Jake The Sellout dodges the issue of whether he would actually ban a Wikipedian for spreading pedo propaganda

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

Jake The Sellout dodges the issue of whether he would actually ban a Wikipedian for spreading pedo propaganda

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:19 am

To recap, I posted this about Wikipediocracy and their open tolerance of one side of the interminable civil war between Wikipedia and Commons......
Scum like Beeblebrox are very representative of the white Wikipedian attitude to their global media host sister project and the people who call it home. They have for years, maligned them and insulted them and even accused them of being child pornographers. All based on groundless myths and propaganda, often posted by Wikishits on Wikipediocracy, as if that place has any role to play in their civil wars. Jake has allowed it for years, firstly because he's an arse, but also because he's not all that informed about what goes on at any project except Wikipedia.
....to which he thought this was an acceptable riposte.....
This is obviously putting aside the whole issue of whether or not we (or I specifically) "allow" unfair criticism of Commons to be posted on Wikipediocracy, as if our job as moderators is to selectively redact things we deem "unfair," or ban people who are in the habit of criticizing stuff we don't think should be criticized.

The fact is, this isn't an either-or, binary-type issue. Commons can be useful and its users can be hard-working and well-intentioned, and it can also be poorly-managed and intransigent about keeping crap images that it shouldn't, including borderline child-porn. That shouldn't be a controversial statement either, unless of course your real intention is to get revenge against some website somewhere that disagreed with you about something, and you're adjusting your positions specifically to be in opposition to whatever you see on that website.
For a start, no, I have not changed my long standing position. Commons never has hosted child porn, and ergo, it is quite ridiculous and defamatory to act as if Commons editors are pedos. That has been my consistent position, and if I recall, it developed back when Wikipediocracy were quite happy to show support for Wikipedia "co-founder" Larry Sanger whenever he came out with some batshit claim that the media happily ran with, such as the time he gleefully said he had called the Feds on those pedo bastards at Commons.

Since they are not known for their moral character or sound analytical approaches, Wikipediocracy have of course since dropped their support for Larry, because they want people to believe that somehow between then and now, he just went crazy. He didn't, of course. To use Jake's device, you can be both the brilliant mind that conceived NPOV and is smart enough to see that Wikipedia did rapidly become a case of the inmates running the asylum, making an utter mockery of NPOV, and you can also say daft stuff on Twitter.

Anyway, you'll note Jake's deliberate use of the word "borderline" there. It was his own invention, I never said it, it is his craven attempt to dodge answering what I actually accused him of. And inaccurate too of course even then, since I am pretty sure that even if the stuff you're allegedly hosting is "borderline" child porn, that's usually enough to get the FBI interested to the point they actually open an investigation. Which we know they did not.

And so we come to the crux.

Never mind the bullshit Jake.

Answer clearly, and for the record.

If I ever see that piece of shit Beeblebrox or his ilk, either in his personal capacity as an asshole, or as part of the Royal "we" of Wikipediocracy, or indeed as a highly placed English Wikipedian, state on your forum that Commons editors are child pornographers, will you, or will you not, find it within your sellout soul, to give voice to the idea that such a statement might, just might, be unfair? That it might, just might, be a case of an Engkish Wikipedia asshole abusing your forum to spread propaganda in furtherance of their petty civil wars, which you would hopefully, in your capacity as board Admin, decide is not the sort of thing your forum is actually for, and isn't protected under some (actually quite laughable) notion that you don't get involved as mods to dictate what can and can't be said about certain topics or people.

I mean, I would love it if Wikipediocracy really was the place you could call Beeblebrox a racist, or call Jess Wade sloppy, but I think we can already see it is not.

I won't be waiting for your answer, because why break the habit of a lifetime, you chicken shit sellout motherfucker.

badmachine
None
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Contact:

Re: Jake The Sellout dodges the issue of whether he would actually ban a Wikipedian for spreading pedo propaganda

Post by badmachine » Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:21 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:19 am
Since they are not known for their moral character or sound analytical approaches, Wikipediocracy have of course since dropped their support for Larry, because they want people to believe that somehow between then and now, he just went crazy. He didn't, of course. To use Jake's device, you can be both the brilliant mind that conceived NPOV and is smart enough to see that Wikipedia did rapidly become a case of the inmates running the asylum, making an utter mockery of NPOV, and you can also say daft stuff on Twitter.
it wasn't for Trump support or for his newfound populist politics?

I mean, I would love it if Wikipediocracy really was the place you could call Beeblebrox a racist, or call Jess Wade sloppy, but I think we can already see it is not.
that's why WikipediaSucks is here. :^)
Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil. ― Internet maxim

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 412 times

Re: Jake The Sellout dodges the issue of whether he would actually ban a Wikipedian for spreading pedo propaganda

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:25 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:19 am
I won't be waiting for your answer, because why break the habit of a lifetime, you chicken shit sellout motherfucker.
heh heh......keeping Beeb around seems to be more important than the "truth" now.....

There are lunatics on Commons who TRIED to post pedophilic porn and all kinds of other perverted stuff, but failed, and would do it again if they had half a chance. Anyone remember this? Look into the "career" of the glorious Matthew Buck sometime.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... n_Commmons

Post Reply