Below I outline the current modus operandi of Wikipedia's supposedly most experienced, trusted and knowledgeable Administrators (one of whom is so confident in his sense of ethics he will charge you $75 an hour to learn how to edit Wikipedia the right way) in how they approach new users who do not for whatever reason fit their imagined ideal profile of a new user (despite being told repeatedly that this ideal profile is a myth and people come to Wikipedia in a variety interesting and often counted-intuitive ways, It persists, precisely because It is such a useful way to harass new users) and therefore trigger their need to expel potential threats to the social hierarchy they work so hard to maintain.Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing
The maintenance of this social hierarchy is important to Wikipedia Administrators. They have very little in their lives, so they want and need to believe that their investment in their chosen hobby was worthwhile. That it brought them status, a reward. They cannot all earn $75 an hour. They absolutely CANNOT STAND the fact that it is still theoretically policy that a newcomer to Wikipedia is equal to them. Or that their role is that of a janitor, NOT the Wikipedia equivalent of a band of roving Judge Dredd wannabes.
A few small technical barriers have of course been erected to make sure newcomers do feel a little less important than established editors. But in the main, the preferred means of ensuring there is a palpable sense of heirarchy, is social engineering. Or to be totally frank, bul!ying.
They of course can't overly bully people. But their method is functionally indistinguishable. It is far removed from treating people with respect and assuming good faith (the former of which policy requires even after It might have become clear the latter is no longer warranted). It is hazing. It is trial by fire. It is harassment.....
1. Identify a user who doesn't fit the required profile.
2. Ask them on their talk page a very simple question....
What's your main account, please?
Always be superficially polite in how you deliver your curt, hostile, loaded inquiry, so that your colleagues know you are one of those Administrators who has no respect for the civility pillar.Whose sock are you, please?
3. Gaslight them into thinking they weren't just directly accused of dishonesty and asked a question that automatically presumes guilt and in its very manner precludes the many ways a user might be legitimate. Go as far as listing all those things, as if they were potential answers to that loaded question....
You of course cannot say any of those things to someone who has already DIRECTLY accused you of being a sock puppet (and in a manner that clearly does not allow for the possibility of legitimacy).You could easily and honestly say "This is my first account" or "I edited a lot from IP addresses" or "I had previous accout X but lost access" or "This is a legitimate alternative account". Instead, you have chosen to be uncooperative and argue with several administrators. Not a good way to "win friends and influence people". Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean you can, but what would be the point?
Does an innocent man answer the question "So, when exactly did you smash that window and steal the stereo?" by politely explaining the officer they are mistaken, you have broken no glass and stolen no stereo?
No, you punch/stab/shoot the cop and curse the fact you were unlucky enough to be born in America, land of the enslaved.
You can only answer the question as asked. Which, if it has no answer, shows you are guilty. Also if it does.
Hence why theroetically, RfA was supposed to weed out candidates who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. We have seen how that went.
The above is the person who charges $75 an hour. A man who inexplicably got it into his head that interacting with Wikipedia Administrators is not a mere exercise in boring but necessary governance of a collaborative project. It is your chance to show you can make friends and influence people.
What the actual fuck?
His need to see his role not as that of a janitor but as a powerful actor in a social hierarchy is palpable.
4. Block the user for being NOTHERE when they inevitably react to being gaslighted the way most normal people do.
5. Reject appeals with even more gaslighting, as if it was just one more level in a game, not your last opportunity to demonstrate Wikipedia governance has effective checks and balances in place to prevent rank abuses of power
These findings are based on several direct experiments and indirect observations. Feel free to replicate the results yourself. It is of course entirely within Wikipedia policy to create a sock-puppet for the sole purpose of experiencing how newcomers are treated on Wikipedia.
After all, with the possible exception of Bishonen, famously, all the other gaslighting pieces of shit who call themselves Wikipedia Administrators, aren't likely to approach you this way if you have actual power.
(if you claim to be an experienced Administrator who is behind such a sock, that REALLY makes them panic, which is of course not what would happen if they were just doing their jobs to the best of their ability and with a pure heart).
Proving beyond doubt that this manner of institutionalised, organised harassment is now the new normal on Wikipedia, is easy.
The question is, what can be done about it.
Given the following.....
1. Wikipedians won't do anything about it
2. The Foundation can't do anything about it
3. The law cannot do anything about it
....the only options left appear to be.....
1. Walk away
2. Become a Wikipedia editor, then a Wikipedia Administrator, then an Arbitration Committee member, and set about achieving top down cultural change
2. Harass the harassers until they kill themselves (or make a mistake and do something so egregiously bad their power over others is markedly reduced and they retire)
I think it is rather obvious which is the most practical and ethical, don't you? Certainly to those of us who think Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and thus spending a single second "editing" it the way they want you to, is by definition, immoral.
If you're squeamish about harassing Wikipedians, if the thought of pushing them to suicide for their crimes makes you a little queasy, you need only ponder this.....
The only thing that evil needs to flourish, is for a good guy to stand back and do nothing.
Take a look around. What does it take to make friends with and thus have some tiny amount of influence over the likes of Bishonen, Cullen, Bbb23 etc? You can see what it is. It sure as shit 'ain't policy compliance, much less a deep respect for the core values of Wikipedia.
This is a feudal society. You work your way up by planting your mouth firmly over the rectum of your superiors, and guzzling down whatever they choose to give you. And Bishonen is at the very top. The reward for being more venemous, more brazen, more evil, than anyone else, is that she doesn't need to take shit from anyone.
And if you spend even a second on Wikipedia, you will realise how many Administrators it has who genuinely like to think of themselves as the good guys, but who, when they see shit like this happening, they do absolutely nothing. Assuming they aren't already an integral part of it.
People have tried to change this the right way. Myself included.
I am a fair man. I always give people a chance to prove they can be a good person.
And when they do not, well, actions must have consequences.
Their free choices are their own. Nobody forced these people to participate in what is quite definitively, a sick cult. An Animal Farm Lord Of The Flies nightmare of epic proportions.
The sickest of jokes is that every single year, countless Wikipedians come to realise the truth, but seeing no viable solution, they walk away. That is how you know, the ones who have been there ten years or more, they are ALL IN. A polite reminder of policy isn't going to cut it.
There is a solution. Despite all appearances to the contrary, the worst of the worst on Wikipedia are still only humans. Prick them, they bleed.
The world didn't become civilised as some benign act of smooth progress. It was bumpy. It was violent. Bad people suffered consequences. Good people made sacrifices.
The routine harassment of new users, and all the other abuses the have become routine, needs to stop.
It will stop if the people doing it are no longer able to do it. Regardless of whether that is because they lack the time, the mental capacity, the reputation, good health, or are simply dead. Pick whichever is their most obvious weakness, and exploit it. Press, and keep pressing.
Deploy all the tactics of war. Carpet bombing and precision strikes. Frontal assaults and incursions deep behind the lines.
You know what to do. You know how to do it.
That is a certainty if you are here because in all good consciousness, you cannot stand to be around the stifling stench of apologism and even defence of the worst of the worst, that is now the hallmark of Wikipediocracy.
Wrong is wrong.
Protect the innocent. Punish the guilty.
HTD.
