News from RFAR

[EricBarbour]

Apparently, there was not a sufficient super-majority the second time around for him to be elected. The Bureacrats and the Arbitration Committee simply decided to ignore the vote, and unilaterally declare him a senior editor, trusted by "the community." He seemed to have a powerful group of early wikipedia insiders supporting him.

Typical story. A large number of their worst insiders got the admin mop, and prevailed in arbitrations, despite considerable opposition. If Wikipedia were of any
importance in the "real world", the US Attorney would probably seek conspiracy charges against a number of past and current Arbcom members. Lucky them,
Wikipedia is merely the butt of a million jokes instead.

I opine that virtually all of the arbitrations prior to 2008 were completely worthless. Either biased in favor of their pals, or badly organized and ineffective.

And as for actual policing, you're also quite lost. You seem to think cops are a bunch of mechanicals who, when they see a mugging in progress, roll up to a man in a mask and a woman playing tug of war with a handbag.

"Let go of my bag, you asshole," shouts the woman.

"Well, I can't get involved in content disputes," says the cop, "but calling someone an asshole just isn't civil. Off to the lockup, dearie."

Then he tips his cap to the masked man and drags the sobbing woman away.

Perfectly put.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Seems like three admins are poised to lose their mops for fighting over what city people find when they search for Perth. Really, why would anyone waste a good tool for punishing one's enemies on which Perth people can find out about? Hilarious COI/INVOLVED issue too as each admin wheel-warred in favor of their locale. The one from Australia insisted that it go to the article on the Perth in Western Australia, the one from Canada insisted it go to the disambiguation page where the one from there would be mentioned, and the one from Scotland insisted it to go to the one in Australia because that version mentions the one in Scotland at the top of the page.

[EricBarbour]

Seems like three admins are poised to lose their mops for fighting over what city people find when they search for Perth. Really, why would anyone waste a good tool for punishing one's enemies on which Perth people can find out about? Hilarious COI/INVOLVED issue too as each admin wheel-warred in favor of their locale. The one from Australia insisted that it go to the article on the Perth in Western Australia, the one from Canada insisted it go to the disambiguation page where the one from there would be mentioned, and the one from Scotland insisted it to go to the one in Australia because that version mentions the one in Scotland at the top of the page.

How nice. Brad thinks that desysopping those trolls is "excessive". I guess he hasn't looked carefully at the histories of Deacon, Kwami, and Gnangarra.
Kwami has hundreds of noticeboard complaints. He's a worthless ADHD gnome robot-thing who fights with people -- anyone -- constantly.
Gnangarra is one of the premium "Facebookers" of the ever-pathetic "Aussie mafia of Wikipedia". He's pulled a long list of disgusting sneaky stunts in the past. (Orderinchaos, anyone?)
What is the point of fighting over the Qnet article? Does a sleazy MLM company deserve better Wikipedia coverage than thousands of other, more significant corporations?

And Arbcom is still pathetic. As always.

[Volunteer Marek]

Seems like three admins are poised to lose their mops for fighting over what city people find when they search for Perth. Really, why would anyone waste a good tool for punishing one's enemies on which Perth people can find out about? Hilarious COI/INVOLVED issue too as each admin wheel-warred in favor of their locale. The one from Australia insisted that it go to the article on the Perth in Western Australia, the one from Canada insisted it go to the disambiguation page where the one from there would be mentioned, and the one from Scotland insisted it to go to the one in Australia because that version mentions the one in Scotland at the top of the page.

How nice. Brad thinks that desysopping those trolls is "excessive". I guess he hasn't looked carefully at the histories of Deacon, Kwami, and Gnangarra.
Kwami has hundreds of noticeboard complaints. He's a worthless ADHD gnome robot-thing who fights with people -- anyone -- constantly.
Gnangarra is one of the premium "Facebookers" of the ever-pathetic "Aussie mafia of Wikipedia". He's pulled a long list of disgusting sneaky stunts in the past. (Orderinchaos, anyone?)
What is the point of fighting over the Qnet article? Does a sleazy MLM company deserve better Wikipedia coverage than thousands of other, more significant corporations?

And Arbcom is still pathetic. As always.

Looks like Deacon's gonna squeak through. I don't know about the other two but in regards to him, this proposal is spot on, he's played this "I'm uninvolved" card so many times in cases where he was involved up to his ears for years, as Kirill perceptively notes in his support.

[HRIP7]

Malleus has made it back to RfAr, with a new request entitled "Professionalism and civility" filed by Alanscottwalker

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d_civility

Related fall-out on Jimbo's and Malleus's talk pages (all links given are permalinks and may not show more recent developments).

[HRIP7]

Just noticed that Giano has made a brief re-appearance on Jimbo's talk:

I have been hovering around Wikipedia for the last couple of days, being tempted to return. However, nothing changes here does it? Mindless idiots, who would make most 95-year-old Italian grannies look broadminded, are still being promoted to admin status and causing problems to those seriously writing the project. And the rest of you see that, and complain about it continually, but nothing changes – is it ever going to? I just cannot fathom why these narrow minded little prigs are so admired and welcomed here. I think I shall stay where I don't have to have contact with such people. Giano | talk 10:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

[Randy from Boise]

In none of his requests for a senior position were there questions asking for his age and educational and professional qualifications, let alone his name. This is insane.

Don't know much about ruddy WP bureaucracy, do you? You need to be 18 yo be a CU or stuff, but there's never been any age limit on admins or even bureaucrats.And why do you need qualifications to admin when you don't need any to write articles?

He was 19 when he showed up on WP in 2004.

So he's 27 now. Isn't that bloody old enough? Must you be a pensioner before you can do things on WP?

"You kids get off of my lawn!!!"

RfB

[HRIP7]

"You kids get off of my lawn!!!"

RfB

The youngest Wikipedia bureaucrat I can recall was 12 when he passed his RfB.

[Sweet Revenge]

"You kids get off of my lawn!!!"

RfB

The youngest Wikipedia bureaucrat I can recall was 12 when he passed his RfB.

Amazing. It's like the Sea Org over there.

[HRIP7]

"You kids get off of my lawn!!!"

RfB

The youngest Wikipedia bureaucrat I can recall was 12 when he passed his RfB.

Amazing. It's like the Sea Org over there.

An apt comparison in a way. Both insular communities with their own jargon, claiming to know better than everyone else, and seeking to convert the rest of the world to their own thinking ... and known for a desire to ruin the reputations of their critics.

Which, of course, is not to say that there aren't decent and likeable individuals in Scientology, or Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

Amazing. It's like the Sea Org over there.

And yet, they will deny it with robotic self-assurance.

By comparison, Sea Org people go around wearing goofy little admiral uniforms and bragging about their membership......
being more dishonest than the Church of Scientology is quite an achievement.

[Retrospect]

"You kids get off of my lawn!!!"

RfB

Hey, I wrote that on 6 July! That's necromancing a post!

[Retrospect]

Which, of course, is not to say that there aren't decent and likeable individuals in Scientology, or Wikipedia.

Yep, there's me on Wikipedia for one!

[roger_pearse]

If Wikipedia were of any
importance in the "real world", the US Attorney would probably seek conspiracy charges against a number of past and current Arbcom members.

Conspiracy to do what, tho? There usually has to be money involved in this sort of thing for charges to apply.

And as for actual policing, you're also quite lost. You seem to think cops are a bunch of mechanicals who, when they see a mugging in progress, roll up to a man in a mask and a woman playing tug of war with a handbag.

"Let go of my bag, you asshole," shouts the woman.

"Well, I can't get involved in content disputes," says the cop, "but calling someone an asshole just isn't civil. Off to the lockup, dearie."

Then he tips his cap to the masked man and drags the sobbing woman away.

Perfectly put.

Exactly what happens.

[isaan]

ArbCom is currently about to lift a ban on Iantresman (T-C-L), a tenacious and committed promoter of pseudoscience. Expect a barrage of activity from him in subjects related to the junk science going by the names plasma cosmology or electric universe, which Tresman desperately wishes to legitimize both on and off Wikipedia. Of course it's possible his activity will lead to some informative and useful additions to science and fringe science content, but overall I'm not holding my breath for a predominantly positive return.

[HRIP7]

Useful comment from Deryck Chan (T-C-L) in the Youreallycan arbitration request:

The current boundaries of "outing" are unclear: distinctions need to be made between the outing of information that have not previously been made public, and outing of information which are public on the internet (or even on past revisions of Wikipedia pages which haven't been deleted).
It is a basic principle in journalism and copyright that one cannot "unpublish" things that have been made public. It is extremely hypocritical that we regularly deny public figures' requests to delete Wikipedia articles about them, yet go heavy-handed on Wikipedians who post information about one another that were (often intentionally) made public in the past.

[everyking]

Apparently, there was not a sufficient super-majority the second time around for him to be elected. The Bureacrats and the Arbitration Committee simply decided to ignore the vote, and unilaterally declare him a senior editor, trusted by "the community." He seemed to have a powerful group of early wikipedia insiders supporting him.

Typical story. A large number of their worst insiders got the admin mop, and prevailed in arbitrations, despite considerable opposition. If Wikipedia were of any
importance in the "real world", the US Attorney would probably seek conspiracy charges against a number of past and current Arbcom members. Lucky them,
Wikipedia is merely the butt of a million jokes instead.

I opine that virtually all of the arbitrations prior to 2008 were completely worthless. Either biased in favor of their pals, or badly organized and ineffective.

Exactly right. For the first several years of its existence, the ArbCom probably caused and compounded more problems than it solved. It really just helped to entrench a very toxic power structure. It doesn't seem so bad these days, but if anyone has an example to the contrary, I'd love to hear about it.

[isaan]

ArbCom is currently about to lift a ban on Iantresman (T-C-L), a tenacious and committed promoter of pseudoscience. Expect a barrage of activity from him in subjects related to the junk science going by the names plasma cosmology or electric universe, which Tresman desperately wishes to legitimize both on and off Wikipedia. Of course it's possible his activity will lead to some informative and useful additions to science and fringe science content, but overall I'm not holding my breath for a predominantly positive return.

Surprisingly to me, Chief Justice Newyorkbrad has opposed this, as has Sir Fossil, suggesting there might be some semblance of clue floating around somewhere. Ian Tresman's response is telling for what is not said about his massive conflicts of interest. Tresman's name is given in several places (such as here) as "Publicity Officer, Editor/Compiler SIS Internet Digest Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) 9 Ashdown Drive, Borehamwood, Herts. WD6 4LZ. United Kingdom." The SIS was co-founded in 1974 by Harold Tresman, Ian's father. It not only serves to promote Velikovskian pseudoscience, something Iantresman denies doing on Wikipedia, but links prominently to all the other pseudoscience garbage about the "electric universe" which I mentioned earlier. Some of these sites also list Ian Tresman prominently. I'm sure it just slipped his mind to make ArbCom aware of these things.

By the way, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies "is a UK-based, non-profit-making organisation", so I suppose there may be little chance that anything related to Wikipedia editing mixed with conflict of interest can go wrong.

[Notvelty]

I opine that virtually all of the arbitrations prior to 2008 were completely worthless. Either biased in favor of their pals, or badly organized and ineffective.

Exactly right. For the first several years of its existence, the ArbCom probably caused and compounded more problems than it solved. It really just helped to entrench a very toxic power structure. It doesn't seem so bad these days, but if anyone has an example to the contrary, I'd love to hear about it.

I'd agree with the first bit, but not the last. The way I see it, the big turning point was Thatcher coming to the realisation just who "wrong" things were. This lead to Cool Hand Luke being able to expose Mantanmoreland, which in turn lead to a great deal of lost face among the power-brokers, leading to sanctions against JayJG, various administrators being relieved of the technical manifestation of their influence, and a number of other positive steps.

It should be noted that, not only was there a clean out, but there was no replacement set of misbegots, and for a time, things were very much looking up.

Until they made a move too soon against the real core and we had the famous Godwin/Gerard issue.

This was the turning point back. The sand-pit players were shown that they could get away with snubbing their nose at teacher, because their parents would always come down on the side of their 'speshul snowflakes', or at the very least turn a blind eye. I've no doubt at all that this was a major point in Thatcher stepping further and further back.

We might not have gone back to the old guard, but no we have another set of idiots doing the same old things. We aren't all the way back to the bad old days, but we're on the way.

[Newyorkbrad]

Until they made a move too soon against the real core and we had the famous Godwin/Gerard issue. This was the turning point back. The sand-pit players were shown that they could get away with snubbing their nose at teacher, because their parents would always come down on the side of their 'speshul snowflakes', or at the very least turn a blind eye.

Speaking as someone who's been on the Arbitration Committee since 2008, I can tell you that this simply isn't true. While that incident certainly wasn't pleasant for anyone (unfortunately, I can't really say more about it here), I don't recall a single instance in the three years since it happened in which the memory of it affected the outcome of a case, or any other decision the Committee has made.

Although the Arbitration Committee receives quite a lot of attention on this site and formerly on WR (and I can understand why), what is often overlooked is that these days, the Committee decides about only one-tenth as many cases as it did five years ago. (Although, granted, the complexity of the average case is higher now, as ArbCom typically gets only the most intractible problems.) I've listed the statistics and discussed some of the reasons for this in a post I made tonight on Wikipedia.

[HRIP7]

Although the Arbitration Committee receives quite a lot of attention on this site and formerly on WR (and I can understand why), what is often overlooked is that these days, the Committee decides about only one-tenth as many cases as it did five years ago. (Although, granted, the complexity of the average case is higher now, as ArbCom typically gets only the most intractible problems.) I've listed the statistics and discussed some of the reasons for this in a post I made tonight on Wikipedia.

Brad's post is here. It's interesting reading:

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases, in its first full calendar year of operation (2005), the Arbitration Committee considered one hundred cases. To be sure, some of these were very easy cases that would never get as far as arbitration now, and some of them involved questions that were unsettled in the early days of the project but are have well-settled answers now. Still, 100 cases. In 2006, 116 cases. In 2007, 91 cases.

And then, it suddenly plummeted. In 2008 (my first year as an arbitrator, though there's no cause-and-effect involved), only 35 cases. (I've written before about the reduction in the Committee's caseload, but I never realized until this minute that it was quite that sudden—a three-fifths drop in a year!) In 2009, 30 cases. In 2010, eleven cases (another drop of more than 60%!). In 2011, sixteen cases. And through the first ten months of 2012, eleven cases (including none in the past three months, although we have had a steady diet of clarification and amendment requests arising from prior decisions).

I hadn't noticed how rare, comparatively, arbcom cases have become.

(Probably because I've managed to be in one roughly each year regardless ...)

[Cedric]

Although the Arbitration Committee receives quite a lot of attention on this site and formerly on WR (and I can understand why), what is often overlooked is that these days, the Committee decides about only one-tenth as many cases as it did five years ago. (Although, granted, the complexity of the average case is higher now, as ArbCom typically gets only the most intractible problems.) I've listed the statistics and discussed some of the reasons for this in a post I made tonight on Wikipedia.

Specious reasoning, counselor. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, it is ArbCom that generally has full power to decide which cases it takes and which it declines, but unlike the Supreme Court it has no mandatory jurisdiction. Accordingly, any statistics to which you may be referring are meaningless; they can just as easily reflect an expansion of acceptance of "wiki love" and Frei Kultur Kinder ideology, or a utter unwillingness of ArbCom to acknowledge the chronic difficulties caused by the incompetence and corruption of the Frei Kultur Kinder. Given the experience that so many have had with Wikipedia, the latter is far more likely to be true.

[EricBarbour]

Specious reasoning, counselor. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, it is ArbCom that generally has full power to decide which cases it takes and which it declines, but unlike the Supreme Court it has no mandatory jurisdiction. Accordingly, any statistics to which you may be referring are meaningless; they can just as easily reflect an expansion of acceptance of "wiki love" and Frei Kultur Kinder ideology, or a utter unwillingness of ArbCom to acknowledge the chronic difficulties caused by the incompetence and corruption of the Frei Kultur Kinder. Given the experience that so many have had with Wikipedia, the latter is far more likely to be true.

Agreed. Look at the massive problems WMUK has caused this year. There's always a good supply of abusive gamesters in other areas. The Israel/Palestine, Scientology, Eastern Europe,
Armenian, British Isles, Senkaku, and assorted other "settled cases" continue to generate misery and strife. An arbitration literally would not be worth the paper it was printed on, unless
it applied to chronic abusers like Will Beback or Cirt. And there's nothing to keep them from socking anyway. (Assuming it was printed on paper, of course. When Wikipedia's database
disappears, all of that "valuable work" that Brad and his little friends did will vanish in the wind. Look at what happpened to the ED database after Meepsheep and his pals took over--
all the original edit histories and diffs, all the arguments, lost.)

[lilburne]

The trouble with WP is that the arguments range across multiple pages. If you take a YRC type bust up, there are multiple editors involved, across numerous article, talk pages, and drama boards. Any one of the little shits can goad him, another one can pile on, then aggravate a situation contemporaneously on some unrelated article page like a AFD, then another will drag the situation to ANI for a major pile on.

The ethnic tagging is a case in point if Bus Stop is involved you can bet on Epeefleche not being far behind, later followed by Nomo and a couple of others. And the POV argument won't stay in the one place but get transported onto talk pages etc, with claims of socking made against opponents. There are recognisable groupings across the project and any editor knows that if he's in dispute with one POV warrior they'll probably be a couple more along in a short while, and if he gets into a dispute again with one of those in some other venue the others will be along too. The nonsense is never all in one place, and is spread across time. What you end up with is Fred getting detention for losing it in French after months of aggravation in Maths, History, Geography, and Science.

But lets look at a controversial subject which shouldn't be Creationism. Here is the WP article and here the Britannica article. The only saving grace of the WP article is that it is an unreadable mess. Otherwise it just a bunch hooks to fight over, which has spread off into dozens of separate articles all of which give further scope for game playing. Including Islamic views on evolution (T-H-L) which for 5 years was full of Jagged 85 (T-C-L) crap.

Even if we discount NYB thinking that Richard II was king of England in the 1340s WP is NOT an encyclopaedia, but a series of travesties. No one reads WP and comes away wiser.

[Willbeheard]

Look at what happpened to the ED database after Meepsheep and his pals took over--
all the original edit histories and diffs, all the arguments, lost.)

That's putting history on its head. If it weren't for Meepsheep, the whole of ED would have disappeared lock, stock and barrel. Surely most people here would have preferred that (sorry, Alison).

No one reads WP and comes away wiser.

Oh, I don't know. Quite a lot of people come away sadder and wiser.

[EricBarbour]

Look at what happpened to the ED database after Meepsheep and his pals took over--
all the original edit histories and diffs, all the arguments, lost.)

That's putting history on its head. If it weren't for Meepsheep, the whole of ED would have disappeared lock, stock and barrel. Surely most people here would have preferred that (sorry, Alison).

As I've said before, from 2006 until 2010, Wikipedia and ED were joined at the hip. Scores, perhaps hundreds, of Wikipedia insiders went to ED to "blow off steam",
getting into secondary disputes over Wikipedia battles they wanted to complain/joke about. A great deal of it was reverted, existing only as old diffs or talkpage
arguments. It was a part of Wikipedia's history, sometimes an important part. Now it's all gone, making it much more difficult to research certain Wikipedia disputes.

I'll bet you didn't know how much there was about Ryulong on the old ED. Plenty. Some of it very personal information, some of it proving that he was abusing
his admin power for simple lulz. The only person who "preferred" that stuff disappearing is Ryulong himself. Same goes for Grawp, his nemesis NawlinWiki, and Gwen Gale.

[Notvelty]

Until they made a move too soon against the real core and we had the famous Godwin/Gerard issue. This was the turning point back. The sand-pit players were shown that they could get away with snubbing their nose at teacher, because their parents would always come down on the side of their 'speshul snowflakes', or at the very least turn a blind eye.

Speaking as someone who's been on the Arbitration Committee since 2008, I can tell you that this simply isn't true. While that incident certainly wasn't pleasant for anyone (unfortunately, I can't really say more about it here), I don't recall a single instance in the three years since it happened in which the memory of it affected the outcome of a case, or any other decision the Committee has made.

Although the Arbitration Committee receives quite a lot of attention on this site and formerly on WR (and I can understand why), what is often overlooked is that these days, the Committee decides about only one-tenth as many cases as it did five years ago. (Although, granted, the complexity of the average case is higher now, as ArbCom typically gets only the most intractible problems.) I've listed the statistics and discussed some of the reasons for this in a post I made tonight on Wikipedia.

That's a fair enough point, and I think it deserves acknowledgement, but it's not really a rebuttal of what I said. I say this for three reasons:
1) Since that time, there has been a number of arbcom appointments that have helped established a new set of clique players. I won't name them here, but they are the individuals who will, to an-anonymous-pseudonym, back their buddies, or find against those people who their buddies do not like. They are able to do so, because they know they will not be called on it by anyone who is in a position to do anything. Their votes and opinions do sway the collective arbcom results.

2) At the same time, the lack of support has certainly increased the weariness quota. Strong, adult presence has decreased since then and this is mostly evident in a lack of willingness to investigate the -whole- issue. We've seen none of the like of CHL's solid Mantanmoreland work, or anything approaching Thatcher's reasoned thinking since they left. Moreover, some individuals who have previously shown strength in acting now seem to have "gone native" and are more and more wanting things to "just calm down". I will name names here, because I think Foz needs a good kick in the arse. Where once he would deal with the cause, now he just treats the symptoms. I suggest that this is almost entirely due to weariness brought on by a lack of support, or the knowledge that, if he did try to do something, he would not get that support, or have it actively undermined.

3) And even with all of that, it doesn't really matter, because no one really pays attention to what arbcom says. Administrators all the way up to what is effectively the Arbcom enforcement team is hopelessly compromised by cliques. Game players actively game the restrictions of your committee, AE and ANI and not only are they not brought up on it, their opponents are those who are blocked.

They can do this because they know that, while they might get warnings, they are confident in the knowledge that Arbcom no longer has the will to break up cliques and, if they did, they'd just get kicked in the nuts again and told to go back into their corners.

While that incident certainly wasn't pleasant for anyone (unfortunately, I can't really say more about it here),

Oh come on, Brad. You're a journeyed professional who was told off in a condescening manner by a far less experienced and far less qualified individual with all the gravitas of a usenet flamewar. "wasn't pleasant"? Ha! What did you throw and how expensive was the stuff it broke?

On a serious note, why don't you pack it all in and volunteer at the local school to coach their debate team? You'd be very good at it and you'd be doing one heck of a lot more good work with kids there than you'll ever do at the wikipedia cesspit? Much more personally and socially rewarding too.

[Willbeheard]

As I've said before, from 2006 until 2010, Wikipedia and ED were joined at the hip. Scores, perhaps hundreds, of Wikipedia insiders went to ED to "blow off steam", getting into secondary disputes over Wikipedia battles they wanted to complain/joke about. A great deal of it was reverted, existing only as old diffs or talkpage arguments. It was a part of Wikipedia's history, sometimes an important part. Now it's all gone, making it much more difficult to research certain Wikipedia disputes.

I'll bet you didn't know how much there was about Ryulong on the old ED. Plenty. Some of it very personal information, some of it proving that he was abusing his admin power for simple lulz. The only person who "preferred" that stuff disappearing is Ryulong himself. Same goes for Grawp, his nemesis NawlinWiki, and Gwen Gale.

Eric, I think you missed my point. Yes, I know full well what stuff was on the old ED. My point is firstly that it would all have vanished without Meepsheep, so it's silly to blame him for what has disappeared. Secondly, the limited amount of stuff that is saved is not very useful (apart from my old WR avatar https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... avatar.jpg - could I have it back please?) and frankly we'd be better off with no trace of ED than what we do have.

[Daniel Brandt]

...and frankly we'd be better off with no trace of ED than what we do have.

A couple more domain changes might do the trick.

[Peter Damian]

As I've said before, from 2006 until 2010, Wikipedia and ED were joined at the hip. Scores, perhaps hundreds, of Wikipedia insiders went to ED to "blow off steam",
getting into secondary disputes over Wikipedia battles they wanted to complain/joke about. A great deal of it was reverted, existing only as old diffs or talkpage
arguments. It was a part of Wikipedia's history, sometimes an important part.

Hmm I didn't actually know it was extensive as that. Shouldn't this be in the book?

[EricBarbour]

As I've said before, from 2006 until 2010, Wikipedia and ED were joined at the hip. Scores, perhaps hundreds, of Wikipedia insiders went to ED to "blow off steam",
getting into secondary disputes over Wikipedia battles they wanted to complain/joke about. A great deal of it was reverted, existing only as old diffs or talkpage
arguments. It was a part of Wikipedia's history, sometimes an important part.

Hmm I didn't actually know it was extensive as that. Shouldn't this be in the book?

There's some mention of it, I think in the Daniel Brandt wiki article. Problem is, this is only my recollection, and you'll have trouble finding
commentary by anyone else on what happened. Ask an ED regular first, I'd say. I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone
who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

[Willbeheard]

my old WR avatar ... could I have it back please?

Thank you to the staff.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

I wasn't there in 2006, but I might be willing to say a few things about the last couple of years of the original ED and the creation of OhInternet and .ch / .se. ED's history should be documented somewhere. I won't say anything that would compromise the newer ED, obviously. May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

[TungstenCarbide]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

aren't you the guy who caused a bunch of trouble violating the 300 club's confidentiality, trading it for brownie points over at ED? while thumping you chest in self-righteous indignation? or something like that.

[Zoloft]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

aren't you the guy who caused a bunch of trouble violating the 300 club's confidentiality, trading it for brownie points over at ED? while thumping you chest in self-righteous indignation? or something like that.

Yep. Leash = short.

[EricBarbour]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

Sadly, you are a newcomer, and so do not qualify. If you're such a clever lad, go and get Weev or Sherrod to contact me instead.

[Daniel Brandt]

...and get Weev or Sherrod to contact me instead.

There is a list of articles about ED.com, from 2005 to 2010, at archive.org.

Wikitruth is probably more interesting than ED. At least Wikitruth had some good writers.

Uncyclopedia.com is another one. Ask Somey about that.

You should interview Danny Wool too, if you haven't already.

[Tarc]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

aren't you the guy who caused a bunch of trouble violating the 300 club's confidentiality, trading it for brownie points over at ED? while thumping you chest in self-righteous indignation? or something like that.

Yep. Leash = short.

Why is that, exactly? Brandt was posting all of Suarez' personal info in 300, he had a right to be pissed off and respond in kind.

[EricBarbour]

There is a list of articles about ED.com, from 2005 to 2010, at archive.org.

Wikitruth is probably more interesting than ED. At least Wikitruth had some good writers.

Ah! Thank you! I didn't know Wikitruth had that.

Be happy to interview Danny---but he doesn't seem interested in talking.

[Zoloft]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

aren't you the guy who caused a bunch of trouble violating the 300 club's confidentiality, trading it for brownie points over at ED? while thumping you chest in self-righteous indignation? or something like that.

Yep. Leash = short.

Why is that, exactly? Brandt was posting all of Suarez' personal info in 300, he had a right to be pissed off and respond in kind.

==> "Anti-social, anti-Web 2.0, not an expert, interested in nonsense, conflict, and drama."

[Tarc]

I could do a full article about ED, but will need the help of someone who was there, especially in its early days (2006).

May I please have an invite to the Wikipediocracy wiki (or whatever you call it)?

aren't you the guy who caused a bunch of trouble violating the 300 club's confidentiality, trading it for brownie points over at ED? while thumping you chest in self-righteous indignation? or something like that.

Yep. Leash = short.

Why is that, exactly? Brandt was posting all of Suarez' personal info in 300, he had a right to be pissed off and respond in kind.

==> "Anti-social, anti-Web 2.0, not an expert, interested in nonsense, conflict, and drama."

Well, if you put it that way...when do I get access?

[Daniel Brandt]

Wikitruth is probably more interesting than ED. At least Wikitruth had some good writers.

Ah! Thank you! I didn't know Wikitruth had that.

Their 2007 article about me was well-written, and so were some others. At least it's a far cry from the typical cheap-shot ED lulz from basement-dwellers. The main thing is that Wikitruth was real satire because it was funny. I strongly suspect that the whole project was created by grown-ups.

[EricBarbour]

Their 2007 article about me was well-written, and so were some others. At least it's a far cry from the typical cheap-shot ED lulz from basement-dwellers. The main thing is that Wikitruth was real satire because it was funny. I strongly suspect that the whole project was created by grown-ups.

I'll add this to the wiki. If it was created by "grown-ups", why did it fold so quickly?

[HRIP7]

Arbcom have decided to try moderated discussion concerning the Jerusalem article.

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").
In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.
We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

Keilana (talk · contribs)
RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
Pgallert (talk · contribs)
We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

[DanMurphy]

Arbcom have decided to try moderated discussion concerning the Jerusalem article.

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").
In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.
We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

Keilana (talk · contribs)
RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
Pgallert (talk · contribs)
We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

Ah, yes that noted expert in Middle Eastern affairs and professional editing, Mr. Stradivarius (T-C-L) is now assigned to guide the process by which the wretched little pile that is their article on one of the most historically and politically significant cities in the world will be fixed.

Hello! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, and I've been editing Wikipedia regularly since 2010. In real life I teach English in Japan, and when I write content on Wikipedia I usually do so in the areas of second-language acquisition and language education. You can see some of the articles I have contributed to below.

I also have diverse interests outside of writing content. I am a member of the Mediation Committee, and I mediate disputes there from time to time. I have also helped out a lot at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I haven't been active there recently. I also like writing templates, and I occasionally do new page patrol and recent changes patrol.

At his RFA (unanimous) he said the article on the Silent Way (T-H-L) was his best work at Wikipedia. The lede:

The Silent Way is a language-teaching method created by Caleb Gattegno that makes extensive use of silence as a teaching technique. It is not usually considered a mainstream method in language education.[1] It was first introduced in Gattegno's book Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way in 1963.[2] Gattegno was skeptical of the mainstream language education of the time, and conceived of the method as a special case of his general theories of education.

He was also very proud of his expansion of the article on the video game Armada 2526 (T-H-L).

It is all beyond insane.

[DanMurphy]

While I'm at it, this is just another example of the anti-intellectualism and incompetence of the place. Here are the other three people who will be "closing" what is sure to be a clusterfuck of blather and incoherence by propagandists, agf idiots, and assorted lulz-seekers:

Pgallert (T-C-L)

My private editing activities concentrate on Southern African topics and on routing, switching and general networking principles. Occasionally I stumble across inaccuracies in other subject areas which I then attempt to repair.

I teach media literacy at Polytechnic of Namibia in Windhoek. In this role I have a few Wikipedia assignments because there currently is no second active Wikipedian at my institution. Among these "official" tasks are:

When someone in Namibia requests a public lecture or some general information on Wikipedia it will usually be me to deliver it.

I am the inofficial campus ambassador of Polytechnic of Namibia. That means that I got the T-shirt, I train the trainers, and I coordinate the Wikipedia assignments on the Polytechnic of Namibia ICT project page since 2010. I haven't received official training or appointment, though.

Well, at least we have a rough idea who he is. Not so with

RegentsPark (T-C-L). All we have there is:

I also contribute to Wikitravel as [1] and WikiVoyage as RegentsPark and Wandering.

Finally we have Keilana (T-C-L) (who comes off as a soft-headed agf true believer). This is the key bit:

In real life, I'm a college student studying biology and physics at beautiful Loyola University Chicago. "Hat collectors", both online and in real life, annoy me.

Again, this is quite simply insane. These people are not remotely qualified for even a portion of the task that has been handed to them. (I know, "so what else is new?") But the mess that is Jerusalem has long been one of the ones that most stick in my craw. Have had the following on top of my user page for quite some time now:

The lead to wikipedia's article on Jerusalem is a perfect illustration of the failure of the anonymous crowsourcing model. Unreadable as a question of style, missing the correct summary information as a matter of content, and completely failing to take the broad, historical view. It's a few hundred word scrawl exhibiting partisan warfare over content, over-sourcing, and the interests of truth warriors rather than scholars. And given the editing environment, it's unfixable -- a beast that changes here and there but can not break out of its cage of mediocrity and myopia. Good job everyone.

[Notvelty]

Some good shit

I completely agree, Dan. But do you know what the most damning thing about it is?

It's an improvement on what's there already.

[HRIP7]

The appalling thing is that something that is the result of such a flawed process is the most-read and, for the majority of people online, most authoritative source.

Discussion moderation in itself may be a good thing, if the moderator is skilful, but mass RfCs for controversial topics don't result in good scholarship. It's design by committee, cubed.

[Anroth]

Generally in moderated discussions, the moderator will ask/invite experts to appear/comment. Someone might want to suggest that.

[eppur si muove]

I've twice proposed the fol;lowing as the opening of the lede.

'Jerusalem is an ancient [[Middle East]]ern city which has played a major role in the three [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religions of [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]] all of which have important holy sites there. The city has been fought over many times, notably during the [[Crusade]]s. Most recently it has formed one of the central issues in the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. In its [[1947 UN Partition Plan| 1947 partition plan]], the [[United Nations]] had intended the final fate of Jerusalem to be dealt with separately from the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in [[British Mandate of Palestine|mandate Palestine]]. The city was to be administered as a ''[[corpus seperatum]]'' independent of either state. However, the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War]] resulted in the city being divided with [[Transjordan]] gaining control of most of the [[East Jerusalem|Eastern part of the city]], including the holy sites of the [[Old City (Jerusalem)|old city]], and [[Israel]] holding modern West Jerusalem where it established its [[Capital (political)|capital]]. Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 as a result of the [[Six Day War]]. It has declared the whole city its "complete and united" capital but this claim is opposed internationally with the [[United Nations Security Council]] having [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 478|resolved]] that the [[Jerusalem Law]] which asserted this claim is "null and void", and with most states maintaining their [[Diplomatic mission|embassies]] in [[Tel Aviv]]. Meanwhile the Palestinians have declared East Jerusalem as the capital of their intended [[State of Palestine]]...'

I wanted to start with the context of it being a place that religious types squabble over as the current businessis just the latest manifestation of that. Never got many takers for this. I also think that Rome (T-H-L) similarly has thingsarse before face because its history as thedominant power in the Mediterranean and Europe for some hundreds of years and as the centre of a major faction of a major religion are more important that its being the capital of a modern nation of middling importance.