http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 68#p217368
Erika didn't so much get good advice from Wikipediocracy in how to extricate herself from the bear trap (I tried, but now I'm banned for being not their kind of people), the turmoil and torment that she is never going to find any joy let alone peace of kind in, she was simply led to believe that there was some way she could win, and fed numerous posts attempting to rationalise the irrational actions of the Wikipediots and their purposely rigged system.I was initially relieved and very happy to read and join Wikipediocracy.
But posting stuff here has boomeranged on me pretty bad. My Stalker is here reading posts so if I am dumb enough to talk about what I am editing and/or problematic editors I am encountering it’s a recipe for disaster.
I appreciate the fact that you all have experience and expertise. As a group you can suss out the issues quickly. And have some good advice.
But I make no mistake anymore of thinking of this as a safe space. It’s not.
- Erika aka ~~~~
A perfect example was this thread......
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =16&t=9158
And so we are here, where this poor woman has to actually leave Wikipediocracy because she found out the hard way that it is absolutely a venue that Wikipedians use to further the pain and suffering of those they are victimising on Wikipedia. Obviously you can't stop Wikipediots lurking, but you can ensure that Wikipedians who come to your site for help, are not seeing it as a place where it makes any sense to reveal things which would further their plight, namely "what I am editing and/or problematic editors I am encountering".
Sure, they let people hide their wiki identities, but as recent examples (Anroth, Ming) have shown, this is less about protecting people from further victimisation, and more about preventing the outside world figuring out that the person making this or that claim about what happens on Wikipedia and why it is right and just, can hide the incontrovertible evidence that they're fucking morons who don't know shit about Wikipedia, being as they are, as informed about it as any member of a cult can be.
Not that knowing the identities of some of the fuckwits that inhabit Wikipediocracy really helps, such as AndyTheGrump, because of the site's current policy of allowing them to just walk away when they're on the verge of being shown to be talking complete shite, and in my case, are allowed to rise up as a group of snowflake cowards and force me out. Just like the mob rule that is allergic to objective truth, which infests Wikipedia.
They could certainly end the farce where openly identified Wikipedia Administrators and even Arbitrators are allowed to swan in and out, and not acknowledge let alone help people like Erika, in so far as they can do so. They choose not to, bizarrely because it might deoprive them of their other posts. As if anyone is anxious to learn that the most arrogant of Wikipedians are equally capable of saying the same things on Wikipediocracy that they do on Wikipedia.
Unsurprisingly, Erika really didn't get any helpful advice about how to deal with a mob mentality from a site populated mostly by people who happily accept that very mob mentality because they're paid up members of the Wikipedia club, their issues with it being entirely separate, and often aimed at merely boosting the power of the mob. It isn't an accident that they use Wikipediocracy to routinely hate on the WMF and anonymous IP editors, but rarely have a bad thing to say about established and powerful shitheels like (well, it is hardly worth even listing them, just read any of Kumioko's posts).
Being insulting and indeed quite viscous in their contempt on those occasions when it's a newcomer detailing their dispute which the residents really aren't interested in even giving their opinion on since they've seen it all before, is their only real attempt to prevent harm, and it suboptimal as a strategy, to say the least.
If you're serious about Wikipedia criticism, you approach each and every Wikipedian coming to you for help as if they just escaped from a burning house. You do not, under any circumstances, advise them to go back in, unless you are sure they have graduated in firefighting. Erika quite clearly hadn't, as she routinely kept making the same mistakes. She is still utterly addicted to the cult, as seen in how she even tries to sign her post there as if she were on Wikipedia (~~~~). An easy mistake to make most of the time, since the place is basically just an extension of Wikipedia, but when you're specifically posting about how it is a separate venue?
Wikipediocracy is clearly not the place to go if you're looking for sympathy or understanding, let alone good advice or protection from further victimisation. Erika can't see it, but she was victimised and abused by Wikipediocracy members just as much as those who lurk. And it is completely accepted and even sanctioned by their leadership.