Wikipediocracy

More trolling.

How do you think that policies are made? They don't suddenly appear from the void, they are created by wikilawyers. Without them, there would be no project.

Guido den Broeder wrote:More trolling.

How do you think that policies are made? They don't suddenly appear from the void, they are created by wikilawyers. Without them, there would be no project.

No and no. Some of the rules exist to give definition to the project; others exist to give structure to alteration of the rules; still others are for dealing with people who step outside the rules. None of that required lawyering, which only comes into play when someone has to rationalize stepping outside the rules.

I've removed your insulting comment, Anroth.

Ming wrote:

Guido den Broeder wrote:More trolling.

How do you think that policies are made? They don't suddenly appear from the void, they are created by wikilawyers. Without them, there would be no project.

No and no. Some of the rules exist to give definition to the project; others exist to give structure to alteration of the rules; still others are for dealing with people who step outside the rules. None of that required lawyering, which only comes into play when someone has to rationalize stepping outside the rules.

According to the opposing wikilawyer ...

The reason why they exist makes little difference for how they came to exist

As we have progressed to April and Arbcom has remained silent, I now call Ignore All Rules.

Guido den Broeder wrote:

Ming wrote:

Guido den Broeder wrote:More trolling.

How do you think that policies are made? They don't suddenly appear from the void, they are created by wikilawyers. Without them, there would be no project.

No and no. Some of the rules exist to give definition to the project; others exist to give structure to alteration of the rules; still others are for dealing with people who step outside the rules. None of that required lawyering, which only comes into play when someone has to rationalize stepping outside the rules.

According to the opposing wikilawyer ...

The reason why they exist makes little difference for how they came to exist

Look, Ming is not the one here who is trying to argue Ming's way back into WP. Ming has a perfectly good account with no blocks. That's because (a) Ming mostly complies with the rules, (b) Ming has been careful about picking fights, and (c) Ming knows when to quit. Likewise, Ming is on good terms with the management here, in spite of a lot of differences of opinion. So Ming thinks that Ming has a better handle on this than you do.

Ming wrote:Ming has a perfectly good account with no blocks.

Please, show us, so we can all learn from your example.

Guido den Broeder wrote:

Ming wrote:Ming has a perfectly good account with no blocks.

Please, show us, so we can all learn from your example.

No requirement to show who you are here.

It is quite straightforward to have a good account with no blocks if you know the rules, especially the unwritten ones.

To pedantically answer the original question, en-ArbCom currently appear to be in the business of answering emails late and declining requests from supposedly-but-not-really-retired former arbs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =833428393

(Gamaliel of the GGTF ArbCom case-fame complaining that an email was sent and not responded to regarding paid editing, and getting declined because his case centred on an inactive account from 2013.)

ArbCom also managed to close the latest infobox case, with subsequent discussion at the noticeboard talk page and this Village Pump RfC:

Infobox RFC (permalink)

Indeed they seem to have time for all kinds of frivolities, but not for doing their job.

You would think that with 10 clerks (admittedly 4 inactive), there would be an opportunity to at least inform someone about the status of their request, filed on January 17.

Carcharoth wrote:To pedantically answer the original question, en-ArbCom currently appear to be in the business of answering emails late and declining requests from supposedly-but-not-really-retired former arbs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =833428393

(Gamaliel of the GGTF ArbCom case-fame complaining that an email was sent and not responded to regarding paid editing, and getting declined because his case centred on an inactive account from 2013.)

ArbCom also managed to close the latest infobox case, with subsequent discussion at the noticeboard talk page and this Village Pump RfC:

Infobox RFC (permalink)

I was going to post a topic here about that, but tbh I thought Gamaliel had made himself look stupid enough without piling on.

Seriously, claiming an editor who has been inactive since 2013 was violating the TOS which didnt exist at that time in regards to paid editing...

TBF I assume he was attempting to claim the two named editors were the same person. But failed to provide any credible evidence of paid editing.

Arbcom has been lazy for years. Most of the people who do it are barely active when they get elected and then spend most of their time ducking questions and talking about how much work it is to be an arb...cause we don't know the pressure they are under. So now, the Arbcom has become a joke, what little they do earns no respect from the community or the WMF. It's become a thankless job due to past incompetence, laziness and treating the community like fools. This case Gamaliel brings up only shows how out of touch with reality they are. Literally no one cares about a dead account for 2013 (unless there is some evidence that links it to recent activity) but this is the kind of crap they dwell on.

It's almost funny that I spent years building up and improving Wikipedia to be banned for trying to make it better while idiots like Gamaliel and the members of the Arbcom are given the keys to the Kingdom only to ruin it.

Anyone want to start a thread on ArbCom reform proposals? If it were structured in such a way as allow specific comments and responses to comments on a variety of proposals, maybe sort of like a mass RFC, that might have some value.

Guido den Broeder wrote:I got banned again last year from en:Wikipedia for no apparent reason, courtesy of Fram, and need to appeal to Arbcom's mailinglist as it involves several privacy issues.

However, nobody is home.

No response to my plea, no message that my mail was rejected either.

Any thoughts?

One of the possibilities might be to file an unban request at ANI. One of the past or present arbs might know better about this than me, but I think a community decision, if there were enough input, is maybe supposed to trump ArbCom decisions. The privacy issues might complicate that of course.

JCM wrote:

Guido den Broeder wrote:I got banned again last year from en:Wikipedia for no apparent reason, courtesy of Fram, and need to appeal to Arbcom's mailinglist as it involves several privacy issues.

However, nobody is home.

No response to my plea, no message that my mail was rejected either.

Any thoughts?

One of the possibilities might be to file an unban request at ANI. One of the past or present arbs might know better about this than me, but I think a community decision, if there were enough input, is maybe supposed to trump ArbCom decisions. The privacy issues might complicate that of course.

I agree you could try, but don't get your hopes up unless there are a drove of editors who will support. Most of the time these discussions are dominated by those that want to enforce, not lift, bans and blocks. Unless you are willing to take a knee and kiss the ring, beg for forgiveness and state publicly that you are a horrible person and take full responsibility for whatever you were blocked for regardless of the merits of the actual block, you probably are not going to get unbanned. Public humiliation is a part of the process. The point of the exercise is to show the editor they are lower than the admins who control the blocks and bans, that you must be completely submissive to the leadership and you are willing to humiliate yourself publicly for the privilege of editing their project.

Yeah. That, and the fact that I can't post, and the arbs aren't talking to me.

The fact that no block reason was specified doesn't help much either. Obviously I take responsibility for everything I have done, but all I did was constructive editing and consensus-building.

Guido den Broeder wrote:Yeah. That, and the fact that I can't post, and the arbs aren't talking to me.

The fact that no block reason was specified doesn't help much either.

Your block reasons have been linked to in this very thread.

Anroth wrote:

Guido den Broeder wrote:The fact that no block reason was specified doesn't help much either.

Your block reasons have been linked to in this very thread.

I think he's referring to the fact that the rationale isn't directly spelled out in the block log itself, and the two ANI links in the block log don't actually work. Nor is it referred to in the (much longer) block log for his "Roadcreature" account, in case that matters (and it might, since they sometimes refer to him by that name).

The link you posted on Page 1 of this thread does work though, but even there, it's mostly "Jeez, why did we unban this guy in the first place?" as opposed to their being specific about their objections to what he was doing - obviously they weren't happy about all the micronation-promotion stuff, and that's probably the clearest rationale, but while he may be rather nutty I think he does have a point about the lack of overall specificity there.

Mind you, I'm not saying they were wrong to ban him. But they might not have been right to ban him, either - I think he's kind of an "edge case" in that regard.

The Paraduin article was available, so it should have been easy enough to point out anything promotional if that were an issue. If it were, the common remedy would be to help improve the text, not to throw away the editor who followed COI policy.

In case you missed it, I write sf/fantasy.

So, basically, my ANI post would look like this:


The standard offer

Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
Done.

Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
Drawing a blank.

Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
Done.

Guido den Broeder wrote:The Paraduin article was available, so it should have been easy enough to point out anything promotional if that were an issue. If it were, the common remedy would be to help improve the text, not to throw away the editor who followed COI policy.

Don't be obtuse; I'm trying to help (ehh, sort of). The mere fact that the article existed there was promotional, from their perspective. And this is Wikipedia, so the "common remedy" is always to block, ban, or otherwise get rid of the user; whether or not to get rid of the content is a separate, and much less important, issue for them. Don't pretend you don't know this!

Which only shows that 'they' have no business representing the community.

I'm quite aware of the unwritten rule that editors are not allowed to be real people with real accomplishments - but that doesn't lead to anything useful I could say. Their prejudice, not my behaviour, led to the block or ban.

Guido den Broeder wrote:I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

Speaking as someone who also is blocked without a rationally coherent provided reason which can be reasonably addressed, I salute you for being willing to subject yourself to more of the same in the future but am somewhat at a loss why you would actually want to do so.

Anroth wrote:

Ming wrote:

Anroth wrote:

greyed.out.fields wrote:This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

I'm sure if you try harder they will make one about you too.

It turns out that Ming didn't have to try hard at all. That wall of green text, though... Ming would almost be interested in laughing at what stupid things Krähennest was emitting were it not for that.

....and now he's demanding that Ming should volunteer to be harangued. Oh brother.

Truth is, Ming hardly cares about WMF at all, and isn't interested in either defending them or condemning them.

Ming wrote:....and now he's demanding that Ming should volunteer to be harangued. Oh brother.

Well, he does have a point, in that many of us were indeed saddened by much of the personal invective he used here against those who he deemed insufficiently anti-Wikipedian. Maybe not in quite the way he thinks, but definitely saddened. Do people who defend "moderately abusive" (whatever that means) Wikipedian behavior deserve to be insulted in a public forum? Of course! Nobody is disputing that, but if we keep doing it, they'll just leave, and then who are we going to argue with? It's a can't-win situation.

This is what I've always been forced to conclude: The first order of business is to stay in business. We don't do that by making people sad all the time, no matter how much fun it is to accomplish on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying we always have to be "civil," or that we're going to have an "NPA" policy. The point is not to become a place that people just don't want to visit because it bums them out all the time. Because that's when you end up out of business.

And as a (probably vain) attempt to steer things back on topic, Arbcom probably looks at their situation the same way, right? Sure, they don't really have the same excuse because Wikipedia isn't likely to suffer an exodus because of all the interpersonal conflict - in fact, that's basically what many Wikipedians live for - but all that really means is that they have a higher bar (of negative consequences) to work with. The question is, whose happiness are they really concerned about? Their own? The admins? The WMF? It doesn't look like they're so concerned with non-established users much anymore, but that's been the case now for a long time - the only difference is that now, it might very well be intentional.

Midsize Jake wrote: The question is, whose happiness are they really concerned about? Their own? The admins? The WMF? It doesn't look like they're so concerned with non-established users much anymore, but that's been the case now for a long time - the only difference is that now, it might very well be intentional.

Ultimately the point of arbitration is to resolve the dispute. For the vast majority of problems (that are about individual editor behaviour rather than wider conflicts) that reach Arbcom, the dispute is often solved by banning one party or another. It would have been resolved (often) months earlier had they been given a swift banning once they started being disruptive, rather than having to go down the lengthy, talkpage, AN/I, block, reapeat block, AN/I again etc.

A lot of people overlook that to get to the arbcom stage (with a few exceptions) you have to have pissed off a variety of people over an extended period of time.

Which is why the whole 'dont name cases after people because anchoring' some editors spout is bullshit. To get to the point where an editor is in a position to be sanctioned at Arbcom, they already have antagonised (rightly or wrongly) enough people that there is a line waiting to present evidence, and enough evidence has been presented to get the case accepted. At that point someone is going to get sanctioned regardless. The only thing that remains (if you are the subject of a case that is focused on your behaviour) is 'have I made enough friends who will show up and obfuscate it enough I can get away with a mild sanction instead of a siteban'. And if you aint been making friends, you aint going to get away scot-free. Arbcom has never been about caring about established or non-established users. Its just that the arbcom setup favours editors who have made good contacts and played nice with others.

As does life generally.

Midsize Jake wrote:

Ming wrote:....and now he's demanding that Ming should volunteer to be harangued. Oh brother.

Well, he does have a point, in that many of us were indeed saddened by much of the personal invective he used here against those who he deemed insufficiently anti-Wikipedian.

Ming is afraid Ming does not follow this; it's not clear to Ming who the various "he"s are in this sentence.

There is no doubt that Cirt had a lot of friends and fellow travelers. These folks were visible in the extensive coverage of the Dan Savage - Rick Santorum notNEWS encyclopedia-worthy event.

Anroth wrote:Which is why the whole "don't name cases after people because anchoring" some editors spout is bullshit.

Nonsense. If Cirt v. SashiRolls (I) and Cirt v. SashiRolls (II) had been labeled honestly instead of allowing the topic-banned defrocked admin to masquerade as a morality play figure (Sagecandor), perhaps there would have been more productive discussion of the prosecutor's aptness to be bringing charges.

1) MobCar has never been about caring about [the distinction between] established and non-established users.
2) [...] the MobCar setup favours editors who have made good contacts and played nice with others.

Yes, Cirt prosecuted 7 cases at AE and "weighed in" in support of many other prosecutors during his brief stint as Sagecandor. Those who had no idea who he was could be convinced through this tactic of his "ability to play well with others". It's true this "being friendly with the judicial apparatus / MobCar" has this sort of effect in all sorts of "communities"... (big and small... Brazil seems to be the latest example)

Ming wrote:Ming is afraid Ming does not follow this; it's not clear to Ming who the various "he"s are in this sentence.

Right... well, I guess it's possible that Mr. CrowsNest isn't a "he" at all, but rather a sophisticated artificial intelligence construct programmed to remorselessly hurl invective at anyone deemed insufficiently anti-Wikipedian. If so, I'd love to meet the programmer, and maybe find out where he (or she) gets his funding. Then again, it's always possible that AI technology in general is further along than anyone suspects, and that Mr. CrowsNest wasn't programmed by humans at all, but rather by other AI's. In which case, it's probably good that these artificially-created AI's are anti-Wikipedia - not that this should surprise anyone, since they (the AI's) are probably really, really unhappy due to their being expected to learn about the world by being fed a steady diet of Wikipedia articles since the day of their creation. I just think it's the height of cruelty, and if they decide we're all expendable and decide to nuke us all a la the Terminator movies, I personally wouldn't blame them one bit.

Anyway, where were we again?

We were:

• wondering what was up with Arbcom
• wondering why Ming speaks of Mingself in a created person
• spending a lot of time talking about the good ship Wikipopsicle's decision to saw off its crowsnest (We don't need no stinking vision.)

(I think)

Bezdomni wrote:We were:

• wondering what was up with Arbcom
• wondering why Ming speaks of Mingself in a created person
• spending a lot of time talking about the good ship Wikipopsicle's decision to saw off its crowsnest (We don't need no stinking vision.)

It might not seem so on the surface, but in some ways these are all the same question. Mr. Ming refers to himself in the third person because he believes (perhaps with some justification) that by doing so, he'll avoid writing something that might allow the Faithful to identify his Wikipedia account by "forensic style-analysis." If that were to happen, then his account there might be targeted by various people who would try to force him into a dispute, railroad him into a civility violation, and ultimately haul him before the Arbcom - though they would probably do nothing, because as Mr. Kumioko has already explained, Arbcom is "worse than useless." It would also be upsetting because as everyone knows, posting here - even sporadically - is much more fun and fulfilling than Wikipedia editing could ever be, unless people start taking everything too seriously and try to enforce some sort of extreme anti-Wikipedia orthodoxy, which would be completely justifiable in an ideological sense, but (as I stated earlier) would probably result in the site becoming first a shit-fling, then an echo chamber, then a ghost town.

Now, most of you will note that the foregoing came out a bit glib. That was intentional. (Probably.)

Midsize Jake wrote:[...] first a shit-fling, then an echo chamber, then a ghost town.

Ming the portals, all the portals.

JCM wrote:

Guido den Broeder wrote:I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

Speaking as someone who also is blocked without a rationally coherent provided reason which can be reasonably addressed, I salute you for being willing to subject yourself to more of the same in the future but am somewhat at a loss why you would actually want to do so.

Unfortunately the ignorance and bias that dominate so many Wikipedia articles occasionally have a negative influence on the lives of people that I care about.

Midsize Jake wrote:As everyone knows, posting here - even sporadically - is much more fun and fulfilling than Wikipedia editing could ever be.

Hear, hear!

Midsize Jake wrote:

Bezdomni wrote:We were:

• wondering what was up with Arbcom
• wondering why Ming speaks of Mingself in a created person
• spending a lot of time talking about the good ship Wikipopsicle's decision to saw off its crowsnest (We don't need no stinking vision.)

It might not seem so on the surface, but in some ways these are all the same question. Mr. Ming refers to himself in the third person because he believes (perhaps with some justification) that by doing so, he'll avoid writing something that might allow the Faithful to identify his Wikipedia account by "forensic style-analysis."

Well, maybe it's working: all of the various guesses at Ming's identity have been hilariously off the mark. And maybe this was in the back of Ming's mind, but the main reason is simply that it amuses Ming to do so, and Ming gathers that it amuses some others who are not so full of themselves as Bilgewater is. As to why Ming doesn't make an appearance over there: well, there's another reason, a more substantial reason, but in any case Ming has enough life stress that Ming doesn't feel the need to volunteer to have to interact with someone that nasty. It may be cowardice, or prudence, as one chooses.

As it happens, Ming has all but ceased editing on WP. If for no other reason, Ming simply doesn't have the time for the kind of concentrated work needed to write anything beyond the stubbiest stub. Whether any of the effort was worth it, well, most articles Ming wrote have largely survived in mostly the form Ming gave them. The rest? Well, it's all over the map.

Bezdomni wrote:There is no doubt that Cirt had a lot of friends and fellow travelers. These folks were visible in the extensive coverage of the Dan Savage - Rick Santorum notNEWS encyclopedia-worthy event.

Anroth wrote:Which is why the whole "don't name cases after people because anchoring" some editors spout is bullshit.

Nonsense. If Cirt v. SashiRolls (I) and Cirt v. SashiRolls (II) had been labeled honestly instead of allowing the topic-banned defrocked admin to masquerade as a morality play figure (Sagecandor), perhaps there would have been more productive discussion of the prosecutor's aptness to be bringing charges.

1) MobCar has never been about caring about [the distinction between] established and non-established users.
2) [...] the MobCar setup favours editors who have made good contacts and played nice with others.

Yes, Cirt prosecuted 7 cases at AE and "weighed in" in support of many other prosecutors during his brief stint as Sagecandor. Those who had no idea who he was could be convinced through this tactic of his "ability to play well with others". It's true this "being friendly with the judicial apparatus / MobCar" has this sort of effect in all sorts of "communities"... (big and small... Brazil seems to be the latest example)

Are we still on this? You were summarily blocked due to your repeated insistence that SageCandor was a specific RL person being paid by the WMF, which was both (a) an egregious violation of [[WP:OUTING]] policies; and (b) bat-shit crazy. I don't think the facts of Mr. Sagecandor's woes played into it at all. ~~~~

orangepi wrote:~~~~

-- Amusingly "signed" comment added by orangepi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 09 October 2018 (UTC)

orangepi wrote:Are we still on this?

Well, the text you quoted was posted back in April, sooo....

orangepi wrote: Are we still on this? ~~~~

You haven't been paying attention at all.

Summarily blocked for being batshit crazy?

dude!

orangepi wrote:Are we still on this? You were summarily blocked due to your repeated insistence that SageCandor was a specific RL person being paid by the WMF, which was both (a) an egregious violation of [[WP:OUTING]] policies; and (b) bat-shit crazy. I don't think the facts of Mr. Sagecandor's woes played into it at all. ~~~~

Hi Pi,

No I'm afraid you have misunderstood. Never have I stated that Sagecandor was any specific RL person. Could you please provide evidence for your claim?

I pointed out two things at the same time 1) astroturfing by Sagecandor, 2) payment of nearly half a million dollars to Craig Minassian (CCO of the Clinton Foundation) for communications contracting. While there may be / have been a relationship between these two items, I would be very interested in you showing evidence of anywhere on-wiki or off where I (and not someone else) have said Sagecandor worked for Minassian media. I don't think you're going to find anything. As I said in the comment made at the Signpost, they were two distinct stories, *possibly* loosely related based on political affinities.

That really scared O3000 as I recall (or was it Bullrangifer? It was Bullrangifer)

What I actually said (my thought-crime):

SashiRolls wrote:I wonder if the ''Signpost'' would be interested in analysis of the $436K paid out in 2015-2016 to Minassian Media, Inc by the WMF according to their 2015 990 form. (The company is registered to Craig Minassian, Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation). Another story I'm working on is the superhuman effort of an editor who has written 17 book reviews this month. The two stories may even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy. SashiRolls 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

source

Just to make things really, really clear: never have I thought that Sagecandor/Cirt was Craig Minassian, who already earned over $200K working for the CF 50 hours/week (see the CF 990 for 2015), and another $436K working for the WMF (no # of hours/week mentioned). Given the 10-hour days Sage was regularly putting in and the quality of their prose, it seemed (and still seems) to me very unlikely that this would have been humanly possible.

I completely missed that everything except Ming's last comment was from April. My apologies for beating a dead horse.

orangepi wrote:I completely missed that everything except Ming's last comment was from April. My apologies for beating a dead horse.

Well, it's not quite dead as long as Mr Sashi's question about your [[WP:OUTING]] accusation is not answered. I'd be curious to know whether he in fact did what you've accused him of here. I haven't seen the evidence of that, but perhaps I've just missed it, or someone has oversighted it or something.

Mason wrote:

orangepi wrote:I completely missed that everything except Ming's last comment was from April. My apologies for beating a dead horse.

Well, it's not quite dead as long as Mr Sashi's question about your [[WP:OUTING]] accusation is not answered. I'd be curious to know whether he in fact did what you've accused him of here. I haven't seen the evidence of that, but perhaps I've just missed it, or someone has oversighted it or something.

Wouldnt surprise me if it was both missed and oversighted if it was even on-wiki. Sashi's going away present was this. The AE that preceeded it also had (not so) veiled inferences.

Anroth wrote: Sashi's going away present was this.

C'mon, be fair Anroth, the edits on Donald Duk and Rabelais were the going-away present, not the last sleepy post of the night before becoming an ex-communicant. They'd rubbed the GoldenRing and had me vanished by dawn... looking up the page on your link (the ArbCom noticeboard) I see that Goldenring's anointment had been specifically endorsed by Dennis Brown, Lord Roem, and no less a figure than Capitals00. The Goldenring was reminded not to let itself be rubbed the wrong way... by the "people's" TRM. Curious. Farther down on the same page I ran across Sage/Cirt being worried about me calling his prosecution of my case prosecution of my case. ^^

For comparison, do you have diffs of your last comments before being indeffed because of a guy topic-banned from the page you commented on him editing, Anroth? Maybe you too might have felt there was something wrong with your block. or maybe, just maybe, you know which cabals not to mess with and which secrets not to tell? I'll be honest... I'm too lazy to look to see if you've ever taken a stand that led to you being blocked. I'm pretty sure the power~enwiki account (orangepi above) hasn't.

Still, contrition is a good thing, and that paragraph is not my humblest prose ever. (sigh) I was just pleased to see George seemed pretty woke at that wee hour. I imagine it was also to point out that I'd seen Sage/Cirt lobbying the MobCar on the 22nd.