Business management wonks have a saying: "Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it's getting; whether good or bad."

That may sound simplistic, but -- business management types will tell you -- failing to recognize it impedes countless dysfunctional organizations from becoming functional organizations.

From 35,000 feet, Wikipedia, as the 8th most popular website on earth, is a stellar success. And to the extent that traffic is a true indicator of success, it could not easily be more successful.

However, as we all know, zoom in a bit and you'll find that its success has come despite some deeply-rooted dysfunction that runs counter to Wikipedia's de facto mission of making the whole of human knowledge available to the world.

If it's true that every organization is designed to get the results it's getting, then there's something inherent to Wikipedia as an entity that should make the abuses we've all experienced no great surprise. Indeed, given the nature of the organization, these abuses are inevitable. And, if history is any indication, the problem will not solve itself.

There's got to be an intervention.

It's tempting to want to make the outcome of this process as simple as sending Gary Weiss away, or restricting him from touching the four articles he WP:OWNs, or banning some or all of his accounts, etc., but that's all artificial. After all, he'll be back, or others who share his opinions will show up, and the next thing you know, there's a pile of "Mantanmoreland" socks stacked as high as the pile of alleged WordBomb socks and (if you'll pardon the cliche) we'll have become the thing we sought to destroy.

What WordBomb wants (and I'm certain many others want) is to take a real step toward solving the problem by understanding what is it about Wikipedia that made it possible, nay inevitable, for the 8th most popular website on the earth to be used as a literal weapon against me and others.

At the risk of comparing these relatively minuscule atrocities to the real things as seen in South Africa or Rwanda, etc., What WordBomb wants is a truth and reconciliation effort to take place, in which everybody (myself included) takes ownership of their part in this madness.

Under those circumstances, I find it very hard to believe that Gary Weiss will stick around, meaning that problem, at least, will be solved in a very natural way.

So that's what WordBomb wants: for everybody to put it all out there in a (non-ArbCom) setting separate from the present Mantanmoreland/Samiharris/Gary Weiss inquest, where we can all look one another in the eye and own up to our words and deeds, and see if there might just be something that can be learned, and -- with some luck -- this sort of thing made less likely to happen again.

That's what WordBomb wants (even though I don't intend to be part of Wikipedia when it's done).

However, because it's the opposite of what David Gerard, Guy Chapman, Fred Bauder, FloNight, Morven, MONGO, Crum375, George William Herbert, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Hu12, Jpgordon, Jimbo Wales, and Gary Weiss want, I might be forced to lower my expectations. A lot.

Is what WordBomb wants even worth considering?

I support that 100%. While I realize that Mantanmoreland fessing up to sockpuppetry is only a small step in that direction, that's why I suggested it. People must first accept that the system was (is) rigged, and understand how and why.

Mantanmoreland isn't even a sysop, much less an arbitrator, so cannot reasonably be blamed for the system whose features (not bugs!) he and so many others exploit.

Mannymoresocks won't be fessing up to anything. That wikipedian will not be holding hands with wordy and singing kumbaya my lord.

From the innocent Tomstoner days of canvassing Jajyg to cover his back on a 3RR, to learning how to do it himself with triplesock 9RR soopersekretpowers, to laughing all the way to the "you've been banned as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb". This spoiled delinquent went through wikijuvenile detention, learned how to really abuse wikisociety, and is now a full-fledged WP:DICK. A made wikiman.

And like Jayjg, it's even more obvious now that if you goodmins haven't been able to ban this guy by now, that he's on the "We Got Your Back, Boyee!" sooper sekret list. It must really piss off you all off. The Badmins are laughing their crooked fat asses off and the goodmins get knocked around for it anyway.

I'm sure that WP can count on W-R to keep on showing the "Abusive Admins Gone Wild" show; there is a consistent cast of core characters running the joint that are stranger than fiction.

It seems to me that to even be able to think about "truth and reconciliation" here, you'd have to set up some sort of Keynesian self-interest paradigm doohickey whereby the major players on both sides become convinced that they're better off doing what they should have been doing all along. It's basically a carrot-and-stick approach, but since it's the internet, you can't easily produce a stick, even if you could produce a fairly decent-sized carrot. The possibility of further "drama" and bad publicity might come close, but many of the major WP players you've named have shown little or no interest in trying to maintain (or salvage) WP's reputation in the press and in IT circles, preferring to concentrate on that really high Alexa ranking as their sole external measure of success.

There are a lot of people in that group, and more besides, who see this as a minor issue - a tempest in a teapot, an "irritant," something that would go away if they could only get a few more people to ignore it. How do you get them to understand that the issue won't go away, at least not unless Weiss himself goes away? And I think we also have to remember that Weiss isn't an isolated case - we know about him because the people he used WP as a weapon against decided to fight back, and were willing to accept some very nasty verbiage directed their way in the process. Clearly there are others, many of whom we know about, but there are plenty we don't know about, I'm quite sure of that.

The idea that one has to spend two years of one's life investigating and publicizing various abuses in order to successfully challenge someone who's determined to use Wikipedia as a revenge platform against you, and who can muster administrative support in doing so by extensive trading of favors, tag-teaming, ad nauseam, is not tolerable to a civilized society. Particularly since it also involves being bashed by them almost constantly... But as we've all seen, merely getting some of them to understand that WP, by its very nature, is significantly different from an ordinary static site or blog specifically set up to bash someone... ehh, let's just say that's extremely difficult.

And I'm writing this knowing full well that the current situation is a lot better than it was two years ago.

Three points that may or may not be applicable here, but I wanted to make them.

The trouble is everyone (WR included) is convinced their "side" is right and the other side is wrong, but fail to realise the other side is equally convinced that they are right and you are wrong.

A fundamental problem of the internet is because it's so removed from reality, few feel any real responsibility for their actions. On Wikipedia, this means people are free to act as they please (q.v. Guy Chapman) without most fully comprehending every username they belittle or block has a real person behind it.

It also doesn't help that half of Wikipedia's admins are self-diagnosed aspies with all the social awareness of dog doo, an utter failure to accept any kind of responsibility for their own words or actions, and an absolute incapability of ever changing their mind, ever.

Well worth considering, WordBomb. Credible dispute resolution, outside the influence and odd passions of the dysfunctional WP "community" is perhaps the single most fundamental reform possible. Wikipedia, per the usual Web 2.0 Cult of the Amateur display or simultaneous ignorance and arrogance, acts as if such independent dispute resolution does not exist or is beyond their reach. In fact such dispute resolution is readily available and would be the best commitment of resources possible.

A mutually agreeable process for dispute resolution is a core feature of a mutually agreeable social contract. Interminable conflicts like the one discussed above arise because of the absence of a functional social contract with a functional dispute resolution process. In the absence of such a social contract, the predictable and inevitable outcome is lunatic social drama.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that is applicable here either, but I want to respond to it.

Philosophically speaking, of course I do not think there should be any "sides". But something, at least in western culture, encourages people to find a side, and hold beliefs that agree with that particular side. Holding an opposing view to that side is then a traitorous act.

It's encouraged on Wikipedia in jargon. "Wikipedian" is an obviously nationalistic sounding term that is used to define individuals in a group. A single word to define an individual! I would much rather Wikipedia got rid of this term, and started referring to themselves as "people" (or a person).

It's a subtle observation that is probably impossible to fix, but is what I think is the root cause of an "us and them" mentality that disrupts wikipedia on a daily basis.

Another solution would be encouraging the destruction of the ego, where everyone that edits wikipedia becomes just a drip of water in the ocean, not special in anyway, with no username reputation and the like.

Hey...Wikipedia seems to encourage other hippy dippy type philosophies, why not ego destruction? It would rid us of JzG and SV, at minimum...

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be listening to White Rabbit and rocking back and forth as if I am in a trance.

All of the above are directly and inextricably linked to the demographics of the site itself.
No age limitations on the power therein and therefore, there is a veritable black hole when it comes to any attempt to find true wisdom.



Well worded. There is an axiom that I cherish:

There are 3 sides to every conflict: my side, your side, and then there is the truth.

People with Asperger's at least try to recognize that they should have social awareness and responsibility. Remember, Jimbo subscribes to a philosophy that values absolute self-interest.

What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs

I wanna thank you
For giving me time to breathe
Like a rock you waited so patiently
While I got it together
While I figured it out (yeah)
I only looked but I never touched
'Cause in my heart was a picture of us
Holding hands, making plans
And it's lucky for me you understand

What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever makes me happy and sets you free
And I'm thanking you for knowin' exactly
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever keeps me in your arms
And I'm thanking you for giving it to me

What I want
is whatcha got
And whatcha got
is what I want

There was a time I was blind
I was so confused
I'd un away just to hide it all from you
But baby you knew me better
Than I knew myself-yeah
They say if you love something let it go
And if it comes back, it's yours, that's how you know
It's for keeps, yeah
It's for sure
And you're ready and willing to give me more than

What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever makes me happy and sets you free
And I'm thanking you for knowin' exactly
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever keeps me in your arms
And I'm thanking you for giving it to me

Oh baby
Oh darling
Thank you, thank yoooooooooooo-yeah yeah

What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Somebody sensitive, crazy, sexy, cool, like you-yeah
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Somebody who can't come and go, nobody, like you do
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
You let a wordbomb know how much you
Care about her, I swear
You're the one who always knew

What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever makes me happy and sets you free
And I'm thanking you for knowin' exactly
What a wordbomb wants
What a wordbomb needs
Whatever keeps me in your arms
And I'm thanking you for giving it to me

Thank you
Thank you
for giving me what I want
ohh
I turn around and stare
whenever you're not there
ooh yeah.

I was thinking of something like that earlier on today.

Ah gee that was...ummm...very interesting of you.

No it isn't. My reaction was similar to WB's. Why is WP asking Wordbomb what they should do with Gary Weiss? This reminds me of the Brandt affair. These men aren't asking for tit-fo-tat. They're pointing out wrongs that the normal human beings on WP should be able to recognize and correct within the framework of what their own organization is supposed to be adhering to.

Judicial Branch to the W-Post: Hey Woodward, Bernstein. You got Tricky Dick good. What should we do with him?

Are there 15 year olds, mentally or otherwise, running WP?