Ottava leaves Wikipedia Options

[dogbiscuit]

This is likely (hell, it is) a topic for another thread / discussion area, but I'm curious what your analysis is of those who post on this site regularly. Of course it could be awkward and far too meta to post those thoughts here, but I'd still be interested in them. For all the neuroses and quirks of Wikipedia's contributors, I've found that the people who spend a measurable amount of time solely criticizing Wikipedia are far more interesting. Your mileage may vary, of course.

If you've followed my posts, you'd be quite aware that I have no problem in seeing WR's posters as a pretty entertaining bunch of characters in both the best and worse senses of that

What is interesting is that I can rationalise the membership here - they have a selection of identifiable motives - some laudable, some not.

However, in the end, WR is a little gnat nibbling at the sensitive parts of Wikipedia, hoping that one bite may one day cause a serious infection. Wikipedia is a global phenomenon impacting on the daily lives of most users of teh Interweb - AND - on a significant number of people who have been entrapped into deeper involvement.

On that second point, it is interesting that here on WR that deeper involvement generally seems to result in a tendency to the odd rant and pointless argument and a general waste of time. On Wikipedia, deeper involvement seems to point to a dislocation from reality, where discussions on Wiki suggest that editors become embedded in an alternative world of values, and that they then take those values out into the wider world.

So although a deeper introspection on the workings of WR may be entertaining, the real value is looking at Wikipedia.

[Lar]

This is likely (hell, it is) a topic for another thread / discussion area, but I'm curious what your analysis is of those who post on this site regularly. Of course it could be awkward and far too meta to post those thoughts here, but I'd still be interested in them. For all the neuroses and quirks of Wikipedia's contributors, I've found that the people who spend a measurable amount of time solely criticizing Wikipedia are far more interesting. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Define "interesting" in this context? ... it wasn't the first word I thought of.

OR, fundamentally, isn't that interesting, so you may be on to something. Dogbiscuit certainly is, but then he usually is pretty astute.

[victim of censorship]

All this yackity yack... but after all that has been said this is the general consensus of WR
as well as those who know wiki and are out side of it....

1. Wikipedia has no governance to speak of. Its a land of Jungle law.
2. Wikipedia has no respect for people and their works. People are treated on Wikipedia like shit.
3. Wikipedia can not be trusted for information considering the agenda pushing street gangs of wiki.
4. Wikipedia pollutes the internet diminishes scholarship. It flood and pollutes the search.
5. Wikipedia needs to be bought under the rules of slander, liable, defamation, and copyright laws.
6. Wikipedia should be stripped of its 501c3 status.

Wikipedia is out of control and with out rules, ethics or accountability. It would be a favor to the internet body politic to sell the domain to a more responsible group, purge the servers and sell them and to the highest bidder and give the money realized to feed African children.

[thekohser]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

Spot on.

I'm somewhere between "weak" and "driving through".

[Cedric]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

I find this a very interesting analysis as well. By these lights, I would rank on the sane end of the scale, although that is definitely not how I perceived things at the time I left WP. What I remember was feeling rather angry; somewhat angry at myself for being fooled, but mostly angry at WP's leadership for their ethical obliviousness and irresponsibility. It wasn't until some weeks or months after I left WP that I truly realized what I had been involved in. I just didn't pay that much attention to wiki-politics while I was there, as I lacked any desire to be an admin.

Now that I think on it, I suppose I might have realized on a subconscious level that my sanity was at stake. If so, it was very fortuitous; that, and the fact that the Essjay scandal came along just as I was starting to spend a really significant amount of time on WP. As Moulton often says, WP is truly a crazy-making place.

I still suspect I was simply more lucky than sane, but this gives me something to ponder on.

[everyking]

The drama is continuing on the arbitration pages; Ottava is truly in his element, engaging in all manner of histrionics. Yesterday he proposed that the ArbCom ban him and warned that he would leave the project if even one arbitrator voted in favor of his mock-proposal. That prompted Newyorkbrad to actually try to talk him down, soothingly reassuring him that they didn't really want to ban him, although they would do so if absolutely necessary. (I can imagine what the arbitrators would say to me if I indulged in such theatrics: "don't let the door hit you on the ass", perhaps?)

How many weeks are going to pass before the ArbCom puts a stop to all this? Are they waiting to see how much drama Ottava can generate in the meantime? If for some reason the ArbCom chooses not to ban Ottava (no matter how obvious a conclusion may be, you can never safely assume that the ArbCom will accept it), how many people will leave the project in frustration and disgust?

This post has been edited by everyking: Wed 25th November 2009, 10:24am

[A Horse With No Name]

Question: What does Ottava have in common with Jeff V. Merkey?

Answer: Ask Daniel - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327744865

[Mathsci]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

I hadn't realized that Ottava Rima had also called John Beer from Cambridge a "hack". He and his wife Gillian, or rather Dame Gillian, were not the greatest fans of Jacques Derrida. There were votes of "placet" and 'non placet" in the Senate House for a proposed honorary doctorate which closed off the middle of Cambridge one Saturday morning in the 90s..

[everyking]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

I hadn't realized that Ottava Rima had also called John Beer from Cambridge a "hack". He and his wife Gillian, or rather Dame Gillian, were not the greatest fans of Jacques Derrida. There were votes of "placet" and 'non placet" in the Senate House for a proposed honorary doctorate which closed off the middle of Cambridge one Saturday morning in the 90s..

Didn't Ottava say he would leave Wikipedia if even a single arbitrator called for him to be banned? Ah yes: "I have stated multiple times and for a long time that if just one person from the WMF, any of the FA coordinators, or any member of ArbCom states that I have no place on Wikipedia and that I should be banned, that I would immediately leave and not come back."

Well, isn't this your cue, Ottava?

[Mathsci]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

I hadn't realized that Ottava Rima had also called John Beer from Cambridge a "hack". He and his wife Gillian, or rather Dame Gillian, were not the greatest fans of Jacques Derrida. There were votes of "placet" and 'non placet" in the Senate House for a proposed honorary doctorate which closed off the middle of Cambridge one Saturday morning in the 90s..

Didn't Ottava say he would leave Wikipedia if even a single arbitrator called for him to be banned? Ah yes: "I have stated multiple times and for a long time that if just one person from the WMF, any of the FA coordinators, or any member of ArbCom states that I have no place on Wikipedia and that I should be banned, that I would immediately leave and not come back."

Well, isn't this your cue, Ottava?

Ah yes, but if it is two or more, as is now the case, that might completely change things. Another evil cabal?

[the fieryangel]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

The "sanctions" against 'I was a teenaged werewolf" Moreschi are incredibly lame :

Moreschi reminded

2) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to post editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.

Are you going to take him out to lunch and have a man to man talk with him too?

These kiddie admins all need to be dessysoped on principal.

[Mathsci]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

The "sanctions" against 'I was a teenaged werewolf" Moreschi are incredibly lame :

Moreschi reminded

2) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to post editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.

Are you going to take him out to lunch and have a man to man talk with him too?

These kiddie admins all need to be dessysoped on principal.

Oh dear, Wizardman forgot to do anything about Folantin. That must have really upset old ange de feu.

[Angela Kennedy]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

I find this a very interesting analysis as well. By these lights, I would rank on the sane end of the scale, although that is definitely not how I perceived things at the time I left WP. What I remember was feeling rather angry; somewhat angry at myself for being fooled, but mostly angry at WP's leadership for their ethical obliviousness and irresponsibility. It wasn't until some weeks or months after I left WP that I truly realized what I had been involved in. I just didn't pay that much attention to wiki-politics while I was there, as I lacked any desire to be an admin.

Now that I think on it, I suppose I might have realized on a subconscious level that my sanity was at stake. If so, it was very fortuitous; that, and the fact that the Essjay scandal came along just as I was starting to spend a really significant amount of time on WP. As Moulton often says, WP is truly a crazy-making place.

I still suspect I was simply more lucky than sane, but this gives me something to ponder on.

I don't know which end I was on really. I was treating Wikipedia as I would a newspaper or journal who was printing crap about a patient community for whom I advocate, which I needed to challenge. It wouldn't be the first or last time I've done that. I've challenged newspapers, medical journals, TV programme producers, Government ministers, political journals, doctors themselves, even the OED at one point (that was to rectify a wrong claim made by someone else to them.) I may be self- righteous to a degree, but that is tempered by the fact I believe I'm fighting for my daughter's survival in this situation.

When someone (can't remember who- it might have been JFW) said join before we take you seriously, I suppose alarm bells should have rang immediately, they did slightly, but I decided to do it (though I didn't contribute editorial, just discussed on a 'COI' ticket). THAT on hindsight was wrong. I should never have 'joined'. But at the time I was wobbly about doing it. I thought there was something deeply dysfunctional as soon as I encountered key people on the talk pages.

But I think on reflection I agree with all said above. I was wholly relieved when I got banned. It allowed me to go back to criticising WP and its vagaries from the outside, and to stop pretending WP was something fair and reasonable, capable of due process, a community etc.

As someone who critiques power operations from a sociological perspective for a living, I guess I was struck at how quickly 'even' I got sucked into the WP machine, really hoping that others on WP could see how inappropriate certain behaviour was. I even went through the various processes they claim you should follow for redress, only to realise I was on an everlasting loop of intransigence.

But I certainly learned a lot about abusive power relations and irrationality from that experience. Yay?

[Mathsci]

Ottava's farewell

How many times now has Ottava left wikipedia?

[SB_Johnny]

Ottava's farewell

How many times now has Ottava left wikipedia?

Apparently it takes a considerable amount of practice to get it right.

[the fieryangel]

Oh dear, Wizardman forgot to do anything about Folantin. That must have really upset old ange de feu.

Actually, to be truthful, it did. Folantin is poisonous and really needs to be taken out.

Unfortunately, no one else will see this until it is too late.

You heard it here first.

[A Horse With No Name]

Wizardman has now posted the proposed decision here.

And what utter stupidity, too! "If you cannot work with others on a wiki, then there is nowhere on the site for you, no matter how good your content work may be." So is the W-man going to start banning the other resident malcontents on the site (including Mr. Gerard, Mr. Sinclair, and Mr. Chapman, to start with), or is this just a convenient way for him to pick apart the guys he personally dislikes?

And for being "banned" -- really, even W-man's fellow arbitrators openly acknowledge there is no way to enforce such stupidity.

Why bother going through the charade -- just to flex flabby muscles and give the impression of an authority that Mr. Godwin kicks aside with a toe tap?

Ottava's farewell

How many times now has Ottava left wikipedia?

I hope it sticks -- he really is too smart for this playground.

[MZMcBride]

I think "Pastor Ottava" has a nice ring to it, and it looks like it's available!

[A Horse With No Name]

I think "Pastor Ottava" has a nice ring to it, and it looks like it's available!

A Catholic zealot like Ottava would do better as Archbishop Rima.

[Mathsci]

I think "Pastor Ottava" has a nice ring to it, and it looks like it's available!

A Catholic zealot like Ottava would do better as Archbishop Rima.

CardinalSin has already been taken.

UtterlyPretentious is still available.