Is this subforum dying? I'd think that, since Arbcom issues regular lumps of bullshit,
this area would always have some new action going on.

Okay, how about this?
What the hell is it, and why is it extra-long and extra-incoherent?
(Why don't they desysop Sandstein, as long as they're diddling Dreadstar?
Or does "improving the encyclopedia" not actually mean anything?)

Or the Monty Hall problem squabble, finally "settled" last week.
I seem to remember it went on for years.

I was intrigued by that. And what actually was the decision? Why do they vote on stuff like "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors ... Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community ...Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously ...Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate." blah blah blah, yeah great, and then they immediately announce they are blocking someone for a year. Why? Has anyone ever read any of these cases and got a sense of what was going on without checking out what actually happened for themselves?



I tried to follow that one too, but as you say, too long and incoherent. As I could make out, it involved a dispute between an ultra-anti-fringe editor who wanted to put stuff in like 'pseudoscience can damage the health'. I mean, really put words like that into Wikipedia. He was challenged by someone who was slightly fringe, who even some of the anti-fringe guys supported because the alternative was so crazy.

In Wikipedia, there is nothing in the centre. Everything is so far from the centre of anything normal that everything is crazy.

I'm sure the Same Ole Same Ole goes on there all the time, it's just that some of the Lost Fanbois eventually grow up.

Jon

You noticed that, eh? It's a major reason why Arbcom Is A Joke. They bloviate, huff, and puff, splutter at absurd length about The Higher Purpose Of Wikipedia....and when they're done huffing
and puffing.....all they can do is hand out blocks and bans. So that's what they do. Pathetic.

That first case isn't really about pseudoscience. Instead, the fundamental issue is that Sandstein, that cretin, wants his unilaterally imposed blocks, topic bans, etc. to be near-immune from being overturned.

In other words, it's basically a redux of his case against Trusilver from last year. Sandstein unilaterally blocked a user for a week under discretionary sanctions from the "Speed of Light" case; the offending edits were fairly innocuous and were on WP:AN/EW. Towards the end of the week, Trusilver unblocked, arguing that the user's violation had been borderline at best, and that the block violated that old Wikipedia mantra that blocks should not be punitive. Sandstein, desperate to save himself from embarrassment, hauled Trusilver to ArbCom on the grounds that the block was an "AE block" and therefore could not be overturned except by ArbCom or by community consensus. ArbCom swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and desysopped Trusilver.

About a year later, here we are again. This time, the offending edit consisted of a user venting his anger about another user on WP:AN; Sandstein decided that this fell under the "Pseudoscience" case's discretionary sanctions and unilaterally blocked the user for three days. Dreadstar unblocked, arguing that it was quite a stretch to put the edit in question under the jurisdiction of the sanctions. Sandstein, again desperate to save himself from embarrassment, hauled Dreadstar to ArbCom on the grounds that the block was an "AE block" and therefore could not be overturned except by ArbCom or by community consensus. And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that ArbCom will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, and desysop Dreadstar.

...Which is fucking stupid, obviously. Sandstein says that as long as he calls a block an "AE block," even if it's a stretch to do so, no other admin should be allowed simply to overturn his dumb decisions. A year ago, ArbCom ignored the fact that his block had been made rashly and quite possibly was not within the bounds of AE, as Trusilver argued. This year, they'll ignore the fact that his block was made even more rashly and almost definitely not within the bounds of AE. By normal Wikipedia standards, these would have been "good unblocks."

Executive summary: Sandstein is trying to save face. He made a dumb decision, again, but, luckily for him, he'd called it "Arbitration Enforcement." He can therefore abusively use Wikipedia's bureaucratic rules to punish those who call him out on his idiocy.

This is all pretty decent evidence of why the idea of "discretionary sanctions" is a bad one. It gives guys like this a good deal of mostly unchecked power. Further evidence that becoming deeply involved in Wikipedia is about seeking power and not educating the unwashed masses.

Why do you think he hangs around AE? Otherwise, he might have to explain this blocks to someone. On AE he can just say "fuck you, it's enforcing fucking ARBCOM, bitch."

This one was so bad that they actually did get ArbCom to take the case, but they'll probably just choose to sanction all sides equally as per their usual shtick (reading evidence takes work--much easier to harass people for wordcount, then hatch a preordained "fair" decision for everyone). It'll either be a group wrist-slap/hand-job, or they'll go apeshit and ban everyone. That would be an appropriate fate for Sandstein.

Once, again, peeps, always remember that for far too many people Wikipedia is where they go to take out their frustration on all the bullies who have pushed them around over the years. Sandstein is obviously one of these. So are probably half the people on ArbCom. This is what you should expect when you have anonymous people operating in an environment with essentially discardable reputation.

That's pretty much what Trusilver says on his user page.

I think half to two-thirds of ArbCom has been self-identified since 2009. I hope it stays that way, as there is little going for ArbCom excepting that its decisions are voted on by a set of community members who where elected based on their reputation.

Also, just wanted to note that the evidence which *I* submitted was moved to the talk page by Risker because it was, apparently, "editorialization not evidence" (sic). Which, taking a bold guess at what the word "editorialization" is supposed to mean (I'm being uncharitable; I make up words myself all the time), I guess is true enough. Of course it's also true for most of the stuff that gets slapped onto the "Evidence" page - at least I was succinct.

btw, I think one of the reasons why this got picked up is because the original protestation at Sandstein's block was made by Hans Adler, who's pretty well (and deservedly) respected around some parts. So Hans Adler vs. Sandstein is a pretty promising "big bout". If Ludwigs2 (whom I've only butted heads with before, but whom I supported here) had been on his own, it would've been just another peon down the drain.

It looks like there are actually no pending requests for arbitration. Is that really so? I thought there was a perennial backlog of requests. Did the ArbCom experience some sort of burst of productivity?

Certainly not! They are simply getting fewer actual requests.

No doubt this somehow relates to the remarkable dropoff in the number of RFAs since 2009.
From 2004 up to two years ago, there were about 30-40 RFAs per month, now there's maybe 15-20.
January 2011 was the low point--there haven't been that few RFAs since early 2003!

In 2008, Arbcom had a maximum 729 cases to deal with.
In 2009, 1275 cases.
In 2010, it was down to 370.
We are one-quarter of the way thru 2011, and so far it's showing 125 cases.

I think the hardcore of the nerd userbase is simply losing interest in playing the WP Game.
Despite the volume of crap on AN, AE etc. being relatively unchanged, they are not getting new blood.
Most basement dwellers have given up, innumerable people have been forced out involuntarily,
and Wikipedia's reputation is permanently damaged.

Only Jimbo, Sue, and their deranged fan following still "Believes". Prove me wrong, go ahead.

The site is dying, so this forum is dying.

If only. A thing as big as Wikipedia takes years to build up, and years to decline......

The content lives even as the old revolutionaries die or move on, just like all culture. I think WP v. 0.5 or maybe even WP 1.0, properly flensed of toxic blubber, may serve as the foundation for something else, much better. Just as Sanger intended.

Someday in the far future they can roll Sanger out in a wheelchair and give him a plastic award. Laser engraving of Wales Castle embedded in Lucite, maybe.

Fine. The USER BASE is declining, and it's been declining about as long as Myspace. Where's Myspace's user base these days?