Thursday, December 24, 2015

Guest Post by Mutineer: "Is Jim from Wikipediocracy Wikipedia's James Alexander?"

Below is an untitled article from Mutineer. Consider it a Christmas present, or a really late Chanukkah gift.
There are reasons to believe the WMF's Trust and Safety Manager James Alexander engages in sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. There is a reason to believe James Alexander, prominently shown at his WMF employee page, is not his real name. "Sockpuppetry" is an Internet term for deceptively making use of different accounts to create the appearance of support or resistance for a particular matter of debate. It can also be for harassment of someone the sockmaster dislikes, for example one has been in an online argument generating personalized antagonistic feelings, and so the sockmaster creates the new account to attack his or her enemy as if it were some new person coming fresh to argument. The James Alexander question can be organized like this:

1) WMF employee James Alexander openly points to his previous unpaid Wikipedia account of Jamesofur. He leveraged it when he sought employment. He said his advanced community rights indicated his value. Jamesofur passed an RFA (, and has OTRS rights.
2) Wikipedia user Begoon had very sporadic and mainly non-verbal activity, but sounded off angrily when Jamesofur failed his RFA, basically saying it was a stupid system and so forth. Begoon angrily retorted a person that questioned why someone with an handful of edits would show up so vociferously in an RFA. Begoon fired back that the person should not be so uncivil and suspicious, that this was exactly why Wikipedia was unfriendly to newbies, that he, Begoon, had just been watching for a while. With this theme, he was speaking like someone well-versed in Wikipedia's administrative workings. It was a Shakespearean "methinks thou dost protest too loudly" moment. In his comments protesting the RFA down-vote of Jamesofur, Begoon hand-typed the signature "Jim." (Https://
3) A Wikipediocracy participant Jim in his avatar's undertitling identifies himself as Wikipedia editor Begoon. (Http://
4) Wikipediocracy's Jim has asserted that he has personally communicated with the WMF's former Community Relations Director Philippe Beaudette. Beaudette led James Alexander's WMF work section, and was James Alexanders' immediate superior. (Http://
So, in drawing this thesis together, I've shown, solidly or inconclusively, a daisy chain connection from Begoon to Jamesofur to James Alexander to WO's Jim to Begoon. The obvious supporting clue is of course the name "James," which is commonly shortened to "Jim." A review of Begoon's editing history is rather startling. It doesn't seem a natural progression of an editor. It's actually a little bizarre, sort of mechanized and incredibly sporadic in its first years of edits. It makes a bit more sense if considered as an alternate account of some other user, who goes to Begoon now and then for particular administrative edits. This would fit in with the idea that Jamesofur is the sockmaster. Jamesofur edits in his own hand, and makes use of Begoon now and then, such as in the complaint at Jamesofur's RFA failure.
The broader question begged by this example of James Alexander is whether WMF employees should be allowed to list themselves as pseudonyms on the WMF's official organizational profiles. Another WMF employee, whose name is either Karen Ingraffea or Karen Brown, communicates on the official Wikimedia-l mailing list under a pseudonym.
Let us examine momentarily the contributions of Begoon. On first looking, his edits appear to reveal something of a strange fish. Begoon contribution history overview:
Very first edit is on 13 September 2009 to "Pole dance." He deletes a reference, claiming it is "commercial." However leaves the article text that was said to have been supported by it. Second and third edits less than 45 minutes later appear to be, not sure, automated rather than manual edits, marked as "creating" the user and user talkpages, but they don't say anything.
Comes back after about two weeks and fourth and fifth edits appear to be, what, looks like bolding or upscaling "==User Page: Begoon==" the labels on the the talk and userpages. Comes back for sixth and seventh and eighth edits no less than six months later and is back at Pole Dance article, again removes a references on basis "commercial link," he's removing some text as well now.
Okay I'm speeding up, comes back 11 days later in an RFA on Jamesofur. Begoon speaks! So which way does he go on the nominee? No way! What, he complains that the process is absurd, and is miffed when questioned how a person with nine edits happens to show up there. How uncivil and suspicious and mean to a new user, he says. Here, I'll quote a sample:
"I don't really blame you for wondering - however, The answer is yes, I have a grand total of 9 edits. Please explain how that makes my opinion invalid, or even, failing that, less valid than yours. As to how I found this page - well it's a high profile page, and I was interested in how this wikipedia stuff works. You can assume I have some kind of motive, or you can take my remarks at face value. I can't see any reason to care what you think after such an uncivil reaction to the first attempt of a new user to involve himself. Jim...."
Okay, now he's editing more frequently. Just spot checking now. Some edit where he puts... lines? on a talkpage discussion regarding edit filters. An RFA again, this time he opposes HJ Mitchell's second RFA. Something at his talkpage. Something at "Cubelurker's" talkpage regarding a message. RFA stuff. WP:AN/ANI! I knew Begoon was going to end up there as a sneering regular constantly maneuvering for blocks.
Minor administrative changes at Chamberlain Memorial, Captain Noah and his Floating Zoo, Millersburg Township, JP1 remotes. Begoon's into remote controls. Uploads an image of an emblem for "Vanatuatu Girl Guides Association," okay. Seems to be doing the same for a bunch of Girl Guides Associations. Templates an editor for, the template says, "apparent vandalism." I looked at the edit, yeah it was vandalism of the goofy sort. Really skipping now.
Templates (w. Twinkle!) an editor with "final warning vandalism." It's all sort of like this. There's a lot! If there's a content *addition* anywhere as opposed to tag or revert or something, I haven't seen it. Skipping 250 at a time now. An SPI, says doesn't know but the alleged sock edits look similar. Good gosh, there's so much. Skipping to 2013. Same sort of stuff, I guess it's more advanced because the bit counts are higher. Begoon seems to have made friends now, WP:AN/ANI captain Dennis Brown seems to be one, Christmas greetings etc. RFA, RFA, RFA. Ah! Some block philosophy worth quoting:
"But, see, there's the problem, in a nutshell... The history of this talk page, its archive, the Fort Lee talk page, the welcomeg template, the ANI discussion etc., all say the very same thing. A succession of experienced editors come to you to give advice or discuss problems with edits you have made. Your response is invariably a massive rant about why you are right, and they are all of them wrong, every one, they're not "assuming good faith", they are picking on you, "denigrating" you, "deriding" you - rinse and repeat (and, boy, do you repeat...) Your analysis of all this is ''"The overwhelming body of my work and experiences has been decidedly positive"''... Can you see the disconnect here? That's what you're being asked to do, because if you can't, the amount of other editors' time you insist on wasting with your repetitive wikilawyering, pointless arguing, and assertions of unfair treatment has been judged too costly in wasted time and effort to permit. Nobody can make you see it, but you now need to if you want to continue to edit.17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"
This is absolute classic WP:AN/ANI pontificating where the gangs of sharks have picked their prey, and set the stage for the ritualized slaughter. It remains but to mute the content editor, keep sneering and mischaracterizing, and wait for the LCDA (lowest common denominator administrator) to press the block button. Begoon is bonding and socializing with his fellows at WP:AN/ANI. Block of victimized content editor equals victory and someone for them to feel superior to. He continues this behavior in other examples.
In conclusion, this article has made the case that, while not 100% certitude, there is reason to believe that the WMF's James Alexander sockpuppets Wikipedia under the Begoon handle and is part of the abusive administrative culture that derives satisfaction from targeting, hounding (often in a group), and blocking potentially good content editors.


  1. This looks essentially correct. Mr. Alexander is a WMF employee and an administrator, and has been violating Wikipedia's own rules on undeclared sockpuppets since 2010. And no one cares, because he's an "insider".

    I can practically guarantee he's also violated other "policies" in the past with impunity. Once you're in, it's like a youth gang, it's for life. And you can't do wrong; unless you "betray the gang's trust" in some way. Outsiders are always fair game.

    1. This Wiki-Mafia/Wiki-Bratva bullshit is the biggest turnoff I have with 'pedia-land: you can't get rid of the crooks until the bodies in the crawlspace are funking up the place so badly even a noseless dog smells it. Another product of Jimbo's anti-leadership.

  2. AAHAHAHAHAAAA! "Begoon" has all the makings of a master troll. Funny you forgot to mention that the delusional management of Wikipediocracy made that giant waste of skin a member of their seekrit Campaign Room. To do what exactly? Nobody knows. He shouldn't really talk about it, but he does. Same for "Scott"/"Hex"/realname Earle Martin. Earle may be as useless and obnoxious as "Jim" on WO, but at least he's relatively "hot" by Wikipedia/Wikipediocracy standards.

    1. Oh, Colton, Colton.

      I don't think it's too much of a logical leap to assume that I'm talking to "Colton Cosmic" (banned from Wikipedia)/"Triptych" (banned from Wikipediocracy), the only person sad enough to keep grudgeposting about a completely unimportant nobody like me, like in your guest post here, which I enjoyed.

      You're obviously very excited by your discovery, but unfortunately I'm going to have to rain on your parade. Scott Martin is my "realname" [sic] - you know, the one on my passport. I changed my name a few years ago because I like this one better. That's a thing that people do sometimes, you know?

      Well, maybe assuming that you know anything about people is a little too optimistic.


    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Colton, you are a moron. "Being Jim in a similar way" is priceless, though.

      Eric, I am disappointed, but you probably deserve each other.

      Jim(bo) Wales (in a frock)


    4. I am not Eric Barbour, Mr. Dunn of New South Wales; Mutineer wanted to post something and I let them. Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy are not beyond criticism.

    5. My reference of disappointment was to Eric's post above (metasonix). I had always thought him to have a better nose for obvious lunacy.

      You may, as you say, post whatever nonsense you wish. I haven't laughed so much in a while, so I thank you for that.


  3. I find this rather amusing. In the context of my work, I ran regular checks on WMF staff to find undisclosed and abusive socks. Far from operating one, James Alexander was a frequent proponent of requiring staff to disclose socks, and led the way in efforts to assure staff accountability with accounts. Your hypothesis is amusing, but incredibly off-base. (And, the link to me on wikipediocracy that you mention seems fairly clearly to make a hyperbolic point, which you seem to have missed - for the record, to my knowledge, I have never actually communicated with that Wikipediocracy user). I can say with supreme confidence that the theory being pushed here is, quite frankly, wrong. In short, terrific writing, great addition to the fantasy genre.

    (PS - my title was "Director, Community Advocacy", not Community Relations Director).

  4. If Wikipediocracy people are going to post here, I wish we could do better than Tweedledope and Tweedlederp. As for Philippe, he doesn't know what "hyperbole" means. Hyperbole is an extravagant exaggeration used to make a point. "I've told you a million times." What Jim did at WO (if you accept it was meant that way) is "facetious." Facetious is a useless, unfunny comment presented as if it were humor.