The Good Old Days Weren't So Good

[Randy from Boise]

There has been some talk on-Wiki about how things are going downhill at WP, with wishes for a return to the civil and collaborative days of yesteryear.

Here are a few ArbCom candidate statements that might be persuasive that the Good Old Days really weren't...

Librarian Brent

I don't think any of you know me, as this is a very new account. However, I have posted for a medium period of time as an anonymous user, via varied IP adresses, and finally decided to get an account. This site, as I have watched, has degenerated in civility and fairness due to the efforts of mean spirits who boast of their "accomplishments" and begin edit-wars on a whim. In addition, the Arbitration Committee itself has become corrupt, ridiculously voting on whims or personal vendettas. As a member of this committee, I will bring fresh knowledge to the site.

My views on banning are simple. If you consistently hinder, rather than help, the Wikipedia's growth and renewal, you will be banned. If not, you will not be banned.
I feel as if the Arbitration Committee should work closely with the parties in question in a dispute to ensure that both sides get a say in the final decision, rather than the current system, in which some cases have gone on in which the opinion of one of the parties in question has not been fully considered.

In a way, my relative newness to the site is an advantage; it ensures that a vote for me is not a vote for the same tired old puppeteers who have been exerting their influence over much of the site for too long. --Librarian Brent 6:13 pm, 23 November 2004 (8 years, 10 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−8)

Librarian Brent (T-H-L) effectively dropped out in December 2004.

Lir

The Wikipedia has been marred by rude and mean-spirited individuals who see themselves as the epitome of perfection, and who scorn everyone else as a "troll". As a member of the arbitration committee, I would actively seek the resignations of 172, Tim Starling, mav, Jimbo, and Angela -- I would enforce anti-cabalist legislation; and ensure that the wikipedia is run by the people, and not by the losers who have nothing better to do with their lives than dominate the irc/mailing list discussions. I would put an end to the policy of calling votes and then declaring them "settled and closed" before anyone outside of the cabal is even aware of them. My private sockpuppet army would staunchly enforce inclusionism (i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 5 bureaucrats, 4 mediators, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree -- currently six of my socks are running for arbcom, including this one). Under my regime: deletionists will be shown the door, and their user accounts shall be (ironically enough) deleted.

Lir (T-C-L) was blocked by Coren (T-C-L) for "trolling" in March 2008 and was subsequently banned.

VeryVerily

Hi! I have been here since August 2003, and have participated in almost every aspect of Wikipedia, from prolific article writing and editing to VfD and VfU to RfA and RfC, and am throroughly familiar with its workings. I believe I have the knowledge, background, and judgement for the arbitrator position.

Right now, the ArbCom is slow, inefficient, and lacking in clear or sensible standards. I favor quick, common sense, no-nonsense solutions, focused on who is helping the project and who is not.

Some of our best contributors - such as Zoe, Daniel Quinlan, Ark30inf, and Adam Carr - have been or are being driven away because cranks and trolls make Wikilife miserable. I have experienced first-hand what an energy drain problem users are, and how nothing is done. We need to create an environment where people feel that contributing is worth their time and that the free and open nature of the Wiki is not a blank check to ruin our achievements.

However, I also believe that outright bans should not be the first line of defense. Creative solutions can do wonders, and stern, clear warnings should precede administrative action - but those warnings must have teeth.

I will also bring civility to the proceedings. Disputants, right or wrong, should be talked to respectfully by the arbitrators, who are the community's servants, not its masters.

I'm a very active Wikipedian. It is rare for me to go even 48 hours without making an edit; in fact I only have once since July. I can, and will, respond promptly to requests.

Thanks for reading! VeryVerily

VeryVerily (T-C-L) left the project at the end of February 2006 after becoming entangled with ArbCom over edit warring.

[quote="LawAndOrder" in Jan. 2006"]
LawAndOrder

General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 is the most biased admin that I've seen.

I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.
[/quote]

LawAndOrder (T-C-L) left the project in January 2006 after two successive short blocks for so-called "blatant disruption." Both of the blocking admins are now gone, one retired and one vanished.

Luigi30

I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned. (subsequently struck.)

I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls.

Luigi30 (T-C-L) made almost no edits after June 2008, the last appearing in Jan. 2011. He has a clean block log and about 3400 total edits.

Tony Sidaway

Wikipedia is growing fast, and its response has been to secrete a shell of bureaucracy as sclerotic as any state. Too many rules, too many feet to tread on. Too many new editors scared away.

Arbitration is intrinsically slow and unscaleable. Administrators are individuals working in loose cooperation, which does scale.

Too many cases are reaching arbitration. We should be careful about the cases we accept, and give administrators more technological power by working with developers to share ideas for more tools to help them. Alternatives to blocking, more flexible IP and username blocking arrangements, more watchlists for administrators, subscribable watchlists, edit throttles for edit warriors, per-page blocking. Spending time and effort on this will be worth our while as a committee because it will reduce our caseload by empowering and strengthening Wikipedia's immune system.

Abusive treatment of newcomers starves the community of new blood and unnecessarily expands the class of disaffected trolls and vandals. Edit warring and biting by administrators and other experienced editors should be taken seriously because it drives people away. I want to focus on this. The administrators should take the bulk of the load, but the Committee should act as a check on the administrators.

The Arbitration Committee has a resource of previous cases and decisions, and what ensued from those decisions, that amount to the wisdom of some of the best wikipedians. The Committee, augmented by interested former members, should from time to time make non-binding recommendations to the community for policy clarifications or changes, with the aim of stimulating Wikipedia's immune system and reducing arbitration caseload.

Tony Sidaway (T-C-L) has an extensive block log from 2005 and 2006 but remains an active Wikipedian with over 76,600 edits.

One could go on. The complaints about administrative-clique abuse driving away good editors, deteriorating civility, encroaching bureaucracy, and ArbCom inefficiency are ancient. The Good Old Days weren't.

RfB

[lilburne]

In the early days they reached out to USENET and SLASHDOT. Is it any wonder that what they got was USENET and SLASHDOTers. Hell Jimmy made an appearance on troll central adequacy.org asking for help. That those versed in USENET and slashdot debating skills should have formed the core community is not surprising.

[everyking]

Things were much more vicious back then. There has been at least some progress. It's a shame, though, because so many new people were attracted to the site during that period, and so many of them were then repelled by the psychotic culture. I think the reasons for the long-term user decline can be traced to mistakes made during that time.

Also, Sidaway's statement shouldn't be taken seriously. He was one of the worst offenders back then.

[Hex]

Hell Jimmy made an appearance on troll central adequacy.org asking for help.

Oh? Do you have a link for that? Searching it for Wales or encyclopedia isn't returning anything.

[lilburne]

Hell Jimmy made an appearance on troll central adequacy.org asking for help.

Oh? Do you have a link for that? Searching it for Wales or encyclopedia isn't returning anything.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9. ... 17602.html
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9. ... .1273.html
http://www.adequacy.org/users/739/index.html

[Randy from Boise]

Hell Jimmy made an appearance on troll central adequacy.org asking for help.

Oh? Do you have a link for that? Searching it for Wales or encyclopedia isn't returning anything.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9. ... 17602.html
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9. ... .1273.html
http://www.adequacy.org/users/739/index.html

Here's a reply by JW from that second link that needs to be brought up front and center as a small contribution to the historical record about "origins" and "founders" etc.

I invite you to participate!
by jwales on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 03:56:48 PM PST

Hello!

I just read your article and after I got over being shocked at how many false statements that it included, I realized that you may be under a false impression of some kind! Don't criticize -- change the world!

Am I an Objectivist? To be sure, I am. But that hardly justifies calling me a looney! Do I have photos on my website of killing groceries with a shotgun? To be sure, I do. And maybe that does justify calling me a looney, but come on and admit it -- it was funny, and you enjoyed it. :-)

Nonetheless, while personal attacks on me are always useful, thoughtful, and an entertaining way to spend an evening, I should clarify the status of both Wikipedia and Nupedia with respect to my own personal views.

Nupedia

First, Nupedia. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the editorial process of Nupedia. The editor in chief is Larry Sanger, PhD, Ohio State University, who is not an Objectivist or any of the other bad words you called me :-), and who to the best of my knowledge has never shot a watermelon, much to his chagrin, I hope.

Nupedia has an editorial staff of professors from various universities around the world, and to my knowledge none of them share any of my political of philosophical commitments except one: a commitment to the integrity of an open process of careful and objective presentation of the facts in a suitably encyclopedic manner.

Wikipedia

Unlike the rigorous academic structure of Nupedia, Wikipedia is wide open. There is no central authority or structure of any kind. A small handful of the people might have libertarian leanings, but the great majority surely do not. Again, all we have is a strong social commitment to the ideals of fairness, co-operation, and non-ideological presentation of the facts.

Like any other community, there are disagreements and arguments, but the wonderful thing so far has been that all the participants, be they leftist, rightist, libertarian, or other, genuinely strive to get along and to present a work that avoids advocacy wherever it can.

You, yes even you, can go to Wikipedia right now and start editing any article that you find which you think is biased. Other people will see your edits, and perhaps comment, and perhaps edit further. If there are disagreements, they'll be discussed. Generally, we find that all points of view can be easily accomodated through careful, lively, and intelligent writing.

The Wikipedia community doesn't tend to respond much to criticism. We're too busy doing something we hope will be useful in the long run, and that we certainly enjoy as a pastime in the short run. Basically, there's no excuse for criticism, particularly on such grounds as you've chosen, when there's nothing stopping you from simply fixing whatever mistakes you find.

So, I invite you to participate in Wikipedia. And if you ever feel the desire to have a little explosive fun with a shotgun, (come on admit it, there have to be some annoying things you'd like to shoot... how about an old computer mouse that drove you nuts?)... I'll gladly take you out and show you how. :-)

[Hex]

[some links]

Of course I didn't search for "Wikipedia". Thanks.

[Zoloft]

Personal attacks on me are always useful, thoughtful, and an entertaining way to spend an evening. -- Jimmy Wales

There's your moment of Zen.