On 30 Sep 2007 at 21:43:19 +0100, <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
[long line rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]
> On the other hand, the degree of external scrutiny of the site is
> vastly increased, and this has led to some jittery times. I
> recommend editing articles. Really, it all makes more sense if you
> look at the working enviroment in terms of the work.
The external scrutiny seems to have led to a "bunker mentality" among
some of the dominant personalities on Wikipedia, where they think the
sky is falling and insist that we all need to circle our wagons
against the outside attackers, and anybody not supporting them is
supporting The Terrorists.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 02:58 PM
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem
On 30 Sep 2007 at 21:43:19 +0100, <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
[long line rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]
> On the other hand, the degree of external scrutiny of the site is
> vastly increased, and this has led to some jittery times. I
> recommend editing articles. Really, it all makes more sense if you
> look at the working enviroment in terms of the work.
The external scrutiny seems to have led to a "bunker mentality" among
some of the dominant personalities on Wikipedia, where they think the
sky is falling and insist that we all need to circle our wagons
against the outside attackers, and anybody not supporting them is
supporting The Terrorists.
--
== Dan ==
I must admit I have never seen any positive contribution to either the mailing list or policy discussions on Wikipedia from you. It's like you live in an abstract world where our practical problems are not known.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 02:55 PM
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem
On 30 Sep 2007 at 19:59:00 +0100, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not claiming there is no cabal, that would be nonsense. Of course
> there is a cabal. The key thing that people miss is that there is more
> than one. The other common name is "groups of friends". There are lots
That's why I generally prefer the term "clique" over "cabal".
> of groups of friends on Wikipedia. Some of them contain quite powerful
> Wikipedians, and work to help their members. However, and most
> importantly, they do not all work together, and no one of them is all
> powerful. If one group of friends crosses the line, other groups and
> individuals will step in to stop them. A good example of this is MONGO
> - he had a strong group of friends that defended him at every turn,
> but once it got too bad, other people stepped in and stopped it. MONGO
> was eventually desysopped.
...but he still has his large group (clique) of friends, who still to
this day sometimes air sour grapes about his desysopping, and act to
help him suppress any and all further criticism.
--
== Dan ==
You don't have it straight. From the beginning it was obvious MONGO was getting too excited (rather like you). We warned him, and he kept on (As we can expect you to do), and had to be desyopped. He remains an editor in good standing though and, for example, in the SevenOfDiamonds matter, his input is respected, at least by me. There is nothing automatic about springing to his defense. However, he has resisted some serious nonsense. His biggest problem is thinking he's the little Dutch boy and has to play hero. The community as a whole can generally be depended on to resist inclusion of unverifiable information.
Fred
On 30 Sep 2007 at 19:59:00 +0100, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not claiming there is no cabal, that would be nonsense. Of course
> there is a cabal. The key thing that people miss is that there is more
> than one. The other common name is "groups of friends". There are lots
That's why I generally prefer the term "clique" over "cabal".
> of groups of friends on Wikipedia. Some of them contain quite powerful
> Wikipedians, and work to help their members. However, and most
> importantly, they do not all work together, and no one of them is all
> powerful. If one group of friends crosses the line, other groups and
> individuals will step in to stop them. A good example of this is MONGO
> - he had a strong group of friends that defended him at every turn,
> but once it got too bad, other people stepped in and stopped it. MONGO
> was eventually desysopped.
...but he still has his large group (clique) of friends, who still to
this day sometimes air sour grapes about his desysopping, and act to
help him suppress any and all further criticism.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> One thousand, three hundred persons were being "terrorized" by a small group
> of people!! What the hell did they have, WMDs!!! Come on, Charles, please
> help me to understand this better.
>
> Marc
Oh, do ask Daniel. It is his account of why some people can't get unbanned. Can't possibly be that they've burned bridges behind them.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
> Personally, I don't believe a true "conspiracy" has been involved here. It
> is people being people, and being allowed to act out without sufficient,
> effective, responsible checks and balances.
>
> Marc
Remember that what you are commenting on here is not a concrete situation, at all. It was a sweeping generalization, of how 1300 admins, for the most part bright and independent thinkers, were being terrorized out of doing what they would otherwise, by a dedicated small group. So effectively that _not one_ would act.
I think you might accept that unblock requests are treated rather more seriously. I deal with quite a number, but by email. The reason that is most common for a block appeal to fail is that the person banned comes across as a ranting individual, with absolutely no perspective and little appreciation of the site's overall purpose.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
> Synopsis: Linuxbeak unblocks Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle.
> A whole page of drama-queen histrionics and hissy-fits erupts, with
> some prominent admins loudly storming away from Wikipedia in a huff
> (they were soon back), and people demanding that Linuxbeak apologize,
> admit to a grave error of judgment, and possibly be desysopped or
> debureaucratted.
You have posted a reference to a page of around 28000 words of text, from May 2006. Could you add to your summary who are the cabal members taking part (there are numerous people taking part), and who exactly was threatening Linuxbeak with being desysopped, rather than just disagreeing with the unblocking of not just one but two editors (Wikipedia Review activists)? This is a somewhat complex example you have chosen, and not so current.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Marc Riddell wrote
> Charles, take an honest look at the culture you are involved in here. The
> greatest problems this Project must confront in the coming year are the
> state of its internal structure, and the dysfunctional interactions of its
> people.
To be frank, as an Arbitrator I see more of the "culture" than ever gets discussed on this list. To paraphrase what you are saying, well, it's all just people. I don't agree with your past postings, on the topic of centralization and leadership.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Wikipedia is, if anything, too reticent about showing the door to
dysfunctional individuals. In some instances the community ought to be more
polite about it - I'll grant you that - but overall it's quite difficult to
get sitebanned and rather easy to return.
And a point that often gets overlooked is that there is no such thing as a
ban from GDFL licensed material. If someone really has a valid and
productive way of making the material better then they can go join one of
the forking projects or create a new one. The merits of their approach will
eventually demonstrate themselves.
-Durova
Marc Riddell wrote
> Charles, take an honest look at the culture you are involved in here. The
> greatest problems this Project must confront in the coming year are the
> state of its internal structure, and the dysfunctional interactions of its
> people.
To be frank, as an Arbitrator I see more of the "culture" than ever gets
discussed on this list. To paraphrase what you are saying, well, it's all
just people. I don't agree with your past postings, on the topic of
centralization and leadership.
On 30 Sep 2007 at 09:46:58 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Mmm. Note that a "community ban" on en:wp means "not one of 1000+
> admins is inclined to unblock you."
Though, in the "some animals are more equal than others" environment
of Wikipedia, there's a handful of powerful people (sometimes termed
the "clique" or "cabal") who, if they decide that some banned user is
Evil Incarnate, will promptly add to their Enemies List any admin
that dares to unblock such a user, try to shame that admin into
reversing the action, and agitate for the desysopping or banning of
the non-groupthink-compatible admin if he/she resists that.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/