[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:17 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several
>occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power
>structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the
>case that he was ever actually wrong or anything.

My views of the Wikipedia power structure were expressed long before 
I appeared before ArbComm. I've been a major party for two cases 
only. The first was filed by Jehochman, beating me to it by maybe an 
hour or two, I was ready to file. My case was about admin recusal 
failure, and ArbComm confirmed it. That case was practically a 
complete "victory" for my position. Later, one finding, very mild, 
was interpreted as some kind of reprimand, though it was actually an 
instruction to more rapidly escalate dispute resolution. So, next 
time, that's exactly what I did.

The next case I filed, and was also over admin recusal failure. This 
time, I was personally involved (I'd been neutral in the first case, 
actually, though I later developed a point of view contrary to that 
of the administrator. My POV wasn't relevant to the charge of recusal 
failure.) Again, ArbComm quite confirmed the complaint.

I was very aware from the beginning that by taking on administrative 
abuse, I was risking topic bans and my account. The surprise, 
actually, was that it didn't happen the first time. But that case had 
been so open-and-shut and uncomplicated that the "cabal" mostly 
stayed away, even though they had actively participated in the 
preceding RfC/JzG 3. That, right there, was a clue: the RfC was 
narrowly filed, as well, simply showing article and other topic 
involvement, then use of tools for blacklisting, blocking, and 
deleting. But 2/3 of editors commenting supported, instead of a 
confirmation of the problem, that Abd should be banned.

2/3 of editors supported a position that was blatantly against policy 
and the ensuing ArbComm decision.

But with the next case, the cabal was very much aware of the danger, 
and the case wasn't as clear. They knew that if they could claim that 
I was a tendentious editor, dispruptive, etc., they could at least 
get me topic banned. They piled in, and my originally compact 
evidence spun out of control, trying to respond. At the beginning, 
actually, it looked like they'd failed, the first arb to review 
evidence and opine was so favorable to my position that I thought 
that, again, I'd dodged the bullent. But then, quite rapidly, it 
reversed, that arbitrator was basically ignored, and entirely new 
proposals were made, basically reprimanding me for a series of 
asserted offences, not supported or barely and inadequately supported 
by evidence. ArbComm was more of a knee-jerk body than I'd 
anticipated, I'd been fooled by a series of decisions where they 
clearly did investigate, and carefully.

Did I do anything wrong? Of course I did! I also did stuff that was 
exactly right, and exactly effective, and accomplished what many 
editors and administrators thought impossible.

But my personal right to edit Wikipedia meant almost nothing to me, 
and standing up for the rights of legions of editors who had been 
abused, and I'd been watching it for a long time, and I believe that 
this has done and contnues to do long-term damage, was much more 
important. I'm just one editor, I'm nothing compared to them. Someone 
like Mr. Gerard may not be capable of understanding this attitude, it 
would be so foreign to how he'd think. Or is it?

Never mind, it doesn't matter.

ArbComm is not the cause of Wikipedia's problems, it's merely a 
symptom. Fix the basic problems, and ArbComm, or its replacement, 
would become far more functional. The problem is not the fault of any 
member of ArbComm, nor of any editor or faction, though some do stand 
in the way of reform, that's simply what's natural. I ddn't seek to 
have anyone banned, even though there were -- and are -- several who 
by ordinary standards, if their behavior were examined, would be, 
because these people would be harmless or even useful if the 
structure were functional. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the 
founders of Wikipedia did not know how to put together a project that 
could maintain unity and consensus when the scale became large. 
That's not surprising, not many know how to do this! But there are 
people who do, who have had experience with it. Few of them have 
become Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia has not sought this 
expertise. Indeed, it's blocked and banned people for even suggesting 
solutions.

And, from the beginning, as I became active, back in 2007, I wrote 
that this was expected behavior.

I'd registered in, I think, 2005, and had other wiki experience, and 
was a moderator on the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s and a moderator of 
soc.religion.islam in the 90s -- still am, though inactive --, do you 
think there was any controversy there? And I've handled large 
meetings, an international conference, of people inclined to argue 
about everything, and managed to facilitate the formation of 
consensus in a few days on far more than ever happened before or 
since. I know how to do it, I know what it takes. But, I aslso have 
always found that when an entrenched oligarchy is favored by the 
status quo, as to personal power, they will oppose any reform that 
will move toward equity, because they will correctly see it as 
lessening their personal power, and they will readily believe that 
their personal power is essential to success of the organization. It 
is a deep and persistent effect, related to the Iron Law of 
Oligarchy, cf. the WP article on that. How to move beyond the damage 
done by the Iron Law is a subtle problem, and few even recognize the 
existence of the problem. They ascribe the problems to something 
else, to "them," usually." I.e., they will think that the problem is 
the oligarchy, which isn't correct. The problem is the lack of 
consensus structure. Consensus does not arise both naturally and 
efficiently in large-scale organizations. It does arise, sometimes, 
eventually, but the process takes so long and is so difficult, that 
it burns people out in the course of it. Both efficiency and 
thoroughness, i.e, maximization of consensus, are necessary. And 
Wikipedia seemed like a good place to test some of the ideas, one 
decent and advisable step at a time. Nothing was done to be 
disruptive. But from what I've written, you'll understand that it 
will be taken as disruptive, quickly and readily.

I was a little surprised by the vehemence of the response, at first. 
I'd expected more that it would simply be ignored until and unless it 
became more of a present threat. But the active core of the editorial 
community is generally very smart, in some ways. They sensed what a 
danger it was, to them -- not to the community, and it changed no 
policies, and did not create voting --, and turned out in droves to 
attempt to delete and salt the ideas and the attempted experiment. 
That puzzled Kim Bruning.... he thought it was merely a rejected 
proposal.... The attempt to delete and salt had supermajority 
approval, but failed. Today, my guess, it would be deleted. The 
admins who would have resisted that have mostly abandoned the field.