View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:56 am




Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2666
Reply with quote
Poetlister wrote:
It's screamingly obvious that any account that mostly edits Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is a sock.
Why haven't they blocked it then, diphsit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Guantolaka

Screaming obvious socks popping up in high visibility areas like Arbitration are blocked on sight. This was the case even before Queen Bishonen made it her business to shut this area of Wikipedia down, closing it off to anyone she couldn't intimidate (i.e. anyone without skin in the game). Mother Hen has to protect her baby scumbags somehow.

They would block it if they thought there would be no potential blowback. It is the very thought that it is not a sock, that is giving them pause.

This shit isn't complicated. Poetlister is just that thick.


Fri May 17, 2019 10:22 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2666
Reply with quote
:?
Poetlister wrote:
If the WMF had any sense, they'd arrange for all really controversial articles to be locked so the argument was restricted to the talk pages.
Um......what exactly do you mean by "arrange"?

I think what you meant to say is .....encourage the Wikipedia community to consider the merits of a proposal to expand their existing protection policy to allow ......

To consider those merits they'd of course have to be able to understand what you mean by "really controversial" - is this either an intent to propose wholesale adoption of pre-emptive protection for entire classes of articles based on some pre-agreed metric of indicative controversiality, or merely an adjustment to the measure of how much disruption there needs to be in order to trigger full protection.

If this is what you meant, then it is pretty debatable whether the WMF would see much sense in it (what's in it for them?). And if they did, it is equally debatable the community would do it. The latter seems more likely than the former, and indeed that may one day in the near future emerge as a spontaneous proposal give the way the Wikipedia community seems to be evolving in its views on how open they should be, but this seems to be taking us far away from the central premise of what the WMF should/would do if it "had any sense".

If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment.

---------

These people consider themselves the pre-eminent experts in the field. Bunch of fucking dummies is what they are.


Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:04 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
:?
Poetlister wrote:
If the WMF had any sense, they'd arrange for all really controversial articles to be locked so the argument was restricted to the talk pages.
Um......what exactly do you mean by "arrange"?

I think what you meant to say is .....encourage the Wikipedia community to consider the merits of a proposal to expand their existing protection policy to allow ......

To consider those merits they'd of course have to be able to understand what you mean by "really controversial" - is this either an intent to propose wholesale adoption of pre-emptive protection for entire classes of articles based on some pre-agreed metric of indicative controversiality, or merely an adjustment to the measure of how much disruption there needs to be in order to trigger full protection.

If this is what you meant, then it is pretty debatable whether the WMF would see much sense in it (what's in it for them?). And if they did, it is equally debatable the community would do it. The latter seems more likely than the former, and indeed that may one day in the near future emerge as a spontaneous proposal give the way the Wikipedia community seems to be evolving in its views on how open they should be, but this seems to be taking us far away from the central premise of what the WMF should/would do if it "had any sense".

If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment.


What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were...

RfB


Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:43 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2137
Reply with quote
Just wondering Timmy boy, are you also a member of a local Autistic Society? Because I am wondering.
Bart Legal is a member of a Belgium Autistic Society, Vig and Pro of the West Coast Autistic Society, and you TImmy Tim, what about you?

Just tell me Tim.....

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2666
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were...
Not for the first time, I literally have no idea what you're on about.


Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:43 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2137
Reply with quote
Well, that was the same with me, and the reason I asked if Timmy was also a member of a local Autistic Society.
Because as Pro told me on aggie's his WR half of the West Coast California Autistic Society is a wikipedia editor, so it is not a strange question.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:35 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:
What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were...
Not for the first time, I literally have no idea what you're on about.


1. You: "If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment."

2. Me: "What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were..."

RfB

Note: Emphasis added for the reading-impaired.


Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2666
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:
What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were...
Not for the first time, I literally have no idea what you're on about.


1. You: "If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment."

2. Me: "What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were..."

RfB

Note: Emphasis added for the reading-impaired.
Still not got a clue. Have you got Dysk confused with Sashi? Only you and Sashi responding to the dress wearer there, and Sashi was not even replying to him.


Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:39 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2137
Reply with quote
Shall I give the answer on my question, or do you, Timmy?

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
1. You: "If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment."

2. Me: "What, is Dysklyver confused about something? You'd think he'd say so if he were..."

Note: Emphasis added for the reading-impaired.

3. You: "Still not got a clue."

FIFY. That's the point.

:facepalm:

t


Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:33 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.