Inducing Psychological Trauma as a Deterrent Strategy ... Theoretical question.

We recognise that there is a fair degree of sadistic abuse on the Wikipedia.

Some commentators have stated that there is also a fair degree of masochistic abuse (... why work for free ... pay to work for free ... and then be abused at your voluntary workplace! Insane.).

Some contributors and admins are abusive by ignorance or nature.
Some contributors and admins probably come from abusive backgrounds and do not recognise their behaviour as being abnormal and are immune to it.
Some rare Wikipedian contributors and admins have even stated they enjoy it.
Many contributors and admins are at an age, level or education or from a social disposition, where abusive behavior is the norm.

I suspect the majority of contributors are not. However, it would be fairly reasonable to assume that those attracted to "authority positions", and are willing and able to invest the time and energy to earn them, include a higher degree of sociopaths and psychopaths.

So, the question is ... is outright abuse an efficient strategy in Wikipedia reform?

By "outright abuse", I mean trolling, stalking, repeatedly hectoring, targeting specific individuals and, doing what is called in war ... harrying. Being an asshole in other words.

Does turning on your PC and logging into Wikipedia only to find yet another profane invective, or even intelligent challenge on your talk page, flashing orange or red at you, put you or people off? Or do you love it?


I do not come from an abusive background. I do not mix with such people in my real life.

What I find abusive is having to be reduced to the level of dishonest and slimy manipulation many contributors and admins are willing to stoop to. Being force to waste my life on someone that obviously does not know their subject and is willing to use underhand tatics to defend their turf and rubbish another human. It is bad enough having to read fake, sanctimonious lies from someone that you-know-that-they-know-that-you-know-that-they-are-bullshitting ... but yet they are still willing to do so BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE POWER and I have fallen into their web.

Obvious, psychological trauma is used as a deterrent strategy by axe grinders ... that is what sadists use, and that is part of the joy in dishonest summaries or false allegations, blocks and bans etc on the Pee-dia ... does it work in return to such people?

How else does one deal with such people ... except from walking away?

On the bookshelf behind me is a book by Carol Tavris entitled, On the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. It's an example of a philosophical approach found in treatises on Etiquette and Politeness Theory. The basic idea is to introject better practices that plant the seeds for more civil methods of discourse.

Clearly that doesn't always work. The late M. Scott Peck took up the more problematic cases in two of his books. One of them, entitled A World Waiting To Be Born: Civility Rediscovered takes a more hopeful approach, but that view is overshadowed by the cynicism in his darkest book, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, which takes up the intractable cases of sociopathy such as you note in WikiCulture.

My own theory is that these recalcitrant cases require nothing less than a full blown opera to make a dent in the problem.

So you walk away from the scene of the problem, and create a carefully crafted operatic drama that treats the problem by means of musical stagecraft.

I have actually read 'People of the Lie' and recommend it often. Although one does not have to come to the same conclusions or hypothesis Peck did regarding active elements of spiritual evil, one has to accept - on the basis of his remarkable professional experiences - at least the symptomatic accuracy of his observations of such types. All it would require would be a few such elements, lurking behind the curtains of Wikipedia, to reset the agenda entirely opposite to the aims. I would say there are many and, collectively, what they are doing is messing with the intellect and values of a generation.

I would propose that we discussion such elements often here ... the demons who enjoy creating their own brands of chaos ... the more obvious chaos may only be a distraction from their actual agenda. But "People of the Lie" would define a lot of my experience on the Wikipedia ... such constant transparent lies.

How many people are hurt by it?

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Peck offers an arresting analysis of a recognizable character disorder that borders on villainy:


Every good melodrama has its villainous characters, and Wikipedia is no exception.


A better question would be, "Can you find even one soul who is healed by it?"


Write atrocious song parodies.

Likewise, I recommend People of the Lie, not the least because it confronts the politically correct position that there is no such thing as evil.

The evil of "evil" is in attempting to fix it as an external enemy, and then supposedly justifying all kinds of actions -- evil actions! -- in the name of fighting evil. This afflicts, even more than it afflicts routine for-profit business, nonprofits, "good causes," especially religious causes, and I've seen what seem like perfectly nice people turn into unfeeling vicious manipulators and abusers when serving "the cause." And this was before the internet.

But that doesn't mean that evil does not exist, quite the contrary. In some of my writing -- not necessarily the most popular --, I refer to the Ancient Enemy, which is a reference to Satan, who is, at least, a personification of evil. Does Satan exist? I prefer not to try to answer that question as if it refers to "physical reality," for I Have No Idea.

But the Ancient Enemy exists, and its fundamental characteristic is that it has contempt for the human, it is "better" than them, and, the way the Qur'an puts it, it "lies in wait for them [us] in a place where they do not recognize him." I've always glossed that as, "within us." It wins when we hate others, believing that we are the good people and they are the evil ones.

Scott Peck dares to mention satanic possession, referring to Hostage to the Devil, by Malachi Martin, a book which gave me chills.

Forbidden topic.


Does it work?

(It ought to. Unless, of course, you take them seriously, requiring The Message™ to prevail. It should be enough that people laugh. That's quite insidious enough!)

Of course, the name, Satan, comes from the Greek satana, which simply means adversary.

To me, the Ancient Adversary is fear and ignorance. I battle them day in and day out.


It's quite therapeutic for me.

No, no, no. This is what people do when they either lack, or run out of, patience. That's what "they" want you to do, to validate their conception of you as an enemy. If anything, it reinforces their group identity and makes them feel more secure, not less.

Note that I'm not including exposure and identification (of otherwise-anonymous actors) here; IMO that's a separate issue, though obviously most WP'ers prefer not to see it as such.


Even if you disagree with the idea that attempts to "induce psychological trauma" further empower/embolden them, the fact is you can never really rely on any given person, Wikipedia admin or no, to be predisposed to some form of stress-related mental illness. To some extent with Wikipedians you can rely on a certain level of narcissism or egotism, in a few cases even egomania, but that doesn't help you cause trauma - you're more likely to cause yourself trauma in the attempt. As for paranoia, that's not really what they exhibit - it's more of a group insecurity, a herd/hive/swarm mentality, at least when it comes to people they see as some kind of "threat to the encyclopedia." (That doesn't mean they can actually call on a "swarm" to support any given thing they do; they just think they should be able to, which is usually enough for them to act as if they can.)

If a person has already managed to become a Wikipedia admin, it usually means they've already demonstrated a certain degree of ruthlessness, along with an ability to mask that ruthlessness in an air of (usually artificial) "civility." That's not something a depressive or borderline mentality is usually capable of, though obviously it does happen occasionally.

In any "war," whether actual, virtual, or make-believe, there's no substitute for being more clever and more skilled than your opponent. States and other groups who resort to barbarism and cruelty in order to "win" a conflict usually get consigned to the dustbin of history in the long term. Obviously the temptation will always be there, and there will be times when there's no other practical choice, but it's a lousy long-term strategy.

I'm also not so sure some of the people voting in this poll understood the question...

To my mind, a more interesting question would be whether there is a practical way to educate an incorrigibly corrupt bully in a way that doesn't leave them emotionally disturbed.

Walk away, you stupid, worthless idiot and quit wasting your time on Wikipedia if you hate it so much.

For me, too, you do good work. If we ever have a real meet-up, we'll have to have a "talent show," with performances of your work.

On the other hand, if somehow pigs fly and miracles happen, maybe it would then be too obscure. "Kids, there was a day when they actually blocked people from contributing to Wikipedia because they wrote the truth."

Emperor, the drooling reservoir of contempt, hiding behind anonymity, I'm forced to imagine, should walk away from the human race if he hates humans so much. WTF is he doing here?

Now, this is just unfair. None of us have actually seen Mr. Emperor do any drooling - for all we know, he may even suffer from "dry-mouth."

Perhaps he just meant that walking away is the only sensible approach, which many of us would probably agree with, no? Personally, I'd say an even better approach would be to never have engaged with them in the first place, but obviously that's not an option for everyone.

It's an efficient strategy for getting yourself blocked and turned into a punchline. Otherwise, no.

Probably the best method. Working on it myself.


Thanks guys! Come back anytime! Bring snacks!


If so, that Kohs guy is apparently the Mother Teresa of Wikipedia.

Naming the Devil in classical terminology ... one of the first steps to carry out in an exocism.

Malachi Martin revealed what he considered to be the typical stages of an exorcism. We can apply it in this case allegorically.

Now I don't necessarily subscribe to the inevitability of this order, but you we see it time and time again here outing abusive admins. Their initial position of pretense (Wikipedian's fake identity) ... their identification and outing ... their reaction and conflict ... then a dramatic exit as they are purged. Who was the last one, Sarek the Vulcan?

The "Clash" mostly appears to be inevitable.

Sweetheart ... I still love you. I want you to know that if you have any problems you can always come here and discuss them with us. I know it hurts to think some time ... but let us kiss it better for you.

Please try and avoid simple binary thinking or good/bad, love/hate, us/them. I do not hate "The Wikipedia" any more than I hate "The Japanese" or "The Americans" ... look closely, life is much more complex.

They are messing with children, that is why. Messing with society. Exporting their values, their mess, all over the planet.

If a dog bites you, far better to stick your hand down its throad than pull it back instinctively.

I don't know ... the problem is, sometimes it kind of works. Sometimes I find that anything from a well aimed dent to a full out but invariably Pyrrhic victory is the only way to achieve some change or movement, especially where there are entrenched parties.

I am sure that everyone has come across a topic that is being owned by someone, that is obviously not right, who has their pieces arranged in such a way that it is impossible to move and is playing a tightly defensive game to protect it, personalizing with it deeply.

Ditto, admin types who are obviously being twisted and manipulative and not being honest.

The facts are, a) reason with such people is more than often impossible, b) the Wikipedia environment is so unreasonable that by the time you get to them, they are already deeply entrenched and armoured against the tide of shit that swills around the surface of the Wikipedia so that any engagement is going to be first treated as a defence against worthless shit, or idiots as Emperor calls them, whether you are or are not.

They live under the cloak of anonymity and, due to the lack of direct and eye to eye contact, it is impossible to know if one is having any impact.

Way back when I first ran into IDCab on the English Wikipedia, I referred to them as "adversarial editors".


I certainly hope so.


Everywhere. For my own fear and ignorance, I rely on research and counseling from trusted advisors. As a science educator, I keep an eye open for opportunities to to assist others with their education and development.


Yes, hubris is a recurring issue, especially in WikiCulture as I have stumbled upon it.


It's indeed hard to avoid feeling (and expressing) contempt.


I only write the songs. I don't perform them.

I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking if breaching experiments like putting Mike Handel on the main page destroy my faith in the reliability of Wikipedia, and my answer to that is "sometimes."

Abuse from others - some who have reconciled with me since then - was a significant factor in my decision to leave Wikipedia. I came back a few times, but now I'm gone for good, and I really mean it. I haven't edited in two months. No socks. Not even while logged out. I'm done.

W e l l , . . . I was a folksinger for a time, and was known as a guitarist in certain circles, maybe I'll learn a few of them. For a good cause, of course. What do you think is your best work, er, fun?


There you go again, Somey, being all sensible and stuff. I confess: I have not seen Emperor drool, but the suggestion to walk away wasn't the problem, that is, indeed, what we often recommend, but we don't recommend it to dismiss critics of Wikipedia, especially one of the most penetrating. Or penetrated.

Something like that.

He saw what was happening, and was fucked over for it. So both. But I don't see him as full of hate, as Emperor commented. He's biting in his criticism, and a mature project would be able to handle this, indeed, would invite it. (And contain it, and use it.) As would any mature project manager. When you've started to be successful, praise is easy to come by, cogent criticism is much rarer, precious, even.

Oh, lessee...

• Jimbo Wales Superstar
  
• Outfoxer
  
• You're So Mean
  
• Pity of Dull Forums
  
• The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down

I was wondering if a little outright abuse might encourage Cock-up to find some other hobby besides Wikipedia reform.

My fault ...

Yes, I meant direct hectoring or abuse ... the leaving of messages on individuals' talk pages, being following around by them.

Either, openly doing it ... or having had it done to oneself.

I imagine admins have it done fairly regularly, I suspect abusive ones moreso ... but then I suspect they are the ones that actually get off on the adrenalin rush or negative emotional reaction and hateful punishment.


No ... only intelligent reasoning ... or, of course, reform itself.

I am sorry ... I don't know who you are or what your thing is. We have not been properly introduced.

Ok, well, I'm sorry my little joke didn't go over so well.

This thread is about using abuse as an insincere strategy to get what you want. I figured I would try it on you. Nothing personal. I don't want to take a position on Korea/Japan issues or whatever it is that made you leave Wikipedia.

I have no idea why Abt hates me, so that leaves two of us bewildered. Perhaps he read something on Encyc he disagrees with. I don't know.

Sorry again if I hurt your feelings. Feel free to style your next post in the most profane invective you can come up with.

No offense taken. I see the joke now.

Actually, it was the Brahma Kumaris topic that I lost my innocence on. I was editing against a tag team of cultist goons trying to whitewash their End of the World cult led by one of their IT guys Bksimonb (T-C-L-K-R-D) . BK stands for Brahma Kumaris.

Just in case no one believes me how whacky, and sick, it gets ... they are going through another ding-dong over Global Brahma Kumaris and 2012. I promise you I have nothing to do with this as the cultist, who works overtime trying to label me with every sin, is about to find out at checkuser.

I say that, because I have more style and panache when it comes to trolling and pick more interesting topics.

Like most cults, the Brahma Kumaris have a growing trail of broken families, suicides ... and now corpses, it seems, behind them. I know this as a fact, just like the child sex abuse their leaders tried to cover up.

It is just a warm up though. Their spirit guide, who possess some old lady in India and claims to be God, tell them they are going to inspire the "Destruction" of the world to make way for a Golden Aged heaven on earth for 900,000 of them. Yes, the death of 6,000,000,000 by nuclear holocaust and civil war.

Yes, that is all references and citable.

Now, obviously this topic is bonkers ... but can some cooperative admin please switch the cultist off from editing on his own cult topic?

Actually, I just keep editing and making new pages when I feel like it ... this is one that was me. Note the elegant, intelligent and worthy new pages created that still stick ...

The Golden Circle (T-C-L-K-R-D)

The cultist keep latching onto and working which ever 'new to the topic' admin stumbles upon it, sucking their goodwill dry until they lose interest, or see through what he is up to.

Like our own NuclearWarfare here. I found that ironic given their spirit guide predicts their religion will end in Nuclear Warfare.

Holy shit!

Why wasn't that "speedied"? That's pure propaganda from start to finish, including this hilarious section on the swastika.

This is exactly what we mean when we refer to what's going to happen to Wikipedia once the Maintenance Phase is over. Paid cultists never give up. If they can't at least get rid of obvious crap like this without a lengthy discussion, then the next logical phase is Deterioration, and finally, General-Purpose Eyesore.

Bullshit. The kind of behavior and personality described by CUOC is prevalent on Wikipedia. In some cases it is "protected" or even encouraged by complicit admins who find it useful for their own political ends or are simply naive idiots.

The only question is whether the little sociopaths, who troll, grief, harass and out people as a means of Wikipedia warfare, are a self selected bunch who arrive because they implicitly know they will be tolerated and even cuddled there, unlike on many other internet forums, or is it more of a Humphrey Bogart in Treasure of Sierra Madre kind of thing; they get Wiki-fever, project their own paranoia unto others and develop these traits as a result of becoming part of the project.

I could give a long list of names, along with their admin "sponsors", but I have enough enemies already.

I agree, with the exception of situations where someone threatens the anonymity of an admin or a long-term "contributor" with admin-level support. Then the person will usually get blocked and demonized (or "turned into a punchline," whichever is easier for them).

Again, you can't count on the likelihood that someone you're in a dispute with is going to have an exploitable psychological weakness. I suppose you can sometimes tell just by their responses/reactions to various incidents, and I suppose if you have the time and the inclination, anything is worth a shot. So yes, sometimes it does "work," in that you can occasionally drive people off of a topic, or off Wikipedia completely, by insulting/badgering/threatening them. And as Mr. Radek may be implying, the admins (assuming they aren't directly involved or causing it themselves) can't really put a stop to this, because they'd lose at least half of their active users. But mostly all it does is escalate hostility and cause lingering resentment... So, if your objective is simply to cause a lot of hostility and resentment, then by all means, go for it! Otherwise, no.

But I believe Mr. Cock-up was talking about how to win edit-wars and general topic-area disputes against entrenched opposition, not Hastening The Day™ in general.

Yes, but FIRST, hopefully somebody goes through the stacks of papers, brushes off the rat droppings, smooths out and dries the rainwater and cat-pee stains, redacts the vulgarity and typos with white-out, and then photocopies it. The result has almost no stain marks and now doesn't smell. Aha.

Then you burn the originals.

But hopefully somebody has kept good backup "carbons" of the stuff long before it got to the deterioration stage, and you can work off of good clean "monastic" copies, instead of having to do the garage cleanout, or (worse) piece together the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I think we mentioned that Asimov's Foundation series was an SF recap of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. All that may happen to Wikipedia, and probably will. So where are our Irish monks? Ah, the flower of early 21st century pop-civilization, saved by Answers.com.

Any chance your first name used to be "Cat"?

If you are actually sorry, then take responsibility for the consequences.
If you are going to make a personal attack that is not "personal," then parity requires you to not take personal attacks from others "personally." Fair's fair, sauce for the goose, etc.
Well, I did google your name and looked around Encyc this time (and before). Why Abd hates him?

Well, a parallel type of question would be why he started Encyc to have something to masturbate to.

Is this clear enough? Or do I need to explain?

As you do, so it is done to you. I didn't invent that, and I couldn't stop it if I tried. I could stop my own behavior, true, and I don't do this offensive mirror thing very often. But this is what you put up that led to my response:
Projected hatred seems to be some kind of theme here. What does that reveal? Now, Emperor was perhaps pretending, i.e., being abusive to make a point about abuse. Fair enough, here, in a way, but what goes with that would be a certain generosity about response to what follows, when people respond to your "little joke" as if it were not a joke. And that includes the responses of others. Like me. I mirrored your slobber, so to speak. And you concluded from that, it seems, that I hate you.

I can tell you that I don't hate you, I don't know you. I'm not terribly impressed by what I've seen, but hatred? I reserve that for people who are more effective in demolishing the good work of others, in slandering them and trashing their reputations. And even then it's not really hatred, because I know that people, real people, with good intentions, or at least what they think are good intentions, can do this. It's more like I see it as my responsibility, sometimes, to mirror what they do, without becoming attached to the image in my mind as being The Reality™.

There are two laws, the law of balance, also called "retaliation" or "eye for an eye," and the law of forgiveness, and forgiveness is higher, but only if balance isn't destroyed. Otherwise retaliation is necessary for justice to be maintained. As usual, the highest standards are a synthesis of lower ones.
One of the characteristics of your writing in this affair are posts which address an individual, but which are worded to apply to the entire group. Certainly it's likely that this isn't intended, but consider this. Suppose this thread is a series of people standing up and making a speech in an assembly, a large meeting. And you stand up and say what you said.

First, you didn't say to whom you were speaking. Did I know? Actually, I didn't, and it didn't matter to me. I took what you said as referring to everyone here (and certainly what you said is how some Wikipedians at the core think about the Review.) And I responded that way. Of course I knew that you were (mostly, at least) responding to some individual. But that's not what you actually said.

Secondly, if your response was truly individual, why was it made to the entire group? There is a reason, surely, but whenever we do respond to individuals, we run the risk of converting a discussion of broad import and interest into a personal flame war. Happens all the time. I've watched it on-line for about 25 years. Here, I've adopted a more conversational style, sometimes, as with this comment, I'm speaking to you, Emperor. But I'm also doing so, here, because there is also more general message. On Wikipedia, I'd probably speak about you in the third person, I'd not use "you" unless the message was personal in a personal place, such as your Talk page, or a clearly personal interchange.

I used invective in my response, running a certain risk. I've been writing on-line with open archives for that 25 years, and I know that what I write now can come back to haunt me. So I don't normally do this, I reserve it for what I think might possibly have some enduring value, which isn't really about you or even me. And sometimes I make mistakes in this. Perhaps.

I called Raul654 an "arrogant asshole" or something like that here. I was given some flack for that on Wikipedia, but my conclusion is that it was inspired, there was a purpose. Raul654 has indeed acted in such a way as to justify the epithet, and because he is exercising power over others, he's a fair target. I'd never say that about an ordinary editor who was merely arrogant and being a dick, so to speak. And especially if he's about to be banned for it. I did call Mathsci, in that sequence, an asshole, and I could provide the diffs, but won't. It doesn't matter. The consequences of his actions will fall on him naturally, and I wouldn't trade places with him for anything.

I'd say that the behavior of "ordinary editors" was inappropriate, and I would ask them to stop, and I would warn them about likely consequences, sincerely, not attempting to control them. The decision is up to them, and I'd make that clear.

I'm talking to Moulton, very loosely, about what might be conditions of his unblock. He's quite aptly responded, saying that the conditions would be the result of a free negotiation. That's exactly what's needed. His resistance to conditions of unblock in the past was very clearly based on his essential right to personal freedom, his right, or even his responsibility, to agree or disagree, provided that he understands the consequences (or, for that matter, even if he doesn't, but Moulton isn't stupid, far from it.). I would never give up my right to describe the situations that I find myself in, in order to preserve my right to edit Wikipedia.

Big loss for small gain. Bad Idea.

But I can and will respect the right of ArbComm, under due process, no matter how fucked-up it is, to require me to restrict my on-wiki behavior to avoid what they see as disruption. I'm hardly editing Wikipedia any more as a result. That's my choice and a free one. If I ever saw my personal editing as seriously important for the future of Wikipedia, I'd ignore any and all rules, and, one of the beauties of Wikipedia -- they exist! -- is Rule Number One. If ArbComm or the Foundation ever want to change that rule, they can, but, fortunately or unfortunately, Rule Number One is serious common law, not a recent or radical invention at all. It can't really be revoked, it can merely be ignored by some and followed by others. Take a look at my little user sayings at the bottom of this page. I mean it. If you haven't been blocked, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project.

(Or you've been lucky, it happens. If it's happened for a long time, a user may be quite shocked to be blocked for doing what they think is good and necessary. It shouldn't be a surprise, really, and a block should never be an insult, it should be like a bailiff in a court saying to someone who seems out of order, "Sit down!", or who conducts the person out of the room. The bailiff doesn't care, and a decent one doesn't get personally involved. They don't hate the offender, they merely preserve order. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is that discussion can become seriously uncivil, conducted to defame and impugn and exclude people based on highly biased misrepresentations, and blatantly so, and nothing is done at all about it, and the behavior of those seeking to ban an editor can often be far worse than the behavior of those being banned, and, still, nothing is done. Happens all the time! It happens before ArbComm during arbitrations, and nothing is done, and ArbComm says nothing. This is a serious sign of deep dysfunction, that social norms have broken down and the situation has become Kafkaesque.)

Mr. Abd, you really do need to be clearer. I get the impression that something about Encyc bothers you. Call it "hate" or whatever word makes you answer the question. I really don't have the patience to play word games with you.

Perhaps you're the visitor who keeps complaining about Blissy's stuff.

If that's it, then I can explain why Blissy's contributions are still standing. It's because early on I decided that I wanted free content from volunteer writers, and I was going to reward people for generating content regardless of whether or not I thought it was the best writing ever created. On balance, Blissy created reams of content for Encyc, and was helpful in getting the site off the ground. Yes, he has some eccentric viewpoints, but so does everyone.

Part of the reason Wikipedia worked so well in the early days was that whenever someone started a new article, their fellow wiki workers would get all jazzed up to help improve it. Now it's like they can't wait to find some excuse to stomp it into the ground.

At Encyc, content generators are favored over regulators and destroyers. Maybe that means that our content will be a little less conventional than Wikipedia's. So be it.

Nah. My birth name used to be on my Wikipedia user page, it's still in history. I'm quite aware of Yusuf Islam, of course, and he's coming along fine, after what is a not-uncommon journey through more extreme interpretations of Islam.

Then you are welcome, if you don't want to play with me, go play with yourself. Or with anyone willing to play with you. Your choice.

Something about Encyc bothers me? Sure. Low quality content, mostly, but not all of it is low quality. Poor structure, but what could be expected with such low volunteer count? "Hate" though, is totally off the mark as to my feelings about Encyc. It's more like "boring," not interesting to me, at least not yet.
What makes you think that I'd bother commenting on Encyc? It never even occurred to me, as far as I recall. Certainly not some repetitive action!
If you must. I'm not sure that I've even noticed them. Maybe.
Hey, you fell right into the Wikipedia trap! That's exactly why abusive editors and administrators are allowed to remain on Wikipedia! If they ban them, who will be motivated to do the work? When JzG's case was before ArbComm, I was told by an administrator, very familiar with Wikipolitics, that, even though his abuse of his tools had been utterly outrageous, and even though he had tenaciously denied abuse even when it was blatant, and even though he had not ever apologized or recognized the error, he would not be desysopped. Why? Well, because of his long-time service at OTRS, where, I was told, he'd taken on the most difficult cases and was considered to have performed invaluable work. He'd bought and paid for his right to be abusive. They couldn't allow it to continue, not blatantly, so they admonished him, and the admin told me that, from then on, he'd be on a "short leash." He was wrong about that. JzG disappeared in a huff, and then came back but resigned his tools, blaming me. (I have some suspicion that he's deleted that edit, I clearly remember it, but could not find it when I looked recently.) Then he found that he was under no impediment at all. And he asked for the tools back, and since he had voluntarily resigned them, they were routinely given back. Is he abusing the tools again? Well, I've seen non-tool abuse, for sure, but no tool abuse, but, then again, I'm not watching him. Nobody is, to my knowledge, the people who might do that are gone or intimidated. I'm prohibited from commenting by ArbComm. That's how ArbComm rewards an editor who actually compiles the evidence and shows abuse that they confirm.... it's considered "disruptive." Sure. It is. Necessary disruption, if neutrality is important.

Neutrality is not important, keeping the volunteer base up is important! But the definition of "important volunteer" is made by a cabal, a core, which serves its own interests. If you want to fix this, you will need to think much more deeply about the situation. Few want to do that. They just want to get what they want, personally.

(Loss of volunteers is the fear, whether it is true or not; allowing the abusive to remain, I'd claim, in the long run, drives away the sane, who are basically crazy if they stay, contradicting the assumption of sanity, or, more accurately, changing the sanity into something else if they stay.)

Yes. And that's where you are going when you keep poor material without, at least, categorizing it. The encyclopedia project, properly, is more about categorizing knowledge than compiling it (though compilation is certainly a part of it). Knowledge is properly categorized into hierarchies of importance, and elements of knowledge are properly placed in this hierarchy rather than being "included" or "excluded" as a black-and-white decision. There can even be the "X-files" or "junkyard," where articles on allegedly non-notable subjects are placed. Only actually illegal stuff, harmful to maintain for public view, would be truly deleted, and short of that, WP:PWD, the original wiki vision, would be used for nonsense or stuff thought inappropriate. Blanked stuff -- or stuff moved to a Junkyard namespace -- would be this.

With a hierarchy of knowledge, the place in the hierarchy can be established by degree of consensus, it is not a binary choice. So at the top level, there is stuff that everyone agrees is "encyclopedic," and this level can be maintained with, say, Flagged Revisions or protection of various kinds. Below that would be, as an example, topics of lesser importance but fully verifiable in reliable source. Below that, shakier sources (such as blogs or partisan web sites) might be allowed. Below that, essays on topics with no sourcing to establish that this is more than the opinion of one person. It might be required that someone independent, possibly a member of a special class of editor, actually worthy of the title "editor," certify it's of some interest. (WP gets "editors" and "writers," classic enemies, all confused.) Below that, perhaps, the junkyard. And below that, actually deleted stuff, only accessible to administrators, and below that, oversighted material, positively harmful even with restricted access.

Basically, no more AfD because deletion would be only of articles qualifying for speedy. (DRV would still exist, then, to review these deletions on request). Ordinary editorial decisions would decide how an article is placed or tagged.
But this is what happened at Wikipedia. Prolific content creators became administrators. There is a lost performative there, Emperor. Favored. By whom?

Well, to be fair, when Emperor suggested that I port my song parodies to his site, he was fully aware that they were atrocious song parodies.

Yes, and no Somey, I was interested in looking at it from both sides. Obviously if such behavior is driving off good editors it is damaging and the "reform" is negative. Perhaps I should have asked the question, "is such abuse deforming the Wikipedia?"

Thank you Radek. I think you are absolutely correct in this.

To the outright abuse, I would add all the subtle, highly contrived, highly insulting, 'faux academic' approach using twisted, contorted language aping the real thing aimed at obstructive intelligent discussion. In short, older or more educated people lying their faces off knowing fine they have a good chance of winding you up ... as you should quite rightly be ... into a banable state.

Wrath or righteous indignation, it used to be called.

The problem is, there are some highly dishonest individuals against which you will never "win", especially if you are absolutely right. And then there are some 'off the planet people', like whacky End Time cultists, who one should not have to deal with at all in the first place.

You meet such people in real life where they are much easier to deal with. The Wikipedia protects and empowers them.

I agree very much on the second point. One complicated by the fact they know sod all about the topics they stomp on and very few to none have real experience and knowledge management.

Hate is a very strong accusation. Best not to use the word casually. It is too easily misunderstood.

Somebody doesn't have to know your own personal exploitable psychological weakness (although since a lot of times these kinds of trysts can run on and off for years they often learn what these are) to be able to harass you off the project. There's more or less universal things which annoy the hell out of people; for example, nobody likes to be patronized or talked down to, a tactic that is implicitly or explicitly understood and utilized by many. Add that the person doing the patronizing is some snot nosed kid and the one being patronized a successful professional or academic and you have a perfect recipe for making someone lose their temper and get banned for incivility. Lots of long term blocks play out like this.

Outing people and harassing them off wiki (even to the point of making thinly veiled death threats) is another thing that I'm guessing most people don't care much for and will be ready to give up in the face off. Of course this one's more dangerous (and a helluva lot more evil) than just patronizing people to piss them off. The outter has to know how to "hug the fence" and game the WP:OUT rules, and out the outtee bit by bit (basically implying "I know who you are and can reveal it anytime" a lot - like, say, stating something about what your favorite college football team is. Or something). Either that or have a couple of high profile protectors who'll make sure any such outting will result in at most short blocks rather than a perma ban.

Also, escalating hostility and resentment is often used as a successful tactic by some groups on Wikipedia, just like it is in the real world. It's a perfect way of radicalizing more moderate associates and recruiting new fanatics. You create a battleground and then run and tell the moderates in your group that "look! They're beating up on our people!" There's a reason why there isn't a chance in hell that Polish and Lithuanian editors will ever get along on Wikipedia - despite the fact that these two particular countries share a history that's 90% positive, as opposed to Poland and Germany or whatever - and it has everything to do with a couple of (pretty radical) Lithuanian users working very very very hard to make sure everyone's pissed off at each other - a state of perpetual battleground is a better outcome for them then any kind of compromise which by definition would exclude their, extremist, views. Ok, I've slipped into axe grinding here. Anyway, the point is the tactic works too often.

So yeah, all of these can be successful means of winning edit and topic wars - regardless whether he was asking for a critique or recommendations - and Everyking's assertion that stuff like this only gets the perpetrators blocked is ... um, out of touch with reality, to put it nicely.

(Edit/Clarification: What I take CUOC is asking is if playing by "their" rules can be an effective strategy. My point is that it is often an effective strategy for many things, so I don't see why it wouldn't be. But it is a "stare into the abyss long enough" kind of thing - not recommended for the sake of one's own sanity/conscience)

Really? How? Write more? Surely you are joking! Spend more time rereading what I write and turning it into polemic, so that it is seriously effective getting my point across to idiots or other distracted people? Sure. I do that when it's really important to me or I'm being paid. Not in chatting, as it were, in a bar for disaffected Wikipedia editors. Pass the wikifat, Somey, I missed dinner.


Well, I did write "mostly." I like your site with the music, actually. Is the music there on his port? Or his starboard?

Yes I read your first response. Thank you, and have a nice evening.

No, I do not think you have, I think you are right on the nail and this is what it is all about.

Some people do do it in real life, proportionately more do do it on the Wikipedia ... and the system not only protects them, as evidence above, but empowers them.

In real life, it is harder to hide it and tracing the smell back to the originating asshole is much easier. They can then be dealt with however you chose ... with love or kneecapping.

On the Pee-dia, especially because of the various cabalisms practiced, it is almost impossible.

We need a video intermission here now. Is it to be Ken Kesey or Monty Python?

Some Wiki admins are bad
They can really make you mad
Other editors just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on Jimbo's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best ...

And ... always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life.

If the Wiki seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When your socks have been bagged true
or Arbcom have just shagged you,
Switch off your computer and whistle - that's the thing.

And ... always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life ...

For Wiki is quite absurd
Community ban's the final word
Do not try and face RfC ... have cow.
Forget to try and linger ... give them all the finger
Do it with panache ... it's your last chance anyhow.

And ... always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life ...

Jimbo's Joy a piece of shit
When you look at it
Wiki's a laugh and rules a joke, it's true.
You'll soon see it's all a drama
So send them crying back to Mama
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And ... always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life ...
always spend more of your time in real life ...

(You know, they gave you nothing - you're going to get nothing.
So how much have you lost?)

Moar song parodies!!!