On 7/14/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant. What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
It appears that you are reading my response as a defense of Carr -- which was not my intent, & your misunderstanding was likely due to how I expressed myself. So let me explain further.
Huh? How could I see it being a defence of Adam? I didn't. I interpreted it as an attempt to provide background on Larouche and Wikipedia. I don't really want to get involved in any of that; an issue so heavily polarised about which I know little promises nothing but grief. I'll stick to things I know about, thank'ee!
In fact I took pains to conceal the identity of the editor until you mentioned his name.
It's apparent from your posts that you want Adam Carr censured for his incivility. And it is apparent from the responses to your posts that his incivility is widely acknowledged -- & likely makes any accusation you make of him suspect.
I don't want Adam censured for his "incivility". I'd like him to accept that his "end justifies the means" attitude is counter-productive in this community. But that's beside the point.
And there is a further point that has emerged from the submissions to this list: let's make the job of the ArbCom *simpler*. In other words, instead of finding hard cases where a plausible argument can be made to defend his behavior, find a clear case of Carr acting incivilly -- like a bully to a newbie, say -- that is not defensible.
And to be honest, while the language in the above sample you provide comes close to the line, not only does it not cross that line it is something that I can fully imagine any editor saying to a troublemaker in a moment of frustration. And I've seen worse said to people who sound eager to wind up before the ArbCom.
I think you are barking up the wrong path here. Adam's language isn't the issue. There's no secret agenda here. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
[snip]
I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has his own wikisupport network in place.
I didn't get the same message, & suicide is a matter that I've unfortunately have had too much experience with.
Look at in WP terms. He deleted his User and Talk pages, pages where he put pictures and material important to him, and replaced them with a stark boldface message. That in itself should make anyone's ears prick up, let alone the content of his message, where he threatens wikisuicide unless something happens. Anyway, I saw it as something that needed discussion, which is why I brought it up here.
Other Wikipedians gave warnings that he was reaching a crisis point. Ambi said a few weeks ago that one more crisis might push him out.
If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is in the effect conflicts have on its volunteers. (No one seems to have studied this angle, so what I am about to write is largely based on my unrepresentative sample of experience.) It seems that every editor eventually encounters a major struggle over content, which usually results in one of two responses: either the editor develops an extremely thick skin to further criticism & a very short temper with other people, or retreats off to work on one of the 90+% of articles that attract little attention due to their obscure or esoteric nature. In either case, the editor begins a gradual process of consciously isolating her/himself from the rest of Wikipedia -- which means that they are less likely to intervene & help resolve conflicts sucessfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. (This point was made to me some months ago in almost these exact words when I posted a note about a potential troublemaker on the admin bulletin board, & I suspect that this admin is not the only one who does not want to get involved in conflicts unless there is a clear "bad" guy & a clear "good" guy.)
And by isolating oneself here on Wikipedia, one loses out on the positive reinforcement that should come from working with other people for a common good. We have very few mechanisms on Wikipedia to break through this isolation, either intentional or accidental, & when some are used -- Barnstars & FAC nominations for example -- too often they also produce jealousy amongst other contributors, who then begin to suspect that there is a cabal -- or at the least a gang of cool kids who tell each other just how hip they are -- that they are not part of.
I have no good solution for this problem -- although I feel Wikimeetups are a good step. I'm not even certain whether this is a problem for more than a few people on Wikipedia -- which is why I mentioned that this is an issue worth some attention from the appropriate experts. Even though this would be a distraction from our goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Mmmm. I haven't experienced the same personal response to a very bitter struggle over content, but I suspect I'm more of a Labrador to other peoples' terriers. Very hard to light my fuse, but neither will I slope off and do something else if I see something out of place.
Wikimeetups have to be a good thing. Personal contact helps build a sense of shared community. One of the great joys of my recent life has been meeting other members of the same on-line community, and it has been a thrill to meet in person some of the people behind the screen-names.
I haven't been involved in any local WP meetups and I'm not sure if there are any. Did WP use Meetup.com to organise gatherings, and if so what was the response to Meetup's recent "shoot itself in the foot" request for fees from organisers? On BookCrossing.com there was a mass exodus, largely to Yahoo.
But gatherings are pretty much a local thing, and again I'm the exception rather than the rule in that I'll happily hop on a jet and fly to the other side of the world to meet fellow BookCrossers. Funds permitting.
There are local community-based WP pages where group projects are raised and implemented, and they look like fun. Hard to forcibly integrate people into community activities if they don't want to be integrated, however.
And I made the point that Adam had his own wikisupport network, so it doesn't seem that he was in any way isolated or withdrawn. Just stressed.
A long time ago I learnt a little of leadership, and one of the few things I remember from those Army courses was that there were three levels of need that needed to be satisfied.
1. Task needs. Things like fighting a battle, reacting to a natural disaster, or writing an encyclopaedia. 2. Group maintenance needs. Having a party, an offsite, wearing the same uniforms, bonding activities. 3. Individual needs. Whatever the individual sees as important. Personal or family relationships, completing a course of study, buying a new car - whatever.
The wise leader balances all these needs and the result should be a group of happy individuals committed to success in the tasks it is set. But give any one type of need an overwhelming priority and things fall apart. If the focus is always on the task, then people become stressed and burn out. You can't keep on fighting battle after battle without relief ands stay sane, but neither can you put individual needs above all else otherwise the result is anarchy and important tasks don't get done.
Wikipedia is an important project, but it's performed by volunteers. We can't expect unpaid volunteers to burn themselves out by devoting ourselves single-mindedly to the task. But neither can we let every individual editor have their own way and edit what they want how they want, because then we get edit wars and conflict.
There has to be a balance and to my mind the group maintenance activities are lacking or not promoted highly enough. Where are the t-shirts, the meeting noticeboard, the group challenges and goals?
And where is the community support for editors who go off the rails? Phil's Wikimediation page looks like a good idea to me.
Again, I don't have the answers, but recognising the problem is a good start, and I think that we should be paying more attention to folk like Phil who are motivated enough to actually do something.