- Activist editors game Wikipedia, a case study
- Other points of view on the issue
- We simply can’t have bullying influence articles on Wikipedia
- A Biography of a Living Person poses a unique problem
- I was surprised to find detractors of a notable living person controlling his biography on Wikipedia
- Overview: Harassed in first three days of participating
- Overview: Hunted and hounded
- Overview: Five attempts to sanction me, one finally works
- Overview: Highly questionable sanction
- Overview: Tumbleman ban sets off ‘cultural’ war momentarily
- Don’t take my word for it, please check the evidence
According to a tiny handful of Wikipedia editors and admins, I’m the engineer of a vast and co-ordinated global social media experiment for creating conflict. I’m a ‘fringe’ promoter, a conspiracy theorist, a charlatan for ‘pseudoscience’ and hold ‘views’ outside the mainstream. I’m also a well known internet troll with an anti-social personality disorder and am borderline autistic, a ringleader for countless sock puppets and in bed with PR agencies as well as just being plain old incompetent. According to them, as colorful as such a description it is, I’m just that sort of ‘peculiar person‘.
This description of me was used as a form of reputation destruction and distortion that a group of activists used to get admins on Wikipedia to ban me indefinitely from the platform in addition to further off Wikipedia site harassment.
I’m not that interesting of a person to get this much scrutiny. I am a casualty of a ‘wiki’ war. The article I was editing is not even something that controversial, it was not an article about Israel/Palestine, Islam, Jesus or JFK conspiracy theories. I was simply editing a biography of a living person – a notable individual who has as many detractors as he does supporters.
If this reads to you like another case of online harassment, it is. If you think that Wikipedia must have clear policies and guidelines against this sort of thing – they do. If you think admins should guard and protect against this from happening – they didn’t.
Please don’t think however that I take this as a victim or just a disgruntled editor who lost his voice. I’m not.
I’m a huge supporter of collective editing platforms and the usefulness of their utility and a developer of a collective editing platform myself. Harassment and bullying is a disruptive annoyance on Facebook or discussion forums but poisonous to consensus building. Additionally, mis framing and reputation distortion techniques are draconian, McCarthesque political practices usually reserved for the political arena, not something you would expect governing one of the worlds most important and respected encyclopedias.
Read more: About
Activist editors game Wikipedia, a case study *
This entire case study is a detailed summary with evidence provided in links which shows how Wikipedia’s own guidelines, notice boards and committees are gamed by activist editors. It shows how personal attacks are leveraged by experienced editors and admins. It is suggested by this study that this may be a symptom of an increasingly shrinking and increasingly insular community who may be blind to its own toxicity to its core principle of neutrality.
Read more: Tim Farley’s Big Black Hat on Wikipedia
Read more: Activism as mentioned in this study
Other points of view on the issue *
This happens more than you think, as this recent discussion on Reddit reveals. Its turning away countless new editors and is responsible for more leaving. Sophisticated studies are showing that Wikipedia is in decline. ‘Polluted’ editor culture is often mentioned.
In case you think I’m driven by my own bias in writing this, see how neutral editors with no opinions on the topic note the same.
Read more: Liz – A neutral editor’s point of view
We simply can’t have bullying influence articles on Wikipedia *
As a big supporter of collective editing platforms, even a developer of one myself, I believe we must not allow online bullying and harassment to ‘work’ on any consensus building platform, much less the worlds largest website and repository of knowledge.
Even Google and Apple assume the credibility of Wikipedia’s meta data and distribute it directly to their users, regardless if its corrupted meta data gamed by agitated editors.
So while my case study is about me – the problem on Wikipedia is not. And that is what my case study addresses.
A Biography of a Living Person poses a unique problem *
This happened on a very well known and contentious article on Wikipedia about biologist Rupert Sheldrake and a ‘bona fide’ wiki war occurring there long before my arrival. This wiki war has captured the attention of the BBC, Forbes, The New Republic, The Huffington Post and a microsphere of bloggers, with mainstream skeptics like Jerry Coyne and Sheldrake supporters such as Deepak Chopra escalating the wiki war to the mainstream.
Read more: The Battle Begins
I was surprised to find detractors of a notable living person controlling his biography on Wikipedia *
To me it did not seem appropriate that vocal detractors of a living biography would be allowed to control his Wikipedia article. It was as if members of the Tea Party would be allowed to control the biography of Barak Obama, or if the biography of George Bush was controlled by the editorial staff at the Huffington Post. Regardless of the ideologies or beliefs, that’s clearly not an environment that would produce a neutral point of view nor is it in line with the principles of Wikipedia.
I was just one of a handful of outside editors or bystanders that came in to help. Speaking for pretty much most of the other editors on the page, we just wanted the article to be more neutral.
I took this challenge of getting the page towards a more keen neutrality pretty seriously too. I spent weeks doing research into Wikipedia guidelines and even hired an experienced Wikipedian as a consultant to make sure my participation was in tune with Wikipedia’s rules. This is partially why this whole experience was so surreal to me. I made such an effort to operate with integrity to Wikipedia’s principles. I was shocked to see all of these guidelines and rules as I understood them ignored and editors like myself who diligently tried to stick to them harassed and banned.
Read more: How I got involved.
Overview: Harassed in first three days of participating *
Within three days of my six week presence on Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘Talk’ page, I was outed and harassed by a Wikipedia editor called Vzaak who immediately issued several warnings to me and then exposed personal information about me on the site. This is was only one of many forms of bullying, harassment, and personal attacks.
I took Vzaak’s behavior into dispute resolution on day four – causing Vzaak to pull back her attempts to harass me.
Although Vzaak offered me an olive branch (a sign of resolution between editors) and agreed to stop harassing me with my personal information, she continued anyway after I accepted her peace offering.
Continuing Sept 20th, Vzaak initiated a campaign of ‘reputation destruction and disruption’ against me through the talk pages of other editors throughout Wikipedia. This campaign was used to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia and harm my identity off Wikipedia, which continues to this day.
Read full story: Enter Tumbleman
Overview: Hunted and hounded *
As evidence shows, Vzaak became the ring leader in a co-ordinated effort with other editors to harass and personally attack me further, continually spreading personal information about me and seeking to sanction me off of Wikipedia.
Vzaak’s campaign for reputation distortion became apparent to me when I presented my ‘Request for a New Consensus’ on the ‘Talk’ page in question on Oct 8th.
Vzaak, IRWolfie, Louie Louie and Roxy the Dog plotted various ways to create a ‘sanctionable’ event against me, beginning first to sanction me for spreading ‘conspiracy theories’. This backfired. A few days later they found found a third way to sanction me for ‘sock puppetry‘, accusing me of operating more than one account on one Wikipedia article.
One user I was accused of being even came back to Wikipedia to clear my name and his. And even though their tools used to verify such accusations determined it was technically unlikely we were the same person – he was sanctioned anyway by Mark Arsten and instigated by Vzaak because he showed up to defend me in the AE hearing as you see here.
Read full story: A Request for a New Consensus
Overview: Five attempts to sanction me, one finally works *
Just as an admin was set to clear me of sock puppeting charges, and Vzaak tried to stop it – a second AE hearing on me started. This time the charge was ‘trolling’ and was the fifth attempt to sanction me on Wikipedia for editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article.
The evidence of me trolling was based on a tongue in cheek online project of mine from eight years ago. (read more, JREF forum ‘The Bubblefish Show‘) Using off wiki histories and personal attacks is a violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines, yet every admin allowed this to be used to mis frame me to the community.
No evidence of my ‘trolling behaviors in ‘Talk’ were ever substantiated, with any evidence – indeed my contributions were supported by an equal number of other editors who strongly opposed the banning.
Ironically – the entire experience as the evidence will show was almost step for step with an essay on Wikipedia called ‘How to Ban a POV you don’t like’. Its meant to be written as a joke, but the irony is its exactly what happened.
Overview: Highly questionable sanction *
My banning was challenged by other editors quite powerfully, as found in this AE noticeboard here, other editor talk pages and admins pages involved. More recently, TheCapn instigated an Arbitration Request for a hearing on the issue. His requested was deflected to the lower appeal Arbitration Enforcement to handle the problem.
Read more: Aftermath
Overview: Tumbleman ban sets off ‘cultural’ war momentarily *
After I was banned admins and editors jumped in and wrote on my talk page, calling me incompetent, autistic, a troll, an ego maniac, a conspiracy theorist, and a heap of other awkward and libelous associations. If the intention behind this ‘mob mind’ was not so abusive, the entire affair would be comical, as one editor commented it was like watching Monty Python’s ‘Blasphemy’ sketch.
Shortly thereafter a wiki war began to happen on my own talk page. Admins and activist editors began an argument with supportive editors, with the final attack being an article created about me on Rational Wiki, including a handful of spam blog sites called ‘Romeviharo is a moron.com‘.
Craig Weiler blogged about ‘The Trial of the Tumbleman’ and somehow I unwittingly became involved in a cultural war between skeptic activists and supporters of Rupert Sheldrake’s research.
Don’t take my word for it, please check the evidence *
Although my story is going to be covered with my own point of view, what protects you from my unavoidable bias is that Wikipedia records everything. Everything that happened is archived. I present evidence with each claim I make in each link provided. This article you’re reading now is the wireframe for everything. Each link provides and overview of the context of what happened to links on Wikipedia that support it in evidence and the chapter for context.
I believe we need to shine some light in these dark little crevices. I believe we need to give this a proper review. This is a factual case study of how harassment and bullying is used to control an article on the worlds most popular site. This is what it looks like. This is how it happens. This is how it will continue to happen.
So hello world, come meet your guardians of knowledge.
Wikipedia, we have a problem.
Read next: The Battle Begins
dec 21, 2013
NOTICE: This is a work in progress. I am collecting similar stories for further study here and if you have a case or story please advise.
Tim Farley, it’s time to be honest about activism on Wikipedia
email: reportabuse AT wikipediawehaveaproblem DOT com