Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:23 am

boredbird wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:11 am
Links always help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 64#Blocked
Boink Boink wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:52 pm
He definitely thinks Wikipedia policy on trans identity is in error.

He definitely thinks "science" backs him up.
So what?

Lots of people including active editors think one or another Wikipedia policy is in error. When is this ever a crime except for this one thing? The admins had to hand out blocks including against other admins to push it through. How can you have a "consensus" when people are banned for voting the wrong way? The result has been an endless series of high-profile disputes because there's never been the level of agreement they want there to be and there probably never will. Any discussion about anything can be derailed into another giant trans debate when someone "misgenders" with a pronoun or a "deadname" and some nutcase like Maddy from Celeste shows up to make everything all about themselves again.

"Standard transsexual hounding" was a spot on description which is why the standard hounders don't like it. Forcing others to play make believe is their whole schtick right? So is scalp collection, not that it ever leaves them satisfied for long. Even if they manage to get everyone going along with their dumb rules they'll just make up new ones to make sure people can't comply. They will continue to seek attention and conflict until the earth dies in solar fire or until people get sick of them and show them the door.
I see your so what and respond in kind. I could care less who is wrong or right or how disputed the policy is. It is the policy. Wikipedia certainly doesn't care what I think. Or what you think. I'm deadnaming Bradley right here.

The point being, the difference between me and Roxy, is that he can't deal with the internal conflicts that arise when you are part of a community that rejects some of your beliefs. Maybe he didn't join Wikipedia to be an activist, but he clearly is one now. But he doesn't try to influence Wikipedia in the right way, probable because he has already accepted Wikipedia won't be coming around to his view. His chosen form of activism instead comes from the Eric Corbett School of How To Win Friends And Influence People.

Since we already know that being a disruptive whiny little bitch with a victim complex who has to rely on his friends baling you out forever doesn't actually work in the end, why would anyone waste time in an external venue trying to argue he is right? Fuck him. I hate whiny little bitches. If you're going to be one on Wikipedia, better to be one on the victorious side, no? Maybe Eric Corbett was right, and maybe Roxy the dog is right.

Maybe both have a groundswell of support behind them on Wikipedia, the silent majority. It was certainly claimed as such by certain Administrators in the Eric Corbett wars, the ones who find a natural home in the fetid basement of Wikipediocracy. The reason such people aren't worth the shit on anyone's shoe, is because they are cowards and bullies.

If you have numbers and right on your side, there is no way a small angry mob of conflict loving scalp collecting nutcases can ever hound you away from winning the day on Wikipedia. The truth is, they don't have the support they claim, their arguments are morally bankrupt, and they have never really bought into the operating model of Wikipedia anyway.

This is why consensus eludes them and policy, if not always practice, falls firmly against them. They couldn't get their way despite the fact support for Eric Corbett's warped moral code goes all the way to the very top, into Wikipedia's "Supreme Court". Didn't matter in the end. And they react to that basic reality of life the way a toddler reacts to not getting their way. They could give a shit that they are the biggest reason why the Supreme Court will probably never again reach the heady heights of three women on a Committee of fifteen. Selfish little brats. Contemptible.

This is an open and shut case of solid Wikipedia criticism.

Roxy is a transphobe, he identifies as a TERF, he denies Bradley Manning is a deadname, which is totally against Wikipedia policy. He already has a topic ban in this area and a recent block for violating BLP in the area, yet he still interjected himself in a discussion to push his view point. He was called out in it, he responded with a blanket discriminatory statement that paints himself as some kind of victim of a plot by all trans people to hound poor little him.

People roundly criticised him because discrimination is wrong and transphobes are not welcome on Wikipedia under local policy, the Code of Conduct and the millions of other words expended by the Foundation on how inclusive and pro-diversity they are. He realised he had made a grave error and tried to negotiate for a wider topic ban (which he claims he was already de facto observing) to avoid an indefinite block.

Roxy's history shows limited sanctions don't work, and he has multiple blocks for multiple offences in various areas. There's no logical reason to believe he can change or takes Wikipedia policy seriously, in part because he is clearly a Vested Contributor, and his attempt to show he has had an epiphany, still reads more like the fact he wants to be seen as a victim, and that he somehow can't control his offensive behaviour himself, it has to be controlled by others through this bizarre idea that trans editors should be OK with being around a transphobe in areas unrelated to gender and sex.

Why would I weaken the impact of this Wikipedia criticism gold, by wasting my time discussing anything but how this all reflects on Wikipedia?

An indefinite block would be a serious issue for Roxy because despite repeated requests to explain his "hounding" comment, he has shown an incredible unwillingness to own his discriminatory intent, and instead try to hint that he is right, policy is wrong and science backs him up. There is a reason why Eric Corbett's enablers ultimate purpose was to avoid Eric being left in that situation.

We'll never know if that Is all meant to mean Roxy believes Bradley is a man for example, because when all is said and done, the main issue is that he is a coward who cannot even bring himself to own his own views, let alone the comments and edits that arise from them.

Transphobia is not seen as serious as racism or paedophilia by Wikipedia, by rule. You are allowed to be a Wikipedia editor and have transphobic views. You can even identify with what a heck of a lot of non trans people already see as transohobic philosophies, and edit the biographies of trans people like you're a neutral encyclopedia editor.

The worst that is done to you, is a rule that says you cannot say things that seek to exclude, dismiss or denigrate trans people as a homogeneous group, or edit to that end in an obvious way. Assume good faith and all that. And even that is weakly enforced, especially for editors who have accrued Life Points in other areas of the MMPORG that is Wikipedia.

If I were trans, that would tick me off. And so yeah, in between editing articles, I might make sport of hunting these power users, hounding them, needling them, harassing them, putting them under a relentless microscope of scrutiny, checking each and every edit and comment for compliance with Wikipedia policy, and use Wikipedia's established and recognised methods of user control against them.

As a minority in the real world and on Wikipedia, what do I care that this behaviour is morally dubious? Everyone on Wikipedia is already quite comfortable with these sort of trade offs. It is permitted to hunt Nazis and pedophiles, and do digital violence to them. Revel in it. Glory in it. Signal your virtue to the world.

Who is Wikipedia to tell me my rights are less important, my identity less important?

It isn't my fault that a systemic flaw of Wikipedia is that it is incredibly easy to engage in bloodsport. Why should I sit back and ignore this advantage, when it is used to great effect against those who unambiguously stand up for the Wikipedia policies that speak to virtue?

No justice, no peace.

Scottywong is being subjected to double-jeopardy over a ten year old since disavowed transphobic comment. But he is not being targeted by people who believe in trans rights. He is being hunted by scumbags. It is the historical supporters of the Eric's and Roxy's who are seeking revenge here. It is the Wikipedia Administrator who is famous for the most spectacularly POINTY abuse of Wikipedia tools in pursuit of a personal agenda, who is shamelessly publicly condemning Scotty as being unfit to serve.
I'm trying to imagine myself clinging to my own admin bit if I knew this many people didn't want me to, but I can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I have never understood how someone who was opposed by 116 (ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN) editors when they stood for "reconfirmation" RfA can possibly think they command the confidence much less the trust of the community. WP:100 makes it clear that when anyone voted for something in those numbers on Wikipedia, it's a big deal.

Powerful forces at the heart of Wikipedia are seeking to deny me my rights as codified by the Foundation. A loud voice in this effort is the very Wikipedia Administrator who went to extreme lengths to argue Wikipedia is entitled to police itself. That they are competent to prevent discrimination.

They are not competent. They do not accept that topic bans are not the right way to deal with discrimination. If anything, it rewards it. Keeps the addicts in their fix. It is the Eric Corbett problem, version 2.

As he proved, Scottywong is the sort of Wikipedia Administrator you need when Wikipedia has reached that level of dysfunction and policy versus practice dissonance. An Administrator whose reconfirmation RfA reads like a who's who of Wikipediocracy members, you do not need. Scum knows scum. Scum supports scum.

Vested Contributors cheered to the rafters when Floquenbeam won the day. He is their guy. He is their hero.

He is worshipped like a God on Wikipediocracy.

There can be NO DOUBT when examining Floquenbeam alongside Scottywong, who is the real bigot.

We shall now see if Wikipedia has progressed to the point the Arbitration Committee can stick up for Administrators who see the wisdom in aligning yourself with Foundation policies and standing up to the Administrators whose only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to weaken it, water it down, nullify it.

This is Wikipedia. Nobody can hide who they really are.

If the current Arbitrators (and trans Wikipedia editors) are in any doubt about what this Case is really about, allow me to be institutional memory of Wikipedia......
08:40, 4 July 2013 Fram talk contribs blocked Eric Corbett talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Multiple clear personal attacks towards different editors

14:29, 5 July 2013 Scottywong talk contribs changed block settings for Eric Corbett talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) (change block length per user request at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =562881268)

21:05, 5 July 2013 Floquenbeam talk contribs changed block settings for Eric Corbett talk contribs with an expiration time of 29 days (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) (Restoring previous duration (which, for the record, I also strongly disagree with); indef block was in bad faith. When Eric returns, we'll see what he would like to do then.
Floquenbeam wants Scottywong to be re-tried for decade old offence he has since sincerely apologised for.

I'm almost excited that this "bad faith" block might be one of the things Floquenbeam intends to submit as evidence of a pattern of misbehaviour by Scottywong.

Does the Wikipedia community or their Arbitrator overlords have ANY INTENTION of widening the scope of this Case to the broad subject of long term patterns of Administrator misconduct?

I'm hindsight, is Wikipedia even prepared to admit that all the Administrators, Floquenbeam especially, who indulged Eric Corbett in his desire to never be put into a situation where they must address an indefinite block If they want to retain their privilege of editing, were engaged in misconduct.

Do they dare admit that Floquenbeam is a Hero Of Wikipediocracy solely because he and people like him habitually misuse their tools to nullify solid Wikipedia policy to protect and enable assholes?

Let there be no doubt what was happening here....
For multiple (recent) clear personal attacks, and a long history of the same, I have blocked you for a month. Examples: "asshole", "go rectify yourself, asshole", [4], "idiot", "assholes like yourself". All this from today. Being one of our best editors doesn't mean that other policies no longer apply, and this isn't an occasional outburst or one editor who was trolling, it is a pattern without any noticeable change to it. Fram (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You might as well make the block indefinite, as I won't be coming back here while those like you are in charge. Eric Corbett 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fram, go ahead and block Doc9871 for taunting. I'd do it myself, but I'd like to see a serious breach of civility (something beyond "asshole") before I put on my little politeness patrol hat. What reason did Doc9871 have to come to Eric's talk page but to put oil on the fire? None. What's more disruptive, taunting on someone else's talk page or using a cussword on one's own? Seriously, how do you answer that in good conscience? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing will have changed by 4 August, and certainly not my attitude to editing here. Consequently I'm making a formal request to have the length of this block made indefinite rather than one month. And as I've never appealed a block, and made it very clear I never would, as I consider that to be demeaning, that should satisfy all those who so much want to see the back of me. It'll also mean of course that any temptation on my part to return on 4 August is removed. Eric Corbett 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing did change.

Scottywong knew the best course of action here was to take Eric Corbett at his word and do what policy demands in such a scenario. He tried to protect Wikipedia.

For this dead eyed steel, he is hated by Wikipediocracy. They are minnows hiding the shadows. He is the apex predator.

If it wasn't for Floquenbeam doing what he is infamous for doing, acting as though his personal opinion either matches policy or is superior to it, Wikipedia might have been saved from another SIX YEARS of disruption.

If Eric had been forced to confront an indefinite block, with every Administrator supporting their so called colleague Scotty here, Eric might have even changed his ways and still be editing productively now. And if not, well, bye bye. Where's the downside? Now we know how little there was to actually be gained by listening to those who said, fuck it, Eric is policy violating asshole but let's get every good edit out of him that we can until he inevitably meets his end.

It said a lot about Eric that he never got upset at those who seemed to see him as nothing more than a slave who could be worked to his inevitable death, and all they could (or would) do was try to ensure the lashings of his back were kept to a minimum (so as to ensure they got as much work out of him as possible).

Stupid little man. Never has someone professed to have so much self respect, and shown so little.

Floquenbeam carries a deep, personal hurt for having been shown by Scottywong to be an enemy of Wikipedia.

Do the Arbitration Committee dare admit that this problem hasn't really gone away, and is the very reason that a scumbag like Roxy cannot be indefinitely blocked for a blatantly discriminatory comment without several days and several words of debate?

Sure, people like Drmies no longer openly denigrate their colleagues as the "politeness patrol", but the intent is still there. That is still how they weild their power. Their community trust.

In their efforts to protect Vested Contributors from themselves, they still make absurd arguments such as wanting to see something far ruder than calling someone an asshole before they will enforce WP:CIVIL.

Will the Arbitration Committee admit that Team Asshole are still the dominant force in Wikipedia Administration? Will they admit that ten years on from the civility wars, the effect of that war ending in a stalemate still being seen now (the untouchability of Serial Number 54239 etc), they have realigned to the cause of protecting bigots, as long as their offences appear minor?

They know they can't win. But they know they can get a stalemate.

Especially if they can take powerful pieces like Scottywong off the board.

Scottywong would have blocked Roxy without hesitation.

ArbCom, show you can stop history repeating itself and you can actually deal effectively with bullies and cowards who inexplicably hold high office on Wikipedia. Starting by looking at your own Committe.

If not, well, let the petrol bombs rain down. Let's their scalps burn.

Let the hunt begin.

That would be my view, if I were trans. Which, rather obviously, I am not.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:15 pm

Roxy has been put down, and rather comprehensively.

A community ban, with a recommendation not to even appeal any less than six months down the line

* People arguing for a topic ban didn't engage with the other side (basic error)
* They also didn't acknowledge Roxy's overall history of recidivism (intellectual dishonesty)
* Affirmation that transphobia is equal to the other -isms and -obias (Foundation win)
* Acknowledgement that the community could do better to convince this is the case (Foundation win)
* Greater weight given specifically to the views of trans editors (Foundation wet dream)
* Roxy's account of himself failed to achieve anything (the foolish word games of a foolish man)
* When it is a veteran editor engaged in bigotry, there is a greater need for a swift and harsh response (Foundation multiple orgasm)

That's gonna really hurt the Wikipedicoracy crowd. Properly mess with their heads.

This is almost how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I mean, what the actual fuck?

It also helpfully identifies a few HIGHLY RESPECTED Administrators who can now be said to be supportive of bigotry on Wikipedia....

* Cullen328 (older white straight male)
* Starship.paint
* EvergreenFir
* Johnuniq
* SandyGeorgia

It is not a coincidence that a lot of these Administrators were seen in the recent efforts to prevent the placing of sanctions on Serial Number 54129, who had bordered on if not actually harassed an editor for no good reason and then completely absentee himself from AN/I, confident (correctly) that his status as a Vested Contributor would save them. It explains his bizarre suggestion that nothing be done about this issue except let Bradv's two-week block expire, and see what happens.

As great as Wikipediocracy's desire is to reap vengeance on Scottywong, I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking that one of the more obvious UNBLOCKABLES, and a valuable Woo Fighter to boot, would have to be sacrificed under a JackBoot, so that Floquenbeam can put more weight into his specious Scotty is a hate monger / Higher Standard argument.

Where was Floquenbeam's JackBoot when Eric Corbett was showing with his every word and every action that the Foundation and all snowflakes and minorities can go fuck themselves with rusty nails if they thought Eric was ever going to be forced to show them even a MINIMAL amount of respect? If they get it from him at all, they sure as shit must EARN it. They must be worthy of respect in his eyes. The misty eyes of an elderly white straight man who disrespects his wife and likes a drink or ten.

Wikipedia is about content, and only content. Nobody cares who you are or how you feel.

This was Eric's philosophy. It's repugnant and indeed illogical, but he stuck to it for the entire ELEVEN YEARS he was allowed the privelage of editing Wikipedia.

What did Floquenbeam do back in the day to prevent this from blooming from a serious behavioural issue to an eponymous Problem with Wikipedia governmance?

Did he indefinitely block Eric Corbett when in 2013, after five years of ineffective blocks and increasing strife, Eric yet again repeated his view that he might as well be indefinitely blocked because he was never ever, going to change, and he would never, ever, appeal a block.

Oh no, it was Scotttywong who protected the Wikipedia community by taking Eric at his word.

Incompatible editor is incompatible. Positive contributions do not cancel out wilful long term unacknowledged disruption.

We know what Fooquenbeam did. He undid Scottywong's action and called it "bad faith".

What followed was another SIX YEARS of the exact same behaviour from Eric and the exact same corruption from his enablers. Entirely predictable.

What does Floquenbeam ever say to the hundred plus editors who think he is unfit to be an Administrator? How does he discharge his Admin accountability obligations by explaining how these historical uses of his tools benefited Wikipedia? Specifically the minorities they were trying to appeal to at the time.

In all honesty, I don't recall him ever doing so. I don't think he ever has to.

That is power.

Do you feel safe in is hands, trans editors?

Why am I even asking. It isn't up to you.

Kneel before him.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:06 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:15 pm
Roxy has been put down, and rather comprehensively.
It would not kill you to post a link, just saying. El C did the "honors" although most of the "discussion" was off-wiki, as usual when they're looking to ban a longtime content writer with a decent reputation and plenty of wiki-friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _the_dog_2

Look at Roxy's talkpage. Wikipedia is indeed the kind of place that bans a cancer patient for "lulz". Oh, and they were so POLITE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roxy_the_dog

So where is the ban on Scottywong? They know DAMN WELL he's been a flaming asshole during his entire WP career. Who is he blackmailing and who is protecting him?

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:10 pm

It is fucking hilarious that Floquenbeam is casting himself as Scottywong's superior in every way.

I mentioned above about how Floquenbeam interfered with an indefinite block of Eric Corbett in 2013.

Looking into it, it's way more embarrassing than I had even assumed. It will make for hilarious ArbCom evidence.

By the time of this block and the surrounding drama (up to and including multiple Admin resignations), it was pretty clear what the "Eric Corbett Problem" was. It was such an obvious issue, even the usually mute Bbb23 was moved to comment on the meta issues in play the AN/I thread....
I think the community is avoiding the real issue. Eric will always be Eric. He's not going to change. Sure he has his ups and downs and is sometimes more reasonable and sometimes more childish than other times, but that's not unusual. We really have only two choices. Either we block him indefinitely for his continuing misbehavior, or we don't block him at all because his misbehavior is outweighed by his valuable contributions to the project. The only way that would change is if he crosses into new territory, but I don't see that here. I see Eric just acting like Eric. He's even reacted to the block in his usual fashion, saying he won't be back......As for what I think are our two choices, I don't think the community can make the choice as it's too divided. That said, without expressing an opinion myself on what we should do about the larger picture, I favor unblocking Eric.
Floquenbeam didn't give a flying fuck about any of that evident division and need for stepping lightly and reducing tensions.

Even though he hadn't editted since 25 June, Floquenbeam mysteriously reappeared on 5 July, the very day Scottywong had upgraded Fram's one month block of Eric placed the day before, to an indefinite block.

It was a reasonable action. For a start, Eric had asked to be indefinitely blocked. Sure, he was angry and perhaps trying to make a point, but he had also inadvertently given everyone the reason why an indefinite block was warranted. The whole drama had begun in typical fashion. Eric made a snarky comment to a new editor. Mildly snarky perhaps, maybe even an attempt at humour, but certainly not how you hope experienced editors engage with newbies. Someone saw his comment, and chided Eric. Eric responded the way Eric always responds to any form of criticism. He donned his furry bear suit and attacked.....
Sourcing Difficult
I just learned how to add sources change fonts and change sizes and stuff and now I have switched to the old editing because I can't figure out how to add sources.

"I just learned how to add sources ... I can't figure out how to add sources" is illogical captain. Eric Corbett 22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think he means he figured it out for the old source editor, but can't figure out how to add sources in the new visual editor. He left out in the new visual editor at the end of his sentence. Cut people some slack. We are trying to get more editors, and more editing, and not to drive them away with snark. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be a mind reader, but I'm not. And keep your fucking "snark" to yourself asshole. Eric Corbett 00:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Naturally, as you would want, a different editor, a very senior editor, reminded Eric of his responsibilities. Eric responded the way he always responded to any kind of authority.
Please be aware that personal attacks, such as calling another editor an "asshole" as you did with this edit and in the section above this one, are never acceptable on Wikipedia. Please read and familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, or you may be blocked from editing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Since when was calling an asshole an asshole a crime? Eric Corbett 01:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't I have been blocked by now, to prevent any further disruption to the project? Eric Corbett 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Fram duly blocked and got immediate support on AN/I, and a day later, Eric had his tantrum and asked to be indeffed. So Scotty obliged. Then Floquenbeam undid it.

Floquenbeam did it in a very Floquenbeam way......

* He did not participate in the very long AN/I thread that was already discussing Fram's block
* He did not message Fram or Scottywong about his intention to adjust the block settings.
* He did not ask Eric Corbett what he meant by his request to be indefinitely blocked

Literally the only thing he said that even hinted he had a view, was this comment he made to Bishonen on the Bureaucrats noticeboard.....
Scottywong has had a hardon for punishing Eric for quite a while, so his disingenuous claim that he has increased Eric's block to indefinite "at his request" was really a calculated dick move, and you could revert to the 1 month duration until Eric returns and clarifies if he still wants it.
Evidently, Bishonen wasn't minded to do Floquenbeam's dirty work for him (which is highly unusual for that power abusing bitch).

Floquenbeam clearly had a hard on of his own at this point, and so a mere forty minutes later, he did it himself.

His only communication of any kind, was the block log entry.....
Restoring previous duration (which, for the record, I also strongly disagree with); indef block was in bad faith. When Eric returns, we'll see what he would like to do then
So, what does this all show? If shows Floquenbeam was INVOLVED with respect to Scottywong, but reversed an Admin action of theirs. It shows Floquenbeam used sexualized language to both insult Scottywong and make a serious accusation of harassment through misuse of Admin tools. Without providing any proof. He has undone a fellow Administrator's action alleging it was disingenuous and made in bad faith, providing no evidence for these claims.

He makes no further comment on the matter.

He is unsurprisingly nowhere to be seen when, not two months after Eric's return from the reduced block, we do indeed see what Eric would do on his return, and Eric is blocked yet again for telling another editor to fuck off.

The block is only for 3 hours, but of course Eric can't abide even that, flips the fuck out in a way that leads to it being extended to three months and then indefinite, which is of course then removed because, well, you get the idea. Special editor is special.

As Bbb23 put it, with Eric, you could only really do one of two things, either block him indefinitely or do nothing.

With Floquenbeam around, placing an indefinite block was never an option (I vaguely recall him even once seeking credit for not reducing the month block, like that was a sign he was exercising restraint and respecting his colleagues!)

I wonder if Floquenbeam has ever considered how lucky he is that Scottywong was never minded to take issue with any of these gross breaches of the expected standards for Administrators.

It's a serious thing, alleging an Administrator is using their tools and their position to pursue an editor over a long period with an intent to "punish" them. Never mind an ArbCom case, you can get Globally Banned for it.

Floquenbeam did not give a fuck. He never gives a fuck. He says what he likes and he does what he likes.

Standards and expected behaviour are for other people.

Floquenbeam thinks of himself as infallible. He thinks he is a God.

People kissed his ass for years, recognising early on that for all the talk of how much he hates bad admins, he was the biggest bully on the site by a mile.

If anyone is in any doubt about the role of Wikipediocracy in all this, the only other thing Floquenbeam did on 5 July, was leave messages for Drmies, Boing and 28Bytes, who are of course all Wikipedia Administrators who are Wikipediocracy members.

As he told Mason....
I thought I left you in charge; I'd assumed you'd have desysopped all the bad admins by now.
Many a true word spoken in jest eh.

As he told Boing....
I'll tell you what I just told Drmies: from recent personal experience, a break from the non-stop stupidity will do wonders for your karma. The real world is filled with far fewer power hungry jerks, and a lot more sunshine and kids and alcohol. Enjoy the break.
I wonder where Wikipedia might have been, had Floquenbeam stayed on his break chugging beers and fondling his kids, and not interfered with Scottywong's indefinite block of Eric Corbett.

Eric might have been put in a position to finally act like an adult, reflect and reform. Or he might have walked away from Wikipedia for good.

Anyone seeing the downside of either alternative outcome?

Because I will stress, for the benefit of ARBCOM 2023.....

WE SURE AS SHIT KNOW WHAT SIX MORE YEARS OF ERIC CORBETT BROUGHT EVERYONE.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:45 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:06 pm
So where is the ban on Scottywong? They know DAMN WELL he's been a flaming asshole during his entire WP career. Who is he blackmailing and who is protecting him?
I think a better question is, who is paying Beeblebrox...
Just a reminder, the scope of this case is "behavior of Scotty Wong." The evidence should therefore be about.... the behavior of Scotty Wong. Also a reminder that this is the evidence phase, just posting your thoughts on the matter is not evidence. Submissions that are not evidence or outside of the scope of the case may be removed at any time by the clerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I kid of course. Beeblebrox needs no inducement to be a corrupt piece of shit. How is he even getting away with pretending he doesn't have a deeply prejudiced view of Scottywong?

Everyone can see why Wikipediocracy member Beeblebrox wants this Case to completely ignore any evidence that isn't about Scottywong.

It means nobody can investigate....

* How did the case come about? (all signs point to Wikipediocracy and a long standing desire to get revenge for Eric Corbett)

* Who is Mr Squiggles really anyway? (now we can see the claim that Scotty is the reason they left Wikipedia as the deceptive bullsht it really is)

* How well was Floquenbeam behaving over the ten or more years he wants ArbCom to investigate Scottywong's record (see above, not remotely to the "higher standard")

He's got some fucking cheek complaining about opinion too. As his colleague stated, investigate any of the stuff on Wikipediocracy about Scottywong, and it's nothing but the "usual stupidity". I think it is obvious he was referring in large part to posts by Beeblebrox and company.

There is a reason NewYorkBrad said.....
The denizens of Wikipediocracy (and yes, I have been one), including both the Wikipedians and the Wikipedia-haters who post there, should remember that Wikipediocracy is not an adjunct to the requests for arbitration page.
Beeblebrox was most definitely the person being referred to there. All he said on /Request was....
I believe there are real admin conduct issues here that bear looking in to.
You believe? Based on what??

Where's your evidence, you prick.

The sheer irony of claiming there are "real" issues in a Case which immediately took a left turn the moment anyone actually looked into it and realised the claimed victim was an LTA who was creating socks to attack himself.

Was that really a surprise since the idea to start a Case came from an obvious sock IP as a sub-proposal to an AN/I report made by a different sock IP concerning an issue that had happened a month ago that no established editor even noticed?

I think we all know what Beeblebrox wants from this Case, and which of his mates helped it come about.

How about for a change people make him do the work?

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:08 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:45 pm
There is a reason NewYorkBrad said.....
The denizens of Wikipediocracy (and yes, I have been one), including both the Wikipedians and the Wikipedia-haters who post there, should remember that Wikipediocracy is not an adjunct to the requests for arbitration page.
FUCK YOU, IRA.

The guy spews bullshit constantly. Maybe eight years ago WPO wasn't "embedded in the Wiki cult" but today, no question. It's a "private chill down room" for a range of complete asswipe insiders. When I was one of the original moderators of WPO in 2012, that was assuredly NOT its intended function. The current operators are now playing the most hardcore suck-up game possible. Nothing you see on that forum can be trusted to be 100% honest.

Beeblebrox would have been desysopped and banned years ago, right behind Scottywong, if the Wiki-Shits really cared about "transparency" and "honesty". It's a horribly corrupt and dysfunctional cultic pseudo-corporation. Crazy bastards who would have been beaten to a pulp or jailed if they did these things in a REAL corporation, are instead celebrated as "Great Wikipedians" by their equally-corrupt peers. And Wikipediocracy has become their little adjunctive hangout--where no one will seriously call them on their self-serving twaddle.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by Boink Boink » Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:47 am

It was certainly hilarious for me to see that quite literally on the exact same day Floquenbeam was mis-using his powers to undo Scotty's attempt to end The Eric Corbett Problem, Scotty was filing evidence in an Arbitration Case about how their recent doxxing by Wikipediocracy had drastically reduced his interest in editing Wikipedia.

So the question is, was he doxxed as part of legitimate Wikipedia criticism, or was he doxxed because by then Wikipediocracy were already fostering deep links with the Power Bastards, the cult within the cult, and playing their part in serving their needs.

I definitely think the whole Floquenbeam/Beeblebrox/Boing!/Drmies/Bishonen/Mason-28Bytes versus Scottywong aspect needs to be the meat and potatoes of this Case, hence why Beeblebrox wants to see absolutely no evidence that pertains to the behaviour of Scottywong's peers during the time period Scotty was supposedly cruising around Wikipedia being a power abusing bastard.

Perhaps the bind that Beeblebrox describes is when the insiders decided what their approach should be? If you can't beat them and yet joining them tars you with a dirty brush, take the third option - transform them, mould them in your own warped image.

Obviously they would have needed the help of Zoloft/Stanistani and Midsize Jake, but I'm not seeing any reason to believe they didn't give it, and do so with great enthusiasm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... pediocracy
Statement by Scottywong
Arbcom would be wise to pause and consider this request. The actions of WO regulars (many of whom are former Wikipedia Review regulars) have directly led to the retirement of prolific editors and admins. I can say that with great confidence, because I am one of them. When several WO regulars outted me on their site, and threatened to contact my employer in an attempt to get me fired, and linked to it from all over Wikipedia, I wasn't genuinely frightened by it, knowing that the reality of the situation likely involves a harmless, pizza-faced teenager in sweatpants in his parents' dark, dingy basement. However, it did cause me to re-evaluate why I volunteered my time here, and whether it was worth it for me. The outting changed the equation for me, and I no longer contribute here with any regularity as a result. Even if it was only a symbolic gesture, blacklisting WO would minimally improve the situation, and make it impossible for someone to be blocked for accidentally linking to it. The opponents say "well, I can just tell people to go to Wikipediocracy instead of linking to it." Fine, then tell people to go there instead of linking, I don't give a shit. While I agree that having an external site devoted to criticism of Wikipedia is healthy, this particular site oversteps those bounds quite a bit, by viciously going after people and attempting to affect their lives outside of Wikipedia, and this has a very real effect on the editor count here. I believe that Arbcom could, at the very least, make a strong statement here by taking on this case and taking some meaningful action to discourage the damaging misbehavior that has become such a regular occurrence on this external site. We cannot control what they do, but we certainly can assert some influence them in some ways. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by boredbird » Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:46 am

Statement by Scottywong
The actions of WO regulars (many of whom are former Wikipedia Review regulars) have directly led to the retirement of prolific editors and admins.
What then makes them different from Wikipedia administrators and ArbCom? Everyone is out to get everyone else doxxed and banned and that's the whole nature of Wikipedia.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ CU blocked

Post by Bbb23sucks » Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:09 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

I am very confused. Apparently his supposed sockmaster was used to harass himself?? Is everyone a sock here?? Why is he a sock if the supposed sockmaster was newer and had only 10 or so edits?! What other accounts are involved?

Edit: Ok, I've looked into this further and his sockmaster appears to be a "vengeance" attack account against User:Vermont. It listed an apparent attack page against BHG in Vermont's user space and the MfD was an obvious delete, but was closed as keep by - you guessed it - ScottyWong. His sockmaster also appears to have been used for WP:POINT self-harassment. He has continued his self-harassment campaign over dozens of accounts over the last few months according to the SPI idiots.

This whole thing smells of rotting fish and dirty socks.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ CU blocked

Post by boredbird » Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:31 am

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:09 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

I am very confused. Apparently his supposed sockmaster was used to harass himself??

His sockmaster also appears to have been used for WP:POINT self-harassment. He has continued his self-harassment campaign over dozens of accounts over the last few months according to the SPI idiots.
Yes.

Post Reply