Page 1 of 1

Gary Greenbaum (Wehwalt)

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:09 pm
by CrowsNest
The editor credited with the most Featured Articles on Wikipedia.

Unsurprisingly, he's a bit of an entitled prick, even by Super-Wikipedian standards. Literally the day after he objects to a fellow editor calling sections of the community a "mob", he thinks nothing of accusing identifiable individuals at the WMF, the organisation that pays the bills so he can indulge his hobby, of lying and conspiracy. Or rather, he sees no reason why they would not have lied or engaged in a conspiracy. The fact they have already made public statements (that Fram was investigated after complaints from the community) that could be used to get them fired if they had lied and had conspired, seems to make no odds to Wehwalt.

Did I mention he is a lawyer? :lol:

Wikipedia supposedly holds their WP:BLP policy sacrosanct. It says don't accuse people of serious misconduct without serious evidence (and if necessary, only do it as part of an appropriate process and in an appropriate venue, which that is clearly not). He will face no consequences, because on Wikipedia, writing that much 'quality' content buys you immunity from the Administration. Oh, and OF COURSE, he is also a Wikipedia Administrator. Held to the highest standards of conduct. Because why wouldn't he be?

It took me five minutes to find other recent instances of Wehwalt making comments of a personal and even threatening nature, the common thread being targetted at former Wikipedia volunteers who have since gone on to monetize this experience with paid positions with the WMF and Affiliates. All Wehwalt seems to have gained for his efforts, is a post as a Visiting Scholar with the Wiki Education Foundation. An unpaid position. Unless you count payment in kind in terms of access to resources.

This is Wikipedia.

Re: Gary Greenbaum (Wehwalt)

Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:49 am
by CrowsNest
Just wow.

How does a piece of shit like this even dare to call themselves a Wikipedian? Not one word of what he says here, is Wikipedia policy.

If I worked for the Foundation and saw this, and was the Arbitration Committee doing nothing response, I'd be thinking, it's time to really fuck these ungrateful shits.
Statement by Wehwalt
Given the current state of the community, with Framgate going on and other issues as well, this is not the time for the time-sink this would be, especially given the depleted state of the committee. I'm also among those who feel there is baiting going on. The diffs seem pretty weak beer by traditional Malleus standards, by the way, but I have the impression the filer felt they could provide diffs of Eric reciting "A-B-C" and there's a fair chance they'd get support from others for a case. Let Eric write and send the virtue signalers about their business.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I"d also like to associate myself with Victoriaearle's comments about the difficulty of writing content, especially at a time when WMF has made it clear they have more of a warm spot for identity politics than quality content, when WMF let themselves be used as an ATM by insiders while the rest of us don't even get expenses. Even not actively writing, Eric is more valuable to the project than the filer, or at least I assume so, because I'd never heard of them before they filed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Gary Greenbaum (Wehwalt)

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:16 pm
by CrowsNest
Gary has outdone himself. Not that he isn't usually this exact kind of asshole......
Questions from Wehwalt
To what extent, if any, should an editor's stated personal characteristics, such as gender identity and similar, play a part in determining the outcome of cases, including cases in which evidence is heard privately? Do you believe the present arbitration committee has followed the practice you advocate in its decisions over the past three months?
I don't believe an editor's stated personal characteristics should play any part in the outcome of an arbitration case. The WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies are based on the idea that we are working here with content on its own merits, without regard to personal details of the editors discussing the content. And from reviewing the past several months' worth of cases, it's not obvious to me that this particular issue even arose in any recent case. If there is a specific case involving this concern which you believe I have overlooked, please cite it and I'll be happy to go take another look.
So you're then saying that things would have played out more or less the same in your view if Fram had been Framma, member in good standing of Women in Red, and the inciting editor been Lorenzo Hale, husband of the board chair? Just as an example. And don't read any opinions of mine in the foregoing, I'm trying to delve for your views at a critical time.
Don't read any opinions into this? Readers of this forum, pre-Kumioko virus, would of course know exactly what dear old Gary thinks about this issue.

Not that you really even need to know the backstory. I mean, who would even ask such a question, and in this way, if they didn't have a pretty clear view of what they think happened?

Ths is Wikipedia's alleged autonomous self-government in action. Specifically, this is an actual, official question, from a Wikipedia Administrator, to a candidate seeking election to their highest dispute resolution body. And it has been allowed to stand by the clerks, because hey, why not? That they couldn't even begin to explain why not, is why Wikipedia is not and never will be anything but an absolute car crash when trying to govern itself, a place where assholes rule, and women know their place, at their feet, their mouths shut, their bruises hidden by concealer.

This is what happens when you get members of the Arbitration Committee posting on Wikipediocracy like it's just another message board, not harassment central. It gives them legitimacy. It signals to Administrators like Gary, that yes, you can bring their warped conspiracy theories into Wikipedia itself, like they even merit acknowledgement, much less debate.

Screw the self-governance. It's obvious the thoroughly toxic Wikipedia community can't stop this kind of thing, as an Administrator Gary is the person who is supposedly stop it. This guy is it some random chump, he is a lawyer, an identifiable individual. The Foundation could and should go right for his license for even thinking he can say this sort of thing on their website about their actual Chair of the Board of Trustees.

Gary needs to learn some personal responsibility. He's been living in Wiki-la-la land, where nothing you say or do has any consequences, their BLP policy being an utter joke, for far too long.