The Endgame approaches

"One day soon there would be more conflicts between admins than between editors. This is really a bad atmosphere. Conflicts and confrontations between admins have been going on since a long time and now even worse. I really feel that the project is heading for an anarchy. The project needs to review itself before it is too late. There should be a real and '''open debate''' about the issue (like if there's ''only'' one). Big and clear rules of the game should be explicitly clear to anyone, including kids. We obviously cannot discuss this here. Again, this is heading for an anarchy. I hope it is not too late." FayssalF.

Did you see my Ragnarok comparisons in the "Umlauts" thread?

Yes, I agree.

This is explains what's wrong with Wikipedia:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/...t-20071026.html

Someone feel like transcribing or uploading it to a free image hosting place?

I sometimes wonder if Scott Adams has had a few bad experiences on WP? Or whether the things he describes are common in the workplace and online communities?

Many a Pointy-Head boss on the WP.

Yes, I was inspired by your post!

Excellent posts Kato and Joy, I personally like the comparisons. Perhaps a Wikipedia Old Guard (Loayalist) vs. New Guard (Revolutionary) struggle is developing more and more.

Actually, I am by no means sure that this is the tipping point into the abyss. But if it helps to hasten the day, it's all good.

I don't think there's going to be a single tipping point. The only way I could see that happen is if someone most people actually liked were banned unilaterally. And the people who hold the power aren't that stupid, or they wouldn't be holding it.

There is only one real answer for Wikipedia, and that is to entrust all ultimate authority to the community and ensure that power comes from below. Admins must not be allowed to act like petty warlords, making war amongst themselves while simultaneously suppressing the common folk. The current system is doomed to irreconcilable conflicts, purges and exiles, while the encyclopedia becomes increasingly secondary to that madness.

I don't understand why people think that this is such a big deal. Wow, people don't get along, why are we so shocked? Anywhere, everywhere, people don't get along. You don't become administrator and hey presto everyone gets along. Sure, most people get along with most others, but there's always a few that you don't get along with. And no matter how much you tip the scales in your favour to try to make it so that the people you promote to admin level are the ones that you like, there are always going to be people who you don't get along with. Its just how people are. It is because we are individuals.

What I think is more of a problem is that Wikipedia is putting so much emphasis on everyone getting along. Its not realistic quite frankly. Putting it in to the hands of the community in general is akin to anarchy and is going to be worse, in terms of arguments, and worse in terms of control as well. The only way to be certain of no arguments is to have only one solitary person in charge. Better yet, only have one person doing the whole thing. Unless you argue with yourself, then you're set.

If you are trying to avoid arguments then you are trying to create "yes men", which is fine in some situations, but if you want actual accuracy its not good at all.

Wouldn't it be better to have everyone argue and work towards quality rather than the pretence of it? And wouldn't it be better if those arguments were behind closed doors rather than on a talk page for all to see?

If anything I think it is a good thing that admins are disagreeing. It shows that they are human and not robotic. Its not the beginning of the end. Its how it should have been all along.

Each individual administrator is given a high degree of power to act independently, even to ignore policy and consensus in some cases. I certainly don't expect everyone to get along; what is necessary is that important decisions are made through group deliberation and that admins lose their power to impose their personal will on others. Admins should impose the community's will, not their own. That is by no means a recipe for more anarchy--it entails single decisions made in a such a way that their legitimacy (although not their correctness) cannot be contested. It means everyone plays by the same rule book and everybody is responsible to the group.

Interesting points!

It seems to me that the further you get into the inner workings of Wikipedia, the further you get away from arguments over actual content. Instead, you apparently get into arguments about peoples' hurt feelings and their desperate need for emotional support.

The problem with enforced civility isn't just that too many people ignore the rules; the problem is that the atmosphere adjusts to whatever artificial environment you create. One might easily argue that WP is turning into some sort of passive-aggressive wonderland, where the slightest hint of incivility is exaggerated beyond all hope of rationality. In the outside world, people are killing and beating each other right and left, blowing themselves up, burning homes, bombing cities, and people just yawn and reach for the remote... Whereas on Wikipedia, all you have to say is "stop being such a poopyhead" to the wrong person, and suddenly you're accused of "harassment," "stalking," "terrorism," and the like.

The fact is, they should be arguing - but arguing constructively, about real issues, for the good of all. Instead, they're arguing selfishly, which does little good for anyone... other than people who trade in popcorn futures, of course.

I just realized how someone can trade admin accounts.

If you do it online, depending on the payment system either it's most likey: the buyer loses their money or else the seller gets paid with a fake credit card (or buyer doing fraudulent chargeback) and gets stolen from.


Well, on Craigslist, their whole thing is people advertise cheaper than the newspaperrr and then they meet in person. They'd trade cash for changing an admin account's password (and removing the assoicated email address) at a personal meeting place and that's it -- unlikely of getting ripped off as long as the cash & password change synchronization can be done fast.

You know if I could get a market and enough money for it, I could get rich at it. All I need is a good telephone plan that gives me free long distance--even if I have to do it only late a night--and then I couple of ISP and then poof I could farm hundreds of admin accounts that all vote support for each other and then be selling excess accounts them to people.

Of course, I think people like SlimVirgin and Jayjg discovered that they can be paid a lot more just to use their influence of their account rather than selling accounts.

I won't do that though because it would be such a drain of time and extremely boring to make money at.

This whole argument is reminiscent of the argument that Wikipedia shouldn't ban anyone. We here at Wikipedia Review in our early days argued very heavily that Wikipedia was wrong to ever ban anyone. Then we made exceptions for hackers, spammers and people who are doing everything they can to destroy the site. And then ultimately we discovered that in their early days Wikipedia didn't ban, and tried to limit it, and this attitude created so many holes and created many of the problems that exist today. It would have been much better if they had, early on, agreed to ban people, and then banned them appropriately, and set up a sensible system for handling issues before they started rather than waiting until halfway through before writing the rule books.

The problem isn't that Wikipedia is suddenly now heading for anarchy in having arguments and so forth. Indeed you are always going to get arguments. I get along with between 70-80% of people. Somey gets along with probably about 70-80% of people. If we don't know them well its probably a higher number. But if you get 10 people, there's going to be 2 or 3 that I don't get along with. Somey is going to have another 2 or 3, and so forth for all of the other 10 in the list. Nobody gets along with everyone, and whilst it is true that there are some people who upset more people than others, and some people who "belong" in certain environments more than others, arguing is inevitable. All but robots argue.

The problem with Wikipedia is that they don't argue. The problem is that they forbid arguments. They should allow arguing. Whilst death threats and swearing and the like should be discouraged, and whilst they don't want the world to see their dirty laundry, they should simply have the arguing in private, have talk pages for articles locked from public viewing. Have user pages and especially user talk pages locked from public viewing. Become a member of Wikipedia before seeing such things. Delete Arbitration cases once they are dealt with (admins can still see deleted pages, so they can still look at them afterwards). Don't archive AN/I discussions - delete them. Just wipe them off the face of the planet.

Now for all of my saying that I get along with only 70-80% of people, I can actually hold my tongue and keep quiet for all but about perhaps 1 or 2% of people. Some people can maybe hold their tongue about a higher proportion than that. You have 100 people, there's only 1 or 2 people that I will complain about. Have 1,000 and its a bit higher. But how many people are now on Wikipedia? 20 million? 50 million? I'm not even sure how many there are. There's 2 million articles though, and there's over 1,000 different administrators.

So of course they are arguing. They should be arguing. They should be encouraged to argue. They should be encouraged to think independently. This will help Wikipedia to grow.

People shouldn't be stripped of adminship because they argue, like Everyking was. People should be encouraged to argue, to present their point, and so forth.

Groupthink isn't good because groupthink is pretending that its one person when its really many. And whilst Wikipedia was initially set up with one person's vision in mind (Jimbo Wales's) it is no longer all what he wants. So now people are saying "we think" to mean Jimbo but Jimbo may well completely disagree with it. And it creates lots of problems.

Why not have "I think" and "this is my point". Sure arguments suck. But wouldn't you rather have an argument that sorts something out than to pretend that everything is fine when its not?

I see it as a very good thing that administrators are finally starting to voice their own, independent opinions. It brings more checks and balances in to the equation. It means that the cabal is going to be less effective. It means that, rather than having one central group pushing everything in secret, it can be a group of voices pushing in a group of ways, and ultimately be a fairer and better project.

It isn't the end of Wikipedia, it may well be the cure for what is wrong with Wikipedia.

This has already happened. Take a look at the edits, and particularly the edit comments, of Nandesuka. I think you'll find plenty of aggressiveness, passive and otherwise, while he smugl stays just barely civil.

By and large, the civility rules aren't there to encourage civility but to trap contributors who aren't skilled players of the game. All you have to do is edit-war or block someone, then lead them on with an almost-but-not-quite insult, and they'll hang themselves by... (gasp!) acting like normal people who've been fucked with. It's only the sociopaths (SV!) who keep their emotions hidden while plotting revenge.

Anyhow, there's a deeper issue that you're touching on, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to write about it. Basically, it comes down to whether we stop problem behavior by systematically discouraging it or by ruthlessly punishing offenders.

Al

I thought everyking was desysoped because he posted on here saying he'd think about helping WordBomb.

Everyking was censured on Wikipedia because he disagreed with admin decisions. As the result of an Arbitration Committee case, he was put on a parole which demanded that he not comment on admin decisions. This was further extended because he then went on to Wikipedia Review forums to complain about some admin decisions. Ultimately, the excuse for de-sysopping him was that he threatened to undelete an article and/or to let WordBomb look at an article that was already deleted. This was seen to be worthy of a desysop, even though Everyking didn't actually do it.

So I was over-simplifying for the purpose of this case.

Its a bit like how I can say I was banned for:

1) Using Wikipedia Review
2) Being a critic of Wikipedia
3) Being an expert editor on Wikipedia
4) Investigating the ban on Poetlister

It all depends on how you look at it. All are true. I was initially banned for being an expert editor on Wikipedia, then this was excused because they decided that they needed an expert editor. Then I was banned because I investigated the ban on Poetlister, and under investigation they discovered that I was using Wikipedia Review and criticising Wikipedia while investigating the ban. The ban was extended to indef, and all protests by admins ended when they discovered that I was here on Wikipedia Review.

You can look at any case and suggest what is the "real" reason behind it. Multiple arguments can be true.

Officially I was banned for, uh, nobody knows what the official reason was. Because I wrote on here something bad about SlimVirgin? Because I dared to oppose her? Something like that.

In other words, let's go full steam ahead for anarchy!

I liken our mission to Kremlinologists analyzing the Soviet Union based on clues such as who is standing next to whom on Lenin's Tomb during the May Day parade in Red Square - and who is missing from the lineup.

The inevitable squabbling, backbiting and political intrigue amongst the higher-ups is the result of a power vacuum at the very top. The last thing you'd want to do is hand control to the peasants.

Eventually either the whole project collapses under the weight of its own crapulence and splinter projects (such as Veropedia) arise. Or a new dictator appears and there is a big purge of dissenters.

Yes, Wikipedia is very much like the Soviet Union, only speeded up for the Internet generation.

To "entrust" the authority to the community is an insane proposition, in my opinion. That is the very essence of what is failing at WP, right now. There is no wisdom because the kids have not had any time to gain access to same. It is an age old thing; simple as that.

Thank Goodness we have age limits in most civilized countries.

The WP system is failing because the articles default to mediocre and average. It will always be that way under the current consensus system.

It depends. It's been my experience that fewer and fewer people know how to handle conflict appropriately these days. As you've noted, the previous way many have addressed conflict was to avoid it or pretend it didn't exist. On the other hand, there are those who, when faced with disagreement, make it personal or simply argue endlessly without a real purpose. Neither avoidance nor overly aggressive arguing are healthy.

I disagree with those in the thread who think the rules regarding civility are the problem. Civility is important in an argument, otherwise things become personal, and the argument loses any purpose. However, those rules have not always been applied wisely on Wikipedia, IMO. Trying to make every one get along is not realistic, but expecting them to work together with a reasonable level of civility is necessary.

I ran across a nice quote recently that seems appropriate:
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton

Everyking: Do you really believe that the answer to everything is "all power to the community?" In many ways your community is part of the problem and the admins who act like warlords are a part of this "community" and it's dysfunctional social networking environment. There are many legitimate stakeholders who are not a part of your "community" who have an important interest in the 8th largest website in the world. They include BLP victims, commercial interest with articles on WP, advocates for children, academics and experts, representatives of ignored segments of the wider society. All of these stakeholders need to represented not just your "community."

What I want know is when you people are going to stop predicting the Twinkle Light Of The Gawds — and start doing something to Bring It On !?

Jonny

This may be inherent in the site's software. We are only blessed with "Post" and "Reply" buttons, not "Reform" or "Eliminate" at this point in time. Perhaps someone could cook up the needed patch?

Given Zscout's apology to Jimbo, the issue of Jimbo's place in the Community has for now been postponed. Based on what I'm reading on the Zscout desysop subpage, Jimbo wants a crackdown on all "trolls" and the Old Guard like JzG and MONGO are very delighted.

You thought things were bad on WP before? A Jimbo-inspired reign of terror is going to start as the Old Guard regain their power through force. Zscout will not be first to desysopped by the Sole Flounder. A new Dark Age is coming (Jonny will say that the first Dark Age of WP hasn't ended yet let alone time for a Second Dark Age and I must concede to that point )

Happy Halloween. Maybe I'll go dressed as the WP logo or even Jimbo?

Sorry, Spiel, I did not realize that you were trapped with the bowels of the forum software.

Jonny

HEY JIMBO... I'm putting together a "WRECKING CREW" of, as many of my local buds, I can to
assault Wikpeida in ways, as to prompt it's destruction, though chaos and anarchy and bold face
vandalism and attack.

Wikipeida will not be allowed to hurt my local friends.

JIMBO, GAMEIAL/ PROPOL ..we will be coming back and you are not going to stop us
this time around...

Please don't. All you'd accomplish is getting you and your "local buds" blocked, while providing more ammunition for the anti-WR people.

Joe's the loosest of the resident loose cannons. he can get a bit scary at times. he and JustZitsGuy should get togther in a smoky back wikiroom and compare med regiments.

So, what.... they will be block as individuals, if they edit on Wikipeida, in the spirit of true NPOV any way, so ... You know Wikpeida is a wild west, so BFD... BIG F**King DEAL. My friends care little for the wikipeida and care very much what wikipeida is doing to our friends....

Besides how will they stop it unless the DORK RUYLONG blocks all the Ip numbers in the Greater Chicagoland region, AT&T/COMCAST/ etc... which consist of millions of IP's .... HE HAW... That should give them a little attention to the local News Media or interviews with local collage/university instructors...

Wikpeida need that kind of attention to help it's cause...NOT.

So... me and my friends have NO FEAR of wikipeida OR as it should be known as..

THE CULT OF THE "JIMBO WALES JUICE CHUGGING CHUMPS".

The first two sentences are correct. The third sentence is iffy; while the time that extension happened (July 2006) does correspond fairly neatly to when I began posting on WR (a few months prior), there was never any indication that WR had anything to do with it. When the ArbCom banned me from ANI, they specifically allowed me to continue to discuss admin actions on admins' talk pages, and I, naive fool that I am, went ahead and discussed admin actions on admins' talk pages. The ArbCom alleged that this was a way of trying to wiggle out of their ruling, and instead of just closing this "loophole" (although at the time it had not appeared to be a loophole, but in fact a deliberate provision to allow me to continue to have input on admin matters), they extended their prior restrictions (now due to expire in two days) and heaped on some new ones too. The specific incident that they nailed me on involved me admonishing an admin for threatening a newbie with a block because the newbie did not know how to do wiki formating. So the whole thing was absurd, but I can't say that the absurdity was actually a cover for punishing me for participating on WR.

The fourth sentence is not quite correct. I never threatened anybody (who would I have threatened?); I just suggested I might be willing to post some deleted article text for public review, without having any idea what it contained (and I still really don't know), although I then decided not to post it (but, as you note, that made no difference to the ArbCom). I did not suggest undeleting it. It's worth noting that the incident, taken in isolation, logically cannot be the ultimate reason for the desysoping, since later A Man In Black showed up here and went much further than I did by actually revealing the content of a deleted revision, but nothing happened to him. Phil Sandifer, to his credit, got it right: it was essentially an excuse to impose a penalty that the ArbCom had wanted to impose for a long time (they had previously been unable to do so because I never stepped out of line with admin tools).

OK, let's start the WikiDead Pool.

Everyking - Nov 15
dtobias - Nov 21
amarkov - Nov 30
Dudley - oh wait, that WR'ian is still rolling around happy in WP pig shite as Mantanmoreland


There's a disturbance in the WikiForce and Jimbo is running roughshod throught the Jedi temple with both sabers blazing.

Most of us WR'ians didn't post here until after The Banning. The Entrants in the WikiDead Pool had the Balls to WR whilst still WPedia-ing.

I just had to throw the "whilst" in there, to see what writing like an insufferable prick is like. Usually I just try to imitate Sting to accomplish that!

It's probably just as well, really. True, it'll be harder for them than blocking, say, Qatar, or AOL, as they've done in the past... but who really needs Chicago, anyway? I mean, sure, it's a good place to go shopping on a weekend, and they have some pretty good pizza there, but that's not worth much if you're lactose-intolerant, is it?

Everyking will probably last at Wikipedia until he chooses to quit, unless he messes up somehow and they use that against him. He isn't a particularly big threat to anyone so he is able to work for the most part without incident.
ADDENDUM: I might have to reassess due to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168211232

Dtobias - Marked by JzG, I can see a finite life but Tobias is smart and has friends although he does have a penchant for rustling feathers. The ball is in Guy's court whether or not to move against him.

Amarkov - Not sure, haven't actually looked at his contribs, but aligning yourself anywhere near WR or the Dtobias category is a knock against you.



True enough, I basically entered Self Exile when I started posting here, and I proudly display such a tag on my user page to this day!

Are you interested in discussing the ethics of block or ban circumvention?

Well, if so, I would say that the WP does have a right to restrict access to
their website - it is their website, after all. There is no requirement that a
block or ban be fair or just or beneficial to anyone - it is merely part of WP's
self-determination. Hence, in the absence of other issues, a blocked or
banned user ethically should respect the block or ban and refrain from
editing for its duration. However, it should also be noted that by blocking
or banning a user, WP releases that user from all WP rules except the one
about not editing while blocked or banned, and the user owes WP nothing
beyond that at that point.

WP does not, however, have the ethical right to release private information
about people, drag peoples names or pseudonyms through the dirt
(including but not limited to defamation) in a public area like on top of Google,
or emotionally abuse people, including blocked or banned users. If WP does
any of these things, particularly if it does them to the blocked or banned user
in question, and refuses to take down the content upon request, that user
no longer owes WP anything, including refraining from editing while blocked
or banned. Hence, it may be ethically acceptable under certain circumstances
to circumvent blocks or bans. This does not mean is it recommended, as it
could easily make matters worse, but it is ethically acceptable.