Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

[Poetlister]

I think it's generally accepted that NYB is somewhat of an outlier.

[Vigilant]

The problem with "advocates" in the ArbCom process is that the ArbCom process isn't about determining whose behavior was "right" or "wrong", it's about the ArbCom determining who is "of the body". An advocate is of no use in this process; if you are "of the body" the body will rise up to wrap you in its protective embrace, and no harm will befall you, and if you are "not of the body" you will be thrown out into the cold outer darkness, never again to bask in the warm glow of the love of the pah-wraiths holy acolytes of knowledge.

In some situations, if there is question as to whether you are truly of the body, but the Committee is not convinced, you may be given a partial reprieve if you abase yourself sufficiently before the judges.

In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ... and I don't believe any other arbitrators I served with did either, although I disagreed with some of them often enough.

Like many models, it may be a flawed understanding of the actual mechanics involved, however, it is still the theory that best explains and predicts outcomes from ARBCOM.

Think Newtonian kinematics.
f=ma, etc

[Kelly Martin]

I think it's generally accepted that NYB is somewhat of an outlier.

I disagree; in fact, he's one of the most effective prosecutors that the defenders of the body have. If anything, he's made more effective because it appears to everyone, even at times himself, that he's not doing anything inappropriate or improper.

I will agree that he's an outlier in one regard: he is, indeed, an outlier in terms of competence.

[Vigilant]

I think it's generally accepted that NYB is somewhat of an outlier.

I disagree; in fact, he's one of the most effective prosecutors that the defenders of the body have. If anything, he's made more effective because it appears to everyone, even at times himself, that he's not doing anything inappropriate or improper.

I will agree that he's an outlier in one regard: he is, indeed, an outlier in terms of competence.

The inside fixer.

[Newyorkbrad]

I think it's generally accepted that NYB is somewhat of an outlier.

I disagree; in fact, he's one of the most effective prosecutors that the defenders of the body have. If anything, he's made more effective because it appears to everyone, even at times himself, that he's not doing anything inappropriate or improper.

I will agree that he's an outlier in one regard: he is, indeed, an outlier in terms of competence.

Actually -- and it ties directly into the subject of this thread -- one thing I always did when I was on the Committee was, before we banned or severely restricted an editor, or desysopped an administrator, I tried to make sure we'd explored all the mitigating circumstances that might exist, and considered any less severe alternatives to banning or desysopping. Sometimes I found something, and sometimes I didn't, and sometimes I thought I'd found something and other arbs disagreed with me. (This is the kernel of truth in the claim that I was always the most lenient arbitrator, which was an overgeneralization.) A lot of the people I opposed throwing off the wiki were hardly friends of mine, and were hardly wiki-establishment figures, and often were critics of Wikipedia in general and me in particular.

And . . . it always bears strong emphasis that, especially these days, the ArbCom deals with only a minor fraction of user conduct issues. Useful ideas for how to improve the processes on places like AN/ANI would be far more productive than yet another discussion of arbitration.

[Anroth]

And yet you support TDA being disappeared without notifying him or giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Somehow your comments about exploring mitigating circumstances do not strike me as very credible.

[thekohser]

In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ...

Even when you decided to send me a message that I wasn't allowed to visit New York Law School on one particular weekend in late May 2014? How was that a "not of the body" decision?

Oh, I know, I know... you'll now say that you weren't wearing your "ArbCom hat" at that particular low point of your WikiCareer.

[Kingsindian]

The problem with "advocates" in the ArbCom process is that the ArbCom process isn't about determining whose behavior was "right" or "wrong", it's about the ArbCom determining who is "of the body". An advocate is of no use in this process; if you are "of the body" the body will rise up to wrap you in its protective embrace, and no harm will befall you, and if you are "not of the body" you will be thrown out into the cold outer darkness, never again to bask in the warm glow of the love of the pah-wraiths holy acolytes of knowledge.

In some situations, if there is question as to whether you are truly of the body, but the Committee is not convinced, you may be given a partial reprieve if you abase yourself sufficiently before the judges.

In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ... and I don't believe any other arbitrators I served with did either, although I disagreed with some of them often enough.

Like many models, it may be a flawed understanding of the actual mechanics involved, however, it is still the theory that best explains and predicts outcomes from ARBCOM.

Think Newtonian kinematics.
f=ma, etc

+1

[Demonology]

An editor wonders where his lawyer is as he tries to appeal a topic ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llie231213

P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[Poetlister]

"Where's my lawyer?" Immediate block under WP:NLT.

[SneakySasha]

An editor wonders where his lawyer is as he tries to appeal a topic ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llie231213

P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. I've seen new editors taken to task by aggressive bullies before where I should have gotten involved, but didn't only to stay away from the drama. However, by not saying anything that just makes me an aggressive bully too! So if I see something now, I'll say something. Unfortunately, I don't go about checking those boards so perhaps there should be some sort of subpoena system set in place. Otherwise, the whole thing is just a sham based on chance.

@Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is where the system fails. Most of the editors who do show up are editors who dislike that editor. They lay in wait hoping for certain editor's names to appear to pile up on them. The whole system's rigged against new editors and those outside of the core crew. It's like going to Vegas. The house always wins!

[Randy from Boise]

This is where the system fails. Most of the editors who do show up are editors who dislike that editor. They lay in wait hoping for certain editor's names to appear to pile up on them. The whole system's rigged against new editors and those outside of the core crew. It's like going to Vegas. The house always wins!

This is actually pretty much a textbook case of why we need an organized system of advocacy for those running afoul of site discipline. The act of answering charges prejudices and preordains the result.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ...

Even when you decided to send me a message that I wasn't allowed to visit New York Law School on one particular weekend in late May 2014? How was that a "not of the body" decision?

Oh, I know, I know... you'll now say that you weren't wearing your "ArbCom hat" at that particular low point of your WikiCareer.

Just chiming in to agree that this was a really bad play by you NYB. GK is site banned from En-WP but he remains a Wikipedian and participates on a variety of WMF projects. He was preemptively banned without either cause or hearing because one or a few personal enemies raised the issue. They are the ones who should have been quashed, not GK's potential participation.

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

Yet another thread derailed by a single-issue topic warrior.

[SB_Johnny]

Yet another thread derailed by a single-issue topic warrior.

Fixed, Kumioko's appeal(s) went this-a-way.

[Kingsindian]

This is where the system fails. Most of the editors who do show up are editors who dislike that editor. They lay in wait hoping for certain editor's names to appear to pile up on them. The whole system's rigged against new editors and those outside of the core crew. It's like going to Vegas. The house always wins!

This is actually pretty much a textbook case of why we need an organized system of advocacy for those running afoul of site discipline. The act of answering charges prejudices and preordains the result.

RfB

I meant to make a statement in the AE case, but didn't get the time. From what I could see, the issue was the following:

There is an outfit called Gerontology Research Group which "validates" claims of age. It is decently widely quoted, in many news sources. The issue was whether it should be weighted more than normal newspaper sources. There was an RfC about a closely related issue, where a separate column for "validation" in lists of oldest people was rejected.

There was some incivility in the RfC, as well as edit-warring/reverting on a large number of pages, which originally led to the topic ban.

The appeal, from what I could see had a slim to no chance of succeeding.

• The appeal was TLDR
• The appeal basically doubled down on the behaviour leading to the ban. That is a recipe for not succeeding. Groveling, or at least some recognition of mistakes is required.
• There was insufficient recognition of the difference between holding a view that the GRG should be given a higher weight, and pushing a view. This is a rather hard thing to appreciate, but such things fall in the discretionary range of admins instituting discretionary sanctions.
• There should have been more discussion with the admin instituting the topic ban beforehand.
• There was squabbling with lots of people showing up to comment at AE. This is a mistake. One should ignore them, most admins don't even read the comments or give them little weight.

[SneakySasha]

The appeal, from what I could see had a slim to no chance of succeeding.

This could be said of all appeals on Wikipedia!

[Beeblebrox]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

[Poetlister]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I think most people here would say that there are very many unblocked editors who are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

[Beeblebrox]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I think most people here would say that there are very many unblocked editors who are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I would have to agree. There are certainly a lot of terrible writers on Wikipedia. One of the reasons I was drawn toward admin work was that I knew I was never going to write a featured article. I can create fairly basic articles that are comprehensible and properly referenced, but I just don't have the patience, or even really the desire, to try and do FA-quality stuff. Unfortunately not everyone is self-aware enough to acknowledge their own limitations.

[Kumioko]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I think most people here would say that there are very many unblocked editors who are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I would have to agree. There are certainly a lot of terrible writers on Wikipedia. One of the reasons I was drawn toward admin work was that I knew I was never going to write a featured article. I can create fairly basic articles that are comprehensible and properly referenced, but I just don't have the patience, or even really the desire, to try and do FA-quality stuff. Unfortunately not everyone is self-aware enough to acknowledge their own limitations.

Ironically, the ones doing the actual writing and creating an encyclopedia are rarely the ones that become admins. The ones that criticize and harass the ones building an encyclopedia are generally the ones who get the tools. If you don't actually do anything, you can't get blamed for anything but the more you do, the easier it is to find some reason to make accusations against the editor doing the writing.

[Kingsindian]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I use "grovel" in one of its dictionary meanings: "act obsequiously in order to obtain forgiveness or favour." But since so many people misinterpret it to mean "lie or crawl abjectly on the ground with one's face downwards.", I should probably use another word.

The point I was making is that in an appeal (or RfA or anything else on Wikipedia), it is a bad idea to try to justify your behaviour (even if you think you are correct). The correct and expected response is to either stay silent on the matter, or act with sufficient remorse, even if one is insincere. Insincere apologies are worth much more than sincere defence of behaviour, which is what happened in this appeal. (Another example is Hawkeye7's RfA - you can read my comments in that thread).

[Kelly Martin]

Insincere apologies are worth much more than sincere defence of behaviour

Key takeaway. Wikipedia's disciplinary system is all about enforcing the subordination of the individual editor to the collective of the Movement. If you defend your actions, you are not subordinating yourself to the collective, and it's that failure that is being punished, not the original problematic behavior.

Assimilate or die. Resistance is futile.

[Randy from Boise]

Actual groveling (as opposed to admitting you made a mistake and asking nicely to be let back in) will not get a person unblocked. It's actually quite obnoxious to behave like that in response to a block from a website, and people who have an apparent breakdown and resort to begging and pleading to get a block overturned are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I think most people here would say that there are very many unblocked editors who are probably not people who should be writing an encyclopedia.

I would have to agree. There are certainly a lot of terrible writers on Wikipedia. One of the reasons I was drawn toward admin work was that I knew I was never going to write a featured article. I can create fairly basic articles that are comprehensible and properly referenced, but I just don't have the patience, or even really the desire, to try and do FA-quality stuff. Unfortunately not everyone is self-aware enough to acknowledge their own limitations.

Wikipedia writing is completely formulaic — and that's fine. Encyclopedia articles aren't literature, with character development and a surprising denounment, and they aren't witty essays, with pithy quotations and the marshaling of evidence to support a thesis. They aren't scientific articles with extensive discussions of the literature and mounds of data testing hypotheses. They are far closer to hack journalism than anything — hack journalism with footnotes — detailing the who, what, where, when, why, and how of events or concepts or outlining human interest-type biographies in a straightforward, chronological matter.

Wikipedia articles are little collegiate undergraduate term papers, more or less. Key sources are mined and lots of little facts are globbed together, hopefully coherently, so as to detail a subject to some degree of completeness. Not everyone wants to write such articles, but almost every literate person certainly can.

The FA process, as nearly I can tell, is all about jamming content into a jello mold designed by the bickering obsessives behind the manual of style. It has virtually nothing to do with functional, educational content and everything to do with the process of homogenization of style — often not in a good way. I'm still proudly unassociated with a FA or the FA process in any way, even though I fell I'm a tolerably skilled and reasonably prolific content writer. The FA process is simply repulsive to me — and I really doubt that I am alone in that regard.

RfB

[Kumioko]

Insincere apologies are worth much more than sincere defence of behaviour

Key takeaway. Wikipedia's disciplinary system is all about enforcing the subordination of the individual editor to the collective of the Movement. If you defend your actions, you are not subordinating yourself to the collective, and it's that failure that is being punished, not the original problematic behavior.

Assimilate or die. Resistance is futile.

I'll vouch. The only way to be allowed back once you have been blocked is to beg. They want you to beg, otherwise they will say that you are not showing you were wrong and even if you were right, they want you to know and show to everyone else you are submissive and will do whatever they who have the power to block you say.

[Randy from Boise]

Insincere apologies are worth much more than sincere defence of behaviour

Key takeaway. Wikipedia's disciplinary system is all about enforcing the subordination of the individual editor to the collective of the Movement. If you defend your actions, you are not subordinating yourself to the collective, and it's that failure that is being punished, not the original problematic behavior.

Assimilate or die. Resistance is futile.

That's melodramatic Borg talk.

It's actually closer to a Communist Party-lead state, in which the official ideology must be mouthed — although seldom actually believed. There are fundamental tenets which much be observed (NPOV, etc.) and woe to those who violate them, because the political police will get you or patriotic citizenry will rip you apart and force you to emigrate. But a person can mouth the official line and follow the fundamental rules without incident, without needing to "assimilate or die."

Witness Mr. Kohs, for example, who follows the rules and edits merrily along when he has an interest in doing that. Or witness Mr. Kumioko, who bitterly rails against the lack of justice of the political police force but still manages to improve the project without significant controversy by following the rules and editing merrily along when he has an interest in doing that. And these are only two so-called "banned editors" who have publicly acknowledged doing the dreadful thing of editing WP without official sanction — there are others even at this board. The tip of the iceberg, if you will...

Citizens of Soviet-style systems weren't members of the Borg Collective — they had private opinions while maintaining a public face. The state was a shitty, bureaucratic, incompetent mess, incapable of providing some of even the most basic necessities with any degree of quality in sufficient quality. Nevertheless, the citizenry patriotically endured until the system fell apart at the seams due in large measure to the crimes it had committed against its own citizens and the nauseating, privileged geriatric bureaucracy that had emerged, stifling every heart-felt myth about egalitarianism and justice and hope for a better life under the established system vis-a-vis the alternative system.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. It's no accident that lefty types like me and many participants of this board are drawn to WP, either as participants or critics or both. It has nothing to do with destructive space aliens and everything to do with the revolutionary potential of technology as a tool of mass information and education.

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

It's actually closer to a Communist Party-lead state, in which the official ideology must be mouthed — although seldom actually believed. There are fundamental tenets which much be observed (NPOV, etc.) and woe to those who violate them, because the political police will get you or patriotic citizenry will rip you apart and force you to emigrate. But a person can mouth the official line and follow the fundamental rules without incident, without needing to "assimilate or die."

Witness Mr. Kohs, for example, who follows the rules and edits merrily along when he has an interest in doing that. Or witness Mr. Kumioko, who bitterly rails against the lack of justice of the political police force but still manages to improve the project without significant controversy by following the rules and editing merrily along when he has an interest in doing that.

Citizens of Soviet-style systems weren't members of the Borg Collective — they had private opinions while maintaining a public face. The state was a shitty, incompetence mess, incapable of providing some of even the most basic necessities with any degree of quality in sufficient quality, but the citizenry patriotically endured until the system fell apart at the seams due in large measure to the crimes it had committed against its own citizens and the nauseating, privileged geriatric bureaucracy that had emerged, stifling every heart-felt myth about egalitarianism and justice and hope for a better life under the established system vis-a-vis the alternative system.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. It's no accident that lefty types like me and many participants of this board are drawn to WP, either as participants or critics or both. It has nothing to do with destructive space aliens and everything to do with the revolutionary potential of technology as a tool of mass information and education.

RfB

Nothing here to argue with. And not surprising, given that Wikipedia's original community and communal governance structures were established mainly by Communists.

[Randy from Boise]

That's melodramatic Borg talk.

It's actually closer to a Communist Party-lead state, in which the official ideology must be mouthed — although seldom actually believed. There are fundamental tenets which much be observed (NPOV, etc.) and woe to those who violate them, because the political police will get you or patriotic citizenry will rip you apart and force you to emigrate. But a person can mouth the official line and follow the fundamental rules without incident, without needing to "assimilate or die."

Witness Mr. Kohs, for example, who follows the rules and edits merrily along when he has an interest in doing that. Or witness Mr. Kumioko, who bitterly rails against the lack of justice of the political police force but still manages to improve the project without significant controversy by following the rules and editing merrily along when he has an interest in doing that. And these are only two so-called "banned editors" who have publicly acknowledged doing the dreadful thing of editing WP without official sanction — there are others even at this board. The tip of the iceberg, if you will...

Citizens of Soviet-style systems weren't members of the Borg Collective — they had private opinions while maintaining a public face. The state was a shitty, bureaucratic, incompetent mess, incapable of providing some of even the most basic necessities with any degree of quality in sufficient quality. Nevertheless, the citizenry patriotically endured until the system fell apart at the seams due in large measure to the crimes it had committed against its own citizens and the nauseating, privileged geriatric bureaucracy that had emerged, stifling every heart-felt myth about egalitarianism and justice and hope for a better life under the established system vis-a-vis the alternative system.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. It's no accident that lefty types like me and many participants of this board are drawn to WP, either as participants or critics or both. It has nothing to do with destructive space aliens and everything to do with the revolutionary potential of technology as a tool of mass information and education.

RfB

Nothing here to argue with. And not surprising, given that Wikipedia's original community and communal governance structures were established mainly by Communists.

But the Sole Founder wasn't a Communist at all... He was an arch capitalist out on the high seas of commerce, black skull-and-crossbones waving in the breeze.

This is part of the reason why JW is admired by some but not truly beloved by even the hardest of the hardcore Wikipedians. There is a disconnect there between rhetoric and behavior. See, for example: The People's Operator. Or Wikia.

RfB

P.S. Many Wikipedians were and are far closer to Anarchists than Communists. There were Anarchists in the Russian revolution, too. They got wiped out by the cenralizers at a very early stage in the process.

[Kingsindian]

Wikipedia's original community and communal governance structures were established mainly by Communists.

I didn't know this. Who were some of these people?

[Randy from Boise]

Wikipedia's original community and communal governance structures were established mainly by Communists.

I didn't know this. Who were some of these people?

Obviously, this is a list that couldn't be published even the statement wasn't a bit of hyperbole.

Fred Bauder of course being the textbook example, and one who would not mind being named, being as he was the founder of Communpedia.

http://communpedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder

There were doubtlessly a few others who would have accepted the word (albeit doubtful that any were Party members, mind you). The word "radical" would hit more targets.

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia's original community and communal governance structures were established mainly by Communists.

I didn't know this. Who were some of these people?

The one that sticks in my mind most was Improv (T-C-L), whose real name is Pat Gunn. Pat has openly declared that he's a Communist on several occasions. I met him at Wikimania 2006.

Most of the early adopters on Wikipedia (those who joined prior to 2002) were people recruited by Larry Sanger. Larry is not, as far as I know, a communist, but he is an an academic and most of the people he knows are themselves academics. The communities his recruitment efforts reached contained disproportionate (relative to either the general population or to Internet users of the day) numbers of communists and other communalists. It was these people who largely shaped Wikipedia's early development.

Don't confuse Jimmy Wales' putative ownership of and occasional exercise of control over Wikipedia as any form of leadership. He left that to others as much as he could. He became more active as Bomis' other ventures petered off, and even more so when Michael Davis' legal troubles forced a relocation to Florida as an asset protection strategy and Jimmy found himself living in St. Petersburg with nothing better to do. But by that time Larry's friends and friends of friends had already cast the mold.

Very few of these early radicals (and they really are radicals) are still around. The 2002 invasion by Slashdot changed much of the character of the people in the community, but not its foundations.

[thekohser]

Fred Bauder of course being the textbook example, and one who would not mind being named, being as he was the founder of Communpedia.

So, if Fred Bauder is a Communist, and Jimmy Wales is a sort of anti-Communist, then what do those two men have specifically in common?

(I'll look away as you do the research.)

[Vigilant]

Fred Bauder of course being the textbook example, and one who would not mind being named, being as he was the founder of Communpedia.

So, if Fred Bauder is a Communist, and Jimmy Wales is a sort of anti-Communist, then what do those two men have specifically in common?

(I'll look away as you do the research.)

They like to harass younger women for sex?

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia writing is completely formulaic — and that's fine. Encyclopedia articles aren't literature, with character development and a surprising denounment, and they aren't witty essays, with pithy quotations and the marshaling of evidence to support a thesis. They aren't scientific articles with extensive discussions of the literature and mounds of data testing hypotheses. They are far closer to hack journalism than anything — hack journalism with footnotes — detailing the who, what, where, when, why, and how of events or concepts or outlining human interest-type biographies in a straightforward, chronological matter.

If you look at the best encyclopaedias, or the Dictionary of National Biography, the articles are well written, well structured abd easy to read. Some of those articles have been copied into Wikipedia of course, and in general they get hacked about and ruined.

[Cedric]

I would have to agree. There are certainly a lot of terrible writers on Wikipedia. One of the reasons I was drawn toward admin work was that I knew I was never going to write a featured article. I can create fairly basic articles that are comprehensible and properly referenced, but I just don't have the patience, or even really the desire, to try and do FA-quality stuff. Unfortunately not everyone is self-aware enough to acknowledge their own limitations (emphasis supplied).

Understatement, thy name is Beeblebrox.

Insincere apologies are worth much more than sincere defence of behaviour

Key takeaway. Wikipedia's disciplinary system is all about enforcing the subordination of the individual editor to the collective of the Movement. If you defend your actions, you are not subordinating yourself to the collective, and it's that failure that is being punished, not the original problematic behavior.

Assimilate or die. Resistance is futile.

That's melodramatic Borg talk.

Not really. It is the way that Wikipedia governance (such as it is) functions and always has.

[Beeblebrox]

I would have to agree. There are certainly a lot of terrible writers on Wikipedia. One of the reasons I was drawn toward admin work was that I knew I was never going to write a featured article. I can create fairly basic articles that are comprehensible and properly referenced, but I just don't have the patience, or even really the desire, to try and do FA-quality stuff. Unfortunately not everyone is self-aware enough to acknowledge their own limitations (emphasis supplied).

Understatement, thy name is Beeblebrox.

I know, I know, theres a lot more to it than just writing skill. Plenty of problems are caused by persons with no social skills, and I've had to block more than one person for being unable to communicate coherently in English. Gross incompetence is something we usually deal with as quickly and quietly as possible, so as to lessen the harm to the incompetnt person behind the account.

Much more problematic are users who can communicate coherently, aren't super rude and nasty, but just suck at whatever their chosen Wikipedia activity is, whehter it be writing articles, CSD nominations, or reporting vandals/username violations/etc. Usually, users who make lots of bad nominations and reports are just trying to juice up their edit counts in admin-related areas because they intend to make a run at RFA, not realizing that one bad CSD nom cancels out 100 good ones in the minds of RFA participants. People who just write crappy prose are actually easier to clean up behind as they usually aren't driving off newbies while they are at it.

[Randy from Boise]

Wikipedia writing is completely formulaic — and that's fine. Encyclopedia articles aren't literature, with character development and a surprising denounment, and they aren't witty essays, with pithy quotations and the marshaling of evidence to support a thesis. They aren't scientific articles with extensive discussions of the literature and mounds of data testing hypotheses. They are far closer to hack journalism than anything — hack journalism with footnotes — detailing the who, what, where, when, why, and how of events or concepts or outlining human interest-type biographies in a straightforward, chronological matter.

If you look at the best encyclopaedias, or the Dictionary of National Biography, the articles are well written, well structured abd easy to read. Some of those articles have been copied into Wikipedia of course, and in general they get hacked about and ruined.

WP is evolving into decency. I know it is unpopular here to assert it is getting better over time, but it is.

RfB

[The Joy]

Wikipedia writing is completely formulaic — and that's fine. Encyclopedia articles aren't literature, with character development and a surprising denounment, and they aren't witty essays, with pithy quotations and the marshaling of evidence to support a thesis. They aren't scientific articles with extensive discussions of the literature and mounds of data testing hypotheses. They are far closer to hack journalism than anything — hack journalism with footnotes — detailing the who, what, where, when, why, and how of events or concepts or outlining human interest-type biographies in a straightforward, chronological matter.

If you look at the best encyclopaedias, or the Dictionary of National Biography, the articles are well written, well structured abd easy to read. Some of those articles have been copied into Wikipedia of course, and in general they get hacked about and ruined.

WP is evolving into decency. I know it is unpopular here to assert it is getting better over time, but it is.

RfB

The enforcement of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA has increased often to points of sheer ridiculousness. The indecency has to be done off-wiki as it has always been done.

[Randy from Boise]

Wikipedia writing is completely formulaic — and that's fine. Encyclopedia articles aren't literature, with character development and a surprising denounment, and they aren't witty essays, with pithy quotations and the marshaling of evidence to support a thesis. They aren't scientific articles with extensive discussions of the literature and mounds of data testing hypotheses. They are far closer to hack journalism than anything — hack journalism with footnotes — detailing the who, what, where, when, why, and how of events or concepts or outlining human interest-type biographies in a straightforward, chronological matter.

If you look at the best encyclopaedias, or the Dictionary of National Biography, the articles are well written, well structured abd easy to read. Some of those articles have been copied into Wikipedia of course, and in general they get hacked about and ruined.

WP is evolving into decency. I know it is unpopular here to assert it is getting better over time, but it is.

RfB

The enforcement of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA has increased often to points of sheer ridiculousness. The indecency has to be done off-wiki as it has always been done.

This is actually the start of a new thread here (mods take note).

I completely agree that enforcement of incivility has increased over the last few years. I believe the organized Friendly Spacer movement has had an effect here, and I tip my cap to them even as I reiterate that I can't stand them from an ideological perspective (bureaucratic wankers).

There has been a change in both behavior and enforcement, however. Gross incivility doesn't make it to the dramaboards, the Janitors are taking care of it right away.

And here is your proof: How many new cases has Arbcom started since the first of the year?

Not Arbitration-Enforcement rulings... Not cases decided this year that were started under the previous ArbCom.... Just new cases.

How many cases have this PC∆-laden bunch of Corbett-haters started under their watch?

The answer is Zero. We are half way through February... This is not an accident.

Civility has improved on Wikipedia over the last two years, no doubt about it.

RfB

P.S. There is a time and a place for slagging off on one's enemies — and this should happen off-Wiki.

[Vigilant]

And here is your proof: How many new cases has Arbcom started since the first of the year?

It couldn't possibly be that this ARBCOM is seen by everyone as pointless and incompetent, so why bother?

[Beeblebrox]

I think there will always be a place for arbcom as an option of last resort for complicated issues involving numerous editors, but not much else. Previous arbcoms expanded their own role, often without much input (let alone consensus) from the community, and this led to the committee having more work than it could or should handle, which in turn has led to it gradually scaling back, dithcing the useless subcommittees, and only taking cases when it is clear that there is no other recourse. At least I hope that's what's going on. That's what it looks like to me.

[Kumioko]

And here is your proof: How many new cases has Arbcom started since the first of the year?

It couldn't possibly be that this ARBCOM is seen by everyone as pointless and incompetent, so why bother?

I agree, the reason why the Arbcom doesn't have as many cases, IMO, is because they are showing in more frequency that they are incompetent, corrupt and not qualified. Additionally, as we look back at the various arbcom decisions what do we see:

* Banned people continuing to edit while banned. Most of them doing positive edits but their new accounts get blocked as they are identified and the cycle repeats causing unnecessary drama and showing that the block is punitive and not preventative.
* Topic areas under sanctions are left barren and without improvements. Vandalism frequently goes unreverted for long periods. People are afraid to edit them and getting banned, so they are left to rot and rot they do.
* Discretionary sanctions are frequently used as a blank check for harassment by certain admins against other editors they don't like. This perpetuates drama and we often lose good contributors because of politics, POV pushing and inappropriate admin actions due to a lack of admin oversight and a lack of quality control of the admins actions.
* Cases generate negative press for the WMF, the projects and the community. This has happened with Gamergate, the Gender gap and others.
* The outcome of cases are predetermined when accepted. Everyone knows the Arbcom rarely accepts a case unless they preassume guilt, so once the case is accepted, the end is near.

Of course there is more. But that is enough reason to justify eliminating the Arbcom completely. It was an ok idea when it started, but just as many foretold then, they have exceeded their use and are generating more heat than light.

The time has more than come to deprecate the committee and get those admins back doing actual work and better still, get rid of those ones that think they are exempt from the rules. The community doesn't need them bullying them around and the project as a whole, in the long term, is better off without their "guidance".

[Kingsindian]

I think there will always be a place for arbcom as an option of last resort for complicated issues involving numerous editors, but not much else. Previous arbcoms expanded their own role, often without much input (let alone consensus) from the community, and this led to the committee having more work than it could or should handle, which in turn has led to it gradually scaling back, dithcing the useless subcommittees, and only taking cases when it is clear that there is no other recourse. At least I hope that's what's going on. That's what it looks like to me.

I am not too familiar with the history, but concentrating on ArbCom cases is a bit misleading. There are also discretionary sanctions passed by ArbCom which remain in effect today. I am not aware of any one of them being rescinded, or even a review of how well they do.

[Newyorkbrad]

I think there will always be a place for arbcom as an option of last resort for complicated issues involving numerous editors, but not much else. Previous arbcoms expanded their own role, often without much input (let alone consensus) from the community, and this led to the committee having more work than it could or should handle, which in turn has led to it gradually scaling back, dithcing the useless subcommittees, and only taking cases when it is clear that there is no other recourse. At least I hope that's what's going on. That's what it looks like to me.

I am not too familiar with the history, but concentrating on ArbCom cases is a bit misleading. There are also discretionary sanctions passed by ArbCom which remain in effect today. I am not aware of any one of them being rescinded, or even a review of how well they do.

There have been a couple of motions in the past two years terminating discretionary sanctions in areas where the controversies that led to them have receded.

You are right that in general, there is not enough review on Wikipedia of how well dispute-resolution processes actually work. That would include discretionary sanctions, other ArbCom sanctions, but also the noticeboards and the more common methods by which disagreements are resolved either formally or informally. I've discussed this before on-wiki including in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_review (T-H-L), which is my review of the books by Jemielniak and Seife.

[Randy from Boise]

I think there will always be a place for arbcom as an option of last resort for complicated issues involving numerous editors, but not much else. Previous arbcoms expanded their own role, often without much input (let alone consensus) from the community, and this led to the committee having more work than it could or should handle, which in turn has led to it gradually scaling back, dithcing the useless subcommittees, and only taking cases when it is clear that there is no other recourse. At least I hope that's what's going on. That's what it looks like to me.

Welllllll, that sounds good, but it's not backed up by the historical facts. Arbcom started from Day One as an ultra-interventionist institution, taking and ruling upon dozens and dozens of cases. Over time these cases became fewer and their resolution slower, culminating last year with their At Least Two Months To Do Anything approach.

It's to their credit that this year's ArbCom is not rushing to take dumb cases. There are fewer cases making it that far anyway, my sense is that block buttons are being wielded with greater severity and the problems are fewer because of that...

RfB