The Corbett Report

[Kelly Martin]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Ira's mention of a five year old WR thread in this discussion is a fairly transparent attempt to derail the discussion, by bringing the focus onto an old, stale issue in which Ira can legitimately claim to have done "the right thing". Ira routinely does this when confronted with his lack of effective action on any issue where he is dragging his feet or otherwise refusing to take action even when he could theoretically do so. He's a master at this sort of misdirection, and people routinely fall for it. There's no point in trying to press him for an answer on a difficult question; whenever anyone does this he misdirects, dodges, or finds some excuse to not answer the question, often in such a way as to make whoever is trying to press him for an answer look bad.

It's a shame that his obvious talent is being wasted on a such an ignoble effort as Wikipedia.

[Triptych]

I've long known what sort of arbitrators the system produces, but it's still so appalling at times:

Kevin made a personal attack on Eric and, when this was pointed out to him, he not only refused to apologise but actually doubled down on the attacks. Now, everyone has, at one time or another, put his foot in his mouth; that's not a big deal. What's important, however, is to acknowledge that and apologise. Saying I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack is unacceptably arrogant and is not the kind of behaviour I'd like to see in an admin.

Then again, Eric is hardly blameless

And then he casts vote to decline the arbitration. The reasoning is so fake. You see? He acknowledges the deeply personal and false attack by Kevin, even acknowledge Kevin's re-emphasis of it and unrepentance thereafter, but then excuses it with "Eric is not perfect either." How horrendous, contrived and fake the reasoning. I'm nicknaming him "Pseudo Salvio." I don't forget how he came out so loud and proud for resignation of 28bytes either.

Now and then you see a notorious murderer or what-have-you interviewed and often they state "Ah yeah, I'm not perfect," or "I'm not blameless." It carries the tone of an admission but it's ridiculous when you think about what they're actually saying. Nobody's asking you to be perfect, you murderer. We want you to acknowledge you did some really awful things, and say that instead. So what Salvio does to Eric is the same principle but in reverse. Because Eric is not this unattainable conception of "blameless," his actions are equivalent to the awful, echoed, and emphasized character attack by Kevin. So no arbitration needed. It's so fake and terrible and senseless and damaging in the consequences. Nothing ever gets made right, and people keep leaving.

[Peter Damian]

It's a shame that his obvious talent is being wasted on a such an ignoble effort as Wikipedia.

He would make a good lawyer.

[Kelly Martin]

It's a shame that his obvious talent is being wasted on a such an ignoble effort as Wikipedia.

He would make a good lawyer.

Reportedly, he is, having been named a Super Lawyer in 2013.

[Triptych]

Reportedly, he is, having been named a Super Lawyer in 2013.

You mean that he wears a mask, tights, and a cape, zooming in from the atmosphere to represent the poor and downtrodden everywhere?

[Malleus]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

[neved]

Giano is blocked for 72 hours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano#Blocked

Blocked

Due to your participation in an edit war [changing the accurate title 'Gorman attacking Corbett' to the ambiguous 'Gorman-Corbett added by Giano 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)] to at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, I have blocked your account. Clerks and arbitrators are the only ones who are to refactor case names, and edit warring over this is not acceptable whatsoever. I will be happy to unblock you at any time if either the case is accepted or declined, or if you will agree to stop the edit war over the case name. Absent this, your block may not be reversed without the consent of the Committee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, no, don't worry. 72 hours should give the Arbs ample time to sweep things under the carpet, and stop me criticising them and their minions elsewhere. Giano 19:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

[neved]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

Welcome back, Malleus!
I would like to ask you a question please: If Kevin is only admonished, but not blocked and not desysoped, are you going to return to Wikipedia?

[Malleus]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

Welcome back, Malleus!
I would like to ask you a question please: If Kevin is only admonished, but not blocked and not desysoped, are you going to return to Wikipedia?

If Kevin is officially admonished I'll reconsider my position. If he isn't, then no.

[neved]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

Welcome back, Malleus!
I would like to ask you a question please: If Kevin is only admonished, but not blocked and not desysoped, are you going to return to Wikipedia?

If Kevin is officially admonished I'll reconsider my position. If he isn't, then no.

And if both of you are officially admonished?

[Malleus]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

Welcome back, Malleus!
I would like to ask you a question please: If Kevin is only admonished, but not blocked and not desysoped, are you going to return to Wikipedia?

If Kevin is officially admonished I'll reconsider my position. If he isn't, then no.

And if both of you are officially admonished?

Kevin will be officially authorised to continue with his abuse and I'll be gone. Which, to be fair, would probably be a good outcome for ArbCom in the eyes of many.

[Zoloft]

Welcome back. If Giano needs a soapbox (or you, for that matter), we welcome guest blog posts. Our site gets a lot of visitors.

[Malleus]

Welcome back. If Giano needs a soapbox (or you, for that matter), we welcome guest blog posts. Our site gets a lot of visitors.

I wasn't even aware of this thread until someone told me about it today. But I'll bite my tongue until ArbCom comes to a decision.

[Mancunium]

[Malleus]

Nice choice of video.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

You and Giano are magnets for insecure, abusive, histrionic, emotionally feeble administrators. Whenever Giano (and sometimes you) get's blocked, the full force of stupid is on-- it's not just you who is the subject of such and extensive discussion.

[Vigilant]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

You and Giano are magnets for insecure, abusive, histrionic, emotionally feeble administrators. Whenever Giano (and sometimes you) get's blocked, the full force of stupid is on-- not just you who is the subject of such and extensive discussion.

Birds of a feather and all that.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

You and Giano are magnets for insecure, abusive, histrionic, emotionally feeble administrators. Whenever Giano (and sometimes you) get's blocked, the full force of stupid is on-- not just you who is the subject of such and extensive discussion.

Birds of a feather and all that.

Giano usually has a really good rationale for his protests, which tend to be for the good of the project. Dealing with Durova comes to mind. Malleus is sometimes a drama queen over stupid shit, and can himself be abusive.

[Vigilant]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

You and Giano are magnets for insecure, abusive, histrionic, emotionally feeble administrators. Whenever Giano (and sometimes you) get's blocked, the full force of stupid is on-- not just you who is the subject of such and extensive discussion.

Birds of a feather and all that.

Giano usually has a really good rationale for his protests, which tend to be for the good of the project. Dealing with Durova comes to mind. Malleus is sometimes a drama queen over stupid shit, and can himself be abusive.

They're both contraindicators for building an encyclopedia.
Just as bad as those they critique.

A house of twats.

[Malleus]

They're both contraindicators for building an encyclopedia.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Dictionaries are quite cheap these days, and you can even find them for free on the Internet. Your rabid dog act may once have served some purpose I suppose, but it no longer does, just makes you look like a rabid dog.

[Malleus]

I'm rather surprised to find myself the subject of such an extensive discussion here. I'd thought that such critique was limited to the WP elite, its admins and arbitrators.

You and Giano are magnets for insecure, abusive, histrionic, emotionally feeble administrators. Whenever Giano (and sometimes you) get's blocked, the full force of stupid is on-- not just you who is the subject of such and extensive discussion.

Birds of a feather and all that.

Giano usually has a really good rationale for his protests, which tend to be for the good of the project. Dealing with Durova comes to mind. Malleus is sometimes a drama queen over stupid shit, and can himself be abusive.

I can indeed, but in this particular case I wasn't the one accusing an editor of taking pleasure in the death of another editor; that's way beyond the merely abusive.

[The Joy]

Welcome back. If Giano needs a soapbox (or you, for that matter), we welcome guest blog posts. Our site gets a lot of visitors.

I wasn't even aware of this thread until someone told me about it today. But I'll bite my tongue until ArbCom comes to a decision.

I saw the trio on Top Gear were giggling about Penistone (T-H-L). It has a "naughty" word in it, so I'm sure many will want it as a Featured Article.

Apparently, it is known for its... sheep.

[SB_Johnny]

I can indeed, but in this particular case I wasn't the one accusing an editor of taking pleasure in the death of another editor; that's way beyond the merely abusive.

Would you compare yourself to Travon Martin? Were you wearing a hoodie while commenting on Jimmy's page?

[Triptych]

Would you compare yourself to Travon Martin? Were you wearing a hoodie while commenting on Jimmy's page?

That's my analogy not anyone else's. Ask me any questions about it. I put down some similarities in the second paragraph of the original post in this thread. Really it is not a question of "Eric is like Trayvon," and I also referred to that when I told Brad that it was really a *creative process* I likened to Trayvon Martin (in that limited component of the analogy) not another person. It was about broader questions. Obviously there are several who don't like what I wrote (I'm not sure I do either) one does what he thinks he has to do to get his point across.

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: OK...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything.
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away

[Malleus]

I can indeed, but in this particular case I wasn't the one accusing an editor of taking pleasure in the death of another editor; that's way beyond the merely abusive.

Would you compare yourself to Travon Martin? Were you wearing a hoodie while commenting on Jimmy's page?

Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't.

[Triptych]

And it's the most evil arbitrator, "Timotheus Canens," chiming in with perfect timing to kill even the watered-down action of an admonishment.

Decline per my colleagues, particularly David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Carcharoth. I agree with Salvio's analysis of this situation, but do not see a montion as particularly necessary.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that the arbitration system is being gamed should take a closer look. Canens and some of the others consistently stay back watching while early arb votes are posted. They wait to see how those early votes are laid out. They then move calculatedly and accordingly, in order to maximize their influence. If the strength of the early voting means the decision is going against their viewpoints, they configure their votes to create an image of themselves or to cultivate alliances to assist them in the future.

Timotheus edits like an handful of times this month, with one and two week breaks. Yet he's timely and decisive in the "Kevin Gorman attacks Eric Corbett" arbitration request, on behalf of the administrator (Gorman). This is not happenstance. It was the same perfect timing with the Kiefer Wolfowitz/Oliver Keyes. Etc. etc. The system is being gamed and some of the other arbs, like Newyorkbrad, are too earnest and gullible to realize their influence in being minimized.

[Jim]

And it's the most evil arbitrator, "Timotheus Canens," chiming in with perfect timing to kill even the watered-down action of an admonishment.

Decline per my colleagues, particularly David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Carcharoth. I agree with Salvio's analysis of this situation, but do not see a montion as particularly necessary.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that the arbitration system is being gamed should take a closer look. Canens and some of the others consistently stay back watching while early arb votes are posted. They wait to see how those early votes are laid out. They then move calculatedly and accordingly, in order to maximize their influence. If the strength of the early voting means the decision is going against their viewpoints, they configure their votes to create an image of themselves or to cultivate alliances to assist them in the future.

Timotheus edits like an handful of times this month, with one and two week breaks. Yet he's timely and decisive in the "Kevin Gorman attacks Eric Corbett" arbitration request, on behalf of the administrator (Gorman). This is not happenstance. It was the same perfect timing with the Kiefer Wolfowitz/Oliver Keyes. Etc. etc. The system is being gamed and some of the other arbs, like Newyorkbrad, are too earnest and gullible to realize their influence in being minimized.

Well ok - but are you expecting surprise that people who have played online politics, to get on an online politicking board, once appointed, play politics?

I mean, granted, that's the huge flaw in the "system", and a large part of why it continually fails so spectacularly - but I don't think it requires this level of "proof". It's a symptom - and given the framework, probably inevitable.

If you think you can change the system by all means work at that (I think that's misguided too, but I'm a cynic) - but I do think it would be a better use of your time than proving the obvious, if you're determined to waste time on it at all.

Nothing, I guess, says you can't just carry on with the "personality", "grudge" thing as you seem to do here, but I see no future in that for the lofty goals you espouse. Seems a petty bunfight-like diversion to me, in many ways.

As I say, it's probably not a journey I'd be embarking on - but if I did, it's not the route I'd be taking to get to the place you say you want to go, however much fun or satisfaction you think you might get from targetting the individuals you think wronged you.

Just the view from here.

[Kelly Martin]

Anyone who doesn't recognize that the arbitration system is being gamed should take a closer look. Canens and some of the others consistently stay back watching while early arb votes are posted. They wait to see how those early votes are laid out. They then move calculatedly and accordingly, in order to maximize their influence. If the strength of the early voting means the decision is going against their viewpoints, they configure their votes to create an image of themselves or to cultivate alliances to assist them in the future.

Well, they learned to do this when they were climbing the social ladder at Requests for Adminship, so it's small wonder they continue the same behavior as arbitrators.

Politics are always at their worst when the stakes are at their lowest, and the stakes in most Wikipedia arbitrations are extremely low.

[Jim]

Politics are always at their worst when the stakes are at their lowest, and the stakes in most Wikipedia arbitrations are extremely low.

I've seen you say that before. It was true then, and it's true now. It's the *importance* of it all, though - and we all know every online difference is hugely important, lest someone be allowed to get away with "being wrong on the internet".

There's something truly medieval about it all, in a funny way, but defused for a modern world . Everyone can "demand satisfaction" in a dispute, and duel endlessly, without the awkward, old-fashioned worry that someone might actually physically run them through with a sword and make a painful mess.

[neved]

Looks like the case is declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 2F3.2F0.3E because as they stated: "with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. "

[Jim]

Looks like the case is declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 2F3.2F0.3E because as they stated: "with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. "

I love:

Decline. I do not see how turning this one-day's wonder into a month-long arbitration case would benefit anyone. As a general observation, I wonder whether it would make sense for disputes concerning what should or shouldn't remain on an RfA page to be resolved by the bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the first part, but the dismissive arrogance of the "and don't bother us with this shit again, take it to the minions" in the latter part is kinda elegant in a "fuck off" sort of way.

I used to like Brad. I think, by now, he's believed too many of his own good press reviews.

A few years ago he didn't believe that the words that dripped from his mouth should be etched on golden plates and found/followed by devout believers in a vision. He was just, understandably, flattered and overwhelmed by such notions.

Not so sure now. All this adoration can run away, I guess, and the result may not be what was expected or desired.

Perhaps it's an inevitability. I admired a young Tony Blair, too, back in the day - and that's hard to admit now, with 20/20 hindsight.

[Newyorkbrad]

Looks like the case is declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 2F3.2F0.3E because as they stated: "with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. "

I love:

Decline. I do not see how turning this one-day's wonder into a month-long arbitration case would benefit anyone. As a general observation, I wonder whether it would make sense for disputes concerning what should or shouldn't remain on an RfA page to be resolved by the bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the first part, but the dismissive arrogance of the "and don't bother us with this shit again, take it to the minions" in the latter part is kinda elegant in a "fuck off" sort of way.

I used to like Brad. I think, by now, he's believed too many of his own good press reviews.

A few years ago he didn't believe that the words that dripped from his mouth should be etched on golden plates and found/followed by devout believers in a vision. He was just, understandably, flattered and overwhelmed by such notions.

Not so sure now. All this adoration can run away, I guess, and the result may not be what was expected.

My intent in the last sentence was to point to how this kind of petty disputes can be resolved when they arise, rather than degenerate into the level of bickering that leads to an arbitration case. I think "decline, but next time you can do X" is more useful input than just "decline." YMMV.

The ArbCom could try to decide every issue that comes to us, but instead, we sometimes point out that arbitration is an adversarial process that often prolongs disputes that could be resolved more quickly and effectively in some other way. I tend to think of this as the opposite of self-aggrandizing, but YMMV times two.

If anyone saw Bo Burnham's appearance on The Green Room, I'm empathizing with one of his comments there.

[Jim]

Looks like the case is declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 2F3.2F0.3E because as they stated: "with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. "

I love:

Decline. I do not see how turning this one-day's wonder into a month-long arbitration case would benefit anyone. As a general observation, I wonder whether it would make sense for disputes concerning what should or shouldn't remain on an RfA page to be resolved by the bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the first part, but the dismissive arrogance of the "and don't bother us with this shit again, take it to the minions" in the latter part is kinda elegant in a "fuck off" sort of way.

I used to like Brad. I think, by now, he's believed too many of his own good press reviews.

A few years ago he didn't believe that the words that dripped from his mouth should be etched on golden plates and found/followed by devout believers in a vision. He was just, understandably, flattered and overwhelmed by such notions.

Not so sure now. All this adoration can run away, I guess, and the result may not be what was expected.

My intent in the last sentence was to point to how this kind of petty disputes can be resolved when they arise, rather than degenerate into the level of bickering that leads to an arbitration case. I think "decline, but next time you can do X" is more useful input than just "decline." YMMV.

The ArbCom could try to decide every issue that comes to us, but instead, we sometimes point out that arbitration is an adversarial process that often prolongs disputes that could be resolved more quickly and effectively in some other way. I tend to think of this as the opposite of self-aggrandizing, but YMMV times two.

If anyone saw Bo Burnham's appearance on The Green Room, I'm empathizing with one of his comments there.

I can see the "resolve it first before escalating it here to avoid drama" thing, I guess.

But isn't that too late? It's there already. The drama exists.

I'm not sure where you'd aim that educational message - sounds like a grass roots kind of thing, since, as it doesn't tend to be the same people who bring cases, telling them when they already did it can only work if they go back to and tell a lot of the "right" mates - "Oh no, don't bring a case, I did that and Brad told me off". Does that feedback loop exist? And should it?

I'll be honest. You used to be more adept at this kind of thing (or care more about it), in my view. I would never have put you down as a messenger shooter a few years back. Now I see that more often than I'd like. Mmdv.

[Jim]

I wonder whether it would make sense for disputes concerning what should or shouldn't remain on an RfA page to be resolved by the bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think "decline, but next time you can do X" is more useful input than just "decline."

Doesn't say that, though, does it?

You're not talking to, or engaging with, the people involved in the dispute.
You're just saying lower minions should have sorted it out before it reached your Supreme Court.

Maybe they should, and maybe you should work on encouraging ways this can happen.

I don't see how I'm taking that pair of quotes out of context if I find them dismissive and unhelpful, though.

"Next time you can do X" is "Next time just solve it yourselves, lower rungs" If that's all you wanted to say, then fine, you achieved that. I just don't think that's quite enough, and I also feel it's less than you used to manage.

[Kelly Martin]

My intent in the last sentence was to point to how this kind of petty disputes can be resolved when they arise, rather than degenerate into the level of bickering that leads to an arbitration case. I think "decline, but next time you can do X" is more useful input than just "decline." YMMV.

The ArbCom could try to decide every issue that comes to us, but instead, we sometimes point out that arbitration is an adversarial process that often prolongs disputes that could be resolved more quickly and effectively in some other way. I tend to think of this as the opposite of self-aggrandizing, but YMMV times two.

The problem you are facing (and which you persistently appear to fail to accept) is that very few people in Wikipedia want to resolve these "petty disputes" without degenerating into bickering. It's the bickering that energizes them, that drives them. You can't take that away from them, it's the reason they keep coming back.

Your suggestion just adds Yet Another Venue in which petty bickering can expand. History has shown that every dispute resolution method heretofore established on Wikipedia is rapidly coopted by bullies. It also provides yet another option for forum shopping to allow a vexatious litigant (and who on Wikipedia is not a vexatious litigant?) to manipulate the dispute so that when it does arrive at the Arbitration Committee, it will have been twisted into a form more favorable to their interests. If Wikipedians were reasonable people having reasonable disagreements, your idea might have merit. But, by and large, they are not (at least, not the ones who get into protracted disputes), and therefore your suggestion will not help matters.

[Triptych]

"Rockfang" was the henchman that tossed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596444575) the arbitration request to the waste heap, despite Salvio's and Seraphimblade's statements that they wanted to proceed to an admonishment vote. It's not much Rotfang's fault though, because neither of those community heroes had enough nerve to stand up for what they supported in passing.

[Bottled_Spider]

Reportedly, he is, having been named a Super Lawyer in 2013.

You mean that he wears a mask, tights, and a cape, zooming in from the atmosphere to represent the poor and downtrodden everywhere?

There's quite a resemblance to "Brown Bottle" from "Viz", you know.

[Poetlister]

There's also The Blimp. "A member of the Inferior Five, the Blimp is capable of extremely slow flight."

[EricBarbour]

My intent in the last sentence was to point to how this kind of petty disputes can be resolved when they arise, rather than degenerate into the level of bickering that leads to an arbitration case.

Which they rarely are resolved. Admit it. The Mediation system is basically a failure. Go ahead, name one major content dispute that the "Mediation cabal" managed to calm, without the combatants eventually ending up at AR. I dare ya.

[Anroth]

Thats because a good 95% (figure admittedly pulled out of my arse) of wikipedia admins, and most of arbcom, think dispute resolution is about coming to an agreement, rather that about resolving the dispute. The mediation cabal attempts to mediate, when what they should be doing is performing dispute resolution. And no they are not the same thing. You can only mediate successfully between two reasonable parties. Almost all wikipedia editors who end up in the situation that would require dispute resolution are far from reasonable. They might have the best intentions, be intelligent and outside of wikipedia, reasonable people, however get them into an argument on the internet and the inability to see the other point of view kicks straight in.

Most problems that end up at arbcom could have been solved in about 30 seconds by the swift application of localised topic bans. Sadly discretionary sanctions (that allow admins to do this) are almost only imposed AFTER a lengthy waste of everyone involveds time. Months, sometimes years of irritating perfectly good editors, and finally, the public shaming and self-promoting arbcom case that only serves to waste more time and give people the impression that arbcom is doing something useful, rather than being the end result of a system that refuses to take the necessary action at the earliest opportunity.

See Arbcoms general willingness to suck Eric Corbetts cock rather than punt him off the project for all the grief he gives other people.

[SB_Johnny]

I can indeed, but in this particular case I wasn't the one accusing an editor of taking pleasure in the death of another editor; that's way beyond the merely abusive.

Would you compare yourself to Travon Martin? Were you wearing a hoodie while commenting on Jimmy's page?

Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't.

Didn't think so.

[John Cook]

So what does that mean that "Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't" wear a hoodie? Is there something awful about wearing a hoodie? Or about likening yourself to Travon Martin?

[Malleus]

So what does that mean that "Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't" wear a hoodie? Is there something awful about wearing a hoodie? Or about likening yourself to Travon Martin?

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious what that meant, which is that I didn't compare myself to Travon Martin and I certainly wouldn't liken my circumstances to his. As for hoodies ...

[MilesMoney]

Thats because a good 95% (figure admittedly pulled out of my arse) of wikipedia admins, and most of arbcom, think dispute resolution is about coming to an agreement, rather that about resolving the dispute. The mediation cabal attempts to mediate, when what they should be doing is performing dispute resolution. And no they are not the same thing. You can only mediate successfully between two reasonable parties. Almost all wikipedia editors who end up in the situation that would require dispute resolution are far from reasonable. They might have the best intentions, be intelligent and outside of wikipedia, reasonable people, however get them into an argument on the internet and the inability to see the other point of view kicks straight in.

Most problems that end up at arbcom could have been solved in about 30 seconds by the swift application of localised topic bans. Sadly discretionary sanctions (that allow admins to do this) are almost only imposed AFTER a lengthy waste of everyone involveds time. Months, sometimes years of irritating perfectly good editors, and finally, the public shaming and self-promoting arbcom case that only serves to waste more time and give people the impression that arbcom is doing something useful, rather than being the end result of a system that refuses to take the necessary action at the earliest opportunity.

See Arbcoms general willingness to suck Eric Corbetts cock rather than punt him off the project for all the grief he gives other people.

You're right about the need for dispute resolution instead of mediation, but I don't think topic bans are ever a good idea, even when narrow. The problem with mediation is that it's contaminated by false equivalence; the notion that both sides are reasonable so the right answer is somewhere in between. This is rarely the case. In the disputes I've seen, there's rarely been more than one side that was sane (and often just a few editors on a particular side).

[EricBarbour]

Thats because a good 95% (figure admittedly pulled out of my arse) of wikipedia admins, and most of arbcom, think dispute resolution is about coming to an agreement, rather that about resolving the dispute.

No, that is only what they SAY. What they really want is feudal warfare, and sticking knives in the other guy's back. Quietly, of course.

[Anroth]

but I don't think topic bans are ever a good idea, even when narrow.

You think that because under a more rigourous banning policy you know perfectly well you would be slapped with half a dozen....

Thats because a good 95% (figure admittedly pulled out of my arse) of wikipedia admins, and most of arbcom, think dispute resolution is about coming to an agreement, rather that about resolving the dispute.

No, that is only what they SAY. What they really want is feudal warfare, and sticking knives in the other guy's back. Quietly, of course.

Na. Even at my most pessimistic I dont think thats what they actually want. Well most of them anyway. Take advantage of the circumstances in order to advance themselves yes, not use their power to actually change the situation sure, but its a very special type of person who willingly and deliberately enables a system that makes their life a chore.

[Triptych]

So what does that mean that "Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't" wear a hoodie? Is there something awful about wearing a hoodie? Or about likening yourself to Travon Martin?

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious what that meant, which is that I didn't compare myself to Travon Martin and I certainly wouldn't liken my circumstances to his. As for hoodies ...

Gee, somebody actually went to the trouble of joining Wikipediocracy to ask about Eric's work-out attire.

[Zoloft]

So what does that mean that "Of course I wouldn't, and I didn't" wear a hoodie? Is there something awful about wearing a hoodie? Or about likening yourself to Travon Martin?

I am a habitual hoodie-wearer.
Good to have you here.

[MilesMoney]

but I don't think topic bans are ever a good idea, even when narrow.

You think that because under a more rigourous banning policy you know perfectly well you would be slapped with half a dozen....

Sometimes, it's not about me. The problem with banning editors from topics or even articles is that it confuses behavior with content and punishes for both. That's what makes it so prone to abuse.

If the emphasis was on content dispute resolution, it wouldn't come down to picking off opposing editors and targeting them for bans. They could continue to edit the article, but would not be allowed to damage the content.

No, that is only what they SAY. What they really want is feudal warfare, and sticking knives in the other guy's back. Quietly, of course.

Na. Even at my most pessimistic I dont think thats what they actually want. Well most of them anyway. Take advantage of the circumstances in order to advance themselves yes, not use their power to actually change the situation sure, but its a very special type of person who willingly and deliberately enables a system that makes their life a chore.

Eric's closer to correct than you are. What they want desperately is to avoid rule of law. They want decisions to be malleable so that they can win when it matters to them.

[HRIP7]

Kevin Gorman did nothing to Eric Corbett.
Eric was being a self important dick, again, and Kevin told him to knock it off.

I must confess that pretty much sums up how I felt about it at the time.

Just noting here that the title of this thread really jumps the shark.