View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:37 pm

Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
Wikipedia is theoretically an exercise in collaboration between knowledgeable people with particular skills in the complex art of compiling a reference work in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I can think of no better demolisher of this myth than the fact SchroCat is an editor who has inexplicably managed to go seven years without being told in no uncertain terms to kindly leave.

Witness the latest horrific episode of what happens when you force people to have to inhabit the same space as someone with the giant ego and toxic personality that this guy has. The car crash begins soon after SlimVirgin comments....

....all the hiding of embarrassing content as "off topic" was of course performed by SchroCat himself.

Much like Cassianto and Eric Corbett, it is during incidents like this that other editors who have unwisely defended these sort of toxic personalities in the past, in the misguided belief they have Wikipedia's core ideals in their blood, realise that this doesn't buy them any kind of immunity or respect if they dare to cross them. Ealdgyth went to the trouble of becoming an admin just to be able to defend the incivility of people like this 'for the good of the project'. As you can see, not even that example of pure self-debasement doesn't ultimately change how you are treated by SchroCat if you displease him.

Not for the first time, when push comes to shove, those established women editors of Wikipedia who have so often poured scorn on in the idea rampant hostility is what turns most women off the project, believing they just need to toughen up and focus on the articles to be accepted and respected as equals, ultimately find themselves quite easily pushed out of the way by men who happily deny they are even being sexist, let alone aggressively hostile. It is fitting that he was happy to explain he is an equal opportunity belittler, and if these silly women took his comments as being about their gender, they were sorely mistaken.

All the signs of what sort of editor he is, were there at his first block, received a year after his first edit. In April 2012 he was caught operating a sock-puppet, ThatManAgain, who had filed an AfD for an obscure article, Carratu International, which his main account then voted delete on as first responder. Quite why he needed to do that is a mystery, unless the article contains something that identified him IRL and he wanted to be sure it was deleted.

He managed to get unblocked using the excuse that this was a tragic case of him chatting to a friend and them both acting as one on Wikipedia, leaving his colleagues none the wiser about the connection. He refused to accept that even if this is what happened, that is a policy violation in of itself. He expected the block to be lifted simply on the basis of his record, and described the situation as Kafkaesque. He hypocritically berated admins for not fully considering how they come across, and expected apologies from them for their mistreatment.

His 'friend', who also has a history of logged out editing, magically decided to stop editing Wikipedia there and then, after a glittering career of seven edits, his only other interest of his being a revert on Casino Royale (2006 film), a favourite article of SchroCat. Their parting complaint of mistreatment has more than a ring of SchroCat's tedious themes about it.

Despite racking up multiple blocks since then, his attitude has never really changed. He is never at fault for anything. Any criticism, warning or sanction he receives is ilegitimate, the result of a bizarre sequence of events or a grand conspiracy. He consistently fails to live by the standards he demands of others in how they speak to or otherwise treat him.

Like any organism with a faulty immune system which is incapable of identifying and removing elements which have the capacity to poison it on a fundamental level, Wikipedia will eventually die. And to be clear, the death of Wikipedia doesn't have to mean the lights go out. If it turns out that the only people left on Wikipedia doing any substantive writing are people like SchroCat, if the article review process becomes merely a rubber stamping of their offline efforts, after which the article is locked down in a state where no change is possible without his prior approval, as is the case already with his current Featured Articles, then Wikipedia is a as good as dead.

They are arguably almost there. Maybe a couple more years for these few remaining people to appreciate the ridiculousness of their situation, and it will be game over. Then again, maybe not. Maybe they love the game too much. Not addiction as such, more like a toxic form of codependency. Ironically much like an abusive relationship.

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
Some pretty serious allegations contained here.....

Odd that the Cat doesn't feel they can get adequate redress. I guess when you've got so much baggage, under the doctrine of "WP:BOOMERANG" and the general fight club atmosphere of Wikipedia, such people ultimately realise that they are better off never reporting anything.

I'd have some sympathy, were it not for the fact people like SchroCat are primary drivers of that atmosphere, their current appeals that his detractors focus on content not contributors, ringing as hollow as it ever did.

They will eventually report him, and if he only then mentions these claims, it's going to look like he is merely trying to deflect attention. Which he would be.

Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:22 am
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
The experience of that FAC, particularly one set of behaviour, has pushed me down a particular path (one not for general ears on WP), which is why I withdrew the FAC in the end. The sheer attrition took away any enjoyment or sense of achievement, and a WP article, even on a subject I have researched for years and believe in greatly just is not worth the candle. After all that has gone on, including many lies about me that I have read from a couple of editors, I'm taking a break from Wiki for a month or more until I can be bothered to return.
Poor SchroCat. Where did I find this sorry take of woe? In the middle of a post where he was supposedly trying to broker peace with and apologise to User:Victoriaearle, who it appears has retired due to SchroCat.

In her own words....this is what SchroCat is/does
I can't live with myself for not speaking up. You all can go around in circles discussing PR and the like, but the bottom line is that it comes down to dominance issues: dominating how and where content it created and controlling who may or may not edit; controlling the reviewing environment by handpicking time & place and participants, and disparaging those who show up uninvited; and, apparently, back channeling about "crazy women". Is this really how Wikipedia wants to be perceived in post #MeToo 2018? I'm deeply embarrassed that I flamed out and slapped an retired tag on my page, but I shouldn't be. I should be asking myself what drove me to that point and whether this the best use of my limited volunteer time. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:52 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.