Hasten-the-day blog war

smiley-face-popcornOkay, you’re going to have to trust me on a lot of this, partly because a lot of the evidence has been scrubbed, and partly because I don’t want to link to sites that dox, and neither of these sites have any scruples in that regard. What evidence remains is on Wikipediocracy’s first blog post about WikiTribune and some archived screenshots on the Wikipedia Review proboards, under their blog post “Wikipediocracy’s misogyny is on display again”.

These are two blogs that pride themselves on Wikipedia criticism.  Their rallying cry is “hasten the day”, abbreviated “HTD”, meaning the day when Wikipedia ceases to exist.  Wikipediocracy was created by paid editors; they are probably still editing as sock puppets, and trying to make money off of it. The Proboards, as far as I can tell, is not interested in paid editing but have probably been on the receiving end of Wikipedia’s toxic culture and possibly Wikipediocracy’s as well, since they are known to be even worse than Wikipedia.

The first move in this war was by the Wikipediocracy blog, one of their typical stalkerish hit pieces on Jimbo’s latest thing, in this case WikiTribune. They got everything wrong, mistaking one in a series of blog posts on Medium.com for an official launch, and ripping off a frivolous photo of a female journalist trying on a costume hat from the news magazine she publishes, without attribution.  The first tipoff was no byline, no one wanted to take responsibility for writing the miserable thing.

The countermove was by a Proboards mod member, who pointed out all of the discrepancies, and was duly blocked for his efforts.  Who could have seen that one coming. Proboards surmised that the writer of the blog piece was Kohs, based on the topic (Jimbo, again) and the perceived aggression towards women with the unflattering photo.  Wikipediocracy mod Zoloft – the one who patronizes bars that feature women wearing tartan bras – made a point of saying he definitely did not write the blog post, but no one came clean on the authorship. So round two was a tie — Proboards made kitty litter out of the blog post, but Zoloft kept his finger on the scrub button, plus Greg got in a good dig about the Proboard guy’s wall-of-text writing style.  The Proboard guy should really take this to heart.  He does have some good insights and writes in an interesting tone, but if he is going to persist in the stream-of-consciousness technique, instead of proper proofreading and editing, he ought to at least make arbitrary paragraph breaks, so it doesn’t look like he just tossed off the first thing that came to mind. Kohs may be as accurate as a stopped clock, but when it comes to style issues, it would pay to listen, as he is likely to be right twice a day.

The third round went to Wikipediocracy, point and match. Zoloft trolled Proboards on their own blog, and doxxed the Proboard mod member by matching him with his previous Wikipediocracy handle.  The Proboards blog went into circular firing squad mode with everyone rage quitting and laying down tools, but not without massive walls of text, which have thankfully now been disappeared.

So the end result: Proboards is basically dead, with a couple of predictably dull misogynists dominating what little comment there is, but Wikipediocracy has sustained enough momentum for a second hit piece on WikiTribune, this one by Zoloft.  And a pitiful thing it is.   Looks like he just googled “WikiTribune” and pasted the search results.  But it will probably keep them going for days on end.  A win for mediocrity and banality all around.

Update: artist’s concept of what happened:


drizel drazel drizel drazel drizel drazel


17 thoughts on “Hasten-the-day blog war

  1. Do you have views on WikiTribune itself? I think that’s more important and more interesting than squabbles between the Wikipedian Liberation Front and the Liberation Front of Wikipedia. The decline of knowledge, as exemplified and indeed accelerated by Wikipedia, and the decline of news, run hand-in-hand. Will Wikitribune fail, and if so, will it further damage the knowledge eco-system? I think it will do both, irrespective of whether Jimmy Wales is involved or not. What do you say?

  2. To avoid getting pulled into the wars, it would be good to have your facts straight… there were no rage quits at WR due to Wikpediocracy; but you do know that if you’re reporting on it, right?

    I find your blog interesting, you’re obviously a very knowledgeable observer; it’s too bad it was only the factual errors in this piece that got me to create a new WordPress ID to comment here. I would have preferred to praise, in fact. 🙂

    1. Yeah, this is bizarre. There is no ProBoards Wikipedia Review blog. Apparently the author has read some unidentified blog post that Zoloft commented on. My best guess is that the author read Strelnikov’s Wikipedia Sucks blog, but I have no idea if that’s right. Nobody has downed tools on Wikipedia Review ProBoards, Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Sucks forum #2 (not blog!). Nothing bearing any resemblance to anything described here has been moved out of view on the Wikipedia Review ProBoards forum.

      To the author: Do you still stand by what you’ve written? If so, what is your explanation for why it departs so far from reality?

      1. Oh, and Wikipedia Review ProBoards isn’t “Hasten the Day” and never has been. I don’t think Wikipedia Sucks forum #2 is “Hasten the Day” either nor is Wikipediocracy.

    1. The Dark Knight is a member of the ProBoards Wikipedia Review forum but has never been a mod there or on any other Wikipedia criticism forum.

  3. It was The Dark Knight who posited that G.K. wrote Wikipediocracy’s first blog post about WikiTribune. Auggie might have agreed with him, but the ProBoards Wikipedia Review forum hasn’t offered an opinion on that. My opinion is that it’s unlikely G.K. wrote that piece.

    1. “…Proboards made kitty litter out of the blog post…” ProBoards Wikipedia Review has nothing to do with Wikipediocracy’s blog post other than that one member commented on it over at Wikipediocracy’s blog.

  4. “Zoloft trolled Proboards on their own blog, and doxxed the Proboard mod by matching him with his previous Wikipediocracy handle. The Proboards blog went into circular firing squad mode with everyone rage quitting and laying down tools, but not without massive walls of text, which have thankfully now been disappeared.”

    You just invented all of the above. Zoloft didn’t dox anyone. There is no ProBoards blog. Nobody quit or downed tools at Wikipedia Review ProBoards. Being as generous as possible you seem to have misunderstood an argument between Kumioko and The Dark Knight. There are posts dealing with that which have been moved out of public view on ProBoards Wikipedia Review. Their removal was based on the input of members in conjunction with the judgement of staff. To read about what went on go look at the new Wikipedia Sucks forum.

    Due to a situation completely unrelated to Kumioko’s situation or anything you wrote I did discuss not wanting to mod at Wikipedia Review ProBoards. Those posts are still where I made them so you can read for yourself why.

  5. Oh my, what a lot of posts.

    There is no way i am going to publish info on the dox. There was a reason i did not publish their names, and I shall now forget that I ever saw the information, which I did not see, which never happened, at least that I can remember, which I have forgotten. In all fairness, it was not a current member of the Proboards group, although I do not seem to remember any hue and cry by any of them at the time.

    Who wrote the crap Wikipediocracy piece? No one copped to the first one, and I find it hard to believe it was written by Kohs, but judging by the lack of errors, apostrophe-wise, I would judge he had a hand in the proofreading. The second crap WikiTribune piece was done (using the concept loosely) by Zoloft. That he was willing to put his name on it speaks for itself.

    If Proboards has Kumioko locked up in their dungeon, that is not to their credit, in fact, it is rank hypocrisy, given their criticism of the way Wikipedia give short shrift to good faith editors. They have banned Kumi for being “too boring”? Heh, I bet enwki and a few others wish he had been *more* boring. The WIkipedia global bans are already widely known as pedo bans, the Proboards people did not make this up. Even user:Two Kinds of Pork was not banned under the SanFranBan – rather they made it look like an ordinary arbitrator ban – TKOP’s predelictions, although repulsive, do not seem to run towards children.

    That this was used against Kumioko is proof positive that this type of ban is no longer being used for pedos. It was horribly unfair of the Foundation to use this type of reputation-damaging tool against Kumi, especially since this was a community (lynching) ban. The SanFranBan used to be tied up with outrage over flaunting of basic human values, but with the introduction of specific mechanistic criteria, it has become a sort of “achievement unlocked” challenge for post-patroller hat-collectors. Of course they had to try it first on Kumi, who is not part of any vested interest group, or destructive power-posse, in a venue where he was not able to defend himself. Kumioko may not be the most sophisticated writer in the universe and he has played around too much with Wikipediocracy, which has not been able to help him with his Wikipedia-related difficulties in the least, but Kumioko has done genuinely altruistic work for Wikipedia, and the ordinary members of the U.S. military, while showing absolutely no interest in the more prurient corners of the projects. His heart is pure.

    @rosashills, I don’t know why you would have trouble posting here without a WordPress account, everyone else does it. Did you try the “change” option, as in “(Log out/Change)”.

    1. I wrote a reply that further clarifies some mistaken ideas in Gender Desk’s comment, but it involves some stuff that really has to be kept off the web to treat people decently. That’s why I don’t expect that reply to show up. I absolutely understand if that reply has to be deleted.

  6. Your time is your own, but dissecting squabbles within one of the critical groups seems to me even less interesting than squabbles between them. At least one can learn something about the taxonomy of criticism and the various approaches and desired end states from comparing and constrasting the way the different groups go about things, and those lessons may be capable of being put to practical use.

    1. No reason to have false information about Kumioko or ProBoards WR floating around. I don’t think there are any significant differences between the three active fora at this time. Rules are basically the same but members are not.

      1. So who are the members of WR-PB in good standing currently producing valuable evidence, insightful analsysis, actionable critiques and effective plans right now? Looking back over the past seven days, how many bans have been handed out, and how many staff member resignations have been handed in? Do you regard the answers to those questions as indicative of a satisfactory state of affairs, and why would you say that “Proboards is basically dead” might not be an accurate summary?

        1. WR PB isn’t any more dead than WO has been in the past. Sparks was temporarily blocked as was TDK. I don’t recall the date on which Kumioko was blocked. I also don’t recall if anyone else has been blocked lately, but fora require blocks because some new accounts do some pretty weird stuff (e.g., credible threats of violence).PB WR is more willing to discuss who’s blocked and way that WO. WO has a horrible block ratio, but PB WR has done very little blocking.

          If you can tell me what effective plans and actionable critiques (not including your own) that WO has hatched in the last seven days, then I’ll say that’s a valuable metric.

          I find valuable evidence almost every day on both PB WR and WO. Insightful analysis is less often at either place but still happens regularly.

  7. As Kelly Martin says, “most responsible disciplinary committees conduct their business in private, out of respect for the dignity of their members and out of concern for legal liability”. I am appalled by the lack of care taken by the proboards people, both for their own members, and for the reputations of those they smear behind their backs, who seem to have even fewer rights than the members. The toxicity of Wikipedia has come full circle, and is magnified and amplified on the criticism boards. I am appalled by the way you treat people over there; why should I repeat your insults here? And the ones who complain about it the most seem to be the worst offenders.

    So you don’t dox people? And to prove it you publish a dox on my blog, which I have had to remove. And you start a campaign against me on your own blog, encouraging people to speculate on my identity, initiated by your own pet gamergator, who has certainly seen this done before, and knows how to use it to silence women.

    Even now your members are defending a certain photographer who faked their identity in order try to sneak into a Wikipedia event and took pictures of a certain female volunteer. I might add they were not particularly flattering photos either. That same volunteer was subsequently targeted by Amorrow, the algebra guy, who wrote about wanting to go through the trash of female Wikipedians in order to look for used tampons. So yeah, I get it, you people are going to “hasten the day” by attacking the Wikipedia business model of “anyone can edit” by using your knowledge of the deep web to dig up whatever you can on ordinary people, especially women, and publish it, whether true or not. You don’t even have to be the ones who call a swat team to their door in the middle of the night, photoshop some fake porn images, or urge a hundred of your True Believers to call their employers, there are plenty of people in the internet who have the capability to do that, once you have raised someone’s profile and singled them out as a target.

    And now I have seen Kumioko’s crime against your website, that he is a government contractor and that he tried to protect his reputation and his career from you people. You people should take this stuff down as soon as it is discovered, on your own, without waiting for someone else to find it, and expecting them to make repeated requests that you repeatedly ignore. I have seen other false accusations as well, a female Wikipedian accused of yelling at an arbitrator at an event, in a way that identified her, and without bothering to mention that a guy cornered her in a room full of dudes and was shouting the “c-word”. You misidentified the arbitrator as well; the name you gave was probably the one who escorted her to safety. Do you really think it protects the dignity of female volunteers to demand they engage in extended conversations about vulgar words for pee-pees? But like I said before, “as above, so below”, the fact that the top echelons of Wikipedia can get away with dox and false accusations like this, or try to drag a volunteer’s name through a “pee-pee discussion” to pressure her to leave Wikipedia (and it worked, because who wants their name associated with a scandal involving smut) this just means that no one respects volunteers, especially female volunteers. The toxic culture may have started in Wikipedia, but it has now been normalized and amplified to the criticism sites.

    And I totally get it that you have declared war on me and are trying to silence me.

    Maybe it’s time for a “misogyny of proboards” piece.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s