I surprisingly find myself in agreement with many things about this ArbCom decision with Sam Spade.
Here's how I see it:
1) Jimbo, who said he sees Wikipedia as a "von Mises model", appoints like-minded people to ArbCom such as Fred Bauder and JayJG. Jimbo appoints conservative cronies like that, making a far worse choice than the ArbCom elections, which in my view elected some good, decent people like Raul654, who I don't always agree with, but at least is neutral, fair and so forth. 2) So Fred Bauder, Jimbo-appointed conservative cronie from way back "does" the case, and most of the other arbs just sign off on the work he did. I've seen this movie before. 3) Getting onto ArbCom went from Jimbo appointments (who like JayJG and Bauder are horrible), to an election, which brought in good arbs, and now he wants to go back to appointing people again. Of course he can't just kill the election once it's in place, so he says he will have an election to help him decide or some garbage like that. I mean it's nonsense. Despite the "be bold" mantra, I am usually not so bold on such things, but I moved the "ArbCom 2005 elections" page to something like "Arbcom 2005 support vote" and noted that there would be no elections. Of course I was immediately reverted, and my notes on how the election is a fraud were removed. 4) Reading myself, I'd think I'm just another Wikipedia crank, except I'm not because I "gave up" on Wikipedia months ago. It will be some time before the alternative wikis like Demopedia, Dkosopedia, Anarchopedia, Red Wiki and so forth get momentum though (which I am helping generate), so I am kind of stuck here for a bit unfortunately. For those who have agreed with little I have said so far, here is one thing I'll say that if you think about it, you might agree with me on. Wouldn't it be a good thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other wiki encyclopedia? Wouldn't that stop a lot of edit wars and nonsense, and people could concentrate on making the pages in the Science, Mathematics, Technology and so forth pages better, instead of wasting time on all of this other nonsense? For some reason, Wikipedia has grabbed onto and held onto the third rail of politics, and the only reason why I can think this happened is because Ayn-Rand-reading porn magnate Jimbo wants it that way. I should also note that when I heard Brian Lamb ask Jimbo about Ayn Rand and porn, I was of course delighted, and if there is a God, I hoped I had something to do with that question being asked. 5) Nobs01 is not a von Mises, Ayn Rand reader. He is not a rabid Zionist like JayJG. He is not a conservative hick lawyer like Fred Bauder who probably wears cowboy boots. He is a complete nutcase, he is not playing with all 52 cards in the deck. Go to Nobs01's user page, and go through the history, and ask yourself if this is the user page of someone who is well in the head. And I live in a city where I meet nutty people all the time. Nobs01 is a nut even nuts are scared of. And ArbCom is doing nothing except a month ban of him for personal attacks. Is this going to solve the problem? Is thing going to solve Nobs spreading his crank red-under-every-bed theories around Wikipedia?
Ruy
I think the fact that our most extreme POV pushers on both the right and the left are united on how worthless the arbitration committee is says something good about us. Neither is able to deal a knockout blow to the other. They are both welcome to edit, provided Wikipedia policies such as courtesy, NPOV and citing reliable sources are followed. If the dialogue degenerates into personal attacks and futile edit warring with each side removing well referenced information inserted by the other limits will be imposed.
Fred
On Dec 9, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Ruy Lopez wrote:
I surprisingly find myself in agreement with many things about this ArbCom decision with Sam Spade.
Here's how I see it:
- Jimbo, who said he sees Wikipedia as a "von Mises model",
appoints like-minded people to ArbCom such as Fred Bauder and JayJG. Jimbo appoints conservative cronies like that, making a far worse choice than the ArbCom elections, which in my view elected some good, decent people like Raul654, who I don't always agree with, but at least is neutral, fair and so forth. 2) So Fred Bauder, Jimbo-appointed conservative cronie from way back "does" the case, and most of the other arbs just sign off on the work he did. I've seen this movie before. 3) Getting onto ArbCom went from Jimbo appointments (who like JayJG and Bauder are horrible), to an election, which brought in good arbs, and now he wants to go back to appointing people again. Of course he can't just kill the election once it's in place, so he says he will have an election to help him decide or some garbage like that. I mean it's nonsense. Despite the "be bold" mantra, I am usually not so bold on such things, but I moved the "ArbCom 2005 elections" page to something like "Arbcom 2005 support vote" and noted that there would be no elections. Of course I was immediately reverted, and my notes on how the election is a fraud were removed. 4) Reading myself, I'd think I'm just another Wikipedia crank, except I'm not because I "gave up" on Wikipedia months ago. It will be some time before the alternative wikis like Demopedia, Dkosopedia, Anarchopedia, Red Wiki and so forth get momentum though (which I am helping generate), so I am kind of stuck here for a bit unfortunately. For those who have agreed with little I have said so far, here is one thing I'll say that if you think about it, you might agree with me on. Wouldn't it be a good thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other wiki encyclopedia? Wouldn't that stop a lot of edit wars and nonsense, and people could concentrate on making the pages in the Science, Mathematics, Technology and so forth pages better, instead of wasting time on all of this other nonsense? For some reason, Wikipedia has grabbed onto and held onto the third rail of politics, and the only reason why I can think this happened is because Ayn-Rand-reading porn magnate Jimbo wants it that way. I should also note that when I heard Brian Lamb ask Jimbo about Ayn Rand and porn, I was of course delighted, and if there is a God, I hoped I had something to do with that question being asked. 5) Nobs01 is not a von Mises, Ayn Rand reader. He is not a rabid Zionist like JayJG. He is not a conservative hick lawyer like Fred Bauder who probably wears cowboy boots. He is a complete nutcase, he is not playing with all 52 cards in the deck. Go to Nobs01's user page, and go through the history, and ask yourself if this is the user page of someone who is well in the head. And I live in a city where I meet nutty people all the time. Nobs01 is a nut even nuts are scared of. And ArbCom is doing nothing except a month ban of him for personal attacks. Is this going to solve the problem? Is thing going to solve Nobs spreading his crank red-under-every-bed theories around Wikipedia?
Ruy
-- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Ruy Lopez" wrote
Wouldn't it be a good
thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other wiki encyclopedia? Wouldn't that stop a lot of edit wars and nonsense [...]
Depends who you took with you. Please leave us some of the ones who are literate, use references to build a case, and understand WP policy.
Nobs01 is a nut even nuts are scared of. And ArbCom is doing nothing except a month ban of him for personal attacks. Is this going to solve the problem? Is thing going to solve Nobs spreading his crank red-under-every-bed theories around Wikipedia?
A month ban is more than a slap on the wrist.
Charles
I think the fact that our most extreme POV pushers on both the right and the left are united on how worthless the arbitration committee is says something good about us.
Fred
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
Sam Spade
Well, its not sports. You first came to my notice with the point of view that Nazism was somehow "socialism". Ruy Lopez came to my attention with edits which sought to deny the totalitarian nature of Stalinism.
Fred
On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
I think the fact that our most extreme POV pushers on both the right and the left are united on how worthless the arbitration committee is says something good about us.
Fred
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
Sam Spade _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/05, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
But sometimes it is a clear signal that the umpire is in the right.
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Spade stated for the record:
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
Do you see this a sport, with umpires? How does one score in this sport? Is your team currently winning or losing?
- -- Sean Barrett | How much does it cost to have sean@epoptic.org | the Internet installed?
My team is the readers, and the score is decidedly mixed, given recent headlines.
Sam Spade
Sam Spade stated for the record:
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
Do you see this a sport, with umpires? How does one score in this sport? Is your team currently winning or losing?
Sean Barrett | How much does it cost to have sean@epoptic.org | the Internet installed?
Sam Spade wrote:
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
I think we can distinguish serious and thoughtful criticism of the ArbCom from partisan rantings fairly easily. Suggesting that I am stacking the ArbCom with people whose politics I agree with is quite frankly absurd.
On the other hand, legitimate feedback to the ArbCom like: "you're too soft on trolls" or "you are too hard on users who have just made a minor mistake" might be right or wrong in the final analysis, but at least it is legitimate criticism.
--Jimbo
G'day Sam,
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
As an umpire in multiple sports, I've got to correct you there. Or ... perhaps you could correct us?
You see, it's commonly said in sporting folklore that, if both sides hate the neutral umpire, he must be doing everything right. If one side loves him and the other doesn't, well ... we've got a problem.
Tell you what, if you can get yourself to Canberra, Australia, I can arrange a series of lectures for you to give to my softball umpires. How's that sound?
Ruy Lopez wrote:
- Jimbo, who said he sees Wikipedia as a "von Mises model", appoints like-minded people to
ArbCom such as Fred Bauder and JayJG. Jimbo appoints conservative cronies like that, making a far worse choice than the ArbCom elections, which in my view elected some good, decent people like Raul654, who I don't always agree with, but at least is neutral, fair and so forth.
ArbCom members will recall that I initially objected to JayJG out of a concern that if his politics (about which I know nothing, by the way, other than that he has sometimes been characterized as a supporter of Israel) are viewed as similar to mine, some trolls might suggest that I'm trying to stack the ArbCom politically. David Gerard, who describes himself as a "Guardian reading socialist" quickly jumped to JayJG's defense, and I relented on this point on the view that JayJG would make an excellent arbiter. And, to my knowledge, that has been fully borne out by the facts.
I wonder when I ever said Wikipedia was a "von Mises" model. That'd be a pretty strange thing for me to say. I have pointed to Hayek's "On the Use of Knowledge in Society" as a pivotal essay in guiding my own thinking on topics like decentralization, knowledge, and society. But that's a far cry from what you are suggesting.
- So Fred Bauder, Jimbo-appointed conservative cronie from way back "does" the case, and most of
the other arbs just sign off on the work he did. I've seen this movie before. 3) Getting onto ArbCom went from Jimbo appointments (who like JayJG and Bauder are horrible), to an election, which brought in good arbs, and now he wants to go back to appointing people again.
That's not true at all. There seems to be considerable support for a hybrid model. Perhaps you haven't kept up with the poll and discussion.
Of course he can't just kill the election once it's in place, so he says he will have an election to help him decide or some garbage like that. I mean it's nonsense. Despite the "be bold" mantra, I am usually not so bold on such things, but I moved the "ArbCom 2005 elections" page to something like "Arbcom 2005 support vote" and noted that there would be no elections. Of course I was immediately reverted, and my notes on how the election is a fraud were removed.
That's not surprising, since the accusation is rather absurd.
Wouldn't it be a good thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other wiki encyclopedia?
Be sure to take all the "right wing cranks" and indeed, all the other cranks with you. :-) Then we'll be left with the kind of thoughtful and reasonable people who understand that a broad centrist open approach is the right way for an encyclopedia to be written.
--Jimbo
On 12/13/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
That's not true at all. There seems to be considerable support for a hybrid model. Perhaps you haven't kept up with the poll and discussion.
Have you outlined how exacty the comunity would go about nominateing people yet?
-- geni
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we can distinguish serious and >thoughtful
criticism of the ArbCom from partisan rantings fairly easily. Suggesting >that I am stacking the ArbCom with people whose >politics I agree with is quite frankly absurd.
Point taken, and the criticism (as well as the criticism of the criticism) is really just a red herring regardless of which way you look at it. I.e. short term appointments contradict the basic Open model, and elections would have meant that no time would have been wasted on the criticism.
On the other hand, legitimate feedback to the >ArbCom
like: "you're too soft on trolls" or "you are too hard on users who have just made a >minor mistake" might be right or wrong in the >final analysis, but at least it is legitimate >criticism.
'Might be right or wrong' sounds rather indefinitive to apply to a committe charged with making definitive decisions. I think thats what the general concern is; finding a balance between definitiveness and responsiveness.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I see no evidence of the arbcom being stacked based on political bias. That simply makes no sense. It is instead stacked w people who you (Jimbo) happen to know. Appointee's don't result in a perfect committee. Some mandate from the common man is essential.
What makes me so unhappy about my case is not only the recusals which might have occured, and the people who might have voted but did not.
I am very much saddened to be formally chastised for these 2 mistakes (and I do concede the 2 minor errors). The timing is particularly unfortunate, as I have recently gotten my first article featured ([[Human]]), and passed 30,000 edits.
To be lined up w 5 other "right wing conspirators" fingered by Cberlet... that was pretty dreadful. It has certainly called into question the rewards vrs. punishments ratio of my experience here.
I have been advised by Fred Bauder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Spade#Your_care._Arbs_strange_way...
that by emailing other arbiters, I can discuss my case (and that of what appears to be my AMA client) on the Arbcom-l list, and that is an IRC channel with the potential for conferences. I would like to pursue those remedies as could result in better outcomes in these cases.
Sam Spade
Sam Spade wrote:
Needless to say I am offended and saddened that criticism of the committe is being dismissed as the ravings of extremists. That is not a good sign. It is no compliment when those on both sides of an issue sternly criticise the "neutral" referee. When that happens in sports, it is the clearest of signals that the umpire is in the wrong.
I think we can distinguish serious and thoughtful criticism of the ArbCom from partisan rantings fairly easily. Suggesting that I am stacking the ArbCom with people whose politics I agree with is quite frankly absurd.
On the other hand, legitimate feedback to the ArbCom like: "you're too soft on trolls" or "you are too hard on users who have just made a minor mistake" might be right or wrong in the final analysis, but at least it is legitimate criticism.
--Jimbo
Sam Spade wrote:
I see no evidence of the arbcom being stacked based on political bias. That simply makes no sense. It is instead stacked w people who you (Jimbo) happen to know. Appointee's don't result in a perfect committee. Some mandate from the common man is essential.
That's why we're changing the procedure, in an attempt to get a much more universal mandate.
--Jimbo