User:Filll/Disgusted

Disgusted
Over the last year and a half I have had the opportunity to observe Wikipedia from a close vantage point. There are many good things about Wikipedia. But there are many horrible things as well. And frankly, I am a bit disgusted.

Downside to adminship and editorship
Being an admin has some dark sides to it which few discuss openly. The worst is that many active admins regularly receive death threats, and are the targets of real life harassment of many flavors. All this over a website run by volunteer labor. Why would anyone want to be an admin under these circumstances? If this contributes to the reluctance of editors to become admins, Wikipedia has only itself to blame. Those who let things get to this point should be ashamed.

Even regular editors are the targets of vile abuse and repeated threats. I have received profanity-laced threatening emails from fellow editors and even from an administrator, over essentially ridiculous issues. Interestingly, this admin is a huge proponent of the need for more "civility". The hypocrisy is impressive.

How is it that the word "troll" or the word "vandal" or even the phrase "silly reasoning" are uncivil and sanctionable, and yet threats made through emails forwarded from Wikipedia calling someone a $#@%^ &*@! are not? When I asked about what could be done, I was told that Arbcomm would not look at such things if they were more than a day or two old and that a huge amount of paperwork had to be filled out documenting the issue.

In another interesting episode, someone forwarded a few private emails from another administrator, who made a variety of threats and attacks against me by email. Again, I considered taking action, but was informed that I could not unless I had compiled a huge amount of documentation, and this behavior and a variety of other improper conduct I observed on-wiki by this administrator were within the last one or two days. And I was told that by me having used an adverb which was the equivalent of "incredibly" during a discussion that I would be pilloried for my "uncivil" wording.

Well, stepping back from this situation, I have to say that is nonsense. I realize Arbcomm is just not functioning very well at the moment. Sorry, but that is just unacceptable. Those who have allowed the project to get into this condition should be ashamed.

RfAs and threats
It is not supposed to be any "big deal" to be an administrator. But some try 3, 4, 5 or more times in a year or so to become an admin. Some seem to want it so bad they can taste it. Frankly, this is a very bad sign.

A current RfA which garnered a record-breaking 100 support votes in about 12 hours is highly suspicious. This is especially true given the results of this candidate's previous 4 failed RfA attempts in the last 13 months. And yet accusations are made by this candidate and his associates that others are "vote-rigging" (see my comment below). Interestingly, not a single question has been raised about the strange inconsistency of this candidate's record-breaking and highly unusual pattern of support votes, nor is there any suggestion of impropriety involved. Those involved should be ashamed.

I have previously objected to being badgered for the reasoning behind my vote to support or oppose a given candidate. I think it is unseemly, can amount to harassment, can result in the public release of information that makes the candidate feel bad and thereby further heightens the tensions, and can sway other paricipants in ways that might not be fair to the candidate. Yet, this practice of arguing against almost every "oppose" vote (and some of the "support" votes) continues. In a process that is already laced with negativity, this tradition is extremely unappealing. Those who use these polls as an opportunity to pick fights with the participants should be ashamed. But those of us who have allowed or condoned this ugly practice should be ashamed also.

In addition, I have now seen editors openly announce that they are threatening others, or otherwise taking "revenge" for votes on an RfA. Over a "vote" for a position that is supposed to be no big deal?

Interestingly there appear to be no consequences for making such announcements or threats. In a community that has become obsessed with CIVIL, and worries that someone stating that "an argument is nonsense" is a sanctionable violation of WP:CIVIL, threats or other negative actions being taken in retribution for RfA votes are perfectly permissable and reasonable? What is next in that case? Expect things to get much worse if changes are not made. Those who have allowed the situation to get as bad as it is should be ashamed.

Although I have contempt for those who threaten others or start administrative actions in revenge for others voting the "wrong way" in these polls, I judge those have permitted this to happen even more harshly. Arbcomm has had clear evidence of one instance of this happening for well over a week. Arbcomm was notified of a previous case that was not a lot different a few months ago. Recently a request for more administrative action, apparently partly in retribution for voting "incorrectly" at RfA has been filed. I was even attacked for voting "incorrectly" in two RfAs that I did not even vote in at all.

The silence from Arbcomm has been deafening. At least as far as I know, there has not been one whisper, one breath or one hint that this is frowned upon or discouraged. By their silence, the message is clear; it is perfectly acceptable and permissable to engage in such disagraceful behavior. And therefore, it will escalate. We already have people being stalked and death threats being made. Sooner or later, someone will carry out one of these threats.

I have one thing to say to the entire community on this issue; as you sew, so you shall reap. If you think the current amount of drama is bad, you are only encouraging more by staying mute and allowing it to happen. If you think that someone saying another editor is using a silly argument will discourage new editors, or create a bad editing environment, imagine what a killing of another editor will do for the environment. If you thought that the Seigenthaler incident was bad publicity, just continue down our current path; you ain't seen nothin yet. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb with our current attitudes and culture.

Since we allow these sorts of threats to continue, they just escalate. I can count several casualties of this sort of attitude. NewyorkBrad. Raymond arritt. Vanished User. I am told that even Doc Glasgow fell victim to it. There are more that I know of, but am not at liberty to reveal. And doubtless many others I do not know about. We should be ashamed to have let this happen. Because if we do not stop it, it will get worse.

My response: withdrawal
Tempers and passions about RfAs and similar "polls" are so inflamed that I think the only prudent thing to do is to boycott them. For the forseeable future, I will not take part in any more of these sham polls, such as RfAs and RfBs. People are too upset and too angry over this ridiculous nonsense. And if it continues, I guarantee we will see editors killing others over these stupid polls. To think that Wikipedia is worried about the incivility of saying an editor is involved in "self promotion", which is supposedly a sanctionable offense now, but openly advertising that one is taking revenge against other editors for their unpopular RfA poll positions, including blatant threats and attacks, is viewed as completely normal and proper. This is an embarassment.

Some will claim I am weak, for giving up and rewarding those who seek to harass and to intimidate. Perhaps. However, I would characterize the situation differently. We have bodies and entities that are here to maintain order. We are also part of a community that collectively is supposed to prevent excesses. When these fail to protect individual volunteers who are making good faith efforts to improve the project, then since this is a collaborative and consensual environment, the individual has little if any option except to withdraw.

In other words, if the community favors a drama-ridden hellish environment, it will get one. I can't stop it if the community wants it. And I am not stupid enough to try to stop it.

Inmates running the asylum
Under the current climate of political correctness, almost anything can be viewed as a violation of WP:CIVIL. For example, stating that an argument is silly or even disagreeing with someone who wants the Wikipedia articles to report as factual unsourced statements as ridiculous as "the moon is made of green cheese" have been claimed to be uncivil, sanctionable offenses. There is a culture of leniency for unsourced, unreliable nonsense. And amazingly for an encyclopedia with pretensions to become academically respectable, the demands that Wikipedia become progressively more tolerant of such material seem to me to be increasing. I suppose it is viewed as unfair or discriminatory for a reference work to suggest what the mainstream view is, somewhat equivalent to stating "a roughly spherical earth model is supported by more evidence than a flat earth model". This is incredible for an encyclopedia, there is no doubt.

Those encouraging this increasing pressure for leniency and laxity should be ashamed. They won't be of course. They are too smug and too sure they are correct. But the rest of us, who have let this attitude take root and thrive, should be ashamed.

My response: withdrawal
Until the system makes it clear I will not be subject to attack, if you want to have articles on alternative medicine that are just promotional materials, be my guest. I don't need the abuse and the attacks.

Until the project makes it clear that it welcomes science, if you want to fill Wikipedia articles with pseudoscience and unsourced garbage, be my guest. I have had it.

Until such time as Wikipedia makes it clear that it is not in favor of turning all biology, creationism and intelligent design articles into religious tracts, I am not going to fight that fight any more. Feel free to put whatever nonsense you want in any of these articles. I don't care. Go right ahead if it is so important to you. This is not worth being killed over. And unfortunately, there are many among us who give every sign of being ready and willing to kill over such issues.

Open the jails
By this time, there are a substantial number of editors whose editing privileges on Wikipedia have been restricted for one reason or another. Many of these caused a substantial amount of disruption on Wikipedia, some even severely damaging the project or committing criminal acts. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing chorus demanding that restrictions placed on these disruptive editors be lifted. There seems to be hardly a single disruptive editor who does not have a substantial group lobbying for the return of their unfettered editing privileges.

While I believe everyone deserves a second chance, and even a third or a fourth chance, I notice that many editors are skittish about agreeing to this. This is not because they are mean or selfish jerks, or just pieces of #@$% as is frequently claimed. On the contrary, these cautious editors do not trust the current system for mentoring and monitoring returned disruptive editors, and for taking action if the previous difficulties again surface. The costs of the disruptive editing and the leveling of editing restrictions in many cases was substantial, consuming a huge amount of effort and many hours of volunteer time. These reluctant editors are not anxious to repeat this experience.

Essentially, the current system allows editors to "vote" to introduce disruptive and destructive elements into someone else's workspace with impunity. And when the editors that will probably be forced to clean up any potential mess express misgivings about this, they are abused and attacked and threatened. Those who are involved in this or who have allowed this situation to develop should be ashamed.

Even statements as seemingly uncontroversial and innocuous as "The New York Times reported X on date Y" are seized on as evidence of some evil cabal perpetuating some nefarious agenda. And vendettas for daring to include such a statement in Wikipedia are mounted over and over and over, in support of an editor with a long history of disruption in other online communities.

What is incredible is that those who deign to attack their fellow editors feel completely at liberty to do so. They are allowed to continue and even encouraged by their fellow Wikipedians. And even more amazing is that there are not just one or two of these editors, but literally dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedians who hold this position. Not one Wikipedian in authority has given the slightest hint of questioning the reasonableness or prudence of allowing these kind of rampant attacks. The carnage of good faith editors is palpable, and the unquestioning acceptance of such vacuous arguments is staggering. The blatant and even gleeful vilifaction of editors who have dared to stand up to pseudoscience and mob rule by suggesting that it is permissable to include a statement in Wikipedia about a New York Times article is stunning. Those involved should be ashamed.

This is absolutely sickening behavior by an organization purportedly involved in producing a reliable reference work. I would not believe it except I have witnessed it firsthand. Wikipedians should all be ashamed. But I am closer to disgust.

A public statement about the DMHO RfA
I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:
 * I contacted only three people.
 * Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
 * In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
 * I promise it will never happen again.