Re: Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown <morven@...> wrote:
> [...]
> > Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of
> > crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with
> > paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking.  On
> > the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I
> > feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening
> > impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this
> > case.
>
> I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the
> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted
> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time
> and place.  This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.
>
> The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of
> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has
> broken down rather badly and completely.  There is nothing more
> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have
> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the
> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.
>
> We have a pair of double-edged swords in play.  Both the investigation
> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the
> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators
> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and
> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of
> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or
> external troublemakers.
>
> The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each
> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.
>
> Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat
> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception
> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that
> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed
> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in
> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).
>
> I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to
> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external
> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting
> Wikipedia's goals and community.
>
> I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
> involved than we are).  Determine whether the factions have become
> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
>
> It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
>
> It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone
> involved.  Myself certainly included.  I hope not Larry or Allison - I
> personally have high regard for their support for the project and
> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an
> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
>
> If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve
> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with
> the resources at hand.  I put forth that this is already in play,
> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've
> been playing.
>
> Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make
> the center hold on this.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert@...
>