Wikipedia history - block of Worldtraveller

[Peter Damian]

More Wikipedia history. For the book, I am taking significant turning points in Wikipedia history, preferably one which we can attach a real live place to, or real people, then applying a flashback and flashforward. The flashback involves the history leading up to the turning point, the flashforward to events which followed it, right up to the present if appropriate.

I'm working on the chapter about the rise and fall of the content creators, and the battle between them and the administrators. I'm picking Worldtraveller because s/he seems like a pretty good content creator (but there are always surprises with these people), and because the dispute with the blocking admin (user:Inshaneee) seemed pretty clear cut. I.e. the admin was behaving like an officious little dictator, and the content creator's actions, while not entirely free of blame, were unjustly punished. There's an Rfc from Jan 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nShaneee_2 that is relevant, plus the usual sort of ANI here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... arrassment.

It has a few nice touches, like the blocking admin being unable to spell 'harassment' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =111925696 , despite talking about it so much, as well as being a major contributor to 'List of Phantasy Star IV characters' type of content, if you can call it 'content'.

The case also displays those features which are so familiar from that period, namely the blocking admins and their supporters lining up on one side - we have CBDunkerson, HighinBC/1=2 or Chillum or whoever he is. Plus Moe Epsilon, who is still around I think. Then there are the content creators and their supporters, who are the usual suspects.

For the whole history, I'm thinking of a narrative like this:

There were basic admin capabilities under the original UseModWiki system there was some global admin password which could be used to delete pages without a trace.

First adminstrators' page on May 2001. "I, Jimbo Wales, propose that I should give out the administrator password fairly freely. People who have been around for a week or two, contributing to the pages in a useful way, should have access to this. Indeed, the only reason not to give it out willy-nilly is that someone really could mess things up. (For example, by renaming every page to 'Bob'.)"

A full 'sysop' privilege was introduced with the new MediaWiki software in January 2002. The powers were Ability to permanently delete pages including their history, Ability to delete uploaded files, Ability to edit pages that have protection set to "is_sysop", Ability to protect/unprotect pages, Ability to ban an IP address from editing access. (originally quite buggy, Ability to run SQL queries on the database.

For some time, there really was no distinction between admins and non-admins. Jimbo "We don't want sysops to be special or set apart from regular users.Anyone can be a sysop. All it means is that you're not a vandal." (March 2002) The 'community' was essentially all registered editors. IPs were not community. For example, replying to the question whether, given that members should not be blocked, vandals would simply log in, Jimbo says "I hope it doesn't sound too corny, but I think that the wiki spirit of love will prevent this ... Now I realize -- build it in a spirit of trust, and only do something about problems when they come up, always resisting the temptation to solve problems that don't exist, or to over-do the solution. If vandals start logging in, we'll have to do something about it. But until that happens, maybe our trusting nature will make it less fun to vandalize us". (April 2002) "Jimmy "I hope that IP blocking is very rare and confined to the sort of character very unlike yourself, i.e. the type of person who just goes around inserting foul language randomly and the like. You don't do that, I imagine. If you've merely _offended_ someone, that's no excuse for an ip block." "Jimmy "No one could possibly put up a well-advertised and open site that anyone can edit without it quickly degenerating into a battleground for trolls and counter-trolls. It's impossible. Except, it obviously isn't, since it's working great. :-)"" Ha ha.

"As a social custom, it should be that sysop status should be granted to pretty much anyone who we know, even if we don't like them, unless they are a total jerk. " (June 2002)

Blocks were originally not the main reason for sysops - the reason was page moves (see above). But on 8 June 2003 Martin Harper creates the first block policy page, per discussion on meta. Shortly after, there is the first RfA. The first rejection - an newly registered ex-IP is rejected for not having enough contributions. (also the account edited from a school IP). Pretty much everyone who applies and has a reasonable number of OK contributions gets through. It's still early days in the project and everyone knows everyone else.

By 22 December 2003 there are 143 admins http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... id=2076440 .

10 December 2004 Ta bu shi da yu creates the first administrators noticeboard. "This is a messageboard for all administrators. Please feel free to leave a message! Its purpose is to allow administrators to communicate ideas and for admin talk to happen. As we're not an elite club, just normal editors with some special functions, other non-administrators can use it. But think of it primarily as an administrator tool.

Some more firsts: April 2005 first checkuser page, Ed Poor 7 July 2005 introduces user block template. 5 September 2005 Checkuser policy introduced, merged with check user page.

31 December 2005 there are 754 admins (probably more active admins than now). 2005 is the 'firehose' era when Wikipedia gets significant attention from the net, and Wikipedia turns from a little village where everyone knows everyone else and the village bobbies go round on bikes like Dixon of Dock Green tipping their helmets and where the only rogues are colourful characters like the poacher who is liked in a sort of way - to a vast metropolis with teeming slums, hoodie gangs, drive bys operated by both the villains and law and order, and where law and order begins to resemble the kind of policing system you might have found in the Deep South any time before the civil rights movement. (Except on Wikipedia there has been no successful civil rights movement).

On 10 January 2006 Kelly Martin creates request for checkuser page.

Jan 18 2006 The thread 'adminship is no big deal' begins. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 25828.html

23 January 2006 First list of potential IRC contributors created. The page invites those with IRC nicknames to add them to the standard list of admins.

9 March 2006 Essjay designs the first 'suspected sockpuppeteer' tag.

4 April 2006 New page patrol template introduced.

Jun 17 12:36:16 UTC 2006 Wikipedia's administrative system: An MMORPG rotten to the core http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 49156.html well worth reading

All class wars should have a scientific explanation based on vested interests. Here is my explanation. In the beginning, vandalism was not a major problem on WP, so there was no requirement for any 'division of labour' in the early community. Admins wrote articles, and they moved pages, occasionally blocked users, typically IPs, and everything was fine, a sort of Rousseau-esque state of nature of primitive hunter gatherers. Then the vandalism began, and certain admins began to specialise in vandal fighting. Other people preferred content creation which is a very different skill.

However there is no real need for a content specialist to fight vandals, so increasingly the RfA process focused on administrative type skills, rather than content creation. Huge edit counts began to be a requirement for RfA. Content creators (at least, good ones) find it difficult to build large edit counts. Moreover, content creators typically don't hang around administrative notice boards, which are mainly about vandalism. And they are not usually the 'clubbable' sort. Content creation is largely about working by yourself or with a small number of trusted co-workers.

So a class divide is in the making. Class divides are also about power, or perceived power, and because the administrator class quite obviously has the power to block and to silence, they become the ruling class of Wikipedia. The content creators put up with this state of affairs for a few years, then gradually quit. Worldtraveller was only the first one, or the first high profile one.

[TungstenCarbide]

here's a couple of links that give insight into the culture of Wikipedia's admins, just for fun;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic
[you're] "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel"

P.S. here's something to add to your timeline;

[WikiEN-l] #wikipedia-en-admins
Tim Starling 1/22/06 to wikien-l
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is, i.e. secret and
invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to its existence...

(only certain admins were told about this, mostly Danny's little pack of buddies, prompting Tim's email.)

[Peter Damian]

here's a couple of links that give insight into the culture of Wikipedia's admins, just for fun;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic
[you're] "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel"

P.S. here's something to add to your timeline;

[WikiEN-l] #wikipedia-en-admins
Tim Starling 1/22/06 to wikien-l
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is, i.e. secret and
invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to its existence...

(only certain admins were told about this, mostly Danny's little pack of buddies, prompting Tim's email.)

Thanks - let's spell that one out

Tim Starling Mon Jan 23 02:22:33 UTC 2006 The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is, i.e. secret and invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to its existence. To call a forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800 but you exclude thousands of active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers and to assume good faith, but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of the world, those 6 billion non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions we wish to undertake. Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the formidable barriers against your potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would you feel about having tens of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to enter into discussion with you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in private? -- Tim Starling

And thank you for reminding me of the block of the editor known as !! in November 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:.21.21 .

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

[Peter Damian]

In fact, was he this person? http://www.world-traveller.org/about/

See https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient ... 80&bih=909

I am an astronomer, living in Chile, and my job takes me sometimes to some amazing parts of the world.

Which would explain the (at first odd) combination of contributions on geography and places, plus some incredible contributions on astronomy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history.

[Kelly Martin]

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

It is widely known amongst so-called "content editors" who !! was. I've never been told (presumably because I'm one of those evil admin people who ruined Wikipedia for everyone), but I have my suspicions.

[Randy from Boise]

More Wikipedia history. For the book, I am taking significant turning points in Wikipedia history, preferably one which we can attach a real live place to, or real people, then applying a flashback and flashforward. The flashback involves the history leading up to the turning point, the flashforward to events which followed it, right up to the present if appropriate.

I'm working on the chapter about the rise and fall of the content creators, and the battle between them and the administrators. I'm picking Worldtraveller because s/he seems like a pretty good content creator (but there are always surprises with these people), and because the dispute with the blocking admin (user:Inshaneee) seemed pretty clear cut. I.e. the admin was behaving like an officious little dictator, and the content creator's actions, while not entirely free of blame, were unjustly punished. There's an Rfc from Jan 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nShaneee_2 that is relevant, plus the usual sort of ANI here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... arrassment.

It has a few nice touches, like the blocking admin being unable to spell 'harassment' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =111925696 , despite talking about it so much, as well as being a major contributor to 'List of Phantasy Star IV characters' type of content, if you can call it 'content'.

The case also displays those features which are so familiar from that period, namely the blocking admins and their supporters lining up on one side - we have CBDunkerson, HighinBC/1=2 or Chillum or whoever he is. Plus Moe Epsilon, who is still around I think. Then there are the content creators and their supporters, who are the usual suspects.

For the whole history, I'm thinking of a narrative like this:

There were basic admin capabilities under the original UseModWiki system there was some global admin password which could be used to delete pages without a trace.

First adminstrators' page on May 2001. "I, Jimbo Wales, propose that I should give out the administrator password fairly freely. People who have been around for a week or two, contributing to the pages in a useful way, should have access to this. Indeed, the only reason not to give it out willy-nilly is that someone really could mess things up. (For example, by renaming every page to 'Bob'.)"

A full 'sysop' privilege was introduced with the new MediaWiki software in January 2002. The powers were Ability to permanently delete pages including their history, Ability to delete uploaded files, Ability to edit pages that have protection set to "is_sysop", Ability to protect/unprotect pages, Ability to ban an IP address from editing access. (originally quite buggy, Ability to run SQL queries on the database.

For some time, there really was no distinction between admins and non-admins. Jimbo "We don't want sysops to be special or set apart from regular users.Anyone can be a sysop. All it means is that you're not a vandal." (March 2002) The 'community' was essentially all registered editors. IPs were not community. For example, replying to the question whether, given that members should not be blocked, vandals would simply log in, Jimbo says "I hope it doesn't sound too corny, but I think that the wiki spirit of love will prevent this ... Now I realize -- build it in a spirit of trust, and only do something about problems when they come up, always resisting the temptation to solve problems that don't exist, or to over-do the solution. If vandals start logging in, we'll have to do something about it. But until that happens, maybe our trusting nature will make it less fun to vandalize us". (April 2002) "Jimmy "I hope that IP blocking is very rare and confined to the sort of character very unlike yourself, i.e. the type of person who just goes around inserting foul language randomly and the like. You don't do that, I imagine. If you've merely _offended_ someone, that's no excuse for an ip block." "Jimmy "No one could possibly put up a well-advertised and open site that anyone can edit without it quickly degenerating into a battleground for trolls and counter-trolls. It's impossible. Except, it obviously isn't, since it's working great. :-)"" Ha ha.

"As a social custom, it should be that sysop status should be granted to pretty much anyone who we know, even if we don't like them, unless they are a total jerk. " (June 2002)

Blocks were originally not the main reason for sysops - the reason was page moves (see above). But on 8 June 2003 Martin Harper creates the first block policy page, per discussion on meta. Shortly after, there is the first RfA. The first rejection - an newly registered ex-IP is rejected for not having enough contributions. (also the account edited from a school IP). Pretty much everyone who applies and has a reasonable number of OK contributions gets through. It's still early days in the project and everyone knows everyone else.

By 22 December 2003 there are 143 admins http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... id=2076440 .

10 December 2004 Ta bu shi da yu creates the first administrators noticeboard. "This is a messageboard for all administrators. Please feel free to leave a message! Its purpose is to allow administrators to communicate ideas and for admin talk to happen. As we're not an elite club, just normal editors with some special functions, other non-administrators can use it. But think of it primarily as an administrator tool.

Some more firsts: April 2005 first checkuser page, Ed Poor 7 July 2005 introduces user block template. 5 September 2005 Checkuser policy introduced, merged with check user page.

31 December 2005 there are 754 admins (probably more active admins than now). 2005 is the 'firehose' era when Wikipedia gets significant attention from the net, and Wikipedia turns from a little village where everyone knows everyone else and the village bobbies go round on bikes like Dixon of Dock Green tipping their helmets and where the only rogues are colourful characters like the poacher who is liked in a sort of way - to a vast metropolis with teeming slums, hoodie gangs, drive bys operated by both the villains and law and order, and where law and order begins to resemble the kind of policing system you might have found in the Deep South any time before the civil rights movement. (Except on Wikipedia there has been no successful civil rights movement).

On 10 January 2006 Kelly Martin creates request for checkuser page.

Jan 18 2006 The thread 'adminship is no big deal' begins. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 25828.html

23 January 2006 First list of potential IRC contributors created. The page invites those with IRC nicknames to add them to the standard list of admins.

9 March 2006 Essjay designs the first 'suspected sockpuppeteer' tag.

4 April 2006 New page patrol template introduced.

Jun 17 12:36:16 UTC 2006 Wikipedia's administrative system: An MMORPG rotten to the core http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 49156.html well worth reading

All class wars should have a scientific explanation based on vested interests. Here is my explanation. In the beginning, vandalism was not a major problem on WP, so there was no requirement for any 'division of labour' in the early community. Admins wrote articles, and they moved pages, occasionally blocked users, typically IPs, and everything was fine, a sort of Rousseau-esque state of nature of primitive hunter gatherers. Then the vandalism began, and certain admins began to specialise in vandal fighting. Other people preferred content creation which is a very different skill.

However there is no real need for a content specialist to fight vandals, so increasingly the RfA process focused on administrative type skills, rather than content creation. Huge edit counts began to be a requirement for RfA. Content creators (at least, good ones) find it difficult to build large edit counts. Moreover, content creators typically don't hang around administrative notice boards, which are mainly about vandalism. And they are not usually the 'clubbable' sort. Content creation is largely about working by yourself or with a small number of trusted co-workers.

So a class divide is in the making. Class divides are also about power, or perceived power, and because the administrator class quite obviously has the power to block and to silence, they become the ruling class of Wikipedia. The content creators put up with this state of affairs for a few years, then gradually quit. Worldtraveller was only the first one, or the first high profile one.

In Marxist terms, "Administrators" and "Content Creators" aren't classes (largely hereditary groupings having a certain specific relationship to the means of production), they are castes. The answer to the middle-2000s battle between the two groups doesn't lie in economic interest, but in social psychology — the way one group of people treat another group of people.

I wonder aloud whether the rather lessened level of conflict today between the Adminstrative and Content Creation groups relates to the much more difficult standard for "admission" to the former these days. While good people are no doubt weeded out in the often dysfunctional RfA process, so too are many or most of the "bad apples" — power hungry bureaucratic bosses in training.

I came to WP at the end of the decade, 2009 was my first full year at WP. I'm fairly completely immersed as a "caste-conscious" Content Creator, to coin a phrase, and am on the constant lookout for bureaucratic abuse. I can honestly say that I've only run into annoyances with Administrative types no more than a handful of times, and only one I question as to whether they are of a suitable temperamental makeup to hold blocking buttons.

If there were problems between Administrators and Content Creators on a mass scale, the situation has greatly lessened now.

It seems to me the real cause of conflict these days is between editors and administrators working in such things as copyright and content creators. The Richard Norton case seems highly instructive there. Photo rights was the domain of a couple overtemplating assholes for a while, but that situation has been mitigated. I don't think their assholery was specific to their having had Administrator status; "regular Editors" might have behaved in a similar manner, and maybe they were, for all I know.

The big question is this: were the problems of the middle-decade period related to the Walesian premise that "Adminship is No Big Deal"? And has the problem been more or less fixed by the Lord of the Flies Kool Kids Klub RfA process of today?

RfB

[Peter Damian]

If there were problems between Administrators and Content Creators on a mass scale, the situation has greatly lessened now.

This is because the content creators mostly left.

I'm fairly completely immersed as a "caste-conscious" Content Creator

You don't strike me as a content creator. (a) you are called what you call yourself (b) you made a stupid remark about philosophy, possibly tongue in cheek but apparently serious (c) you hadn't heard of this film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/

Let me take a look at your contributions.

[edit] OK unquestionably contributing content. E.g. this all yours, yes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwell_Committee

What is your interest in editing Wikipedia? Many of the articles seem to have a similar, er, aspect.

[edit again] Oh right this is why you edit Wikipedi

http://www.marxisthistory.org/ (your website)
http://carrite.wordpress.com/ (your journal)

Fair enough. You remember my theory about the 6 reasons why people edit Wikipedia. I can't remember them all, but political activism is one of them. Power to the people.

[TungstenCarbide]

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

Well funnily enough, if someone doesn't look carefully they might think Worldtraveller is you!

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

It is widely known amongst so-called "content editors" who !! was. I've never been told (presumably because I'm one of those evil admin people who ruined Wikipedia for everyone), but I have my suspicions.

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

[Kelly Martin]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

[Vocal]

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

!! was ALoan, aka RetiredUser2 (T-C-L).

[Kelly Martin]

!! was ALoan, aka RetiredUser2 (T-C-L).

That's what I've long suspected, but I've never had it confirmed by any of the people who purportedly know.

[Peter Damian]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

True enough. So, if we are to write a history of Wikipedia, chapter 'content creators', is it

(1) Bunch of people with rampant egos battled the administrators 2007-9, but lost and pranced off in a huff. Other content creators replaced them and all is well in Happy Land.

(2) Noble bunch of people who wanted to build a true encyclopedia to rival Britannica engaged in class warfare with the administrative secret police, and lost, and now the project is a mess.

Or what?

And Carrite can you please shut up about the class/caste thing I really don't see the difference. In India they have castes, in England they have classes.

[TungstenCarbide]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

True enough...

No, not in my experience. The 'content creators' I generally think of are people like Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Cla68 ... as a rule they are exceptionally nice people - until you piss on them. That's my perception. There are exceptions, of course.

[Peter Damian]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

True enough...

No, not in my experience. The 'content creators' I generally think of are people like Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Cla68 ... as a rule they are exceptionally nice people - until you piss on them. That's my perception. There are exceptions, of course.

What about calling people c-nts?

The question is, was there really a content creator vs admin battle? Or was it just that there was a small group of content creators who got a bit uppity and finally left, with the other content creators such as Carrite here staying on to do their stuff?

[Kelly Martin]

So, if we are to write a history of Wikipedia, chapter 'content creators', is it

(1) Bunch of people with rampant egos battled the administrators 2007-9, but lost and pranced off in a huff. Other content creators replaced them and all is well in Happy Land.

(2) Noble bunch of people who wanted to build a true encyclopedia to rival Britannica engaged in class warfare with the administrative secret police, and lost, and now the project is a mess.

I doubt that either of these characterizations is fair, although I must admit that choosing one or the other would likely make for a more enjoyable, or at least dramatically interesting (and therefore better-selling), read.

Charles Matthews described the situation (in an email to the Arbitration Committee in 2006) as a "diva war". I tend to agree with him.

[TungstenCarbide]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

True enough...

No, not in my experience. The 'content creators' I generally think of are people like Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Cla68 ... as a rule they are exceptionally nice people - until you piss on them. That's my perception. There are exceptions, of course.

What about calling people c-nts?

The question is, was there really a content creator vs admin battle? Or was it just that there was a small group of content creators who got a bit uppity and finally left, with the other content creators such as Carrite here staying on to do their stuff?

Most serious minded editors walked away from Wikipedia without making a sound, or were smart enough not to waste their time to begin with. Not a small group.

[Peter Damian]

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

So were many of the so-called "content creators". There are no white knights in this story.

True enough...

No, not in my experience. The 'content creators' I generally think of are people like Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Cla68 ... as a rule they are exceptionally nice people - until you piss on them. That's my perception. There are exceptions, of course.

What about calling people c-nts?

The question is, was there really a content creator vs admin battle? Or was it just that there was a small group of content creators who got a bit uppity and finally left, with the other content creators such as Carrite here staying on to do their stuff?

Most serious minded editors walked away from Wikipedia without making a sound, or were smart enough not to waste their time to begin with. Not a small group.

How would we prove this? In a serious history of the project, how would you characterise 'content creators', and what evidence is there that most of these walked away during the 'troubles'? If I speak to people like Charles Matthews, he will dispute the very existence of such a struggle. It was merely a few 'divas' throwing their handbags out of the pram.

I mean, I'm with you all the way but how could we prove this? "Walked away without a sound" is particularly difficult to prove. Our detractors will simply object "Well I didn't hear them".

[TungstenCarbide]

Most serious minded editors walked away from Wikipedia without making a sound, or were smart enough not to waste their time to begin with. Not a small group.

How would we prove this? In a serious history of the project, how would you characterise 'content creators', and what evidence is there that most of these walked away during the 'troubles'? If I speak to people like Charles Matthews, he will dispute the very existence of such a struggle. It was merely a few 'divas' throwing their handbags out of the pram.

I mean, I'm with you all the way but how could we prove this? "Walked away without a sound" is particularly difficult to prove. Our detractors will simply object "Well I didn't hear them".

All I have are my own impressions, and obviously they go back long before 'TungstenCarbide'. But from a common sense view - if you were a serious minded person capable of creating quality work, and you held durability in high value, would you make that effort knowing it's likely wasted? So look for those kind of people and ask them if they've seriously edited Wikipedia or ever thought about it and chose not to.

[Kelly Martin]

I suspect, but of course do not know, that for every 'diva' like Giano or Tony Sidaway, there were dozens of nondivas that just walked away without making much noise. Finding them would require going through literally millions of editor contributions, first to identify those that were serious content contributions, and from that identifying who the serious content contributors were. The problem that riddles these discussions is that we tend to identify people like Giano, George, and Bishonen as "serious content contributors" because they actively promoted themselves as such. Nobody has ever (as far as I know) independently verified that they deserve that sobriquet, and I rather doubt that anyone has done the research to identify who the non-diva content contributors are.

Then, of course, there is Simon Pulsifer. Pulsifer has written literally thousands of articles over the past eight or nine years. He is still beavering away at whatever the hell he writes about, and remains a fairly committed Wikipedian. The reason we here never talk about him much is that he simply does not get involved in the drama. At all. He's a nondiva content contributor who did not walk away. How many Simon Pulsifers are there in Wikipedia? Does anyone here even know? (Or care?)

We also tend not to notice the nonproblematic administrators. I'm sure that out of Wikipedia's 1300-odd administrators that at least some of them are active, and yet unoffensive. Again, we tend to ignore them, because we are all also addicted to the drama, and focus on it, instead of honestly acknowledging that once in a while, Wikipedia actually does get it right.

[Peter Damian]

We also tend not to notice the nonproblematic administrators. I'm sure that out of Wikipedia's 1300-odd administrators that at least some of them are active, and yet unoffensive. Again, we tend to ignore them, because we are all also addicted to the drama, and focus on it, instead of honestly acknowledging that once in a while, Wikipedia actually does get it right.

You make good points. On the adminsitrators, I believe we can answer that question. Eric has collected data on 249 administrators. There are a total of 700 active administrators, so that is a significant proportion. Most of them are pretty ghastly characters, frankly.

[Vigilant]

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

Well funnily enough, if someone doesn't look carefully they might think Worldtraveller is you!

Who was !! by the way? Was it Worldtraveller? And who was Worldtraveller? Do we know?

It is widely known amongst so-called "content editors" who !! was. I've never been told (presumably because I'm one of those evil admin people who ruined Wikipedia for everyone), but I have my suspicions.

Without a doubt, Kelly, you were pretty obnoxious back then.

Back then?

[Vocal]

!! was ALoan, aka RetiredUser2 (T-C-L).

That's what I've long suspected, but I've never had it confirmed by any of the people who purportedly know.

As I understand it, people on WR connected the dots around the time !! was blocked, but the mods insisted on redacting the name. The same happened when the ArbCom-L leaks happened and the messages regarding the Durova case were published.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I suspect, but of course do not know, that for every 'diva' like Giano or Tony Sidaway, there were dozens of nondivas that just walked away without making much noise. Finding them would require going through literally millions of editor contributions, first to identify those that were serious content contributions, and from that identifying who the serious content contributors were. The problem that riddles these discussions is that we tend to identify people like Giano, George, and Bishonen as "serious content contributors" because they actively promoted themselves as such. Nobody has ever (as far as I know) independently verified that they deserve that sobriquet, and I rather doubt that anyone has done the research to identify who the non-diva content contributors are.

Then, of course, there is Simon Pulsifer. Pulsifer has written literally thousands of articles over the past eight or nine years. He is still beavering away at whatever the hell he writes about, and remains a fairly committed Wikipedian. The reason we here never talk about him much is that he simply does not get involved in the drama. At all. He's a nondiva content contributor who did not walk away. How many Simon Pulsifers are there in Wikipedia? Does anyone here even know? (Or care?)

We also tend not to notice the nonproblematic administrators. I'm sure that out of Wikipedia's 1300-odd administrators that at least some of them are active, and yet unoffensive. Again, we tend to ignore them, because we are all also addicted to the drama, and focus on it, instead of honestly acknowledging that once in a while, Wikipedia actually does get it right.

I have to disagree. Looking over his contributions it seems his serious days of content work are behind him and now he mostly just engages in typical maintenance activity, occasionally undoing redirects in a way that looks like content contributions. Of the editors with whom I have interacted whose contributions have truly impressed me I would have to say that, despite his obvious flaws known to many here, MONGO is one of the most valuable content creators still around that hasn't already been mentioned.

However, you could say that points to the real issue. Content creators still do great in the kinds of menial subjects of minimal controversy on which he focuses. Any subject that gets contentious becomes a giant game and the articles lay about like dried husks that no one really wants to touch.

[EricBarbour]

We also tend not to notice the nonproblematic administrators. I'm sure that out of Wikipedia's 1300-odd administrators that at least some of them are active, and yet unoffensive. Again, we tend to ignore them, because we are all also addicted to the drama, and focus on it, instead of honestly acknowledging that once in a while, Wikipedia actually does get it right.

You make good points. On the administrators, I believe we can answer that question. Eric has collected data on 249 administrators. There are a total of 700 active administrators, so that is a significant proportion. Most of them are pretty ghastly characters, frankly.

Once again, I've found that of the 1500-or-so administrators, only about 670 are "active" today. Most of the inactive ones were non-drama-generating content writers,
the active ones tend overwhelmingly to be trolls, patrollers, Facebookers, ban-monsters, and a small number of remaining content writers (Lquilter, whom I pointed out
in another thread, is typical, along with Pulsifer) who are hopelessly addicted to Wikipedia contributing. (Speaking of Pulsifer.....remember this?)

Would you like it if I prepared a chart? I asked this question months ago, and received no clear answer. Well?

Charles Matthews described the situation (in an email to the Arbitration Committee in 2006) as a "diva war". I tend to agree with him.

Takes one to know one. (wink)

[The Devil's Advocate]

Once again, I've found that of the 1500-or-so administrators, only about 670 are "active" today. Most of the inactive ones were non-drama-generating content writers,
the active ones tend overwhelmingly to be trolls, patrollers, Facebookers, ban-monsters, and a small number of remaining content writers (Lquilter, whom I pointed out
in another thread, is typical, along with Pulsifer) who are hopelessly addicted to Wikipedia contributing. (Speaking of Pulsifer.....remember this?)

I think one of the problems is that WP:INVOLVED severely limits content creators who might want to be admins, because it has been taken to bureaucratic levels of restriction where any contentious edits even remotely related to the topic can be used as a weapon. There is also plenty of administrative wikilawyering by active admins who think simply not editing the related articles means they can be involved as an administrator on the subject. Of course, the idea of WP:INVOLVED is to insure administrators don't use their tools to win a dispute where they have some emotional investment. Whether someone has edited an article before or not is not supposed to be the determining factor, but whether the admin is at risk of using the tool in a tendentious manner.

[Randy from Boise]

If there were problems between Administrators and Content Creators on a mass scale, the situation has greatly lessened now.

This is because the content creators mostly left.

I'm fairly completely immersed as a "caste-conscious" Content Creator

You don't strike me as a content creator. (a) you are called what you call yourself (b) you made a stupid remark about philosophy, possibly tongue in cheek but apparently serious (c) you hadn't heard of this film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/

Let me take a look at your contributions.

[edit] OK unquestionably contributing content. E.g. this all yours, yes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwell_Committee

What is your interest in editing Wikipedia? Many of the articles seem to have a similar, er, aspect.

[edit again] Oh right this is why you edit Wikipedi

http://www.marxisthistory.org/ (your website)
http://carrite.wordpress.com/ (your journal)

Fair enough. You remember my theory about the 6 reasons why people edit Wikipedia. I can't remember them all, but political activism is one of them. Power to the people.

Specialist knowledge, my friend, specialist knowledge...

RfB

P.S. Yeah, Canwell Committee is all mine. I need to get working on that again tomorrow. My current work is redoing the piece on WEVD (Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =507977227, after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEVD), which is about 90% finished now.

[thekohser]

Canwell Committee is all mine.

It looks like it's headed for a future of being opened by about four to six people per day. No offense -- I have many articles that get less than 200 page views per month.

Just curious, what would you say is the most-viewed article you created and contributed at least 90% of the content to?

Among those not protected by non-disclosure agreements, I'd say mine are:

Job sharing (T-H-L) ~2500 views per month
Line management (T-H-L) ~4000 views per month

Another interesting case is an article that I paid to have written by someone else:
Sentimental Lady (T-H-L) ~2100 views per month

One of the articles I created for a paying client many years ago is still getting ~3600 views per month!

[Randy from Boise]

Canwell Committee is all mine.

It looks like it's headed for a future of being opened by about four to six people per day. No offense -- I have many articles that get less than 200 page views per month.

Just curious, what would you say is the most-viewed article you created and contributed at least 90% of the content to?

Among those not protected by non-disclosure agreements, I'd say mine are:

Job sharing (T-H-L) ~2500 views per month
Line management (T-H-L) ~4000 views per month

Another interesting case is an article that I paid to have written by someone else:
Sentimental Lady (T-H-L) ~2100 views per month

One of the articles I created for a paying client many years ago is still getting ~3600 views per month!

One number that I can cite with authority: amount I care about page views of stuff I write or stuff anyone has written: 0.00.

My goal is comprehensiveness and accuracy for my topic. That is going well.

I also write a bit about cigars and sports as a change of pace, plus the odd save or two out of AfD.

RfB

[The Devil's Advocate]

It looks like it's headed for a future of being opened by about four to six people per day. No offense -- I have many articles that get less than 200 page views per month.

You pretty much sum up the situation. I think the projectspace article on WikiDragons sums it up nicely.

[TungstenCarbide]

Job sharing (T-H-L) ~2500 views per month
Line management (T-H-L) ~4000 views per month

Another interesting case is an article that I paid to have written by someone else:
Sentimental Lady (T-H-L) ~2100 views per month

One of the articles I created for a paying client many years ago is still getting ~3600 views per month!

pfft, lightweight.

[roger_pearse]

Most serious minded editors walked away from Wikipedia without making a sound, or were smart enough not to waste their time to begin with. Not a small group.

How would we prove this? In a serious history of the project, how would you characterise 'content creators', and what evidence is there that most of these walked away during the 'troubles'? If I speak to people like Charles Matthews, he will dispute the very existence of such a struggle. It was merely a few 'divas' throwing their handbags out of the pram.

I mean, I'm with you all the way but how could we prove this? "Walked away without a sound" is particularly difficult to prove. Our detractors will simply object "Well I didn't hear them".

Is this a database query? Something like number of editors who edited for more than 1 year (arbitary figure) and made more than 500 edits to articles which averaged greater than ???? bytes and (perhaps something about using [ref] tag in edits?) and have been inactive for more than 1 year, but .... (how do we query for "did not contribute to admin stuff"? not sure).

I can't download terabytes and do queries myself, unfortunately; not enough diskspace. Not really got the time either.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[thekohser]

...amount I care ...: 0.00.

This doesn't surprise me. Your reputation for showing care precedes you.

pfft, lightweight.

You're just jealous, TC.

[roger_pearse]

I'm working on the chapter about the rise and fall of the content creators, and the battle between them and the administrators. I'm picking Worldtraveller because s/he seems like a pretty good content creator (but there are always surprises with these people), and because the dispute with the blocking admin (user:Inshaneee) seemed pretty clear cut. I.e. the admin was behaving like an officious little dictator, and the content creator's actions, while not entirely free of blame, were unjustly punished. There's an Rfc from Jan 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nShaneee_2 that is relevant, plus the usual sort of ANI here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... arrassment.

It has a few nice touches, like the blocking admin being unable to spell 'harassment' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =111925696 , despite talking about it so much, as well as being a major contributor to 'List of Phantasy Star IV characters' type of content, if you can call it 'content'.

The case also displays those features which are so familiar from that period, namely the blocking admins and their supporters lining up on one side - we have CBDunkerson, HighinBC/1=2 or Chillum or whoever he is. Plus Moe Epsilon, who is still around I think.

Interesting material to read through, and appalling from any sane point of view.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[EricBarbour]

I'm picking Worldtraveller because s/he seems like a pretty good content creator (but there are always surprises with these people), and because the dispute with the blocking admin (user:Inshaneee) seemed pretty clear cut. I.e. the admin was behaving like an officious little dictator, and the content creator's actions, while not entirely free of blame, were unjustly punished. There's an Rfc from Jan 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nShaneee_2 that is relevant, plus the usual sort of ANI here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... arrassment.

It has a few nice touches, like the blocking admin being unable to spell 'harassment' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =111925696 , despite talking about it so much, as well as being a major contributor to 'List of Phantasy Star IV characters' type of content, if you can call it 'content'.

The case also displays those features which are so familiar from that period, namely the blocking admins and their supporters lining up on one side - we have CBDunkerson, HighinBC/1=2 or Chillum or whoever he is. Plus Moe Epsilon, who is still around I think.

That's one of the best examples of a teenaged idiot patroller blocking a good contributor they've ever had. An arbitration resulted, InShaneee was desysopped, and disappeared in September 2007.
Almost literally, all he watched and worked on were cartoon/comic-book articles.

Looks like an Arbcom show trial to me. CBDunkerson and Chillum received no punishments for supporting this little punk, the arbs merely slapped him to show the others "we mean business".
Even when the "system" works, it's still partly defective. (Moe Epsilon is indeed, still around, and all he does is diddle football articles, and do a bad job of maintaining the former administrators list.)

[roger_pearse]

I'm picking Worldtraveller because s/he seems like a pretty good content creator (but there are always surprises with these people), and because the dispute with the blocking admin (user:Inshaneee) seemed pretty clear cut. I.e. the admin was behaving like an officious little dictator, and the content creator's actions, while not entirely free of blame, were unjustly punished. There's an Rfc from Jan 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nShaneee_2 that is relevant, plus the usual sort of ANI here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... arrassment.

It has a few nice touches, like the blocking admin being unable to spell 'harassment' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =111925696 , despite talking about it so much, as well as being a major contributor to 'List of Phantasy Star IV characters' type of content, if you can call it 'content'.

The case also displays those features which are so familiar from that period, namely the blocking admins and their supporters lining up on one side - we have CBDunkerson, HighinBC/1=2 or Chillum or whoever he is. Plus Moe Epsilon, who is still around I think.

That's one of the best examples of a teenaged idiot patroller blocking a good contributor they've ever had. An arbitration resulted, InShaneee was desysopped, and disappeared in September 2007.
Almost literally, all he watched and worked on were cartoon/comic-book articles.

Looks like an Arbcom show trial to me. CBDunkerson and Chillum received no punishments for supporting this little punk, the arbs merely slapped him to show the others "we mean business".
Even when the "system" works, it's still partly defective. (Moe Epsilon is indeed, still around, and all he does is diddle football articles, and do a bad job of maintaining the former administrators list.)

WorldTraveller put in a lot of effort to show that he had been abused. At the end of it, the culprit received only a 10 day suspension, if I read this correctly. And it seems that none of those who had enabled him were spoken to at all.

The process is long-winded, labyrinthine, impossible for any normal person to navigate; and even when the complaint is thoroughly sound, the outcome is unsatisfactory.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Peter Damian]

I did some more research on 'worldtraveller' and he is most definitely a poster boy for the content vs admin battle 2007 and its aftermath.

WT was at that time (2007) a research student at a prestigious UK institution. He is now a professional astronomer. He made many significant early contributions to Wikipedia articles on astronomy. Because of his occupation he travelled to many observatories over the world and has a separate interest in geography and travel which were also reflected in his Wikipedia work. He also was in his college 'University Challenge' team, which he helped take one of the finals, sadly losing to Corpus Christi. All in all the kind of person that Wikipedia should have been attracting and nurturing in that period. No?

His first block was actually in January 2007 when he was editing from an IP. InShaneee had placed a 'Project Paranormal' tag on the talk page an article about Red Rain in Kerala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala . It had been speculated at the time that the coloured particles causing the red rain were extraterrestrial cells, although a report in November of 2001, commissioned by the Government of India's Department of Science & Technolog concluded it was more likely it was caused by algae spores associated with lichens in the trees in Changanacherry area. WT objected that even if the cells were extraterrestrial, that did not justify calling the article 'paranormal'. There was some edit warring over the tag between him and Inshaneee, who blocked him for 'vandalism'.

So, a researcher at a top UK institution, later to become a professional astronomer, is blocked by an admin who knows nothing about astronomy, and whose contributions to Wikipedia include 'paranormal' topics, video games and comic books. I defy anyone to find a better example of admin abuse against content contributors than that.

The later block in March 2007 caused WT to pack his bags and leave for good.

The main issue is that the departure of skilled or specialist editors during that period was not to do with visual editors or wikilove or anything like that. It was much simpler: bullying and (frankly) stupid administrators promoted over content creators. The whole setup of Wikipedia means that its main business is vandal fighting and patrolling. Someone in WMF should have seen this coming around 2005 when the explosion of vandalism happened. The business of vandal fighting does not require an advanced degree in astrophysics. Thus a whole class (or 'caste') of users arise who have no specialists skills but who have an elevated status over the real contributors to the project. A formula for civil war, in which one side has no ammunition. The outcome, obvious.

[roger_pearse]

So, a researcher at a top UK institution, later to become a professional astronomer, is blocked by an admin who knows nothing about astronomy, and whose contributions to Wikipedia include 'paranormal' topics, video games and comic books. I defy anyone to find a better example of admin abuse against content contributors than that.

The later block in March 2007 caused WT to pack his bags and leave for good.

The main issue is that the departure of skilled or specialist editors during that period was not to do with visual editors or wikilove or anything like that. It was much simpler: bullying and (frankly) stupid administrators promoted over content creators.

That hits the nail on the head. Thank you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[TungstenCarbide]

... The main issue is that the departure of skilled or specialist editors during that period was not to do with visual editors or wikilove or anything like that. It was much simpler: bullying and (frankly) stupid administrators promoted over content creators. The whole setup of Wikipedia means that its main business is vandal fighting and patrolling. Someone in WMF should have seen this coming around 2005 when the explosion of vandalism happened. The business of vandal fighting does not require an advanced degree in astrophysics. Thus a whole class (or 'caste') of users arise who have no specialists skills but who have an elevated status over the real contributors to the project. A formula for civil war, in which one side has no ammunition. The outcome, obvious.

Not just skilled and specialist editors, but anyone who made the effort to act mature needed only to look around at the asinine nincompoops running the place. I believe there are a lot of these people who left without a peep, but am unable to suggest an objective way to measure them, as PD pointed out before.

I read through some of the links earlier and was struck by the familiar sequence; a polite and productive editor is wronged, he pursues redress and insists that it is dealt with to his satisfaction after being blown off, which is subsequently portrayed 'harassing'.

[Peter Damian]

This is also telling.

Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"HighInBC" is now user 'Chillum'.

Actually the community was not 'telling him' it was disruptive. People were saying all kinds of different things. It was only a small but powerful group of admins that were 'telling him' that. So he was 'disrupting the community'. He is saying, the community = the administrators, or a certain group of administrators. The same goes for so-called 'community bans'.

Back in 2007 this was a relatively new thing. As mentioned above, the 'community' was originally all pretty equal, and in the beginning everyone got admin rights just by asking. Then they only started dishing out rights to those doing the 'vandal fighting', and this was the first major manifestation of the divide.

[Randy from Boise]

So, a researcher at a top UK institution, later to become a professional astronomer, is blocked by an admin who knows nothing about astronomy, and whose contributions to Wikipedia include 'paranormal' topics, video games and comic books. I defy anyone to find a better example of admin abuse against content contributors than that.

The later block in March 2007 caused WT to pack his bags and leave for good.

The main issue is that the departure of skilled or specialist editors during that period was not to do with visual editors or wikilove or anything like that. It was much simpler: bullying and (frankly) stupid administrators promoted over content creators.

Alternatively, he was a contributor as a student and discontinued contributions after joining the publish-or-perish world...

Not saying this was the case; administrator stupidity leading to frustration and abandonment of course more likely... Still there are alternative readings of tea leaves possible.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

So, a researcher at a top UK institution, later to become a professional astronomer, is blocked by an admin who knows nothing about astronomy, and whose contributions to Wikipedia include 'paranormal' topics, video games and comic books. I defy anyone to find a better example of admin abuse against content contributors than that.

The later block in March 2007 caused WT to pack his bags and leave for good.

The main issue is that the departure of skilled or specialist editors during that period was not to do with visual editors or wikilove or anything like that. It was much simpler: bullying and (frankly) stupid administrators promoted over content creators.

Alternatively, he was a contributor as a student and discontinued contributions after joining the publish-or-perish world...

Not saying this was the case; administrator stupidity leading to frustration and abandonment of course more likely... Still there are alternative readings of tea leaves possible.

RfB

You really are an idiot. His parting comment was here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =112358909 . The case was famous in its day.

He also began this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... is_failing telling analysis of the problems of Wikipedia.

On current trends, how long will it take before all the Vital Articles are featured or A-class articles? On 1 January 2006, 41 of them were featured; by 1 January 2007, this had risen to 71. By 1 July 2011 (four and a half years later) the number was 90, indicating a sharp decrease in promotion rate. Even assuming that the current rate (19 articles in 54 months) declines no further, at this rate of approximately four a year it will take 225 years for all of the vital articles to reach the standards expected of them.