Wikipediocracy spat overshadows RFA

[Note: Since this has now been linked from enwiki, it has been removed.]  Requests_for_adminship/Jbhunley

After the crat chat is complete, I will be making a separate determination of whether to add him to the Wikipedia potty-mouth list.



29 thoughts on “Wikipediocracy spat overshadows RFA

  1. He probably uses the asterisks in the exact same way you did in this article (first image, lower-left caption), to convery emphasis. Imagine if you were looking at him talking, this is the word where he’d jab his finger forward and maybe elevate his voice. Two asterisks in commonly used to convery emphasis online especially where bolding isn’t available (although on WO forums it is available). Heck, in Reddit it’s even HOW you bold text, by surrounding with asterisks. I find it silly to latch on that where there is so much more to dissect and criticize. :p

  2. You can also use _underlining_ to create italics or emphasis in some types of markup, sometimes people carry a type of markup from one platform to another as a sort of fad.

    If I criticize someone, I try not to twist the knife too much, so some of this might seem like absurdity on the surface, but it has a darker base.

    If someone raises their voice once, it might be interpreted as emphasis. But if they raise their voice constantly, it comes off as bombastic and bullying, an attempt to intimidate. So what is below the surface? The only thing of substance this guy has said is that he appreciates that the ‘oppose’ votes are getting harassed. That does not bode well. But how much can you tell, on the internet? Do I know enough to say he is an entitled misogynist who likes to push people around? Of course not, I can only count asterisks.

    I don’t know much about his edit history, except that that deletion ratio looks fishy, I am going on first impressions. If you know something else, feel free to dissect.

    Also I forgot to mention that canvassing used to be taken very seriously, it used to be you could not even bring it up on your talk page unless someone else mentioned it first, and even then it was controversial. But this guy has an actual template on his user page.

  3. There are some good points here. However, while his choice of words may be problematic, I think you’re reading too much into it. “Piss off”, “dick” and “prick” are commonly used in an idiomatic sense with no sexual implications. I’m a woman with feminist beliefs, and I’ve used them myself. I have also witnessed actual “locker room”-style conversations, and the posts quoted here don’t come anywhere near that, so I don’t see how they’re indicative of “locker room values”.

  4. I’ve got news for you, if someone is typing vulgar words for pee-pees, they’re probably not thinking about rainbows and fluffy bunnies.

    If you are using vulgar words for male reproductive organs as a stand-in for “toxic person”, maybe you should think again about the underlying message that sends about masculinity and whether you might be helping to normalize an angry, sexually frustrated online sub-culture that defines masculinity as subjecting women to abuse.

    For more about Wikipediocracy’s history with women, see or The auto-suggestions will probably lead you to more titles. Or ask them whatever happened to Andreas Kolbe, one of their best writers, and his wife, but I doubt they will tell you.

    There is also more nuanced (in spite of the title) discussion here, based on workplace standards:

      1. Pretty sure there isn’t, but I’m not at all surprised to find someone posting potty language here after I’ve been linked from Wikipediocrazy. If you can provide a link to one, and I’m pretty sure you can’t, I’m going to say it should be redirected to WP:PEE PEE

            1. Well I understand it to be an excuse to use a clearly offensive term in bold caps “because it’s a link”. Wikipedia should be purged of all the links I pointed out, long term use or not.

              But I expect this is a minority opinion so nothing will happen.

            2. It’s obviously a dead link, there is even a template that says “This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Please avoid using this title in discussions, per meta:Talk:Don’t be a jerk. ” Maybe Dennis Brown used it as a mating call once too often.

  5. Thanks for letting me know, Wikipedia talk pages are not indexed by search engines.

    To anyone who is thinking about reading it over there (I don’t link to sites that dox), given Wikipediocracy’s historically close ties with certain internet providers, you might want to look at Can Wikipediocracy spy on you through your webcam? Also some arbitrator once recommended using a proxy or VPN to access the site, but I’m pretty sure you can’t sign up or read their private posts through a proxy, with the possible exception of one person who is rumored to have a special arrangement for a TOR node.

    In any case, he has already copy-pasted his comments to the RFA itself.

  6. Carrite sharpened up his resident Marxist quillish stick into a glorious “shriek” at the Signpost, then came after you in no uncertain terms in the neutral votes of the RfA. pfff. Meanwhile, Ivanvector smells collusion. Is it an illusion, this simulacrum of collusion? It’s a good story, after all, lettin’ the outlaws grind you down…

    We’ve learned there — from a potentially good source, I’ll add — that Dyskylver’s Russian skillz might be over-rated.

    I like your second comment above by the way.

  7. And I’ve had it from a very good lefty source that Carrite’s Marxist skillz are over-rated. But I already saw the comment and added it to his repertoire at the PottyMouth List. Musn’t disappoint him.

    Poor Dyskylver, I’ve probably been unfair to him. It’s just that we have so many Russian bots these days, it’s hard to know who’s sentient anymore.

    I don’t know if you remember Babel 17, it’s about being unknowingly manipulated by language.

  8. (edit conflict) Oh the French cartoon, that’s what I thought you meant at first. Interesting that Salvidrim refers to “European French”, it never occurred to me there might be a division similar to British and American English.

  9. Oh yeah, French Canadian is pretty far apart from European French. It’s mutually intelligible in general but there’s a huge amount of unique vocabulary and idioms to each. Like think of a Scot and an Aussie. They can understand each other fine in writing, or when speaking slowly and carefully, but when speaking “as if to a neighbour” most of the vocabulary and expressions are completely different.

    But regardless of the differences in the language itself, on this side of the pond there really isn’t any usage of “mdr/ptdr”, we use lol, etc. (although to be fair even “lol” has lost a lot of ground in the past few years to emojis and “hahaha”)

  10. I can’t understand the Scottish at all, with Oz (and Canadians) I’m usually so busy listening to the accent I forget what they’re saying. There used to be American French around New Orleans — Cajuns/Acadians — another shameful chapter in American history — but I’m not sure if they have kept their language at all.

  11. Just for the record, Wikipediocracy has never spied on any of its members in any way whatsoever, other than to check their IP addresses on rare occasions when someone appears to be using multiple accounts without our approval. Meanwhile, the domain/hosting turnover that I mentioned would probably occur “soon” when I posted here last year did in fact occur several months ago, so no one legally associated with the site at this point is an employee of an “internet provider.”
    I’m curious as to what you think “happened” to Andreas Kolbe and his wife, but the reality is that Andreas left us after I was – quite regrettably – forced to suspend his wife’s account due to her persistently divisive and borderline-abusive posts against other members. (As to whether or not the other members in question actually deserved such treatment, let’s just say that’s still an “open question.”)
    As for our “history with women,” it seems a little unfair to permanently judge us all based on the behavior of one almost-elderly member from the Netherlands whom everyone knows can sometimes be “a little off” so to speak, but that’s life on the internet, I guess.
    Considering that the internet has now become a complete cesspool of sexism and misogyny in general, I’d say we’re doing remarkably well under the circumstances.
    Finally, ALWAYS, at the very least, check the available Cornish-language translation services online before assuming that someone is Russian because they’re using a word that “sounds” Russian to YOU.

    1. You should probably start closing some of those open questions soon Jake. You’ve lost a ton of decent critics because of it, people who know shit, people who can analyse things like this car crash of an RfA quickly and effectively. Nobody of that calibre, or indeed that passion, is joining while you still operate the same flawed policies. You must know it.

      People who can deduce things like the fact the biggest mistake he probably made, other than running for admin as someone with standards, was in asking you to move that thread to be private. People who can spot whose vote really was the snake in the grass, and why it wasn’t spotted as such by all the cult members. Spoiler alert. It was Katie. More at the forum which can be legitimately called a safe space for critics, both to express themselves and hold each other to account.

      Still, I guess your decision to generously host that little side show about anti-Semitism drove some traffic, boosted those membership figures. Because that’s the true market for a Wikipedia criticism site, eh? Not happening anywhere else that, two people arguing about what the definition of anti-Semitism is.

      People interested in that sort of thing, with a Wikipedia angle, should really seek out your member Malik Shabbaz. He’s got the next two weeks off Wikifiddling, something that seems to have been missed by your forum, so he can take the time to answer queries through your independent platform dedicated to shining lights under bridges, right? That is, if people like wasting their time. I assume your policy of letting Wikipedians choose what they do and don’t answer for, is still in full effect?

      His view is that he was in the right and the sanction is bullshit, so not much news news, but still, it is at least notable he seems to have finally lost the protection of those power users who have done all sorts to protect him thus far. I suppose You have no idea how much of that story you even have, but I think you can probably guess who caused it to cease, if you do.

      Howdy GD, thanks in advance for letting me use your blog for this little bit of side business, you rarely see Jake out in the wild like this, so you have to grab your chance when it comes. I missed the post, but given its likely contents, I apologise if you have seen any bad words from me recently. I should come here more often, to be reminded of things that are important in this pursuit we share. Lord knows, we just don’t get it from Jake’s website.

      I always have you in mind, you should find some threads of interest to you over at Sucks, because they interest me too. Naturally, Jake won’t be getting his hands on the rights any time soon, so he’ll have to cater for the needs of Ritchie some other way. Not that that particular (I nearly wrote a slang word for a scrotum, apologies) would like either of our stuff.

      1. Thanks I’ll think about it. I like Barbour’s vintage vacuum tubes, but a lot of the rest is either just venting or TLDR. And the unmoderated “genderbitches” comments are rather off-putting.

        I didn’t see any anti-Semitism discussion, hope I didn’t miss anything. Let me know if they do Sarah Jeong — I don’t remember any discussion about her old monkey selfie article.

        The RFA has started to turn around, but there isn’t enough time left for a huge change in percentage. It will undoubtedly go to crat chat. Some of the Signpost comments are on target, they should be training the admins. They also need to separate the tool set and have admins deal just with vandalism, the admins have already admitted they don’t know how to recognize harassment.

        “Temperament” is being mentioned more and more in this RFA, and the locker room language is a part of that — people do want admins to be the “adult in the room”.

      1. I would agree with you and Auggie that the treatment of Kohs’ disappearance has been quite strange. I remember your post about a DMCA takedown he filed against you for copyright infringement. I don’t suppose you’ll get too many answers about this given that you are “adversaries”. Too bad, really. I’ll just bet there’s a story in there.

        1. Under the circumstances I’m certainly not going to ask Kohs, but it does seem like they’re being rather tight lipped about it. Especially considering all the times they took photos of ordinary users and held them up for ridicule on their site–a bit of a double standard there.

          Auggie is one of the few sites that still links to Вreitbart, even in this day of Sleeping Giants.

          1. Why wouldn’t you ask Kohs? Could it have something to do with his name and contact info being readily available, but you don’t share yours, and yet you feel able to presuppose about “double standards”?

            1. Oh come now, Kohs has never worked anonymously? What about “Sea branding”? Surely there are more.

              And I seem to recall that Kohs was asked about this before somewhere, by Auggie IIRC, but just reverted the question.

              Hmm, it is all coming back to me now

              And yet this seems to be one of the few sites where Kohs is not banned. WikiTribune, cough cough.

  12. Cornwall…Myrddin then, Tintagel, …yes that could explain a lot. But one does peruse contributions on other platforms you know, at least superficially.

    I have never thought of Carrite as being particularly “elderly” but sometimes these things are relative.

    Considering some of the over-the-top comments I’ve seen over there, its hard to imagine what Wikipediocracy would consider “persistently divisive and borderline-abusive”. Again, it’s all in the definition. For a blog that welcomed the “anal probe” guy and whose longest-running thread is the members-only gamergate thread in the back room, it could be anything.

    I look forward to seeing what the change in management will bring — perhaps we can anticipate a Wikipediocracy Lite. But when racist comments are moderated immediately and misogynist comments are considered to be “life on the internet”, and “remarkably well under the circumstances”, well, from here I’m afraid it just looks like Business As Usual.

    But thanks for stopping by anyhow.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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