Catfish Jim blocks a pedophile. Or did they?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:20 pm
It's a mark of how irresponsible Wikipedia is with child protection, that it's actually pretty hard to figure out if what Catfish Jim has recently done, is following policy, against policy, or a valid invocation of "Ignore All Rules".
Like many of his peers, Wikipedia Administrator "Catfish Jim and the soapbox" also posts on the den of scum that is Wikipediocracy. As he explains here, he has blocked Wikipedia user Pokelova for being a "scumbag".
That's all we will ever really know, because for some bizarre reason, the people charged with preventing paedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia (the most logical reason for the block), aren't accountable to anyone but themselves. Emails asking what exactly happened, will be ignored.
Most definitely Jim seems to think he at least did something unusual, both by invoking IAR (Ignore All Rules) and openly stating he "didn't exactly follow protocol to the letter" (Wikipediocracy thread)
It's worth noting that Jim has an entirely incorrect view of what IAR is for. As the rule says, it is explicitly for situations where a rule prevents a beneficial action. If a rule is just vague, you just explain your actions like any other Administrator action.
The secrecy does Wikipedia no favours, for two reasons.
One, Pokelova didn't land on Wikipedia yesterday. They have actively edited for eight years, making near!y ten thousand edits, 84% of which were to actual article content. So if they really are a paedophilia advocate, something is seriously broken with Wikipedia's defence mechanisms.
Two. There are actually concrete signs to believe Jim is either an incompetent or a witch hunter, so he really could be quite capable of making a very big mistake in applying a very serious policy when he doesn't actually believe he has the literal letter of the policy in his side.
Wikipedia Administrator Jim has.....
* Endangered the safety of a Wikipedia editor. Quite unbelievably, Jim publicly linked the allegations contained on Wikipediocracy from Wikipedia. And it was quite deliberate too. Jim has said to the Wikipedia Administrator (Tamzin) who rightly suppressed the link (albeit via the Wikipediocracy thread?), "don't do that" , calling it censorship. This is a serious breach of policy. But Jim is "not overly worried about that".
* Harassed the editor he has just blocked. Again, quite unbelievably, as he explains on Wikipediocracy, once Jim had blocked Pokelova, he went and intervened on an image inclusion debate, where Pokelova had made perfectly reasonable points to counter some random nut's assertion that a widely available movie poster was "pedo bait". Incredibly, Jim readily admits he removed the image more because of who was involved (Pokelova) rather than the merits of the content. It has since been re-added, and on Wikipedia, Jim admits "Fair enough. I'm not invested enough to disagree". He had no chance of success but tried anyway, meaning he either didn't know or didn't care about the Virgin Killer precedent (surely required reading for anyone who wants to take on the task of CHILDPROTECT).
* Used entirely emotional and prejudicial language on Wikipediocracy while discussing a situation he was acting in an Administrative capacity over on Wikipedia. For obvious reasons, ArbCom has reminded Wikipedia Administrators that their conduct is important everywhere, not just Wikipedia.
* Explained their Administrative actions in far more detail on Wikipediocracy than they ever did on Wikipedia. ArbCom has been quite clear the this is frankly unacceptable, since it not only shows rank disrespect to your colleagues, it creates a situation where Administrators are forced to engage with Wikipediocracy to get full picture of what is going on. Rather obviously, in this case, Jim reveals less of his reasoning on Wikipedia than on Wikipedipcracy probably precisely because the full context brings his motives and judgement into question (and ironically in doing so he benefits from the rule that says you can't publicly discuss their off wiki posts on Wikipedia).
Like many of his peers, Wikipedia Administrator "Catfish Jim and the soapbox" also posts on the den of scum that is Wikipediocracy. As he explains here, he has blocked Wikipedia user Pokelova for being a "scumbag".
That's all we will ever really know, because for some bizarre reason, the people charged with preventing paedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia (the most logical reason for the block), aren't accountable to anyone but themselves. Emails asking what exactly happened, will be ignored.
Most definitely Jim seems to think he at least did something unusual, both by invoking IAR (Ignore All Rules) and openly stating he "didn't exactly follow protocol to the letter" (Wikipediocracy thread)
It's worth noting that Jim has an entirely incorrect view of what IAR is for. As the rule says, it is explicitly for situations where a rule prevents a beneficial action. If a rule is just vague, you just explain your actions like any other Administrator action.
The secrecy does Wikipedia no favours, for two reasons.
One, Pokelova didn't land on Wikipedia yesterday. They have actively edited for eight years, making near!y ten thousand edits, 84% of which were to actual article content. So if they really are a paedophilia advocate, something is seriously broken with Wikipedia's defence mechanisms.
Two. There are actually concrete signs to believe Jim is either an incompetent or a witch hunter, so he really could be quite capable of making a very big mistake in applying a very serious policy when he doesn't actually believe he has the literal letter of the policy in his side.
Wikipedia Administrator Jim has.....
* Endangered the safety of a Wikipedia editor. Quite unbelievably, Jim publicly linked the allegations contained on Wikipediocracy from Wikipedia. And it was quite deliberate too. Jim has said to the Wikipedia Administrator (Tamzin) who rightly suppressed the link (albeit via the Wikipediocracy thread?), "don't do that" , calling it censorship. This is a serious breach of policy. But Jim is "not overly worried about that".
* Harassed the editor he has just blocked. Again, quite unbelievably, as he explains on Wikipediocracy, once Jim had blocked Pokelova, he went and intervened on an image inclusion debate, where Pokelova had made perfectly reasonable points to counter some random nut's assertion that a widely available movie poster was "pedo bait". Incredibly, Jim readily admits he removed the image more because of who was involved (Pokelova) rather than the merits of the content. It has since been re-added, and on Wikipedia, Jim admits "Fair enough. I'm not invested enough to disagree". He had no chance of success but tried anyway, meaning he either didn't know or didn't care about the Virgin Killer precedent (surely required reading for anyone who wants to take on the task of CHILDPROTECT).
* Used entirely emotional and prejudicial language on Wikipediocracy while discussing a situation he was acting in an Administrative capacity over on Wikipedia. For obvious reasons, ArbCom has reminded Wikipedia Administrators that their conduct is important everywhere, not just Wikipedia.
* Explained their Administrative actions in far more detail on Wikipediocracy than they ever did on Wikipedia. ArbCom has been quite clear the this is frankly unacceptable, since it not only shows rank disrespect to your colleagues, it creates a situation where Administrators are forced to engage with Wikipediocracy to get full picture of what is going on. Rather obviously, in this case, Jim reveals less of his reasoning on Wikipedia than on Wikipedipcracy probably precisely because the full context brings his motives and judgement into question (and ironically in doing so he benefits from the rule that says you can't publicly discuss their off wiki posts on Wikipedia).