Is outright abuse an efficient strategy in Wikipedia Reform?, Inducing Psychological Trauma as a Deterrent Strategy Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Inducing Psychological Trauma as a Deterrent Strategy ... Theoretical question.

We recognise that there is a fair degree of sadistic abuse on the Wikipedia.

Some commentators have stated that there is also a fair degree of masochistic abuse (... why work for free ... pay to work for free ... and then be abused at your voluntary workplace! Insane.).

Some contributors and admins are abusive by ignorance or nature.
Some contributors and admins probably come from abusive backgrounds and do not recognise their behaviour as being abnormal and are immune to it.
Some rare Wikipedian contributors and admins have even stated they enjoy it.
Many contributors and admins are at an age, level or education or from a social disposition, where abusive behavior is the norm.

I suspect the majority of contributors are not. However, it would be fairly reasonable to assume that those attracted to "authority positions", and are willing and able to invest the time and energy to earn them, include a higher degree of sociopaths and psychopaths.

So, the question is ... is outright abuse an efficient strategy in Wikipedia reform?

By "outright abuse", I mean trolling, stalking, repeatedly hectoring, targeting specific individuals and, doing what is called in war ... harrying. Being an asshole in other words.

Does turning on your PC and logging into Wikipedia only to find yet another profane invective, or even intelligent challenge on your talk page, flashing orange or red at you, put you or people off? Or do you love it?


I do not come from an abusive background. I do not mix with such people in my real life.

What I find abusive is having to be reduced to the level of dishonest and slimy manipulation many contributors and admins are willing to stoop to. Being force to waste my life on someone that obviously does not know their subject and is willing to use underhand tatics to defend their turf and rubbish another human. It is bad enough having to read fake, sanctimonious lies from someone that you-know-that-they-know-that-you-know-that-they-are-bullshitting ... but yet they are still willing to do so BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE POWER and I have fallen into their web.

Obvious, psychological trauma is used as a deterrent strategy by axe grinders ... that is what sadists use, and that is part of the joy in dishonest summaries or false allegations, blocks and bans etc on the Pee-dia ... does it work in return to such people?

How else does one deal with such people ... except from walking away?

[Moulton]

On the bookshelf behind me is a book by Carol Tavris entitled, On the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. It's an example of a philosophical approach found in treatises on Etiquette and Politeness Theory. The basic idea is to introject better practices that plant the seeds for more civil methods of discourse.

Clearly that doesn't always work. The late M. Scott Peck took up the more problematic cases in two of his books. One of them, entitled A World Waiting To Be Born: Civility Rediscovered takes a more hopeful approach, but that view is overshadowed by the cynicism in his darkest book, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, which takes up the intractable cases of sociopathy such as you note in WikiCulture.

My own theory is that these recalcitrant cases require nothing less than a full blown opera to make a dent in the problem.

So you walk away from the scene of the problem, and create a carefully crafted operatic drama that treats the problem by means of musical stagecraft.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, which takes up the intractable cases of sociopathy

I have actually read 'People of the Lie' and recommend it often. Although one does not have to come to the same conclusions or hypothesis Peck did regarding active elements of spiritual evil, one has to accept - on the basis of his remarkable professional experiences - at least the symptomatic accuracy of his observations of such types. All it would require would be a few such elements, lurking behind the curtains of Wikipedia, to reset the agenda entirely opposite to the aims. I would say there are many and, collectively, what they are doing is messing with the intellect and values of a generation.

I would propose that we discussion such elements often here ... the demons who enjoy creating their own brands of chaos ... the more obvious chaos may only be a distraction from their actual agenda. But "People of the Lie" would define a lot of my experience on the Wikipedia ... such constant transparent lies.

How many people are hurt by it?

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

[Moulton]

I would propose that we discuss such elements often here ... the demons who enjoy creating their own brands of chaos ... the more obvious chaos may only be a distraction from their actual agenda. But "People of the Lie" would define a lot of my experience on the Wikipedia ... such constant transparent lies.

Peck offers an arresting analysis of a recognizable character disorder that borders on villainy:

According to Peck a villainous character:

• Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection;
  
• Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception;
  
• Projects his or her evils and shortcomings onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently the illusion of normalcy with everyone else;
  
• Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others;
  
• Abuses political (emotional) power by imposing their will upon others by overt or covert coercion;
  
• Maintains a high level of respectability and dissembles incessantly in order to do so;
  
• Is consistent in his or her sins. Villainous persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their evil, but by their consistency (of destructiveness);
  
• Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat);
  
• Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury.

Every good melodrama has its villainous characters, and Wikipedia is no exception.

How many people are hurt by it?

A better question would be, "Can you find even one soul who is healed by it?"

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Write atrocious song parodies.

[Abd]

People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, which takes up the intractable cases of sociopathy

I have actually read 'People of the Lie' and recommend it often. Although one does not have to come to the same conclusions or hypothesis Peck did regarding active elements of spiritual evil, one has to accept - on the basis of his remarkable professional experiences - at least the symptomatic accuracy of his observations of such types. All it would require would be a few such elements, lurking behind the curtains of Wikipedia, to reset the agenda entirely opposite to the aims. I would say there are many and, collectively, what they are doing is messing with the intellect and values of a generation.

I would propose that we discussion such elements often here ... the demons who enjoy creating their own brands of chaos ... the more obvious chaos may only be a distraction from their actual agenda. But "People of the Lie" would define a lot of my experience on the Wikipedia ... such constant transparent lies.

How many people are hurt by it?

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Likewise, I recommend People of the Lie, not the least because it confronts the politically correct position that there is no such thing as evil.

The evil of "evil" is in attempting to fix it as an external enemy, and then supposedly justifying all kinds of actions -- evil actions! -- in the name of fighting evil. This afflicts, even more than it afflicts routine for-profit business, nonprofits, "good causes," especially religious causes, and I've seen what seem like perfectly nice people turn into unfeeling vicious manipulators and abusers when serving "the cause." And this was before the internet.

But that doesn't mean that evil does not exist, quite the contrary. In some of my writing -- not necessarily the most popular --, I refer to the Ancient Enemy, which is a reference to Satan, who is, at least, a personification of evil. Does Satan exist? I prefer not to try to answer that question as if it refers to "physical reality," for I Have No Idea.

But the Ancient Enemy exists, and its fundamental characteristic is that it has contempt for the human, it is "better" than them, and, the way the Qur'an puts it, it "lies in wait for them [us] in a place where they do not recognize him." I've always glossed that as, "within us." It wins when we hate others, believing that we are the good people and they are the evil ones.

Scott Peck dares to mention satanic possession, referring to Hostage to the Devil, by Malachi Martin, a book which gave me chills.

Forbidden topic.

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Write atrocious song parodies.

Does it work?

(It ought to. Unless, of course, you take them seriously, requiring The Message™ to prevail. It should be enough that people laugh. That's quite insidious enough!)

[Moulton]

I refer to the Ancient Enemy, which is a reference to Satan, who is, at least, a personification of evil. Does Satan exist? I prefer not to try to answer that question as if it refers to "physical reality," for I Have No Idea.

Of course, the name, Satan, comes from the Greek satana, which simply means adversary.

To me, the Ancient Adversary is fear and ignorance. I battle them day in and day out.

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Write atrocious song parodies.

Does it work?

It's quite therapeutic for me.

[Somey]

By "outright abuse", I mean trolling, stalking, repeatedly hectoring, targeting specific individuals and, doing what is called in war ... harrying. Being an asshole in other words.

No, no, no. This is what people do when they either lack, or run out of, patience. That's what "they" want you to do, to validate their conception of you as an enemy. If anything, it reinforces their group identity and makes them feel more secure, not less.

Note that I'm not including exposure and identification (of otherwise-anonymous actors) here; IMO that's a separate issue, though obviously most WP'ers prefer not to see it as such.

How else does one deal with such people ... except from walking away?

Even if you disagree with the idea that attempts to "induce psychological trauma" further empower/embolden them, the fact is you can never really rely on any given person, Wikipedia admin or no, to be predisposed to some form of stress-related mental illness. To some extent with Wikipedians you can rely on a certain level of narcissism or egotism, in a few cases even egomania, but that doesn't help you cause trauma - you're more likely to cause yourself trauma in the attempt. As for paranoia, that's not really what they exhibit - it's more of a group insecurity, a herd/hive/swarm mentality, at least when it comes to people they see as some kind of "threat to the encyclopedia." (That doesn't mean they can actually call on a "swarm" to support any given thing they do; they just think they should be able to, which is usually enough for them to act as if they can.)

If a person has already managed to become a Wikipedia admin, it usually means they've already demonstrated a certain degree of ruthlessness, along with an ability to mask that ruthlessness in an air of (usually artificial) "civility." That's not something a depressive or borderline mentality is usually capable of, though obviously it does happen occasionally.

In any "war," whether actual, virtual, or make-believe, there's no substitute for being more clever and more skilled than your opponent. States and other groups who resort to barbarism and cruelty in order to "win" a conflict usually get consigned to the dustbin of history in the long term. Obviously the temptation will always be there, and there will be times when there's no other practical choice, but it's a lousy long-term strategy.

I'm also not so sure some of the people voting in this poll understood the question...

[Moulton]

To my mind, a more interesting question would be whether there is a practical way to educate an incorrigibly corrupt bully in a way that doesn't leave them emotionally disturbed.

[Emperor]

Walk away, you stupid, worthless idiot and quit wasting your time on Wikipedia if you hate it so much.

[Abd]

I refer to the Ancient Enemy, which is a reference to Satan, who is, at least, a personification of evil. Does Satan exist? I prefer not to try to answer that question as if it refers to "physical reality," for I Have No Idea.

Of course, the name, Satan, comes from the Greek satana, which simply means adversary.[In Arabic, the proper name is Iblis. According to that well-known authority, Wikipedia, this may be derived from the Greek Diabolos, but it's also claimed that it comes from Arabic balasa, "he despaired," which is grammatically okay, I think.

Satan in Arabic is Shaytaan, as I might transliterate it, and it's sometimes used with the definite article, as "the Shaytaan," implying that there can be more than one, with Iblis being one, or the principal one. Same meaning as the Greek. So "Ancient Adversary" ain't bad. I did make it up.

To me, the Ancient Adversary is fear and ignorance. I battle them day in and day out.

That might explain a lot.

Tell me, where do you encounter these enemies, such that you battle them? In yourself or in others, and is your struggle different accordingly?

I think you've identified something close to the enemy, but not the enemy. The enemy is more like arrogance. Babies are ignorant and children can be afraid, but I don't think that makes them possessed by the enemy. What you call "ignorance" may, instead, be denial, refusal to see and understand. Fear can indeed be at or near the root of this, but isn't it, in itself, because there can be arrogance, and the associated contempt which is at the core of the story of Satan, without fear, as such.

So, Moulton, the problem with identifying ignorance as the enemy is that you might easily identify others as ignorant, perhaps develop contempt of them, and then Satan has you by the short hairs. So to speak. Just a metaphor!

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Write atrocious song parodies.

Does it work?

It's quite therapeutic for me.

For me, too, you do good work. If we ever have a real meet-up, we'll have to have a "talent show," with performances of your work.

On the other hand, if somehow pigs fly and miracles happen, maybe it would then be too obscure. "Kids, there was a day when they actually blocked people from contributing to Wikipedia because they wrote the truth."

Walk away, you stupid, worthless idiot and quit wasting your time on Wikipedia if you hate it so much.

Emperor, the drooling reservoir of contempt, hiding behind anonymity, I'm forced to imagine, should walk away from the human race if he hates humans so much. WTF is he doing here?

[Somey]

Emperor, the drooling reservoir of contempt, hiding behind anonymity, I'm forced to imagine, should walk away from the human race if he hates humans so much. WTF is he doing here?

Now, this is just unfair. None of us have actually seen Mr. Emperor do any drooling - for all we know, he may even suffer from "dry-mouth."

Perhaps he just meant that walking away is the only sensible approach, which many of us would probably agree with, no? Personally, I'd say an even better approach would be to never have engaged with them in the first place, but obviously that's not an option for everyone.

[everyking]

It's an efficient strategy for getting yourself blocked and turned into a punchline. Otherwise, no.

[EricBarbour]

(It ought to. Unless, of course, you take them seriously, requiring The Message™ to prevail. It should be enough that people laugh. That's quite insidious enough!)

Probably the best method. Working on it myself.

Walk away, you stupid, worthless idiot and quit wasting your time on Wikipedia if you hate it so much.

It's an efficient strategy for getting yourself blocked and turned into a punchline. Otherwise, no.

Thanks guys! Come back anytime! Bring snacks!

So, the question is ... is outright abuse an efficient strategy in Wikipedia reform?
By "outright abuse", I mean trolling, stalking, repeatedly hectoring, targeting specific individuals and, doing what is called in war ... harrying. Being an asshole in other words.

If so, that Kohs guy is apparently the Mother Teresa of Wikipedia.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Note that I'm not including exposure and identification (of otherwise-anonymous actors) here; IMO that's a separate issue, though obviously most WP'ers prefer not to see it as such.

Naming the Devil in classical terminology ... one of the first steps to carry out in an exocism.

Malachi Martin revealed what he considered to be the typical stages of an exorcism. We can apply it in this case allegorically.

Pretense - The demon is hiding its true identity.
Breakpoint - The demon reveals itself.
Clash - The exorcist and the demon fight for the soul of the possessed.
Expulsion - If the exorcist wins the battle, the demon leaves the body of the possessed.

Now I don't necessarily subscribe to the inevitability of this order, but you we see it time and time again here outing abusive admins. Their initial position of pretense (Wikipedian's fake identity) ... their identification and outing ... their reaction and conflict ... then a dramatic exit as they are purged. Who was the last one, Sarek the Vulcan?

The "Clash" mostly appears to be inevitable.

Walk away, you stupid, worthless idiot and quit wasting your time on Wikipedia if you hate it so much.

Sweetheart ... I still love you. I want you to know that if you have any problems you can always come here and discuss them with us. I know it hurts to think some time ... but let us kiss it better for you.

Please try and avoid simple binary thinking or good/bad, love/hate, us/them. I do not hate "The Wikipedia" any more than I hate "The Japanese" or "The Americans" ... look closely, life is much more complex.

They are messing with children, that is why. Messing with society. Exporting their values, their mess, all over the planet.

If a dog bites you, far better to stick your hand down its throad than pull it back instinctively.

No, no, no. This is what people do when they either lack, or run out of, patience. That's what "they" want you to do, to validate their conception of you as an enemy. If anything, it reinforces their group identity and makes them feel more secure, not less.

I don't know ... the problem is, sometimes it kind of works. Sometimes I find that anything from a well aimed dent to a full out but invariably Pyrrhic victory is the only way to achieve some change or movement, especially where there are entrenched parties.

I am sure that everyone has come across a topic that is being owned by someone, that is obviously not right, who has their pieces arranged in such a way that it is impossible to move and is playing a tightly defensive game to protect it, personalizing with it deeply.

Ditto, admin types who are obviously being twisted and manipulative and not being honest.

The facts are, a) reason with such people is more than often impossible, b) the Wikipedia environment is so unreasonable that by the time you get to them, they are already deeply entrenched and armoured against the tide of shit that swills around the surface of the Wikipedia so that any engagement is going to be first treated as a defence against worthless shit, or idiots as Emperor calls them, whether you are or are not.

They live under the cloak of anonymity and, due to the lack of direct and eye to eye contact, it is impossible to know if one is having any impact.

Their "crimes" are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again ...

Theirs is a brand of narcissism so total that they seem to lack this capacity for empathy ... We can see then, that their narcissism makes the evil dangerous not only because it motivates them to scapegoat others, but also because it deprives them of the restraint that results from empathy and respect for others ... The evil need victims to sacrifice to their narcissism, their narcissism permits them to ignore the humanity of their victims as well ... The blindness of the narcissist to others can extend beyond a lack of empathy; narcissists may not "see" others at all.

[Moulton]

I refer to the Ancient Enemy, which is a reference to Satan, who is, at least, a personification of evil. Does Satan exist? I prefer not to try to answer that question as if it refers to "physical reality," for I Have No Idea.

Of course, the name, Satan, comes from the Greek satana, which simply means adversary.

In Arabic, the proper name is Iblis. According to that well-known authority, Wikipedia, this may be derived from the Greek Diabolos, but it's also claimed that it comes from Arabic balasa, "he despaired," which is grammatically okay, I think.

Satan in Arabic is Shaytaan, as I might transliterate it, and it's sometimes used with the definite article, as "the Shaytaan," implying that there can be more than one, with Iblis being one, or the principal one. Same meaning as the Greek. So "Ancient Adversary" ain't bad. I did make it up.

Way back when I first ran into IDCab on the English Wikipedia, I referred to them as "adversarial editors".

To me, the Ancient Adversary is fear and ignorance. I battle them day in and day out.

That might explain a lot.

I certainly hope so.

Tell me, where do you encounter these enemies, such that you battle them? In yourself or in others, and is your struggle different accordingly?

Everywhere. For my own fear and ignorance, I rely on research and counseling from trusted advisors. As a science educator, I keep an eye open for opportunities to to assist others with their education and development.

I think you've identified something close to the enemy, but not the enemy. The enemy is more like arrogance. Babies are ignorant and children can be afraid, but I don't think that makes them possessed by the enemy. What you call "ignorance" may, instead, be denial, refusal to see and understand. Fear can indeed be at or near the root of this, but isn't it, in itself, because there can be arrogance, and the associated contempt which is at the core of the story of Satan, without fear, as such.

Yes, hubris is a recurring issue, especially in WikiCulture as I have stumbled upon it.

So, Moulton, the problem with identifying ignorance as the enemy is that you might easily identify others as ignorant, perhaps develop contempt of them, and then Satan has you by the short hairs. So to speak. Just a metaphor!

It's indeed hard to avoid feeling (and expressing) contempt.

Another element I would pick up from Peck is that engaging with social evils invariably damages those that attempt to exorcise it. How to protect oneself from that?

Write atrocious song parodies.

Does it work?

It's quite therapeutic for me.

For me, too, you do good work. If we ever have a real meet-up, we'll have to have a "talent show," with performances of your work.

I only write the songs. I don't perform them.

[Shalom]

I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking if breaching experiments like putting Mike Handel on the main page destroy my faith in the reliability of Wikipedia, and my answer to that is "sometimes."

Abuse from others - some who have reconciled with me since then - was a significant factor in my decision to leave Wikipedia. I came back a few times, but now I'm gone for good, and I really mean it. I haven't edited in two months. No socks. Not even while logged out. I'm done.

[Abd]

... you do good work. If we ever have a real meet-up, we'll have to have a "talent show," with performances of your work.

I only write the songs. I don't perform them.

W e l l , . . . I was a folksinger for a time, and was known as a guitarist in certain circles, maybe I'll learn a few of them. For a good cause, of course. What do you think is your best work, er, fun?

Emperor, the drooling reservoir of contempt, hiding behind anonymity, I'm forced to imagine, should walk away from the human race if he hates humans so much. WTF is he doing here?

Now, this is just unfair. None of us have actually seen Mr. Emperor do any drooling - for all we know, he may even suffer from "dry-mouth."

Perhaps he just meant that walking away is the only sensible approach, which many of us would probably agree with, no? Personally, I'd say an even better approach would be to never have engaged with them in the first place, but obviously that's not an option for everyone.

There you go again, Somey, being all sensible and stuff. I confess: I have not seen Emperor drool, but the suggestion to walk away wasn't the problem, that is, indeed, what we often recommend, but we don't recommend it to dismiss critics of Wikipedia, especially one of the most penetrating. Or penetrated.

Something like that.

He saw what was happening, and was fucked over for it. So both. But I don't see him as full of hate, as Emperor commented. He's biting in his criticism, and a mature project would be able to handle this, indeed, would invite it. (And contain it, and use it.) As would any mature project manager. When you've started to be successful, praise is easy to come by, cogent criticism is much rarer, precious, even.

[Moulton]

... you do good work. If we ever have a real meet-up, we'll have to have a "talent show," with performances of your work.

I only write the songs. I don't perform them.

W e l l , . . . I was a folksinger for a time, and was known as a guitarist in certain circles, maybe I'll learn a few of them. For a good cause, of course. What do you think is your best work, er, fun?

Oh, lessee...

• Jimbo Wales Superstar
  
• Outfoxer
  
• You're So Mean
  
• Pity of Dull Forums
  
• The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down

[Emperor]

I was wondering if a little outright abuse might encourage Cock-up to find some other hobby besides Wikipedia reform.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Abuse from others - some who have reconciled with me since then - was a significant factor in my decision to leave Wikipedia. I came back a few times, but now I'm gone for good, and I really mean it. I haven't edited in two months. No socks. Not even while logged out. I'm done.

My fault ...

Yes, I meant direct hectoring or abuse ... the leaving of messages on individuals' talk pages, being following around by them.

Either, openly doing it ... or having had it done to oneself.

I imagine admins have it done fairly regularly, I suspect abusive ones moreso ... but then I suspect they are the ones that actually get off on the adrenalin rush or negative emotional reaction and hateful punishment.

I was wondering if a little outright abuse might encourage Cock-up to find some other hobby besides Wikipedia reform.

No ... only intelligent reasoning ... or, of course, reform itself.

I am sorry ... I don't know who you are or what your thing is. We have not been properly introduced.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Wed 21st April 2010, 4:32am