User talk:Filll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My blog | The Fillling Station. See what I really think.



Contents

[edit] Disgusted

Over the last year and a half I have had the opportunity to observe Wikipedia from a close vantage point. There are many good things about Wikipedia. But there are many horrible things as well. And frankly, I am a bit disgusted.

[edit] Downside to adminship and editorship

Being an admin has some dark sides to it which few discuss openly. The worst is that many active admins regularly receive death threats, and are the targets of real life harassment of many flavors. All this over a website run by volunteer labor. Why would anyone want to be an admin under these circumstances? If this contributes to the reluctance of editors to become admins, Wikipedia has only itself to blame. Those who let things get to this point should be ashamed.

Even regular editors are the targets of vile abuse and repeated threats. I have received profanity-laced threatening emails from fellow editors and even from an administrator, over essentially ridiculous issues. Interestingly, this admin is a huge proponent of the need for more "civility". The hypocrisy is impressive.

How is it that the word "troll" or the word "vandal" or even the phrase "silly reasoning" are uncivil and sanctionable, and yet threats made through emails forwarded from Wikipedia calling someone a $#@%^ &*@! are not? When I asked about what could be done, I was told that Arbcomm would not look at such things if they were more than a day or two old and that a huge amount of paperwork had to be filled out documenting the issue.

In another interesting episode, someone forwarded a few private emails from another administrator, who made a variety of threats and attacks against me by email. Again, I considered taking action, but was informed that I could not unless I had compiled a huge amount of documentation, and this behavior and a variety of other improper conduct I observed on-wiki by this administrator were within the last one or two days. And I was told that by me having used an adverb which was the equivalent of "incredibly" during a discussion that I would be pilloried for my "uncivil" wording.

Well, stepping back from this situation, I have to say that is nonsense. I realize Arbcomm is just not functioning very well at the moment [1]. Sorry, but that is just unacceptable. Those who have allowed the project to get into this condition should be ashamed.

[edit] RfAs and threats

It is not supposed to be any "big deal" to be an administrator. But some try 3, 4, 5 or more times in a year or so to become an admin. Some seem to want it so bad they can taste it. Frankly, this is a very bad sign.

A current RfA which garnered a record-breaking 100 support votes in about 12 hours is highly suspicious. This is especially true given the results of this candidate's previous 4 failed RfA attempts in the last 13 months. And yet accusations are made by this candidate and his associates that others are "vote-rigging" (see my comment below). Interestingly, not a single question has been raised about the strange inconsistency of this candidate's record-breaking and highly unusual pattern of support votes, nor is there any suggestion of impropriety involved. Those involved should be ashamed.

I have previously objected to being badgered for the reasoning behind my vote to support or oppose a given candidate. I think it is unseemly, can amount to harassment, can result in the public release of information that makes the candidate feel bad and thereby further heightens the tensions, and can sway other paricipants in ways that might not be fair to the candidate. Yet, this practice of arguing against almost every "oppose" vote (and some of the "support" votes) continues. In a process that is already laced with negativity, this tradition is extremely unappealing. Those who use these polls as an opportunity to pick fights with the participants should be ashamed. But those of us who have allowed or condoned this ugly practice should be ashamed also.

In addition, I have now seen editors openly announce that they are threatening others, or otherwise taking "revenge" for votes on an RfA [2][3][4]. Over a "vote" for a position that is supposed to be no big deal?

Interestingly there appear to be no consequences for making such announcements or threats. In a community that has become obsessed with CIVIL, and worries that someone stating that "an argument is nonsense" is a sanctionable violation of WP:CIVIL, threats or other negative actions being taken in retribution for RfA votes are perfectly permissable and reasonable? What is next in that case? Expect things to get much worse if changes are not made. Those who have allowed the situation to get as bad as it is should be ashamed.

Although I have contempt for those who threaten others or start administrative actions in revenge for others voting the "wrong way" in these polls, I judge those have permitted this to happen even more harshly. Arbcomm has had clear evidence of one instance of this happening for well over a week.[5][6] Arbcomm was notified of a previous case that was not a lot different a few months ago.[7] Recently a request for more administrative action, apparently partly in retribution for voting "incorrectly" at RfA has been filed [8]. I was even attacked for voting "incorrectly" in two RfAs that I did not even vote in at all [9].

The silence from Arbcomm has been deafening. At least as far as I know, there has not been one whisper, one breath or one hint that this is frowned upon or discouraged. By their silence, the message is clear; it is perfectly acceptable and permissable to engage in such disagraceful behavior. And therefore, it will escalate. We already have people being stalked and death threats being made. Sooner or later, someone will carry out one of these threats.

I have one thing to say to the entire community on this issue; as you sew, so you shall reap. If you think the current amount of drama is bad, you are only encouraging more by staying mute and allowing it to happen. If you think that someone saying another editor is using a silly argument will discourage new editors, or create a bad editing environment, imagine what a killing of another editor will do for the environment. If you thought that the Seigenthaler incident was bad publicity, just continue down our current path; you ain't seen nothin yet. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb with our current attitudes and culture.

Since we allow these sorts of threats to continue, they just escalate. I can count several casualties of this sort of attitude. NewyorkBrad. Raymond arritt. Vanished User. I am told that even Doc Glasgow fell victim to it. There are more that I know of, but am not at liberty to reveal. And doubtless many others I do not know about. We should be ashamed to have let this happen. Because if we do not stop it, it will get worse.

[edit] My response: withdrawal

Tempers and passions about RfAs and similar "polls" are so inflamed that I think the only prudent thing to do is to boycott them. For the forseeable future, I will not take part in any more of these sham polls, such as RfAs and RfBs. People are too upset and too angry over this ridiculous nonsense. And if it continues, I guarantee we will see editors killing others over these stupid polls. To think that Wikipedia is worried about the incivility of saying an editor is involved in "self promotion", which is supposedly a sanctionable offense now [10], but openly advertising that one is taking revenge against other editors for their unpopular RfA poll positions, including blatant threats and attacks, is viewed as completely normal and proper. This is an embarassment.

Some will claim I am weak, for giving up and rewarding those who seek to harass and to intimidate. Perhaps. However, I would characterize the situation differently. We have bodies and entities that are here to maintain order. We are also part of a community that collectively is supposed to prevent excesses. When these fail to protect individual volunteers who are making good faith efforts to improve the project, then since this is a collaborative and consensual environment, the individual has little if any option except to withdraw.

In other words, if the community favors a drama-ridden hellish environment, it will get one. I can't stop it if the community wants it. And I am not stupid enough to try to stop it.

[edit] Inmates running the asylum

Under the current climate of political correctness, almost anything can be viewed as a violation of WP:CIVIL. For example, stating that an argument is silly or even disagreeing with someone who wants the Wikipedia articles to report as factual unsourced statements as ridiculous as "the moon is made of green cheese" have been claimed to be uncivil, sanctionable offenses. There is a culture of leniency for unsourced, unreliable nonsense. And amazingly for an encyclopedia with pretensions to become academically respectable, the demands that Wikipedia become progressively more tolerant of such material seem to me to be increasing. I suppose it is viewed as unfair or discriminatory for a reference work to suggest what the mainstream view is, somewhat equivalent to stating "a roughly spherical earth model is supported by more evidence than a flat earth model". This is incredible for an encyclopedia, there is no doubt.

Those encouraging this increasing pressure for leniency and laxity should be ashamed. They won't be of course. They are too smug and too sure they are correct. But the rest of us, who have let this attitude take root and thrive, should be ashamed.

[edit] My response: withdrawal

Until the system makes it clear I will not be subject to attack, if you want to have articles on alternative medicine that are just promotional materials, be my guest. I don't need the abuse and the attacks [11].

Until the project makes it clear that it welcomes science, if you want to fill Wikipedia articles with pseudoscience and unsourced garbage, be my guest. I have had it.

Until such time as Wikipedia makes it clear that it is not in favor of turning all biology, creationism and intelligent design articles into religious tracts, I am not going to fight that fight any more. Feel free to put whatever nonsense you want in any of these articles. I don't care. Go right ahead if it is so important to you. This is not worth being killed over. And unfortunately, there are many among us who give every sign of being ready and willing to kill over such issues.

[edit] Open the jails

By this time, there are a substantial number of editors whose editing privileges on Wikipedia have been restricted for one reason or another. Many of these caused a substantial amount of disruption on Wikipedia, some even severely damaging the project or committing criminal acts. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing chorus demanding that restrictions placed on these disruptive editors be lifted. There seems to be hardly a single disruptive editor who does not have a substantial group lobbying for the return of their unfettered editing privileges.

While I believe everyone deserves a second chance, and even a third or a fourth chance, I notice that many editors are skittish about agreeing to this. This is not because they are mean or selfish jerks, or just pieces of #@$% as is frequently claimed. On the contrary, these cautious editors do not trust the current system for mentoring and monitoring returned disruptive editors, and for taking action if the previous difficulties again surface. The costs of the disruptive editing and the leveling of editing restrictions in many cases was substantial, consuming a huge amount of effort and many hours of volunteer time. These reluctant editors are not anxious to repeat this experience.

Essentially, the current system allows editors to "vote" to introduce disruptive and destructive elements into someone else's workspace with impunity. And when the editors that will probably be forced to clean up any potential mess express misgivings about this, they are abused and attacked and threatened. Those who are involved in this or who have allowed this situation to develop should be ashamed.

Even statements as seemingly uncontroversial and innocuous as "The New York Times reported X on date Y" are seized on as evidence of some evil cabal perpetuating some nefarious agenda. And vendettas for daring to include such a statement in Wikipedia are mounted over and over and over, in support of an editor with a long history of disruption in other online communities [12].

What is incredible is that those who deign to attack their fellow editors feel completely at liberty to do so. They are allowed to continue and even encouraged by their fellow Wikipedians. And even more amazing is that there are not just one or two of these editors, but literally dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedians who hold this position. Not one Wikipedian in authority has given the slightest hint of questioning the reasonableness or prudence of allowing these kind of rampant attacks. The carnage of good faith editors is palpable, and the unquestioning acceptance of such vacuous arguments is staggering. The blatant and even gleeful vilifaction of editors who have dared to stand up to pseudoscience and mob rule by suggesting that it is permissable to include a statement in Wikipedia about a New York Times article is stunning. Those involved should be ashamed.

This is absolutely sickening behavior by an organization purportedly involved in producing a reliable reference work. I would not believe it except I have witnessed it firsthand. Wikipedians should all be ashamed. But I am closer to disgust.

[edit] A public statement about the DMHO RfA

I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:

  • I contacted only three people.
  • Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
  • In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
  • I promise it will never happen again.


Response I'm glad to hear it won't happen again, and I'm perfectly fine with your apology. That being said, there are reasons why this looks bad:

  Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency
Friendly notice Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open
↕ ↕ ↕ ↕
Disruptive canvassing Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
Term Excessive cross-posting   Campaigning   Votestacking   Stealth canvassing
Perception Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret. Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA." Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email. Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share.

Thus, of the four criteria required to be considered a friendly notice as compared to canvassing, your email only meets one of those three and that's assuming we AGF and trust that there were only 3 people contacted. The other 3 criteria, were clear violations of WP:CANVASS. Again, I will AGF and I consider this an isolated incident, but this was a clear violation of Canvass.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


I have decided now that that charade of an RfA is over that I will respond further to this. I find several things that I find amazing about it:

  • With about 100 responses in the first 12 hours and about 170 responses in the first 24 hours, that more people did not think it was somewhat unusual. How many RfAs garner almost 400 votes, a good 48 hours before they are scheduled to finish?
  • That there was some surprise that his attacks on a group a couple of weeks earlier in his blog would actually lead the members of that group to be less than enthusiastic about supporting him? Why is that a surprise?
  • That given the Moulton RfC, the Durova offer to help Moulton if he completed certain tasks which he declined to do, the Moulton Arbcomm appeal which was declined, the efforts by WAS 4.250, Lar and Kim Bruning to get Moulton to cooperate which failed, the AN and AN/I threads on Moulton which were not successful in convincing people to unblock and the 2nd Moulton Arbcomm appeal which also was declined, that the candidate wanted Moulton unblocked? And that this was not viewed as a bigger judgement problem?
  • That gaming the FAC system was not viewed as more problematic?
  • That east718's serious revelation did not cause more of a stampede?
  • That the 5 RfAs within a year or so were not viewed as more troubling?
  • That there was so much defensiveness associated with the "white pride" support, and hostility towards those questioning it?

Even if all the problems with the previously failed RfAs are ignored, this is quite a serious list. Any one or two of these alone would have caused most RfAs a serious problem.

It is even a bit stranger to consider that his coach, Balloonman himself, had all kinds of misgivings about supporting this. And somehow that did not cause bigger problems.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to response

  Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency
Friendly notice Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open
↕ ↕ ↕ ↕
Disruptive canvassing Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
Term Excessive cross-posting   Campaigning   Votestacking   Stealth canvassing
Perception Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret. I contacted WJBScribe immediately with the details when I found out there might be a problem. And I notice no others have come forward. Arbcomm can contact those I mentioned to him and see if they received the message. Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA." It was pretty neutral. And I have the copies still. Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email. What does that mean? It was not disruptive as far as I know. And no I did not think that revealing it was any big deal since I did not think it was canvassing. I even had an email exchange with Andonico about this. And I have copies. And I had no idea if they would support or oppose. At first I thought I might support until I saw the blog entry. Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share. There was no attempt to keep it secret since I didn't think that I was doing anything wrong.

--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

subpage

[edit] G'day Filll

I hope you're as good as can be under the current circumstances....! I've seen quite alot of your posts around the place, and am concerned that you're getting the rough end of the wiki stick in many ways - and that you're in danger of burning out / shooting through.... you might (by now) have seen my post at the WP:NTWW page about the possible topics - and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.... equally - if you're stressed out or just plain sick of the whole affair, then that's cool too..... I bought you a beer so we could talk over it, but such are the vagaries of the wiki that I'm just going to have to drink it for you too.... greater love hath no man! take care dude, and best wishes.... Privatemusings (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it is probably best that I do not respond at WP:NTWW, at least in a recorded show, until this is over. I do take umbrage at the suggestion or implication that somehow I am part of an evil clique that is involved in all sorts of bad behavior. I categorically deny it. If such a thing is true, I want to see the evidence of it. At the risk of being charged with a violation of WP:CIVIL, put up or....
I get awfully tired of defending myself and my fellow editors against one spurious ridiculous charge after another. And then, while the community is spinning its wheels trying to string me up, I witness the seeming complete indifference of the community to death threats, and threats of outing, and extortion, and stalking, and harassment, and attacks motivated by a desire for vengeance, and even these completely inconsistent CIVIL standards. How on earth is the phrase "self promoter" deemed to be a personal attack (per the Wiki God King; I have to dig up that link I think) and a violation of WP:CIVIL and a blockable offense, and the words "POV pusher" or "troll" or "silly" or "nonsense" (more examples are here) are supposedly a violation of WP:CIVIL, while the use of the word "f*ckwit" is not even worth a warning or a caution? I have been chewed out for even suggesting that both sides of this rancorous discussion giving rise to the "f*ckwit" comment should have been cautioned , since supposedly in this case the word "f*ckwit" was completely understandable and reasonable and they had good reason to use it and so on and so forth. Well, I think that just about sums it up. I guarantee if I used the word "f*ckwit" as part of an onwiki conversation, I would get in trouble for it, and rightly so. And to add insult to injury, when I asked about it, people edit-warred to keep this offensive insult on the page. And repeated it other places.
Interesting set of standards we have...--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fill hun

What is it that has upset someone who is usually so composed? I'm surprised. I must've missed half of what's been happening. I'll have to reread what you've put above again, but if you think you can explain it to someone like me who needs the Ladybird Books version which uses words of one syllable, email me:) Sticky Parkin 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not know you. The short answer is, some people are very angry at me and some other editors who edit the same sorts of articles I do. And these people are so angry, they want to do us harm. So I have decided that until the community decides that threats and attacks are improper, I will avoid the topics that seem to make these angry people so upset.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I really hope that no-one would want to do you harm. If you mean Cla58 -whose name I can't remember offhand without looking it up, no disrespect to him, I hope you know who I mean :) I like to think he doesn't mean 'threats', certainly not physical threats or real-world off wiki action of some kind threats. I interpreted his comments here more as meaning he thought people might get told off on wiki/disciplined here if they carried on as he considered they were and he tried to get them blocked. It's not like that doesn't happen quite often around those articles.:) But then that's just my hope, I do get in trouble becauuse I have an optimistic view of people sometimes so people think I'm being faux naive, and I would need to reread all the diffs etc, and I've not really studied his comments on WR to see if he really implied he would do something else to people. If he did, that's mean and a bit intimidating IMHO :( Sticky Parkin 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a chat with odd nature, you and some others?

Hi filll - I've replied over at WP:NTWW saying basically this - that I think it would be both interesting, and potentially very helpful to have a podcast such as the one you suggested there.... I'm hoping you're still interested! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you will find odd nature unwilling to participate but you can try to get him or her. I am wondering if given the fact that litigation is pending, it might not be better for me at least to designate someone as a "representative" who is not involved in the litigation, to speak on my side of the issue. This is sort of the function a lawyer would perform in the real world. I have to think about it however.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Filll, are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't support creationism? You have got to be kidding me. I can show you several reports from Humanist organisations that suggest that the Roman Catholic Church supports creationism. Masterpiece2000 (Talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you are right. I did some research and found out that the Roman Catholic Church is not known for its support for creationism or Intelligent Deign. How do you know so much? You are a smart guy. I am mainly interested in Humanism. I don’t have great knowledge about religious organizations. Thank you for your great comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I do not know much about humanism to be honest; I had never even heard of it until I was about 25 or so. But the RCC has for at least 100 years if not longer come out to varying degrees against creationism, which is mainly a movement in the United States and mainly a belief that is fostered among some Protestant sects with extreme views. And most of this creationism, even there, really is a very recent phenomenon with very weak roots. Even in the "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryant, the prosecution attorney who was on the "creationist side" was known to be an evolution supporter. This is essentially a tempest in a teapot created by a very small very angry very ignorant and very loud aggressive group. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the thought

There's just nothing that makes me believe that it would be worth my time and energy to stay, but I appreciate your wanting me to, that was nice. I might, I hope without offending, suggest that you could sometimes take your own advice?

There's a meanness here, a toxic atmosphere that I just don't care to be around, and while sometimes I wish some of the pro-science editors would be more civil, because I think they're making their job more difficult by giving people a red herring to distract from the real problems of the WP, it's not that kind of incivility that I find really unpleasant, it's the undercover incivility that masks a disrespect for NPOV under the guise of civility. That's what really makes WP intolerable for me. Well, I've said too much; adieu. Woonpton (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Well I am not quite sure what you mean. I do try to show respect for NPOV. It is not always possible to achieve given assorted difficulties here, but I think it is a worthwhile and worthy goal. I avoid profanity here on Wikipedia. I have always had and continue to have a standing offer to remove or strike any post of mine which offends someone, whether I agree with the complaint about my post or not. Frankly, at least compared to what I have seen in research and academia, my impression is that the vast majority of pro-science editors are far far far more civil than what is common in the real world. Just my observation. Some do not respect NPOV or understand it very well, but most of the pro-science editors I have worked with seem to accept it. But oh well, I guess you are gone so I will not quite know what you mean. Sorry. Good luck.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WP:NBD

Just read User:Filll#RfAs_and_threats. I like it. I think WP:NBD is so outdated that the section should be removed. This has probably been discussed before, but in light of recent events I wonder if a proposal to remove it would get more traction now. Although the last thing needed now is more drama. Thought? Yilloslime (t) 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. However, I am more concerned with the community taking a stand against threats and revenge and attacks, particularly for "votes" in these polls.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear ya...Yilloslime (t) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)