How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.

Moderator: Abd

How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:34 am

I touched on this elsewhere, but this post puts it in stark relief......
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 68#p217368
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 ~~~~
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.

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.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:08 am

Pathetic.....
Zoloft wrote:Most of our forum is public, most of the rest is available if a member registers. There's not much we can do about that. Bullshit. There's lots you could do, see above for suggestions..... Our rules only apply to attacks on you *here.* You have rules? Try enforcing them sometime. Oh, that's right, you stood down from moderating. Or did you? We do care about our members' safety and comfort, but this is a rough place to post in, sometimes. Indeed it is. Almost as if you don't even try..... Not only is it rough for victims of Wikipedia, it's a rough place to post in for anyone who isn't politically left wing, isn't at least somewhat enamoured with the idea of Wikipedia, isn't convinced it's all the WMF/Jimbo's fault, and isn't willing to be taken for a fool by the people you respect. I apologize if you've found your experience uncomfortable, but it's the WMF who let thugs attack people on their products.Yes, they do, don't they? So how come many of those very same people are beloved members of your forum?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby Kumioko » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:49 pm

This is exactly the sort of stalking stuff the Trust and Safety team at the WMF led by that nitwit James Alexander should be doing something about, but aren't.
#BbbGate
User avatar
Kumioko
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:54 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:30 pm

Kumioko wrote:This is exactly the sort of stalking stuff the Trust and Safety team at the WMF led by that nitwit James Alexander should be doing something about, but aren't.

And they have the perfect response ready and waiting: "It's not on a WMF server so fuck 'em."

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.

The mere presence of AndyTheGrump on that forum is all the evidence you need to show they're "making nice" to WP insiders. The original Wikipedia Review would have tolerated him for a while, until he started screaming and threatening--then he would have been tossed. And WR was a far more tolerant forum than WO.

Go ahead, I defy you to ask Zoloft why he tolerates Andy. Or Beeblebrox or a couple of other well-known bastards. You will probably get an incoherent response--if any.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:16 pm

A perfect example was this thread......

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =16&t=9158

Am I right in suspecting that Zoloft removed someone's criticism of her? And FWIW I've seen BrillLyle's work before. She is a good content writer (albeit in a narrow area) and they should be nicer to her. But now she's "marked" as a "troublemaker", so Wiki-Autists will be following her around until she gets banned or quits in disgust.

Yes, I can prove that I've looked at her work before. Yes kids, she fought with Jytdog, and I'm not sure she "won".
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=227
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =435#p3064

Posting the AFD just so we can all see how the smug little twats gang up on a content writer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... politician)

Yep, Wikipedia IRC is a truly evil shitshow. So insane that only the resident assholes can even decode the "discussions".
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:14 pm

Erika is now banned indefinitely. Not just by en.wiki, a proper WMF Global Ban. No surprise there really. I tried. I even warned her she could be facing this sort of traumatic end, not the less brutal but no less painful bear trap of an indef. Drmies is busy dancing on her grave, naturally.

And yet even now, she prefers not to see that the posters of Wikipediocracy, a couple of exceptions aside, are not her allies. They don't and never did have any real interest in helping or protecting her in ways that would have actually benefited her.

Zoloft even turned up in her most recent AN/I report, but simply said "Monitoring this." It isn't even clear he was trying to help her, unless he somehow got her banned as an act of mercy. Risky if so.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:47 am

Kingsindian wrote:I don't know what "being dealt with privately means"
You could start with the literal meaning. WMF Global Bans being discussed and decided upon in private, after all......

Then you might ask yourself, hey, how come Alex Shih knew that Erika was being discussed privately? At best, it means he asked someone, but then why would they tell him anything was being dealt with? At worst, he knew because he was the one who rattled the WMF's cage to do something, a Global Ban being what they decided.

Then you might realise, hey, isn't that Alex dude inexplicably welcomed on this forum with open arms? Maybe he'll turn up and help Erika clear up these pertinent questions.

Then you'll wake the fuck up and realise where you are and what the evident purpose of that forum is. Asking people like Alex pertinent questions, much less holding them to account, is not it.
Kingsindian wrote:Tell Wikipedia to shove it and do something else with your time. Maybe reconsider after some months and see how you feel. This is probably the healthier option.
What? It's a Global Ban. That means she is done, over, gone. Permanently. Forever. She has no other options.
Kingsindian wrote:Use sockpuppets to edit. As long as you stay out of controversial and/or internal Wikipedia politics, people might even leave your edits alone, even if they figure out who you really are. However, taking this path will probably completely seal your fate on Wikipedia
Jesus. You're talking to someone who has specific interests, a specific manner of interacting, who habitually tweets about her editing, and hasn't got a bone in her body that can play it cool. You're also talking about the one type of ban every last volunteer in a position to, knows that they ignore or facilitate evasion of it on pain of their own immediate WMF Global Ban if discovered. Which they would be.

Stupider advice she will not receive today (but others are trying). None of this shit is complex, it's all established fact on the nature of their universe, that any experienced critic would know.
Midsize Jake wrote: I still think my theory (that they're giving in to pressure from MRA's and other anti-feminist groups who have criticized them for not WMF-banning any women) is valid, because it's the sort of thing they would do just to maximize their levels of hypocrisy. (I'm assuming their year-end bonuses are based on this.)
If not a joke, Jesus H. Christ. If a joke, have the decency not to do this to someone in her position. Not everyone is on your board for your own amusement.
Midsize Jake wrote:But I guess the Occam's Razor explanation is probably that someone from the Wikimedia NYC chapter saw a convenient opportunity, called James Alexander, and talked him into it for score-settling purposes.
iii wrote:This is obviously the most likely scenario. It is pretty clear to me that this is exactly what occurred.
Not considering she's done some pretty bad stuff well before this. Anyone monitoring her who is an active Wikipedian with links to WMF-NYC, would have seen it. The more likely explanation given the timing, is that one of the usual Wikipedian shitbags reported her, someone likely to be a member of that very forum. If not, someone like Drmies who just lurks, looking for dirt, someone who barely gets a mention on the site as a notable shit bag, and so wouldn't have appeared half as dangerous to Erika as they should have. In that report, they will have of course reminded them of her chapter troubles.

Unlike other Global Bans, which are seemingly processed in glacial time, that scenario seems like a sure fire way to get one of them issued in double-quick time, something like a few days.
TNT wrote:Have you had any sort of 'official contact' from WMF prior to that email?
Why do you want to know, random Wikipedia Administrator who seems to only appear on that forum in the wake of banning one of their members from Wikipedia? Anyone who doesn't remember, this is one of the shitbags (partner of Alex Shih?) who appeared on the forum right after the en.wiki block when they thought I was "InvestigativeReporter", just to fuck with me. With the management's and many regulars full blessings, it appeared.

Whatever the reason for their curiostiy, it is telling that this en.wiki power user doesn't appear to know that it is common knowledge this sort of prior warning is unlikely, plus the fact she never mentioned it seems relevant to their question too.
iii wrote:Wikipedia-related projects would benefit from having a professional ombudsman to help work out these kind of interpersonal issues as they arise.
Well, they already have Ombudsmen in other aress, and for obvious reasons, it doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference. Professional implies paid, paid implies duty, duty implies no other outcome than agreement with the ban. Because contrary to claims, it is inconceivable these bans are handed down for nothing, on a whim. They are traceable and defensible within certain parameters, and any Ombudsmen would have to agree to them before being hired, obviously.

Oddly enough, most people in a direct position to know, typically get banned from that forum too, Graf and Kumi's temporary return notwithstanding. Including this guy's enemy, Abd. None of them ever get to know who their accuser is or what the evidence was, because those are the established parameters. And they'll likely never change unless or until someone like Abd gets their day in court. Harder to do without the support of the supposed Wikipedia investigators.
Carrite wrote:I think Erika's mortal sin, in the view of the Vatican and its Grand Inquisitor, is that she made contact with members of the cabal IN REAL LIFE and made them feel uncomfortable in some way. It's all about them having a FRIENDLY SPACE where they can all stick their noses in the money trough without interruption or any form of personal discomfort. She was an inconvenience, so they looked for their opportunity and struck.

That's my take anyway.
Your take wasn't worth shit. Certainly not when it sounds remarkably similar to every other time an explanation for a bad act is needed. Who the fuck is "they" here? Why was her contact banworthy, when we can all list countless examples of other examples of contact and nuisance making, in real life, which do not result in bans? What is it about her conduct which made them reach for the nuclear option? Just because they can, is not a satisfactory explanation, given how many nuisance makers there are inside the cult. Your good self, included. Do you even really know about her case at all?

Sad that people want to mislead Erika and generally funk up the place, just so they can shoot their mouths off about their pet peeves in the thread of the hour.
Carrite wrote:write a book on a topic that interests you.
This from the guy who jacked in his self-published book writing hobby when he realised he could get more exposure by dumping that shit on Wikipedia.
TheGarbageScow wrote:After I heard about your issues with Theredproject (T-C-L) some time ago, I wondered if there were bigger "things" coming down the pike.
You merely wondered? I said it was inevitable, because it was obvious where she was headed.
TheGarbageScow wrote:I repeatedly see many of the same names on certain topics, grouping together to support each other on AfDs, content disputes, etc. I can descrbe it, but of course can't prove anything so nobody at Wikipedia is going to listen to me. Not that I care about them anyway...
Why are you even bothering to tell her information about the cult that she she already knows? Information she knew months if not years ago, but which still couldn't evidently break her addiction or her general admiration of the wonder of the wiki. It was obvious where she was headed under this delusion, yet none of you thought to use this information to build a compelling case for her to get out voluntarily while she still could. I did, but she sadly seems to have believed all your collective bullshit about how I apparently talk nonsense and don't know shit.
Jaguar wrote:Unfortunately I see no hope in seeing a seismic change to Wikipedia. Just as long as it remains a safe haven to mollycoddle the incompetent who dominate it, Wikipedia will always be authoritarian.
Concur. Not particularly relevant to Erika though, is it? And it seems like it is not remotely going to change either, Wikipedia will neither reform or be destroyed, when notable escapees like him can only manage 27 posts in, what, a year now? Why is that? He has way more to say than this, more useful perspectives. I'd tease them out I'm sure of it, but I'm not their kind of critic apparently. The management is seemingly happy for this sort of bland, frankly pointless, post, to be representative of their typical output.

------------------------

All the above only covers about half of, maybe even just a third of, the supposed sympathy and advice they are offering Erika. The rest is just irrelevant noise, the usual suspects wanting to say the usual things, nothing that she won't have heard before from her earlier stint on the forum.

At the end of the day, who is worse? The person who stabs you in the street, or the person who saw it about to happen and did nothing, and then tries to heal you by pouring vinegar into the wound or giving you medicine for a common cold, or who tries to steal your wallet or sell knock-off perfume to the gathering crowd.

Trick question (but with an obvious answer). The worst person is Zoloft, since he basically banned the one person who knew exactly where Erika was headed and probably could have prevented it. She chose to see these people, Zoloft's protected band of jabbermouths, rubberneckers and snakes, as her educators and even saviours. Probably the biggest mistake she ever made.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:01 pm

Unsurprisingly, Ritchie333 is generally clueless about how a Global Ban is arrived at too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854158446

Too many thick people in this world, thick and arrogant people who act like they have relevant knowledge or experience, and feel very threatened by those who demonstrably have it, and aren't afraid to let them know they don't.

Ironic that he goes off about Trump so often, on Wikipedia's dime too, since in his general skillset and personality, he's closer to Trump than he ever would be to Hillary. A dumbass populist, basically.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:19 pm

And so it goes on......
TheAdversary wrote:When I look at that list of globally banned editors, from the ones I know of, they are roughly in two groups: A: pedos, B: people who have made WMF or WMF chapters uncomfortable. BrillLyle is obviously in class B.

Certainly no editors comes on that list for merely harassing their fellow Wikipedians (unless that Wikipedian had links to WMF).
He certainly sounds convinced.

He gives the game away here.....
I am furious just now, as a very good young Wikipedian I know just committed "wikicide", (=he deliberately did something extremely stupid, in order to get himself banned).

Turns out he has been receiving multiple abusive messages through the Wikipedia system (threatening him with rape, calling him a n....er, etc), these messages made him depressed and he wanted to walk away from WP, but wasn't able to.
Hence wikicide.
:facepalm:

That WMF doesn't lift a finger to stop abuse like that (but globally bans(!) anyone who has made their own asses feel "uncomfortable") ...makes me absolutely furious :frustrated:
His hatred for the WMF has blinded him to the massive holes in his theory. He might as well have said you get on the list for wasting the WMF's time, since that is as good a fit as his explanation. And since when does the community not have the tools to deal with abuse of the email system? Not remotely an WMF responsibility IIRC.

This is why active Wikipedians don't make good critics. He's telling Erika why she's banned, as if she hasn't already figured out that whatever the direct means, it ultimately involved both the WMF and volunteers. Both are as bad as each other, but the community's efforts to stamp out what needs to be stamped out, are laughable when put alongside the WMF's.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:31 pm

Erika wrote:I really had hoped to just keep quiet and edit. If I hadn’t been harassed by CA2James I do think that would have been possible.
I told her months ago that it wouldn't be happy ever after for her, that she had made herself a target and so they would come for her, greenlit for the killer blow. It was inevitable. I think I literally said something like it will be the hope that brings you right up to the doors of their slaughterhouse, and you'll not even see the final swing of the axe coming. So walk away while you still had the option to not give them the satisfaction of denying you what you so clearly wanted. That was their clear goal, and you willingly gave it to them. Like countless other victims before you.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Wikipediocracy talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests