Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
Kraken
Sucks Fan
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:42 am
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by Kraken » Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:09 pm

Beginning here.

Probably said by a die hard Wikipedian over at Wikipedocracy (about me!)......
For someone who claims to be a feminist, you really seem to have a problem with women. Maybe not all women. Maybe it's only women who are seen as successful on Wikipedia. Is that because Wikipedia has rejected you? You desperately yearn to be accepted there and recognized for your brilliance, You are a Wikipedia incel.
What part of this are you having trouble with? I don't want to be an armchair psychologist but I think this is obvious to everyone except maybe you.

You were rejected by Wikipedia. You wanted to be part of Wikipedia but they didn't want you. This rejection hurt you and you act out this hurt by ranting about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Many of those rants contain suggestions that you would do it better. You imagine yourself to be superior than the people who rejected you and the people who succeed on Wikipedia. You did the same thing on Sucks when you were rejected by Wikipediocracy.

You're basically an incel with Wikipedia substituted for women, but since Wikipedia isn't a person you also direct your ire towards, well, women. You're pretty much just a regular incel with a very specific focus.
You could have simply said you think I am an incel who is annoyed the women of Wikipedia rejected him, no?
It's not really the same thing, You are lashing out at Wikipedia because you were rejected there. A lot of people do that. Most do it very briefly and usually just on a user talk page. You have just taken it to an extreme. You are angry at Wikipedia. I'm not assuming that you are an actual, literal incel but your contempt for women in particular is palpable.
I was banned while drafting a reply.

I mean, the guy is clearly off his rocker, giving even armchair psychologists a bad name. He constructed all this out of nothing. There's no evidence I focus on the women of Wikipedia in any greater volume or intensity. It's all in his warped mind.

But I clearly did something to him (her?) at some point. Something to utterly rip them from the observable universe, into a parallel universe where he doesn't need to make observations fit a theory. He just has to speak it into existence.

Fucking fruit loop.

I have no idea who they are, and they’re quite laughably claiming it doesn't matter. Like it wasn't obvious to all at that forum over the past two months, and a few years before that, that this guy is utterly obsessed with me.

They would literally just lurk, and jump into any thread, at any point, if they saw even the tiniest opportunity to make me look bad. I was once relaying a very sad story about how my cousins are under huge pressure to sexualise their navels, at a disturbingly young (pre/early pubescent) age. It felt like a helpful addition to a debate about why the Wikipedia article on Navel fetishism kept getting edited by randoms to add any old celebrity trash that would sexualize the navel using figures who are of great interest to girls that age.

The guy jumped in to insinuate I was a pedophile. Like, straight off the bat.

Tried to recover by speaking to the research I'd cited and other matters, but come on. Who was he trying to kid? He couldn't give a fuck. He was even misrepresenting that stuff, in the apparent belief people are just that stupid and can't use Ctrl+F.

It's obvious what he is doing. Obvious to everyone.

The guy isn't right in the head.

And it can't be any coincidence at all that it all happens under the nose of the far left boss of Wikipediocracy. With their apparent consent. But it's bad enough to stand out even among their constant din of random abuse.

I could get this guy fucking sectioned if he tried it in the street. I could get him Globally Banned if he tried it on Wikipedia.

Even Kiwi Farms might think he was a little bit wierd.

If I had his real name, he is DEFINITELY getting written up in the Daily Mail. Because he must be a Wikipedia editor, an active one. Perhaps a very powerful one.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4737
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1922 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:48 pm

You certainly enjoy picking at scabs, don't you?......

How many times have I suggested that you START A BLOG and drop your tirades there? People can read them at their leisure (or not) and comment (or not). But then, you're obviously not actually interested in MAKING A POINT, you're mostly interested in making Wikiboobs notice you and be "triggered".

Speaking only for myself, this Troutman business is trivial shit. Every day a shrieking manboy gets blocked for fighting with some Wikiassian. Sexist comments are routine esp on talkpages. No one notices (apart from the blockee, who may or may not be inspired thereafter to shoot up a school or somesuch). Why would YOU care so much?

If you're so OFFENDED by Giraffe Stapler, justify it. And not with the usual wall o' rage you commonly resort to. Let's see you talk your way out of this J.K. Rowling-shaped pothole you seem to be stuck in. (What does that even mean?)

btw this is LDickinson. Relatively recent hire, could have been an anonymous insider before the Wikifuckery Foundation put her on a salary, dunno and don't care.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LDickinson_(WMF)

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4737
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1922 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:50 pm

PS, you can tell Beeblebrox is a raging hypocrite when he mumbles things like
It gets really tiresome seeing thread after thread being dominated by overly-long angry screeds from the same user, no matter who they are.
He is one to talk, eh? Only he doesn't do the usual Crow thing of trying to "justify". He just stabs people in the back.
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4737
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1922 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:27 pm

One last thing: JESUS FUCKIN CHRIST. The incel article is now 194k bytes long. Purified editwar garbage. Molly is still the #1 contributor. SHE can't stop picking at scabs either.

User avatar
Kraken
Sucks Fan
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:42 am
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by Kraken » Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:44 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:48 pm
You certainly enjoy picking at scabs, don't you?......

How many times have I suggested that you START A BLOG and drop your tirades there? People can read them at their leisure (or not) and comment (or not).
The day I care about Wikipedia enough to start a blog is the day I kill myself. There's also the small matter of running my own blog makes me liable. So a five minute tirade I know is correct because I'm not a fucking moron and I do know what I'm talking about, becomes an hour long research piece covering my ass. And who the fuck is paying me for my time? I write for a living, I do forums as a pasttime. I thought that was the whole purpose of this place. Citizen fightback. Nobody getting in your face asking you to cite your sources, especially not people who wouldn't know one end of an AN/I from another.
Why would YOU care so much?
About Wikipedia being woke? Because Wikipedia is in our homes, Wikipedia is in our schools, Wikipedia is in our Parliament, Wikipedia is in our courts, and anywhere else that it might actually matter the people are given factual information, not total bullshit.
If you're so OFFENDED by Giraffe Stapler, justify it.
The guy called me an incel and a paedophile on Wikipediocracy because I must have destroyed him in a previous life. It offends me because your old colleague Zoloft seems to think a journalist would go within a hundred miles of that nutcase to cite him as a source in important matters like the Nihonioe COI scandal. Never gonna happen. Far more likely he is going to get door stepped by the Daily Mail as an example of the sort of absolute freak that somehow got their foot under the table of a formerly respected criticism forum and shit the whole place up. Just like they exposed Hilbillyholiday as a fucking freak that no newspaper would ever have used as a source if they didn't have an ulterior motive. Which they did. Arguably that was the beginning of the end of Wikipediocracy being taken seriously by the media.
Let's see you talk your way out of this J.K. Rowling-shaped pothole you seem to be stuck in. (What does that even mean?)
It's easy to talk your way out of any situation when you know what you are actually talking about.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 337 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by boredbird » Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:55 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:27 pm
One last thing: JESUS FUCKIN CHRIST. The incel article is now 194k bytes long. Purified editwar garbage. Molly is still the #1 contributor. SHE can't stop picking at scabs either.
She feeds on their pain.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by journo » Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:35 am

Kraken wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:09 pm
If I had his real name, he is DEFINITELY getting written up in the Daily Mail. Because he must be a Wikipedia editor, an active one. Perhaps a very powerful one.
lmao

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by journo » Mon May 20, 2024 10:36 am

journo wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:45 am
User:Writ_Keeper is now saying that "incel" doesn't mean involuntary celibacy to justify the article as it is written.
To boot, I just found a page wherein WritKeeper was arguing for the "incel ideology/subculture" to be at the page name [[involuntary celibacy]] in 2018. This was a debate that spilled onto a bunch of talk pages and boards because of how angry the losing side was, including WritKeeper, to not be able to define involuntary celibacy as a subculture with a page title of [[involuntary celibacy]].

Image
https://archive.is/gkW01

In other words, due to the state of the pages of that time, she wanted to define [[involuntary celibacy]] as "incel subculture". But once there are calls to make [[incel]] about a life circumstance, she now opposes making [[incel]] about a life circumstance by contradicting herself through asserting her "incel subculture" is the "true definition" involuntary celibacy, which is so persuasive it'd have to be "reversed" though sourcing wars.

Lucky for User:FeydHuxtable, probably most of User:Writ_Keepers sources could be disqualified as unreliable due to being WP:BLUE nonsensical, WP:BLUE bigoted, and WP:BLUE dishonest. Many or even most of them imply involuntary celibacy is not real, which everyone knows is not true given the involuntarily castrated, solitary imprisoned without conjugal visits, and hoards of the sex-seeking otherwise institutionalized cannot have sex, just as clear examples. It'd be like if for some reason Feyd decided to include the bevy of 19th century bigoted literature to write a 36 page article titled [[faggot]] about "queer behavior" and platform people who thought and still think homosexuality isn't real. He'd be within sourcing policy to do so, but not basic standards of civility. Then it'd be like if Writ_Keeper was pushing to make [[homosexuality]] about a "faggot culture" of people who "falsely believe homosexuality is real". But once [[homosexuality]] is moved to [[faggot]] as a containment zone for bigotry, and a few years later [[faggot]] becomes a place non-bigots want to write about homosexuality due to obstructionism in undeleting the prior page, then it'd be like her pushing out non-bigoted content about homosexuals by saying faggots aren't homos.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by journo » Mon May 27, 2024 11:45 am

I think this is what a more mature article would look like. The one on Justapedia now. It's basically the 2012 English Wikipedia article tripled in size and with the more obnoxious incel self-back-patting removed, and also the anti-incel stuff, when it is nonsensical, removed or in a controversy section.

https://justapedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy
Can't vouch for that entire encyclopedia as a whole though. The bedrock of the Justapedia article are the academics Elizabeth Abbott, Denise Donnelly, Karel Himawan, Khandis Blake, and Bella DePaulo. In order of most to least likely to make an article like this ever. DePaulo the least as she is the only one of those 4 who I could see having a kneejerk reaction against singles more stigmatized than what she focuses on in media appearances. But in academia, she paradoxically wrote the most interesting and salient info (imo) overallaping with or regarding the topic. Also DePaulo's version of "chads and stacies" Is her "cult of the couple", which are not the exact same concepts but use some similar arguments about social exclusion and the discriminatory amount of societally forced social/commercial subsidy of couples among singles. Himawan embraces the phrase "involuntary single", and Donnelly and Abbot embrace the verbatim phrase "involuntary celibate" as a life circumstance even further than self-described 'incels' on Xenforo forums do.

Compare the ledes

Justapedia one
Image

Current English Wikipedia one
Image

The second, while entertaining and emotionally recognizable as a brand of 4chan-spinoffs calling themselves incel forums, also reads like a carefully organized attempt to stigmatize a very large population of people, larger than it nominally focuses on. It also reads unhinged, papered together with weasel words or outright racism ("mostly white" in lede, but "unusually ethnic" in body, and tons weasel phrases in lede like "is defined by being associated with a subculture", "often seen as", "sense of") compared to the first. While the second is describing... something, what it is describing (2016 r/incels culture and successor boards) is a speck of sand in the overall topic, where its not even clear the speck of sand deserves mention. That forum English WIkipedia focuses on has only like 400-2000 active people in any given year according to CCDH. And while a few people can cause great change, they have repeatedly show they aren't really capable of doing anything other than reinforcing nonsensically negative stereotypes. One has to almost entirely avoid academia mentioning them to get an intelligible article. Those 400-2000 people are pretty much exclusively low-social-intelligence or low-in-social-responsibility 4channers who purposely hurt themselves by bathing themselves in stigma around the topic for attention rather than positive change, justice, or escape from stigma. The overall topic is instead about millions (billions?).

Post Reply