Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-24/Op-ed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


File:A courtroom at the Cherokee County Courthouse in North Carolina, United States 02.jpg
Harrison Keely
CC4.0
10
450
Op-ed

Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Beeblebrox
The Signpost is committed to publishing a diversity of perspectives, and this article reflects the opinions of its author. 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 [email protected], 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"
+ 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]
    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. --SerialNumber54129A 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]
    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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-12-24/Op-ed&oldid=1265074798"