Guest Post: CrowsNest on Wikid77

Yep, he's back for more. Taken from the Wikipedia Sucks board.

So, there's an established Wikipedia editor called Wikid77, who has for years made it a real pain in the ass to do the very necessary task of monitoring Jimbo Wales' talk page. Why? Because he just keeps posting long streams of total nonsense. They've tolerated it for years, because, well, Wikipedia.

But finally come to a head. Someone has finally noticed some of his comments are racist, so they have blocked him. And so, at long last, Wikid77 has proved useful for the critic cause. Because the ensuing review.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=873830411#Wikid77

.......has exposed many of Wikipedia's deep flaws......

1. How long it took.

Wikid77 has been a time wasting bullshit spreading pest for literally years, on the most watched page on Wikipedia. And this certainly wasn't the first racist thing he said, not by a long shot. With that in mind, take a look at how long it has gone on, and how many racist things he has said, and compare that against the way the Wikipediots are now acting like they're all hardliners against this sort of thing.

And don't be thinking they simply didn't notice until now, because as has been pointed out, Wikid77 has been warned by Administrators several times for his his problematic beliefs. Which begs the question, why? If an instant block on a first offence is seen as too draconian, then surely you only give a racist one warning that their beliefs are unacceptable on Wikipedia? But they have issued him several warnings. And bear in mind, it is hardly unusual for racists to be blocked instantly and without warning on Wikipedia - the difference being they are not established editors, their offence is usually their first post.

2. How they handle racists

So, they're finally done with warning him. What now?

Believe it or not, a sizeable number of editors are considering not banning the racist. Instead, they either want him to just be blocked for six months, then be allowed to plead his case for a return as a reformed character.

Worse, some want him to remain, and only deal with his racism by preventing him from speaking about race. Seriously.

Even more worse, some are acting like his past record of positive (or simply moderately useful) contributions, or indeed the perceived lack thereof at least nowadays, affects the decision making process here as far as what they do with him here and now, with his racism clearly evident.

3. Banned for their beliefs?

There is a minor debate as to whether or not he is being banned for his beliefs, since a side-effect of them not really editing any articles anymore, means he isn't affecting article content. This gives some people pause.

How is this even a debate? Certain beliefs are so objectionable, the people who hold them should not be allowed to voice them anywhere on Wikipedia. As they are fond of pointing out, there is no Right to Free Speech on Wikipedia. No direct harm to the articles is necesary. Their speech is the harm.

It amazes me there are still people confused about this. There was me thinking that due to Guy Chapman's recent efforts, Wikipedia is a place where you can be banned merely for uttering "I believe Trump was sent to us By God" (bannable both for the expression of religious belief and the unacceptable political stance of uncritical support for Trump). An equal opportunities dick, Guy Chapman also wants to ban people who do not agree with the premise that gay marriage is something reasonable people can disagree about, which of course means that people who consider it a matter of human rights, are also bannable.

As stupid as those Chapman positions are, as wholly offensive to large swathes of people they must be, the fact they got wide community support surely demonstrates that wherever the bar is set now, it should mean that at least racism is well within the bannable merely for expressing it zone? But amazingly, there are still a few hold outs. They don't get warned or blocked. Free Speech?

Oh, and because this is Wikipedia, this side debate was of course moot anyway - as had already been pointed out, Wikid77 had been editing articles in furtherance of his beliefs. But of course those people talking about "banned for his beliefs" either didn't read the full debate, or did but ignored it. Free Speech?

4. What does *this* button do?

There's not much point banning racists, it you don't also delete their racism from view. That seems self-evident, right? Apparently not to the Wikipedians. At time of writing, all the examples given of Wikid77's unacceptable speech, are all still visible on the Wikipedia pages they were made on, or their archives.

It seems clear, from Jimmy to Guy Chapman, the high borne models, right on down to all the other lesser Wikipedians, their reaction to racism is to express their disbelief, mock the person, but crucially, they never seem capable of deleting it.

To be clear, for obvious reasons, it is firm Wikipedia policy that deleting racism is one of the few acceptable exceptions to the general rule against not altering other people's comments. And if the whole post wasn't racism, then you can snip the offending bits out, replacing it with "(redacted)".

To be even clearer, this isn't an Administrator only activity. This is not technical deletion, this is simply editing it out, something any Wikipedian can do ("Anyone Can Edit"). Well, except newbies - on pages like Jimmy's talk page, they aren't trusted to be able to spot racism and remove it. That is maybe a stance they should revisit?

If it was "grossly" offensive, it should also be permanently deleted from the page history (i.e not discoverable even by a curious person wanting to find out what got redacted). That is an Administrator only action, but it takes five seconds to get hold of one to request it. Obviously, all racism is grossly offensive, but it's not really clear all of Wikipedia's editors and Administrators agree.

5. Hypocrites Rule.

Jumping up and down all over this, are some of Wikipedia's biggest hypocrites.

Administrator Iridescent is incensed that Jimmy didn't properly manage his own page, calling him out for "personally tolerating racists". Which is odd, as he knows as well as anyone, that it is not really considered his page to curate, like a regular user talk page, it is seen as more of an unofficial village square. He should be familiar with the concept, as Iridescent hypocritically claims this same quasi-official status for his own talk page, but only only because doing so allows him to do and host things which would otherwise violate policy if it were an official noticeboard, and to bizarrely claim people do not have the right to censor it. This is all documented in our forum thread on him. Indeed, a visit to Iridescent's talk page means you will be served with a changing array of assorted offensive imagery (it rotates automatically), some of it exceedingly tasteless. NSFW, and then some.

Naturally, when someone exposed Iridescent's hypocrisy, pointing out he hadn't ever warned Wikid77 for his racism despite being there at the time, even now claiming he thought about doing it (ooh, tough!) he of course blew right past that. Because his interest in this debate isn't racism or Wikipedia, it is Jimmy, part of a very very long running feud (Iridescent is basically jealous Jimmy is still seen as a figurehead, and is pissed that the WMF thinks his editing is shit). Despite all that, Iridescent is never and will never be blocked for blatant attacks like that and all the other shit, much less have his status as an Administrator questioned.

In a bizarrely Kafkaesque scene, Iridescent even tried to use the example of Jimmy previously objecting to Wikid77's blocker Cullen's speech on his own talk page, and the ensuing flame war and rallying of support for Cullen's right to insult who he likes where he likes, as evidence Jimmy does want to police his own page. All documented on our forum here......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=762

It all begs the question, after that shameless episode, what business did Cullen have blocking anyone who is so closely associated with Jimmy? Could it have been the latest act in his attempt to undermine the failing King? The fact he didn't want to say anything in the ensuing debate, that he was happy that the vast majority of Wikipedians were horrified Jimmy was hosting a racist, and he was happy to let his block speak for itself. It does.

There's also Administrator Drmies. He's all over the shop, having a moment. He has finally realised he shouldn't just be expressing disbelief at racists, he should be blocking them too. Which is odd. As documented in this forum, Drmies is so keen to block racists, he often misfires, targeting innocent people, his itchy trigger finger being influenced by emotions induced from his personal involvement with the supposed victim. What Drmies is after, is to ensure everyone knows he is anti-racist. As if anyone could escape the fact.

These people think they're being clever. Their motivations and reasons for doing what they do, are as transparent as those of a toddler. As with toddlers, they are entirely selfish and self-interested.

On a more general point, do you see how many people are gleefully broadening out the theme? Not only are racists unwelcome, so are bigots, nationalists, homophobes. How very decent of them. Still no mention of sexism as a specific issue (included in bigotry I guess), but hey, baby steps. It is strange though. Because to me, as well as the rampant sexism, and the obvious Western systemic bias, Wikipedia also seems like a place where homophobes are openly tolerated.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=18&t=582

As was confirmed by the endorsement of Chapman's Diktat.

Ironically, there is one mention of sexism, by Iridescent. But since his best mate is one of the biggest woman haters on Wikipedia (also a sworn enemy of Jimmy), and given all the other nonsense views Iridescent is guilty of airing in that debate, I am confident the women of Wikipedia won't be seeing it as anything other than a throwaway comment, by someone who has learnt the right words but has no intention of being the right person.

6. Compounding harm

It always amazes me, the Wikipedians inability to restrain themselves. Consider the post by Administrator Boing! said Zebedee (talk) made at 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC). Why is he repeating the racist abuse and ideas, and in that very public of pages? Wikipedia has people like this everywhere, white dudes desperately trying to appear woke, failing to realise the most helpful and indeed respectful thing they can do, is stop using racist terms and spreading their messages, even when they are trying to express how woke they are.

7. Painfully angry

Related to the above, there is the hilarious sight of several Wikipedians using profane language to express just how MAD they are that there is still racism in the world. "Racists go fuck themselves". Sad fucks. But this is just another example of how their commitment to civility goes right out the window when they feel it is justified. They have brains the size of peas, they really do.

Conclusion.

All told, the case of Wikid77 exposed what anyone who watches Wikipedia for very long, already knows. Wikipedia's approach to racism is weak, soft, confused, compromised, hypocritical, illogical, and often totally corrupted by their petty internal squabbles and sheer desperation.

None of this is fixable. The problem is the community. And their Administrators are by no means an exception, there is no cream in this crop.

I mean, it could be fixed, by normal, intelligent people, although arguably they wouldn't be making these mistakes in the first place if "Wikipedian" was a by-word for a normal, intelligent, person.

The only answer to racism in Wikipedia, is getting rid of Wikipedia.

Hasten The Day.