Re: Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:23 am
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.boredbird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:11 amLinks always help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 64#Blocked
So what?Boink Boink wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:52 pmHe definitely thinks Wikipedia policy on trans identity is in error.
He definitely thinks "science" backs him up.
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.
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 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.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)
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......
Floquenbeam wants Scottywong to be re-tried for decade old offence he has since sincerely apologised for.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.
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....
Nothing did change.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)
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.