User:Moneytrees/why

''This is a slightly edited version of something I posted in response to another user at "that unnameable site". Someone liked it, and I know that not everyone would see it otherwise, so I am posting it here.''

When I first read this I just kind of rolled my eyes, but then I thought about it more, and I realized I thought the same way before I became an admin. I didn't really get involved in community drama stuff (and still try and actively avoid it), and when I'd read the noticeboard and talk page disputes, I'd think something like, “We all know X does some bad deletions. We all know Y did some shady shifty stuff in the past. When will they ever deal with Z’s crazy ass? Why are they only doing this to A? What he did ain’t even that bad.” And now, this post I thought I wouldn’t even acknowledge is about to get a whole important essay out of me.

I have an (abridged) story that's relevant, that I've been meaning to tell in a Wikipedia context for a long time. I grew up in an awful place around some real awful, shitty people. When I was younger, I had a friend group, it was a positive thing outside of that place, and it made me feel better about myself. I had three friends in that big group- let's name them Matt, Tech, and Twist. I was best friends with all three of them and had been for years, they all ended up sort of being the leaders of that group. People were always talking behind Tech's back, Twist told me one time that he was a real dick, but I never believed it, he was always cool with me. And I remember one time, Tech did something like lie to me to make himself look better. And I was thinking, "maybe they're right, maybe he really is a dickhead". But later I ended up having a real serious talk to him about something and it meant a lot to me. When we were done, I was like, "damn, that was a real friend right there".

That ends up being the last time I really talk with him; some months go by, and I get caught up in other things and I don't see the friend group for a while. When I meet back up with them, Tech isn't around, and I ask Matt and Twist what happened to him. They tell me he was stealing from them and shit, so they kicked him out and cut him off. And I heard that, and I thought "damn, I guess he really was a dickhead." I was younger than both of them, I heard that and believed it. Some more months go by and during some other meet up, someone asks about Tech, and they're like "oh didn't he steal a lot of money or some shit?" And then Matt and Twist are laughing, and they say that he never stole anything or did some dirty shit, they just thought he was a dick head and cut him off. And I hear that at the time and I'm like, "that's kind of fucked up, I guess he was a dick though, so it doesn't really matter". But I get older, and I realize that's fucked up. I never saw one of my best friends again, just because some dudes couldn't sort their differences out with him and had to lie about it?

It instilled in me this moral value, that if I ever see some friends beefing over something or I sense some issue, I've got to try and patch it up, because you never know how serious something is. And that thought led me to something deeper- "When it's your turn to say nothing, you must say something." That's how all these cycles start, someone seeing something and not saying something when they should. Even if you do not want to, even if there is a negative consequence for you- you should say something.

The truth is, saying something, or holding other people accountable/responsible almost always sucks. Even when you have some power, even when you're an admin- it sucks. At this point, I've had around five of these sort of encounters with other admins. I've blocked over 100 accounts for copyright violations or some form of disruptive editing. I've issued countless warnings of all sorts of types. Let’s not even get into how depressing CCI work can be. Doing difficult work gets you respect, sure. But there isn't much glory in it. When you block a good faith editor, and they say that they're crying as a result, or they write a whole massive depressing paragraph about how editing helped them feel less depressed during the pandemic and how sad they are about how they can't edit anymore, or they just give up and leave after unsuccessful appeals, there is no real triumph. You did what had to be done, but you hurt another person.

And that's not all. It's funny you mention Scottywong, since I am definitely partially responsible for his big loss in ACE 2020. If I hadn't said anything about that Dutchy85 unblock, or those old Manning comments... I'm not saying he would've won, but he probably wouldn't have finished with a net of 19. Hey, I did the right thing, I was being responsible, and I think I was in the right, but I still feel guilty. I'm afraid that all the stupid shit that I do will make people hold (understandable) grudges against me. I think about Mike Peel- I have no doubt I did the right thing there, but what did it get me? I barred him from a real job, it helped start a divide between Diannaa and Ritchie- two people who are massively important to my existence on this site, who I would never want to see fight- and I started more grudges and attracted more anger. But CCI saw a boost for a week or so, and I did the right thing, so it was worth it, right?

I think back to the whole Rodhullandemu stuff. I know, people really like what I did there, and I think I made a small change for the better on Commons with it. But what happened to me as a result of that? At the time, it was implied I was too stupid to understand what I was actually doing, I was gaslighted, and I was told I was some pawn in some sort of illuminati-Arbcom scheme. I got blackballed at VRT because of what I did, that would've been so useful for my copyright work- but I was told that copyright work is "completely separate" from VRT work, even after all my VRT friends told me to apply since I did copyright work. Ok.

That's the thing. When you "do the right thing", you get respect, but you get grudges too. You get people angry with you and upset with you, you get people conspiring about you and talking behind your back, you get people who lose respect for you and people who hate you with every fiber of their being, and you can't figure out why. You get some admirers too, though. But how long is it until you do something they don't like?

There's this one dispute I had not so long ago with someone else. And I know when I mention this the handful of people in the know are going to be all skeptical like "Where are you going with this." I have a point. It seemed like it was getting to a point where there would be a calm resolution of things. Then I found out that this person had done something without telling me, that had I known about it, I would've not been so open to having a calm resolution. But whatever, I understand why they didn't tell me. But then, I was having a conversation with them a day later, and they said some stuff to me that I thought was real disrespectful. And I looked over our past interactions, and I became so angry. "This person must think I'm stupid. They must have it out for me." So, I came back to them, and I made my anger clear, and I explained in detail why I was so angry. What I wrote was something over 3500 words long, it was probably one of the meanest things I ever wrote. Now, I can't say how the whole dispute ended, but I can tell you that all those words did nothing. All that anger, all that pain, and I was still angry and sad when I was done. I still don't really know who was in the right and who was in the wrong. But in the end, I still had some respect, and I was still editing after something that would make most editors quit.

Now we’re at the present arbcase I filed. Now I am doubting myself for filing it. People say I should’ve waited longer to file it. I should’ve. My own RfA nom says the case is an overreaction. It sucks whenever you’re on opposite sides of an issue with your nom, especially over an arb case. I told myself a while ago that I’m probably being a jackass if I’m against Ritchie like this. So I retrace my mental footsteps to figure out how I got here.

I’ve been caring more about article quality and sourcing and verifiability recently. What happened here is an admin restores a deleted article, adds poor sources to it (while leaving it still mostly unsourced), and starts unnecessary arguments with others when they rightfully point out that the article needs better sourcing and isn’t notable. You talk about people who can’t defend themselves well because they “don’t have the power user network”- one of the users he was going after is a non-admin who definitely does not have that power network. We are supposed to be the Free, High Quality, Collaborative Encyclopedia. People can get real caught up in all these elaborate plots sometimes,and forget about that. I’m not here to argue about who did what and whoever should be desysoped. But I do think that problematic conduct like this does warrant something. This content based stuff, which I usually believe is more important than whatever maintenance scuffles are happening, should be held to at least close to those standards. You say “But let’s be clear here - if the bar for a desysop is set at what Timwi’s been accused of…” maybe word that differently, and say it in a different way. You’ll realize that you agree with why I filed the case.

I think it is clear at this point, but I am not doing this for the sake of a witch hunt against a legacy admin. I don’t really even have a strong opinion on that issue. It sucks, no matter who you take on. I am not happy to do it. I am doing it because I legitimately believe it is the right thing. Every single other admin I’ve gone against has been at least decently well connected (even Rodhullandemu). This is more like one of the countless people I’ve blocked for copyright violations. Often, they have a really hard time understanding that they aren’t supposed to copy from the sources they cite. It’s a habit that they thought was ok until someone told them it wasn’t. Even then, they’ll ignore warning after warning, and only after the block will they actually start engaging. Often, they aren’t really familiar with basic policies and have no real interaction with the community. They would be floored to discover AN/ANI/arbcom is a thing. Often, I have to patiently explain to them basic things about articles and how copying from your sources is bad and how to write without repeating the exact wording of your sources.

So I actually do understand where Timwi’s mindset comes from. I mean, this is what the refs looked like on FAs back in 2004. I get the impression that quality wasn’t as important back then, and as the encyclopedia was expanding and getting its important articles down, it would seem silly to delete things that weren’t very obviously garbage. But standards have evolved over time, and what was an FA then might get tag bombed now. You say, “Noting here that we don’t desysop for actions an admin doesn’t take, so his history as an admin who takes few actions is irrelevant.” First of all, we do desysop admins for actions they don’t take, as part of inactivity procedures. But I really don’t see anyone saying he should be desysopped because he’s a legacy admin- it’s for what he’s currently done. Me pointing out his status as a legacy admin is more me providing context for the case rather than using it as a mark against him. His mindset is clearly informed by “the old days”- he says so himself at the AfD, with “It is very unfortunate that Wikipedia has turned into this rigid rules machine…” It’s reasonable to be upset that your article is being deleted and annoyed that something important is not getting coverage, but it’s unreasonable to defy policies and berate those enforcing them. There were ten or so admins voicing concern at AN, and people were saying to file it now. I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to, even if I should’ve waited.

Of course, I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t advocate for some non-desysop solution like I did in my statement at the RexxS request- I said back then “I believe there can be a peaceful, better resolution to this- people forget Arbcom doesn't need to explode Users in every case.” There’s only so much you can fit in a 500 word statement, so I’ll be sure to add on to it. I’ve been through some real tribulations on this site, I’ve had some real unfair things happen to me. So it’s only fair.