Scorpions13256 wants out

[Giraffe Stapler]

Now on AN:

Indefinite block request

Hello, this is Scorpions1325 (T-C-L), who was previously known as Scorpions13256 (T-C-L) requesting an indefinite block on both of my accounts with talk page access revoked and email access disabled. Long story short, I have come to the conclusion that many editors on this site are just as bigoted as the average Trump supporter, and that working with a number of editors is bad for my mental health. I say this as someone who recently left the Republican Party. Furthermore, I have become disillusioned with many of the site's core policies, as I no longer believe that WP:NPOV is as attainable as it was 10 years ago. A group of editors have seized control of a variety of contentious topics, and they will do whatever they can to push their POV, regardless of how out-of-policy their edits are. A test I often use to assess an article is the Joseph Goebbels test that I came up with. Many conservative BLPs are treated less neutrally than Joseph Goebbels, so reality has a liberal bias doesn't work outside of Creationism, Murder of George Floyd, Climate Change Denial, or January 6.

This year, I got my OCD under control for the first time since 2013 via Deep Brain Stimulation. My OCD is gone, but my Autism remains. I also recently moved out for the first time. Altogether, these changes made me realize how damaging Wikipedia, reading the news, and social media are to my mental health, and how they prevented me from getting better sooner. My biggest obstacle to living a normal life is Wikipedia, and I feel that completely changing my lifestyle is the only way for this to happen. Nearly all of my family and friends agree with me.

I do not hold any animosity towards most individual editors as a whole. In fact, I came to like most of them. Sorry if I come off as offensive.


Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought about putting this in the non-public area, but I decided that Scorpions would not mind this being discussed publicly given their openness in the block request.

[Midsize Jake]

I thought about putting this in the non-public area, but I decided that Scorpions would not mind this being discussed publicly given their openness in the block request.

I guess on the one hand, we should commend the guy for realizing the source of his (dis-)stress and taking decisive action to disengage, but on the other hand, it does kind of seem like he might be minimizing the Republican Party itself as a likely stress factor. Or, maybe that's just me!

I suspect it's really all of these things mashed/mixed together, but the main thing is that he's self-aware enough to know that Wikipedia is part of it and not somehow "above it all" simply because of its patina of (often phony) intellectualism.

So hey, good for him!

[Giraffe Stapler]

Checking in to see if anyone granted their request, I see this:

Wikipediocracy

To anybody on Wikipediocracy reading this, note that I have read the short discussion about me that started today. It does not need to be private. Midsize Jake, you are right, the Republican Party's direction was causing me distress, but the left isn't any better. I am willing to discuss this further. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions, you are welcome to join and discuss things here but if Wikipedia is a problem for you, that's probably not a good idea. Many of us also suffer from addiction to Wikipedia (even though some of us don't even edit). I hope you find what you are seeking.

[Zoll]

Is this the first time someone been so stressed out by real life politics on Wikipedia?

[Vigilant]

Is this the first time someone been so stressed out by real life politics on Wikipedia?

Not hardly.

en.wp is a snake enclosure in a cesspit.

[Midsize Jake]

To anybody on Wikipediocracy reading this, note that I have read the short discussion about me that started today. It does not need to be private. Midsize Jake, you are right, the Republican Party's direction was causing me distress, but the left isn't any better. I am willing to discuss this further. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions, you are welcome to join and discuss things here but if Wikipedia is a problem for you, that's probably not a good idea.

Well, two things, I guess: First, the Democratic Party is hardly "the left," I see it as more of a center-right coalition that does its best to keep various ethnic/gender/sexual minorities happy (and often fails, though they do try). A lot of disillusioned Republicans ultimately fall prey to recidivism, or a kind of "rudderless" status politically, because they've taken in so much "both sides" propaganda they have trouble seeing that. (Again, I'm biased somewhat on this point.) Second, I think Mr. Scorpions already has an account here, and in fact has made 91 posts already. Long story short, whatever he wants to do is fine!

Personally I tend toward the opinion that this forum tends to be more helpful than not for people trying to wean themselves off of Wikipedia (or even go "cold turkey," occasionally that works too), but every person's situation is different, and it would be untoward for us to presume one way or the other in any given case. And it's also true that some threads are more "insiderey" than others, so it probably would be better to avoid those for the most part.

[Zoll]

does its best to keep various ethnic/gender/sexual minorities happy (and often fails, though they do try).

Politicians are lying cunts, surprise surprise.

[Midsize Jake]

does its best to keep various ethnic/gender/sexual minorities happy (and often fails, though they do try).

Politicians are lying...

Hey, did we ever decide what to do about the c-word thing? I guess I've forgotten now that Eric Corbett doesn't hang out here anymore.

[Mason]

does its best to keep various ethnic/gender/sexual minorities happy (and often fails, though they do try).

Politicians are lying...

Hey, did we ever decide what to do about the c-word thing? I guess I've forgotten now that Eric Corbett doesn't hang out here anymore.

You could retire it in his honor, like the Celtics did with #33.

[iii]

Scorpions, you are welcome to join and discuss things here but if Wikipedia is a problem for you, that's probably not a good idea. Many of us also suffer from addiction to Wikipedia (even though some of us don't even edit). I hope you find what you are seeking.

Is Scorpions welcome to do this? I thought he was busy chasing rabbits on a farm near Ithaca.

I'm calling in the drone on this.

Nothing to see here, he's now living on a nice farm upstate, with lots of rabbits to chase.

[utbc]

Why are there two threads on this one "I'm leaving, tell me I'm too valuable"? Uncharacteristically tame too.
Scorpion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1187182970 "I no longer believe that [[WP:NPOV]] is as attainable as it was 10 years ago."
https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/commen ... ?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/commen ... ?context=3
Orientem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Retired%3F "I have lost confidence in Wikipedia's neutrality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =979842612
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =979686574

[Midsize Jake]

Why are there two threads on this one "I'm leaving, tell me I'm too valuable"? Uncharacteristically tame too.

I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I'm beginning to suspect that some of our members are getting a little timid about starting threads in the publicly-visible forums/subforums. In most cases it would be better to start them in public areas, as long as they're in any way Wikipedia-related, and then move them into the private area later, if the situation calls for it.

In this case though, Mr. Scorpions (who, again, is a WPO member himself) suggested that his WP activity was contributing to a high level of mental stress, so that's what probably led Ms. Cheryl to start the other thread, a few minutes earlier than this one, in the private area. Again, that's not a criticism of her in any way, as I suspect many (most?) of our members would say she did the right thing.

Maybe this is just an unusual situation, but regardless, it's harder to justify moving private threads into a public area because some members might have posted things there under the assumption that they'd remain private.

[utbc]

Why are there two threads on this one "I'm leaving, tell me I'm too valuable"? Uncharacteristically tame too.

I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I'm beginning to suspect that some of our members are getting a little timid about starting threads in the publicly-visible forums/subforums. In most cases it would be better to start them in public areas, as long as they're in any way Wikipedia-related, and then move them into the private area later, if the situation calls for it.

In this case though, Mr. Scorpions (who, again, is a WPO member himself) suggested that his WP activity was contributing to a high level of mental stress, so that's what probably led Ms. Cheryl to start the other thread, a few minutes earlier than this one, in the private area. Again, that's not a criticism of her in any way, as I suspect many (most?) of our members would say she did the right thing.

Maybe this is just an unusual situation, but regardless, it's harder to justify moving private threads into a public area because some members might have posted things there under the assumption that they'd remain private.

That makes sense. If I had noticed the difference, I definitely would have preferred the private area. I only ever browse the "active topics" section and go wherever it takes me.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Why are there two threads on this one "I'm leaving, tell me I'm too valuable"? Uncharacteristically tame too.

It's my fault. I didn't notice that someone had started a thread about it already.

[Dan of La Mancha]

"I'm leaving, tell me I'm too valuable"

I think that's an unfair characterization; I see no reason not to believe that Scorpions is being sincere. They tried to quit Wikipedia back in August, apparently scrambling their password (diff), but only nine days later created a new account and resumed editing. It's entirely plausible that they genuinely want to be indeffed now as a further disincentive to return.

It's not clear to me whether Scorpions is currently banned from WPO or not; if they are, I'd just like to assure them that the other thread is indeed "uncharacteristically tame", and not much different from this one.

[Midsize Jake]

It's not clear to me whether Scorpions is currently banned from WPO or not...

As it happens, Mr. Scorpions was put "on hiatus" as a result of this exchange, which is also only visible to forum members (sorry, non-members!). Suffice to say that his anti-abortion views were somewhat extreme, and while I'd like to think that would have been okay if he hadn't expressed them in such a hostile manner, the fact that the Dobbs decision had just recently come down made the whole thing a bit too powderkeggish (I realize that's not really a word) at the time.

Being "on hiatus" is pretty similar to being banned, permissions-wise. It's just easier to restore permissions that way later, when everything dies down. As for that happening, we don't explicitly require assurances that the person will be nicer to other members in the future, but if the person does make such assurances, that's probably enough in the vast majority of cases.

[Giraffe Stapler]

As it happens, Mr. Scorpions was put "on hiatus" as a result of this exchange, which is also only visible to forum members (sorry, non-members!).

Oh my. That was a short but ugly exchange.

[Konveyor Belt]

As it happens, Mr. Scorpions was put "on hiatus" as a result of this exchange, which is also only visible to forum members (sorry, non-members!).

Oh my. That was a short but ugly exchange.

I didn't witness the conversation as it happened so I don't know for sure, but Zoloft's use of might imply that there was other stuff that had to be deleted for going even further over the line.

[Vigilant]

As it happens, Mr. Scorpions was put "on hiatus" as a result of this exchange, which is also only visible to forum members (sorry, non-members!).

Oh my. That was a short but ugly exchange.

I was eloquent and pithy there.