People have been telling me for ages to write another essay, and as at the moment I feel individual opinions are more valued than content, perhaps now is a good time to shelve the proper writing and write an essay. I'm calling this essay "Why we are here" because it covers two distinct areas I want to explore - Why are we here on Wikipedia, and Why are we here at this moment in time where every utterance and demand for honesty I make seems to result in a block. Why being "nice" gets me no where and why being strident gets some answers but usually an accompanying block.




Contents [hide]
1 IRC#admins and me
2 The Arbcom and me
3 Editors in general
3.1 The Good
3.2 The Bad
3.3 The Ugly
4 Our Admins - what should we expect from them?
5 IRC
5.1 The case for it
5.2 The case against it
6 Why do we stay
7 Our future



IRC#admins and me
Why we write for Wikipedia? is a good question, and I can only answer for myself. I actually like creating pages, I like seeing them grow, I like watching them become comprehensive, yeah, and I like thinking I did that, and I like people telling me how clever I am. Hopefully they also give some free enlightenment to someone and further the aims of a project in which I believe 100%. Editing though is not easy, we have all had pages edited by the stupid, the ignorant, the pretentious, and sometimes by people whose opinions do coincide with our own - we have to accept that as part of the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." philosophy.

What we don't have to accept is being treated as a lowly serf by ignorant power-seeking admins who themselves contribute nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Those of us who do not chose to be admins, but spend most of our time writing the encyclopedia, are the equal of any other editor here, and we deserve to be treated as such. In my view, we are not.

Last night having uttered the terrible, I thought jocular, phrase [1] "Ah my little gnome-like stalker how are you?" to an editor who had been contradicting almost every comment I made on Wikipedia for the last God knows how long, (checking his edit's today , I see his far from a wiki-gnome) I signed off for the night "with gone to bed" or something similar, as I often do, turned off the email but before turning off the computer decided to add one last mammoth edit to the category I am writing, as I pressed save "You are blocked" the entire edit lost (yes, I should write in word processor, but as my spelling proves I don't) what has happened I thought? Well, what happened was something that happens all too frequently on Wikipedia, the humourless little Admin, had sent one of his mates round from IRC to "sort me." Of course what he actually did was lose the encyclopedia a mammoth edit and inconvenience me, I know it caused great rejoicing and mirth on IRC, but what was really the point?

From the moment that Admin breezed into #admins with the comment: "sigh, I just got called a stalker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...205655662" his intentions and the ultimate outcome were never in any doubt. The Arb, FT2, called that a sanity check, I call it something quite different. All the little Admins there began to squeak excitedly, and as they squeaked, and Howcheng quoted the Arbcom ruling, our heroic admin said "but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine." and then just to cover his tracks warned: "just don't use the reason "'per irc"" and mindful of those instructions, off into the night slunk kwsn to perform the act, and indeed he did not say: "per IRC." Now, of course we all know the truth and can form our own opinions.

What I found most interesting, however, was the reaction on IRC#admins after the deed was done. In the presence of an Arb (who I don't think was there when the block was conspired), the place was mayhem, like a mad-house, to the background noise of one of them screaming repeatedly "Kunta Kinte - fucking Kinte" and "You made a personal attack! You fucking skunk!" our esteemed admins discussed the block. when the possibility of discussing the matter on the Admins Notice board was mentioned by the Arb, another of our admins screamed "I hate AN/I - Hate, hate, hate." The Arb said nothing. FT2 has reviewed the log today, and found nothing concerning. Perhaps you reading this, also find nothing concerning. I find the fact that this is how the rulers, of what is supposed to be a reputable encyclopedia read by millions, behave in secret more than concerning, I think it has to stop.

So to return to why are we here? It's a good question isn't it? Many of us have invested hours of our time writing for the project, and want to see the pages on which we have worked maintained, reading the above it is obvious the admins are incapable of doing so, let me emphasise that not all Admins are bad, but the IRC clique, the ungovernable rabble now have the upper hand, basically as the silent Arb in that channel proved yesterday, the Arbs are frightened to address the issue. It is easier, and safer for them, to see editors driven off in droves than risk their own popularity in the mad house.

Within moments of beginning to document the above, intimidation from Admins started, a warning of yet another block arrived as I was in mid flow [2] - this leads me to ask, what are they frightened of? Not one word above is untrue, distorted or exaggerated. A block was wrongfully conspired in IRC, they were caught, and suddenly a mad panic to protect themselves was launched. Most amusingly a scripted little conversation took place in IRC to try and re-write history and was even posted on my page as proof [3]. Now who was that supposed to fool? They knew I would not fool for it. No, the intended victim was the rank and file editor, and this is how many of our admins behave on a day to day basis in IRC.

The future though does have some promising signs, not many, but some. people are waking up and beginning to wonder why I'm blocked so often, and why I'm saying the things I do, I was very encouraged by this edit yesterday from an editor I don't know [4] people are starting to say "what exactly is going on here?"


The Arbcom and me
My first experience with the Arbcom was in a case involving a notorious sockpocket and troll User: Eternal Equinox, I can't remember how I first came across her, I think she was giving the crowd I mixed with some trouble. She used to do irritating little things like edit pages n FAC removing content, and altering words, just the little trolling stuff, one gets. Then she became a real problem and an Arbcom case resulted. This [5] was my first encounter with the might of the Arbcom, or to be more precise Fred Bauder. I had made the famous "Sushi" comment (the user was claiming to be in Japan, while she trolled with another account, and the comment proved she was lying [6] she must have been the only person in Japan with no idea.). For once in my wiki-life I was truly shocked. I was barely involved yet Fred write up the suggestion that I be banned for a month [7] - quite extraordinary. Of course it received scant attention, but strangely no one other Arb said "hey, what is this?" or "Fred are you feeling quite well" No, it was just accepted as normal behaviour. Thus lead to me to great thoughts , how many less eloquent and able to defend themselves endure this type of thing, indeed how many are wrongly blocked because of what...? a mistake, personal dislike, an Arb was feeling off colour. It would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? It was about this time, I began to realise that wikipedia was a slightly odd place.

Then came the famous hate speech affair.


Editors in general

The Good
The above all sound very negative, but away form that sea of dross and the inane, Wikipdia has many terrific and valuable editors, some are Admins many are not. I'm not going tp name Wikipedia's great editors, because if I forget one it owuld look bad, and there are many of them, I don't know them all, but they all have one thing in common.


The Bad

The Ugly

Our Admins - what should we expect from them?

IRC

The case for it

The case against it

Why do we stay

Our future

"Kunta Kinte" - what does that mean?

The problem with using "IRC!" as a smokescreen is, those who go there know in fact it's extremely rare, so naturally it loses credibility and is seen as a way to further a "politicized" agenda, by those who have bad memories of IRC from years back. We have an agreed structure to address problems in the channel, yet "for whatever reason" those who feel there is a problem never actually come to me (or any channel operator) to have it resolved. They instead pass logs round, a move guaranteed to shed more heat, but not actually solve the problem. That to me says a lot; a person genuinely with a concern would ask to discuss it, and aim for resolution, just like any other dispute. These cases though are never used for dispute resolution, but only ever for dispute escalation. (Also often quite tenuous when examined.) That seems to say something.

C'mon Peter. You never read or seen Roots?

As you write this, please remember that if you make edits that are personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith, you may be blocked, per the arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do what you feel is best for the project! Giano (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone comes to the conclusion that blocking Giano over a userspace essay is best for the project, my already flagging faith in this community will probably hit a record low. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Alienation of Giano is emblematic of the alienation of many participants who have become disillusioned, disgruntled, and disgusted with the project.

True, but some appear to be gluttons for punishment. Giano reminds me of the cliché battered spouse. She (yeah alright!... he) knows she's in an abusive relationship but puts up with his crap and the continual black eyes because she loves him and she can change him.

Oh God, that has made me think - is that really how it looks?

Oh God, that has made me think - is that really how it looks? shit!

Giano

Oh God, that has made me think - is that really how it looks? shit!

Giano

All of this personal stuff is very interesting, but the question is, what are the principles involved?

1. Giano’s point as I understand it is that having an IRC channel goes against the principle that Wikipedia originally stood for, i.e. transparency of discourse, open and free discussion &c. I basically agree with him here.

Doc’s point, if you follow the discussion now going on at ANI, is that you cannot prevent this sort of thing going on, and that making IRC transparent will simply force the real business onto another more secret channel, which is worse.

Who is right?

1. Giano’s point as I understand it is that having an IRC channel goes against the principle that Wikipedia originally stood for, i.e. transparency of discourse, open and free discussion &c. I basically agree with him here.

Doc’s point, if you follow the discussion now going on at ANI, is that you cannot prevent this sort of thing going on, and that making IRC transparent will simply force the real business onto another more secret channel, which is worse.

"having an IRC channel" does not go against that principle. An IRC channel could be every bit as transparent, open and free, etc, as this forum or as any talk page.

The problem is not the existence of the channel. The problem is the no-logging policy.



It's not already?

I'm not talking about IRC - I'm not aware of the existence of any secret channel

But... Why hasn't Giano spoken out equally against secret _mailing lists_?

But... Why hasn't Giano spoken out equally against secret _mailing lists_?

Answering the point somewhere up there - the essay is far from finished - very far in fact!

I think I have in my long career, fully addressed secret mailing lists somewhere - I seem to recall ruffling quite a few feathers on that one!

Giano

All of this personal stuff is very interesting, but the question is, what are the principles involved?

1. Giano’s point as I understand it is that having an IRC channel goes against the principle that Wikipedia originally stood for, i.e. transparency of discourse, open and free discussion &c. I basically agree with him here.

Doc’s point, if you follow the discussion now going on at ANI, is that you cannot prevent this sort of thing going on, and that making IRC transparent will simply force the real business onto another more secret channel, which is worse.

Who is right?

There is privacy, and there is secrecy.

True, but some appear to be gluttons for punishment. Giano reminds me of the cliché battered spouse. She (yeah alright!... he) knows she's in an abusive relationship but puts up with his crap and the continual black eyes because she loves him and she can change him.

I don't think anyone's yet proposed a viable mechanism for having one without it devolving into the other.

However, in defense of IRC, some of the discussion in the admins channel actually accomplishes the purpose for which the channel was intended, rapid attention to problems that are best not called attention to publicly. Problems seem to arise when IRC is used as a substitute for on-wiki discussion of things that should be discussed publicly.

Such is the all consuming hatred and anger, I feel for the Arbcom and their condoning of the repeatedly bad behaviour in IRC#admins, I feel, for my own sake and sanity, at present, unable to edit Wikipdia. The undercurrents fostered by both factions undermine the project, and betray its supposed founding principles. I may be back sooner or later, at the moment, I just don't know. I have never felt so disgusted and slapped in the face by such people as those I have encountered in the last few days. To those who have agreed with me, or helped me, thanks and good luck.

Please do not post anything further on this page, I just do not want to encourage any more edits from FT2 of justification from the IRCAdmins. I am truly sickened.

Thank you. Giano (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II"

Reading some of the leaked comments and dialogue from the admins IRC channel, I'm surprised and dismayed by the sheer amount of profanity and coarse discourse going on there, apparently not adequately controlled. Although it may be debatable as to whether the channel is being misused for making admin decisions, it doesn't seem to be debatable that a lot of the discussion that goes on there is unprofessional and inappropriate and would never be allowed to take place on-wiki without some blocks being handed out. This doesn't reflect well on the project that we would officially permit this kind of behavior to take place. I would suggest, that instead of yourself and other arbitrators trying and failing to monitor the channel, that a better solution is simply to cast it off. Order it removed from Foundation servers and delete the IRC page. The IRC members can continue to chat on it, but as a privately run IRC hosted elsewhere. Before you're tempted to dismiss my suggestion, think in the long term, wouldn't this remove the problem of Wikipedia appearing to officially sanction the unbecoming conduct that is going on on that channel? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post anything further on this page, I just do not want to encourage any more edits from FT2 of justification from the IRCAdmins. I am truly sickened.

It seems FT2 has a real knack for driving good contributors off of Wikipedia.

Godspeed, man!

One of these days we should resurrect our own MediaWiki installation to collaboratively write a "Wikipedia For Non-Dummies" book, which would essentially be a for-print volume containing all the reasons why people shouldn't get involved with WP. Giano would be the perfect choice to write up the section on "Back-Channel Administrative Communications," I suspect!

Whether or not there is an admin IRC is missing the big issue. Any group of people who obtain power will find ways to maintain and enhance their power. The only solution I know to this problem is the Roman Republic model where the leaders are elected to annual one year terms and are not allowed to run for reelection.

The problem, I think, is that there's far too much wrapped up in the "admin" role. I can anticipate every objection to the idea of having admins serve for only one year, or forbidding multiple terms, and it all comes down to one thing: Who would do the grunt-work?

The technical abilities that come with being a "sysop" need to be separate from the other roles of an "administrator" - ideally we'd have even more fine-grained assignment of capabilities.

The technical abilities that come with being a "sysop" need to be separate from the other roles of an "administrator" - ideally we'd have even more fine-grained assignment of capabilities.

the death of a thousand cuts

I wrote to an arb the other day to ask if its was the arbcom's intention to allow this situation to continue until the community is entirely polarised into the two intended camps - or whether other solutions were being thought about.

The answer was they're pretty much out of ideas. Giano is sanctioned to be civil - but as Geogre has so eloquently argued, civility is an entirely subjective idea, subject to constant flux, cultural values and at root, indefinable. Anyone seen Gordon Ramsey recently? Is our standard of civility on WP as subject to the US systemic bias as any article? Puritan at heart, middle class, young rather than old? People claim Giano trots out blaming IRC as a smokescreen for these subjective "civility" indiscretions - but equally, claiming Giano's supposed incivility is paramount rather than the issues he raises is equally a smokescreen. I live in the UK - home of Gordon f-in Ramsey and the The F***ing Fulfords, where "fuck off arsehole" can easily be construed as a term of endearment, or just a forthright challenged to explain yourself. We seem to have an awfull lot of shrinking violets here, but really I don't believe them. If you accuse Giano of gaming the system for whatever reason, then what of the poor, faux-injured offended? "Gnome like stalker", please - as Gordon would have it "Grow a pair".

Being offended has become a gambit - the possibility of offence is cause for warnings. So if you want to obscure the issues Giano has raised, what better way than to further exploit the notion of "normal standards of civility to your own ends". And what a sad bunch we are for claiming a false sensitivity as a gambit for empowerment - do we have no pride? But really - anything please rather than deal with the issues. Carchorath - I respect you quite a bit - but see how your offer to provide stats on blocking and who did it to established users, was eagerly picked up - they call that kicking it into the long grass. So instead of the divisive outright banning of Giano, which his detractors doubtless have argued for - he gets the death by a thousand cuts - any prat with a badge and an ill-formed sense of duty may block him at will, and that's just dandy by the community.

Well that's just daft as arseholes and twice as nasty - as my grandmother used to say - really, she was from the East-end, heaven forbid! she probably wouldn't be accepted into a 50's middle class dinner party, but this is the 21st century and we're a global virtual community - so rather than continuing to propogate our middle class exclusions, what's needed is a better formed view of cultural values - and some considerable latitude in the way people deport themselves - being offensive isn't criminal - threatening people with realistic harm, the sort of harm other than text on a computer screen, clearly is - let's get some perspective here - life, the world and certainly wikipedia can never be some blissful nirvana where we all strut around with flowers in our hair, people just aren't built like that - no-one is.

I'm completely fucked off with hearing about the technical intricacies of why IRC can't be brought under WP control - the simple truth is it suits all the vested interests to keep it that way - if our place to discuss BIO issues and concerted disruption attempts can't reform itself, the community will do it for it. Let's fuck off freenode and set one up we can be confident of, where we can post logs if necessary - or they can at least be routinely logged - let's have our IRC complaints board - on wiki. Let's have less faux offence and more fucking dissent please - from the moment Giano was endicted for the ludicrous 'hate speech' incident, we've had a process of increasing radicalization from both camps that now threatens to rip the community asunder. Let's have an end to the ridiculous voting system where someone gains the second place in the for votes in an election and yet gets no reward - controversialness shouldn't be a bar to power, it's representive of an opposing view and should be included. Giano isn't the problem here - it's a culture that allows ludicrous extremes of political correctness go unchecked. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Worry
I worry... that more text has been posted on Giano than any other single subject in Wikipedia; that the meta-text of WP has far outstripped the text, which was the point of the exercise in the first place; that near-meaningless busy-work such as biography infoboxes, quibbles over -or vs. -our, and citation styles, etc. have overtaken concerns of content. Giano has contributed exemplary content on subjects most people know nothing about and that I, for one, couldn't possibly muster enough enthusiasm to create (though I work in an architectural research institute), yet love to read. Regardless of these contributions, he is the centre of a firestorm of such proportion... words fail me. Meanwhile, I regularly find WP editors who, untroubled, contribute sexist or racist slurs in the name of balance, pseudoscience in the name of NPOV, and plain crap in the name of "citable" over "true". Meanwhile, I frequently read that "Wikipedia is not a democracy"... as though that's a noble thing. It's despicable. Every human endeavour should be a democracy - or democracy should be strived for in every human endeavour. Giano has raised fundamental questions regarding the undemocratic nature of Wikipedia... actually, the facts hardly rise to the level of political theory, the discussion is overwhelmingly high-school in tone and content. For those who are offended by Giano's various hyperbolic comments, are you such lambs that you can be rounded up by his barking? More plainly, haven't you got better things to do? Pinkville (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the UK; what passes in Ireland for normal robust discourse in the politest of circles seems to be intolerable to the hyper-sensitive Wiki-establishment. Mind you, I suspect this manufactured civility is merely a weapon that establishment uses to purge malcontents. I note your I could play around and look at what I wrote, figure out if anything crossed the line". Without any disrespect - this reads like fear. Are we all so cowed by the Wiki "community"? Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...and a supportive "Don't be so stupid" post from Giano's talk page. I don't agree with the potential interpretation that being polite does not matter, but I do agree with the sentiment that being unnecessarily offended does. It's an important point: WP:CIVIL is a good thing, enforcing WP:CIVIL is a bad thing - the rules have become more important than the purpose of the rules (yet this was the purpose of Ignore All Rules).

What matters is getting the job done in the right way. If being rude gets in the way of doing that, it's a problem. And if being polite gets in the way, it's a problem, too. Once politeness becomes a goal in itself (and FT2 more than anyone stands for this) then something has gone badly wrong.

I would be up for some Wiki work - explain all these cases with the principles involved clearly explained up front, and NO jargon. Wikipedia Review?

before SanFranciscogate,

I still believe there's a good bit of money to be made writing a book that would really skewer the culture and management of Wikipedia;
Greg

But, then, every word would be out in the public before publication

It is a mistake to conclude from the Giano drama that WP:CIVIL needs to be changed. The reason Giano was blocked and keeps getting blocked is not because of his incivility. The CIVIL rule is invoked because it is the most subjective rule. If WP:CIVIL did not exist, it would have been ruled that Giano violated a different rule.

I'm sure you are right (nothing glaringly wrong with WP:CIVIL which says lots of sensible things), which comes back to the point of people being too keen on rules - forgetting (or ignoring) why rules were put in place.

Here is an experiment. Let WMF declare an Ignore All Rules week. Nobody can complain that rules are being broken, people are being uncivil, blah, blah, blah. The only blocks allowed are for blatant vandalism. Protect all the noticeboards, switch off IRC.

Would Wikipedia collapse in a heap? I doubt it, because if people are editing there, they are doing it for a purpose that would not be changed by the rules. Gnomes would keep gnoming and so on, admins would be left to admin the encyclopaedias, not the editors. Yes, there would be some dicks around, but we cope with that in the real world, why not in Wikipedia?