Hillbillyholiday bans NewYorkBrad

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Locked
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Hillbillyholiday bans NewYorkBrad

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:31 am

A tragic comedy, their specialism.
Hillbillyholiday wrote:I'm doing this to give a craven coward like Newyorkbrad an extremely diluted taste of his own medicine
Don't be a dickhead all your life.

You blocked someone for ignoring you. If ever a person needed a taste of that kind of medicine, it's your arrogant ass. And Brad too. This is one of those plays where you pray both actors die in the end.

And as any serious critic knows, Brad doesn't dirty his hands on the actual block button. Except in really special cases, but my alleged socks do appear to cause quite a significant threat to the good order of Wikipedia. I can't see why anyone there would have a problem with the media knowing Jess Wade is a serial violator of BLP and everyone from ArbCom down has been trying to keep a lid on it. :shrug:

Maybe he will tell the folks at Wikipediocracy. No wait, I forgot, he's protected by royal privilege.
Hillbillyholiday wrote:Mr Matetsky may appeal my decision. We are a very forgiving bunch as you know.
Sarcasm?
Vigilant wrote:So, you're using the WO toolset to further your en.wp fight?

Isn't that the kind of shit we call out the lowlifes on en.wp for doing?
It's what it used to do. The purpose of Wikipediocracy after Jake's takeover is now quite different. Did you not get the memo? You're there to now assist their low lifes, and in return, as this incident showed, they're now willing to do you favours. Any small, trivial thing, doesn't matter.
Beeblebrox wrote:This is exactly the kind of stupid shit people are talking about when they grill me about why I comment here. I'm not at all sure I want to continue to do so with such a vindictive shithead acting as a moderator.
I'll have to correct the record there, sunshine (because lord knows the craven cowards of Wikipediocracy will not do so).

According to Brad, ironically, you were causing concern because of your lack of discretion. Shit like badmouthing people who you theoretically might have to hear the appeal of, and just discussing their cases in general over there without having the common courtesy of telling them you're doing it.

Oh, and last I heard (correct me if I'm wrong Jake), calling another poster a vindictive shithead was grounds for a public dressing down at minimum. I certainly seem to recall being banned for less. Is Beeblebrox getting special treatment because you sold out?
Hemenchuia wrote:I agree Smiley/Hillbillyholiday should be desysopped after this. This episode has damaged the credibility of WIkipediocracy as a venue for serious Wikipedia criticism, and will permanently do so unless he is promptly removed. I do not consent to the new Wikipediocracy story that I authored being published until he is desysopped. Where are Zoloft, Jake and Tarantino?
It comes to something when you see a post like this on Wikipediocracy, and are 100% sure (because the poster is a 100% committed Wikishit) he's not being sarcastic.

Hang your head in shame, Jake.

Beyond embarrassing.
Jake wrote:Anyway, y'all are taking this waaaaay too seriously. A "performative stunt ban" from this site is really no big deal, especially for someone like NewYorkBrad whose reputation on WP is practically unassailable — and hey, check it out, they actually did fix the problem! Would that have happened without the silly shit-stirring from last night?
What's with the quotes? Where/when did anyone say this was not a real ban? The only open question as far as I can see, was whether Hillbillyholiday was acting on his own, or with your blessing.

Would it be accurate to say he was acting alone, but you don't want to admit that, embarrassing as it is that he did something like this in his first week at the job, so you come up with this horseshit?

(oh, and Brad would be less untouchable if you, y'know, were a little less willing to treat him like royalty, you Quisling pig)
Jake wrote:And on a personal level, let me just say this: People on WP just have to understand that accusing other people of being you in order to ban them is one of the most crucial "third rails" there are in dealing with people they want to get rid of. (Maybe the most crucial - "It's me you want, leave the girl alone" isn't a Hollywood cliché for no reason.)
My fucking ass it is. It comes a distant runner up, behind baiting, entrapment, tag teaming, gaslighting, and straight up fraud, to name just a few of the many ways I've seen these bastards make an abusive block stick.

And like you give a fucking shit what they do in terms of the paperwork. Half the stuff I light up here is proof Wikipedia Admins aren't filing the paperwork correctly (which goes some way to proving the block was either ill thought out if not straight up abusive) and yet I don't hear a word out of you twats. Quite the reverse, you often fucking applaud it, you Uncle Tom bastards.
Jake wrote:Sure, if someone is being really, really, really obnoxious, or threatening, or pedophilic by any objective standard, and then you want to link them to someone else who is also really, really, really obnoxious, or threatening, or pedophilic by any objective standard, then fine, go ahead and do that. 
Lolwut? So, the thing you think is a serious crime, is forgivable if you're doing the very worst with it to the very worst people? Congratulations, I think you just proved there is indeed no discernable difference between your moral compass and that of a scumlord like Beeblebrox (or any number of other seriously evil Wikibastards for that matter).

Oh, and make up your fucking mind. Was this a no big deal performance art block, or the understandable severe over-reaction to a third rail type provocation?

No need to clarify whether this block had your prior approval, I think it's pretty clear now.
Yes, I was following this thread yesterday. When Smiley said there had been a sock-identification mistake, I didn't rush to fix it. Why not? Two reasons. First, it wasn't obvious at first that Smiley himself was behind the socking, meaning he wasn't just speculating that there had been a mistake, but he actually knew it. And second, as some of you know, I don't do much sock-hunting and I am not an experienced checkuser. (I'll be giving up CU when I leave ArbCom again in a few weeks, just as I did at the end of 2014 and 2018.) There are others with far more experience and expertise in these areas.

2. Nonetheless, after a few hours, it occurred to me that Smiley's increasingly strong pleas for review might possibly fall through the cracks, because obviously not all the CUs and arbs read here, while some of the others who might ordinarily help are candidates in the same election that was being trolled. Once I realized this, I signed on here intending to post that I'd make sure someone took a look at the issue. Ironically, it was at that moment that I learned I'd been banned, so I couldn't post a damn thing.
:lol:

I somehow doubt the timing was that fortuitous.

But let's focus on the part where you seem to think "banned user makes loud noises on Wikipediocracy" is a valid way to draw attention to a CU mistake?

I mean, and I think every single victim of Wikipedia knows this, you have your approved methods of appealing or otherwise contacting the CU group, and they don't specify this route.

Why does Hillbillyholiday, a long banned and extremely untrustworthy user, apparently merit special treatment? Personal fucking service even.

Is this perhaps Jake's reward for treating you like royalty for years?

Or are you just a massive wanker?

One wonders how many people have been screwed over by Wikipedia's CU racket, and you've sat on your pig ingnorant ass and done fuck all. Even though these are the very people you and your chosen few colleagues are meant to be monitoring for compliance with not just policy, but the actual fucking law.

And what about all the people banned from Wikipediocracy? Only this week, ST47 declined an appeal and locked a user out of their talk page even though their appeal is based in ST47 having clearly made an incorrect CU block. That user won't be allowed to raise that issue on Wikipediocracy, because they think he is me, and as an enemy of Wikipediocracy, in their eyes, I am not entitled to justice.
NewYorkBrad wrote:Smiley posted that if I wanted to, I could appeal the ban. The private message I saw when I tried to log on said I should give him a reason to let me back. But as far as I could see, the interface wouldn't allow me to do either. The board software doesn't allow a banned user to communicate with anyone in any way, or if it does, it certainly isn't obvious how. Even on Wikipedia, blocked or banned users have various means of reaching someone.
You're assuming Hillbillyholiday didn't know that? The guy is well known for being an untrustworthy jerk, and is banned from Wikipedia for that very reason. You dumb bastard.
NewYorkBrad wrote:Sometimes we ask, when a person is blocked or banned on Wikipedia, why don't they accept it and find something else to do. Given the ubiquitousness of Wikipedia, the reasons people have trouble walking away are sometimes understandable. On this site they are less understandable, and for awhile at least, I am going to take Smiley's hint. All of you be well.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

(and seriously, ffs, everyone knows you're not going anywhere, other than perhaps by your own choice because you're standing down as an Arb, we know Jake is going to send you a message profusely apologising for his underling's unwise actions and beg your royal highness's sincere forgiveness).
NewYorkBrad wrote:My annoyance stems from the fact that you, more than most, know just how bad things are on that godforsaken website. You're highly respected, others follow your lead, and if I were in your shoes, I'd be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. But we can't all be firebrands, I guess.
I think everyone is well aware, and this incident just confirmed it, that Brad doesn't know and doesn't care how bad things are in the field of CU blocks, and I am scratching my head to recall the last significant change in how Wikipedia operates that he was responsible for, whether he was being a firebrand or a drone.

He's been phoning it in for years.

It says a lot that Jake has made it so clear what the House POV at Wikipediocracy is regarding his royal highness, the news that for the last few years the Emperor has been butt naked, has not been posted.

Jake is the problem. Brad is the symptom.

I guess he got tired of waiting for his apology, and decided to be on the team that doesn't do apologies.
Last edited by Jake Is A Sellout on Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Newyorkbrad
Sucks
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 am
Location: The Big Apple
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Hillbillyholiday bans NewYorkBrad

Post by Newyorkbrad » Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:39 pm

Apologies for not having taken a closer look at your case(s), Mr. MickMacNee, but I've been quite busy with the day job.

On reflection, it is quite clear; you have always been completely correct about everything. Therefore, I will personally unblock you from Wikipedia. However, the following conditions must be agreed to before I do so:



You are limited to 140 characters per talkpage post. No smileys. No fucks or buggers either.

You must not talk to/talk about/touch yourself while thinking about, Ms. Wade.

You must send me a high resolution photo of yourself. Fully clothed or not, up to you, but the Committee place a high value on, uh, transparency.




--NYB

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Hillbillyholiday bans NewYorkBrad

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:27 am

Touch myself, Nudes, No smiling, No talking to your girlfriend, Fuck, Bugger.

Got it.

Sounds like someone wants to let the world know what their ideal Saturday night is, people!

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Hillbillyholiday bans NewYorkBrad

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:50 am

lol

Locked