Levivich
Welcome to Meta!
editHello, Levivich. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
cerealously
edit-
Wholesome cereal products -
Serious cereal threshing at ANI -
Threshing out the UCoC on Meta -
EEng horsing around cereally with detractor in discussion
Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: Cerealously hilarious! :-) Levivich (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy
editHi Levivich. I wanted to congratulate you on your efforts regarding this ArbCom Case request. I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to point out Stanistani runs the site. What he wants, happens. What Vigilant does, is entirely in his control. And Vigilant would comply, because he has nowhere else to go.
But if anything, the only reason Zoloft even keeps Vigilant around, is to mislead people into thinking WO of today is the same as it always was, and what The Wikipedia Review was before it. An often boisterous broad church, dominated by the banned and disaffected, but from which nuggets of wisdom and important discoveries often dropped, for the benefit of journalists and regulators, or the WMF. It really isn't. And whether as a cause or a symptom, its former large stable of financial backers, site Admins and Moderators, has reduced to three: Zoloft as Trustee, Jake as Admin, Tarantino as Moderator.
Zoloft's WO is essentially no more than a set of parallel Talk pages, maintained independently of WP solely to allow a more incivil environment. But Vigilant aside, and maybe Martin Kelly, all that hate is coming largely from established and active Wikipedians. Some identified, most not. It is written by and for Wikipedia editors.
Ergo, the evidence would show that the problem for Wikipedia is far more subtle than how it usually encounters harassment and canvassing. Zoloft's WO is about coercive control. It is meant to be read. You're meant to feel like, and indeed actually be, at a material disadvantage if you're involved in WP dispute resolution or just trying to follow a WP debate, and you're not reading WO in almost real time. And if you don't read, them getting a kick out of that, is by design. Beeblebrox being the most obvious example.
Quite where that leads a Case, is interesting. It has implications for INVOLVED certainly. And for Zoloft's standing as a Wikipedia editor. And ArbCom is certainly no stranger to making rulings that in all practical effect, can only ever be advisory if the relevant parties don't want to link their WP identity to an external one. Doesn't mean that advice shouldn't be formal, so that expectations are clear.
Hope this helps. Good luck!