Situations

Op-ed

Situations

The Signpost is committed to publishing a diversity of perspectives, and this article reflects the opinions of its author, whom we invited to republish this userspace essay, originally written in October. Beeblebrox is a long-time Wikipedia editor, administrator (since 2009) and former Arbitration Committee member, who was elected and served for three terms (2013, 2019, and 2021).

Exhaling copious amounts of weed smoke, ripping your shirt off and yelling obscenities is ok, and even expected in this situation. PROTECT YA NECK SON!

Do any of that here and you're going to have a serious problem.

On-wiki-vs-off-wiki

Wikipedia has policies for a reason. We are trying to do something here, this is explicitly not just a place to hang out chatting and gossiping. A certain amount of decorum and respect is generally appropriate and this is a policy that has strong support from the community, even though enforcement is uneven at best. Policies like WP:CIVIL are intended to remind users that although nobody here is paid, this is basically a workplace. Maybe it's more like a Montessori school in that all work is self-directed and there is no deadline for completing it, but we still don't expect users to randomly attack one another or to post animated emojis in article space because they think it's funny.

Off-wiki criticism forums do not have these rules, that is their entire point. I'm mainly speaking of Wikipediocracy (WPO) here, as it is the only one of those forums I participate in. Some of the other forums truly are hate or attack sites, as opposed to being mostly focused on genuine criticism. So, a person might say something on WPO that they would never say here, because it would be outside policy to do so. This is not a crime, although in some extreme cases it could and should lead to on-wiki sanctions.

Insults and name-calling

Some folks on these external sites like to come up with nicknames based on a user's on-wiki name. Obviously, this is not allowed here. There is also arguably little to no value in it, especially if endlessly repeated every time the user in question comes up. Sometimes they say things like "<username> is a total idiot who should have their head examined" which, even if true, is unlikely to be seen by the user in question as useful feedback. Part of this trend may be due to the fact that, by and large, the person so targeted is not present in the discussion, but as has become very, very apparent; sometimes they might be lurking, reading the discussion without participating in it. In my opinion, it just isn't helpful, but it equally is not an excuse for the user so targeted to start doing things on Wikipedia that violate Wikipedia policies.

I would say that some of these folks need to grow up, but, in many cases, so do the targets of their comments. If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. If you don't want to do that, your remaining option is to let it go, not to start attacking them on-wiki.

Outing

Nobody can deny that there is material posted on WPO that, were it posted on Wikipedia, would violate the outing policy. Wikipedia's outing policy is substantially stricter than pretty much the entire rest of the internet. It is forbidden to speculate on the identity of other users in any way, including other online identities on other websites that may clearly be the same person, unless that person has disclosed that connection on Wikipedia itself. Whether one agrees with it or not, this is policy and should be adhered to.

WPO does not have any such rule. Most websites don't. It isn't generally considered a horribly invasive act to notice that User:Steve D edits content about the band Billy and the Boingers, and that some guy on Twitter or whatever named Steve Dallas is, in fact, the band's manager. Saying as much on a completely different website manifestly cannot be considered a violation of any Wikipedia policy. Although it might be preferable that, instead of posting it on a forum, the information was sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, we cannot obligate users of other websites to do so.

Note that this is not the same thing as doxing, which involves posting non-public personal information about someone without their permission.

What happened with me and the Arbitration Committee

YOU'RE OUTTA HERE

The rest of this is about my specific situation; if you don't care about that, you can stop right here.

This is a bit more personal. In November 2023, the Arbitration Committee, of which I was a duly elected member at that time, informed me that they were considering removing me from office due to disclosures I had made on WPO. Plenty has been written about that elsewhere; look it up if you want to know more. The short version is that I did what they said I did: I disclosed certain material from ArbCom's mailing list publicly on WPO. In a surprisingly-quick decision for the committee, I was not removed per se; the committee went with the odd decision to suspend me for six months, despite the fact that my term was ending in a month anyway, and I wasn't running for reelection. I could accept that, even if I didn't quite understand the reasoning behind a suspension when I was done anyway. What I did (and still do) have trouble accepting is that they also revoked my Oversight and Volunteer Response Team access when there was no hint of any sort of wrongdoing there.

Every arbitrator is granted these by default — along with CheckUser access — but I'd already had the Oversight permission for twelve years on my own merit, and there had never been any serious issues with my use of it, or with keeping material I saw in the course of using it confidential.

But it's the same thing, isn't it?

I don't think so.

What do you think? The same?

Functionaries are appointed by the Committee, and they all know it is their responsibility to keep their mouths shut about what they see when using these powerful tools (which can certainly include personal data). It was, and is, important that such material be held in the strictest confidence.

Arbitrators are elected by the community to represent them at the highest level of dispute resolution. The community knew who I was, and what to expect, and I ran on a promise of trying to be more transparent when possible. I did what I did when I thought there was good reason to do it, even if it technically violated the level of privacy one normally expects from an email discussion. I wasn't there to toe the line and do what the other arbs wanted, I was there to do what I was elected to do — not once, but three times. There absolutely was not any personal information of any kind in any of the material I disclosed. It's an important distinction, and I would never release the kind of extremely sensitive material one routinely sees when using these tools.

What is important here is not that anyone agrees with my view — they only need to ask if they believe that I genuinely feel the way I say I feel about it.

I've apparently failed repeatedly at making that point to the Committee, possibly because I don't think I've ever put it quite like that. Maybe next year I'll try again. It is important work, and I did it for a very long time.

← Previous "Op-ed"

Next "Op-ed" →

In this issue

24 December 2024 (all comments)

Op-ed

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. Mhm. When I see a group of people talking bad about me, I'm totally going to join the hostile group to make my point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to take criticisms seriously when they do so off site, considering we don't ban or block folks for criticizing anybody here. So long as it doesn't escalate to harassment anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, like most sentences in paragraph, this was not meant to be taken in isolation, unconnected from the rest of the paragraph it is part of. The very next sentence is If you don't want to do that, your remaining option is to let it go, not to start attacking them on-wiki. I would think we could agree on that? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that better? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole point of that section is that WP and WPO operate under entirely different rules. I don't engage in the name calling or any of that, but it does happen. By and large there's nothing WP can do about it, so your remaining options would appear to be to engage over there to defend yourself, or just ignore it. What you shouldn't do is dirsupt WP over it, as certain persons rather noisily did late last year. If there's some other option, I'd love to hear it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think anyone who engages on a site that actively participates in doxxing and harassment ought to be blocked, but I recognize that's an outlier position. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that anyone who posts there de facto endorses every other post there is just as ridiculous as asserting that anyone who edits here agress with every other edit htta has ever been made. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're misunderstanding the argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies for neutrality, verifiability and against incivility. These policies are generally enforced pretty strongly; the community regularly excludes people who consistently ignore the policies. Wikipediocracy has no working enforced policy against malicious behavior that would lead to quick blocks and bans here. Associating oneself with Wikipedia by being active there and telling others about one's activities there is fine because Wikipedia is well-known for positive reasons. Associating oneself with Wikipediocracy by being active there and telling others about one's activities there does create an association with many negative behaviors that are prohibited in the Wikipedia community. You do not just participate there, you actively advocate for Wikipediocracy here on Wikipedia and repeatedly imply it's not as bad as others think and others should join it instead of criticizing it (for example using the words I quoted above). You contribute to the problem and deny responsibility, and you currently receive justified criticism in the place where you did so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, exactly. You articulated it miles better than I think I could. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, to whom this line of thinking applies as well: I stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I stand up for the necessity of large and powerful and rich institutions to be criticized externally. An empty whiteboard becomes exactly what one makes it; one needn't agree with every word written on it by others. WPO has a valid — even, I dare say, an important — function and it fulfills it (imperfectly). The target audience is Wikipedians, but that doesn't mean its purpose is targeting Wikipedians. The goal is to expose the bad so that it might be made less bad — or fixed entirely. YMMV. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to expose the bad so that it might be made less bad — or fixed entirely. This goes both ways. WPO is also inherently flawed, certainly more so than Wikipedia if it allows harassment and bullying on this scale without repercussions. Why are you so quick to turn a blind eye to it all? I've provided numerous links to such behavior and explained what happened when I reported it to their moderators. What was your response? Was it a condemnation of the behavior? No, it was "Hey, buddy, you're not supposed to be direct linking to WPO". - ZLEA _T\^C 21:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't engage in the name calling or any of that, but it does happen. And do you push back against that and try to stop it? Or do you come here and write apologia about it? -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this seriously downplays the doxxing and harassment that comes from WPO. They're so casual about dropping real life information that helps to identify users, particularly administrators, that they feel are not doing a good job or who they disagree with. While the site may have had good intentions to start with, it's a toxic tire fire that can't be taken seriously as a "criticism site" when it allows such conduct. By allowing such conduct the admins and mods on the site and endorsing said behaviour, and that's entirely not okay. Their actions and harassment have forced folks off the site, a notable recent example being GeneralNotability, the now former arb. Downplaying it is inappropriate when the main person who does so is protected and reports on the site go absolutely nowhere. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to write a few things, but reconsidered. I'll leave it simple: Beeblebrox, why did you think this was a good idea? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Liliana has in the past, and very recently, been personally attacked on the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my comment. Beeblebrox enabled those people. I have no sympathy at all for him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, a person might say something on WPO that they would never say here, because it would be outside policy to do so. This is not a crime, although in some extreme cases it could and should lead to on-wiki sanctions. That may be so, but those who wish to say such things on WPO should consider how it might affect community trust here. They should also know that the so-called "hidden forum" is anything but. Anything that might be pushed into the "hidden forum" should probably be kept to themselves if they want to maintain the community's trust. If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. I disagree with this statement. If an editor is going to an external forum specifically to bypass WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS in their criticism (which based on my observations seems to be a big reason people flock to WPO in the first place), it should absolutely be made known to the larger Wikipedian community. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's laughable behaviour that makes you the subject of a joke if you can't post your criticism on site considering we don't ban or block folks for criticism. They typically just want an echo chamber to complain based on feels. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons that an editor might want to take their criticism to WPO rather than Wikipedia, but I have yet to think of any. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The legitimate reasons are typically they're indeffed for valid reasons or want an echo chamber. Those are, I suppose, valid reasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the idea of editors in good standing, including admins, willingly associating themselves with the site. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I would say the statement that people on Wikipedia have never been blocked or banned unfairly for criticism here is so blantantly untrue that it betrays a complete lack of awareness of how many issues Wikipedia has had over the years. I'm curious how you would characterize the Fram debacle if not as the perfect case study of that happening on Wikipedia? And that's just the most obvious, high-visibility example. There's no shortage of less-established editors getting booted off the project after presenting criticism of more established users, and it was only through Wikipediocracy or wider news attention (i.e. outside criticism) that any redress was had. The idea that "criticism of Wikipedia should be handled on Wikipedia" is an admirable one, but in practice Wikipedia has not provided an effective way to do that, especially when you can wield civility and outing protections as a cudgel to block those who disagree with you. Everyone here complaining about Beeb's argument should be able to explain what they would do differently in all those cases and how in the year 2024 those problems have magically disappeared, nevermind something as bold as saying they've never happened at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no shortage of less-established editors getting booted off the project after presenting criticism of more established users, and it was only through Wikipediocracy or wider news attention (i.e. outside criticism) that any redress was had. Name three examples where it was only through WPO (not news media) that any redress was had. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of less-established editors getting booted off the project after presenting criticism of more established users. Then you should have no problem finding examples of users who were blocked for criticism who had not breached WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Can you provide examples of folks who were blocked simply for criticizing over the last few years, or, did they violate other policies that resulted in it? My experience has been that on-wiki criticism, when done properly, has actually resulted in a lot of positive changes. Noting that my experience is limited to the last 3-4 years primarily. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out previously, ArbCom did not and cannot revoke someone's VRT access. The VRT administrators make their own decisions. There was no request made to the VRT admins to do anything about that access and so Beeblebrox claiming ArbCom revoked it remains incorrect. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Serious question: Then why is it that I can't log in? Somebody has to have done something, right? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My entire point is that I don't know why you can't login because it had nothing to do with ArbCom. Ask the VRT admins. They're the ones who have the tools to have done something and so they would know how it came about. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede the point even though I can't imagine how their isn't some connection.

If I don't have access to the queues I used to, I'm not sure it's worth my trouble as all I could do is clear out the spam queue. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user who is an Arbitrator, CheckUser, or Oversighter may be granted access to VRTS queues associated with those roles. When the user no longer holds those roles, their access to the associated queues will be removed. If the user does not have access to any other queues, their account will be closed. (A user could have access to other queues if they applied through the normal process.) See m:Volunteer Response Team/Access policy. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 13:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A loss of trust is a loss of trust. If an editor were elected to a high-trust position, and followed up by not only breaching that trust, but by breaching it to divulge confidential information (even if not PII) to a den of indeffed hyenas who revel in harassment, then trust is breached in all forms, in all places. It's the same reasoning behind all the blacklisted sources at RSP: if the source posts fake news too many times, it's deprecated as a whole - never mind if it has a 100% accuracy while reporting the weather. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 02:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Natural justice says dispute resolvers must be unbiased and be perceived as being unbiased. Otherwise, editors feeling biased-against won't accept the Arbitration Committee's decisions. This is incompatible with full transparency, if you're being transparent about which editors you dislike. It is a higher standard than most editors, but is one the committee has made clear to you. You're a good editor, I voted for you in the past, and your actions don't conflict with being part of the Wikipedia community. But you can't be a committee member and say what you say. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Lmao, even. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure whether this is an apologetic on behalf of the author or others (or both). Either way, unfocused and distracted to the detriment of the essay, and as no real new argument was presented, this is a fairly low-quality op-ed, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it as a user space essay several months ago. The Signpost asked if they could use it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great op-ed, Beeblebrox. It was certainly worth saying. Not sure sure what all the subsequent apologetnika is about though. --SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 15:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the last section, Arbcom had ruled prior to your removal that misusing one functionary tool can lead to the removal of all functionary tools. Quoting from your support vote: "Being a functionary is a position of the utmost trust, and I simply do not trust their judgement anymore." II feel this applies in your case. Atavoidirc (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I wrote this as a userspace essay back in October. The Signpost approached me and asked if they could publish it. I assumed this would be noted but was not watching it because I've been ill the last five days or so. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was asked about the publication of one of my essays in the Signpost, I'd consider saying "no" if the essay was no longer something I'd publish in the Signpost with my name above it. Or if it hadn't been suitable nor meant for wider publication in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I applaud the Signpost for bringing this essay to light. The more eyes are drawn to the WPO issue, the better. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's been a very quiet issue that nobody knew about until today. Nobody has repeatedly made an incredible fuss about it, to the point where they needed to be sanctioned for their over-the-top hysterical behavior about it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How often is someone sanctioned at WPO for their over-the-top hysterical behavior? Perhaps a ban from the forum when criticism becomes bullying and harrassment? I guess it's okay to not have rules against such things because "Wikipedia is full of rules" and it's enough to simply "discourage" people from doing such things. Is this truly a site you want to be associated with? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now your comrades are posting this kind of garbage about me ([1] [2])! You willingly associate yourself with this forum? You expect the community to trust you when you hang out with people like this? If you don't want to take your legitimate criticism to those who need to hear it on Wikipedia, that's your choice. Just don't expect to maintain our trust when you take it to a place with an effectively identical rule set to 4chan. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a number of people are banned from WPO. The bar is not in the same place, to be sure, but it does exist. And again, I am not responsible for other people's comments any more than you are responsible for every comment on WP. It's a criticism site, people disagree all the time there, it is by no means a monolith, again, any more than this site is. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "criticism site"? Can you give some examples of criticism sites besides WPO? Levivich (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are some Reddit threads, and there are some very obscure sites that draw almost no traffic, and I'm guessing you are already aware of the sites I alluded to in the essay that no person with a working brain cell left would consider legitimate criticism. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to whatever is now happening or not happening on Reddit, the WP criticism sites in addition to WPO would be Wikipedia Sucks! and Gender Desk. I wouldn't doubt there are others out there in the ether that the right wing is promoting. Happy to help. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't think of an example of a "criticism site" that isn't a Reddit thread, a very obscure site that draws almost no traffic, or a site that no person with a working brain cell left would consider legitimate criticism. Doesn't sound like "criticism sites" are a real thing that exist. WPO isn't a Reddit thread, and it probably draws more than almost no traffic, which means either no person with a working brain cell left would consider it legitimate criticism, or it's the only legitimate criticism site on the web... ima go with the former, but don't let me stop you from enjoying your unicorn criticism site. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you just asked that question show you could showboat your pre-loaded, fairly short-sighted answer. I don't know if you know this, but if there is just one of a certain thing, that does not mean it doesn't actually exist. This was silly little play you put on here. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I thought it was a solid maneuver. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it can't be taken seriously as a criticism site at this point. It's an echo chamber which brigades and often results in real work hurt when real life information is posted so casually. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This rings hollow when the main person who outright doxxes people is left to run amuck. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not responsible for their comments, but you are responsible for the actions you take in response. WPO would be a lot more respectable if people like you fought back against those who use it to bully or harass WP users. If there are rules against such things, then report any breaches to the moderators. If there are no such rules and/or the moderators are unwilling to enforce them, then you do your best to try to change that, no matter how long it might take. If the site is systemically incapable of such change, then it's not something you should be associated with. There are those on Wikipedia who actively ignore and even enable bullying and harassment when they see it, and they are as much a problem here as they are at WPO. As someone who was entrusted with adminship and at one point a seat on ArbCom, I would expect your values would be consistent wherever you go, and that you would be as vocal against harassment and bullying elsewhere as you are here, especially when the harassment is targeted at members of the same community that put their trust in you. Can you say that you have been vocal against such things on WPO and elsewhere? Do you believe that you are deserving of the community's trust? - ZLEA _T\^C 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that Signpost thinks this "people were mean to me when I was being a dick" rubbish is worthy of posting under their masthead. The discussions on WPO are often bullying, abusive and can include doxxing and even posting of pornographic images for the lolz. That anyone engaged in that thinks it should not affect how they are perceived and trusted here is frankly ludicrous; of course anyone involved in that sort of behaviour should lose their functionary privileges. That they seem to think people should be expected to go and run the gauntlet of that abuse rather than expect action to be taken against their abusers under the UCoC (and its predecessors) seems to me to be arrogant, self-centred privilege. One might say the same of this essay, frankly. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: and even posting of pornographic images for the lolz — this in contradistinction to Commons, which posts pornographic images for science. El_C 04:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mostly the study of exhibitionism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- >>and even posting of pornographic images for the lolz. — What is this, National Make Shit Up Day??? Carrite (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here is Beebs' one and only misstep in the Melodramatic Kafka Case... He should have had his discussion with the impacted interrogator via WPO direct messages rather than as a public post. That was a misstep. His intentions were pure and his actions were righteous — he just didn't need to alert the guy being steamrolled why he was being steamrolled the way that he did. That is all. Continue with the with hyperventilating and vituperation. —Tim Davenport /// Randy from Boise on WPO /// Carrite (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I've been criticizing WPO on this post, I want to be clear that I don't think Beeb's intention on WPO are bad. I do understand where they're coming from with their posts there. My problems with WPO are specifically related to the doxxing that happens. It's some pathetic child crap that stops the site from being taken seriously as a criticism site. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, you do good work as an admin. But whenever I hear anything about Wikipediocracy, I can't help but picture a room full of Comic Book Guys from The Simpsons. This philosophy that people are entitled to be awful and have little tantrums, and that everyone else is in the wrong for getting upset about it? Doesn't help with that image. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite right. The old grumpy guys in the balcony on The Muppet Show are closer. Beebs and I are both in our 60s, I believe. Vig is probably as old and Bill has 6 or 8 years on us... Part of the critique of WP by WPO has a bit of a generational twang, I speculate. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comic Book Guy's shtick is that he's a middle-aged guy who never matured so he's pretentious and criticizes everyone else, especially on the internet. Statler and Waldorf certainly aren't characters to emulate, but they don't have that "pitiful" aspect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be in my sixties for the better part of a decade. I'm happily married, ran my own business for quite some time, and I own my home outright with no debt. I enjoy cooking from scratch, not pizza rolls, and I've never seen most of the MCU movies. Hope that helps El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're just a BABY!!! No wonder you are so wildly out of control!!! Carrite (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took them long enough. And now Vigilent wants me to "Come on over [there] talk about it instead of being a mewling coward." Yep, definitely the kind of people WP editors and administrators in good standing should be fraternizing with.^[sarcasm] I'll respectfully pass on this request. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost made a mistake in thinking this deserves to have a platform. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 10:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God knows we don't want Op Eds to be controversial... Perish the thought! Carrite (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro.Jorm (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now Vigilent (typo is intentional this time) is threatening to dox me. Beeblebrox, what are you doing to fight back against garbage like this? Because it appears no one but Andy has bothered to confront Vigilent directly about it. Your apparent inaction on WPO does not reflect well on you here. If you want to regain the community's trust, you know what you need to do. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a number of people are banned from WPO.[3] Given the fact that this seems to be considered acceptable behavior, I'm going to assume those bans weren't for harassment of WP users. Please prove me wrong. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the following response about my report of Vigilent's attacks at 11:56 PM my time (I think I need to check my time zone settings, it's not yet 11:56 PM where I am): "Report closed by [redacted for privacy] for: 'Re: The Signpost'". No further explanation was given, so we'll have to wait a bit longer to see if the appropriate action has been taken. I do hope Beebs is right about WPO's moderation, but I am still skeptical. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well well well, look who's back slinging personal attacks a little over an hour after the report was closed. Not that I expected anything to come of it. Goes to show that it is apparently okay to harass people there, regardless of whether it's targeted at a member. Perhaps Beebs can explain what he meant by Quite a number of people are banned from WPO if they don't ban those who threaten to dox others. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Psst. Hey, buddy, you're not supposed to be direct linking to WPO and you've done it three times already in this thread. —tim) /// Carrite (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Is linking to WPO going to show people that you have been interacting directly with Vigilent shortly after they attacked me? Not once did I see you speak up against their behavior on this thread or any of the others where it was displayed. Why is that? - ZLEA _T\^C 09:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now it seems Stanistani (a "trustee" on WPO) is actively looking for reasons to ban me from the forum! Not only is he turning a blind eye to the harassment, he's trying to ban those who fight back against it? What the heck?

On a side note, Vigilent now wants to TBAN me from my primary contribution topic. Not that I care what a sockpuppeteer who was blocked two decades ago for harassment of all things says, but ouch. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now I might be getting my own attack thread. Remember, this is a forum an admin frequents and not once have I seen them condemn this kind of behavior. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. Beeblebrox, as someone who now has their own attack thread on WPO, why should I or the community trust you with adminship or a seat on ArbCom when you turn a blind eye to stuff like this on a forum you are active in? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment section for commenting on this signpost article, not a forum for a blow-by-blow of what is going on over at WPO. I've not been following that thread during the timespan of your five posts in a row here about it because, shockingly, I have a a real life and for much of yesterday was watching movies while drinking wine and eating a huge charcuterie board my wife prepared. I just logged on for today, and haven't read any of whatever it is you are talking about. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't new behavior. If you want the community to trust you again, you need show them that you do not condone this kind of behavior. Turning a blind eye yet again is only harming the trust you've been trying to rebuild. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to go over there and stand up for you, while you are logged in over there and reading the thread. I can't say I feel compelled to do that. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. I think I've said enough here. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did ask that the moderators take down the attack thread and/or take action against Vigilant. The response was "I have little sympathy for you. I'm forwarding your message to [another mod], maybe he cares." So no. I will not be engaging with that so-called "criticism site" any longer. I was planning on writing a response to this op-ed for a future Signpost issue, but it's a waste of my time to fight it here or on WPO. Thanks for serving the community all these years. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that anyone who posts there de facto endorses every other post there, I am not responsible for other people's comments, and similar statements that come up every time are an abject rejection of personal responsibility. The essay's hand-waves about doxxing by picking the example of a public figure is grossly disingenuous. The recent thread that was discussed at AN, on admin blocking, included in its very first page speculations on whether the named admins knew each other based on their real life locations. This common element of WPO has come up many times, and the continued participation by others in these threads (not even on the same site, which is the line ♠PMC♠ draws above) with zero pushback is a tacit endorsement of such investigations. Participating and then telling other editors wiki to join in, well, that's another level of endorsement. CMD (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediocracy is not a forum for criticism of Wikipedia. It wishes it was, but it's not, because you can critique Wikipedia on Wikipedia (and I do). Wikipediocracy is a forum for criticism of Wikipedians. Remember where these sites come from: they are in origin mutual support and group therapy for people so antisocial that even Wikipedia, a much overly tolerant place, banned them. We can't control them and shouldn't try, but the correct amount of involvement on Wikipediocracy from responsible Wikipedians is zero. If you absolutely must read, don't post.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>>Wikipediocracy is not a forum for criticism of Wikipedia. It wishes it was, but it's not, because you can critique Wikipedia on Wikipedia (and I do). Wikipediocracy is a forum for criticism of Wikipedians. — That is a swell slogan, but patently untrue. There are threads (including but not limited to) on Missing Articles, Disturbing Commons Content, Reliable Sources disingenuity, COI naval-gazing, Terrible Writing, every WMF engineering catastrophe as it occurs in real time, WMF fundraising stupidities, WMF spending stupidities, and on and on and on. So sure, you're pissy about WPO posters getting personal sometimes — and they do. But it is just a flagrant misrepresentation of reality to characterize the message board the way you do. Carrite (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some of the posts are about writing or the WMF doesn't mean most of them aren't about Wikipedians.

Look, let's face it, Carrite: of all the injustices in the world, why would anyone get hyperfocused on the injustices of Wikipedia? What drives Vigilant and co? If they just hated hypocrisy, they'd be going for, I don't know, Kiwi Farms or Reddit, or world leaders, or religious figures. They're coming for us. And that's because it's personal: we banned them or deleted an article they wanted to own or edited them in ways they don't like, and now they've made hating Wikipedians into a hobby they devote significant time and effort to.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an enormous public institution — #7 most trafficked website in its own right, and the source of a vast number of additional data "hits" through Siri, Alexa, etc. and every permutation of AI. It is going to be, and should be, the subject of immense external scrutiny from yesteryear until the end of tomorrows. We all have our hobbies. Do members of government watchdog groups live their lives in vain because they're not trying to expose and influence government from within the ranks of the bureaucracy? Are environmental watchdog groups inevitably worthless and fruitless pursuits because their members try to identify and target and fix profit-driven environmental maliciousness externally instead of from within the ranks of the corporate world? Of course not!

There is nothing wrong with external criticism. If we all edit righteously and behave intelligently and evolve WP capably, there's really nothing to fear from any Big Bad Meanie snarling and growling on a message board. If, on the other hand, armwrestling with external critics is regarded as some sort of super-fun, adrenaline-laced participation sport (see above in this thread), then echos will inevitably reverberate and dialog will degenerate. As for Vig, he's quite smart, quite rational, and hates WP less than you might think he does. He has his own origin story, which he has been laying out as breadcrumbs for a newcomer in a WPO thread... Carrite (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for Vig, he's quite smart, quite rational, and hates WP less than you might think he does. Are we talking about the same Vig? - ZLEA _T\^C 20:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we all edit righteously and behave intelligently and evolve WP capably, there's really nothing to fear from any Big Bad Meanie snarling and growling on a message board. Are we supposed to put our trust in admins and arbs that frequent the message board and turn a blind eye to the Big Bad Meanie? This isn't about whether WPO should exist, it's about the people we're supposed to trust on Wikipedia throwing us under the bus off-wiki. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with external criticism. Then why do WPO regulars get so upset when WPO gets criticized? The funniest part of WPO is that the self-proclaimed "criticism site" can't handle criticism. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Carrite. It's as if someone gave the grouse a shotgun. "Hey, they're shooting back! Can they do that?"—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor little me!!! Just don't tell untruths, I don't care about criticism. If a person is unfair, I will point it out. There have been hundreds of thousands of bytes spent on-Wiki criticizing Wikipediocracy. No big rip. There's a whole site, Wikipedia Sucks!, that has a section criticizing Wikipediocracy. I engage there, too, no big rip. Who cares what they say on Discord either? I give zero fucks. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you won't. You'll point out what you feel are lies about Wikipediocracy, but you'll ignore lies on Wikipediocracy. You'll point out if a person's unfair to Wikipediocracy, but you won't point out every time someone's unfair on Wikipediocracy. If you don't care about criticism of Wikipediocracy, you've got a funny way of showing it.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Here from WPO). S Marshall, I believe you know I dislike disagreeing with you. And I know I'm far from perfect. But I'm a member over there, too, and I'm not ashamed of it, or of my posts there. ... And for the record, I don't think Beeblebrox has a damned thing to be ashamed of. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know people with accounts in good standing post there. What I can't understand is why.

I can understand Vigilant. He got banned so long ago that even I don't remember it, and I'm fully prepared to believe that we treated him unfairly. In fact, I'm very happy to believe that every single person who posts on Wikipediocracy has been treated unfairly on Wikipedia. Gods know you have; I'm resolute that you should still be an admin, and I know you disagree, but I'm more objective about you than you are.

There are what, a couple of dozen Wikipediocracy people? Maybe three dozen? It doesn't take Wikipedia very long to ban three dozen people unfairly. We probably do that every few hours. Wikipedia has bad systemic problems, although I have high hopes for admin recall being able to make some of them better.

Of course, most people who get unfairly banned go, "Well that sucks", and then find another hobby. You've got to be a bit special to get unfairly banned from a nerdy website and then devote a significant chunk of the next fifteen-plus years to doxing and outing and plotting your revenge; but this is the internet, and some people are Vigilants.

But why would someone with an account in good standing post there? If you want to point out typos and bad writing, why not do it here? If you want to point out problems with the WMF, we enthusiastically embrace that and we shout it loud and clear.

You'd only go there to say the things you can't say here. And the things you can't say here aren't about Wikipedia. You can say whatever you like about Wikipedia here. Really, honestly! Try it. The only things you can't say here are about Wikipedians, and even then you only can't say them if you don't post your evidence.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hi, all. Wikipediocracy is my primary social media site. I don't have an account on Facebook, nor Twitter, nor Snapchat, nor X, nor Instagram. WPO is where I go to take a break from the editing grind to socialize and keep up with the pulse of what's happening on Wikipedia (in other words, it supplements the Signpost). Do tell what lies WPO has told which have not been responded to, and what criticism of the site has not been able to handle. Be specific as you can, please. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your second sentence. The civility rule is very important here, for good reasons of the project's size and diversity, as well as its not being a social media/opinion site (I've defended WP:CIV the past, and spoken out about snideness as well as its misuse in "gotcha!" attacks on people for using "4-letter words"). That does, however, make it difficult to criticise without being accused of rudeness (even by people not marching in lockstep with the WMF). And as a large, successful project with a policy that constrains negative discourse, Wikipedia is prone to complacency. In 2012, I wrote some straight talk about the pressure on admins to see themselves as "cops", to hold a "blue line", and in general to get corrupted. It didn't endear me with some admins, and looking at it now, the pushback Beeblebrox is getting here strikes me as not unrelated ... But note, I named no names, and I posited a systemic problem. The project is big enough, and complacent enough, that it now needs venues for discontent to be clearly expressed and clearly discussed. It needs them far more for systemic problems than for criticism of individual Wikipedians or small groups of Wikipedians. That need is a sign of its success. And the Signpost is never going to be such a venue; it's not managed to even be a useful newsletter, and it's constrained by the same civility rules, with respect to criticism even more so because of its historical and continuing closeness to the WMF. I don't like Wikipedia Sucks; I don't like everything about Wikipediocracy (I actually joined to tear them off a strip about some posts a year or two ago, but haven't had the gumption); but I've found it useful for years as filling that newsletter gap for AfDs and other discussions, and as also highlighting deficient articles, some of which I've been able to fix. It's far from my only "social media" outlet; rather, for me, reading there is an aspect of my caring about Wikipedia. (As I said at the time, having decided to return, I found I had to become more "political"). Confused this may be; I have rarely been described as a clear thinker, and I think Vigilant (misspelling someone's name because you don't like them is just low) to some extent hallucinates a different Yngvadottir from the poor actuality; but that's me. ... Also: as some of the members there whine about from time to time, the place has numerous members who are admins and even arbs. Beeblebrox is far from alone. It's not really a haunt of the disaffected and the ill done by. (No, I was a poor admin and would be a terrible one now even if I could manage 2FA and all the new rules. You, on the other hand, should be an admin.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you posted that, you were 100% right. Happily, now we have three specific places for alleging sysop misconduct and real ways to deal with it; and happily, now, I could say what you wrote in 2012 and nobody would push back. WP:AAR and WP:RECALL are both bloody good ideas and sysop conduct has noticeably got better since recall, although I'm sure there's still plenty of scope for further improvements.

It's not that WPO has ever done anything to me personally, as far as I know. It's that I'm safe from WPO. I'm lucky in my personal circumstances: I have nothing to fear from anyone outing me. And because of that, I feel as if I have to speak for the people who do have something to fear. Some editors live in less free countries or are otherwise vulnerable to someone, say, phoning their employer, so Vigilant is a real threat to them.

I won't reapply for adminship. I don't trust myself with the block button. I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to use it decisively and rapidly to make Wikipedia a better place.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure no one would push back, straight talk is risky. And while the ways of reporting misconduct that you refer to are helpful, they are very much about reporting individuals. And constrained by the civility requirements. Some—let's be frank, a lot—of the criticism posted to Wikipediocracy is misguided. It's also subject to more normal internet discourse norms; see Levivich below highlighting the use of terms like "douchecanoe" and "asshat", neither of which makes me personally blink, although the sexism behind the "douche-" series is of course concerning ... Wikipedia is on the internet. New editors, especially, can't be expected to intuit the rules of discourse here (especially if they have different backgrounds, such that for example "damn" gives them the vapours and addressing people as "dear" is polite). There is a need for venues where straight talk is possible and a more normally robust terminology is allowed. Especially in order to move beyond personalities to broader critiques. You also raise the spectre of being outed, in particular by Vigilant. That is overblown as a concern: there is very little doxxing on Wikipediocracy, most of it in the blog posts and relating to serious corruption and misuse of Wikipedia, and the majority of the outing (the distinction matters) isn't, by Wikipedia's own definition, because the information was posted on-wiki. Nonetheless, it remains a concern, and there have been objections on the site and removals by the moderators. Not everyone is prepared to trust Vigilant's sense of honour, and he's capable of making mistakes. (There's an argument for joining WPO in order to call the folks over there on such mistakes and excesses; it's another reason I joined.) I would however point out that as long as I've been reading the WPO forum, Vigilant has been throwing out advice there on keeping oneself safe and anonymous on the internet, and the WMF's failings in that respect—as highlighted in the current court case in Delhi—are one of the site's periodic focusses of criticism. The concern you raise about some editors being vulnerable if their anonymity is breached is an important one for me, but I've always found WPO to be more concerned about that than the WMF. (I won't get into the related issues of the limits of the checkuser tool, though I think I'm more starry-eyed about the implementation of checkuser policy than the hardcore Wikipediocrats. Again, it's a forum; it includes both folks—some of them with an extremely long tenure there and at its predecessor, Wikipedia Review—who throw around phrases like "drink the Koolade" and "Hasten the Day", and committed Wikipedians, including admins, arbs, etc.) I think you're seeing the balance wrong, both in concerns raised there and in terms of participants; I don't think it's because you can't see the members-only areas, which include a whole lot of off-topic stuff, which I read only to the extent I read cereal boxes and the like (music videos; political discussions; bleah). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot of thought there. Let me try to carve that up at the joints.

You say that there are venues for dealing with individual sysops but no venues for dealing with Wikipedia culture in general, and that's true. We have village pumps and stuff, but the fact is that they're not going to change the culture. Wikipedia culture is made of the volunteers we have, not the volunteers we'd choose. I do think we're lucky in most of our volunteers but not all of them and there are cultural problems here. The culture is changing -- with glacial slowness, of course, but genuine change is taking place. Five years ago we could never have passed a rule for admin recall. I don't think Wikipediocracy affects Wikipedia culture, and I don't think it ever could.

You point out that Wikipediocracy allows you to call each other asshats, and yup, that's clearly true. Personally I have a high tolerance for obscenity and there's a longstanding rule on my talk page which says that you can swear at me as much as you like. So if you want to call me a douchecanoe, my talk page is the place you can say it. I really can't see how that helps anyone, though.

You point out that new users don't know how to conduct themselves on Wikipedia, and that's true. New users won't learn it from Wikipediocracy, though. Wikipediocracy is where you go in your post-Wikipedia phase: it's not something you'd ever find in your pre-Wikipedia phase.

You say that there's a need for a place where robust discourse can take place, and I don't follow. Err. I can't ask you to "post an example of something substantive that you aren't allowed to say on Wikipedia", cos that's not fair of me at all, but I'm honestly floundering here? Personally I've never found a problem that I couldn't phrase in Wikipedia-acceptable language.

And why would I trust Vigilant's sense of honour, or that of the Wikipediocracy site staff who let him do what he does? All it takes is one outing by Vigilant and then one nutter googling the outed person's phone number and doing a Jytdog, and we've got an ethically complex situation.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I problematised that last one myself. (And I do try to be collegial here, but there's an influential school of thought, promoted by the WMF, that any negativity, especially actual criticism, is uncivil. That's a problem.) Vigilant has offered the example of the suppression of Laura Hale's name during Framgate; I believe WPO also did a lot of heavy lifting on exposing paedophile advocacy and even grooming several years ago (shudder). Nothing's perfect, not even this project. But I've probably maundered on enough here, Thanks for reading and thinking about what I've tried to express, but I'll quite understand if you just write it off at this point as another thing you and I differ on. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure Vigilant knows a great deal more about Framgate than I do. I simply didn't follow it. I'd taken a long Wikibreak that started in late 2017 and ended early 2019, and I didn't consistently follow the Wikipedidrama in 2019. I expect Vigilant closely followed every twist and turn and posted about it five times a day. I'm quite prepared to believe that Wikipediocracy found and published Laura Hale's name: that's certainly the kind of thing they do well.

That's brought up a thing I hadn't previously thought of, though. Yes, there clearly does need to be a community place where we can talk when the WMF are being WMFfish. Yes, that place does need to be fully outside the WMF's control.

That place doesn't have to be Wikipediocracy, and it doesn't have to include the people that Wikipediocracy supports and encourages.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have ZLEA post some diffs here, I'm interested to see what the hell you're talking about. I thought National Make Shit Up Day was the 25th... Carrite (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I can't do that at the moment as WPO's servers are down. In the meantime, feel free to use this time to answer a few of my questions ([4], [5], [6]). - ZLEA _T\^C 01:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Servers are back up now. Still, I think the above questions going unanswered might be evidence for the you won't point out every time someone's unfair on Wikipediocracy part. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Wikipediocracy "member"... Show us a single instance of where you stepped in and stood up for somebody or something there when something rubbed you the wrong way. Just one. We'll wait. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the moderators do over there, but they don't act the way any reasonable person would expect from a forum mod. You are a highly active member there, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, means it's reasonable to assume that you disagree with that sentiment. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I followed some of the links to WPO (some just give an error), and wanted to respond here to something I read: "I will simply say that I am highly confident that, were I to post my criticism of Wikipedia on Wikipedia (Primarily that being a newbie is a catch-22 situation; if you're not incompetent such that power users can yell at you with impunity, you'll be seen as too competent to be a newbie and blocked as a sockpuppet), I'd get blocked for either POINT or NOTHERE, if I'm not strung up on a bogus sockpuppetry charge for knowing too much for someone with ~15 edits."
I agree that our approach to new users is often toxic. I don't think someone would get blocked for saying that here. Many here likely feel the same way. I'll also add that a standard way editors approach disputes on Wikipedia will strike folks unfamiliar with Wikipedia as disrespectful and bizarre: in disputes, people will back up their point with a WP:SHORTCUT link to a policy, guideline, essay, or help page. New users may feel expected to read all the linked content, which can quickly become ridiculous if a dispute drags on. For example, User:WickedFanAccount was only here for about a week, changed the formatting in several articles' lead paragraphs, repeatedly got into disputes, and was linked to about 60,700 words of material to read. That is longer than any of Shakespeare's plays and over 10,000 words beyond The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. According to wordstotime.com, that would take 466.9 minutes at an average reading speed, nearly 8 hours of reading. It also included multiple unrelated pages like WP:COI and WP:NCBOOKS and regular articles like tu quoque.
Also, thanks Svampesky for fixing the header. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly speaking of Wikipediocracy (WPO) here, as it is the only one of those forums I participate in. Some of the other forums truly are hate or attack sites, as opposed to being mostly focused on genuine criticism. Wikipediocracy is absolutely a hate and attack site. Everyone knows this. Don't gaslight us. Nosferattus (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one making an axiomatic assertion of fact of a falsehood — zero supportive evidence and zero consideration of exculpatory evidence. This is the very definition of gaslighting. So you stop gaslighting. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Timmy, how many posts have you made attacking me on WPO? Because why? Because I dared to be criticial of WPO?

Yesterday, they started a "ZLEA is an asshat" thread, in which Vig posted like half a dozen times in like the first hour of its existence. It's gone from public view now -- moved to the members-only area, merged to another thread, or deleted outright? I don't know, maybe one of the WPO members will tell us.

Vig already started attacking Nosferattus on WPO within like an hour of Nosferattus posting the above comment.

WPO is an attack site, a hate site. Every day. "Douchcanoe," "asshat," these are some of the lovely things that have been written on WPO about people in this discussion.

WPO can't handle being criticized without making personal attacks in response. Which is ironic for an attack site. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still around on the "hidden" forum. Though the longer it gets, the clearer it is that it's just Vigilant looking for attention. A few valid points were brought up about my earlier years, but now it seems to have devolved into "ZLEA bad hat collector" or "ZLEA is weirdo (yes, Vig seems to like that word) because he likes planes and makes small edits". If I'm truly as problematic an editor as they make me out to be, it's odd that I've only been targeted after I started criticizing WPO. Seems kind of retaliatory to me, but what do I know, I'm just a probably mentally impaired weirdo hat collector who likes planes, makes small edits, and apparently want to be an admin (news to me). - ZLEA _T\^C 21:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daring — That's exactly it. When I think of you, I think of daring. Precisely. Carrite (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Carrite, on my attack thread: "There is no indication that behind the wall of hysterical noise there is a mature and thoughtful intellectual, certainly."[7] For someone who claims WPO is not an attack site, you seem to be doing a lot of attacking. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now Vig wants me indeffed for "engaged in improper off-wiki coordination on WPO in order to affect the outcome of an ANI thread and to get another en.wp editor in good standing blocked and/or banned." The heck? - ZLEA _T\^C 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy has now threatened to "publish anything and everything I damn well chose to bring [me] down."[8] Just another harmless post on a criticism site, am I right? - ZLEA _T\^C 00:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: a discussion regarding ZLEA's (ab)use of the WPO private messaging facility. My post there, in full:

I'd say that as a general principle, publishing private messages is best avoided. I'd advise against making this a formal rule though, as circumstances can clearly occur where this is entirely legitimate. Nobody should ever be allowed to get the impression that access to a forum PM facility is anything but a privilege, subject to withdrawal if used for improper purposes. Or be allowed to get the impression that their (ab)use of PMs can't be discussed in broader contexts. More so when the person (ab)using the PM system thinks that comparing WPO to Stormfront is legitimate 'criticism', while hiding behind bullshit concerns over 'civility' and the rest. Do that again, ZLEA, and I will publish anything and everything I damn well chose to bring you down. I have, over the years, spent much of my (sadly limited) political activist life attempting to tackle fascism in its many forms and disguises, and I don't particularly appreciate such comparisons: more so when coming from a cultist freak plane-spotter who's grasp of politics seemingly doesn't extend beyond regurgitation of whatever facile Wikipedia userbox sloganising takes their fancy. If you really are so imbecilic as to think that a website that encourages broad-ranging debate from a wide range of observers of Wikipedia, from inside and out, is somehow analogous to a neo-Nazi hate-site, I can only suggest that in the interests of humanity in general, you would be well advised to cut yourself off from Wikipedia entirely. Along with WPO, the endless aviation forums you are no doubt a member of, and the internet in general. Go cultivate mushrooms somewhere, and leave rational debate to those capable of useful participation.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that makes it so much better. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can also explain to the community, with evidence, of course, what you mean by "(ab)use of the WPO private messaging facility." - ZLEA _T\^C 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could first explain why you chose to compare WPO to Stormfront. And why you chose to sign up to WPO and use the PM system there, if you consider such comparisons valid. After perhaps first reading up on Wikipedia policy on editing talk page comments after they have been responded to.[9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first analogy that came to mind. Obviously I should have thought twice. As for signing up on WPO, I did it to use the search feature to see if I had been the target of attacks. I had not, but I did see that I was mentioned once for an unrelated matter, so I asked the one who posted it about it. So again, what do you mean by "(ab)use of the WPO private messaging facility"? - ZLEA _T\^C 01:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If comparing WPO to Stormfront was really the first thing that came to your mind, I can only suggest that you read the latter part of my PM reproduced above again, and start looking for a mushroom farm somewhere. And, if you believe in such things, complain to whoever takes responsibility for issuing you with consciousness in the first place. Or at least, take the trouble to look up the word 'analogy' in a dictionary. Along with 'hypocrisy', and 'projection'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to apologize for making that tasteless comparison. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for your friendly request that I "start looking for a mushroom farm somewhere", I think I'll pass. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA, let me suggest that you really go do anything else. You are by far the biggest contributor to this talk thread, and doing yourself absolutely no favors if you're feeling attacked by Wikipediocracy contributors. If you think Wikipediocracy has no redeeming values, then following Wikipedia's longstanding advice on such matters is by far your best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Can't say I won't be monitoring the thread, but I won't acknowledge it again unless someone else wants to bring their lies on-wiki or it spills over into my off-wiki life. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a low-activity contributor, I thought, when reading some bits about the suspension from ArbCom, that ArbCom was oversensitive about participation on WPO. Today, I changed my opinion. WPO forums have made a very bad first impression on me. Janhrach (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an acquired taste — like black licorice, not for everybody. I've got friends at WP that can't stand the place. Different strokes, etc. Gimme three chords and a mosh pit... Carrite (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suspension, if you know the first thing about it, was not merely for participating at WPO. I leaked some minor details from their mailing list. They didn't agree with that. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA:, As I would imagine you are aware, when one wishes to retract part of a previous comment in a conversation, the usual way is to ~~strike it out~~, not to just erase it as if it was never said int he first place [10]. I'm glad you are able to see how overboard it is to paint everyone at WPO as akin to nazis, but this isn't how retracting over-the-top comments is usually done. Transparency is important. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just worded my comment poorly. Janhrach (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, years ago, Wikipedia "incidents" noticeboards made a bad first impression on me. I still generally avoid them. I also try hard to avoid behaving on Wikipedia in a manner that leads to negative discussions about my behavior, either on internal "incidents" boards _or_ on external sites. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I walked into a room where there were five people ranting about how shit I am, and one person saying nothing, I'd tend to think "these guys are dickheads", not "oh how nice of #6". – Joe (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with external criticism Are you kidding me? WPO rarely gives "external criticism", but instead gives "borderline harassment of good-faith contributors". It's amazing how WPO members fume when they themselves are criticized, but paint their own harrasment of members as constructive criticsm (hypocrite much?). This seriously downplays how insanely toxic that site is. No bueno. I'm sure if I revealed the personal information of a WPO member, I'd be cursed to high hell (to clarify, I would never do that). Doxing is a punishable offense in at least ten U.S. states with up to a year of prison time (the full United States protections list can be found here), and you can end up treading on extremely thin ice depending on who you do it to. I seriously don't think people understand how much trouble doxing can really get you in, because of how prevalent it is with sites like WPO being up. I've removed some information from my comment that could possible be seen as a personal attack. E_F⁵ 17:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's your Signpost. You can help us.

Home

About