User:Scramblecase

A brief history of Scramblecase...

A guy uses Wikipedia almost daily for helpful research purposes, for years. Personal, professional, incidental - all sorts of reasons to check Wikipedia for the scoop on a variety of subjects.

In a specific search for a specific subject, he discovers a very heated debate behind the article he's reading. Neither user is terribly civil to the other, but one in particular seems to feel no reservations when it comes to ignoring all substantive, on-topic remarks, and insulting the other, making no effort to reach any form of agreement, choosing instead to hurl invective, sarcasm, and citations of irrelevant policy.

So I started an account (the guy is me, if you haven't worked that one out yet). The behavior I'd witnessed seemed ridiculous, and I would step in offline, in precisely the same manner, were I to see one person treating another in such a disrespectful manner, with no interest in creating a lasting accord or, at the very least, resolving the dispute. I prepared myself, did enough research to understand what was going on, and offered my contribution, notifying the offending party that I was quite wise to his typical methods, and would not accept them as a suitable or useful response.

What followed was attack after attack. My eloquence and technical proficiency, combined with the ease with which I can follow links and read policies (what, you can't? Then what are you doing contributing to a website?), apparently demand that I be suspected of being another user, posing as a new user, attacking the offensive, rude, abusive, and dismissive user who is wreaking havoc with the expectations of civility and good faith on the site. Practically nowhere could I see users who were interested in inspecting the original aggressor's behavior, instead of focusing on his baseless and irrelevant allegations against me. Some users correctly expressed that my status, though questionable, was irrelevant; yet even they did not bother to then closely examine the actions and behavior of the aggressor in the first place. At no point did the communal nature of Wikipedia become apparent; at no point did anyone express interest in confronting the disruptive and aggressive user about his behavior.

How sad.

Unfortunately, I have little time or interest in participating in a community that exhibits very little interest in justice, fairness, or civility, while at the same time expounding at length on the elements of all three in policies and guidelines throughout the site. What a very silly collection of people. If any Wikipedia users have opinions or views that differ from mine on that score, perhaps you might have made a new user, under attack from baseless and irrelevant accusations, aware of your presence and agreement. Not one of you did. Neutral point of view should not preclude the calling out of an ill-mannered ruffian, nor should it require discussion of that ruffian's accusations against others within the discussion of the ruffian's behavior itself.

I may continue to edit; I may not. I just can't find much reason to contribute to a community that puts so much stock in neutrality that they refuse to confront malefactors - malefactors which, by their very nature, upset the balance of that neutrality. There's a time and a place to remain undecided, folks, and there's most certainly a time and a place to push back against a bully who refuses to admit to or make amends for his repulsive behavior. I only have one other note to add...

WP:SPA

The "single-purpose account" accusation that was thrown at me from the moment I made a contribution (and, incidentally, immediately after my notifying the assailant that it was an irrelevant and pointless accusation) is perhaps the most imbecilic thing I've discovered on this site. Seriously: are you folks insane, or just new to the human race? Do you really, truly believe that having specialists to address specific topics and/or issues is a bad thing?

Since most people are not self-employed, I would guess that many of you work in organizations that produce or sell products, or provide services. In what possible world would it make sense to denigrate the mailroom clerk for taking care of the mail exclusively, rather than also attending to the day-to-day functions of the personnel department? Why would you expect the in-house webmaster to do double duty as in-house legal counsel? What earthly reason could you have for demanding that the cafeteria chef venture out of her duties and take a shift in Accounts Payable?

There are only two reasons for members of an organization to take on multiple tasks: one is their ability to do so; the other is the necessity due to an organization's limited size and/or resources. As a self-employed contractor, a one-man operation, by necessity I take care of everything in my businesses; I'm also simply good at it, so I might as well. But the larger an organization gets, the less tenable this becomes as a strategic model.

Wikipedia potentially has billions of members in its organization - anyone with Internet access, time, and something to contribute can join in. The idea that each person must then "branch out" and tackle multiple tasks, topic, issues, or anything else is absurd, and contradicts the entire purpose of a collective like this one in the first place. I find it quite disappointing that any rational person might think otherwise; frankly, that makes me question whether they are particularly rational at all.

I'm a wide-range kind of guy: I'm a published journalist, writer, editor; I provide and teach graphic design, web design, programming; I've taught contract and copyright law at an accredited college; I have several more professional fields, all concurrently, and a pretty wide and deep knowledge of all of them. Like anybody, I have a great number of interests and hobbies, and a lot of knowledge and trivia regarding each of them. All of this, plus I can write and edit quite expertly (since, you know, I get paid for that skill, and I've developed it over decades).

None of this is to brag, or make me look like the Golden Boy - it's simply to point out that, yes, I've only had the opportunity to contribute to one discussion as of yet, because I had just created my account when I was sidetracked by some disgusting, disreputable, uncivil cretin. Given the opportunity - and had I not been so profoundly disenchanted with the Wikipedia community - I would have had much to offer.

Instead, I'm a WP:SPA.

And, that being the case, I'll wear the badge proudly. Those who don't understand why anyone would do that, ever, need not apply.

Scramblecase (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)