Hemenchuia blogs about Wikipedia flaw, uses mirror for inspiration

[Jake Is A Sellout]

What a dumb bastard this bloke is.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 39#p300241

As much as Wikipedia is an ocean of garbage, unfortunately, the exact same can be said for much of modern academic literature as well. The explosion in open access publishing has also meant an explosion of publishers who merely take a fee for publishing the paper without giving the paper proper peer review, making them effectively vanity presses. The journal that you are referring to is called the Journal of Pharmacopuncture, which describes itself as "an international, peer-reviewed open-access journal published in English by the Korean Pharmacopuncture Institute" apparently "Pharmacopuncture" is a "new form of acupuncture combining acupuncture with herbal medicine" popular in Korea https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2016/4683121. aka Alternative medicine nonsense. The journal looks like hot garbage.

Uh, what came first you prick, was it some shitehouse calling itself an encyclopedia, appealing to unqualified contributor's vanity and treating peer review as a mere afterthought?

Lest you and your Wikipediocracy mates forget, the original vision of Wikipedia was to concentrate on core articles and have ALL of them elevated to Featured Status.

And who the fuck was it who championed open access? That everything should be free, that knowledge is not something that merits renumeration?

What happened then? Too much like hard work. Quietly forgotten.

I don't recall Wikipediocracy making much noise about that.

Don't even fucking care anymore.

I did, on the fucking regular.

But you know me. "Violent and unstable"

Banned for being an "asshole".

Check your facts, numbnutz.

There's only ONE REASON why someone like me gets banned from a forum dominated by Wikipedia editors characterised by their self belief and resistance to authority/critique.

See if you can figure out, you fucking gimp.

Because I remember you, you fucking Wikipedia bastard. Quite fucking happy that Wikipedia let's you quietly piss about in your chosen topic area, undisturbed, IIRC.

Are you a fucking expert? Go on, tell us your name, so we can be reassured you're not merely adding to the ocean.

What's that, you don't want to?

Aye, I fucking thought so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemiauchenia

This page intentionally left blank.

Registered 2017. Nearly 25,000 edits.

Wikipedia 3.0.



Any time you're ready to start criticising Wikipedia, you let me know Wikipediocracy peeps!



God I feel violent today.

I LOVE FRIDAYS

[Jake Is A Sellout]

I think Hemenchuia might actually be a shut in.....

He edits at any time of the waking day, 7 days a week, his only down time being 4am to noon. But even there, he's got no hard cut off, and has clearly pulled all nighters several times, any day of the week. This is based off of just over two years solid editing, grinding away, no month with less than 200 edits, the average being way closer to 400. He's topped 1,000 several times, and last month he appears to have gone full Matrix, topping 1,500, and appears to have finally had a meltdown.

This all suggests he's nothing but a lonely teenager, perhaps recruited while he was still at school.

Wikipedia's perfect victim. And their most typical asshole.

An expert in the Jurassic period, his top article with nearly 500 edits, he most assuredly is not. Unsurprisingly, all that effort hasn't manifested in even a Good Article rating, never mind Featured.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my kids learning about the Jurassic period from a bloody teenager, let alone one this weird. And yet there's nothing that stops this fucker being the top contributor by number of edits, just over half, and by characters added, at 85%!

What say you, Wikipediocracy?

NOTHING.

You 'ain't got SHIT to say, because you're NOT Wikipedia critics.

You are all Hemenchuia.

You need to go away. Far, far away. Start a cult where you don't make other people's kids stupid.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

In case you're wondering what a teenager thinks an encyclopedia article looks like....

The Tithonian was introduced in scientific literature by Albert Oppel in 1865. The name Tithonian is unusual in geological stage names because it is derived from Greek mythology rather than a place name. Tithonus was the son of Laomedon of Troy and fell in love with Eos, the Greek goddess of dawn. His name was chosen by Albert Oppel for this stratigraphical stage because the Tithonian finds itself hand in hand with the dawn of the Cretaceous.[3] 

And for context, the Tithonian is a subdivision of a subdivision of the Jurassic period.

Wikipedia.

An education well worth the price you paid.

Zero dollars and zero cents!

[Joe Crow]

[ericbarbour]

I think Hemenchuia might actually be a shut in.....

He edits at any time of the waking day, 7 days a week, his only down time being 4am to noon. But even there, he's got no hard cut off, and has clearly pulled all nighters several times, any day of the week. This is based off of just over two years solid editing, grinding away, no month with less than 200 edits, the average being way closer to 400. He's topped 1,000 several times, and last month he appears to have gone full Matrix, topping 1,500, and appears to have finally had a meltdown.

This all suggests he's nothing but a lonely teenager, perhaps recruited while he was still at school.

Wikipedia's perfect victim. And their most typical asshole.

And if he returns and survives, a good candidate for RFA. As usual. They love their suckers.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... ic_racism?

Hi again Crow, remember me? This a sock of globally locked user Brian K Horton, who has been ranting about this topic off-wiki. A similar sock who has been ranting about the same topic on the English Wikipedia, Ringle Bemore, has been checkuser blocked. Feel free to just delete this entire thread. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you're mistaken. I have seen those threads, and that is what prompted my post here. I think you would be wise to take this topic a little more seriously, and ponder whether or not your arrogant dismissal of it, is why people who care about things like systemic racism, might find you to be quite an upleasant person. Someone who should not remotely be a part of the Wikipedia movement. NOT that Jimmy (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Really funny Crow. You fool no one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Confident talk, from one of the few people on Wikipedia to know from the Brian K Horton investigations and his very own Hillbillyholiday, that not even CheckUsers, and certainly not ordinary mortals like him, are able to reliably know who is who.

People react differently to false positives. Some, like Hillbillyholiday do, make a big noise when it happens to them, because they're Wikipedia editors, to whom this shit matters on a Wikipedian to Wikipedian level.

Others, and perhaps I am one of them, know a serious critic would never tell a Wikipedian, especially not a CheckUser, if he has fucked up, and in such a way the only explanation is malice. They keep that shit under wraps, until such time as it can be used against them in a forum with the power to do anything about it.

I don't know why he persists in not doing his research before presuming to know my skills or connections, but thanks to me / !me, it's been established that a person who was publicly promised an Omduds investigation into what could only be reasonably be described at the very least as a case of a CheckUser marking a guesswork block as a CheckUser result, at worst, operating an off book CheckUser unit. That investigation is overdue, by quite a long time. Long enough to surmise the CheckUser is guilty as charged, but the Wikipedians dare not admit that Bbb23 wasn't just some rotten apple, that this shit is endemic.

You would think Hemenchuia would know this (the existence of past false positives, not the higher level strategic stuff or the stuff that requires him to know who he is fucking with).

But he is a Wikipedian.

Being able to remember stuff he himself has personally witnessed or read about on Wikipediocracy only weeks ago, is a task beyond his abilities.

A very dim bulb.

There's a Wikipedia essay out there somewhere titled "We aren't as stupid as you think we are". It was written by someone who I know for a fact, has been a party to a false accusation being accepted as a wiki fact.

They are this clueless.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 12#p300412

How the fuck can you complain about microaggressions when you wrote an attack page on a private individual? Boggles the fucking mind.

Classic Wikipediot logic.

You are guilty of X because I say you are.

Your convincing denial that you did not intend to do X, your edit record and other statements (unlike Wikipedia luminaries like Snoog and Philip Cross) doesn't support any suggestion you set out to do X deliberately and with malicious intent, your statement that you would have stopped doing X had anyone had the basic common courtesy to reach out to you like a human being, all mean nothing.

Now out you go, you're clearly incompetent to edit BLPs, appeal denied, and your complaints that the we have mistreated you in every possible way it is for a Wikipedia editor to be mistreated under its own published rules, are groundless!

So say I, the totally impartial Hemenchuia, who had absolutely nothing to do with your case. Just like I was a completely uninvolved actor in the splendid Wikipediocracy post I authored recently about another case of alleged BLP abuse.

That is what boggles my mind.

You've got be one delusional mother fucker to think this flies anywhere but the cult that is Wikipedia and their friends at Wikipediocracy.

That and the fact this retard is even being given air time on an alleged Wikipedia criticism site. That absurd posts like this go completely unchallenged.

Sort your life out Jake, you sell out piece of shit.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

Behold, the level of compassion and understanding that marks out a typical Wikipedia editor working the incident boards/appellant courts.....

"I'm austistic" is such a lame fuckin excuse. It just perpetuates the idea that all people with high-functioning autism deserve to be treated in a child-like condescending manner, which seems to be a widespread idea on Wikipedia. Any autistic person with any self respect whatsoever would never invoke it.

What a fucking spaz.

Such a perfect example of how stupid you can be, and still be a Wikipedia editor (and Wikipediocracy blogger!)

Let us count the number of Wikipedia editors who have claimed mental illness, not pure malice, is what explains their misconduct.

* Guy Macon.

There are more, but do you even need to see more? Not looking too closely at the cynical use of medical excuses, when the crimes of the editor aren't considered crimes by them (telling lies about the Daily Mail, making transphobic attacks on your enemies in a grammar war), is what Wikipediocracy do.

Hemenchuia is Wikipedia. He is also Wikipediocracy. He is also, stupid.

HTD.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

If I had a Non Fungible Tolkien for every time some dipshit Wikipedian thought they knew shit about shit, I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams.

My mate Joe would still be a broke ass bitch though.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 36#p300520

This old drum again? Really? On Wikipediocracy, we are always criticizing Wikipedia for its failure to treat BLP subjects with the required sensitivity, but in this case their judgement is spot on.

Dude. You wroted Wikipediocracy a blog post about an incident where, rather than taking a subject's complaints of defamation seriously, you edit warred with them and insulted them.

(in case you didn't know, you useless dickhead, even if their complaints are totally groundless, and that seems unlikely given their biography was being edited negatively by an extremely suspicious user, official written policy regarding how to treat BLP subjects says, DON'T DO THIS KIND OF SHIT).

Two basic facts you omitted to even include in the post, where you presented yourself as some kind of neutral observer.

I would report all this shit on AN/I as an obvious sock puppet in an effort to at the very least get you topic banned from BLPs, if I had any reason to believe the Wikipedia community would respond to such a report the way a community that allegedly holds BLP as their highest policy would and should.

They don't. As your own actions so often demonstrate, their most important rule, the one that ranks higher than any other, is KEEP OUTSIDERS OUT. Especially if they have read the rules and see how badly the insiders perform against the expected standards.

You epitomise everything that is wrong with how Wikipedia handles BLP subjects, and Wikipedia in general.

And allowing posts like this, on Wikipediocracy, epitomises everything that is wrong with them.

You suck. They suck.

HTD.