see Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and the talk page.

Fascinating.

There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some.

Indeed. A few of those fools who now talk as if IAR abuse is a bad, bad thing......
have themselves abused IAR in the past. Oh, the comedy.

And how many of those hypocrites used IAR for their own selfish purposes in the past?

Now when IAR is used for the good of the project, there's a hue and cry because "process was not followed."

Wikipedia's foundation was on the idea of doing things for the good of the "encyclopedia" even if that meant going against the "community." Now the bureaucratic zealots are in control. How ironic!

There was one person who tried to cite IAR to override NPOV

He actually had a FA

Still does, actually

I've always loved "Ignore all rules" as a concept. However, there seems to be so much misunderstanding and misinterpretation surrounding it that I'm slowly entering the "mark it as historical" camp.

IAR works very well in small, young organizations where people lack the systems and procedures to resolve most situations, so they need to rely on their intuition of what will move the organization forward since there are no procedures on how to do so.

IAR also works very well in highly structured organizations where certain individuals are delegated the power to make discretionary decisions based on their experience that others must follow. Think of a military commander in battle, a CEO deciding on a strategic change, or a newspaper editor selecting which story to run.

The problem is that Wikipedia has hundreds of procedures, thousands of editors, and enough experience at operating that it doesn't fall into the first category. But, it lacks a hierarchy of command authority to make unilateral decisions that others will obey for the simple reason that their procedures tell them to do whatever the boss says (think of the movie Office Space). That is where IAR fails.

Good night, Irene!

At what point did Wikipedia become a self-parody?

See WP:IARDEE IAR IAR

Ja-Dee Ja Ja

Beyond self-parody.

There is a valid point buried in there, that IAR is supposed to be a last-ditch "do what's right, not what the rules say, if you can justify it afterwards", not a general license to act like an asshole. That is, after all, how real life operates.

Any valid point would be somewhat more credible if the list of supporters didn't read like a roll-call of Wikipedia's diehard cranks, serial abusers, long-term trolls and extremist nutjobs. There are some legitimate good-faith users buried in that list. Not many.

Yes, that is one of the reasons I tend to avoid commenting in userconduct RFCs and other policy debates on a regular basis. Don't need the "he agrees with that loser" reputation.

I have to say, I liked the Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse much better.

I personally dislike that we now have moved to petitions instead of typical RFC type discussions. Who started all this?

Ah yes I remember, Scott MacDonald did with the FlaggedRevs, damn you!

I've no problem with this petition

Something tells me your support wasn't QUITE what they had in mind.

Too bad.

Roughly 2006 when Slim added clauses to WP:RS which allowed big newspapers the status of reliable sources. When actually most big newspapers have no time to do anything but call up the "experts" (in WP's case the Kood Aid drinkers) and ask their opinions on "reality". No published science is involved. Once the paper publishes, it becomes a reliable source, WP can quote it, and off you go. See the WP main page, for example, on where this leads. It's WP, telling you about itself. Mostly via regugitated press releases from WMF and WP cultist interviews.

Which, then, reinforces and verifies the "loser" tag. Even if the "loser" is actually expressing what would be consensus in a broader discussion.

I understand MBizanz's reluctance, and it is certainly his right. But attachment to reputation is one of the forces that prevents change, because it causes conformance to some vague and undeliberated "consensus" that never actually confronts and explores and resolves the issues, and thus, through the silence of those who can see the problem, it gets worse and worse, even as it seems to be "quieter" because one side has been banned and blocked.

Disputes are never resolved by bans and blocks, that ought to be obvious, so the question, when there is disruption, should always be whether or not there is some approach short of banning that could possibly resolve disputes, and I have seen proposals for such approaches rejected because, allegedly, the editor was hopeless. It's the blame theory of dispute resolution: blame the Bad Guy. It's childish, in fact.

Behind this is a false concept of efficiency, that prevents voluntary work on resolution by assuming that it's a "waste of time." Sure. Protect the community at large from wasting its time with useless AN/I reports, etc., but provide mechanisms for otherwise-banned editors to solicit voluntary, informed cooperation from other editors. It's trivially easy to do, and mostly rejected unless the banned editor is, in fact, popular as well. Then, well, for the welfare of the project ....

IAR is, of course, the common-law principle of Public policy (T-H-L-K-D). For some reason, there seems to be an idea that IAR is some revolutionary principle, who ever heard of such a thing?

There are also strong public policy reasons for the application of law to be predictable, particularly when sanctions are involved. So any judge would balance these considerations. If someone is seen as attempting to protect the public, even if the action is unlawful, this will be considered in determining guilt and, if guilt is found, sanctions. Inference of intention is crucial in many areas of law.

In my case, ArbComm took the trouble to note that it is possible sanction behavior that was intended in good faith. This was correct. However, such sanctions should never be punitive, and only purely protective, and ArbComm's failing was in failing to consider solutions that would prevent disruption while allowing continued useful action.

For example, an MYOB sanction was passed, banning me from intervening in disputes where I was not an "originating party," except with permission of my mentor, but I was allowed to comment in polls.

A few problems with this: "originating party" was not defined, and then, in attempts to enforce the sanction, it was interpreted with insane strictness, where a comment I made in response to personal criticism of me and my actions was considered an MYOB violation because it took place in an overall context where my involvement wasn't immediate, but which clearly existed overall.

But there had been a protection: a mentor. But ArbComm did not pass a mentorship requirement. Now, an arbitrator was privately seeking to be recognized as my mentor. No, he was apparently told, arbitrators cannot mentor editors. Apparently ArbComm can make secret rules any time it feels like it. (The arbitrator will likely recuse in any case involving me, anyway, so what, exactly is the problem?)

And "poll" was wikilawyered such that blatant polls were not, supposedly, polls, because "we don't make decisions by voting." But, then, what did ArbComm mean by "poll." If it had meant votes -- which only covers ArbComm elections, why didn't it say "votes."?

In any case, I'm currently blocked for a week for violating one admins idea of the sanction, one which has little considered support. Really, I wonder. Do these people realize that by blocking me, in a situation where a reason for recusal on the part of the blocking admin was clear (the post I was blocked for criticized that admin's actions and threats), I am now an "originating party" and can file any process as such, like user RfC or an RfAr? I'll say this much: I was surprised to be blocked, because I didn't think that the admin was that stupid. (I also didn't think that WMC would be so stupid as to block me during the RfAr I filed against his 'ban").

If my edit had been actually a violation, he'd have taken it to AE and requested action, and I might have been blocked for a day. Or not. Instead, even though this was an ArbComm sanction, with a stated pattern of escalating blocks, he blocked me for a week, which should have been down the road. It was clearly excess response, even if the triggering incident had been a true violation. So I have a case. I put it off because being blocked, it becomes disruptive to try to act, so, with a delay of only a week, why bother?

I did request unblock so I could respond to the pending RfAr/Clarification, but that was denied, even though I made a restriction to that purpose binding on myself in the request, or offered to follow any other request by the unblocking admin. That's what I mean: reasonable remedies that protect the community are rejected, in favor of stronger remedies that add no additional protection, and which, then, can only be seen as punitive.

My own case is trivial, I'm not harmed by being blocked, at all. The question is whether or not the project is harmed. It's even possible that it benefits, but not by the removal of me from the situation, rather through making the nature of the problem clear.

The cabal that I named in RfAr/William M. Connolley is now embattled, WMC seems to be trolling to be blocked, JzG was actually blocked (he wasn't named in the RfAr, because he was inactive at the time, and the only purpose of naming the cabal was to properly frame the pile-on that was taking place, not to "prosecute" the cabal members -- the ArbComm majority completely missed this), issues that I raised in the RfAr have, in some cases, been addressed by the community and resolved, quite as I'd argued against an avalanche of cabal editors in the RfAr. For example, the kind of ban WMC asserted against me at Cold fusion is now more clearly contrary to policy. Individual administrators, outside of ArbComm discretionary sanctions, cannot ban, they can only warn or block.

But the cabal is still active and dangerous. GoRight is indef blocked currently, basically for standing up for editors banned without cause, with a defective close, presenting reasoned evidence that was considered "beating a dead horse," which is the cabal's favorite term for any argument against what they have done. The cabal frequently manages to pull in neutral editors by presenting reasonable-sounding arguments, JzG was very good at this. It doesn't matter that the arguments have no substance behind them, or fail to note ameliorating circumstances. Such as the editor to be banned, supposedly for POV-pushing, was COI, an employed researcher in the field, and was not editing the article at all, and only engaging in some mild advocacy of his expert position on the Talk page. By citing reliable sources. GoRight asked for evidence justifying a ban. It was not provided. But lots of editors popped in to support a ban not supported by evidence. Now, how does that happen?

Doesn't really matter. It happens all the time. People will !vote without researching and confirming evidence for themselves. That is, indeed, part of the problem, that such !votes count for anything at all other than as some diffuse measure of the unpopularity of a position or editor.

The admin who "closed' the underlying ban discussion (Future Perfect at Sunrise), after having argued for ban, also blocked another editor based on that editor having the same POV. There was a confused reliance, as well, on an SSP report that had been closed mysteriously, and without a sock finding. What was really happening, as had happened before, was that a POV was being banned without actual disruptive behavior.

Can't you people show any respect for the deceased?

Moderator note: moved to Bureaucracy.

The reference you want is actually Necessity. However, what it is about Wikipedia that corresponds to medical emergencies in the real world, is not clear. I think some people think WP is bleeding to death if their favorite info is deleted. Nor do they care about damage WP does in the real world, as we see in the fight over the hosting of defamatory BLP, in which the reputations and sometimes even the freedom of real persons may be harmed, whereas the "harm" to Wikipedia is no more than the tender feelings of some editors, which are bruised when they cannot write about their favorite goalkeeper in their favorite on-line database. Poor things.

How shall we balance these two tragedies? How tragic you see loss of a bad BLP is, seems to depend on whether or not it's YOURS.

I think Cyclopia would look better in a handlebar mustache, don't you? And he needs an earring.

I've been getting a mental image more along the lines of a Wiki-Polyphemus.

Jon

Yep. And another version in which he has a total uni-brow. We should really turn this image over to ED for some really good photoshop work. There are some seriously bent people over there.

Warning: Tome. Do not read if not actually interested in the problem.
Ummm.... sure. But the horse wasn't dead, a crowd had merely knocked it to the ground. I saw this again and again. Editor objects to cabal action. The cabal shouts it down. With the most blatant instances of admin abuse, the cabal would mass at AN and cause there to be no consensus, and it would take a double coincidence to overcome that: a neutral admin who also has both the time and inclination to actually investigate before acting, and the gumption to act against the cabal. Many had tried and had given up.

RfC/JzG 3, two-thirds of editors !voting dismissed the claims of action-while involved, even though the evidence of involvement was blatant. Thus it had to go to ArbComm, and I'd have taken it there, I was working on the filing, but Jehochman beat me to it. It was pretty weird. I presented the evidence from the RfC. Apparently it wasn't getting enough traction, though I avoided my famous Wall-o-Text style. So Bainer compiled basically the same evidence himself and put it up. Even though the case was really open-and-shut, ArbComm was content to reprimand JzG, but that apparently offended him enough that he stopped editing for quite a while. I was not seeking his desysopping, I was seeking an acknowledgment so that the behavior would not continue. He never did acknowledge it, but I think he found the resulting short leash too constricting, so, when he returned to editing about the time I was site-banned for three months, he resigned his tools, blaming me.

In the case GoRight was indeffed for intervening in, the recent AN community ban of Pcarbonn, JzG was the one who filed it. The usual suspects piled in, arguing that Pcarbonn was still pushing the POV that got him banned for a year. But Pcarbonn wasn't banned for a POV. His ban was political, in fact, but the excuse had been provided by JzG: Pcarbonn had written an off-wiki article that showed how patience and working within the system could result in a more neutral article on Cold fusion. That was framed as evidence of a battlefield mentality, even though Pcarbonn had not violated behavioral guidelines (compared to those who had been opposing him and seeking his ban). Pcarbonn was an SPA, and vulnerable. Wikipedia is murder on experts if they happen to know something that most editors don't know.

Not a dead horse at all. I was topic-banned, same topic, and the justification was "tendentious editing," though the alleged problem editing had almost entirely been discussion in Talk, and the serious editorial misbehavior had been revert warring by the cabal editors (or those supported by the cabal). ArbComm did see a problem at Cold fusion, it was pretty obvious, but their solution was discretionary sanctions. That's great if there is anyone left who knows the topic and who is watching the editorial behavior. The two editors most knowledgeable on the topic have been banned. So utterly outrageous behavior continues and discretionary sanctions is useless without someone to ask for enforcement.

Pcarbonn has been again topic-banned without cause, this time, not even the WP:BATTLE excuse. He was not editing tendentiously. He was acting as a COI editor, though a finding of that had not been made, and might not even apply. Being employed in a field does not automatically create COI. But editors with a COI are expected to "promote their POV," that's why we have special standards for COI editors. Banning them for merely discussing the topic and making suggestions, within behavioral guidelines, is seriously bad policy, and it won't stand, I predict. By banning Pcarbonn, the cabal has shot itself in the foot, creating grounds for a new RfAr. So the outrageous and continued behavior of Hipocrite, JzG, et al will be brought before ArbComm. I predict that the result will be quite different this time.

The cabal that I identified (I'm sure there are many) was the anti-pseudoscience cabal, allied with global warming editors. They are generally "Majority POV-pushers," or "SPOV" pushers ("scientific point of view," they over-exclude, or attempt to exclude, what they think are fringe viewpoints in topics like homeopathy, going beyond what a neutral encyclopedia would show. Where fringe points of view are notable, they should be covered according to what is in reliable source.

The project is the "sum of all human knowledge," and knowledge includes error, if it is notable and covered in reliable source. If some view is rejected by the majority of scientists, for example, and there is reliable source covering this, that rejection should be covered. NPOV does not require "equal coverage," but it does require neutral coverage, according to the balance in reliable sources.

Originally I became involved with cold fusion as a neutral editor, my general agenda had become intervention toward finding broader consensus in situations where local consensus had, in my view, failed. I encountered an abusive blacklisting by JzG related to cold fusion, and that this was abusive was confirmed. But I had the background to understand the issues, and began reading the sources. I was amazed by what I found. The rejection of cold fusion twenty years ago was a massive abuse of scientific process, and that, itself, has been well documented and is covered in reliable source. I just read the Britannica article on cold fusion, and it's atrocious, it claims, in a short paragraph on the topic, what is blatantly false, that the Pons and Fleischmann report in 1989 had never been replicated or confirmed. The Pons-Fleischmann effect is anomalous heat found from loading palladium metal with deuterium. That effect has been confirmed and covered in 153 peer-reviewed papers, which does not include as many as a thousand conference papers. In 2004, half of the expert panel convened by the DoE concluded that the evidence for anomalous heat was "conclusive." In other words, not experimental error, not fraud, confirmed.

So I began editing the article toward making it reflect the balance in the sources, which, from an initial 2:1 negative:positive ratio in 1989, to a 1:1 ratio in 1990, to a large preponderance of positive reports in the years after that, to the point where negative papers entirely disappeared, while, since 2004 or so, positive publications have been exploding. So to speak. There are only a few actual explosions.

Cold fusion has come out of the cold. Is it "fusion"? Nobody involved with the field any more thinks that it is anything but a nuclear effect, but there is substantial opinion that it is some nuclear process other than fusion. Contrary to what the article stated (and the Britannica also makes this mistake), there are theories that explain the phenomenon within the bounds of classical quantum field theory, but no theory has yet been confirmed, conclusively. Lack of theory, however, never impeaches experimental results, it only affects their interpretation. In 2004, of those who accepted the excess heat as conclusive, two-thirds considered the evidence for nuclear origin "somewhat convincing." The negative side of that panel, from the reviewer comments, which are available, based its rejection on a memory of 1989-1990 and the alleged impossibility of nuclear reactions, thus there must be experimental error, and they simply repeated the old canards ("never replicated," "results disappear with increased accuracy" -- not true at all, that's a general characteristic of "pathological science," but not of the confirmed phenomena involved here, it does cover some early artifacts), end of topic.

It is now possible to reasonably allege that cold fusion is no longer fringe science, it is emerging science, still controversial, for sure, particularly among nuclear physicists in general, but accepted by the mainstream as a legitimate field of study and research.

My point? That the anti-pseudoscience crowd is basically depending upon its own opinions, not on reliable sources, and that it uses wikilawyering and whatever means it can find, including tag-team reversion, to enforce its POV.

What really has to stop is banning editors because of their POV. There are ways to enforce behavioral guidelines that keep the door open for collaborative editing, that will restrain incivility, but it will take some level of attention by neutral editors and administrators to protect fringe editors (fringe now being defined as those taking minority or unpopular positions) from abuse by local majorities. Behavioral guidelines must be enforced neutrally, not just against fringe editors, as has too often been the case, and as was shown in RfCd/GoRight, and which continues to be shown and will be shown at RfAr.

The response to claims of "POV-pushing," advanced as an argument to ban an editor, should be met with, "So what? Now, Would-be-Banner, it seems you have a POV and are pushing it yourself, and are wasting our time here at AN/I by advancing what is really a content argument. Follow dispute resolution process, if you have a problem, don't ask us to block the editor, it amounts to harassment, and if you continue it, you may be blocked yourself. What you believe is fair for others is fair for you. Now, as a result of this report, editor Mediator has offered to help the parties negotiate consensus, and several editors have offered to mentor those who seem to be having a problem remaining civil. Please cooperate with any mediators and mentors, and if you have a problem with Freida Fringey, and can't resolve it with her, talk to her mentor and follow DR."

Structurally, the dispute resolution process hints at how the problems can be efficiently resolved, but I found that actually following DR process was rare. Instead, cabal editors would jump to AN, where they could sometimes assemble an apparent consensus quickly. It's about time that this stop.

As long as the philosophy prevails that disputes are resolved by long-term blocks, it will be impossible to find stable, neutral text for articles wherever there is controversy, and experts will continue to be abused by "experienced editors" who know how to work the crowd.