Abd
Joined 12 December 2007
Latest comment: 11 years ago by GregorB in topic Some comments regarding Croatian Wikipedia
Key to survival
I get the impression that the key to survival here is to avoid being argumentative. By that I mean, you have to avoid arguing back, because the person who starts a dispute is automatically considered in the right. E.g., suppose I go to your page and say, "Abd, I object to your doing x. It's very disruptive; please stop." You might say, "But I'm allowed to do x. Besides, what harm is it causing?"
In that situation, you just lost, because now you're starting a whole bunch of drama by being argumentative; plus you're wikilawyering and seemingly rationalizing. You should instead ignore my objection, or give some polite response, and continue about your business, preferably accomplishing what you originally set out to do by some means that avoids doing precisely what I objected to. That way, we both save face, since I technically got you to stop what you were doing.
This rule doesn't apply when dealing with sysops; when sysops do something you object to, you have to make sure it's another sysop who raises the objection on-wiki. Voicing the objection yourself automatically makes you the drama-starter; after all, you went against the person whose promotion was supported by the community, so that makes you an enemy of the community. So, instead you should quietly and patiently pursue other channels, e.g. emailing a sysop to ask his opinion on what was done, and inquire whether it was within the rules. He might suggest some way of defusing the conflict non-confrontationally.
If you get in arguments, even if you're right, your popularity drops and usually the person will hold a grudge (although he won't admit to it; he'll claim to only be looking out for the good of the wiki). He'll just oppose you whenever he gets the chance, and maybe even start wiki-stalking you. At best, he won't actively work against you, but will still refrain from supporting you when opportunities arise. The most popular users, who are able to become sysops, are usually the most non-confrontational people, who either believe the mainstream opinions or keep quiet about their dissident opinions or even use alternative accounts to voice those dissident opinions (not that I'm suggesting impropriety; I'm sure they disclose those accounts to the proper authorities, if required by any rules).
When it comes time to drop the dime on someone anonymously, nothing beats the tactic of a certain indef-blocked (not banned) user with whom we unfortunately had long and torturous acquaintance, who loved to use his urban ___location, wifi dish antenna and other means to gain access to a multitude of seemingly unrelated IP addresses with which to make reports to WP:ANI. People suspect newly-created accounts; they don't suspect IP addresses as much. I'm not suggesting using these tactics, but it's definitely good to be aware of them, because it's how the game is played.
Really, all games are that way. Who wins at chess? It's often the person who was the most patient, willing to spend lots of tedious hours studying openings and endgames; and who had enough ice water flowing through his veins to keep cool and not let any threatened setbacks fluster him. Risk would be another apt analogy; the person who wins at Risk is often the most politically astute player, who tries to get on everyone's good side and doesn't ruffle people's feathers unnecessarily. Sometimes he triumphs by persuading his opponents to attack each other, while he waits on the sidelines, building up his forces for the aftermath.
Even when he betrays alliances, he does it in such well-chosen situations, and finds such well-chosen words with which to explain it, that people don't hold it against him. I've lost games of Risk simply because I inadvertently got on people's bad sides. If players decide you acted inappropriately or in bad faith, they will often weaken their own position to weaken you, just out of principle.
By the way, why the [heck] is "Risk" italicized but "chess" isn't? Someone should create an Annoyed Picard meme about that. Leucosticte (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on this topic? Leucosticte (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here is my response, I am not willing to place it there. If you wish, you may link to this from there.
- Lecuosticte, you are generally correct. The specific problem with the WMF is that processes and policies were created that make representations as to how the wikis are run, that are not realized by the actual process, and there is no systematic critical review. So the public is snookered, and so are many users who believe in the policies (which are often very well written) and assume they are enforced. It can take a lot of study to realize and understand otherwise, and it can shake the confidence of such users. That's viewed as damaging, my guess. In general, if I assume that those involved at high levels know what they are doing, they are afraid of alienating the mass of volunteers. They have a tiger by the tail, a mob that is not always "collectively intelligent," when it is acting out of survival instincts.
- It was fascinating to watch when ArbComm attempted to create a review committee, with broad membership, to do work that was obviously necessary. There were screams of protest, and they backed down. Why? Essentially, ArbComm was, at one time, at least, the best and most focused deliberative process on the wiki. And yet they surrendered to a flashmob, that probably did not actually represent most editors, but only the most vocal and centrally watchful. Think about what kind of editor has w:WP:AN and ANI and other active central processes on their watchlist, long-term? Some administrators, yes, but the rest? Those pages were allowed to become discussion fora, instead of simply being noticeboards. Argument on a noticeboard should never have been allowed; rather, with the wiki system, simple requests would be "accepted" by an administrator agreeing to investigate the issue, and then arguments would have been made elsewhere, as appropriate and organized by the investigator. That is, on article or user talk pages, or sometimes on user space pages (of the investigator). And then a result would have been taken back to close the report.
- But the "community" as it appeared, so often, did not want effective, efficient process. It often rejected it, and acted to torpedo it. And the causes of that are obvious. --Abd (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- People watch ANI for entertainment and so that they can interject a bunch of jeers that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on the wiki. It's not exactly the kind of place where you'd expect to run into a lot of productive editors or philosophical types who are interested in a reasoned discussion. It's fast-paced and emotional, people act on impulse and fear, and usually the results are a train wreck. Are you concerned that if you get too outspoken on meta they might kick you off again? Leucosticte (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The founder of ANI considered it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake, it was something that could have worked, but that was corrupted by "avoiding burreaucracy" and "avoiding instruction creep." I argued all that years ago on Wikipedia. There could be a completely functional AN or ANI, but it would not be a place for deliberative process. We do not call 911 and expect to get an argument. "Look, just talk to your husband with respect, maybe he won't get so angry with you." If there is a problem, they will send someone to investigate (and whack you for making false phone calls if it's a prank. If you are crazy, they will still investigate. That's how real emergency services work.)
- All this has been previously discussed and explained by me. This was very much not welcome. What is not welcome is next to useless.
- Yes, of course, I'm concerned about that. I'm active on Wikiversity and I have occasional need to come to meta. I have almost always been successful in getting what I ask for here, except where there was existing controversy and people were already lined up. And, of course, when I was blocked!
- I was totally surprised to be blocked here, when I was. I had not been warned, specifically. I was blocked within a few minutes of a complaint, a complaint that made no sense. And so ... I'm not the only one. I've seen this happen many times, and I was one of the few who would do something about it, for others. As those who will intervene like that disappear, it's predictable, the Wiki Way is lost. I've seen again and again that functional ways of handling and *resolving* conflict are rejected.
- You invited me to comment on a page that would be reviewed by people who might feel an obligation to read whatever is there. Those are the conditions where objection to my writing is more likely. I do *not* want to push what I think in front of people who are not interested. I'll make *brief* exceptions, where I see something important, an example is [1].
- Now, my comment was 3 days after that global lock. By policy, as I understand it, the lock was utterly inappropriate. It might indeed be that it was totally needed, but it sure doesn't look that way. When locks are made with no clear justification, and especially if they are justified, and if this is accepted, the community goes to sleep. And then when something truly serious happens, nobody notices. Global locks are effectively global bans. So a user who was once very active is now globally banned, without notice, as far as I can tell, affecting every wiki, and without the global ban process being followed. As an emergency measure, maybe, but the lock did not prevent any ongoing problem behavior, it only affected an account that had not edited for a long time. It's obvious. But who speaks up for the obvious? Who even watches?
- There is now one response: [2]. I'm not responding there. That is a request page. But I'll answer here: the user asks:
- What gave you the idea that stewards follow policy?
- I don't have an idea that stewards follow policy. Some do. Some don't. However, policy generally represents community consensus as to norms. Policy means nothing if the community doesn't enforce its own norms. But if there are fair-sounding policies, people believe and trust that they will be followed, it gives people a sense of security. A false sense, if there is no enforcement. On wikis, real enforcement is generally up to the community. When the community goes to sleep, nobody is minding the store. We should not be surprised that it all goes south.
- What really happens is that stewards are volunteers, and with matters like dealing with global spammers and vandals, they become impatient and act quickly. That's not necessarily a problem, if they are willing to review their actions, or if the community of stewards is willing to review the actions of individual stewards. If, however, they take an assertion of error as if it were a personal attack, if they circle the wagons and defend against "outsiders" who "don't understand," then the safeguards are lost. The wiki breaks down. Inexorably. It is an error to blame this on any individual, it's a collective failure. We are all responsible.
- What I pointed out about that global lock is obvious from the evidence presented. The user might be a total monster, but ... that's not the point. In democratic societies, we object to violations of due process, not because a given alleged criminal is innocent, necessarily, but because if those violations are tolerated, "next time, when they came for me, nobody spoke up as well."
- When I was blocked here, I had intervened to support a former sysop here, who had, in my opinion, been abusive. It didn't matter. He was asking for something reasonable, and it was being denied with assertions about policy that were face-palm silly. So I asked about it, and the steward took offense, and complained, and when a steward complains about a user, what do lowly local administrators do? I was surprised, not by the block, but that the steward complained. I previously, had respect for that particular steward, I was totally shocked. I later came to the idea that maybe there was a language problem, that he literally did not understand what I'd written and believed I was threatening him. And another steward promised to investigate. And never did.
- And so goes the wiki. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- People watch ANI for entertainment and so that they can interject a bunch of jeers that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on the wiki. It's not exactly the kind of place where you'd expect to run into a lot of productive editors or philosophical types who are interested in a reasoned discussion. It's fast-paced and emotional, people act on impulse and fear, and usually the results are a train wreck. Are you concerned that if you get too outspoken on meta they might kick you off again? Leucosticte (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Glossary
Please write a glossary at User:Abd/Glossary consisting of one-sentence explanations of terms such as rule 0, iron law of oligarchy, etc. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not yet.
| and more |
|---|
They tried to delete that user page, but it was one of the rescued pages. I see that a user recently no-indexed it, with a totally weird but typically parochial Wikipedian comment that assumes that user are thirsting for free hosting. However, cat's out of the bag. It's also hosted at [3]. I also have copies of all those user space pages, and could easily put any or all of them up on ___domain space I own. Some were evidence that had been provided to ArbComm. ArbComm didn't care that evidence was being deleted. Some were records of successful arbitrations, where I'd facilitated consensus between users who were about to battle each other into indef blocks, some were records of problem blacklistings, such as the blacklisting of lyrikline.org. (The lyrikline history actually made me cry when I researched it, a user who was working hard with what he believed would benefit the project, and he was whacked upside the head. He tried to fix it, undoing what he'd done, and it was obvious: he gave up in despair. He had done nothing actually wrong. Every edit I found was beneficial. (One of the spam adminstrators disagreed. He thought that one edit was a problem. But I did restore that one, without a problem. The spam administrators, knee-jerk, assume that all blacklistings were proper, but some will review them, and, to his credit, he did do that. He eventually lifted the lyrikline blacklisting, while he complained about me being such a jerk about it. I wasn't uncivil, but years of nice-nice complaints about lyrikline blacklisting had done nothing. The user had run afoul of a technicality, a practical decision that the spam warriors made: if you are adding many links to a web site, you *are* to be treated as a spammer until and unless it's proven otherwise. He was probably associated with the site, thus possibly falling afoul of COI policy. But all that could easily have been handled cooperatively. Nobody tried, until I found this, some years later, and fixed it.
|
- I'd independently come up with the same idea as the iron law of oligarchy based on my own observations. It even applies to small organizations. E.g., judicial panels will usually be dominated by a few blowhards who write most of the decisions; the others just go along with it because they don't care as much, don't want to risk conflict or don't have take-charge personalities. Leucosticte (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that is not exactly the Iron Law. If the members of a judicial panel have the same power, if the "domination" by the "blowhards" is a matter of continuous consent by the other members, it's not clear that there is an oligarchy. After all, those blowhards, in your opinion are serving the others, doing the work of expressing the opinions, etc. There is a related effect that might be part of the foundation of the Iron Law, I've called it participation bias or the Dictatorship of the Active. To a certain extent, it's obvious, it is Natural Law, so natural that most of us have no clue that there is any alternative, i.e, any way to avoid the harmful consequences of oligarchical control, while preserving the benefits.
- To many of us, "oligarchy" is Bad. And so if I write about an oligarchy, some will assume I'm saying that it is Wrong or Bad. They will, indeed, assume that I'm angry with the oligarchy. No, I simply see what it's doing. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so could you explain why you suddenly made this edit? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I explained why on the Talk page.[4]
I made the edit and was interrupted, mid-edit to the Talk page. I'd intended to explain it immediately otherwise. But perhaps you are asking a different question. If that is so, please be explicit what you are asking. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how you don't see self-reversion is not always the correct way to go about proposing pages to wiki pages, considering you were banned on enwiki for abusing that very same process. It is only one way to propose changes to wiki pages, and to impose the view that everyone must conform to your mode of behavior (i.e. the model of self-reversion in order to submit proposed changes to help a page) is quite frankly very dictatorial. It runs contrary to the old mantra of "be bold" in making changes rather than waiting for peer review. For example, in my version I have submitted five smaller incremental copyedited changes to the article for people to selectively revert individual ones that they disagree with rather than wholesale throwing out the baby with the bathwater if I make one giant modification. Not only that, but in addition to this I have also asked an administrator to review my changes before marking them for translation, yet you still insist it gets more approval. You chose not to take that route, and instead insist people do it your way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, BRD is an "ancient" wiki process. That said, I'm not sure reversion was necessary. Now that it has been done, let's discuss whether the proposed changes are okay. I think they're fine. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, about BRD, I've used it for years. It's "wiki," easy to do. PRS, if you are satisfied by your own review of the changes, that they improve the page, you certainly may show this by reverting me, and you will see no objection from me. I'd recommend, though, waiting a little time and seeing if anyone else sees something, or approves the changes. Ideally, it would not be just one person! This is a policy with massive implications. If there is no change in meaning, as is being claimed, there is also no rush, at all. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to have forgotten the latter part of w:WP:BRD:
Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it that results in a net positive rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.
In the edit summary of your revert, include a link to WP:BRD to remind an inexperienced editor of the method and your intent, or just ask that they offer their edit for discussion on the talk page. People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.- TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, about BRD, I've used it for years. It's "wiki," easy to do. PRS, if you are satisfied by your own review of the changes, that they improve the page, you certainly may show this by reverting me, and you will see no objection from me. I'd recommend, though, waiting a little time and seeing if anyone else sees something, or approves the changes. Ideally, it would not be just one person! This is a policy with massive implications. If there is no change in meaning, as is being claimed, there is also no rush, at all. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, BRD is an "ancient" wiki process. That said, I'm not sure reversion was necessary. Now that it has been done, let's discuss whether the proposed changes are okay. I think they're fine. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how you don't see self-reversion is not always the correct way to go about proposing pages to wiki pages, considering you were banned on enwiki for abusing that very same process. It is only one way to propose changes to wiki pages, and to impose the view that everyone must conform to your mode of behavior (i.e. the model of self-reversion in order to submit proposed changes to help a page) is quite frankly very dictatorial. It runs contrary to the old mantra of "be bold" in making changes rather than waiting for peer review. For example, in my version I have submitted five smaller incremental copyedited changes to the article for people to selectively revert individual ones that they disagree with rather than wholesale throwing out the baby with the bathwater if I make one giant modification. Not only that, but in addition to this I have also asked an administrator to review my changes before marking them for translation, yet you still insist it gets more approval. You chose not to take that route, and instead insist people do it your way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine. The fact is I have observed anything more than one revert of another editor (unless it's patently false vandalism) to be considered edit warring, particularly when I work on the English Wiktionary, which give quite a bit of leeway in terms of policy for admins to unilaterally block someone who reverts them more than once. Not to say that that's a bad thing, and most of the environment there seems healthier for me even though I've never been admin. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, PRS. Suppose TCNSV had reverted me. He'd have been revert warring. Suppose I then reverted him. I'd have been revert warring. We do not submit policy edits to a single administrator, we submit them to the community, again, that's basic wiki process. What I did, and TCNSV's restraint, leaves the matter properly submitted to the community. At this point, any editor can restore his changes, but, given that this is steward policy, I recommend that it be a steward. By reverting me, a steward is acknowledging that all the changes are legitimate, and presumably do not change meaning, but, generally, my opinion is that policy pages should not be "improved" except gradually, and the reason is the difficulty of review, of being sure that the page does not become substantially other than as approved by the community.
- Was the revert "necessary"? I really can't tell, and that is part of my point. I can't tell if that edit was proper without spending a lot of time with it. Few will really spend that time. They will look at simple edits and review them. A pile of edits that they see on their watchlist, all at once (to them)? Often they will assume that someone else will revert if there is a problem, so if they don't immediately see a problem, they will do nothing, and I've seen improper changes become incorporated in policy because of that.
- My own practice, even with much simpler changes than what TCNSV did, has been to self-revert, submit the change(s) to the community on the Talk page, giving notice of intention to revert myself after a substantial period has elapsed without objection, and then wait and watch. It's easy, and it's efficient. If someone simply does not trust me, they may object on that basis, but that would really only apply to complex changes, such as TCNSV made. And when that has happened, I've gone back and implemented one smaller change at a time. I did not revert out of a lack of trust for TCNSV. My understanding of this editor would lead me to expect good faith changes to that page. But he might err.
- I did *not* object to the changes themselves, only to the lack of review, and so I made the review take place. I did not make the changes out to be "wrong." My action was explicitly not a vote against them. So I thank TCNSV for his patience. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted the revert, but I welcome criticism from stewards (of which I am not one). I posted about it on SN. Did I do this right? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine, PRS. The minimum review is one neutral user beside the initiator of the change. That's all it took to properly bring in the change, at least as a default. (And remember, I explicitly said that I'd seen nothing actually wrong about the changes.) This review would not have been necessary for a very minor change like a spelling correction. It's arguable that it wasn't necessary here; however, w:WP:BRD is a recommended process for sound reasons. Personally, I wish the editor had simply said, in response, "Great! Thanks for opening up the discussion, so that there is no doubt about this." But he didn't. That's his choice. I did not demand that he self-revert, it was merely a suggestion, for possible future use.
- On that point, the Wikipedia essay is quite clear as to when BRD may be appropriate, as to this case:
- [When] local consensus is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high-profile)
- Here is what would have happened if the user had chosen to revert himself and ask for approval on the Talk page: either nothing, in which case, after a decent delay, he could have brought it back in, or someone else would have approved it by reverting his self-reversion. Essentially, it would have been a highly efficient way of presenting the edit (instead of discussing it first on Talk, which is often recommended), and a highly efficient way of collaboratively resolving the matter. I have every right as an editor to say, "I don't think we are quite ready for this yet, let's see if there are any objections." I am not required to do all the work necessary to insure that there are no problems, or to find one. Nor was the user required to abstain from editing. Together, we have not only improved the language of the policy, but have also quickly insured that there was approval, as policy requires. And that could have been quite simple had the user not taken offense. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted the revert, but I welcome criticism from stewards (of which I am not one). I posted about it on SN. Did I do this right? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine. The fact is I have observed anything more than one revert of another editor (unless it's patently false vandalism) to be considered edit warring, particularly when I work on the English Wiktionary, which give quite a bit of leeway in terms of policy for admins to unilaterally block someone who reverts them more than once. Not to say that that's a bad thing, and most of the environment there seems healthier for me even though I've never been admin. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And then you still have the gall to make another comment after the issue was done with to remind all of us about an issue we'd wish you'd forgotten about thirty minutes ago. Why don't you do something more productive on this wiki rather than arguing tendentiously? I don't see any of your contributions of something significant such as prevention of cross-wiki disruption, translation of pages, or preparations for the 2014 Steward Elections. Instead you write pages and pages of long and tedious argumentation over something so trivial as a copyedit change, or you obstruct the SRG process by pointlessly arguing with the stewards over policy. It's the kind of confrontational behavior that got you blocked here on Meta in the first place. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- TCNSV, please take your ravings elsewhere. There is a policy. I ensured that it was followed. It's that simple. It was followed. After the matter was resolved, you continued to fill the talk page with extensive attack on me, completely unwarranted, unprovoked. --Abd (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, I retract my statements on the issue. You were 'just following policy'. Perhaps I have not handled this appropriately and should have waited for someone else to review, but I was impatient to get my corrections published before the page turned off more readers. Instead of waiting, I began to call you out on it and made comments which lost sight of the wiki principle in assuming good faith. And for that, I am sorry.
- But please, next time you revert a change that I made, you can take more appropriate measures that would show your goodwill on the matter. For one, because it is a low traffic page it's better to do what PRS did and post on a more public noticeboard like Wikimedia Forum, and that way the issue is resolved sooner. Secondly, you asserted that to publish a change one must self-revert and then ask someone else to review and revert your change is 'the wiki way', but I asserted that consensus is best formed when someone reviews and partially reverts only individual edits that they do not like. Clearly we disagree, and perhaps none of us is right on this issue, but it is best we do not impose this view upon one another. I think it best if I refrain from future reverting or commenting on your edits, and you do the same with mine, a refrain from further interactions.
- The biggest thing I wanted after all this was for the issue to be dropped after it was resolved and for us to participate in something more constructive. Re this comment "I made a comment confirming to a steward that there was no dispute over content, because he'd just been told that there was one" that is fine then; but in my opinion it was quite obvious that as a steward elected by the community capable of judging consensus, he would be able to figure it out on his own. Sometimes I have been left comments by other editors telling me at some length what was already obvious if I had just read the discussion they linked to, and still remember the annoying orange "You have new messages" banner. Whatever, I will not argue this point further, it is a waste of bytes. My point simply is, I do not want the page to be highlighted on my watchlist again, and if it does not it means we have dropped the issue. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- TCNSV, if you wanted the issue to be dropped, it's strange that you have continued to post to that page, defending your action. However, yes, there is a new issue that you raise, which would be a certain ambiguity in the original language -- which has now been restored. It was precisely the difficulty of identifying such ambiguities when buried in a mass of harmless changes that was my concern. That's why I wanted review of the changes! Can you see, now, how that revert -- wherein I did show and assume good faith on your part -- has led to the exposure of a deeper issue? Until that issue is resolved, the original language should stand, because it was the language approved.
- If I choose to comment on your post there, there would be no offense. Basically, TCNSV, your effective request that I refrain from further comment, which you appear to take personally, is improper. It's not personal!
- And a suggestion, you may take or disregard (as with all my suggestions). When you apologize for something you have done that, on review, was improper or excessive or whatever, do not dilute it with "but you were also wrong," which continues the argument. What that shows is that you did not actually drop whatever dispute you have in your mind. Actually drop it, which means dropping the idea you maintain that someone else was wrong. If you don't, that idea will come back to haunt you, because it will continue to color your future interactions with involved people and concepts.
- Good luck. By the way, I saw your edit on Wikiversity. That removed an incorrect notice of block. Nice work. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Allegations of abuse and defense against allegations
Thank you Abd, I'll let you know if there's an issue where I think we can benefit from your experience. Miranche (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Abd, thanks [5] for your interest in the Croatian Wikipedia situation. A good place to start to get some context is the main RfC page; the discussion you've archived from Jimbo's talk page probably belongs there anyway. Miranche (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I took a look and commented on the Talk page. The RfC is a train wreck, and the single focused proposal proposed something that cannot, on principle, be decided here. Yes, 7:1, but Croatian administrators could totally ignore this proposal, and then what? A proposal here can develop global consensus for global sysop or steward intervention. Okay, what intervention, specifically? I suggest a rough outline.
- If this is going to be successful, those who perceive that they and their friends have been abused by the existing "cabal," will need to drop that, in favor of standing for a fully inclusive process. That process must include those who have been considered abusers, it must assume good faith, if not always sound understanding.
- I saw a hint that Jimbo Wales suggested that there be a single wiki, instead of multiple language wikis, which could be a way to handle the situation. If there is to be a single wiki, consensus process is essential, there is no other way to measure neutrality. If a faction is being blocked, genuine consensus is impossible.
- Multiple language wikis, though, just punt on the problem, because, then, there can be exclusion of those of the particular language or cultural group who are disposed to cooperation and collaboration with all, and they can end up being excluded. Some conflict might be reduced, but overall, conflict increases because the cooperatively minded can be excluded from the process.
- The other way to handle neutrality, other than requiring single articles to be NPOV, is to do what Wikiversity does, to allow the expression of opinion, but placed in a context that is, overall, neutral. That's fairly easy on Wikiversity, for structural reasons, very difficult for an encyclopedia, where subpages are not allowed in mainspace.
- In my response on the RfC talk page, I only considered the issue of the "administrative cabal," as Jimbo once called it. Particularly in a small project, an administrative cabal may develop that does not fairly represent the community, though there is a feedback mechanism, where users not aligned with the cabal views stay away.
- The English Wikipedia did start with a cabal dedicated formally to NPOV. If you investigate my history, you will find that I think that the mechanisms for maintaining this were never established, so en.wiki fails to be uniformly neutral. But it does try to be so. --Abd (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've skimmed your comments here & on the RfC talk page & I largely agree with your analysis. One detail is that hr.wiki 'crats can't give or revoke sysop privileges, that's done by stewards, so ultimately this dispute is (likely) a matter for Meta. I also agree that it's best to suggest specific courses of action, and some of that seems already to be happening with a request to revoke CU permissions from one of the sysops at the Stewards' noticeboard.
- That's all I can say now as I have my hands full moderating the evidence/info gathering pages. After realizing how big of a mess the entire situation is, I've pretty much decided to keep my involvement at that, for now. Thank you for pitching in. Miranche (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, focusing on gathering and organizing the evidence is the best thing to do at first. You may create analytical structures, by the way, that collapse and hide the primary evidence. I did this on Wikipedia, successfully. I did it while being a party to the dispute, and it worked because I worked hard to present arguments contrary to my own opinion, fairly and completely, in such a way, that the "other side" did not attempt to contradict my summaries. There were some complaints, but they went nowhere. (I've also closed RfDs on Wikiversity, while involved -- i.e., I'd commented --, because nobody else was doing it. Again, I was extremely careful to follow and serve consensus in those closes, always allowing reversion, never revert warring, etc. When I was reverted, as happened, the reverter ended up looking rather silly, as someone else closed identically.
- Be *very* careful doing this, i.e., a visible summary that is created must accurately and fairly summarize the material underneath, and it must be done with full sensitivity to objections. The standard wiki train wreck, the problem is, becomes rapidly unreadable. Wikipedia never fully developed the concept of discussion clerking, and, as a result, analyzing an RfC can become so ridiculously time-consuming that most users who bother to comment just stick with knee-jerk impressions, often based on whom they like and whom they don't like.
- I'd say that the user you tangled with on User talk for Jimbo damages his own cause, his comments will not make him popular here. However, most of what he wrote was irrelevant except maybe as an example of how one of the administrators there thinks. While you might like to place this prominently in front of the meta community, I suggest backing up, being careful, and not doing that, except in carefully neutral summary. If you'd like assistance, I might find time to do it. It's a lot of work, and that's a big reason why it's so infrequently done.
- Yet what you are looking to accomplish is a difficult task, and it runs up against a lot of standard prejudice, i.e., that local communities should be able to handle problems.
- What you wrote about this being a meta issue, because stewards grant or revoke privileges on hr.wiki, isn't accurate. Stewards normally grant or revoke privileges based on discussions on the local wiki. When users attempt to argue for or against an action, here, they will refer the users to the local wiki discussions. To obtain some unusual action here, you will need to establish the necessity of it. And, *still*, as I recommended, what stewards -- or global sysops -- will do, if authorized, I expect, is to ensure fair local process. Exactly how to do this hasn't been clearly established, you may be blazing a trail. But I'm confident it can be done, and, note, my support for that requires no judgment as to the justice of your cause. Just because a few hr.wiki administrators may be off-balance and a bit hysterical proves nothing. They might, for example, be under severe provocation and attack, as I think is being claimed. --Abd (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, the stewards do enact the decisions of the local wiki; what is being argued by one side in this issue is that the community is divided enough to not be able to arrive at such decisions, all the while there are serious issues in content of key articles. I do think you're right in that someone needs to try to put together NPOV summaries of evidence; I am at the moment skeptical about whether it's possible to produce a summary all the sides will agree to, but I may be wrong. What I am trying to do is include as many opinions as possible in a context where they react to structured concrete information. From this discussion it seems there may be others working on summarizing the matters. Miranche (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- What I have suggested is standard consensus process. If someone is opposing the presentation of obvious fact, it becomes obvious if clearly presented. I am writing to you as if you are truthful, that does not mean that I assume truth. Rather, if you have been misleading me, you will basically get bad advice. I am not competent or qualified, yet, to judge the actual situation, I'd have to put in a lot of work.
- Thanks. Yes, the stewards do enact the decisions of the local wiki; what is being argued by one side in this issue is that the community is divided enough to not be able to arrive at such decisions, all the while there are serious issues in content of key articles. I do think you're right in that someone needs to try to put together NPOV summaries of evidence; I am at the moment skeptical about whether it's possible to produce a summary all the sides will agree to, but I may be wrong. What I am trying to do is include as many opinions as possible in a context where they react to structured concrete information. From this discussion it seems there may be others working on summarizing the matters. Miranche (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- From your comments so far, though, I think you might have what it takes, to do what is needed. You do not need to get the agreement of all sides. If there is disagreement over what is obviously true, easily established with clear evidence, you will be able to get help. You will document any disagreements as to fact that are not resolved. You will not attempt to resolve disagreements with your own fiat as to what is true. You will simply present the disagreement neutrally, with pointers to evidence, all the evidence, so anyone who cares can find out what actually happened, for themselves. The consensus you are looking for is only ab initio the consensus of all who participate in the process. You may not attain full consensus. However, the consensus you are ultimately seeking is the agreement of those who carefully review your work product. You will, in addition, take great care to represent yourself as carefully impartial, even while you have your own opinions. To the extent that you can recruit others to assess whatever is doubtful, to so. ("Doubtful" means that dispute remains.) You can run mini-RfCs over particular narrow points and then present a "majority report," allowing the minority to present their own report(s). The key, though, is to create a tight, focused, top-level presentation of evidence, argument, and conclusions, where possible. The standard wiki train-wreck is almost useless unless refactored to eliminate redundancies and irrelevancies.
- What I've found, in the past, is that those who are creating and maintaining disruption by arguing against fact, as soon as they realize that the process is going to expose this, disappear. Those who persist are those who believe that fact is on their side, no matter how preposterous this may seem. Realize this and extend assumptions of good faith wherever possible. Acknowledge any movement toward consensus, thank the "other side" -- and all sides -- for letting go of useless arguments. Letting go of an argument is not the same as admitting the opposite. False arguments are commonly used to support true positions.
- I just came across w:Galileo_Galilei#Galileo.2C_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides. Galileo was right about heliocentric astronomy. Yet he used an argument that was plainly contradictory to fact, and I've seen it asserted that this contradiction was known to the Church; i.e., the Church wasn't as stupid as we have often later thought. Galileo's use of a false argument to support a true position probably seriously damaged his cause. Essentially, it made him look biased and wrong.
- One of the problems with standard RfC is that when it is created, editors with already-established opinions pile in and create the train wreck. arguing tendentiously, simply replicating the dispute. Then, others, who might possibly be neutral, find themselves presented with such a mess that they stay away. Others review it superficially, and make, again, snap judgments. The initial commentors often don't participate in later consensus formation, yet their comments, made in the absence of evidence and argument, stand, sometimes being given the same weight as much more careful and better-informed comments. In theory, numbers don't matter. In actual practice, they do. So deal with wikireality. You will need to be, at the same time, sober, patient, respectful of wiki traditions, and creative. Good luck! --Abd (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- What I have suggested is standard consensus process. ... You will document any disagreements as to fact that are not resolved. ... You will simply present the disagreement neutrally, with pointers to evidence, all the evidence, so anyone who cares can find out what actually happened, for themselves. The consensus you are looking for is only ab initio the consensus of all who participate in the process. -- This is how I understood your comments in the first place, and I agree that a process such as you outline would be the right way to go. There are reasons I believe it would be difficult, specifically why I think your expectation that those who argue against the fact would just disappear may be too optimistic. Ivan Štambuk has voiced a few of these reasons in his comment on the RfC talk page. Regarding which, I fully agree with you that his preferences about what should happen are not compatible with how things function on the wikis.
- I'd very much support an in-depth consensus process that would address concrete pieces of evidence in a systematic fashion. My own RL obligations unfortunately do not allow me to take on a major role in initiating this or moving it forward. What I'm contributing is, as I wrote, a structured record of such evidence, with as much good faith feedback from different sides as possible. The requirement to stay focused on particular pieces of information has served as a partial check against WikiWreck.
- The Jimbo's talk page thread I've linked to above as well as recent comments in this thread suggest that both stewards and WMF may already be considering this information. It's true, though, that regardless of whether & how they act on it, a consensus process such as you describe may be necessary for the hr.wiki community to address this dispute fully. If there are people ready & willing to provide a bottom-line commitment to get such a process off the ground and propel it forward, I'll lend as much of my effort as I can spare. Miranche (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "optimistic" expectation that dug-in, dedicated POV pushers will disappear. It just happens that when consensus process is set up that is going to make it obvious just how off-the-wall they are, I've seen them disappear. They may make noises as they go, like, "I don't have time for this nonsense." That's okay. Some however, will keep up. If it becomes obvious enough, they might be blocked or banned. That is not my goal, certainly. Some will leave the process, before it completes or even after, yet not alter their behavior. If they are popular enough, they might get away with it. However, a successful consensus process will at least partially defang them, it can be referred to elsewhere. Further, don't be surprised if someone you consider a dedicated opponent changes his mind. It can happen. People who have been in conflict sometimes end up collaborating. I like Wikiversity, in particular, because it is not uncommon for it to happen there. There are structural reasons for that. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Understood. I haven't participated in a process like that, not on the scale of a whole wiki at least, and it's good to know that at least your experience matches my expectations. There are some non-trivial aggravating circumstances specific to hr.wiki; however, I do hope something along these lines will take place, and my sense is that it'll happen over time in fits & starts. Miranche (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "optimistic" expectation that dug-in, dedicated POV pushers will disappear. It just happens that when consensus process is set up that is going to make it obvious just how off-the-wall they are, I've seen them disappear. They may make noises as they go, like, "I don't have time for this nonsense." That's okay. Some however, will keep up. If it becomes obvious enough, they might be blocked or banned. That is not my goal, certainly. Some will leave the process, before it completes or even after, yet not alter their behavior. If they are popular enough, they might get away with it. However, a successful consensus process will at least partially defang them, it can be referred to elsewhere. Further, don't be surprised if someone you consider a dedicated opponent changes his mind. It can happen. People who have been in conflict sometimes end up collaborating. I like Wikiversity, in particular, because it is not uncommon for it to happen there. There are structural reasons for that. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good work, Miranche. From w:User talk:Jimbo Wales:
- I'll try to read all that anyway as I'm quite interested in the issue. But as I may not have time to really get through it all, a private NPOV summary agreed by multiple people (preferably of different political viewpoints) as well as anyone's personal perspective would be good too. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Notice: "private." What he is asking for is sound, as a management practice. Jimbo has an expectation that people can and will get along and cooperate. He believed that people with minority points of view would know that these are minority points of view, and would agree to the classification of these views as minority. What he didn't seem to anticipate was that people who have power will use that power to enforce their own point of view, ostensibly the majority view, or the view that is held by "all good people." I'm not sure what the "different political viewpoints" are here. What about viewpoints that are totally opposed to free speech? That consider other viewpoints to be next to or actually Satanic?
- However, the core is that he's asking for NPOV summaries. Do it, and privately circulate them (they can be based on the meta RfC, but taken to completion in ways that might not be possible here.) Get people to sign off on them as neutral and fair. Make sure they *are* neutral and fair, because if they aren't, and that comes out, it will make everyone who signed look very, very bad.
- Jimbo is not in charge of the projects or the WMF. However, he has substantial influence, even more behind the scenes. If you can make a case for an intervention to him, it might happen. Key would be that all the intervention would do is to ensure fair consideration of issues by the local wiki. I would focus on one issue: has there been selective blocking? When there is extended conflict, almost everyone may be uncivil at some point or other. Many users may be seen as pushing some point of view. Is only one side being blocked? What I saw on Wikipedia was that members of a dominant faction got away with behavior, and routinely, that would get other editors desysopped or blocked and banned quickly. Wikipedia is not necessarily overall dominated by that faction, the one I have in mind, and they've been dinged, they have lost battles, but they are still kicking. When they lose a battle, the editor involved may get desysopped, but isn't blocked or banned. When they win, all their enemies are blocked and banned, they make sure of that.
- So Jimbo is looking at the situation, but it's not clear to me that he knows what he could actually do, because he's never handled these situations on Wikipedia, successfully. He made beautiful statements about consensus and policy that didn't match the reality of what was created. I've often put it this way: he's got a tiger by the tail. He has a project that depends on the continued intense volunteer service of the existing community. He dare not offend them. Hence, "the community is always right." But, "the community" is not a person, and without sane deliberative decision-making structures, it can be little more than a mob. Jimbo tried to set that up with ArbComm, but didn't realize, I'm sure, that supermajority election is known not to work to create a truly representative body. It creates hyper-representation of majority factions. There are many structural flaws built into the Wikipedia structure, and it rapidly became impossible to change them. I saw ArbComm try and get shouted down by the mob. They are not actually trusted. They gave up, backed down. The "mob" is those that are exercised enough to comment on a page. It does not represent the community, actually.
- If you go to him without a clear idea about what can be done, you are likely to get nothing but maybe some commiseration.
- Still, you obviously got his attention. Any clue about Trijnstel? In any case, if you do your work well, something good may come out of it. My own history: I was successful before ArbComm, twice. In the first case it was because I prepared detailed NPOV evidence. The faction attempted to impeach it, claiming it was "cherry-picked," but, then, an arbitrator compiled the same evidence using a script, I'd done it manually, that was the only difference. In the second case, the case pages themselves were a train wreck, because I was going after the faction itself, the admin I was challenging was a poster boy for the faction. He was desysopped, but, it all came out later, an ArbComm majority, from the first case, wanted me gone, but hadn't had an excuse in the first case. In the second case they found some excuses to set that up. I was basically, to make a long story short, banned for being successful. I also "write too much." That was, however, an excuse, not the primary cause.
- You might do much better than I did. I'm still proud of what I accomplished, though. I'd been warned that I'd be at last topic-banned, before I filed my first RfC, that led to the first ArbComm case. I didn't care, I did not think of myself, personally, as that important to the project. And I don't mind being banned from Wikipedia. It saves me a lot of trouble. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Laid-back
This wiki doesn't have the most laid-back culture in the world, does it? You may have a point that the wikisphere has some systemic governance problems. Every wiki that tried to operate based on wikilove ended up getting abandoned, and people migrated in droves to the more dysfunctional ones. Leucosticte (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is operating pretty smoothly, lately. Please don't drop any bombs there. You could certainly create educational resources there on some topics. Libertarian philosophy would be fine, for example. You also know some subjects that could set the brush on fire. Wikiversity *is* laid back, normally. I like it that way. We don't delete stuff unless it's illegal or clearly contrary to WMF policy, and we don't block good-faith users, and we can normally resolve content disputes collaboratively. It's really rare to see revert warring or incivility. Fingers crossed, of course. --Abd (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The way bomb-dropping works in the wikisphere is that you leave an empty box on someone's doorstep or in a public place that's lacking in any explosives, detonator, etc. so that the recipient or the community would have to provide all those items in order for an explosion to happen. Then they install those missing components, trigger it, and blame the person who left the empty box, and call him a terrorist. Leucosticte (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
DanielTom
There's now global ban discussion on DanielTom, and I'm planning on voting in it once I possess enough information. You seem to be familiar with DanielTom. What's your opinion on DanielTom and the idea of globally banning him? As usual, I respect your opinion and hope that that opinion could led me to reaching the right conclusions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Arggh. That is utterly outrageous. He's outspoken. I haven't looked at that global ban discussion, but given how the ban for Ottava Rima (far more disruptive than DanielTom) went, it's likely to be a silly waste of time. I just warned Tom that he might be blocked here for the comment on his Talk page (a straightforward complaint about a steward), but global ban? I never dreamed of it. --Abd (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Notice how the RfC makes mountains out of molehills. It appears that Daniel's brother did some editing that was considered sock or meat puppetry. Daniel wanted to establish that he has a brother. He sent a copy of his brother's passport to an admin. Sure, technical violation of privacy policy. Or not? Privacy policy wasn't designed to prevent people from revealing private information with the consent of the person involved, and we would guess that he had his brother's permission. Sending information privately to an admin also wasn't exactly the contemplated prohibited behavior. It is not clear to me that WMF privacy policy prevents users from revealing private information to sysops. Sysops routinely have access to certain private information that has not been oversighted. Does that violate privacy policy? From how this matter is being interpreted, it would seem that it does, and that all that should be oversighted. Checkusers have access to private information, and all that has happened that is special with them is that the WMF verified their identity, and then deleted the information. There is no real background check, for example. It's very difficult to understand what they are actually doing....
- It's quite clear what Daniel has done that is offensive: he's criticized administrators. Those are the "volunteers" being defended by the filer of the RfC. It's not the editors who create the bulk of content. Granted, some administrators work very, very hard. But some of the same group also tends to develop feelings of project ownership and entitlement. It's a difficult problem, not necessarily easy to address. However, much of what Daniel says has some basis. I've seen plenty of critics of the projects, and of administrators, who are far more abrasive than DanielTom and who are tolerated. Why? They have friends who are administrators who protect them, and some of them are administrators themselves.
- By comparison, one might look at Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima. This is a highly disruptive user, tendentious to an extreme, highly uncivil, actually banned on en.wiki (not like DanielTom), and yet, no global ban. (And the Ottava RfC was incompetently filed. "Identity theft?" That was completely nuts.) Ottava has been blocked for extended periods on other wikis, and so what?
- Notice, again, that the DanielTom RfC adds in information about lifted blocks, which are irrelevant for global ban discussions.
- Train wreck? Looks like it. Now, do we do anything about users who file useless time-wasting process? No, they are "valuable volunteers," eh?
- The discussion yesterday on Wikisource was pointed to by a supporter of the ban. Talk about "recentism." That's not a resolved issue, and doesn't rise to the level of major disruption. Ottava Rima filed a Community Review on Wikiversity for every active bureaucrat (all three of them). Now that's disruptive. Making some critical comments on a community page? With some interesting points of view being developed: I think he might be right that it's easier to become a global sysop than to become a Wikipedia admin, and the same may be true of Stewards. It has to do with the voting population. --Abd (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- mmmm.... Billinghurst said he will unblock DanielTom, which actually follows global ban policy, so that DanielTom can comment. That might be the worst thing possible for him, but we will see. --Abd (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your thoughts. That was helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would be slightly hard for me to send my brother's passport to anyone, because he doesn't have (and never had) a passport. Claims otherwise, and deliberate misrepresentations of this, are quite possibly slanderous. I find it odd that people would spend so much time discussing something that is simply not true. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you are getting an education in what wikis are really like. You now have half the truth. To get the other half, shut up and listen. More will be revealed. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would be slightly hard for me to send my brother's passport to anyone, because he doesn't have (and never had) a passport. Claims otherwise, and deliberate misrepresentations of this, are quite possibly slanderous. I find it odd that people would spend so much time discussing something that is simply not true. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would advise purging words such as "slander" and "libel" from your vocabulary while on Wikimedia projects. It's a quick way to get labelled as a violator of this policy, even if you are indeed getting slandered/libelled. Leucosticte (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Full message
Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis.
The block was made by Billinghurst (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open proxy: abused web host; real users; convert to softblock.
Start of block: 05:19، 4 February 2014
Expiry of block: 12:13، 11 May 2014
Your current IP address is [redacted]. Please include all above details in any queries you make.
If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki.
I was edit the page of Lavrentiy Beria in Arabic Before the ban Yesterday — The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANDY-DANTE (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2014
- Please carefully read the page that was referenced, No open proxies. You are not banned, a particular mode of access has been blocked. You may ask for permission to use that mode of access. Until you provided the IP address, in [6] (which I am requesting be revision deleted, to protect your privacy, but any administrator will still be able to read it), there was no way to know what happened. The policy page describes what you can do. If you still need help, please ask me.
- I am still not completely clear what happened, because the block reason seems to imply that the block was converted to a soft block, which should have allowed you to edit logged-in. However, to move forward, follow the instructions. If you do not mind your IP address being revealed, you can make the request on Steward requests/Global, giving that IP information, otherwise make the request by email as suggested on the policy page.
- When you place a message on a talk page, please sign the message using four tildes, that is, ~~~~. This will automatically sign the message with your user name and with the time and date. Best wishes, --Abd (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Some comments regarding Croatian Wikipedia
Hello,
Let me start by quoting you:
- What I saw on Wikipedia was that members of a dominant faction got away with behavior, and routinely, that would get other editors desysopped or blocked and banned quickly. Wikipedia is not necessarily overall dominated by that faction, the one I have in mind, and they've been dinged, they have lost battles, but they are still kicking.
I assume that here by "Wikipedia" you mean "English Wikipedia". If that's the case, then I can say that the above words describe Croatian Wikipedia too, with one crucial difference: Croatian Wikipedia is dominated by that faction.
Croatian Wikipedia is a much smaller place too: only a hundred or so users with 5+ edits per month, so it is quite possible to control it. Most people who don't edit to the dominant faction's liking sooner or later either get banned or wikihounded until they quit. The modus operandi is well-established: harass and provoke them, and when they (over)react, ban them (if necessary, using super-stringent criteria that apply to some, but do not apply to others). That's why the idea of the community solving its problems by itself may be seen as cynical: while the community is dominated by one faction, and dissenters are driven out, that's how it is going to stay.
The dominant faction is united by its right-wing ideology. This is rather obvious in both their conduct, and the resulting content. My guess is that they've learned the lesson from the recent media controversy, so they'll try to stay away from WWII revisionism and blatantly chauvinist content, and move into anti-LGBT, pro-conservative, and generally lower-grade right wing bias. The methods are unlikely to change, though.
Perhaps it's my lack of imagination, but I fail to see how this is going to go away by itself. Only a decisive action like project restart is going to cut it - and yes, that means, among other things, desysopping everyone and voiding all bans. Only then we'll have a real community that will be able to make meaningful decisions about admins, CUs, policies, procedures, and other things. Good admins will eventually be reelected, bad ones won't. Anyway: I don't know how to restart a project - no one does - but this process has to meet some basic requirements, which I've tried to enumerate here.
I really appreciate both your interest in this subject and your level-headed approach, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue and - most importantly - how to proceed. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)