In a current incident, it is remarkable how careless they are with the language and imagery they use. User MaranoFan secured an unblock recently, and not 24 hours later had been reblocked. Here's how Guy Chapman concluded proceedings at the Administrator's Noticeboard......
I submit to the floor there is no need for this kind of language in Wikipedia governance. Indeed, it belies their oft stated goal (although seemingly it is only ever Jimmy Wales who seems to say this) that they should be kind and respectful at all times, even as they are showing the door to people.I have reblocked MaranoFan. Piling back into old fights within 24 hours of lifting of an indef that had been in place for nearly two years indicates that the disruption problem has not diminished in any way at all. We supplied the WP:ROPE, seems MaranoFan brought the chair. This should not be seen as in any way exonerating Winkelvi and the 2016 two-way IBAN, that is a separate question. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It is neither kind nor respectful to put this sort of imagery in the minds of users in this situation. And yet it is ingrained in their lexicon, WP:ROPE of course being the essay "Give 'em enough rope". That exists in Wikipedia space, which means it has wide acceptance among the cult. And we critics would hardly disagree that the prevailing culture of Wikipedia governance is Wild West/Medieval in both tone and practice.
People won't be surprised to see it is Sherff Guy Chapman doing the hanging. He has a terrible record of saying the most awful things to people he does not want on Wikipedia, most recently the columnist Peter Hitchins, who he personally despatched as well.
I find it particularly ironic that this week saw the oft-ignored Jimmy Wales have a rare victory in steering his former flock. In the context of teen suicide no less, he said.....
....to argue an article needed to be deleted. Surprisingly, it was.Remember the point of BLP1E, and indeed the BLP policy in general, is human dignity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... elyn_Davis
The inescapable conclusion of all these things when taken together, is that the Wikipedians have a minimal working understanding of human dignity when it applies to real people, they just don't see the editors they eject from the island, as real people. Hence their constant trouble of having to fight demons in the form of previously ejected editors who come back looking for blood, all the goddamn time.
And as if to prove what we keep saying about how Wikipediocracy is just a social club for Wikipedians, their thread on this block sees long standing member Jim (Wikipedian Begoon) begin as follows......
I'm sure he wasn't aware of the awful parallels here, but it is nonetheless a reminder that you cannot really effectively criticise people using a forum, when you are surrounded by the very same people with the very same mindset.MaranoFan appears to be a teenager, and not very good at avoiding conflict.
Pseudo-critic Jim quite easily identified the battlefield nature of the incident, which is hardly a feat of analysis. Hamstrung by his nature, he just failed to recognise the far subtler point of the tone. Unsurprisingly, Jim, like Guy, is a Wikipedian who is quite comfortable with being nasty piece of work to those he thinks deserves it.
It is, of course, so much easier for hard-core Wikipedians to normalize their battlefield conduct, when the reward for victory is to see your opponent hanged in the public stocks, to hear that satisfying crack of their neck. Popcorn, anyone?
Much like some have been successful in removing hostile gendered language from Wikipedia as part of the ongoing effort to bring the place into the 21st Century, "Don't be a dick" now redirecting to "Don't be a jerk", it is perhaps high time they put some thought into dismantling their fondness for the grotesque.
I have no hope or expectation that they will of course, as ever I only note it here to show what they are incapable of, and explain for future generations how and why Wikipedia ceased to be, and hopefully hasten it on its way. Dead men walking.