Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by sashi » Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:17 pm

Scotty Wong wrote:heading for deeper waters
[...]
some might even say I have the dead-eyed steel of a shark
[...]
source
Some might think he should wait until the moon is full to attack... others think he should just do it... now! :lol:

ps: yes, I know this is a low-value post, speculating about what's going to happen out there in the deepest trenches... ;)

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 » Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:53 pm

He is next level tbf.

It already feels like a mismatch.

Two Wikipediocracy stooges, wbm and Boing! are already backtracking, afraid of the deep waters ahead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1158803546

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 » Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:49 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 pm
Can you tell us more about this case of Eric Corbett, for us newies reading this? From what I've read he was a good editor who had a habit to argue with people and called someone 'cunt'. And they banned him.
Corbett, aka "Malleus Fatuorum", was an excellent writer of content for Wikipedia, especially in British history. He is also a right bastard who won't take shit from anyone. Not even WP administrators. He tried two RFAs, in 2007 and 2008, and they both turned into screaming matches. He's been banned and unbanned repeatedly. Because he has diehard supporters as well as enemies. His block log was an unbelievable LONG mess--all erased when Arbcom finally ordered his permanent banishment in 2019.

Look at the recent history of his userpage. Oh looky, it's Scottywong, protecting the content!

Corbett did tons of good work for Wikipedia. But they pushed him out anyway, because he would not kiss their asses. To hell with the content, THAT is all they REALLY want. I would tell you more about Corbett's history but you seriously would not believe me.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

Post by adamovicm » Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:56 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:35 pm
In the end, Eric solved it for them. Most people didn't seem to see it, and Eric sure as shit didn't, but over time, Eric was losing the only thing he needed to survive in Wikipedia. Friends.
It looks to me that social component, the fact that those who do not oppose others swim better in Wikipedia is actually the problem.

So after a while, you end up with loads of people who will not object to their peers.

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 » Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:01 am

This all goes to prove that other site does have a purpose. It's so Wikipedians can have a noticeboard where participants don't have to follow the wiki rules, then they introduce it as "off-wiki evidence" asi if they didn't create it themselves. Like an illegal brothel patronized by government officials It's more of a "guilty pleasure" than an opposition, and gains leverage over its patrons who must remain active and loyal to continue receiving protection. It works for them and what they want to achieve.

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 » Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:56 am

The case is collapsing already. It still has to go ahead I guess, but it will surely be one of those zombie cases where the Arbitrators don't really want to see any actual evidence and the community have second thoughts about the wisdom of spending the time and effort to actually collect it.

First there was the problem of who started this ball rolling and why? People really don't like the fact this could be all about Eric Corbett, who stood for the polar opposite of inclusion and diversity. A malicious case to satisfy the revenge fantasies of rank hypocrites? Hard pass.

Then there was the problem that Scottywong is no halfwit. He is playing chess while they are playing chequers. The man who does victory dances on Eric Corbett's manky grave, and rightfully so. A simple explanation and apology was all it took to address the triggering incident. That must absolutely infuriate the mourners.

Then there was the problem of the incompetence of the court, the judges themselves being incapable of walking the tightrope of Wikipedia's new found love of cancel culture, with one Arbitrator deadnaming Bradley Manning out of sheer ignorance, another telling users with foreign usernames they are merely being tolerated on English Wikipedia. Makes it rather obvious Scottywong can argue he is a victim of poor leadership and he is at least on par with any higher standard anyone cares to apply.

Then there was the spectre of private evidence being a critical factor. As the stink of Wikipediocracy polluted the atmosphere, people rightly wondered if they want to be seen acting as the proxies for a bunch of basement dwellers in any capacity at all. And they soon started to realise there might be nothing there at all. A month long case to root around in a sewer and only finding the "standard Wikipediocracy stupidity"? Hard pass.

Now rather hilariously, we have the age old Wikipedia problem of an imperfect victim, who as it turns out, is actually a sworn enemy of Wikipedia. In theory of couse, it is indeed entirely irrelevant. But this is the Wikipedia that Eric Corbett/New York Brad/Wikipedocracy built. A Wikipedia where justice is never blind, and optics always matter. A Wikipedia where who started it and how important is the victim are always urgent questions.

Taken together with the dubious genesis of the case, it is now highly relevant to ask the question, yes, who actually was the victim here? Now we know Mr Squiggles wasn't a legitimate editor, the Case probably does have to look at their behaviour in light of cosmetic bot editing and indeed foreign usernames being very contentious areas ripe for exploitation by bad actors.

With Scottywong's dead-eyed declaration that if the Case doesn't prove to be anything more than what has already been mentioned, he intends to fight for his reputation, and with the Committee being clear that they see nothing yet that justifies sanctions and are only taking the Case because the community seems to want it, then it's definitely possible Scottywong swims free, leaving behind him a calm red sea with bits of Wikipediocracy stooge floating in it.

Look at all the debate by the Arbitrators. No meat there at all. Very non-commital. Beeblebrox is an outlier. He is presumably who NewYorkBrad means when he says....
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

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 » Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:37 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:56 am
with one Arbitrator deadnaming Bradley Manning out of sheer ignorance,
Hey you just deadnamed Bradley Manning!

Liar liar tuck-friendly swimsuit on fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1158645705
SilkTork wrote: I recalled the Manning story, and the name change, though assumed that Bradley was the name that Manning took because here in the UK Bradley, like Robin and Chris, is a gender neutral name.
Pathetic really.

Who is this Maddy from Celeste with the power to make fools of arbitrators and hand out power blocks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1158629502
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... xy_the_dog

The day after joining Wikipedia last March posts this userpage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1079028862
Maddy from Celeste wrote: This user is a member of the LGBT community
This user is non-binary
This user is a Transgender
This user's pronouns areThey/She
This user is an Anarchist
The username refers to a transgender video game character struggling with mental illness.

https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/celestes ... esentation

The character was named after the alter-ego of the game's creator Matt Thorson, now called Madeline Stephanie Thorson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddy_Thorson
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... dy+Thorson

Maddy from Celeste uploaded this troubling self-portrait.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... mirror.png
Maddy from Celeste wrote: A person looking at a mirror which reads "Is this me?" There is a blank space in the mirror where the person's head should be. This image can represent depersonalization, gender dysphoria, and so on.
Turns out Maddy made the news a few weeks ago for deleting the "deadname" of an infamous Finnish rapist and serial killer.

https://reduxx.info/finland-outrage-as- ... wikipedia/
Genevieve Gluck wrote: The page was initially created in 2018 under Penttilä’s birth name, Jukka Lindholm. Few changes were made until last month when, on April 5, a trans activist Wiki editor known as Maddy from Celeste updated the serial killer’s name to Michael Maria Penttilä and cited “deadnaming” as the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maria_Penttilä
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

Image

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 » Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:36 pm

boredbird wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:37 am
Boink Boink wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:56 am
with one Arbitrator deadnaming Bradley Manning out of sheer ignorance,
Hey you just deadnamed Bradley Manning!
Totally.

Trans rights are a subset of human rights, and necessarily come below the right to life and liberty, without which you can hardly be a trans person at all, can you?

It would be an odd trans activist indeed who forgets these fundamental principles of natural justice or indeed settled international law.

If they do so for apparently impure motives, the devil in me finds creative ways to highlight it.

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 » Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:52 pm

Well, this is either epic trolling or....wff?

According to Roxy's own words, he has just admitted to being a "hateful transohobic bigot, condemmed by the community". And when someone assumed this was just Roxy being Roxy, presumably more of that special manner of expression Cullen328 loves, he explicitly clarified "this was me admitting my failings, acknowledging what I have done and the condemnation of the community. I was not being ironic. This was the accused admitting his guilt."

Mental.

If not just trolling it has to be some pathetic attempt to layer more cream on the poor me pie, In the hopes of attracting a couple more support votes for a topic ban. How else to read this....
At this stage, everything I say is being picked apart, it is heartbreaking for me to acknowledge my failings in this way.
His words are being picked apart, for good reason. I think this nonsense might be a deliberate attempt to distract from the fact that yet again, he was asked directly to explain the comment that really pissed everyone off....
But when you said "standard transexual hounding" you crossed a pretty thick line that poisons future interaction with anyone, not just on sex-related articles. I can only speak for myself but, I think if you responded to that issue specifically, rather than dancing around with "this is a confirmation of the trope" or whatever, then we could get somewhere. Your statement for Tryptofish to forward does not even address that. Good faith demands I assume it was an oversight rather than a deliberate ignorance. So please, respond to that issue now. The choice is yours now. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to second Golbez by saying you can either explain what you meant by “transexual hounding” and apologize unequivocally or get blocked permanently. That’s an oversimplification but you have massively higher odds of staying on this wiki if you do that. Dronebogus (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
....and he just, well, hasn't.

Cullen328 is nowhere to be seen, unwilling to translate or decipher Roxy's cryptic reply, lest others have been unable to see what the great Roxy is really saying in his very special way.

To normal humans who can simply read and write, It looks for all world like he doesn't want to explain it, because there is no explanation that doesn't make him look like a deliberate transphobe.

The fact his vague responses continue to refer to the science and policy....
I follow the science, I am not any of those hateful things. Somehow wikipedia policy in this area has allowed this to happen. I am completely at a loss.
....surely means the reason for his comment seems all too clear to infer.

He definitely thinks Wikipedia policy on trans identity is in error.

He definitely thinks "science" backs him up.

Rather than making this case on the policy talk pages, he prefers to make random comments that reflect his views, perhaps precisely to cause offence and bait people into making complaints against him, so he can then grandstand about how he is the victim of hounding from the trans lobby and effect change that way. If we even assume he has a goal in mind and he isn't just whining about how the world is moving too fast for him and he wants to get off.

You can understand his error. This was an effective tactic during the Eric Corbett era. Feminists tried to report him, but they were the ones who ended up in the dock, sanctioned. While not unscathed, Eric got what he wanted, vindication that he is better seen as an "equal opportunities asshole", and has no issue with insulting anyone from any group. There were signs that he was actually quite the unreconstructed sexist, given how he would disrespect his wife on Wikipedia, but of course, that's not considered actionable.

It was as it is now with Roxy, people in power on Wikipedia asserted that whenever he touched on issues like gender and Wikipedia, Eric's comments were provocative and incisive, In a good way. He was apparently trying to highlight....something. Precisely because Eric was not a deep thinker or very smart, he was never able to say what this was, and even if he could, the lazy prick was never the one to propose policies changes.

Feeding on hints and half baked angry missives (he admittedly had quite good language skills for a wild animal) people far cleverer than him wisely counselled him to say nothing, recognising that all he was really after was an end to all this nonsense about caring what gender Wikipedia editors are or how editor speak to each other, which they knew would only take Wikipedia even further away from a place where it can continue to have brand value, and thus survive.

Roxy needs to be fucked off, completely. It is now beyond doubt that his need to play silly buggers and treat his fellow editors like they're idiots, is equally if not more hard coded in who he is, than his discriminatory beliefs.

Either that, or he is just far too clever to make himself understood by the lesser lifeforms Wikipedia expects him to collaborate with. I'm quite sure that is how Eric Corbett felt, when he wasn't drunk, or climbing a tree in search of a sugar fix.

You can find Eric Corbett these days contributing to the user generated encyclopedia set up to allow really clever writers to work in peace, undisturbed by morons, gender activists or the so called "civility warriors". It was set up intially for Corbett and a few of his more angry confederates, but I'm sure they were open for applications, from the right people. Smart old white straight dudes and sufficient deferential members of the lesser demographics.

It must still be online and a roaring success by now? The fact a couple of those confederates quietly weasled their way back into Wikipedia, is surely entirely unrelated!

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 » 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.

Post Reply