Let's talk about LDS editors

[utbc]

Oh. I get it. You think that the Book of Mormon is so amazing that people will be awed by its literary genius even if not convinced it was god-inspired. Like they will come in the back door by means of its amazing brilliance.

If that were true the BoM would have exerted some literary influence, but I don't think it has outside Mormon authors. Orson Scott Card (T-H-L) for example (actually an esteemed SF author). Would anybody read the BoM for pleasue?

Masochists

[Dan of La Mancha]

Sounds similar to the doctrine of the inimitability of the Qur'an (T-H-L), or at least pointing in that direction. The implication is that if the Book of Mormon wasn't translated then it must have been divinely inspired, because a simple farmer like Smith couldn't otherwise have written such a brilliant work.

[Vigilant]

The web of LDS involved admins continues to grow.

ANI current

Permanent link

[Vigilant]

It seems like LDS COI editing is a perennial issue

[Vigilant]

What is wrong with Andy Mabbett's noggin?

[greenday61892]

There are now multiple admins getting ensnared in this as having not disclosed LDS/BYU/AML COIs... at what point does ArbCom get their heads out of their asses and acknowledge that the scope of the open case clearly needs to be expanded and several people added as parties?

[Vigilant]

There are now multiple admins getting ensnared in this as having not disclosed LDS/BYU/AML COIs... at what point does ArbCom get their heads out of their asses and acknowledge that the scope of the open case clearly needs to be expanded and several people added as parties?

Never.

[Vigilant]

Is it really necessary or desirable to have Andy Mabbet and WhyAmIADipshit badgering every Support vote at ANI?

[Vigilant]

Isn't that just extra special

[Kraken]

I'm sorry for what's going on over at AN/I, and I know it can't be easy for you personally. Being surrounded by a crowd of people who are lobbing accusations, attacking your integrity, mocking you, mocking your religion, criticizing your work, threatening your employment, tag-bombing your articles, and then doing the same for your friends and colleages...it's enough to drive anybody crazy. 

I note the lack of any diffs to support these extremely serious accusations.

I also note he didn't just fail to mention he went to BYU he gave knowingly misleading explanations for his interest in these user conduct matters.....

As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama.

ArbCom needs to start showing these kinds of failings in Admins matter.

That they are going to be held to account.

[rnu]

Hesitant oppose, because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her students need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Emphasis added)

tl;dr: The person who made this mess is best qualified to clean it up.

[rnu]

BoyNamedTzu (T-C-L) aka Michael Austin (writer) (T-H-L) has "retired".

[greenday61892]

[tarantino]

Interestingly Makoto Hunter's Linkedin does not have a section that was there last December:

Writing Consultant
Harold B. Lee Library
Aug 2020 - Jul 2021 ·1 year
Provo, Utah, United States
Consulted on students’ texts from broad range of genres, including research-based persuasion, rhetorical analysis, cover letters, devotional writing, creative writing, and more.

Tutored students in applying general writing principles to improve papers and themselves as writers, revisers, and editors.

Studied and applied writing center research and pedagogy.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

It's not looking good for P Makoto. Erasing something like that from her LinkedIn at this point was just dumb.

If you've read the rest of this thread, you're probably asking "is P Makoto part of the AML crowd?" and the answer is, not surprisingly, yes. She presented at the 2023 AML Conference. She has been published in their Irreantum magazine. Here's a video of the "AML Online Book Club" from January 2023 with P Makoto and Eric W, Jepson, among others. It's on the YouTube channel of Andrew Hall who edited Wikipedia as Befubashi (T-C-L). He writes for the AML blog. He also has the most edits on the AML article and the second most on the AML Awards article.

The long and short of it is that I have a terminated relationship with BYU: I was previously an undergraduate student and had a couple student jobs (none of which involved Rachel Helps (BYU), who I met through Wikipedia). Since then, a lot has happened. I came out as trans, I ended my education and employment at BYU, I'm at a different institution that doesn't have denominational/religious ties. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation and misapplication of the conflict of interest policy. I have disclosed this on my user page and think that under the conflict of interest policy it'll be appropriate for me to refrain from editing article space about BYU topics and appropriate that if I participate in current/future conversations about BYU-paid editors my terminated relationship with the BYU institution be disclosed (all this in addition to being more rigorous about how I understand and apply the COI policy).

As Primefac states, I don't disclose other information about myself. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Primefac has suppressed some edits on Village_pump_(miscellaneous), so I can't link directly to that quote.

[greenday61892]

jfc primefac seriously cannot help himself can he

[yasslay]

Primefac has suppressed some edits on Village_pump_(miscellaneous), so I can't link directly to that quote.

The more edits Primefac suppresses, the more suspicious he appears to me. I'm amazed by how many edits were redacted by him despite the fact that he's quite literally involved. While he needs his bits to be taken away, there is also a reasonable expectation that the privacy of Wikipedians, regardless of how much they expose personal information on their own accord, is to be guaranteed, so it's quite a odd, GAMEy situation at the moment.

The following is in order:

[yasslay]

jfc primefac seriously cannot help himself can he

[iii]

tl;dr: The person who made this mess is best qualified to clean it up.

Awww... but you gotta give her the chance to do the restitution and reconciliation. Step 9 of AA and lovingly incorporated into official church doctrine:

Like the repentant sons of Mosiah who went about “zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done” (Mosiah 27:35), we desired to make amends. Still, as we faced step 9, we knew we could not carry out our desires unless God blessed us with His Spirit. We needed courage, good judgment, sensitivity, prudence, and appropriate timing. These were not qualities that most of us possessed at that time. We realized that step 9 would once more test our willingness to humble ourselves and seek the help and grace of the Lord.

Because of our experiences in this challenging process, we offer a few suggestions. It is very important that you are not impulsive or careless as you attempt to make amends. It is equally important that you do not procrastinate making amends.

Sorry, this whole thing has made me a bit slap happy.

[rnu]

It's starting to get hard to keep track of people. So:

Dramatis personae
LDS / BYU
Rachel Helps (BYU) (T-C-L) / Rwelean (T-C-L) (Wikipedian in Residence)
- works at Harold B. Lee Library
- on the board of the Association for Mormon Letters
- has been on four judging panels for AML awards
- graduate student at BYU
BoyNamedTzu (T-C-L) (Michael Austin (writer) (T-H-L)
- BYU alumnus
- author/editor of books about Mormonism
- former board member of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
- director of BCC Press
P-Makoto (T-C-L) (P. Makoto Hunter)
- BYU alumna
- had several student jobs at BYU including one at the Harold B. Lee Library
Thmazing (T-C-L) (Erik "Theric" W Jepson)
- former president of the Association for Mormon Letters
- managing editor of Irreantum
FyzixFighter (T-C-L)
- member of LDS
- bowed out when asked about COI with BYU
Nihonjoe (T-C-L) (Joe Monson) (admin, bureaucrat)
- on the board of the Association for Mormon Letters
Awilley (T-C-L) (Anthony Willey) (admin)
- BYU alumnus
MossAlbatross (T-C-L) (Madison Moss) (WMF, senior counsel, compliance)
- BYU alumna
- former legal extern with the Area Legal Counsel Office of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana
- former law clerk at BYU's Office of General Counsel

Another Mormon who was mentioned, but seems to be unrelated (and belong to another denomination)
WarBishop (T-C-L) (blocked since February)
- self described "senior clergy" (based on edits and context probably Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite))

Wikipedians in Residence
Pigsonthewing (T-C-L) (Andy Mabbett)
WhatamIdoing (T-C-L)


I left out BYU student editors, a list is available on the user page of Rachel Helps. I was too lazy to include links, but can provide them if someone wants them.
Did I miss someone or something important?

[Xiphoid Process]

Primefac has suppressed some edits on Village_pump_(miscellaneous), so I can't link directly to that quote.

The more edits Primefac suppresses, the more suspicious he appears to me. I'm amazed by how many edits were redacted by him despite the fact that he's quite literally involved. While he needs his bits to be taken away, there is also a reasonable expectation that the privacy of Wikipedians, regardless of how much they expose personal information on their own accord, is to be guaranteed, so it's quite a odd, GAMEy situation at the moment.

It's absolutely mindboggling to me that Primefac is still using his tools in this area as a named party to a related Arbcom case. Like, it's not even about Primefac himself at this point—I'd already seen more than enough to conclude that he does not exactly have the greatest judgment—it's the fact that none of his colleagues on the Committee has gently suggested that maybe some other OSer or Arb should handle the front-line anti-OUTing duties here until the case is resolved. Does no one see how amateurish this looks? Are we in another one of those situations where 75% of the Committee has quietly gone inactive and the remaining 25% are burned out and just going through the motions? It's just ridiculous. What are we even doing here?

[Ryuichi]

Awww... but you gotta give her the chance to do the restitution and reconciliation. Step 9 of AA and lovingly incorporated into official church doctrine:

From the perspective of the other people involved, Step 9 is not always a good thing. Sometimes it's better to allow people to quietly move on with their own lives; and not re-intrude.

[iii]

Awww... but you gotta give her the chance to do the restitution and reconciliation. Step 9 of AA and lovingly incorporated into official church doctrine:

From the perspective of the other people involved, Step 9 is not always a good thing. Sometimes it's better to allow people to quietly move on with their own lives; and not re-intrude.

You're telling me. But the last few people seem to want to try it anyway.

[Kraken]

Does no one see how amateurish this looks?

That's the heart of the "Conflict of interest management" case.

Do enough people see it, and are they in a position to do anything about it? At all levels. The shop floor, middle management and executive floor.

The current COI guidance is the correct path. You cannot survive as a supposedly neutral reference work if you treat COI as merely a matter of effect not appearances. I think several problems are coming home to roost now. Matters of top level leadership, the pipeline of Admin renewal, the closed nature of the community.

Even now, you have to wonder what proportion of advanced rights holders could pass a simple exam on the basics of COI management. Appearances versus intent. Transparency versus privacy. I don't think many are even passing such a thing, even less with flying colors.

Deep seated and long in the making problems such as this are usually only resolved through some form of outside intervention. An audit. An independent commission. An inquiry. Problems identified and solutions progressed with force.

A serious response to an existential threat.

All things Wikipedia just doesn't do.

[iii]

Did I miss someone or something important?

P-Makoto's connection to AML

[Kraken]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

[iii]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

[The Blue Newt]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

Nahh. It works. For some people.

It does not work for some people, and there is no real way to predict which is which.

If treated as a cult, which it often is, it can lead to people making unfortunate decisions, and not just about themselves.

But, “woo?”.

Nahh.

[rnu]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

Nahh. It works. For some people.

It does not work for some people, and there is no real way to predict which is which.

If treated as a cult, which it often is, it can lead to people making unfortunate decisions, and not just about themselves.

But, “woo?”.

Nahh.

AA itself probably not. But some of the twelve steps are definitely woo. Take the support network, drop the woo and you won't see any drop in efficacy.

[rnu]

Did I miss someone or something important?

P-Makoto's connection to AML

Right. She took part in AML activities which is in itself a COI and suggests (former or current) membership.

[iii]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

Nahh. It works. For some people.

It does not work for some people, and there is no real way to predict which is which.

If treated as a cult, which it often is, it can lead to people making unfortunate decisions, and not just about themselves.

But, “woo?”.

Nahh.

It's woo. 5-8% success rate. And the organization itself is pretty bad.

AA itself probably not. But some of the twelve steps are definitely woo. Take the support network, drop the woo and you won't see any drop in efficacy.

If all AA was was a "support network" it wouldn't be AA anymore. There are plenty of great support networks run by people who, y'know, have actual degrees and aren't pretending that the effective treatments to help cure addition don't exist.

[The Blue Newt]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

Nahh. It works. For some people.

It does not work for some people, and there is no real way to predict which is which.

If treated as a cult, which it often is, it can lead to people making unfortunate decisions, and not just about themselves.

But, “woo?”.

Nahh.

It's woo. 5-8% success rate. And the organization itself is pretty bad.

AA itself probably not. But some of the twelve steps are definitely woo. Take the support network, drop the woo and you won't see any drop in efficacy.

If all AA was was a "support network" it wouldn't be AA anymore. There are plenty of great support networks run by people who, y'know, have actual degrees and aren't pretending that the effective treatments to help cure addition don't exist.

Perhaps there might be a better cite than a “polemical and deeply flawed book?”

[rnu]

Current counts:

The proposal to tban Thmazing (T-C-L) (Erik "Theric" W Jepson) "from pages related to Association of Mormon Letters broadly construed".
Support: 14
Oppose: 0
Several editors call for stronger measures.

The proposal to tban Rachel Helps (BYU) (T-C-L) / Rwelean (T-C-L) "from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed".
Support: 22
Neutral: 1
Oppose: 10

Of the ten oppose voters two have a BYU related COI:
- FyzixFighter (T-C-L)
- Awilley (T-C-L)
And two have a WiR COI:
- Pigsonthewing (T-C-L)
- WhatamIdoing (T-C-L)

Leaving six votes from uninvolved (as far as I know) editors. These are:
- David Eppstein (T-C-L) who pretends this is about religion and would mean that Christians could no longer edit articles related to Christianity.
- Thincat (T-C-L) who claims Rachel Helps declared her COI and who had positive experiences with her outside of LDS/BYU related topics.
- Ocaasi (T-C-L) who doesn't address any of the concerns.
- Vanamonde93 (T-C-L) who sees the problem, but believes that a tban is not the best solution. Believes that Rachel Helps is best positioned to clean up the mess that she herself made. May support a tban from article space allowing talk page participation.
- Rhododendrites (T-C-L) who says that most of the problematic edits are not from Rachel Helps. Favors voluntary restrictions. Doesn't see enough evidence for a tban.
- David Tornheim (T-C-L) who says that a tban is not warranted because there have been no strong warnings. Seems to support voluntary restrictions.
In my opinion the first three of these should be dismissed as at best missing the point at worst deliberately deflecting.

BTW the neutral vote seems to not support only because they fear this could cost Rachel Helps her job.

[iii]

TIL Step 9 is not Step 12.

Wtf is Step 12?!

I'm glad you asked!

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA is absolute woo. By the way. I thought that was well-known.

Nahh. It works. For some people.

It does not work for some people, and there is no real way to predict which is which.

If treated as a cult, which it often is, it can lead to people making unfortunate decisions, and not just about themselves.

But, “woo?”.

Nahh.

It's woo. 5-8% success rate. And the organization itself is pretty bad.

AA itself probably not. But some of the twelve steps are definitely woo. Take the support network, drop the woo and you won't see any drop in efficacy.

If all AA was was a "support network" it wouldn't be AA anymore. There are plenty of great support networks run by people who, y'know, have actual degrees and aren't pretending that the effective treatments to help cure addition don't exist.

Perhaps there might be a better cite than a “polemical and deeply flawed book?”

Okay, mea culpa, I did need to update my knowledge on this.

AA rates are apparently about as good as other treatment programs and they have the benefit of being free. But the woo judgement remains.

[iii]

- Ocaasi (T-C-L) who doesn't address any of the concerns.

Doesn't Occasi fall into the WIR-WMF-GLAM-COI-PAID EDITING IS COOL conflicted camp?

[rnu]

- Ocaasi (T-C-L) who doesn't address any of the concerns.

Doesn't Occasi fall into the WIR-WMF-GLAM-COI-PAID EDITING IS COOL conflicted camp?

I hadn't looked at him yet. From a superficial glance at his user page I'd say "yes".

[Kelly Martin]

The current COI guidance is the correct path. You cannot survive as a supposedly neutral reference work if you treat COI as merely a matter of effect not appearances. I think several problems are coming home to roost now. Matters of top level leadership, the pipeline of Admin renewal, the closed nature of the community.

Even now, you have to wonder what proportion of advanced rights holders could pass a simple exam on the basics of COI management. Appearances versus intent. Transparency versus privacy. I don't think many are even passing such a thing, even less with flying colors.

Deep seated and long in the making problems such as this are usually only resolved through some form of outside intervention. An audit. An independent commission. An inquiry. Problems identified and solutions progressed with force.

A serious response to an existential threat.

All things Wikipedia just doesn't do.

Wikipedia will never adopt a conflict-of-interest policy that comports with the sort of transparency you're asking for. There's a significant fraction of Wikipedia's editor base that principally or even only participates in Wikipedia to advance some interest that they do not wish to disclose. These people have worked extremely hard to create and maintain an environment that prioritizes privacy over transparency. This combines with all the other people who have other (often, but by no means always, legitimate reasons) to keep their identities private to create a powerful coalition within Wikipedia's community that strongly supports the current hyperaggressive privacy protection rules which make it a cardinal offense against "the body" to make any effort at all to identify a "member in good standing".

You can't have transparency in an environment where you're organizationally required to accept everyone else's attestations on good faith and cannot contest them in any way whatsoever. But it's impossible to even investigate whether someone is being truthful about disclosing their conflicts if any effort to ascertain their identity (which would be needed to validate their claim to be unconflicted) is verboten.

Fundamentally, this goes back to two things: One, Wikipedia's cultural grounding in neocommunist ideologies (which brings with it a requirement to, by default, assume that community actors are always acting in the interest of the community and generally makes it improper to question this, even implicitly), and two, Wikipedia's inappropriate reaction to the "Essjay Incident" (which, because it was about a prominent user making false claims of competency and affiliation that ultimately led to organizational embarrassment, led to rule that, instead of prohibiting making false claims of competency or affilation, instead led to a rule prohibiting anyone from making any claims of competency or affiliation). Wikipedia is foundationally vulnerable to bad actors, and the bad actors have realized this and have moved in in such numbers that they are numerous enough to prevent the community from ever making any rules that will interfere with their ongoing cooptation of Wikipedia for their own purposes. And the rest of the community is too immature, blinkered, or both to ever recognize how they're being played.

[iii]

The current COI guidance is the correct path. You cannot survive as a supposedly neutral reference work if you treat COI as merely a matter of effect not appearances. I think several problems are coming home to roost now. Matters of top level leadership, the pipeline of Admin renewal, the closed nature of the community.

Even now, you have to wonder what proportion of advanced rights holders could pass a simple exam on the basics of COI management. Appearances versus intent. Transparency versus privacy. I don't think many are even passing such a thing, even less with flying colors.

Deep seated and long in the making problems such as this are usually only resolved through some form of outside intervention. An audit. An independent commission. An inquiry. Problems identified and solutions progressed with force.

A serious response to an existential threat.

All things Wikipedia just doesn't do.

Wikipedia will never adopt a conflict-of-interest policy that comports with the sort of transparency you're asking for. There's a significant fraction of Wikipedia's editor base that principally or even only participates in Wikipedia to advance some interest that they do not wish to disclose. These people have worked extremely hard to create and maintain an environment that prioritizes privacy over transparency. This combines with all the other people who have other (often, but by no means always, legitimate reasons) to keep their identities private to create a powerful coalition within Wikipedia's community that strongly supports the current hyperaggressive privacy protection rules which make it a cardinal offense against "the body" to make any effort at all to identify a "member in good standing".

You can't have transparency in an environment where you're organizationally required to accept everyone else's attestations on good faith and cannot contest them in any way whatsoever. But it's impossible to even investigate whether someone is being truthful about disclosing their conflicts if any effort to ascertain their identity (which would be needed to validate their claim to be unconflicted) is verboten.

Fundamentally, this goes back to two things: One, Wikipedia's cultural grounding in neocommunist ideologies (which brings with it a requirement to, by default, assume that community actors are always acting in the interest of the community and generally makes it improper to question this, even implicitly), and two, Wikipedia's inappropriate reaction to the "Essjay Incident" (which, because it was about a prominent user making false claims of competency and affiliation that ultimately led to organizational embarrassment, led to rule that, instead of prohibiting making false claims of competency or affilation, instead led to a rule prohibiting anyone from making any claims of competency or affiliation). Wikipedia is foundationally vulnerable to bad actors, and the bad actors have realized this and have moved in in such numbers that they are numerous enough to prevent the community from ever making any rules that will interfere with their ongoing cooptation of Wikipedia for their own purposes. And the rest of the community is too immature, blinkered, or both to ever recognize how they're being played.

I largely agree with this, but what is interesting is that there is an active and angry wikipolity now that didn't exist even as short time ago as a few years ago. I think what has happened is that the collective agglomeration of scandals coupled with natural aging of institutions has cause an interesting sort of discontent and "something rotten in the state of Denmark" sort of attitude to seep in slowly to the point now that it's not an insignificant faction. Sure, there are probably old guard and sleeper accounts that will fight tooth and nail to stop any sort of COI rule to be implemented, but with each scandal more and more people are deciding that the pseudonymity before all else may not be the best thing.

It's interesting that you called the ideology neocommunist. I think it's closer to anarcho-capitalist/libertarian.

[rnu]

Today I've been struggling to figure out why all the Mormons on Wikipdedia are insisting on treating the Book of Mormon as a creative work or worthy of literary analysis. It's pretty wild: like do you really want people to do a close reading of a pretty shitty biblical fan fiction from 1830? Then I read this:

Oh. I get it. You think that the Book of Mormon is so amazing that people will be awed by its literary genius even if not convinced it was god-inspired. Like they will come in the back door by means of its amazing brilliance.

Go ahead and read the Book of Mormon (if you haven't already). I dare you to find it brilliant.

LO fucking L.

I think the obvious thing to do when people try to pass summaries of the Book of Mormon of as plot summaries is to start every article along the lines of "X is a fictional person/city/..." and change the description of Joseph Smith to "author of alternative history/fantasy fiction" and that of the LDS to "Joseph Smith fan group". Problem solved.

[orangepi]

I have dealt with LDS-related groups making ridiculous claims about the "historicity" of the Book of Mormon on the internet before, in a non-Wikipedia context.

It is an experience I have no desire to repeat. It is one of those arguments where it turns out not to matter what is said; you are both losers for participating.

[Ryuichi]

It is one of those arguments where it turns out not to matter what is said; you are both losers for participating.

I am given to understand that the pig usually finds this sort of muddy experience enjoyable.

[Vigilant]

I have dealt with LDS-related groups making ridiculous claims about the "historicity" of the Book of Mormon on the internet before, in a non-Wikipedia context.

It is an experience I have no desire to repeat. It is one of those arguments where it turns out not to matter what is said; you are both losers for participating.

The trick is not minding that it hurts.

[Kelly Martin]

It's interesting that you called the ideology neocommunist. I think it's closer to anarcho-capitalist/libertarian.

The neocommunists were there first. A large portion, possibly even a majority, of the community in the first couple of years were left-wing academic types, many of them communalists or communists of some stripe or another. The libertarians and other minarchist types didn't arrive in force until a couple years later (when Wikipedia was discovered by the Slashdot crowd), and by the time they'd arrived the neocommunist ideologies were already well-baked into Wikipedia's culture.

Libertarians have no problem at all at questioning someone else's good faith; they only get upset when someone questions their own. While there are aspects of anarcho-capitalism in Wikipedia's culture, fundamentally Wikipedia culture is, and largely always has been, rather strongly anticapitalist. This isn't really surprising, given that it's pretty much fundamentally a communalist venture, with community members allegedly giving selflessly of their time and talents for the betterment of "all mankind".

[iii]

It's interesting that you called the ideology neocommunist. I think it's closer to anarcho-capitalist/libertarian.

The neocommunists were there first. A large portion, possibly even a majority, of the community in the first couple of years were left-wing academic types, many of them communalists or communists of some stripe or another. The libertarians and other minarchist types didn't arrive in force until a couple years later (when Wikipedia was discovered by the Slashdot crowd), and by the time they'd arrived the neocommunist ideologies were already well-baked into Wikipedia's culture.

Good to know. Being a late-comer (by which I mean 2004) I was in the post slashdot crowd having missed the first phase transition. I was sucked into the website by Google hits for ideas that were otherwise difficult to find discussed on the internet. Came for the uniquely comprehesive content, stayed to trash the content that was unaccountable and bizarre.

[Kraken]

All the more troubling then that this incarnation of ArbCom seems to want to take their cues from the community, rather than setting the tone.

If they make a hash of the case, if Risker doesn't get a very public slap down for her ridiculous threats, then the editors who aren't on the make should just leave.

Let the self certifiing grifters and reality deniers have free reign creating a "neutral" (lol) encyclopedia.

[The Blue Newt]

All the more troubling then that this incarnation of ArbCom seems to want to take their cues from the community, rather than setting the tone.

If they make a hash of the case, if Risker doesn't get a very public slap down for her ridiculous threats, then the editors who aren't on the make should just leave.

Let the self certifiing grifters and reality deniers have free reign creating a "neutral" (lol) encyclopedia.

The would change what, exactly?

[Kraken]

All the more troubling then that this incarnation of ArbCom seems to want to take their cues from the community, rather than setting the tone.

If they make a hash of the case, if Risker doesn't get a very public slap down for her ridiculous threats, then the editors who aren't on the make should just leave.

Let the self certifiing grifters and reality deniers have free reign creating a "neutral" (lol) encyclopedia.

The would change what, exactly?

Good faith editors don't end up wasting their lives on a doomed project, bad faith editors and their enablers end up dooming the project.

Or nothing.

[Midsize Jake]

It's interesting that you called the ideology neocommunist. I think it's closer to anarcho-capitalist/libertarian.

The neocommunists were there first. A large portion, possibly even a majority, of the community in the first couple of years were left-wing academic types, many of them communalists or communists of some stripe or another. The libertarians and other minarchist types didn't arrive in force until a couple years later (when Wikipedia was discovered by the Slashdot crowd), and by the time they'd arrived the neocommunist ideologies were already well-baked into Wikipedia's culture.

Good to know. Being a late-comer (by which I mean 2004) I was in the post slashdot crowd having missed the first phase transition...

It's a bit confusing, because on Wikipedia (and, arguably, elsewhere) "neocommunism" is considered a synonym of "Eurocommunism," which was basically an attempt by European commies to break free of Soviet influence during the 70s and 80s. I think the idea was to be more democratic and less racist/sexist/atheistic, among other things — but in this context, their big selling point was "free culture" and the gradual elimination of private property, including (and maybe especially) intellectual property, patents, and copyright laws. I'm guessing that's the main thing Ms. Martin is referring to there.

Also, while there were plenty of lefty free-culture types hanging around Wikipedia during the early days, the fact that Jimbo Wales was a fairly prominent Randroid libertarian led a lot of people to assume that pseudo-ideology was the primary pseudo-intellectual underpinning of WP itself. And of course Larry Sanger's own libertarian conservatism, which continues to reach new extremes with each passing day, only reinforced that idea. But IMO the copyright issue sort of took priority for Jimbo and forced him to adopt a free-culture stance that might have seemed alien to him, if only for practical reasons (i.e., if they hadn't been careful and forceful about the rules, Wikipedia would have basically become one gigantic copyright violation in fairly short order — some would say it did anyway, of course).

Long story short, I wouldn't call them "neocommunists," even though they definitely share a lot of the same aims and priorities. I'd just call them something like "copyleftists," because while the first-gen Wikipedians probably did tend towards the progressive end of the political spectrum, most of that stuff about equality and identity and what-not didn't really slow them down due to their white-male demographic homogeneity. (Which also still applies today, though maybe a bit less so).

[Giraffe Stapler]

Normally I would throw this in the autobiographers thread, but since the usual crew of BYU-sponsored editors are involved, I'll leave it here instead.

Lehinicholes (T-C-L) is Charle N. Holmberg (T-H-L), author. The N is for Nicholes. She was an AML Award finalist in 2014 and has won multiple Whitney Awards. According to her Wikipedia article, she enjoys Star Trek and played the french horn in high school.

What are the Whitney Awards (T-H-L)?

The Whitney Awards are awards given annually for novels by LDS authors. Established in 2007, they are named after Orson F. Whitney, a prominent early member of the LDS Church. There are several categories for which novels may be nominated. The Whitney Awards are a semi-independent non-profit organization affiliated with the LDStorymakers, a guild for LDS authors.

I'd be very surprised if anyone outside of LDS literary circles knew or cared about these awards.

[iii]

Normally I would throw this in the autobiographers thread, but since the usual crew of BYU-sponsored editors are involved, I'll leave it here instead.

Lehinicholes (T-C-L) is Charle N. Holmberg (T-H-L), author.

GODDAMNIT, GIRAFFE STAPLER! If you keep stapling new reports to the file, eventually, we're going to have to go get the giraffe binder.

First of all, FTFY:

Charlie N. Holmberg (T-H-L)

Secondly, let's take a gander at the articles on her novel:

The Paper Magician (T-H-L), The Fifth Doll (T-H-L) Guess who the author was? Cstickel(byu) (T-C-L).

The publishing company? 47North (T-H-L) created by a fly-by-night probably paid-editing gig Zekus McFly (T-C-L) in 2013 but, oh, look! It's our friend Nihonjoe (T-C-L) doing helpful gnomish work in 2016. Oh, Lehinicholes helpfully added herself as an author there.

As for the Whitney Awards, that page was started by

CagedFury (T-C-L) whose first action was to create the page for Robison Wells (T-H-L)

In the spring of 2007, Robison Wells began work on the Whitney Awards, an awards program for LDS fiction. He has stated that this idea came from a conversation with friend and fellow author Brandon Sanderson. The Whitney Awards are sponsored by LDStorymakers, an author's guild for LDS writers. Robison Wells served as president of the Whitney Awards Committee for three years, ending in 2010

CagedFury also started Dan Wells (author) (T-H-L), which is Robison's brother.

GODDAMNIT, GIRAFFE STAPLER!

[Vigilant]

ARBCOM really should come down with a remedy that states, "LDS connected editors may not edit LDS connected articles, broadly construed."