View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:41 pm




Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
SchroCat 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
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....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_Friday_(1910)/archive1

....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
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
Reply with quote
Some pretty serious allegations contained here.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_Friday_(1910)/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=848171118

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
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
Reply with quote
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
Quote:
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
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
Reply with quote
Priceless. Probably the most aptly chosen user name there has ever been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =853297550

I am shocked, shocked I say, to see Bbb23 not agreeing with the view that creating an undeclared alternate account is a legitimate way to escape the attentions of stalker Admins.


Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
Reply with quote
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lingering smell of this dead cat is threatening to cause an outbreak. Somehow, it falls to ArbCom to ponder who to piss off by either restoring the feline to life, or leaving him in the shelter, unclaimed. What a fine mess they have got themselves in. All because they just didn't neuter him early on. Spraying all over and hiding under the furniture, he's made a right mess of the place now.
Quote:
You can say that something is a cleanstart as often as you like - and apparently that's fairly often for you - but that doesn't make it so. You refer to two unnamed administrators who "have been stalking [you] recently". That's not a good reason for creating another account. Indeed, it's a particularly bad one. If the administrators are acting inappropriately, take them to ANI and plead your case. Anyway, I don't have much more to say here that I haven't already said, so don't be surprised if I stop responding to your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
I am disappointed that you have so far seemingly ignored my request above. Without even an acknowledgement that you are looking at the matter, I am left with the impression that you consider you don't have any responsibility to answer polite requests to explain your administrative actions that are unclear, despite WP:ADMINACCT

If you would prefer to have the discussion at another forum, then I'm willing to bring the matter to WP:AN for wider scrutiny. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
The committee is reviewing a direct appeal from SchroCat. The RfA vote was a breach of WP:VALIDALT as it was a clear case of avoiding scrutiny, regardless of the intention. I think moving forward, a determination will be made on the block length of the main SchroCat account, given that they are willing to reflect on the mistakes they may have made. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
Its been over a week now and the block remains in place. Its not likely that the indeff will be infinite, so can we please take a position. Indeff'ing a long term contributor carries a burden, to that person's friends, and to the community in general, and thus far I'm not getting that. Clarity is needed, and for the record I agree with everything RexxS said above. Right now it seems like we live in a "here but for the grace of X go I" nonsense universe. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
There is an appeal at ArbCom at the moment. as it's all offline, I'm unsure of the arguments from either side, or what decisions are being mooted, but last time I heard (about a week ago), it was possible that it will be reduced to a month. Watch this space, but don't hold your breath! Cheers - UtterBuffoon (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
How the vicious have fallen. The local alley cat having to beg the top dogs for a return to his dank corner of the scrapyard they all call home.

My poetic license aside, it's notable how (relatively) polite the concerned bystanders and on call veterinarians are being. Even though this is more than likely just out of political expediency, nobody wanting to set the flighty cat or twitchy bulldog off.

Well, not everyone. There's always some drunk who wanders in off the street, trying to start a fight...... :lol: :roll:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854884641


Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1401
Reply with quote
Quote:
12:33, 15 August 2018 Euryalus (talk | contribs) unblocked SchroCat (talk | contribs) (Appeal at arbcom-l.)
Quote:
The appeal upheld the validity of all the blocks but unblocked one account (SchroCat) with specific conditions agreed between the committee and the editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
And the reasons these "specific conditions" have not been made public, is what, pray tell?

Quite the upturn in events, a vocal anti-establishment figure like SchroCat having to benefit from the workings of the secret star chamber, to be able to edit. And what happened to the two Administrators he claimed were stalking him? The reason he claimed his attempt to go underground, was legit? Were they cleared, or found guilty and somehow sanctioned in total secrecy? You have to assume that either there was no merit to the accusations, or SchroCat is such an addict, he's happy to make a deal that he shall not mention their names, in exchange for a return to the fold.

Quite the stink about all of this. Another reminder that quite a lot of the baked in features of Wikipedia governance, the general lack of transparency, the numerous second chances for so called productive editors, and the backroom dealings through which they are arrived at, are well and truly baked in. They've been a feature of Wikipedia since forever and a day, something that SchroCat was a reliable agitator about. Something tells me his agitation days are over, his silence has been well and truly bought.

On a related note, this now marks the third time SchroCat has requested his user page be deleted. Fruitcake.


Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:22 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 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.