The Wiki Cabal, the newest Wikipedia criticism blog

[CrowsNest]

Not sure why he didn't announce it here, but Dysklyver has created his own blog, The Wiki Cabal.

https://thewikicabal.com

He describes himself as......

Cornish Lawyer, long time Wikipedian and Your Favourite Troll.

So far, he's posted a piece a day, from 14 August. That definitely seems ambitious, although sadly I probably do the same on this here forum. I try to alert Strelinkov to any blog length stuff I accidentally drop, but I am not as mindful as I should be. Perhaps telling Zoloft to go go screw himself every time he begged for me to put it on his blog has conditioned me to be blog averse in general.

He describes the blog thusly....

This is a little blog about Wikipedia. If you want to publish on the blog then do contact the author.

He also nicely links to us, and sadly also to the crap bag over the road. Also to those by Graf, GenderDesk and Lightbreather. Seems like he might be missing a few there......(maybe we need an index thread )

Software wise, it's pretty good. Easy to navigate, easy to read, and with a distinctive feel. What more do you need? Other than content worth reading, of course. More on that in due time. He has included a Google Translate widget, which seems like a good idea.

Interestingly, he has a policy page.....

Content removal
Content is generally posted only if publically available. However, if any person wants information about them removed from this site, please contact the author by email or on the contact page. Reasonable requests will be considered and information may be removed. Copyrighted material will be removed if legally required.

Copyright
© 2018. Arthur Kerensa. all rights reserved.

This copyright notice applies sitewide, except for images.

Privacy
As the site is hosted by WordPress.com, by browsing the site you are agreeing to their Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

Editorial
Editorial guidelines may be followed.

He rather ambitiously links to the BBC's editorial guidance.

That is his real name, or it is according to the profile he used at Wikipediocracy and various linkages on WMF sites between the two.

D., I only know of your en.wiki history, so it might be nice if you filled us in on your other activities out in the weeds.....

So it seems like he wants full transparency, and to be seen as a responsible publisher. He has a contact page, basically a feedback form and email address. He also seems to be allowing comments on posts, although as we know, there are lots of ways this can be managed.

The principles of our little group here might have something to say on doing this sort of thing on a commercial platform with your real identity out there......I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it may ultimately restrict what can be said, thus how effective the criticism.

Also, D., are you aware that on at least two occasions, Wikipedia criticism sites hosted on a commercial platform (ProBoards) were taken offline by the host simply due to spurious legal threats? With the subsequent loss of a shit-ton of valuable material. And the good people of Wikipediocracy basically laughed......

Even if you are only using WordPress as a Software tool not a service provider (and it seems like the latter to me), I assume you still have a commercial host?

Anyway, whatever the specifics, Dysklyver, welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia criticism.

P.S. In the context of the ongoing factional warfare between the splintered networks of Wikipedia criticism, it would probably be best if you make your guiding philosophy clear.

A simple position statement will do, outlining what you think of Wikipedia as a concept, as a reality, and what you believe the purpose of your criticism is. Put simply, do you believe Wikipedia can be fixed, or that it must be destroyed (either just because it should, or because destruction is necessary for something that adheres to their principles of an ad free community built encyclopedia can be acheived).

Choose your answer carefully. I can't speak for others, but I am done wasting my time on those whose position is manifestly wrong.

[CrowsNest]

Now I'll briefly review his output so far.....

Stewards of the Wikis
https://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/14/stewards/

A generic overview of the role, although it misses a few important functions, like the horrendously complex task of global renames, which has implications in all sorts of dodgy stuff like the 'right to vanish', etc.

Not enough is really made of the whole 'they can do what they like on wikis without a local rights holder' issue, which of course means they have the power to inspect personal data and hide information from view. Just because these wikis might be in obscure languages, doesn't mean the information they hold isn't in English, or about US based citizens.

A minor issue, but on en.wiki it is certainly the case that Admins can be desysopped for inactivity (although this is sadly taken literally, no inherent assessment of ongoing competence is implied).

I would certainly dispute the factual accuracy of this statement.....

Stewards are considered to be the most trusted volunteer editors in the Wikimedia ecosystem. They are required to contractually sign up with the Wikimedia Foundation and are carefully vetted as part of the election process.

Their elections are positively lightweight compared to en.wiki ArbCom, even en.wiki RfA. And in the wiki-universe, trust comes from nothing except familiarity. It becomes tiresome to see editors with thousands of edits, mindlessly (or maliciously) claiming a user is a good person simply based on their own limited interactions or observations. This is the primary mechanism through which most bad blocks are made to stick. It doesn't therefore hold, that these little known Stewards carry much trust, either individually, or as a group. And several prominent volunteers have never been afraid to state their view that identifying to the Foundation doesn't carry any implicit level of trust or confidence.

[CrowsNest]

Kudpung loses his marbles
https://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/16/kud ... s-marbles/

An excellent catch of a horrific incident that I somehow missed. It illustrates exactly what Kupdung is all about (and the post really needs to be clear that incidents like this are not remotely out of the ordinary for him, he has massive issues).

In future, it would be best if he highlighted that Kupdung at al are, by virtue of being Wikipedia Administrators, theoretically held to a higher standard of behaviour. Their default position is meant to be too react in virtually the complete opposite way Kupdung did here. They are specifically meant to be reflective and restrained in everything they do, especially when it directly concerns their own actions.

Wikipedians seem to always like the rest of the world to just not know this when the shit is hitting the fan and an Administrator is doing the flinging. Therefore, by implication, when people like this suffer absolutely no consequences for such behaviour, frequently being able to have a 'no fault' resignation, it has to be taken as a sign that either even worse is tolerated from the ordinary editors, or being an Administrator in that site carries extraordinary privileges to behave badly. And Lord knows, we critics have copious amounts of evidence to show it is the latter.

Considering Kupdung's resignation as not under a cloud is of course a joke - if he hadn't resigned, given his history, there's no way someone wouldn't have filed a Request for Arbitration seeking his defrocking. It may have been swatted away, sure, but that is not the point. It is about whether or not, by resigning, has has somehow avoided harsh criticism. Official criticism.

On a minor point, I've never liked GW being referred to as part of the cabal. She's a die hard Wikipedian for sure, but she more than most, has tried to used her position to achieve reform, which necessarily means going against the grain. She seems to have lost the desire to fight from the very top, tackling Wikipedia's widespread behavioural issues at a strategic level. But this exchange with Kupdung shows she is still prepared to speak truth to power, and is remarkably effective with it.

[Graaf Statler]

If you want to publish on the blog then do contact the author. He also nicely links to us, and sadly also to the crap bag over the road. Also to those by Graf, GenderDesk and Lightbreather. Seems like he might be missing a few there......(maybe we need an index thread )

Yeh, but our, my blog was never meant as a Wikipedia critical blog. De Groeten uit Eerbeek is the Blog of De Kolonel, a tremendous WPNL troll who is using that blog in his troll tactics on WPNL and I am only a guest writer there, and most of my other blog is only to understand if you know WPNL very, very well. And most of it is cynical. what is not to understand if you are not a Dutch native speaker.
Both blogs have no goal, they are only there for the "Dutch market". We troll a bit around on them, are making often fun, many times with a hint to a Dutch user who did something extreem stupide. Today I wrote about toy trains, and sometimes we use it to store something for ourself. My blog is mainly a place to store links about the crazy behaviour of the sysops and arbcom and WMF, that is the propose.
But often they are extreem hard hitting if I see the reactions. Maybe because they are build up in this fuck yourself or each other and get lost style.

[CrowsNest]

The Duke of Nonsense
https://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/17/the ... -nonsense/

A seemingly persuasive example of the sort of wierdo that is attracted to Wikipedia. But sadly lacking in any explanation of what marks him out. Not that plucking random Wikipedians out to the weeds who laugh at isn't a worthwhile activity (the poe-faced twats of Wikipediocracy seeing this as beneath them), but if that's the purpose, he needs to make it clear. And if not, the same applies.

There is something definitely very odd about this user though, that potentially makes him worth special mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =855591471

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =827977661

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =853736725

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... at_God_Pan

Hopefully the reason is not a desire to publicise one's own socks. Never understood why people do that.

[CrowsNest]

Yeh, but our, my blog was never meant as a Wikipedia critical blog. De Groeten uit Eerbeek is the Blog of De Kolonel, a tremendous WPNL troll who is using that blog in his troll tactics on WPNL and I am only a guest writer there, and most of my other blog is only to understand if you know WPNL very, very well. And most of it is cynical. what is not to understand if you are not a Dutch native speaker.
Both blogs have no goal, they are only there for the "Dutch marke"t. We troll a bit around on there, are making often fun, many times with a hint to a Dutch user who did something extreem stupide. Today I wrote about toy trains, and sometimes we use it to store something for ourself. My blog is mainly a place to store links about the crazy behaviour of the sysops and arbcom and WMF, that is the propose.
But often they are extreem hard hitting if I see the reactions. Maybe because they are build up in this fuck yourself or each other and get lost style.

Well, I hope he clarifies here what it is for.....

[Graaf Statler]

He also nicely links to us, and sadly also to the crap bag over the road. Also to those by Graf, GenderDesk and Lightbreather. Seems like he might be missing a few there......(maybe we need an index thread )

Yeh, but our, my blog was never meant as a Wikipedia critical blog. De Groeten uit Eerbeek is the Blog of De Kolonel, a tremendous WPNL troll who is using that blog in his troll tactics on WPNL and I am only a guest writer there, and most of my other blog is only to understand if you know WPNL very, very well. And most of it is cynical. what is not to understand if you are not a Dutch native speaker.
Both blogs have no goal, they are only there for the "Dutch market" We troll a bit around on there, are making often fun, many times with a hint to a Dutch user who did something extreem stupide. Today I wrote about toy trains and yesterday about Drmies. But you have to know first to know who Armin van Buren is to understand the tittle. Sometimes we use it to store something for ourself. My blog is mainly a place to store links about the crazy behaviour of the sysops and arbcom and WMF, that is the propose.
But often they are extreem hard hitting if I see the reactions. Maybe because they are build up in this fuck yourself or each other and get lost style.

[CrowsNest]

Fuckity fucking fuck
https://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/18/fuc ... king-fuck/

A nice snapshot into the day to day use of profanity on Wikipedia. Always worth including in these sort of posts, what Wikipedia policy actually is.....

The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions

Profanity is mentioned in the very first line.

They even say this.....

Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

Therefore, if we are to belief the Wikipedians when they claim their policies are written to reflect their reality (i.e. descriptive rather than proscriptive), then we must conclude the Wikipedians have a very high bar when considering what is grossly profane speech, and indeed, what is extremely profane.

It would be better with a conclusion, and to that end, I offer the following.....

Fuck these people and their constant claims, from the Founder Jimmy Wales on down, about how people should see Wikipedia as a professional working environment.

It's a fucking cesspit, full of potty mouthed assholes.

[Graaf Statler]

Yeh, that is much more effective. Why should you keep on being polite to a someone like Ming who is only posting shit? Just say you are a little shit lord and all you are posting are all crap because you only write things down because you hope they hit, true or not true. That is clear and that is the style I like. And that is what I am missing on Wikipediocrazy. You can never say the things how they are. Or Erika, you are really a good editor, but get lost with your modern feminist crap, wikipedia is netral and not the place for you activism.

[CrowsNest]

Legal action against Wikipedia: Basics 101
https://thewikicabal.com/2018/08/19/leg ... 01-basics/

I'm always wary of posts about legal issues which don't come from a recognised expert or someone with direct first hand experience. But I guess it doesn't hurt to give what seems to be mostly useful information, to my layperson's eyes.

A major issue with this post, is it doesn't make clear the issues surrounding jurisdiction. Being under the extremely lenient system of US law means Wikipedia gets away with so much, largely down to the increasingly shaky looking principles of the infamous Section 230.

As such, their legal counsel happily bats away any and all claims that don't come from a US judge, or concerns individual editor behaviour, and so volunteer editors flaunting this perceived immunity in an aggrieved person's faces is a common sight on Wikipedia. They're ethical like that.

It also doesn't explain that the route many have tried, suing WMF Chapters, never succeeds, even in cases where judgements can be secured, since these local entities are not in any position to influence Wikipedia content, not even on the local language version of Wikipedia.

That is not to say you can't sue the Foundation or editors in a foreign court, but you are unlikely to succeed against the Foundation, or any US based editors. Best you can hope for is screwing a foreign editor who has been daft enough to allow people to identify them. And there a more cases like that than you might think, there being no requirement to not be an idiot, in being able to edit Wikipedia.

The EU itself may yet fuck Wikipedia through non-US law, by virtue of having a pretty powerful way to sanction them in absentia (blocking their domain across the territory), but that is naturally out of reach of most people.

For anyone looking to write something on the legal aspects of Wikipedia, there has in fact been plenty of real cases with which to base your posts on. I also recommend speaking to forum members Abd and WHHP, just two who, AFAIK, have gone the legal route.