A Disturbing Damnation of Drmies
by "The Dark Knight", assisted by "Mutineer"
One piercing
example of Wikipediocracy's (WO's) ineffectiveness as a critic site of
Wikipedia (WP) is the damning and disturbing case of Drmies' handling of
Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (MMAR) and Brad Dryer. In short, it has
looked the other way, perhaps even aided, the rise of a corrupt and
belligerent administrator to the highest level on WP. This despite
knowing Drmies (hereafter "he," though he has varied his online gender
identification) was a proven liar and all-round scum bag. This article
is long, but well worth a read if you're a deeply embedded critic. He's
an admin and arbitrator on WP. A bad one. Many many people have their
own horror stories, and consequently, he hates critic sites, as they're
the only places where people can discuss his actions without being
blocked by him or one of his allies. He's well known for being a bit of
an ass, he has a poor sense of humour and very little dispute resolution
skills. He's the sledgehammer who cracks nuts, the vinegar spoiling the
honey, etc, etc. Basically, on WP, if he's your mate, you're doing OK,
but if he's your enemy, you're screwed. He is a great example of
Wikipedia's poorest admins - whether you are wrong or right in policy or
fact has very little effect on how long you will last if you go to the
mat with him.
This story begins with the tale of WP user Mighty Morphin Army Ranger - who was drawn to purported WP criticism website WO after he was abused and taunted by Drmies on WP. His main complaint was that Drmies lied about the nature of his edits, falsely claiming he had inserted unverified information and indeed had misrepresented sources (in WP, such logical contradictions in accusations are normal). This falsehood was basically excused by AN/I because of the insider/outsider phenomena - MMAR was not an established editor, while Drmies was a trusted admin. Even though he's well aware of it, Drmies has never even acknowledged the falsehood, let alone apologised for it. Through the various machinations which will be familiar to Drmies' enemies, MMAR's career on WP was brought to a shuddering end by admins known to be close allies of Drmies, his talk page blocked and only allowed to appeal through UTRS, which is WP-speak for being shipped to the USA's Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
MMAR stuck around on WO, and having remembered the awful way Drmies had treated him, posted a forensic analysis there about a subsequent Drmies-related case of character assassination - the alleged racist hounding of admin Malik Shabbaz off of Wikipedia by user Brad Dryer (since renamed Bad Dryer). This incident evidently terribly upset Drmies, and led him to make all sorts of claims about how Brad was a racist and Malik was entirely innocent. This narrative was all a load of crap, all debunked in a thread in WO's private forum (evidently WO believes it's too embarrassing for Drmies to have his lies discussed out in the open internet), but it has of course been accepted on Wikipedia as fact. Wikipediocrats weren't even all that interested - it wasn't the sort of easy sound-bite they like, it required lots of reading to figure out just how false the whole thing was. They didn't even bat an eyelid when Malik himself popped up in the thread to accuse MMAR of talking rubbish without actually pointing out a single thing he had said which was untrue.
The plain truth of the incident was this. Having worked tirelessly in the Israel-Palestine area, Malik was a stressed out admin, who had either been acting poorly for a while, or was gradually melting down. Over a trivial edit dispute, Malik launched an unprovoked and arrogant attack on Brad, oozing superiority and self-entitlement, in a way that admins seem to get away with a lot (especially Drmies). Brad jabbed back, using a phrase, "sonny boy," which has two meanings, one innocent, and one racist. Despite having no evidence Brad intended the racist usage, Drmies constantly and loudly pronounced Brad to be a racist. Before anyone could blink, Malik became outraged and committed suicide by admin (resigned), and Brad was reflexively blocked by another notorious cowboy admin, because blood must have blood (Brad had at no point been allowed to even give his side of events). The fact that the context and other factors made it obvious it was most likely the innocent usage, Brad was eventually unblocked, once other typically Wikipedian bureaucratic stumbling blocks had been cleared.
These things all happened months ago, but at the time, with one one or two noted exceptions, they were largely ignored by WO's membership, either because it was all a bit too "inside baseball," but also because of how far down the line WO has gone as far as cosying up to WP and letting die-hard Wikipedians defend their own on their forum by taunting and trolling editors like MMAR.
Consequently, in the subsequent Arbcom elections, Drmies was unbelievably elevated to the high position of an arbitrator, essentially Wikipedia Supreme Court Judge. Not once did anyone from WO think to challenge him on his false statements against MMAR, which spoke to the very heart of his character, even though many of WO's members are WP users in good standing and would be perfectly allowed to ask him such questions. No, their interest in the elections was largely focused on fighting other battles, and weirdly, because a lot of disgruntled Wikipedians are WO members, this manifested on WO in actively drumming up support for Drmies (because he's seen as someone who could bring it back to the good old days of machismo, bullying and tribalism). Now, you could argue this is the evident triumph of a devious hasten-the-day strategy, but in reality, you'd be wrong - the hasten-the-day camp is all but non-existent on WO now.
And then Drmies blocked Brad for personal attacks and harassment over an unrelated dispute, having presumably see his name pop up in lights in an administrators noticeboard report. There's not been a word from Drmies about his obvious INVOLVEMENT withe respect to Brad, before or after the block (honestly, his prior statements alone are so strong, no reasonable person would sign off on the idea he was not compromised as far as acting as an admin on Brad in any future incident). He had "invited" people to discuss this block , but now that he is an arbitrator, even if he suspected anyone was about to take him to task over it, he must be confident in his standing now that he can pretty much connive his way out of the situation, knowing that the prior incidents happened months ago, and require a hell of a lot of reading to digest.
This will all most likely be quickly forgotten on Wikipedia as an open and shut case - even before the first block, Brad had been painted by some as a POV pusher and likely sock, and the same is being alleged now, so even if the block is INVOLVED and horribly abusive and shows an arbitrator to be a real nasty piece of work, it will likely stand, under the well established Wikipedia doctrine of "the ends justify the means."
The lack of notice taken by Wikipedians to these things is to be expected, but you would expect a so called critic site like WO to at least make sure people are aware of these things? Their role is to inform the outside world that these sorts of abuses are allowed to happen on WP even after Wikipedians have been informed of them. As of right now, there's been no mention of it on WO's public forum. It may have been mentioned in the secret forum, but you can see how much impact that had from the way Drmies was able to ignore it before. Just to remind you - this is an ARBITRATOR getting away with an involved block on someone he clearly hates, and has wanted to block for a while now. While the "inside baseball" characterisation could at least have been forgiven when Drmies was just an admin, now that he is an arbitrator, evidence of blatant abuse like this by one of Wikipedia's most trusted and powerful users, is just an open goal, begging to be put away.
This case will definitely be forgotten now - the same admin which declined Brad's unblock request, has also just closed the case on AN/I, so discussion of Drmies' pretty obvious motive for the block will now not be possible without much wailing about the picking up of dropped sticks. A final attempt at having the block reviewed was subsequently filed on AN, but this just led to more lies - a second admin denying Brad's unblock request claimed he had been "indeffed in the past for making racial comments at another editor. They were unblocked after apologies and promises." Someone who was there (which this admin was) would know that's a lie - Brad specifically denied it was meant as a racially-charged comment. All this was documented in the thread on WO, as well as all being public record in WP's history logs.
In an amusing post-script, Malik Shabazz has just recently made his way back onto Wikipedia, having previously made all sorts of loud noises about never setting foot in the place until justice was done. You can see from his talk page all the people who were ecstatic to see his return. Including, hilariously, the admin who has also just declined Brad's unblock request.
Drmies: The smile says it all.
Now that he's an arb, he will probably get away with lots of additional abuses. This is how WP will eventually self-implode.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I see that pointy head and smug little face, I wanna punch him in the mouth. Can't help myself. Argh, must take Klonopin.
We need to go to the next Wikimania (set for some town in Lombardy) with cricket bats just for the ultimate Wiki-beatdown.
DeleteEven if you go to his talk page on Wikipedia. When ever someone talks to him on his talk page, he constantly swears and curses towards them, saying the "F" word and more. Yes... I said that, he's even abusive on his talk page, no matter how many times he talks towards people that replies to him on his talk page... =(
Deletehe looks like a lollipop that was dropped in a barbershop
DeleteIKR! Another reason why he abuses and treats users bad, is that he does it just to protect himself. Especially when he protects articles when ever we try to prove sources and other stuff. Even when I report Homechallange55 for harassment, he did nothing about, and he just goes on and makes excuses. He bans me instead of him, like I said before and I'll say it again, just like him, they ban innocent users just to protect themselves.
DeleteAll Wikipedians are guilty in situations such as this. They are the audience and staff in the colosseum. It doesn't matter if they look at some other part of the arena while this is going on. They know it is the sort of place where this sort of stuff happens all the time, where it must happen, because the place is set up for conflict and confusion. It is so easily fixed if only they all voted with their feet and left. They won't because they enjoy being part of the spectacle. Give me a fiddle and a lighted match.
ReplyDeleteGood point. "We're all volunteers" is their usual refrain. As in, 'because I'm not being paid for my time here, I can't possibly be expected to figure out if other people are lying to me'.
DeleteIn all their publicity, new sign ups are never given this most important warning about the true nature of Wikipedia's "community" - witch hunts are exceptionally easy to organise and execute.
If you're a new user, if you've not had enough time to build up a social network, then truth and morality will take a back seat should you do anything to piss off power users like Drmies.
The Dark Knight
Kudos for bringing this set of Drmies' abuses to light. It's compelling reading and an excellent synopsis of garden variety evil on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for deleting this one, I thought I made a typo. But I didn't.
DeleteYou are all correct right. Drmies "IS" a scumbag! I tried to report user Homechallenge55 for edit warring and vandalism, and he did nothing about it. He just ignored my report on him and just blamed it on me, he even lied when he said there is no such user named Homechallenge55. I still don't find that possible, he even warned Homechallenge a while back to stop yelling in his edit summaries after he reverts an edit, so he knows who Homechallenge is, Drmies is just a freaking liar! He's not a helpful admin at all. I can tell he's bad, just by the look's on his face and that evil smerk on his face too. Tells you he gets away with everything and acts like he's really proud of it.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, non of the admins won't stop him or Homechallange55 too. But no matter what, Homechallange55 is nothing but a selfish prick! He takes out his frustration on every user and ip user that revert his edits, he even threatens them too. I'm not even that surprise that Drmies supports him... I really hope he gets what he deserves someday. Because I always say to them abusive admins "Your job as an admin is to help, protect and support users that need help for the site, not to just harass and be a douchebag towards innocent people. Just because your an admin doesn't mean you can treat people the way "YOU" want too and make their lives miserable." I know my wants and I know what to say when I stand up for myself against them. I don't put up with bad people that bullies innocent users, it makes me sick. I just ignore the bullies and move on in life, who cares what bullies think and who the hell cares. Besides, Drmies can go to hell for his stupid bad abuse.
DeleteP.S. And the read why this do all this, is that they do it just to protect themselves.
DeleteHe was even making fun of my spelling too when I was typing, all he did to me was just making excuse after excuse after excuse. Lying to me and everything. I will also post the link of my issue with him.
ReplyDeleteLink here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Homechallange55
Drmies was the reason i left WP after being on it for 7 years and I am being anonymous about it same as I was in WP. I spend the same time doing something better than being in the poisonous world of WP.
ReplyDeleteLeaving is the right thing to do, that's what I did as well. Just like what I said about Drmies before, they do all this nonsense just to protect themselves.
DeleteCheck this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1000:B070:E7E8:855:83F1:3F6C:47AB. I was recently checking out his contribution history and there was this user named Donner60 that left this IP user a warning message for vandalism, and Drmies replied on there and said "Donner60, please use a 4im warning for that kind of disgusting racism. Thank you." I mean seriously, what an ass!!!!! ��
DeleteDomosaurus_Rex Google me Bitch A$$ Drmies!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAd 'bot selling casino nonsense.
DeleteI’m sorry
DeleteThe best thing I can describe about Drmies is that the only reason why Wikipedia keeps him around is because he enjoys threatening trolling and harassing innocent users for nothing, plus the leaves tasteless block reasoning messages whenever he blocks you over something stupid. Plus, another reason why Wikipedia likes to keep him around is because he likes to snitch on people and act like they are the trouble makes, but not him. It still annoys me to this day that the staff and other admins do absolutely nothing to stop him, they literally let him get away scold free and he never gets punished for his abuse actions. All he gets is a slap on the wrist and that’s it! What a complete joke Wikipedia has become!
ReplyDeleteP.S. Plus, I bet that the other admins secretly know that he’s a trouble maker, they just don’t wanna confess. Because the admins are ALWAYS in denial of everything. The second reason they keep him around is because he enjoys kisses up to the staff and is probably all goodie two shoes to them, that’s why they think he’s a great user, they think he’s nice, but he it to begin with… that’s why he’s keeps getting out of hand with everyone and we can’t defend ourselves against him. That’s how good he is!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt still annoys the hell out of me that he continues to leave tasteless talk page messages to people when he blocks them, no wonder why Wikipedia enjoys keeping him around, because he’s a fucking bully! This guy is a gown ass man why enjoys acting five a five year old towards people on the internet. All thanks to his selfishness and his childish behavior, how has a lot of people despise him. He is just nothing but a narcissist!
ReplyDeleteIt is an online project in steep decline, and nobody seems willing to comment on the state of affairs. Thank you for your responses.
DeleteI apologize for swearing by the way. It’s just that Drmies angers me so much that he refuses to accept criticism, he especially lies so much that there is no way we can’t defend ourselves against him. Besides, he lies about everyone.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust by seeing that smirk on Drmies' face in the photo, it literally makes me just wanna punch him right in the face!!!!
ReplyDeleteHe’s got the face only a mother could love for sure lol
DeleteHe is literally the most narcissistic user I have EVER SEEN on social media, he literally just called me a jackass recently. Saying that I gave a decade ti grow up but haven’t, seriously, what a fucking dickhead!!!!! This guy is literally bipolar!
ReplyDeleteLOL Drmies living rent-free in the heads of losers who are butthurt that they can't vandalize Wikipedia. Suck it, incels.
ReplyDeleteThat you, Drmies?
DeleteI think it is, acting like a narcissist as always. Thinking it’s funny.
DeleteTo the Anonymous user telling me to Suck it, look who’s talking. If your really Drmies himself, get a life and grew the hell up already. Your behavior is unacceptable, what in the right mind gives you the right to treat users this way!?! You are the one that clearly vandalizes the site for YEARS, you always blame everyone over your problems that YOU caused in the first place. Everyone has reported you numerous times and the staff just sits there and ignore it, I have no clue why the staff ALLOWS you to do this, all the things you do are violations to its policy. plus calling us losers, look who’s talking and acting like a child about it, you are. So stop with this nonsensical behavior of yours and act like an actual admin for crying out loud. Someday I hope they remove you from your adminship.
DeleteDrmies is the Biggest scumbag on Wikipedia, the guy is the definition of the word incel. POS’s real name is Michel Aaij born in ‘69 guys nearly 60 years old and has been editing Wikipedia everyday since 07, if you look at his edit history he leaves snarky one liner replies like a fucking edgy 12 year old tiktok girl “facts on god” “poopy”. He removes whatever information he doesnt like no matter if its true, blocks whoever disagrees with him, and is a liberal who removes other viewpoints from conservative peoples pages. Its crazy how this shithead been beaten up knowing how much public info is out there about him
ReplyDeleteTell me about it, I have no clue how the staff doesn't see it… even after numerous reports from users, they sit there and ignore it.
DeleteSbaio is much worse
DeleteIt just sickens me that Wikipedia still keeps him around after numerous reports from users. He has been reported like numerous times of his editing and behavior and the staff just sat there and ignored it, claiming he didn’t do anything wrong. It is nothing but excuses from them, by looking at his history, he violates the Wiki policy himself. Even when he personally attacks someone on there talk pages, he NEVER gets warned about it. According to its policy, it says you can get blocked for personal attacking someone on their talk pages. But my biggest questions is how come HE is allowed to attack people and we can’t, but yes, I know attacking someone is not ok. But still, it doesn’t make sense. He violates that rule ALL the time and never gets warned about it, he thinks everything is the big joke to him, that’s why he’s a narcissist. Someday, I hope he gets what’s coming to him and hope his adminship gets removed, because this behavior of his is NOT funny.
ReplyDeleteThank you, 'Anonymous' and others for continuing to fight the good fight against this bag of odorous excrement.
ReplyDeleteI first made a wikipedia account in early 2023, so I am not new, but I am not a longtime editor necessarily either.
ReplyDeletePieces of shits I’ve had issues with include, Left guide, asilvering, Pi.1415926535, and Sbaio.
Especially Sbaio and pi.1415926535. Sbaio is by far the worst though especially since I have heard from multiple other users who had an issue with him too.
Sbaio falsely accused me of sock puppetry in August 2023 of an account that was indefinitely blocked a year and a half prior in January 2022 named “Moka Mo” then administrators believed it despite me saying multiple times I am a different person and even telling my first and last name and a picture of myself. Nothing worked then in September 2023, I was given an indefinite block. Luckily, in March 2024, a different administrator investigated and he proved my innocence and unblocked me. After that, I tried to make peace with sbaio but he said “I am not going to believe that you are not related to some blocked editor. You acted like every other sockpuppet of Moka Mo – start editing NHL-related pages from the start (also restore content previously added by Moka Mo) → get blocked → change IP → start all over again. You have done all of that and certain tools show a clear connection. So I do not believe one bit that you are unrelated to that editor. In addition, one of the IPs that you used also links to another blocked editor (unrelated to Moka Mo) that has been editing a different topic. Therefore, you are some blocked editor (most likely based on your knowledge making edits) or you are innocent (hardly believable). You will surely not like what I wrote, but I am not going to change my opinion, because similarities are obvious. And I certainly do not need walls of text on my talk page that you have been doing for a long time, which is very annoying and useless, because I do not want to see a book printed on my talk page when I come here. – sbaio 17:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)”
What a fucking piece of shit he is. No one gives a fuck about your “opinion” when you have been proven wrong. There’s a difference between opinions and facts.
Than the administrator who unblocked me (HJ Mitchell) said on sbaio’s talk page “Sbaio, I can't make you believe me but ArbCom are as close certain as it's possible to get on the Internet that Gymrat and Moka Mo are different people. Gymrat is in a different country and has given us other evidence besides what can be detected with checkuser. So although I can't make you trust him, I can require you to follow policy and treat him civilly and address his edits on their merits. HJ Mitchell | 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)“
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbaio&oldid=1215166682
Instead of following those instructions of being civil, he removed it from his talk page and for the edit summary saying “removing useless and annoying WP:WALLOFTEXT + WP:HARASSMENT” I mean talk about no accountability and victim mentality at all costs cause NOTHING I said or what the administrator said was harassment.
Another user (Marino13) had an issue with San in late 2023/early 2024 himself. He even said about sbaio this: “I can tell you one thing about Sbaio is he is narcissistic with his edits. It doesn’t matter if you have some facts to reveal if an achievement was made or an important league milestone was reached, he will reverse your hard work like a pile of trash. He cannot be reasoned with. Trust me, I’ve had my fair share with his reverts. I would suggest reporting him if he is a pain to deal with. Even little trivia facts you add, he will wipe it off with the snap of his fingers!- [[User:Marino13|Marino13]] ([[User talk:Marino13#top|talk]]) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)”
I also dug up sbaio’s toxic behavior towards someone name “Tylerboyd17” and how fed up he was of his narcissistic behavior in early 2024.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbaio&diff=prev&oldid=1208926390
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marino13&diff=prev&oldid=1176781772
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marino13&diff=prev&oldid=1215704202
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tylerboyd17&diff=prev&oldid=1306811445
Also, Pi.1415926535 is another who does nothing but deflect or gatekeep or gaslight people especially me. He’s also such a hypocrite. When I confronted him about an edit I corrected he made in July 2025, he whined by saying “I am happy to discuss whether it should be included in the list, given that it was in previous plans but never built. However, that can only happen if you treat me as a fellow editor rather than your enemy.” When in reality, he was the one treating ME like an enemy and stubbornly undoing things with very little reason or no reason at all. He also ignores you and ghosts you at all costs rather than simply communicate to people that are trying to get a hold of him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535&diff=prev&oldid=1302835757
Those others are assholes too but definitely not to the extent of sbaio or pi.1415926535, especially sbaio.
I have noticed a lot of patterns or inconsistencies or biases or conflict of interests that make it very frustrating to participate, even when things I add or undo are perfectly reasonable and within policies and trying to engage within good faith if someone is confused or is uncertain.
ReplyDeleteThese behaviors include⬇️
Constant gatekeeping by reverting perfectly fine edits for vague reasons or no reason at all without any efficient policy-based explanations.
Bad faith assumptions when this platform is so outspoken about always assuming good faith. Editors or even administrators who have done it for 15+ years tend to do whatever they think is best with very little regards to other editors then start drama with automatic assumptions that new contributions and then pushback when their actions get challenged are harmful or malicious or promotional rather than sit down and think thoroughly on their merits along with their own. Policy weaponizing by claiming "personal attacks" when their unreasonable reverts or flawed logic is called out or questioned, even though this site is always outspoken about engagement and collaborating and it is about their actions and behavior, not them personally. It shows they are either too absorbed with their own thinking or are just so avoidance to where they take accountability and encouragement to not judge books by their cover like an attack.
All of these erratic behaviors make wikipedia very unwelcoming and it does nothing but drives away users who just want to contribute to the best of their ability, whether they are veterans or relatively new editors or brand new editors.
These things can be very demoralizing because it seems like it is more about power dynamics rather than quality or policy.
When it comes to reverts, they put vague explanations like "not ideal" out of selective judgement or "looks better this way" as they pass personal preference off as authority or "unnecessary" even though the edit is within policy and clearly improves clarity, accuracy and formatting. These actions aren't good faith editing. Instead, they are circle jerks that are full of gatekeeping, territorialism and harassment under the guide of "policy".
ReplyDeleteYou get called out for "tone" even though they can't see your facial expressions and labeled as "committing a personal attack" even though all you did was simply point out inconsistent policies or sketchy editing like edit warring or disruptive editing on their end or their own behavior. The worst thing is that there is rarely any real accountability or none at all for certain veteran editors that have been on for 20+ years simply because of their longevity.
Due to their longevity, they keep up behaviors without any consequences whatsoever while others get punished for calling them out. This unfair treatment by them makes wikipedia feel incredibly hostile, unwelcoming and frustrating for all the others that are on it and are simply trying to improve articles the way they see fit, even though everyone tries to exclaim how inclusive wikipedia is. It drives people away and also discourages people from wanting to be a part of it themselves if they aren't yet. What is ironic is that everyone was a newcomer at one point, yet newcomers or those that aren't necessarily new but not veterans yet get treated like they are intruders or labeled as "annoying" or "incompetent".
These veteran editors and even administrators don't care about the things they claim to care about such as fairness, guidance, inclusivity or transparency. It is a hierarchy that is enforced by favoritism, intimidation and selective rule-breaks. They also hold grudges like it is their job even after you try to reason with them or straighten out any misunderstandings.
Wikipedia does have guidelines like WP:Welcome or WP:Consensus, but these behaviors from certain users or administrators often bypass the spirit of these rules. Let’s stop pretending it is anything other than a selectively enforced lie used to protect entrenched editors and bully anyone who isn’t already in the clique. AGF is not a principle. It’s a shield for insiders and a weapon against newcomers.
If you’re new or not socially embedded, everything you do is “suspicious.” Your edits have “motives.” Your uploads are “questionable.” Your explanations are “defensive” but long-time editors or administrators can be openly hostile, condescending, dismissive and passive-aggressive and that’s magically rebranded as “policy enforcement.” That’s not neutrality. That’s gatekeeping with citations.
And then, when you object to being treated like a bad actor, you’re told to “assume good faith.”
AGF doesn’t mean “assume good faith unless the person has less status than you.” It doesn’t mean “assume good faith only after we’ve accused you of hidden agendas.”
And spare me the “Wikipedia would fall apart without strict enforcement” excuse. Wikipedia isn’t bleeding contributors because standards exist. It is bleeding contributors because arrogance, hypocrisy, and social dominance is rewarded.
If AGF were real, It would apply upwards too rather than only downwards, Long-time editors would be questioned too.
Wikipedia doesn’t bleed contributors because standards exist. It bleeds contributors because Arrogance is rewarded, Hypocrisy is normalized, Power is insulated, Criticism is punished and Silence is enforced. People don’t leave because they can’t follow rules. They leave because they realize the rules aren’t applied equally and likely never will be.
You can’t build a healthy collaborative project on Selective good faith, Status-based immunity, Punishment disguised as prevention or blocks used as dominance tools. That’s not openness. That’s a bureaucracy protecting itself. Wikipedia doesn’t have a newcomer problem. It has an editor entitlement problem.