WP:MANDY

[Pudeo]

"I have never beaten my wife."
WP:MANDY (T-H-L)! That's exactly what a wife-beater would say!

This cutting-edge BLP essay created by JzG in Dec 2019 has recently seen increasing usage. Ritchie333 even inserted the essay in official BLP policy, though I just reverted that (leaving the other improvements in place).

How is it usually used? Most often it is cited related to various descriptions in far-right politics. As GorillaWarfare recently explained on AE: "We quite regularly refer to people using terms that they have said they do not use for themselves—many white nationalists, for example, do not self-identify as such (WP:MANDY)".

GorillaWarfare's LTA sock protégé IHateAccounts (T-C-L) (GW even opened an AE thread on the sock's behalf to bypass autoconfirmed protection) prominently linked to the essay in various disputes.

Before the US elections, there was a white nationalism allegation dispute related to a 25-year-old Republican candidate Madison Cawthorn (T-H-L), triggered by revelations in a Jezebel article. Basically, Cawthorn had taken vacation pictures with his brother at Adolf Hitler's Eagle's Nest retreat, which is a tourist destination now, and used the word "Führer" and called the place a site of "supreme evil". He also has a company by the name "SPQR", or Senatus Populusque Romanus, which stands for the Roman Senate, and the Betsy Ross flag had appeared in his Instagram feed. Taken all together, these could be alt-right dog whistles.

According to IHateAccounts, Cawthrown's denials of being a white nationalist fall into WP:MANDY category. Indeed, a white nationalist would deny being a white nationalist. But what if there were other assessments? The Associated Press ran whole story on these allegations. It featured the opinion of the Anti-Defamation League's Mark Pitcavage (T-H-L). His assessment was:

But Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said the Betsy Ross flag, the SPQR abbreviation and Spartan helmet are not included in the league’s database of hate symbols. Pitcavage said while there are examples of their use by white supremacists, or in the case of the helmet by antigovernment or firearms activists, they are used “just as much or more often by nonextremists than extremists.”

Without specifically evaluating Cawthorn, he said: “Based on those specific things, I don’t think someone can make a good case that the person (using them) is an extremist.”

After this is pointed out on the talkpage, IHateAccounts still restored the allegations in a damning manner, naturally citing WP:MANDY.

White-washing is a problem, as was the case with what CLCStudent just did a while ago. But that is when the description follows strong mainstream sources, and not cherry-picked interpretations from poor outlets like Jezebel. So now this anti-BLP essay enables trolling and RationalWiki-type hatchet jobs. This flies directly against what BLP stands for, IMO.

[watis]

I agree with the general idea that this is a kind of dumb essay, but I'm not really sure where the need for a several-paragraph screed about some dude who got sockblocked four months after making an account comes in.

[Midsize Jake]

...I'm not really sure where the need for a several-paragraph screed about some dude who got sockblocked four months after making an account comes in.

I think he's just referring to him as an example of someone who's already using the essay as a rationale for negative BLP edits. If enough established Wikipedia users notice it (and/or read this thread), there's a slim chance the essay will be "deprecated" or even deleted, what with it being really appalling and everything. If not, then more examples might well appear down the road.

The problem with ideas like this is that they largely ignore what Wikipedia is on a fundamental level. Wikipedia is a website that allows anonymous, drive-by editing of most of its content, but at the same time, denies article subjects any meaningful right of response. So if you're a BLP subject, you are the one person in the entire world who isn't given the right to alter content in your own biography, which simply couldn't be more unfair — even if, as would often be the case, subjects given that right would use it to self-promote and/or attempt to deceive readers. (I understand that there are some BLPs that are protected or semi-protected, and that probably does help, but it should really be all of them, if not all articles in general.)

Essays like this are just another step towards the ultimate goal of some Wikipedians to arrogate unto themselves the right to set bogus "standards" and practices that effectively elevate anonymous, not to mention unqualified, online actors (or "goons," if you prefer) to the status of traditional journalists and authors. Neo-nazis and white supremacists act as the "wedge" to justify the initial assertions of that right, and we don't object much because they're neo-nazis and white supremacists, but it's a slippery slope. Over time this could, and probably will, be expanded to cover almost any article subject who does something objectionable, or even just "controversial."

[Without Comfort]

...I'm not really sure where the need for a several-paragraph screed about some dude who got sockblocked four months after making an account comes in.

(bolding added) I think he's just referring to him as an example of someone who's already using the essay as a rationale for negative BLP edits. If enough established Wikipedia users notice it (and/or read this thread), there's a slim chance the essay will be "deprecated" or even deleted, what with it being really appalling and everything. If not, then more examples might well appear down the road.

Pudeo's really on to something here. I expect many more examples down the road, unless steps are taken to stop this where it is.

[Giraffe Stapler]

The deejay, he say, here's Mandy for ya...

[tarantino]

The deejay, he say, here's Mandy for ya...

[Giraffe Stapler]

Just happened to read something that seemed relevant to this discussion: Navy investigators found contractor in Capitol riot was known as a white supremacist.

A U.S. Army reservist who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was widely known as a white supremacist and regularly discussed his hatred of Jews while working at a New Jersey-based naval facility, according to new evidence revealed by federal prosecutors late Friday.

But of course...

Zucker argued that the government’s characterization of Hale-Cusaneli as a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer was inaccurate.

“In fact, during an interview of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli by FBI agents, he denied this when he stated that, ‘he is not a Nazi ...’ and ‘he is not a white nationalist or a white supremacist,’” Zucker said, citing Hale-Cusanelli’s FBI interview summary from February. “There is no evidence Mr. Hale-Cusanelli is a member of any white supremacist organizations.”

He also called Hale-Cusanelli’s YouTube channel “controversial,” but primarily about local New Jersey politics. And he said the government’s discovery of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries” at Hale-Cusanelli’s home “does not mention that there were hundreds of other books in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli’s collection.”

I'm not suggesting this applies to Madison Cawthorn. He is a terrible person for other reasons, but there doesn't yet seem to be conclusive evidence that he is a white nationalist.

[Zoloft]

Just happened to read something that seemed relevant to this discussion: Navy investigators found contractor in Capitol riot was known as a white supremacist.

A U.S. Army reservist who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was widely known as a white supremacist and regularly discussed his hatred of Jews while working at a New Jersey-based naval facility, according to new evidence revealed by federal prosecutors late Friday.

But of course...

Zucker argued that the government’s characterization of Hale-Cusaneli as a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer was inaccurate.

“In fact, during an interview of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli by FBI agents, he denied this when he stated that, ‘he is not a Nazi ...’ and ‘he is not a white nationalist or a white supremacist,’” Zucker said, citing Hale-Cusanelli’s FBI interview summary from February. “There is no evidence Mr. Hale-Cusanelli is a member of any white supremacist organizations.”

He also called Hale-Cusanelli’s YouTube channel “controversial,” but primarily about local New Jersey politics. And he said the government’s discovery of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries” at Hale-Cusanelli’s home “does not mention that there were hundreds of other books in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli’s collection.”

I'm not suggesting this applies to Madison Cawthorn. He is a terrible person for other reasons, but there doesn't yet seem to be conclusive evidence that he is a white nationalist.

     
Yeah, seems to be a Charlie Chaplin fan.

[iii]

poor outlets like Jezebel

Poor users deserve poor outlets, don't you think?

I really like Jezebel and find that it does a pretty good job of sussing out fact from fiction. But I understand the gamergaters don't agree with that assessment. But, y'know, gamergaters aren't exactly on the up-and-up.

Perhaps Jezebel wrote something you didn't like. Perhaps you'd like to share with us exactly how you came to such a conclusion rather than being roundabout? I see you paraphrased them (I would argue rather uncharitably) while quoting the Associated Press.

[Pudeo]

Perhaps Jezebel wrote something you didn't like. Perhaps you'd like to share with us exactly how you came to such a conclusion rather than being roundabout? I see you paraphrased them (I would argue rather uncharitably) while quoting the Associated Press.

Well, it is a pop culture website that started as a Gawker blog in 2007. Gawker was known for hot air and lawsuits, and a lot of that was explained because these new sites don't have the same standards that the legacy media had. It is quite obvious why Jezebel would be a poor source compared to APNews/Reuters/WaPo/NYT or whatever, generally speaking, as I don't know much about their journalists. That AP article is impressive in what lenghts it went to neutrally examine the allegations. There are partisan PACs like the Right-Wing Watch that feed material for mud-slinging. Presumably the Associated Press has very high standards to double check the claims they are covering as a news agency, whereas Jezebel might not. Reuters or AP would be the gold-standard for WP articles.

Picking up a claim that only exists in Jezebel or similar sources and putting it in lead section is that trading up the chain thing. Boosting weaker sources in wiki-voice to get it as the top Google result, and hoping that other outlets pick that up. It must be quite surprising for a wiki-outsider that it only requires one editor, or a few, to completely revamp what Siri or Google will give as the result.

The baddies are protected by BLP too. But it isn't fun to defend them for most editors, and they don't have to, because it's all a volunteer effort. Non-regulars don't know the wikispeak to do proper criticism and instead post NOTFORUM rants that change nothing.

[Guerillero]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

[iii]

Gawker was known for hot air and lawsuits, and a lot of that was explained because these new sites don't have the same standards that the legacy media had.

Gawker was sued out of existence by Peter Thiel. I'm sure he would agree with your talking points, but I do not.

[watis]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

The whole IHA mess brings to mind the classic WP:WikiSpeak (T-H-L) line:

mentor n.
An experienced, knowledgeable, and well-respected editor, who through a momentary and inexplicable lapse of judgement finds him or herself performing a role that resembles a cross between Dennis the Menace's father and Hannibal Lecter's defence counsel. Only two eventual outcomes are possible: either the mentor can do the honourable thing and, having nailed their colours to the mast, go down with the ship when their padawan is community-banned by general acclamation; or, having been informed of their apprentice's nth appearance at WP:ANI, jump ship and join in the pile-on. Both are equally entertaining for bystanders.

[Moral Hazard]

The deejay, he say, here's Mandy for ya...

Mandy (2018 film) (T-H-L) A clip from the film or a new account at Wikipediocracy?

[Midsize Jake]

Mandy (2018 film) (T-H-L)

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title, since I at least knew what the movie is about. "This is good," I remember thinking, "since it probably means the Wikipedians are finally working on a new policy to discourage users from allowing editing disputes to turn into grim orgies of relentless, mindless violence and ritualistic cult-like murder sprees."

Unfortunately, I was mistaken.

[Tarc]

Gawker was known for hot air and lawsuits, and a lot of that was explained because these new sites don't have the same standards that the legacy media had.

Gawker was sued out of existence by Peter Thiel. I'm sure he would agree with your talking points, but I do not.

The incel/gamergater/alt-right brigade's entire existence revolves around screeching over the existence of Kotaku.

Jezebel is hated for the typical "Women are saying things!" reasons.

[MrErnie]

...I'm not really sure where the need for a several-paragraph screed about some dude who got sockblocked four months after making an account comes in.

So if you're a BLP subject, you are the one person in the entire world who isn't given the right to alter content in your own biography...

As EEng is experiencing now at ANI, the one notable exception for this is that a BLP subject is able to direct which pronoun their article uses, without requiring sourcing. The current drama is that EEng has been blocked for pushing back against a BLP subject wanting their pronoun to (perhaps facetiously) be "tree."

[AndyTheGrump]

EEng seems to have a habit of poking things with sharp sticks, often for no obvious reason, or at least in a way that is liable to backfire (aaargh, mixed metaphor alert...). 'Attention seeking' would probably be the best guess for why. I'll not step into the pronoun minefield myself (jeez, how many metaphors do I need) beyond restating what I've just written elsewhere: that applying a vacuous literalism to words in isolation often misses their broader context. Wikipedia, needless to say, tends to habitually nit-pick over individual words to the extent that the context will vanish entirely. I think this may be happening in this case. Foolishness all round will no doubt ensue...

[IhateAccounts]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

And I'd like to point out that both Pudeo and Guerillero are lying out their asses here.

I am not a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or anyone else. Guerillero, Pudeo and a few other editors just decided that the one thing they couldn't stand on Wikipedia was an active and effective LGBT, Non-binary editor. I had too much success filing RFCs to get obviously bad sources like "Jihadwatch" properly labeled as deprecated, and I was too good at providing good sources and following Wikipedia policy when it came to issues like the January 6th terrorist attack on the US capitol, so they decided I had to be put down by any means necessary.

How did they do this? They made up a nonsense story about me being SkepticAnonymous, on the basis that we both edited from the giant metropolis of Houston. It was total bullshit since I didn't even live in Texas much less Houston before two years ago when I moved for school but hey, why would they ever let the truth get in their way?

And then they had MJL (T-C-L), my "mentor", tell me to not respond to the bullshit SPI and "wait for the process" so that Guerillero could fast-roll it behind my back and block me without letting me say one thing in my defense. And MJL even admitted to me on Discord that it was her price for being allowed to apply for adminship. I guess she never got her 30 pieces of silver from you Guerillero, did she?

I found out about THIS thread after googling when someone informed me that the real SkepticAnonymous has been filing requests to come back to Wikipedia. I'm sure Guerillero could have that checked and see that it's not me, but I'm also sure he won't because he'd never let the facts get in the way of his lynching an LGBT editor.

[Hemiauchenia]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

And I'd like to point out that both Pudeo and Guerillero are lying out their asses here.

I am not a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or anyone else. Guerillero, Pudeo and a few other editors just decided that the one thing they couldn't stand on Wikipedia was an active and effective LGBT, Non-binary editor. I had too much success filing RFCs to get obviously bad sources like "Jihadwatch" properly labeled as deprecated, and I was too good at providing good sources and following Wikipedia policy when it came to issues like the January 6th terrorist attack on the US capitol, so they decided I had to be put down by any means necessary.

How did they do this? They made up a nonsense story about me being SkepticAnonymous, on the basis that we both edited from the giant metropolis of Houston. It was total bullshit since I didn't even live in Texas much less Houston before two years ago when I moved for school but hey, why would they ever let the truth get in their way?

And then they had MJL, my "mentor", tell me to not respond to the bullshit SPI and "wait for the process" so that Guerillero could fast-roll it behind my back and block me without letting me say one thing in my defense. And MJL even admitted to me on Discord that it was her price for being allowed to apply for adminship. I guess she never got her 30 pieces of silver from you Guerillero, did she?

I found out about THIS thread after googling when someone informed me that the real SkepticAnonymous has been filing requests to come back to Wikipedia. I'm sure Guerillero could have that checked and see that it's not me, but I'm also sure he won't because he'd never let the facts get in the way of his lynching an LGBT editor.

Your baseless claims that other editors are biased against you because of your sexuality really rubbed people the wrong way. I agree that the IP address claims are flimsy, and I said so at the time, and there was nothing wrong with the JihadWatch RfC as far as I was concerned , but you really dug your own grave with your attitude, regardless of whether you are a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or not.

[watis]

[wall of text]

You'd be indeffed by now even if you weren't a sock, and it wouldn't be for your sexuality.

[IhateAccounts]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

And I'd like to point out that both Pudeo and Guerillero are lying out their asses here.

I am not a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or anyone else. Guerillero, Pudeo and a few other editors just decided that the one thing they couldn't stand on Wikipedia was an active and effective LGBT, Non-binary editor. I had too much success filing RFCs to get obviously bad sources like "Jihadwatch" properly labeled as deprecated, and I was too good at providing good sources and following Wikipedia policy when it came to issues like the January 6th terrorist attack on the US capitol, so they decided I had to be put down by any means necessary.

How did they do this? They made up a nonsense story about me being SkepticAnonymous, on the basis that we both edited from the giant metropolis of Houston. It was total bullshit since I didn't even live in Texas much less Houston before two years ago when I moved for school but hey, why would they ever let the truth get in their way?

And then they had MJL, my "mentor", tell me to not respond to the bullshit SPI and "wait for the process" so that Guerillero could fast-roll it behind my back and block me without letting me say one thing in my defense. And MJL even admitted to me on Discord that it was her price for being allowed to apply for adminship. I guess she never got her 30 pieces of silver from you Guerillero, did she?

I found out about THIS thread after googling when someone informed me that the real SkepticAnonymous has been filing requests to come back to Wikipedia. I'm sure Guerillero could have that checked and see that it's not me, but I'm also sure he won't because he'd never let the facts get in the way of his lynching an LGBT editor.

Your baseless claims that other editors are biased against you because of your sexuality really rubbed people the wrong way. I agree that the IP address claims are flimsy, and I said so at the time, and there was nothing wrong with the JihadWatch RfC as far as I was concerned , but you really dug your own grave with your attitude, regardless of whether you are a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or not.

So because I stood up for myself I deserved all the abuse? Yeah, that's the typical thing I'd expect. No admission of wrongdoing from you who actually did all the wrongs whatsoever, just "you stood up to the bullies so you're in the wrong" gaslighting crap.

[IhateAccounts]

[wall of text]

You'd be indeffed by now even if you weren't a sock, and it wouldn't be for your sexuality.

The facts didn't matter, the fact that I followed wikipedia policy didn't matter. I was too effective as an LGBT, non-binary editor to be allowed to stay.

I stood up for myself and didn't take abuse lying down. If that's why I'd be indeffed, that's proof that wikipedia itself is an abusive and corrupt system.

[IhateAccounts]

[victim-blaming]

I know the abuse I received. I saw up front what was really going on, I experienced the hounding firsthand. You know full well I'm telling the truth here. I was denied anything even resembling a fair hearing and railroaded by liars who wanted me gone because I was an effective LGBT, non-binary editor who worked WITHIN policy, followed the rules, and sourced everything cleanly.

They couldn't have that, so a pretext had to be made up, and that's what they did. And even though any honest examination of the evidence would show they were wrong, here I sit indefinitely blocked, because the truth doesn't matter to them.

You expect me to just be silent in the face of that? You expect me NOT to be angry, and not to stand up when I find out that these two continued lying here about me?

Maybe instead you should consider that my indignation at the abuse I received from wikipedia members is fully fucking justified.

[Hemiauchenia]

[victim-blaming]

[deflection]

There are plenty of LGBT editors on Wikipedia, and none of them received the same pushback that you did. The reason that people pushed back against you was because of your confrontational behaviour, and the fact that you were editing in the highly contentious AP2 topic area.

[iii]

You expect me to just be silent in the face of that? You expect me NOT to be angry, and not to stand up when I find out that these two continued lying here about me?

Maybe instead you should consider that my indignation at the abuse I received from wikipedia members is fully fucking justified.

First of all:

You'll find that this website while superficially more toxic and tolerant of outright conflict is, in many ways, more honest than that other website. I'm glad you came to say your piece and I hope you know that the story you tell is not one that is out of the ordinary.

WP is passively designed to cause problems such as the one you are experiencing. The real question is, how do you deal with that? Sometimes ignoring spurious SPIs is a decent tactic because defensiveness is seen as disconfirming because of how often it is seen by sockpuppetteers. It's the classic Catch-22 conundrum. While it is possible that you were betrayed as a condition of adminship, I'd be a little surprised if this happened in quite the hand-greasing way you described. It's not impossible, but it would be a bit weird because I don't know why that would be so important to whichever cabal.

Anyway, the real point here is that it sucks to be on the wrong end of this sort of action, so I'm extending sympathy.

[IhateAccounts]

[victim-blaming]

[deflection]

There are plenty of LGBT editors on Wikipedia, and none of them received the same pushback that you did. The reason that people pushed back against you was because of your confrontational behaviour, and the fact that you were editing in the highly contentious AP2 topic area.

So I just imagined being harassed over my username, and then being harassed otherwise? Sounds like more victim-blaming to me.

I don't play well with "the beatings will continue until you stop complaining about the beatings", at which point the beatings will continue anyways. I learned the hard way NOT to suffer in silence by way of physical scars at the hands of an abuser.

You want to put 100% of the fault on me, and you seemingly don't see where I might have a problem with that. You haven't actually admitted the fault of my being barred from saying anything in my defense when Guerillero decided to fast-rush the block. You haven't actually admitted the fault of MJL for playing me for a patsy. You haven't admitted the faults of anyone else who was engaged in that harassment.

You have BARELY admitted the truth that the "evidence" was a bullshit pretext because there was no way they could actually justify their block within policy.

And you still won't even admit that I am right to be indignant over the completely corrupt behavior on the part of the admins and others, whose misconduct directly affected me and who have slandered me repeatedly.

[IhateAccounts]

You expect me to just be silent in the face of that? You expect me NOT to be angry, and not to stand up when I find out that these two continued lying here about me?

Maybe instead you should consider that my indignation at the abuse I received from wikipedia members is fully fucking justified.

First of all:

You'll find that this website while superficially more toxic and tolerant of outright conflict is, in many ways, more honest than that other website. I'm glad you came to say your piece and I hope you know that the story you tell is not one that is out of the ordinary.

WP is passively designed to cause problems such as the one you are experiencing. The real question is, how do you deal with that? Sometimes ignoring spurious SPIs is a decent tactic because defensiveness is seen as disconfirming because of how often it is seen by sockpuppetteers. It's the classic Catch-22 conundrum. While it is possible that you were betrayed as a condition of adminship, I'd be a little surprised if this happened in quite the hand-greasing way you described. It's not impossible, but it would be a bit weird because I don't know why that would be so important to whichever cabal.

Anyway, the real point here is that it sucks to be on the wrong end of this sort of action, so I'm extending sympathy.

I'm an out, LGBT, non-binary editor. That was enough to put a target on my back, then they tried being uncivil and hurtful towards me over RFCs to have the "JihadWatch" blog and Newsmax properly marked as deprecated. When I had to file anything about specific editors who were being beyond the pale I had asked for and followed the advice of more experienced editors MJL and GorillaWarfare who I made a big mistake in trusting apparently. I did everything I could to act in good faith and follow Wikipedia policy, even when the policies were fucking contradictory and designed as traps.

There was ZERO way for them to justify what they did within policy, so their only option was the nuclear-corrupt-lying option.

It was made 100% clear to me that MJL was planning to run for admin, and that she was told unconditionally that defending me in any way was going to be disqualifying. So she instead gave me the shittiest advice possible and did next to nothing when Guerillero implemented the plan to bum-rush the process. Finding out how I'd been betrayed that way was sickening.

You can see it in the other comments too. "CaptainEek" wrote one comment saying they "think" I should be unblocked, but did anyone follow up? Of course not. I was too effective as an LGBT non-binary editor so I had to be lynched.

Wikipedia could prove me wrong about all this with two simple actions. They could fix it and apologize to me for how I've been treated. I know for a fact that if they actually followed the evidence it shows I'm not SkepticAnonymous because I'M NOT FUCKING SKEPTICANONYMOUS. But hey, why would they bother to check the facts, when checking the facts means they lynched an innocent person?

[Poetlister]

You can't get more LGBT than Fæ (T-C-L), and it took them years to block him even though he was begging for it. Indeed, he's still not blocked on Commons, Wikidata, CYwiki or Meta.

[iii]

I'm an out, LGBT, non-binary editor. That was enough to put a target on my back, then they tried being uncivil and hurtful towards me over RFCs to have the "JihadWatch" blog and Newsmax properly marked as deprecated.

It's possible that there was some targeting in that fashion, but know that there is a group of editors at WP who desperately try to skew it to the right wing political position whenever they see the opportunity, and although they may be personally opposed to you in the identity politics way, they will typically not tip their hand. These are largely those that are leftover from previous conflicts where the most strident of their crew got booted (you can search through the archives here and at the old Wikipedia Review site if you'd like more background on that history). Those who are left are the sealions and concern trolls who draw pleasure in pressing buttons the right way and like to go after those editors they consider to be too WP:ACTIVIST (T-H-L).

I did everything I could to act in good faith and follow Wikipedia policy, even when the policies were fucking contradictory and designed as traps.

There was ZERO way for them to justify what they did within policy, so their only option was the nuclear-corrupt-lying option.

A not-so-well-kept secret is that Wikipedia policy is whatever the majority think it is. It is not what was crowdsourced and adopted and it certainly is not interpreted as being something that would work the same as a terms of use document. A lot of users get confused about this. Trying to "follow" policy is not the real game. The real game is trying to use policy to incrementally get your way. See WP:MMORPG (T-H-L).

You can see it in the other comments too. "CaptainEek" wrote one comment saying they "think" I should be unblocked, but did anyone follow up? Of course not. I was too effective as an LGBT non-binary editor so I had to be lynched.

Do you want to be unblocked? If so, it may be possible that people here can help you. But it depends on whether and why you would want to be unblocked. It may be that it isn't worth it.

Wikipedia could prove me wrong about all this with two simple actions. They could fix it and apologize to me for how I've been treated.

If it's an apology you're after, you're almost certainly not going to get it. We have case after case of fuck-ups being documented here where an apology was warranted and it is essentially never forthcoming. If you can do without the apology, you might be able to move forward, but if the apology is important to you, your impulse is right that you aren't going to get one.

On the other hand, if by "fix it" you mean get unblocked, that might be arranged. It may be a slow and uncomfortable process, but that's possible. If by "fix it" you mean rain fury down upon your enemies... well... I can't help with that but perhaps there are others here (or more likely at the sucks forum) who perhaps might be willing.

[IhateAccounts]

Wikipedia could prove me wrong about all this with two simple actions. They could fix it and apologize to me for how I've been treated.

If it's an apology you're after, you're almost certainly not going to get it. We have case after case of fuck-ups being documented here where an apology was warranted and it is essentially never forthcoming. If you can do without the apology, you might be able to move forward, but if the apology is important to you, your impulse is right that you aren't going to get one.

On the other hand, if by "fix it" you mean get unblocked, that might be arranged. It may be a slow and uncomfortable process, but that's possible. If by "fix it" you mean rain fury down upon your enemies... well... I can't help with that but perhaps there are others here (or more likely at the sucks forum) who perhaps might be willing.

An unblock would be a good first step. "Rain fury down upon my enemies"? I don't want that. I've had enough fury and slander rained down on me already. In an ideal world I wouldn't have enemies and I don't set out to have them.

An apology is important to me in the sense that apologizing when you're in the wrong and you've harmed someone is what non-sociopaths are supposed to do. By your own description, it seems to me that wikipedia culture is not a little sociopathic, since you openly admit that an apology for mistreating someone almost never comes. Hemiauchenia's victim-blaming comments are a form of confirmation of that point as well.

[iii]

An unblock would be a good first step. "Rain fury down upon my enemies"? I don't want that. I've had enough fury and slander rained down on me already. In an ideal world I wouldn't have enemies and I don't set out to have them.

An apology is important to me in the sense that apologizing when you're in the wrong and you've harmed someone is what non-sociopaths are supposed to do. By your own description, it seems to me that wikipedia culture is not a little sociopathic, since you openly admit that an apology for mistreating someone almost never comes. Hemiauchenia's victim-blaming comments are a form of confirmation of that point as well.

I suppose WP's level of dysfunction is one that could mirror similar effects as dealing with a sociopath, but WP is going to work the way it does and there is no real chance for reform of any of it (at least if history is any guide).

If you want to be unblocked, I reiterate that it won't be pleasant. There will be people who will blame you, and continue to WP:BAIT (T-H-L) you. They will set traps in the hope that you will react in a way so that they will be able to say, "See?! We told you so! WP:NOTHERE (T-H-L), WP:TIGER (T-H-L), WP:MASTADON (T-H-L), WP:BATTLE (T-H-L)"

And even after a successful unblock, there will be a sincere and consistent risk that you could end up with the block reinstated depending on how you comport yourself. It isn't fair. It isn't just. It isn't right, but it is how WP operates.

[Midsize Jake]

First off, is that normal for them to indefinitely block an established user within 24 hours of an SPI report? They did have a somewhat lengthy discussion about it, but it seems like they should allow for more time and consideration than that, for someone with a fairly high edit count, etc.

And I'd certainly agree that the basis for the SPI report was flimsy, to say the least — Houston has 7.1 million people within the metro area, and given that geolocation points to the ISP and not the actual subscriber, a Houston-based IP could belong to anyone within a radius that might encompass twice that many people, maybe even the whole state and Louisiana too. And it's not like there aren't plenty of people, even in (maybe especially in) Texas, who are fed up with various forms of right-wing bullshittery these days.

I'd also have to agree with one of the points made in that discussion, by User:MJL (who I understand is considered a "betrayer" at this point), which was that User:IHateAccounts tends (or tended) to defend left-wing subjects significantly more than attack right-wing subjects, which is what User:SkepticAnonymous tended to do.

So... all in all, I'd have to say this block was, at the very least, completely unwarranted as an SPI action.

And that leaves the whole question of confrontationalism. The fact is, if you're a left-wing person on Wikipedia who's dealing with right-wing people on a regular basis, of course you're going to seem confrontational. Maybe that's something you enjoy doing, or maybe you feel you owe it to society to put the time and effort in, or whatever. But Wikipedia is being completely unreasonable to demand the same standard for you in that scenario that they can for people who are writing about needlepoint and kittens. If anything, they should be more encouraging to people who are willing to do that stuff under current political (i.e., disinformation and bigotry) conditions.

Long story short, maybe they could justify a block for behavior in this case, but not indefinitely — and meanwhile, this SPI of theirs smells really, really bad. I do understand that being accused of having an anti-LGBT agenda is anger-inducing, especially when you don't actually have one, but what do they expect under these circumstances? If I were a non-binary person I might easily come to the same conclusion.

[Eberone]

I would like to point out that IHateAccounts is SkepticAnonymous and was not a good faith actor. I will say that I should have put 2 and 2 together before they made their account, but c'est la vie

And I'd like to point out that both Pudeo and Guerillero are lying out their asses here.

I am not a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous or anyone else. Guerillero, Pudeo and a few other editors just decided that the one thing they couldn't stand on Wikipedia was an active and effective LGBT, Non-binary editor. I had too much success filing RFCs to get obviously bad sources like "Jihadwatch" properly labeled as deprecated, and I was too good at providing good sources and following Wikipedia policy when it came to issues like the January 6th terrorist attack on the US capitol, so they decided I had to be put down by any means necessary.

How did they do this? They made up a nonsense story about me being SkepticAnonymous, on the basis that we both edited from the giant metropolis of Houston. It was total bullshit since I didn't even live in Texas much less Houston before two years ago when I moved for school but hey, why would they ever let the truth get in their way?

And then they had MJL (T-C-L), my "mentor", tell me to not respond to the bullshit SPI and "wait for the process" so that Guerillero could fast-roll it behind my back and block me without letting me say one thing in my defense. And MJL even admitted to me on Discord that it was her price for being allowed to apply for adminship. I guess she never got her 30 pieces of silver from you Guerillero, did she?

I found out about THIS thread after googling when someone informed me that the real SkepticAnonymous has been filing requests to come back to Wikipedia. I'm sure Guerillero could have that checked and see that it's not me, but I'm also sure he won't because he'd never let the facts get in the way of his lynching an LGBT editor.

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

[Katie]

IHateAccounts, you're talking nonsense about MJL. I know them, and I can tell you for a fact that they're no "betrayer". I don't believe MJL told you that they telling you to "wait for the process" was a price of them being allowed to apply for adminship. For starters, they're not an admin, and they haven't applied either, which one would expect it was true. Also, MJL isn't the sort of person who'd turn their backs on someone just for a position on a website - and they were defending you to the end at the SPI. EDIT: Also, MJL's pronouns are they/them, not she/her. I'm surprised you don't remember that, since they were your mentor.

[Giraffe Stapler]

You can't get more LGBT than Fæ (T-C-L), and it took them years to block him even though he was begging for it. Indeed, he's still not blocked on Commons, Wikidata, CYwiki or Meta.

I know you're just making a joke, but I have never gotten the impression from Fae that he is particularly interested in any part of LGBT+ that isn't G.

[Without Comfort]

Wikipedia could prove me wrong about all this with two simple actions. They could fix it and apologize to me for how I've been treated.

If it's an apology you're after, you're almost certainly not going to get it. We have case after case of fuck-ups being documented here where an apology was warranted and it is essentially never forthcoming. If you can do without the apology, you might be able to move forward, but if the apology is important to you, your impulse is right that you aren't going to get one.

On the other hand, if by "fix it" you mean get unblocked, that might be arranged. It may be a slow and uncomfortable process, but that's possible. If by "fix it" you mean rain fury down upon your enemies... well... I can't help with that but perhaps there are others here (or more likely at the sucks forum) who perhaps might be willing.

An unblock would be a good first step. "Rain fury down upon my enemies"? I don't want that. I've had enough fury and slander rained down on me already. In an ideal world I wouldn't have enemies and I don't set out to have them.

An apology is important to me in the sense that apologizing when you're in the wrong and you've harmed someone is what non-sociopaths are supposed to do. By your own description, it seems to me that wikipedia culture is not a little sociopathic, since you openly admit that an apology for mistreating someone almost never comes. Hemiauchenia's victim-blaming comments are a form of confirmation of that point as well.

I'm glad you're here.

You won't get an apology. Wikipedia is corrupt and gross.

If you want to be unblocked drop going after whomever did you wrong. I'm not arguing that this is fair or just, but it will shorten the amount of time and effort it takes to get potentially unblocked. This is a situation in which you have to decide: Do you want to be right or do you want to win? It's the same as with the Democrats or the Republicans. We can have Democrats in office who aren't great or we can have Republicans who will undo our democracy. It's a hideous choice, but that's the situation.

If you come to understand the history of Wikipedia, you will see that what you've experienced is, sadly, very common. It would neither surprise me to discover that you were targeted for being non-binary and LGBT nor that you mistakenly lumped together a bunch of people with separate reasons for opposing you. Understanding the various motives of each party might help you get unblocked.

If you still want to edit, it's iii you should listen to. Iii knows what he's talking about. It's worth your while to engage with him. Midsized Jake is generally fine as well. Katie might have your best interests at heart as well, but I'm less familiar with her. I think she's on ArbCom, and that's sometimes not a great thing for somebody in your shoes. If Bezdomni contributes to this thread, he's also worth listening to. He got himself unblocked for a while which is hard to do. Ignore Hemi and anyone else who is currently upsetting you. I'm trying to help you understand who to pay close attention to as you try to come to terms with the situation you're in.

[iii]

First off, is that normal for them to indefinitely block an established user within 24 hours of an SPI report?

Good question.

Anecdotally, I believe that when indefinite blocks of established users do happen as a result of some process, they tend to happen rather quickly. I guess someone could do an analysis of this. Actually, someone probably should.

[IhateAccounts]

First off, is that normal for them to indefinitely block an established user within 24 hours of an SPI report? They did have a somewhat lengthy discussion about it, but it seems like they should allow for more time and consideration than that, for someone with a fairly high edit count, etc.

I was told it's not. I was further told that Guerillero SPECIFICALLY did it so that I would not be able to write my own response to the SPI.

And I'd certainly agree that the basis for the SPI report was flimsy, to say the least — Houston has 7.1 million people within the metro area, and given that geolocation points to the ISP and not the actual subscriber, a Houston-based IP could belong to anyone within a radius that might encompass twice that many people, maybe even the whole state and Louisiana too. And it's not like there aren't plenty of people, even in (maybe especially in) Texas, who are fed up with various forms of right-wing bullshittery these days.

I'd also have to agree with one of the points made in that discussion, by User:MJL (who I understand is considered a "betrayer" at this point), which was that User:IHateAccounts tends (or tended) to defend left-wing subjects significantly more than attack right-wing subjects, which is what User:SkepticAnonymous tended to do.

So... all in all, I'd have to say this block was, at the very least, completely unwarranted as an SPI action.

And that leaves the whole question of confrontationalism. The fact is, if you're a left-wing person on Wikipedia who's dealing with right-wing people on a regular basis, of course you're going to seem confrontational. Maybe that's something you enjoy doing, or maybe you feel you owe it to society to put the time and effort in, or whatever. But Wikipedia is being completely unreasonable to demand the same standard for you in that scenario that they can for people who are writing about needlepoint and kittens. If anything, they should be more encouraging to people who are willing to do that stuff under current political (i.e., disinformation and bigotry) conditions.

Long story short, maybe they could justify a block for behavior in this case, but not indefinitely — and meanwhile, this SPI of theirs smells really, really bad. I do understand that being accused of having an anti-LGBT agenda is anger-inducing, especially when you don't actually have one, but what do they expect under these circumstances? If I were a non-binary person I might easily come to the same conclusion.

I came to that conclusion because of the sum total of what I experienced and because of specific things that were said to and about me along with being repeatedly misgendered. You don't come away from being called so many of the things I've been called and not understand what that means.

[IhateAccounts]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

[IhateAccounts]

I'm glad you're here.

You won't get an apology. Wikipedia is corrupt and gross.

If you want to be unblocked drop going after whomever did you wrong. I'm not arguing that this is fair or just, but it will shorten the amount of time and effort it takes to get potentially unblocked. This is a situation in which you have to decide: Do you want to be right or do you want to win? It's the same as with the Democrats or the Republicans. We can have Democrats in office who aren't great or we can have Republicans who will undo our democracy. It's a hideous choice, but that's the situation.

If you come to understand the history of Wikipedia, you will see that what you've experienced is, sadly, very common. It would neither surprise me to discover that you were targeted for being non-binary and LGBT nor that you mistakenly lumped together a bunch of people with separate reasons for opposing you. Understanding the various motives of each party might help you get unblocked.

If you still want to edit, it's iii you should listen to. Iii knows what he's talking about. It's worth your while to engage with him. Midsized Jake is generally fine as well. Katie might have your best interests at heart as well, but I'm less familiar with her. I think she's on ArbCom, and that's sometimes not a great thing for somebody in your shoes. If Bezdomni contributes to this thread, he's also worth listening to. He got himself unblocked for a while which is hard to do. Ignore Hemi and anyone else who is currently upsetting you. I'm trying to help you understand who to pay close attention to as you try to come to terms with the situation you're in.

For what it's worth, thank you. Right now I am inclined to listen to what iii has to say though I don't know what their wikipedia name is to look into anything that would led me to believe or disbelieve further. I have only seen one thing from Midsized Jake and nothing from Bezdomni and I would have to look them up further as well.

As for Katie, if this is the same Katie that I am thinking of, then Katie is a friend of MJL's who represented herself as being a checkuser when I was asking my "mentor" for advice on specific accounts that were trolling on wikipedia and how to address those situations. This Katie then went radio-silent the moment that someone speaking up against Guerillero's lying would have been the most important and watched me be blocked under false pretenses, which means to me that either they were in on the fix or they were lying about being a checkuser. If that is the case that it's the same person, I am very disinclined to trust what they have to say to me right now.

[Eberone]

Wikipedia could prove me wrong about all this with two simple actions. They could fix it and apologize to me for how I've been treated.

If it's an apology you're after, you're almost certainly not going to get it. We have case after case of fuck-ups being documented here where an apology was warranted and it is essentially never forthcoming. If you can do without the apology, you might be able to move forward, but if the apology is important to you, your impulse is right that you aren't going to get one.

On the other hand, if by "fix it" you mean get unblocked, that might be arranged. It may be a slow and uncomfortable process, but that's possible. If by "fix it" you mean rain fury down upon your enemies... well... I can't help with that but perhaps there are others here (or more likely at the sucks forum) who perhaps might be willing.

An unblock would be a good first step. "Rain fury down upon my enemies"? I don't want that. I've had enough fury and slander rained down on me already. In an ideal world I wouldn't have enemies and I don't set out to have them.

An apology is important to me in the sense that apologizing when you're in the wrong and you've harmed someone is what non-sociopaths are supposed to do. By your own description, it seems to me that wikipedia culture is not a little sociopathic, since you openly admit that an apology for mistreating someone almost never comes. Hemiauchenia's victim-blaming comments are a form of confirmation of that point as well.

Katie might have your best interests at heart as well, but I'm less familiar with her. I think she's on ArbCom, and that's sometimes not a great thing for somebody in your shoes.

I think these are two different Katies. I think someone on Wikipedia once complained that KrakatoaKatie frequented Wikipediocracy, and KrakatoaKatie said she doesn't frequent this site.

[Eberone]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

Ah, okay.

Edited to add: Do you mind explaining how MJL has your email address, but you don't have MJL's? How did that work out, especially since MJL was your tutor (or "tutor" to you)?

[Without Comfort]

For what it's worth, thank you. Right now I am inclined to listen to what iii has to say though I don't know what their wikipedia name is to look into anything that would led me to believe or disbelieve further. I have only seen one thing from Midsized Jake and nothing from Bezdomni and I would have to look them up further as well.

As for Katie, if this is the same Katie that I am thinking of, then Katie is a friend of MJL's who represented herself as being a checkuser when I was asking my "mentor" for advice on specific accounts that were trolling on wikipedia and how to address those situations. This Katie then went radio-silent the moment that someone speaking up against Guerillero's lying would have been the most important and watched me be blocked under false pretenses, which means to me that either they were in on the fix or they were lying about being a checkuser. If that is the case that it's the same person, I am very disinclined to trust what they have to say to me right now.

I haven't followed ArbCom recently nor have I checked whether there are a number of Katies. My hazy recollection is that Guerillero is or was on ArbCom. I have not seen any current or former member of ArbCom significantly depart from their cliquishness with the exception of Kelly Martin who almost never participates here.

What you are describing is a very well-known pattern. You sound as if you had not seen how Wikipedia operates behind the scenes. Checkusers back up other Checkusers. The same goes for Administrators.

It's a possibility that MJL is just a jerk, rather than someone who was out to get you before you were targeted at SPI. If you would clarify how you know things, that might help sort out the scenario you are in. Feel free to PM details such as how you know what MJL's intentions towards you were. I only suggest PM because while you should be able to spout off here and not have it effect your possibly-forthcoming unblock request, in reality Wikipedians will play dirty at every turn.

Bezdomni is a member here. I mention him because he's never going to be involved in going after a Wikipedia user as part of some backstage shenanigans. He was very severely mistreated on Wikipedia himself.

[iii]

I'm glad you're here.
If you still want to edit, it's iii you should listen to. Iii knows what he's talking about. It's worth your while to engage with him.

For what it's worth, thank you. Right now I am inclined to listen to what iii has to say though I don't know what their wikipedia name is to look into anything that would led me to believe or disbelieve further. I have only seen one thing from Midsized Jake and nothing from Bezdomni and I would have to look them up further as well.

My username (ජපස) is linked from my profile here. In general, you should know that Wikipediocracy operates in a kind of haze of pseudonymity on purpose. This is inherited to some extent from WP, but it may not be worth getting into exactly how all this plays out. What I can say, however, is that there are people with a lot of institutional memory about how WP operates and many are generally willing to share that more honestly and freely here than they are over at WP.

The situation right now is that you were blocked under dubious circumstances and while the CU was convinced that you were a sock, this is something of a shrug as CU is not magic pixie dust (incidentally, anyone know why that's not a WP:TAG?) So, it's possible with the right unblock request made, you could get an unblock.

But there is another route that I think is more likely to succeed if perhaps cause a bit more consternation. Turns out that you're awfully close to meeting the arbitrary and ridiculous qualifications of the Wikipedia:Standard offer (T-H-L) so you might go that route with an appeal to the community. This would also shine a spotlight on exactly what went down which, TBH, could be something of a double-edged sword. It might cause your interlocutors to harass/harangue you more, but it might also expose some of the problems that seemed to have happened with the SPI to a wider audience of which some are bound to be a bit sympathetic, I'd imagine.

[Without Comfort]

I'm glad you're here.
If you still want to edit, it's iii you should listen to. Iii knows what he's talking about. It's worth your while to engage with him.

For what it's worth, thank you. Right now I am inclined to listen to what iii has to say though I don't know what their wikipedia name is to look into anything that would led me to believe or disbelieve further. I have only seen one thing from Midsized Jake and nothing from Bezdomni and I would have to look them up further as well.

My username (ජපස) is linked from my profile here. In general, you should know that Wikipediocracy operates in a kind of haze of pseudonymity on purpose. This is inherited to some extent from WP, but it may not be worth getting into exactly how all this plays out. What I can say, however, is that there are people with a lot of institutional memory about how WP operates and many are generally willing to share that more honestly and freely here than they are over at WP.

The situation right now is that you were blocked under dubious circumstances and while the CU was convinced that you were a sock, this is something of a shrug as CU is not magic pixie dust (incidentally, anyone know why that's not a WP:TAG?) So, it's possible with the right unblock request made, you could get an unblock.

But there is another route that I think is more likely to succeed if perhaps cause a bit more consternation. Turns out that you're awfully close to meeting the arbitrary and ridiculous qualifications of the Wikipedia:Standard offer (T-H-L) so you might go that route with an appeal to the community. This would also shine a spotlight on exactly what went down which, TBH, could be something of a double-edged sword. It might cause your interlocutors to harass/harangue you more, but it might also expose some of the problems that seemed to have happened with the SPI to a wider audience of which some are bound to be a bit sympathetic, I'd imagine.

I concur with a huge caveat. Practice what you write beforehand and pass it by some sympathetic eyes. You don't want to sound like you're spouting off even if you have every right to do so. You are presumed guilty. Wikipedians are hyenas who will attack just for fun.

[iii]

CU is not magic pixie dust (incidentally, anyone know why that's not a WP:TAG?)

It is a tag. WP:PIXIEDUST (T-H-L)

Go to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[Beeblebrox]

*Guerillero (also known as User:In actu (T-C-L)) is not currently on the committee, but was in the past, I don't remember exactly when. They have an account here as well but may not feel inclined to comment in a thread where they are being attacked.

*I'm pretty darn sure that Katie over here and Krakatoa Katie, who is on the committee, are two different people.

*I can't see how two people were emailing each other but only one of them knew the other one's email address. Even with the internal WP email system, that's not how it works, so I am also curious about how that could be.

*I'd be interested in discussing IHA's emails to the committee if they are ok with having a public discussion about that. Ball's in your court on that one.

[iii]

I concur with a huge caveat. Practice what you write beforehand and pass it by some sympathetic eyes. You don't want to sound like you're spouting off even if you have every right to do so. You are presumed guilty. Wikipedians are hyenas who will attack just for fun.

While this will make it more likely to be successful, I don't think anyone should compromise on their principles. On the other hand, if you aren't honest in your construction of the request, you run the risk of Wikipediots getting mad at you in the future for pretending to hold to a position you don't really hold. "I promise never to blah, blah, blah" sounds great, but you should only say that if you mean it because if you don't then we'll be right back to blocks or worse.

By all means, run your unblock request by someone you trust first. But if you find that there is something you want/need to include in your request that is a nogo, consider carefully whether it is worth asking for an unblock. An unblock request isn't automatically the right thing to do in all situations because, after all, WP is a fairly toxic environment in many ways and it may not be a good idea for you to return for your own health/safety/well-being.

[Ryuichi]

Editors who find themselves blocked on false or flimsy grounds have both my every sympathy, and, indeed, my empathy.

But some people are just temperamentally unsuited to collaborative endeavours.

If an editor's modus operandi is to personalise every dispute, then eventually some grounds will be found.