Piperdown unblocked, It's official Options

[thekohser]

He'll be back in weeks having had another indef block. Wikipedia never forgets a traitor.

His position is untenable.

It's a matter of which comes first -- spring (in the Northern Hemisphere) or Piperdown's next block.

WP hasn't shown the collective intelligence or class to leave well enough alone. They will provoke another block just as soon as they think nobody's looking.

It's very possible. Remember, JzG got into a whole new scuffle with me about the original (ab initio) authorship of Arch Coal, some FIFTEEN MONTHS after the event had been peacefully resolved by the Wikipedia Community!

Greg

[Kato]

WP hasn't shown the collective intelligence or class to leave well enough alone. They will provoke another block just as soon as they think nobody's looking.

It's very possible. Remember, JzG got into a whole new scuffle with me about the original (ab initio) authorship of Arch Coal, some FIFTEEN MONTHS after the event had been peacefully resolved by the Wikipedia Community!

Greg

That's right. There is no closure on Wikipedia. There is no learning curve.

Seth Finkelstein thought he had closure last Summer when his biography was deleted. On New Years Eve someone re-started the whole thing and he was forced to reenter the fray all over again.

Jimbo Wales maintains a monster that never sleeps.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Jimbo Wales maintains a monster that never sleeps.

Jimbo created that monster by selecting and promoting people based on obedience and malleability rather than merit. The quintessential public example of which is here, I'll paraphrase:

Honest admin "... but what about all those pesky references, Jimbo"
Jimbo: "please don't troll me right now, ok?"

Utterly un-fucking believable.

When the god-king is clearly more interested in his own status and reputation than the well being of the project to the point of being unethical, then yes - a monster is created. Leadership makes a difference.

A group's culture is kind of a funny thing - it can take on a life of its own, mature and grow, rot and die, walk down different paths over time. I truly believe that Wikipedia's culture could be nudged, slowly but surely, into a merit based goal oriented group, rather than the current crop of pompous admins who spend their life on IRC and don't create content. I also think the number of admins could increase by several times, just by looking at who's writing articles. The community could start reaching out to or creating expert groups to help create content as soon (as stable versions is switched on and the efforts aren't squandered) and so on ... the list of possibilities is endless.

But instead, we have a stagnated culture run by incompetent nincompoops and megalomaniacs who, for the most part, can't write their way out of a hole in the ground.

One can see a mile off which people put the project ahead of their own petty self interests, and contrawise.

[Poetlister]

To Piperdown: Wow - I mean wow - well done.

To Pumpkin Muffins: You're so right. But you must know what happens to people who try to put the project ahead of their own petty self interests.

[Kato]

Jimbo Wales maintains a monster that never sleeps.

Jimbo created that monster by selecting and promoting people based on obedience and malleability rather than merit.

The monster is the result of a flawed premise, bad software, terrible ideas at its root that have been addressed here at length etc. It doesn't matter which cast of characters took the helm, the result would be the same.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Uh-oh, I can imagine that the whole BADSITES thing will start up again - there are those on WP who would not care to link to a site where one denizen is shewn being true to their word...

To Piperdown; I possibly never interacted with you, but it was a pleasure being of the company.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Jimbo Wales maintains a monster that never sleeps.

Jimbo created that monster by selecting and promoting people based on obedience and malleability rather than merit.

The monster is the result of a flawed premise, bad software, terrible ideas at its root that have been addressed here at length etc. It doesn't matter which cast of characters took the helm, the result would be the same.

Partially agree with you. however, a group culture moving in a certain direction can change those terrible ideas, modify the software and address flawed premises. It will choose different people and vice versa and behaviors and perceptions will change. Off the top of my head some examples, say Mav's idea from 5(?) years ago to use Nupedia as wikipedia's 'released version' happened (a genuine release and revision cycle - retains many people who feel thier efforts are otherwise squandered); say anon edits didn't show right away unless you went looking for them (thereby eliminating 90% of the garbage and defamation); say the group culture rewarded mature and academic behavior, instead of juvenile socializing on irc. All these things together are a self-feeding cycle; change the culture in this way and you change the types of people who choose to stay and go, and which ones rise to the top who then affect the way the project works - full circle. Simple ideas like this in infinite varieties can change the direction of a battleship over time. The missing ingredient effective leadership, currently displaced by dead wood. Do you really think the result would be the same if Giano was on the arbcom? x100 similar personnel changes over time?

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Wed 27th February 2008, 9:03pm

[Jonny Cache]

Partially agree with you. however, a group culture moving in a certain direction can change those terrible ideas, modify the software and address flawed premises. It will choose different people and vice versa and behaviors and perceptions will change. Off the top of my head some examples, say Mav's idea from 5(?) years ago to use Nupedia as wikipedia's 'released version' happened (a genuine release and revision cycle); say anon edits didn't show right away unless you went looking for them (thereby eliminating 90% of the garbage and defamation); say the group culture rewarded mature and academic behavior, instead of juvenile socializing on irc. All these things together are a self feeding cycle; change the culture in this way and you change the types of people who choose to stay and go, and which ones rise to the top who then affect the way the project works - full circle. Simple ideas like this in infinite varieties can change the direction of a battleship over time. The missing ingredient effective leadership, currently displaced by dead wood. Do you really think the result would be the same if Giano was on the arbcom? x100 other similar personnel changes over time?

… and flowers never bend with the rainfall …

Jonny

[Kato]

Do you really think the result would be the same if Giano was on the arbcom? x100 similar personnel changes over time?

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[Pumpkin Muffins]

… and flowers never bend with the rainfall …

OK, so my first 'what if' example was fantasy. Let me tell you another example that isn't fantasy:

A union manufacturing shop builds some of the highest quality product in the world and at a reasonable price. Another union shop in the same industry builds some of the worst product and at uncompetitive prices; it is closed down and moved off shore.

What's the difference between these two? The first one had a culture of quality and pride. The union workers held eachother to standards. When someone wasn't pulling his weight he was 'encouraged' to move on down the road by his fellow workers.

At the second shop, I saw a young union employee who worked hard and had a good attitude. His fellow workers in neighboring stations would spend all swingshift throwing chicken bones at him as they ate ... because he had a good attitude.

This is a true story . Culture and leadership matter. Good culture and leadership aren't fantasy, they actually exists in some parts of the universe.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Jimbo Wales maintains a monster that never sleeps.

Jimbo created that monster by selecting and promoting people based on obedience and malleability rather than merit. The quintessential public example of which is here, I'll paraphrase:

Honest admin "... but what about all those pesky references, Jimbo"
Jimbo: "please don't troll me right now, ok?"

Utterly un-fucking believable.

When the god-king is clearly more interested in his own status and reputation than the well being of the project to the point of being unethical, then yes - a monster is created. Leadership makes a difference.

A group's culture is kind of a funny thing - it can take on a life of its own, mature and grow, rot and die, walk down different paths over time. I truly believe that Wikipedia's culture could be nudged, slowly but surely, into a merit based goal oriented group, rather than the current crop of pompous admins who spend their life on IRC and don't create content. I also think the number of admins could increase by several times, just by looking at who's writing articles. The community could start reaching out to or creating expert groups to help create content as soon (as stable versions is switched on and the efforts aren't squandered) and so on ... the list of possibilities is endless.

But instead, we have a stagnated culture run by incompetent nincompoops and megalomaniacs who, for the most part, can't write their way out of a hole in the ground.

One can see a mile off which people put the project ahead of their own petty self interests, and contrawise.

Actually, the world works pretty well when we are open, transparent about who we are; when we share our knowledge, wisdom, motives; goals; hopes; dreams and strengths.

The world does not work well under a mask of fake profiles and fake identities, lacking the wisdom to see the forest through the trees.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

here

Actually, the world works pretty well when we are open, transparent about who we are; when we share our knowledge, wisdom, motives; goals; hopes; dreams and strengths.

The world does not work well under a mask of fake profiles and fake identities, lacking the wisdom to see the forest through the trees.

...open, transparent...

Exactly! And yet Jimbo goes behind closed doors in the admin only irc chatroom, trashes Larry Sanger behind his back so he can't defend himself, attempts to influence administrators to ignore all those pesky references to rewrite history and pov his own article. How's that for 'transparent'? How's that for leadership? Really, man, this goes to the heart of Wikipedia's stated goals and poisons them.

Don't forget to read the second page (linked at the bottom of the first page).

[Derktar]

Salute Piper, well done.

I hope you stick around though, another watch dog is always a good thing.

[Proabivouac]

I'd like to refocus this thread to the immediate cause of the problem, David Gerard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Piperdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148084341

A sure recipe for incompetence is to say, mistakes don't matter, and have no consequence. That's false: they do matter, and they do have consequences. We need administrators who don't make these kinds of mistakes. It's not that they're bad people (though you're free to debate that,) but we need administrators who can and will get it right.

At the risk of sounding tautological, holding administrators accountable means holding them accountable. It's not about judging their intentions or their souls, but judging their performance as it serves or poorly serves the project. David Gerard blew it horribly, hasn't seen fit to revisit his decision or apologize, and needs to go.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

I'd like to refocus this thread to the immediate cause of the problem, David Gerard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Piperdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148084341

A sure recipe for incompetence is to say, mistakes don't matter, and have no consequence. That's false: they do matter, and they do have consequences. We need administrators who don't make these kinds of mistakes. It's not that they're bad people (though you're free to debate that,) but we need administrators who can and will get it right.

At the risk of sounding tautological, holding administrators accountable means holding them accountable. It's not about judging their intentions or their souls, but judging their performance as it serves or poorly serves the project. David Gerard blew it horribly, hasn't seen fit to revisit his decision or apologize, and needs to go.

Sociopath?

A shameless lack of remorse and inability to apologize and make amends is, in fact, indicative of a mindset that is not healthy. Very often such people make the same mistakes over and over and we are just as insane as they are if we expect a different result each time they act this way.

This was a concern of mine when I first watched Mr. JzG in action. Now, finally, he may be forced to get help. Interventions work if enough people act quickly.

Creepy people...

[Moulton]

There is no closure on Wikipedia. There is no learning curve.

Or, more precisely, the learning curve is a jagged sawtooth that never gains any long-term higher ground.

The erratic wiggles in the learning curve correspond to perturbations in the affective emotional state of the lamentably learning-disabled participants.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

I'd like to refocus this thread to the immediate cause of the problem, David Gerard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Piperdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148084341

A sure recipe for incompetence is to say, mistakes don't matter, and have no consequence. That's false: they do matter, and they do have consequences. We need administrators who don't make these kinds of mistakes. It's not that they're bad people (though you're free to debate that,) but we need administrators who can and will get it right.

At the risk of sounding tautological, holding administrators accountable means holding them accountable. It's not about judging their intentions or their souls, but judging their performance as it serves or poorly serves the project. David Gerard blew it horribly, hasn't seen fit to revisit his decision or apologize, and needs to go.

Sociopath?

A shameless lack of remorse and inability to apologize and make amends is, in fact, indicative of a mindset that is not healthy. Very often such people make the same mistakes over and over and we are just as insane as they are if we expect a different result each time they act this way.

This was a concern of mine when I first watched Mr. JzG in action. Now, finally, he may be forced to get help. Interventions work if enough people act quickly.

Creepy people...

Sometimes it's not that easy to understand what is right and what is wrong. Humans have this incredible ability for shared perception, to toe the line, to see things the bosses way, to have a sense of community and teamwork. It is an important part of humans' ability to work together, and under poor leadership can be perverted. That's why I bring up the Jimbo example above ... in order to belong you had to see things 'the right way' or you weren't welcome in the admin irc room (just ask Bishonen). It takes a strong mind to resist twisting when acceptance and rejection is used as a lever.

For the admins in the discussion, behind closed doors and without scrutiny (or so they thought), they had everything they needed - the official line, a vilification of the enemy (Sanger), and rationalizations they could tell themselves over and over to convince themselves of their goodness. This example is a direct precedent to the Piperdown block. I'm sure that when David made those edits he was convinced that he was doing the right thing and honorably defending the wiki.

Now, in hindsight, it's clear that in a COI edit war the establishment took sides, affording protection to socks from one side while banning and defaming anyone with a different view. What's remarkable is that the establishment (it seems) were aware of the COI and socking by their pets, and some were utterly convinced of the purity of their (admins) cause. The question in my mind is which admins actually believed they were doing the right thing and which understood how contemptible and cowardly their actions were.

Kato framed it better and more succinctly than I ever could; ..."We are so righteous, now go shoot on sight".

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Thu 28th February 2008, 3:05pm

[LamontStormstar]

Too bad you scrambled your password. I would have liked to see you become administrator or arbitrator.

[Jonny Cache]

Too bad you scrambled your password. I would have liked to see you become administrator or arbitrator.

Maybe we should have a Guess The Password contest?

Jonny

[Jonny Cache]

… and flowers never bend with the rainfall …

OK, so my first 'what if' example was fantasy. Let me tell you another example that isn't fantasy:

A union manufacturing shop builds some of the highest quality product in the world and at a reasonable price. Another union shop in the same industry builds some of the worst product and at uncompetitive prices; it is closed down and moved off shore.

What's the difference between these two? The first one had a culture of quality and pride. The union workers held eachother to standards. When someone wasn't pulling his weight he was 'encouraged' to move on down the road by his fellow workers.

At the second shop, I saw a young union employee who worked hard and had a good attitude. His fellow workers in neighboring stations would spend all swingshift throwing chicken bones at him as they ate … because he had a good attitude.

This is a true story. Culture and leadership matter. Good culture and leadership aren't fantasy, they actually exists in some parts of the universe.

Flowers can spring up in all sorts of fertilizer.

But you have to know the difference between compost and toxic waste.

Jonny