Sir Sputnick

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Sir Sputnick

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:05 am

This is surely something that would alarm people in a Request for Adminship, no?......
[Because I'm autistic] most human interactions are stressful [for me] to some extent, and dealing with that stress is just a fact of life for me.
But evidently not, they are passing with flying colours.

Someone should tell them what happened to Administrator Coffee. Because when they say 'hey dude, it is totally down to you to manage your condition and figure out if you are losing it', they really mean it.

The Wikipedia cult not only ignored Coffee's obvious signs of distress and clear inability to deal with the stress or manage it properly, they stood by and watched as other editors mercilessly taunted, baited and humiliated him.

I'm guessing that stuff didn't make it into the official documentation, so if he wasn't watching at the time, he may well not even know.

What a sick place.

User avatar
Sucks Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Sir Sputnick

Post by Strelnikov » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:22 pm

Quoting from my own blog (using information from Eric Barbour and Peter Damian):

....The utility page Userboxes/Health has hundreds of userboxes describing the health issues of Wikipedians; around 60 percent of the boxes are for mental illnesses or processing issues like dyslexia or dyscalculia. In 2014 the list included 33 sufferers of Tourette's syndrome, 23 self-admitted schizophrenics, and Someone_that_loves_cats, who claimed they were a psychopath. This person was a sockpuppet only used in 2013, but that is an odd thing to admit. At the same time there were 512 autism-spectrum users and over a hundred people claiming to be dyslexic. And those are the people who will admit it; there are many more out there on Wikipedia who have mental health issues and say nothing. Wikipedia's secrecy makes knowing the true number of editors and administrators with former or current issues impossible to discover.

....."There are quite a few mentally ill people who edit Wikipedia. I have been stalked and harassed by more than one person here during my tenure, and while almost all of those folks were eventually indef blocked, after awhile, it gets to be too much. It is emotionally and physically draining. While some were mostly annoying time sinks who seemed to be just desperately seeking the attention they must have lacked in their real lives, others have displayed all the signs of full-blown psychosis, particularly in engaging in cyberstalking both on and off Wiki. I foolishly attempted to deal with through a rename, but alas, to my own stupidity I didn't think about the fact that it would be a public process."

- AnmaFinotera, on her userpage, August 2, 2010. She "retired" from Wikipedia after writing that.

Email to Peter Damian about another user, December 2007:

"What i don't understand is your surprise to find such a user; this is Wikipedia, not myspace...i'd say 25% of the big contributers are total psychos, i mean have you seen the detail and time there is in those "child murders" articles? have you taken a look into some of those insanely long discussions? you just have to distance yourself from them, it's simple really." (sic)

Part of a user talk section written by Anthonyhcole, April 12, 2012:

"Like many internet communities, this is a magnet for social outcasts of one colour or another. The bedridden, the housebound, the lonely, the frightened, the hated. This is a good thing. Most outcasts I know are good people, and this provides a place where they can do a lot of unalloyed good in the company of others. But the project needs to face the corollary that there will be an effect on the ethos here. When a bunch of rejects get together and tries to form a society ad hoc, they'll make mistakes that stem from poorly honed social sensitivity. It is highly likely that the social norms regarding each other, our subjects and the world at large (our readership) will be a poor fit for people of normal social sensibility. This matters. It is only just beginning to be addressed, starting with heightened attention to civility, but there's a long way to go, and the more these questions are discussed, the sooner we'll evolve into something that can seamlessly and responsibly engage with the world community."
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Sucks Fanatic
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Sir Sputnick

Post by Graaf Statler » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:28 pm

Jimbo Wales wrote:There is actually a strange irony. Some of the people who post to Wikipedia Review are or could be legitimate critics, with thoughtful and perhaps even interesting criticisms of things that we have done wrong, either through honest mistakes, human failings, or bad policy. Such critics might be hard to listen to, but traditionally we have been quite good at doing so, and I am always one of the first to say that we should try to listen to all criticism for nuggets of wisdom. But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking." (sic)

"But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking." (sic)

I don't understand the sic. Really I don't. Can anyone explane to me what Jimmy is saying or suggesting here, because the sic confuse me.

Post Reply