Wikipedia’s big shot potty-mouths: Newyorkbrad

Wikipedia undoubtedly has a lot of potty-mouths.  No one would ever be able to list them all.

I’m starting with the so-called leadership, the big shots.  These are the people who set the tone for the whole project.

This is User:Newyorkbrad.  The Wall Street Journal calls him “the informal chief justice” and refers to the arbcom as “his court”.

    • Fuck off Archive request as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC) [diff]
    • …I would prefer not to need a weeks-long case focused on a series of questions like “when is or isn’t it proper to tell another editor to ‘fuck off’?”… Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC) [diff]

And oh, he’s not ‘actually’ saying the word, at least in the second one, he’s just talking about the word, see how this works?  And the first one is a “joke”, ha ha.  It’s like instead of displaying nooses, which would be unacceptable, we just talk about lynching, or try to pass it off as irony.  Over and over.

The ones who are using this language are able to use it because they are not in the demographic who is impacted  by it.  Others see how they are able to do this with impunity, and add their voices to the choir.  The ones who are impacted will get the dog whistle message, loud and clear.

This is how they interact with people who come to volunteer their time and skills to Wikipedia.  You have to wonder if they talk this way in front of their own clients.

Fucking arbcom can fucking fuck off with their fucking locker room standards

“No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase “fuck off” is inherently upsetting.” — Euryalus¹

This, ladies and gentlemen, is not some 12 year old kid picking his nose on the playground and trying out his “big boy” fuck-talk vocabulary. This is a member of the arbitration committee firing off f-bombs into the echo chamber of the English Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, and who is in turn being cited like Moses on the mountain bringing down the ten commandments.

This is someone who believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling someone to fuck off. And this is someone whose sense of their own authoritarianism is so absolute that they think there is absolutely nothing wrong with imposing their own arbitrary local workplace standards as interpreted by them as a substitute for international and global standards agreed on by community consensus. These are the people who set the tone for the entire project.

“Rule of thumb – if you could do or say it in a standard real-world workplace, feel free to do or say it here (and plenty of people where I work swear in a collegiate manner every day).” —Euryalus ²

bog standard

So who is this Euryalus person and what kind of “standard” place do they work, if they talk about fucking all the time? A brothel? A locker room?

And just like a room full of chimpanzees, the rest of the arbitrators chime in with their own f-bombs: Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Amanda (aka DQ) all have to drop gratuitous f-bombs to prove they’re one of the boyz, and even Newyorkbrad, who used to have more class than that. Do we really think he sits up in his law office and talks the same way he talks now on Wikipedia?

At this point I have to admit to a little schadenfreude — there may be some extenuating circumstances here, as one of the main people being told to fuck off is that nasty little Toddst1, who every time he is brought to a noticeboard pretends to go on vacation or retire until people feel oh so sorry for him and then when the latest miserable episode falls off the radar, three days later he’s back. Maybe for just this one admin we could have a “3x fuck off” standard similar to the 3X revert edit war limit….

That the arbitration committee is once again talking about these playground issues is a measure of how unprofessional the Wikipedia has become and how the lack of decorum goes all the way to the top.  Truly, as someone said recently, the arbitration committee is children telling adults how to act.

So “no one cares if someone swears”?

Yes, people do care if someone swears.  It matters where there are small children, where there are people with security clearances, where there are public representatives of religious organizations.

Does the arbcom really not get the basic workplace standards of “suitability”, and “conduct unbecoming”?  It is an unspoken condition of employment in the private sector that you must not become a public disgrace.

The edgy, outrageous, in-your-face  LGBT culture of the West Coast simply does not fly in the rest of the country.  It will close off access to some parts of society, in particular where there are small children.  People do care what kind of people are around their children.

So now we are getting around to it, that the arbitration committee is not composed of people with children, they are children themselves. In fact, you cannot keep people in the movement once they have children, because it’s just too expensive.

So check this thread:

“Salary needed to afford the median house in San Francisco is now $303,000. Not a misprint. $303,000. According to the California Realtors Association Again, that salary is $303,000”:

“As a non-profit employer, I cannot see how we reconcile this with a future for our organization in San Francisco. Its nonsensical for our staff, our donors, our ability to recruit and retain.”

To unfold the whole Twitter conversation, click on the box.