgment the community should be making, just as it makes the decision to appoint new admins. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ain’t nobody here but us believers.

[Poetlister]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned.

I think it's a fitting symbol of the standard Wikipediot, that they think a "permanent ban" which can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, is either simple or permanent.

It's very simple to ban an account of course. And then any other account that behaves similarly can be treated as a sock (the Fred rule) whether or not it is on the same continent.

[JCM]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Well I've always found him very pleasant and thoughtful, and I believe he's a librarian.

Yeah, he works for the New York Public Library, probably one of the biggest sources of information on the freaking planet. And probably has more experience with "reference works," broadly construed, which wikipedia at least strives to be, than maybe anyone else actively editing today.

[Lukeno94]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned.

I think it's a fitting symbol of the standard Wikipediot, that they think a "permanent ban" which can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, is either simple or permanent.

It's very simple to ban an account of course. And then any other account that behaves similarly can be treated as a sock (the Fred rule) whether or not it is on the same continent.

Well, it's not exactly hard to spoof a foreign IP. Considering that I've accidentally edited with my VPN still enabled, as some of the IPs on that aren't blocked... (although I was just using a UK server; damn Uni halls and their weird internet that makes playing some multiplayer games impossible without a VPN)

[EricBarbour]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned. Gangs of editors who offer blind, knee-jerk support to their buddies in any and all disputes regardless of the merits, need blanket interaction bans.

They tried to do that, over and over. And they failed, over and over.

However, Goodman and the rest of them are largely irrelevant. The personalities change a little from one Arbcom to another, and almost certainly individual "cases" will have different outcomes based on these personalities. ...general drift of all arbcoms has been it represents fans of/protectors of the status quo... While the biases of a Goodman - or anyone else on the committee - will have an impact on individual case outcomes, I don't think it matters in any real sense at all. The arbitration committee is Wikipedia itself, writ small.

Correct, and despite past attempts to remove a few really bad admins (Will Beback, Cirt etc) things never really change. WP is in the hands of deletionist patroller manchild types who would fight any real change. To them, it is clearly not an "encyclopedia", it's a videogame.

This almost (but not quite) makes one long for the "good old days" of Essjay and SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

Yeah, he works for the New York Public Library, probably one of the biggest sources of information on the freaking planet. And probably has more experience with "reference works," broadly construed, which wikipedia at least strives to be, than maybe anyone else actively editing today.

This presentation is a good overview of Wikipedia according to David Goodman, but as usual with Wiki-fans, it skips around Wikipedia's many problems while extolling its virtues.

Also:

Goodman's May 2007 RFA was a success, as the Frei Kultur kinder turned out to vote for him in force. The few oppose voters had their arms twisted, and two of them redacted their objections.

Goodman also posted this essay on the 2010 BLP RFC, thus showing himself to be an "extreme inclusionist" on BLPs, complete with closely-reasoned justifications but with no discussion of the morality of BLPs and defamation. Thus placing him in the baleful company of open defamers like Joshua Zelinsky.

[EricBarbour]

I've got plenty more damning information on Goodman's past statements. This is just a sample.

[DanMurphy]

Yes, the "community" has always been of far greater interest to Mr. Goodman than protecting the article subjects from slander, defamation, distress, etc... He is viewed as one of their wise old heads. Which is amusing.

But here's how irrelevant Arbcom is: If participation there takes Goodman away from his involvement in articles, that's probably a net positive.

[Randy from Boise]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Well I've always found him very pleasant and thoughtful, and I believe he's a librarian.

Yeah, he works for the New York Public Library, probably one of the biggest sources of information on the freaking planet. And probably has more experience with "reference works," broadly construed, which wikipedia at least strives to be, than maybe anyone else actively editing today.

Whatever problems there are at English-Wikipedia, David G. isn't one of them.

Also, don't assume because any committee of WMF wankers makes a dubious decision that it automatically follows that the dubious decision was unanimous. This may or may not be the case.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

Whatever problems there are at English-Wikipedia, David G. isn't one of them.

And I disagree, sir. He may not be "a problem" but he's quick to turn his back when he is actually confronted with one. Especially if it reflects on "the community" poorly. Another "useful idiot".

[Cedric]

Whatever problems there are at English-Wikipedia, David G. isn't one of them.

And I disagree, sir. He may not be "a problem" but he's quick to turn his back when he is actually confronted with one. Especially if it reflects on "the community" poorly. Another "useful idiot".

Having actually encountered "DGG" during my Wikipedia editing days, I can confirm this. An absolute devotee whose default position is Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil. He is The Very Model of the Modern Useful Idiot.

That said, I should note that I am reasonably pleased with the current crop of useful idiots. Hasten The Day!

[Triptych]

Okay, we've covered DGG pretty well now.

As to Dougweller, nobody's coming up with hot commentary. I brief-overviewed him, he's the archaelogist guy whose Arbcom campaign was lackluster and unremarkable, but he descriptively comments his edits which is always laudable, and lately is active and doing some content work. Weller is embroiled right now today in an edit-warring dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... oticeboard) over "European-American Unity and Rights Organization." This is photogenic former KKK Klansman David Duke's organization. The reason (I guess) it's an hot topic now is because an American Republican congressman just got a position of high rank, so muck-raking journalists (bless them) said "hey we found out he gave a speech to Duke's group 13 years ago." Oh live breaking news flash, a few minutes ago: As might be expected, the editor (Frysay) that makes the edit-warring complaint against the established administrator (Dougweller) is quickly blocked. For "tendentious editing," your philosophy is catching on, Anthonyhcole! Pretty unseemly for an arbitrator to be rolling around in this muck.

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

[thekohser]

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

None of them?

[Triptych]

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

None of them?

I guess I'm obliged to take that as a warning.

[EricBarbour]

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

None of them?

I guess I'm obliged to take that as a warning.

Not so much that, as a lesson: these people don't deserve serious attention. I don't take Arbcom seriously, a lot of Wikipedia insiders don't (especially the patrollers and the hardcore longtime cranks), and neither should you. WO and WR have already done several years of mocking people like Risker and Newyorkbrad for their pompous incompetence; what's left to say? We know damn well we're just going to get more of the same old shit, the same old lies, the same old pomposity. Is it really any mystery, why they installed Goodman and Weller this time?

[Randy from Boise]

[Is it really any mystery, why they installed Goodman and Weller this time?

Because they got more votes than Dusti, Tech13, and The Pie Lady???

RfB

[Notvelty]

[Is it really any mystery, why they installed Goodman and Weller this time?

Because they got more votes than Dusti, Tech13, and The Pie Lady???

RfB

Now there's a thing to hang your hat on: "I got more votes than Dusti". He'll be dining out on that for.... No, wait, he won't.

Hmm... "I got"? Oh dear.

[Vigilant]

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

None of them?

I guess I'm obliged to take that as a warning.

Not so much that, as a lesson: these people don't deserve serious attention. I don't take Arbcom seriously, a lot of Wikipedia insiders don't (especially the patrollers and the hardcore longtime cranks), and neither should you. WO and WR have already done several years of mocking people like Risker and Newyorkbrad for their pompous incompetence; what's left to say? We know damn well we're just going to get more of the same old shit, the same old lies, the same old pomposity. Is it really any mystery, why they installed Goodman and Weller this time?

ARBCOM...for the lulz.

[Kelly Martin]

Moving right long, which arb do people want to focus on next?

Pretty much everything of interest you've said about any one of them can be said about all of them. Further flagellation of the deceased equine will not produce meritorious results.

You need to move beyond the fairly predictable, even boring, personalities of the individuals who habituate within Wikipedia's confines. Such commentary, aside from being boring (because we really have seen it all before), contributes to the perception that we here at Wikipediocracy are obsessed with intruding into the personal lives of Wikipedians for the sheer nastiness of doing so. Instead, focus on why such personalities are drawn to Wikipedia, and why they choose to seek the roles they have, and why they've been chosen for those roles ahead of others who have not. When you have done this, then (and only then) will you have some chance of saying something interesting.

When one of them does something noteworthy (which is fairly unlikely), then we can talk about what was done and analyze the motives behind it. Until something interesting happens, though, you're just "talking to talk", like those useless talking heads on the 24-hour news channels who fill air during "breaking news events" with meaningless drivel because they don't actually have any news to report, but have to say something to justify why they're there at all.

"He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know."
"To hear, one must be silent."

[Jim]

Because they got more votes than Dusti, Tech13, and The Pie Lady???
RfB

Now that's a valid point.

[EricBarbour]

You need to move beyond the fairly predictable, even boring, personalities of the individuals who habituate within Wikipedia's confines. Such commentary, aside from being boring (because we really have seen it all before), contributes to the perception that we here at Wikipediocracy are obsessed with intruding into the personal lives of Wikipedians for the sheer nastiness of doing so. Instead, focus on why such personalities are drawn to Wikipedia, and why they choose to seek the roles they have, and why they've been chosen for those roles ahead of others who have not. When you have done this, then (and only then) will you have some chance of saying something interesting.

Best of all: write a book. Prove that Wikipedia has serious problems, in print and not on the web. That would be taken seriously.

[Triptych]

Pretty much everything of interest you've said about any one of them can be said about all of them. Further flagellation of the deceased equine will not produce meritorious results.

You need to move beyond the fairly predictable, even boring, personalities of the individuals who habituate within Wikipedia's confines. Such commentary, aside from being boring (because we really have seen it all before), contributes to the perception that we here at Wikipediocracy are obsessed with intruding into the personal lives of Wikipedians for the sheer nastiness of doing so. Instead, focus on why such personalities are drawn to Wikipedia, and why they choose to seek the roles they have, and why they've been chosen for those roles ahead of others who have not. When you have done this, then (and only then) will you have some chance of saying something interesting.

When one of them does something noteworthy (which is fairly unlikely), then we can talk about what was done and analyze the motives behind it. Until something interesting happens, though, you're just "talking to talk", like those useless talking heads on the 24-hour news channels who fill air during "breaking news events" with meaningless drivel because they don't actually have any news to report, but have to say something to justify why they're there at all.

"He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know."
"To hear, one must be silent."

May I ask, Kelly, that you point me to or tell me something you've done that you feel entitles you to talk down to me like some guru? Because everything you say is pretty much wrong. The arbs are individuals, not complete clones, I criticize but I give them that much credit. There is no intruding into their personal lives at all here. So you're wrong about those examples. You say I am typing meaningless boring "drivel" but I was methodically examining them, which is what the thread title says, and I feel some of it was interesting. And evidently some of the other Wikipediocracy participants think so too, because they responded. But please, you know, because you're sounding off like a Buddhist master, point me to something you ever did besides chat with Jimbo on IRC because you happened to be there at the time, that'll let me evaluate whether all this purported wisdom you're purveying here is, actually.

In the meantime, I just put the topic at my blog, because Encyclopedia Dramatica is difficult to join because of all its Recaptcha and cookies and goodness knows stuff.

[Anthonyhcole]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned.

I think it's a fitting symbol of the standard Wikipediot, that they think a "permanent ban" which can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, is either simple or permanent.

I know "banning" an account won't stop the person from returning. It's a statement. A symbolic gesture. It says something about our standards. We don't hesitate to permanently block accounts that consistently write "Johnny is a poo poo" but I can count on one hand the instances (I can recall) of accounts being banned for simple obvious biased editing.

[DanMurphy]

Tendentious editors, regardless of their presumed motives, should simply be permanently banned.

I think it's a fitting symbol of the standard Wikipediot, that they think a "permanent ban" which can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, is either simple or permanent.

I know "banning" an account won't stop the person from returning. It's a statement. A symbolic gesture. It says something about our standards. We don't hesitate to permanently block accounts that consistently write "Johnny is a poo poo" but I can count on one hand the instances (I can recall) of accounts being banned for simple obvious biased editing.

I agree with the basic pt. Yes, for competent people, most of the agenda-driven ones are easy to spot. But you need something approaching, at least, professional judgement and professional governance to deal with these people, to make and enforce the judgement call. The Wikipedia system is set up to prevent that sort of management structure emerging - look at the knuckleheads most active at "arbitration enforcement" over the years, or the ones wielding the "ban hammer" most heavily at the administrator's noticeboard, for evidence.

[Randy from Boise]

Pretty much everything of interest you've said about any one of them can be said about all of them. Further flagellation of the deceased equine will not produce meritorious results.

You need to move beyond the fairly predictable, even boring, personalities of the individuals who habituate within Wikipedia's confines. Such commentary, aside from being boring (because we really have seen it all before), contributes to the perception that we here at Wikipediocracy are obsessed with intruding into the personal lives of Wikipedians for the sheer nastiness of doing so. Instead, focus on why such personalities are drawn to Wikipedia, and why they choose to seek the roles they have, and why they've been chosen for those roles ahead of others who have not. When you have done this, then (and only then) will you have some chance of saying something interesting.

When one of them does something noteworthy (which is fairly unlikely), then we can talk about what was done and analyze the motives behind it. Until something interesting happens, though, you're just "talking to talk", like those useless talking heads on the 24-hour news channels who fill air during "breaking news events" with meaningless drivel because they don't actually have any news to report, but have to say something to justify why they're there at all.

"He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know."
"To hear, one must be silent."

May I ask, Kelly, that you point me to or tell me something you've done that you feel entitles you to talk down to me like some guru? Because everything you say is pretty much wrong. The arbs are individuals, not complete clones, I criticize but I give them that much credit. There is no intruding into their personal lives at all here. So you're wrong about those examples. You say I am typing meaningless boring "drivel" but I was methodically examining them, which is what the thread title says, and I feel some of it was interesting. And evidently some of the other Wikipediocracy participants think so too, because they responded. But please, you know, because you're sounding off like a Buddhist master, point me to something you ever did besides chat with Jimbo on IRC because you happened to be there at the time, that'll let me evaluate whether all this purported wisdom you're purveying here is, actually.

In the meantime, I just put the topic at my blog, because Encyclopedia Dramatica is difficult to join because of all its Recaptcha and cookies and goodness knows stuff.

But Kelly actually IS a guru... Gurus say good stuff...

Yes, the Arbs are individuals, but running them one by one through some sort of butt-paddling machine doesn't accomplish anything productive. Wait for the fuckups as they occur and then criticize — that's the function of this site, methinks. The power of the press to reveal, criticize, influence, change...

Given the range of possible outcomes, I think we Wikipedians have done about as well as we could have done with the current crop of Arbs. l'm sure mistakes will be made, they always are. Still: give 'em a little time and space.

RfB

[Triptych]

But Kelly actually IS a guru... Gurus say good stuff...

Yes, the Arbs are individuals, but running them one by one through some sort of butt-paddling machine doesn't accomplish anything productive. Wait for the fuckups as they occur and then criticize — that's the function of this site, methinks. The power of the press to reveal, criticize, influence, change...

Given the range of possible outcomes, I think we Wikipedians have done about as well as we could have done with the current crop of Arbs. l'm sure mistakes will be made, they always are. Still: give 'em a little time and space.

Right, I did not want to criticize Kelly. Sorry! "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know. To hear, one must be silent" might not make for the most lively discussion board is all.

The current crop of arbs is no way the best Wikipedians could've done. No Kraxler. No Stanistani. Fine though with the dumping of ice water on the concept of discussing them one by one. Between Kohser and Kelly and you I'll take the hint. Too bad I won't get to share the Gorillawarfare singalong I was writing.

[Randy from Boise]

But Kelly actually IS a guru... Gurus say good stuff...

Yes, the Arbs are individuals, but running them one by one through some sort of butt-paddling machine doesn't accomplish anything productive. Wait for the fuckups as they occur and then criticize — that's the function of this site, methinks. The power of the press to reveal, criticize, influence, change...

Given the range of possible outcomes, I think we Wikipedians have done about as well as we could have done with the current crop of Arbs. l'm sure mistakes will be made, they always are. Still: give 'em a little time and space.

Right, I did not want to criticize Kelly. Sorry! "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know. To hear, one must be silent" might not make for the most lively discussion board is all.

The current crop of arbs is no way the best Wikipedians could've done. No Kraxler. No Stanistani. Fine though with the dumping of ice water on the concept of discussing them one by one. Between Kohser and Kelly and you I'll take the hint. Too bad I won't get to share the Gorillawarfare singalong I was writing.

Oh yeah, it wasn't a max score in terms of the outcome of the last election. But that was the best hand would could reasonably have been expected to be dealt. Zoloft wasn't gonna be happening given his edit count (as opposed to, say, Alison who might have traction, being an admin and having additional advanced permissions). And, yeah, Kraxler lost — and I'm coming to think he'd be one of the good guys. So it wasn't perfect.

RfB

[Vigilant]

But Kelly actually IS a guru... Gurus say good stuff...

Yes, the Arbs are individuals, but running them one by one through some sort of butt-paddling machine doesn't accomplish anything productive. Wait for the fuckups as they occur and then criticize — that's the function of this site, methinks. The power of the press to reveal, criticize, influence, change...

Given the range of possible outcomes, I think we Wikipedians have done about as well as we could have done with the current crop of Arbs. l'm sure mistakes will be made, they always are. Still: give 'em a little time and space.

Right, I did not want to criticize Kelly. Sorry! "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know. To hear, one must be silent" might not make for the most lively discussion board is all.

The current crop of arbs is no way the best Wikipedians could've done. No Kraxler. No Stanistani. Fine though with the dumping of ice water on the concept of discussing them one by one. Between Kohser and Kelly and you I'll take the hint. Too bad I won't get to share the Gorillawarfare singalong I was writing.

Ignore them and do your own thing.
I'm entertained, if not vocal, about this thread.

[Sparky]

If there is much of interest in this thread over the next few weeks, it will only have us kicking ourselves in the ass over not finding it a few weeks earlier.

Having said that, I'm still interested to see what pops up.

[thekohser]

DGG is a coward and a weasel.

Then again, in review of some e-mails he's sent me, he did say this about my paid editing of Wikipedia:

Mr Kohs, your work is not of low quality. That there are others as good as you is possible, but unlikely.

Thanks, David!

[Konveyor Belt]

So in the aftermath of the LB case, is this new ArbCom the worst ever, or at least one of the worst in a while? It's beginning to look that way for me. Its members are weak, vacillating, and will never stick out their necks to do what is right. Not to mention they've made gaffes worse than Dick Cheney made in his day, like the advice in a proposed principle that editors who have been harassed should "lie low" like their dealing with the stereotypical pissed-off mafia boss.

[Vigilant]

So in the aftermath of the LB case, is this new ArbCom the worst ever, or at least one of the worst in a while? It's beginning to look that way for me. Its members are weak, vacillating, and will never stick out their necks to do what is right. Not to mention they've made gaffes worse than Dick Cheney made in his day, like the advice in a proposed principle that editors who have been harassed should "lie low" like their dealing with the stereotypical pissed-off mafia boss.

Even worse, to my mind, is that individual arbs have allowed group think to dominate their positions.
If you can't even propose something unless everyone else agrees, ban Scalhotrod for gross offwiki stalking and sexual harassment, for example, then minority dissent is meaningless.

There really needs to be some sort of impeachment process for ARBCOM.

[Randy from Boise]

So in the aftermath of the LB case, is this new ArbCom the worst ever, or at least one of the worst in a while? It's beginning to look that way for me. Its members are weak, vacillating, and will never stick out their necks to do what is right. Not to mention they've made gaffes worse than Dick Cheney made in his day, like the advice in a proposed principle that editors who have been harassed should "lie low" like their dealing with the stereotypical pissed-off mafia boss.

Even worse, to my mind, is that individual arbs have allowed group think to dominate their positions.
If you can't even propose something unless everyone else agrees, ban Scalhotrod for gross offwiki stalking and sexual harassment, for example, then minority dissent is meaningless.

There really needs to be some sort of impeachment process for ARBCOM.

Nah, elections are annual. It takes six months to figure out if someone is a problem, a month to run an impeachment proceeding, and six weeks to run an election. By that time you're into the next election campaign, practically.

You might get stuck with somebody for a year (I'd love a do-over on Courcelles, for example), but the group refreshes through normal elections rapidly enough.

This ArbCom sorely misses New York Brad, that's for sure. He bailed them out on Lightbreather with their harassment resolution, which he wrote on the talk page and they ported over — saving them from a potential public relations debacle.

RfB