User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general



Having been cast by various Wikipedian Patricians and their friends as Public Enemy Number 1, and as the recipient of numerous emails pertaining to my notoriety, I have decided to set a few thoughts and views down officially on paper. In the hope that many will realise my long term goal is not the destruction of the project or even any major changes to it. Unlike many of those labelled "Trolls" and "problem editors" I did not make my initial "wiki-fame" on any of the public boards, quarreling, or making trouble. I made my name by writing - to date I have had 17 featured articles on the main page and a few other pages, I say that not to boast, but as proof to those that say I have an agenda to damage the project are talking complete rubbish, and I ask all of you not to believe it. While I don't have as much time to write as I would like, I still try to, and hope to write many more half decent pages in the future. I firmly believe that is what we are all here to do - even Jimbo.

These are my views on civility and various other related matters which should concern all who edit Wikipedia, today. These views are formed as I write, and may not be my considered opinion, when the page is finished. Kindly do not edit this page - or feel the need to block me, if my views do not 100% coincide with yours - they probably won't. However, If you are here in the hope of adding your name to the IRC Admin's roll of honour then enjoy the read. It will be long and laborious, but you may learn something.

Until recently, civility was not a subject on which I dwelt for long, or one that interests me at all. One man's civility is another man's fish and chips. However, others seem to spend an enormous amount of their time dwelling on my supposed incivility and civility in general - so I thought I would put a few words down onto "paper" concerning this much debated subject.

I think to understand civility as perceived by Wikipedians one has to understand not only the Wikipedian to whom the subject is of such paramount importance, but also the way in which tendentious "charges of incivility" are increasingly used as weapon by those in authority to keep others under control. In one way or another all of us are foreigners, i.e we are all foreign to each other - have different customs and cultures and - dare I say it manners - you see, one's perception of manners decrees one's perception of incivility. It will, doubtless, come as an amazing shock to many fellow editors to know I have beautiful manners, I always raise my hat to members of the opposite sex and suspected members of the opposite sex, I always walk on the traffic side of the pavement, hold open doors, genuflect to an altar, stand my round of drinks at a bar, and let ladies into the ski-lift first. I also say Good morning to doormen, murmur a thanks with a slight nod of my head to waiters when each course is served and withdrawn, kiss my children good night and pat the dog on the head - all things a well brought up person is taught in infancy. So where is this leading?

Well, what I was not taught to do was "fawn" over idiots and fools - indeed does one do them any favours by so doing? In fact, should one even consider doing so? - I don't think so - what purpose would it serve? I first fell foul of Wikipedia's admins when I refused to pay sycophantic deference to a secretive chatroom, inhabited by wannabes, idiots, liars and general ne'er-do-wells. A chatroom, at the time, inexplicably defended to the hilt by Wikipedia's ruling body - who steadfastly refuse to address the problems resulting from it. This chatroom was the IRC Admins channel. We don't hear so much about it these days, and I take the credit for that. Of course, it's still there, with certain ex-Arbs claiming to own it, and other has-beens bewailing their misfortune, but it's now rather a discredited place to be sounding one's trumpet and I have no respect for those that do so there.

Oddly, to me, many people on Wikipedia appear to think one should show due deference to one's betters at all time, one's betters being the Admins and Arbcom, and that not to do so is uncivil. Failing to show deference and bluntly telling the truth is not uncivil, it may at times be unpalatable and forthright, but it's not uncivil. We are living in the 21st century, there is no need to form our sentences as though addressing the King of France, at Versailles, in the 18th century.

At Wikipedia, people fail to realise that "charges of incivility" like so much else in life fall into categories. Political, bullying and downright evil. The final two categories being something quite different to that being discussed here, and would be covered by my proposals at the conclusion of this essay.

The accusations against me of incivility fall into the political category. Yet, everywhere in the free world it's accepted that if you don't want the odd dissenting voice, the odd heckler, then it's best to avoid politics as a career. I do not go stomping about the project, turning up on mainspace talkpages, where I am unknown, insulting people's work. I save my "incivility" for those seeking to prop up an increasingly tottering administrative system. A system that is held up only by an army of administrators (whose headquarters is that secretive off-wiki chat-room) overseen by an Arbcom intent on banning all criticism of its members no matter what their faults. To ever untangle this mess and solve the problem, we have first to look at ourselves, Wikipedia's editors, who have allowed, knowingly or unknowingly, this situation to develop. So let's look at Wikipedians and their types, we can even categorise them too.

Self-serving Wikipedians


The self-serving Wikipedian is a pompous creature, they are my complete bête-noir, in short they are a pain in the ass - why? They arrive on Wikipedia quietly, if you check their history, (by the time you notice them it's generally too late) they arrived in September of the preceding year, their first edit is either to add some obscure fact to an obscure page, or else show an interest in an some odd practice of a sexual nature (Yes, most of us have, for purely research purposes, googled "Ingaborg skiing naked through the snow" or even "Sven, who buys his socks in threes" but most people have the good sense to keep it to themselves). Such edits are normally the extent of the Self-serving Wikipedian's mainspace work, as they soon discover the noticeboards and the joy of sharing their limited opinions with fellow editors, regardless of requirement or worth.

By the time the ordinary writing editor notices them, they will have sailed through an RFA, with the support of numerous friends from IRC, and be either reverting their peers on ANI, leaving threatening templates on the pages of fellow editors, or clerking for the Arbcom - if they are truly committed it will be all three. In fact the first time a normal writing editor notices them is usually when they leave a warning template (they love templates) for some perceived crime on their talk pages - these can range from civility to image uploads - you name it - they have a template for it - even lately ones telling you they have left you a ridiculous message on their own page - truly amazing.

These people do not like to be ignored - they have discovered that they are bigger fish here, than they are in the greater lake that is real life. Woe betide the ordinary editor who fails to show due deference, as these people have an all consuming interest in civility, however unlike the "sickly editor" (below) they do not come at it from a snide "poor little me, I'm manfully struggling on, despite the evil Giano being nasty to me" angle but a far more aggressive stance. In doing so, they are often far more rude than I ever have been - but they have realised that they are singing a song that their peers-in-civility on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and on the Arbcom want to hear - so they acquire a form of diplomatic immunity.

Dedicated Wikipedians
This form of editor is quite common, but rarely seen as they just keep their heads down, beavering away writing about their chosen subject - these range from the equations of a form of maths most of us have never heard of to varieties of newts most of us have never heard of. These editors are quite useful as they are actually writing the encyclopedia. Funnily enough, until I was first banned for voicing the opinion that paedophiles openly editing an encyclopedia used by children was not a desirable state of affairs, I used to be one of these. When my opinion was labeled "hate speech" and I had to fight for years to have that slur removed, I realised that Wikipedia's politics and management left a lot to be desired. At heart, I still belong to this category of editors, they are the category I respect most, as they just give their time and enthusiasm and ask for little.

The problem is that they ask for so little that the Self-Serving Wikipedians feel completely able and qualified to butt in and dictate how the dedicated Wikipedians should be writing their pages - everything from format, size of images number of cites per 100 words, even linking of the days of the month is overseen. If the dedicated Wikipedian should object to the sudden changes to his work - a hundred squeaky voices from IRC and a few more rustled up on the various noticeboards (there's always one who everyone knows is barking mad) can be trusted to support the diktat. Then if the Dedicated Wikipedian should become cross, the Self-Serving Wikipedian screams he is being personally attacked by incivility, he re-iterates this on IRC (assuming he has even bothered to mention it on ANI) and then one of his many #IRCAdmin friends leaps in with a block - and #admins goes into self-congratulatory mode for a couple of hours - at another victory for the useless over the useful.

Troublesome Wikipedians


This category is growing by the moment, while some of its members are undoubtedly genuine socks, trolls, vandals and menaces to the project - it's also a sort of Wikipedia version of Sherwood Forest because in this category dwell many great content editors who have been thrown into this lonely almost outlawed country by the Arbcom or a collective of Admins. At one time or another these people have dissented, openly criticised, dared to oppose or just failed to conform. When this happens, the Arbcom makes its displeasure known, word goes out subtly on IRC and elsewhere, and an invisible target is pinned to the editors back - note I say pinned to his back, nothing is ever up-front and honest. Once the character assassination is completed the gullible will always believe it. From that moment onwards the Troublesome editor's every edit and comment is watched - his images are meticulously scanned for any hint of a wrong tag, reference cites appear on every statement of fact, a new page may be AFD'd - all silly little things designed to irritate, in a thousand different little ways he is trolled and baited - sometimes such campaigns have been openly orchestrated on IRC - then as inevitably happens the trolled "Troublesome Editor" looses his temper - and quick as a flash "got him" goes the cry and the little Admins-On-The-Make move in and ban him - all join in the chorus of support for the block on ANI - Fait accompli, and unless unlike me he is quite high profile and/or has lots of friends he is stuck in his place of limbo. The Arbcom are now wising up to the fact that these punitive blocks performed by their lackeys are hard to maintain, especially when placed on high profile editors, so unless something is done we can expect to see them making more decisions such as this to counter what is going to become an increasing problem for them, as they try desperately to cling to power.

Unwell Wikipedians
This category is one that interests me most in terms of incivility. I am talking of those editors (some not all) who always seem to have a message at the top of their pages announcing some mysterious illness, or hint at ill-health at every opportunity. We are seldom told what specifically ails them, but the implication is that it is very nasty, and the reason that they are on Wikipedia so often or not at all. Funnily enough, "not at all" never seems to be the chosen option. I have run across quite a few of them in my time - and invariably they are trouble with a capital T. They hunt for incivility in packs, I suppose they must meet each other in hospitals. Alternatively, they could suffer from Münchausen by Internet, which they then exploit knowing that the ever present "civility police" (often their greatest friends) will compell us to "assume to good faith."

Whatever the cause of their ailment is, they are very different to me - my "taught good manners" decrees that one is always "very well, thank you" unless death is within minutes, in which case one is allowed to say "You don't want to be bored by my health - how are you?" If risking this option, at such a time, one must be pretty sure that they are either equally well-mannered, or in very good health - or one runs the risk of one's final moments being consumed by details of the gastric and excremental problems of a pleb. Anyhow I am digressing.



I have also come across by "giving offence", a sub-category of the sickly editor, but this category can mostly be dismissed as they are actually socks, that are sickly only so they can be killed off suddenly if detection seems imminent, then as other editors start to leave moving tributes on their pages - no check-user will risk speaking ill of the dead by mistake. This reminds me of how as a child I once asked my Grandmother, who had an absorbing interest in reading newspaper obituaries in the local papers, why only nice people died, for instance, one never reads: "He was a miserable old bastard, and his neighbours are delighted to see the back of him" but "He died surrounded by his loving family, many friends and a pining puppy" - I don't know the answer to this question but I suspect it has something to do with manners and possibly civility. On obituaries, I would quite like to write my own, but I suspect some members of the Arbcom have already had my wiki-obituary written for some time - so you may yet get to read "He was a miserable old bastard, and all are delighted to see the back of him."

In general, Wikipedia's sick thrive on the incivility of others, they hunt it down and seek it out. At various times my "incivility" has caused offence to all these categories of the sick, and I don't worry too much, as I feel I am giving them an interest other than their health.

However, and most serious of all, there is yet another type of unwell Wikipedian, confusingly their pages seldom announce that they are unwell - which is a pity, as these are the completely barking mad. Often as one becomes embroiled with them (they stalk - so one becomes unwittingly embroiled) one gradually realises that their "wikibreaks" are the result of deserved incarceration by their local health authority. These editors are a complete nuisance, as they are always tailed by a loyal gaggle of less insane, but still unwell, editors surrounding them as a defence mechanism.

This category are the most dangerous, so we are going to spend a few moments on them. They are clever and they inveigle their way into the trust of those in authority. I was very lucky my one brush with one ended with him going spectacularly and undeniably mad on Wikipedia, after he returned from recuperation people saw him for what he was and not long afterwards he was banned for a year, and as far as I know still is. During his ascendency he never lost a chance to post on boards and Arb pages about me, and all the usual Peanut Gallery used to applaud him, as certain Arbs nodded approvingly at him. So with my own experiences in mind have no problem believing User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate!!! While some details differ, it all sounds horribly familiar to me. Of course my own experiences were not in the same league, and I would not wish to infer they were. But when the Arbs and their peanuts are against you, believe me, it's not pleasant. I want you to bear the Poetlister episode in mind because I'm going to refer to it shortly - now that all the facts appear to be in place to assess, all that is emerging now is prevaricade and waffle as certain people seek to justify and explain their conduct. You see explanations of conduct are people's own affair and unnecessary, it is just conduct that should concern us. A crime is a crime no matter what the reason that caused its committal. Explanations of cause are only of interest to those who want to punish - that's the peanut's area - I just like facts.

Professional Wikipedians


I have put off writing this section until last, because this category are the people who are not wildly exciting, but and this is a big "but" these are the people I think should be mostly on the Arbcom. By professional, I don't mean people who are paid, but people who have a professional attitude. The problem would be that an Arbcom solely comprised of these people would be too deep and serious so it would need some catalysts or cats amongst the pigeons (or whatever the expression) from the Troublesome category, to keep them alert and on their toes. Sadly, "Dedicated Wikipedians" would probably not want to be on the Arbcom at all.

Quite often I come into contact with this category. They sometimes ask my advice on something on which they consider me an expert - often they have written a prospective FA or GA and they want my advice. Their writing (and they do write very well albeit not prolifically) is like them, it is factually accurate and precise, very encyclopedic and follows every prescribed rule and diktat of the MOS. They come to me because they have been advised to, or they know something is missing, and when I look it is always the same thing: it lacks pizazz. When I say forget half the silly diktats, define image sizes, make the page attractive, sex it up - I can feel a palpable shock of horror and seldom is my advice taken. Sometimes I do it for them, and they are polite enough to leave it (for a while) but they seldom follow my advice. I sense they cannot quite believe they are talking intelligently to the devil incarnate.

So why do I think these people should be Arbs - well, as a breed, they usually have a sound if slow judgment, their pages are without exception on sound serious highly researched subjects. However, more importantly, the reason they are not highly prolific is that they too weigh in here and there with opinions. They are nearly always Admins, God knows when they become Admins, it seems they may have been born Admins, which implies that they have a certain ambition about them, perhaps at odds with their dull writing.

One instinctively knows they are/will be responsible parents, loyal friends and faithful spouses. In short their behaviour and demeanour exudes trust. During this essay I have attempted to avoid singling people out for mention, (unless truly deserving) but I am going to mention just one name here, to make it quite clear the type of editor to whom I am referring. Paul August is such an editor, that he recently resigned from the Arbcom is neither here nor there. I frequently berated him while he was on the Arbcom for his seeming reticence and silence; of course the problem was not his, he was only one voice drowned out by other Arbs and former Arbs who belonged to other categories of editors. Were the Arbcom all editors of his category with a couple of Troublesomes thrown in for good measure, the Arbcom would probably become a respected body that did the job it was intended...

Of course all of the above is hypothetical Utopian La La land because it just "ain't gonna" happen. It would be against the laws of human nature for the meek to triumph over the self-serving, but if you bother to vote in December spare a thought for the deeper quieter candidates and weigh their worth against the noisier, more brash members of the peanut gallery, of whom you will naturally know more, standing against them. Just three or four of these Professional Wikipedians on the Arbcom could make a huge difference. However, at present, it looks like whoever stands will get to win a seat - which is a pretty terrible situation, if not surprising.

Judging incivility


Aged 84, my late grandmother, having discovered through the obituary columns of the Palermo press that she was still alive, decided to embark on a tour of the USA. It was a surprising decision as she did not like Americans at all, in fact she positively disliked them for three reasons, which were, not necessarily in order of importance: The bombing of Palermo, her son had married one, and finally, an American had once stolen her taxi on a wet day in Naples in 1954. The foremost and final both being quite uncivil actions, in my view.

Fascinating stuff, but where is this leading I hear you ask - well, on arrival in the USA Granny was terribly affronted to be described as an Alien - she was furious on a monumental scale, to be so insulted at the airport within minutes of arrival - she refused to stand in the queue (this is a true story) and was threatened with arrest by a "jumped-up" customs official aged fourteen and a half (he may have been slightly older, Granny was not good at judging age) It was only after she had been taken to a side room, presumably to be fingerprinted and deported, that it was realised that this was the well-known widow who had an official welcoming party waiting for her on the other side of the barrier and all was smoothed over as she was whisked away by a State Governor's wife and entourage

A footnote to this story is that on arriving back in Sicily, my grandmother announced that the Americans were a much changed, and very polite race. Her sister aged 94 remarked that as Granny's knowledge of them was confined to women's charitable groups (whom she had been invited to address) and the employees of five star hotels, this was unlikely to be an accurate perception.

The point of this story, you are forgiven for wondering, is to demonstrate that incivility has many facets - some intentional some not.


 * Calling arriving guests Aliens at best lacks tact and diplomacy - the authorities cannot be unaware of the connotations - is it uncivil?
 * A person being angered by the insensitivity of a state to such an extent that she berates its employees - is that uncivil?
 * Trying to arrest an old, obviously harmless old Lady who should have been humoured - is that uncivil?
 * Whitewashing the situation, and waiving rules for the eminent - is that uncivil to those, less exalted, who must comply with the rules?
 * The hotel staff - is civility really wanted, when it only comes from showing sycophantic deference, or in the hope of some remuneration albeit financial or promotional?

Much of the above, in its way, can be applied to the civility, or lack of it, that we see at Wikipedia and proves that it is impossible to have rules which govern it in a black and white fashion.

I believe that incivility is going out of one's way to pursue and insult people for no good reason. I think the stress has to be on "going out of one's way to pursue" and "for no good reason"

We could attempt to specifically define unacceptable incivility, but to do so without specific context would make an accurate definition impossible. Here is an exchange which led me to being charged with incivility. An editor has made a stupid remark to me, clearly intended to belittle my well known views on the subject. This exchange led to a huge Arbcom case - so the comments were later proven not to have been wise at all. So was I uncivil or just bluntly truthful? Some may feel in the great scheme of things it was a storm in a tea cup, a trivial exchange - two editors who should both have ignored the other. The Arbcom not only felt it worthy of a huge Arb Case, but considered it to be so serious that they all voted to accept the case within a record couple of hours of its listing.

Do people sometimes deserve an "uncivil response"? When I first went to school in England one of the first expressions I learnt (the hard way) was "you are cruising for a bruising" which in its way is not only a threat but also a warning. One generally knows when one is cruising, so should one be surprised when the bruising follows? You see, this leads to the question baiting - do some people ask, even want to receive a good and bruising uncivil response? I think for many people being informed bluntly by me (or indeed anyone else) that they are a less than useful member of society is a much sought prize, some seem to work so hard at achieving this goal, that it is often a shame to disappoint them, as this unfortunate cruiser found out here. Yes, the response was uncivil (it is impossible to describe that response as civil) but did anyone "go out of their way" to be uncivil for "no good reason"? - No.

My Incivility


I was once greatly amused to see this huge paragraph quoted in full in the findings of fact of an Arbcom case into which a former Arbcom had eagerly and stupidly dragged me. Incidentally the man launching the case said it was not about me (some kind soul, please find me the diff for this - the talk page will do), many others said the same, but no, the Arbcom, as a whole, knew better, even dissenting with its own members - and where has it left them? - Looking rather silly, and not for the first time. The paragraph is worth quoting, here, in full, because it was drawn up by an Arb supposedly judging me - (it seems, there is no impartiality in justice at Wikipedia). I refused to play silly buggers with the arbcom at the time and comment on it, but now the case is over and the Arbcom already looks very small, let us examine this piece of propaganda - the contribution and research of a sitting Arb, and Arb who having presented these out of context quotes did not even have the common decency to recuse, but carried on both judging and prosecuting.

Here it is in full, and do please note: Of these 15 points, so carefully catalogued by an Arb, 5 refer to IRC and 9 to the Arbcom itself. Now that should tell you far more than I ever can.


 * Giano's comments
 * 4) has repeatedly engaged in public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee—whom he considers to be his adversaries:


 * "The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am completely resolved. Closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is what is going to happen, so all the whining form the IRV inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 need to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel."
 * "Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project."
 * "It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom."
 * "OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom."
 * "My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary. We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!"
 * "Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do."


 * "What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan"
 * "Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him."
 * "Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work!"
 * "Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something."
 * "Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which."
 * "My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use."
 * "Rv 1=2 who is performing his usual attention seking trolling, in matters which have nothing to do with him"
 * "Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here"


 * Passed 6 to 2 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

You bet it was passed, it was the only thing they could belatedly drag into the case, as a pretense for involving me in the first place. Yet it actually has and had nothing to do with the case the arbitrator who presented this evidence was supposedly judging. I should think the two Arbs who opposed, are weeping with shame at the behaviour of their colleagues. If not, they should be. Not surprisingly, one of them has since resigned from the Arbcom.

The Arbcom in general
What we have with the present Arbcom is a group of people overseeing a quasi-judiciary - they are appointed by a head of state (the elections are only for his guidance). Once appointed the Arbcom not only adjudicates on cases, but may also simultaneously prosecute, it may even introduce its own researched evidence out of context, it may ask leading questions, members of the Arbcom may even discuss the case in a chatroom, in short, at present, the Arbcom can do what it likes to swing a case to a desired conclusion. We are discouraged at Wikipedia from mentioning Godwin's Law, so I won't. However, is this a system most people editing Wikipedia feel is right and proper?

We could examine each and every member of the Arbcom, but I have a very low boredom threshold, so it is best to generalise. In short, the Arbcom are Wikipedia's supreme ruling body. They put themselves forward for "election" as do any other ruling body. That they are appointed not so much as a result of the election but by appointment of a head of state, who is only guided by that election is immaterial (though, that does mean, obviously, their loyalties are questionable) - means they are, nevertheless, a political body. They are there to rule, as a direct result of their own choices and mandates I don't think anyone disputes that.

What does seem to be disputed by the Arbcom, is that anyone is allowed to criticise them. We have recently seen one of their number exposed as a plagiarist, for years he had courted honours for his writing, which at the end of the day was not his at all. We all know "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is that to mean Wikipedia is a police state, where criticism of its ruling body and their supporters is not permitted? Following that exposure just as in the days of Stalinist Russia, Arbs were accusing me of being insane for trying to shed some light on the matter. If this state of affairs, and attempts to cover it up are allowed to prevail, then there is little hope for change - what a good thing a greater freedom of speech is allowed in real life.

The Peanut Gallery


This is probably as good a place as any to say a few words about a group of editors who have come to be known as the Peanut Gallery. I have likened them to the Tricoteuses who in 18th century France used to eagerly wait, gossiping, with their knitting, beneath the guillotine for the entertainment of an execution.

From what I can see this is a group of editors mostly from the Self Serving Wikipedian category (see above), with probably a few Unwell Wikipedians thrown in for good measure. Mostly Admins and Ex-Admins, and generally sycophantic to the Arbcom, they seem to lurk around every noticeboard looking for trouble (any trouble - they are not fussy) and then passing a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, pompous and sometimes hypocritical comment on the situation. However, their greatest joy in life is having a front seat at every Arbcom case - that they know nothing of the subject or circumstances pertaining to the trial is in no way a deterrent to them. They make "uninvolved statements", they are all over the workshop pages with their views on the severity of the punishment, and by the time the Arbs start to vote they are positively orgasmic.

Often such is the force and profusion of their views that all relevant debate is lost or stifled. If one wanted to risk an accusation of incivility, one would say to them "bugger off, and let those concerned concentrate" but no-one does so by the time the Arbs get to voting most sane, reasonable people are hopelessly lost or have wandered off to find some peace elsewhere. Fortunately, in real life the public gallery is always limited and under an order of complete silence. This is something I would like to see introduced at Wikipedia. However, no Arb has ever been brave enough to publicly suggest such a policy.

Incivility used as means to the Arbcom's ends


At present, as the above "evidence" proves, and I have found to my cost, an editor who criticises the Arbcom or any of their civility-minded friends is likely to find himself hauled before them on trumped-up charges, and his criticism of them used as evidence against him. Of course, I am far from being the only person who has fallen foul of an Arb and admins, and lived to feel the ongoing, almost daily, vengeance exacted as "incivility", caused by justifiable frustration, is the only weapon that can be used as a reason to block and ban one who has upset the Arbs. Here is a rather old example (30 August 2008) ( Sadly, this link no longer works as the editor has been driven from the project, but admins can still read it, if they want. . Once an editor is known to be on the wrong side of the Arbs, little Admins sycophantically queue to repeatedly block him, correctly seeing this as their step to promotion and favour. Following this particular block, but only after the community has almost unanimously expressed its indignation, the Arbcom moves to disassociate itself - as usual it's too little, too late. By the time the blocking Admin posted this patronising unblock, rather than an unequivocal apology, the wronged editor had packed his bags and announced his departure from the project. Now, maybe that editor will return, I hope so, but the point is, he should never have been put in such a humiliating position. This sort of thing seems to happen all too frequently; it is a deplorable state of affairs and I strongly feel it should not be allowed to continue.

One of the greatest ironies I have encountered in Wikipedia and its use of "civility" as a weapon for dealing with editors disliked by the Arbcom is my own civility parole, the result of The Famed IRC Arb case - a source of amusement and wonderment to most people including myself - this arose when one of the "chosen few" during a chat in #admins (he was not an admin but a "chosen few" are allowed in for a gossip) called a female admin "a bastard bitch from hell" - no Admin in the channel demurred or said "that was a weeny bit uncivil" no, they all ignored it. When I on Wikipedia said that I thought it was uncivil, I was hurriedly hauled before of the Arbcom and given a civility sanction - the editor who uttered the "bastard bitch from hell" comment, what happened to him? - Nothing at all, eventually when it became so embarrassingly obvious at the irony of the situation - he agreed to accept a voluntary civility parole - a ridiculous idea, completely unenforceable and meaningless. Following that shameful debacle of a case, as the Arbcom intended, for me, it feels like every little Admin-on-the-make has attempted to block me at one time or another - shrieking "look at me Arbs, I'm worthy of promotion, I'll get rid of the nasty rude man for you." The other finding of that same IRC case was the Arbs resolution to address the IRC problem. This was a complete joke as they had not the balls, the means or the intention to do it - it was a sop to the many editors who are now slowly realising that all is not as it seems at Wikipedia.

Yet, it is going to continue because the Arbcom does not possess a single member brave enough to stand up and loudly say "This is not right." I cannot believe they are all intimidated, or that they all feel such loyalty that they feel unable to speak out. Even Paul August in his sudden resignation maintained a stoney, if loyal, silence. The above case closed 22 August 2008 with a pathetic whimper: two Admins - one who likes me, one who does not were both forbidden ever to block/unblock me again. I am sure this momentous decision has had a devastating effect on their lives and that of their families. How will they ever survive the shame - what a waste of bloody time! What on earth were the Arbs hoping to achieve, accepting the case as they did within minutes - ridiculous. As though further proof of their true natures was required.

So with lack of evidence to the contrary we must assume that they all 100% support the current state of affairs. This, to me, is the most worrying fact of all - and suggests there is no hope for the present Arbcom - as a body it is damned - and should be damned. Too many times their actions have appeared to be the futile and petty settling of personal old scores and vendettas - rather than actions for the betterment of the encyclopedia. We do not need an election in December, we need a complete replacement of the Arbcom and of those silent members of its mailing list.

IRC and Wikipedia
As I have said earlier, IRC is no longer the problem that it once was; whether this is because the channel's occupants have learnt to keep their mouths shut about what they get up to there or just become more devious, I don't know. I doubt it's gone away, as I still regularly receive snippets from their logs, but by and large it does now seem to have lost its guts - I expect one or two of the ringleaders have grown up or gone onto more important Wiki-type things closer to the foundation. However, the following section is from an earlier version of this esssay and is retained for historical value and interest:  In Sept 2008, following more complaints from me the following instructions and bewares were issued to the rat pack occupying IRC#Admins. This is a private channel: do not repost IRC logs without permission. Nonetheless, be aware that ArbCom sometimes scrutinises logs of this channel. On-wiki actions which cannot stand on their own merits should not be made by reference to, or instigated by, IRC discussions. When using this channel, maintain civility and respect for all other Wikipedia users at all times.'

Of course the only relevant sentence is "....should not be made by reference to, or instigated by, IRC discussion" - so what is the point of the channel?

First of all, let me dispel one widely quoted myth, I have no objection what so ever to IRC, what others do in their lives is completely their own affair, if people want to spend their entire lives in an internet chatroom that is their business. It only becomes my business when the chat in the chatroom concerns, me, my behaviour, my work and most importantly the running of Wikipedia, the project which interests us all.

My criticism is reserved solely for the Wikipedia Admins Channel - a private club, a fraternity in fact, owned and controlled by one Arb, James Forester. It is known for the bad behaviour, the scheming, the gossiping and frequent bad blocks all of which are orchestrated there. The Arbcom in February 2008 agreed to investigate the problem there, so they appointed one of their number to investigate. The Arb selected for the task was FT2, one of the channel's leading lights. Unsurprisingly he found no problems, and the Arbs/#Admins smugly and slyly did nothing further.

There is nothing concerning Wikipedia ever discussed there which could not be discussed openly on an Admins only page on Wikipedia. If the subject matter is so private and sensitive, then it should not be being discussed in any large forum anyway. Jimbo once told me he was in favour of the channel, but at the time he told me this he was under the impression he/Wikipedia was in control of it - this has proved not to be the case at all. The Arbcom has passed resolutions to regulate and investigate the channel, and then reneged on their own decisions - having found it has no power over the channel.

One of the great arguments for retaining #admins is that it is needed for emergencies - We have thousands of Admins, it is inconceivable that in an emergency, all of them would be simultaneously off-line/wikipedia. The fear of course from those who favour the retention of #admins, is that the "chosen few" may be off-line/wikipedia and thus the result of the call to arms may not be the one secretly decided in IRC. There is no reason at all why the Admins cannot have an exclusive discussion page on Wikipedia itself visible to all that only they may edit. The plain truth is, more admins would be party to such a page than are ever on IRC, and the resultant solution may be more balanced and harmonious to the general editorship, than a fait accompli cooked up on a secret chatroom. The way forward now to restore confidence in the Wikipedia administrative system is to de-sysop any admin known to be soliciting particular action on any Wikipedia administrative matter on IRC. Admins should behave in a mature and responsible way, gossiping about perceived slights and insult on Wikipedia on IRC is not mature or sensible - as history has proven. Wikipedia should be ruled from Wikipedia and nowhere else.

Many of you reading this may think this is a common sense proposal, and ask where the problem is - for the answer you must examine the Arbcom members themselves. Many of them are regular gossips in the channel - and there, I suspect, is the crux of the problem. Basically, Wikipedia has become a closed shop - play by the rules, be a little sycophantic and you will be asked to join the club - have an opposing view - and you won't. I think closing #Admins would solve the problem, but not overnight as it would take some time for them to be scattered and their power fragmented. Other chatrooms would spring up in place of the #Admins, but they would never achieve the solidity of #Admins, as the concept of such an idea would be stigmatised.

IRC Admins rule Wikipedia not just by secretive unity, but also by block voting. There are so many of them that they can sway all elections, especially under the present system, where a vote against a candidate can be more important than the vote for. This is why there are so many of them as Checkusers and Arbs. I wonder how many of the present Arbcom and checkusers do not use #Admins? So not only does Wikipedia have Jimbo making the final choice, the successful candidates from who he chooses are selected and vetted for him first by IRC#admins. At present I feel there is no point at all, for anyone who is not an #Admin even bothering to take an interest in the forthcoming Arb elections. #Admins know this, Jimbo knows it, I know it - the only people who don't seem to are the rank and file editors writing the project - who will be banned, by #Admins, if they dare to raise their heads and criticise the system. Some of them just put up, others are wising up, but sadly, they are the ones who just tend to think "sod it" and leave the project. I'm not going to draw present and historical political comparisons, we all know what they are. However, it's all very worrying for the future of the project.

Wikipedia review and its uses and non-uses
This section is now obsolete, as WR has been replaced by Wikipediocracy, which is a slightly different kettle of fish.

I think its amazing how Wikipedia Review has been transformed from a site whose name was only uttered in horrified disbelieving whispers, to what it is now - a respectable site. By respectable, I mean a site read by Arbs, Checkusers, Crats and most of us in general, but not Jimbo it seems. I expect though like most monarchs he has approved newspapers presented, by loyal retainers, to his breakfast table, already opened at a suitable place. However, the fact that we, mere mortals, can go there and no longer just be told what it's suspected that the above mentioned are thinking, but to actually see them post there themselves, just like human beings, and remove any possible doubt is amazing indeed.

However, does seeing our Arbs and betters post there remove any possible doubt about matters that concern us? Or does it just pose more questions? I keep my own council on that subject, to answer such a question for others would be presumptuous and leading.

One debatable use of Wikipedia Review and some other sites, is its "outing" of people. I don't approve of "outing" for the purely selfish reason that I would hate to be "outed" myself. Having said that, like the typical reader of any newspaper I read every detail of those that are - I suspect that most of us are like that, it is very hard, if one is honest, never to experience schadenfreude. Some people post there, like me, because it provides a forum to say things that are forbidden here, but that liberty now seems to be under threat - I refer to the latest Peter Damian block, although perhaps I am mistaken there - we shall see. Some post there because they are banned here and feel it was unjust and others to respond to what they feel has been unfair criticism of themselves there, and another group just to have a say and keep the record straight. In short it is little more these days than a slightly risque, but far more interesting, version of ANI.

So overall, while Wikipedia Review has mellowed and become a more reasonable place, Wikipedia itself has undergone a reverse process.

Outing - a Wiki problem
The problem is, some people are so hypocritical and deceitful in their editing "outing" can appear justified - and there is the problem. So is it ever justified? - I know many won't agree with me here, but yes sometimes, and I say this very reluctantly, I think it is - but very very rarely. I am thinking instantly of the well reported case when an editor was successfully influencing POV in pages by claiming to be a professor (or something similar) when he was, in fact, nothing of the kind. For the good of the project and other editors, it had to be proven that the man was not actually prominent in the field he was influencing. The outing was painful for him and painful for most of us who read about it - so the answer is to prove the point and then let it go. Let's not delight in it. I don't think there is anything on Wiki claiming I am anything - from  a refuse collector in Naples to the world's greatest architect (I am neither) and for those of us who want to enjoy anonymity that is how it should be. Let your Wiki-work speak for itself and say nothing more. If you want to claim you are a qualified and acknowledged expert, then put your name where your mouth is - and expect to be outed.

The other form of outing is catching a prominent Wikipedian with his trousers down - is that ever warranted? Now, I am not talking about any Wikipedian from the highest to the lowest indulging themselves and being caught in a little extra-relationship dalliancing, there but for the grace of God go most of us, and who knows what the future holds, so let's not moralise - and I say this as the founding editor of mistress - again I claim no superior knowledge or expertise.

However, what if an editor:

I: Edits and influences and edits pages of an odd sexual nature (and I mean odd)? - and is then found to have his/her own website advertising himself/herself as more than the keen, enthusiastic amateur that most of us are in our chosen sexual preferences. I think it's worth thinking about - especially if a band of like minded friends were to edit as a group. One could argue that it is little different to a professional engineer writing about, say, bridge construction. Alternatively one could say: it is very different as it concerns the encyclopaedia's reputation. Having weighed the pros and cons, I don't think such people should be outed, so long as their activities are lawful - but they certainly need closely watching in the same way as a group of strong political activists were recently watched. Group influence and POV is something that should never be permitted. These are all things to bear in mind, when thinking about outing - and commenting in RFAs etc.

II:

III:

Jimbo


I'm frequently asked what do I think of Jimbo - and the truth is I don't think much at all, I don't mean I don't think highly of him, I just don't think much about him. I'm sure if one meets him in real life he is entertaining and pleasant enough company, but I never have and don't expect to - so it's all rather hypothetical.

In the course of my almost five years here, we have probably exchanged a dozen emails, which without disclosing content lead me to believe he is well meaning, but probably not a resident of the same planet as me. He seems far more trusting and idealistic than I am, certainly less cynical than me and more eager to see the good in people - all of which are admirable qualities. I don't think he deliberately set out to make himself a God-King, but perhaps now finding himself in that position, he quite likes being one - who wouldn't? I'm not going to take this train of thought further, but perhaps one should bear in mind this is the person who appoints the Arbcom. I will state though, categorically, I have no wish to see him removed or credit taken from him for setting up what is an amazing project. I have nothing against an un-elected head of state - so long as the role is constitutional and defined; I am not sure Jimbo's role is so defined, even though he clearly feels it is, but beyond asking him nothing can be changed, so it is not worth really worrying about.

Jimbo now rarely descends from Olympus, but when he does it is often to assure us that all is well, and soothe us like an oily balm, but then just as we relax he then appears as a God of Fury leaping through the clouds to ban a dissenter - sometimes or make very strong comments. Sometimes, I think this behaviour is erratic, other times I just put it down to the courtier on breakfast duty who hands him the chosen morning papers and talks him through them. So just as the constitutional Queen of England is never personally blamed for any action, I blame the Wikipedia patricians who surround him. One could dispute this theory, and probably many will, but once a palace machine is organized and fully functioning it is near impossible to break in, and just as impossible to break out.

Funnily enough: I saw a very loose parody of Jimbo in a book I was reading today - It was a biography, and the subject had sat next to the last Tsar and Autocrat of All the Russias and documented a conversation with him, and it all sounded vaguely familiar. She asked him why he hesitated to give Russia a constitutional monarchy and democratic Government - and he replied that there was nothing he would like better, but his country was not ready. I think we could all learn a lot from history, poor old Nick 2's problems were he listened too often to bad advice, but he did at least acknowledge he was not a constitutional monarch. Of course The Autocrat of all the Wikis is nothing like the late Autocrat of all the Russias. Their situations are entirely different, Jimbo and the Arbcom and who ever else advises him (do we even know?) are not going to be herded into a cellar and machine gunned (heaven forbid). Jimbo is far more fortunate, he can just pick up his shiny ball and say to all of us, if you are not going to play patsy-ball nicely with me, then I am going home, alone, with my lovely shiny ball - and that is the end of Wiki - or he just stops those playing patsy-ball who don't play by his rules. It's difficult isn't it, but until Jimbo (our monarch) acknowledges the maturity of the project, it is going to stay, sinking slowly into mediocrity, as a place ruled by a chosen aristocracy rather than an elected meritocracy. So long as people like me are seen as the danger to the project, and some other very odd people are permitted to hold high office, then I suspect nothing will change.

And to those who think they can liken me to Kerensky, think again, he had to flee dressed in women's clothes ( don't even go there WR! - it's too predictable ) I shall stay here, no matter what sanctions the Arbcom put upon me, if they want rid of me, they will have to permanently ban me. Which certain members are currently hoping to do very shortly.

The solution to the civility problem
Wikipedia has transformed nice pretty middle class genteel manners into a weapon which must be used to conceal the truth and bannish integrity and personal honour. It is a sad state of affairs, but inevitable. High standards of honour and integrity are set by example from the top. Nice pretty manners exude from those with something to hide, be it their breeding or private life. Wikipedia's leaders exhibit manners to conceal a vacuous void of both honour and integrity, this lamentable state percolates down. So we see a state where manners take precedence over decent and honourable behaviour.

I have seen it said that Wikipedia does not need a civility policy - I don't agree with that, it most definitely does and it needs to cover true incivility rather than language which affronts delicate middle class manners and mores - manners and mores, incidentally, which change from country to country. Neither does it need to concern itself with minor spats and outbursts of temper. I think it is impossible to have thousands of people constructing an encyclopedia, without accepting there will be clashes and verbal fisticuffs, indeed, it would be unnatural if there was not. More than a civility policy, Wikipedia needs a simple, but clearly defined, code of conduct pertaining to what is not acceptable behaviour.

As I have said above; I believe that incivility is going out of one's way to pursue and insult people and cause them distress for no good reason. That in any policy or code would need to be emphasised and form the basis. Further points which I consider imperative are:

1: There is no excuse in any argument to insult anyone's race, colour, creed and lawful sexuality.

2: There is no excuse to insult anyone's person using the worst language of the gutter.

3: There is no excuse for threatening and intimidating behaviour. This includes remarks of a, seriously meant, sexual nature.

4: There is no excuse for stalking on or off Wiki. This includes harassment on editor's talk pages from which an editor has no escape. Prolonged arguments should be on article talks or noticeboards.

Beyond those few simple rules, I think most adults should be able to deal with a situation.

Notes for concluding this section.
If I ever bother to finish this essay, I will include some comments on User:Giano/CS episode which was when I finally realised all that I had hitherto thought, but not quite 100% been able to truly believe, was completely true. Confirmed by this edit here

The Solution to the Arbcom
This is slightly outdated now

We have been told, and accepted for too long that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" - Well it isn't and probably never will be, but that does not mean it cannot become more democratic. Jimbo talks of a constitutional monarchy, at the moment it is far from such a place. I would like to see the entire Arbcom resign in December, and then a democratic election take place, with s/he who polls the most votes given a seat. Rather than those with the least opposes who Jimbo happens to like, which is the present process.

I am not for one moment suggesting that any Tom, Dick or Harry should be allowed to stand (I'm not quite that democratic), but I see no reason why any long standing editor who has proven a commitment to the project should not be allowed to stand, just as they are now - the difference is that it is a proper election - On the voting pages I would like to see people vote with a simple yes or no - no further comments are necessary. That is what "questions for the candidate" is all about.

Most importantly, none of this: "I have 2 billion votes more than the next man, I wonder if Jimbo will offer me a place." This way the Arbcom at a stroke becomes truly representative of the editors and Jimbo acquires the constitutional status he advocates and desires.

Memos to me

 * RFC Kirill Lokshin
 * Damian block