Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
They're now busy discussing years and decades.
All the important stuff that will keep Gorilla Warfare interested, keep her wanting to check back to see if there is anything she needs to respond to.
Morons.
All the important stuff that will keep Gorilla Warfare interested, keep her wanting to check back to see if there is anything she needs to respond to.
Morons.
-
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
I am convinced they are being unnecessarily wrong.
No sane human imagines that 1970 was not in the 70s.
They seem to be saying 1970 was apart of the 60s.
Obviously while ignoring GW entirely.
The bonus is this remarkable nugget.
No sane human imagines that 1970 was not in the 70s.
They seem to be saying 1970 was apart of the 60s.
Obviously while ignoring GW entirely.
The bonus is this remarkable nugget.
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
I can't tell if she's claiming Guy redacted only her erroneous self-block (not a major issue, except to show Guy is a careless/cowboy admin, which is not news) or both blocks (a massively big deal). I'd ask, but you saw how she doesn't like nitpickers.Dysklyver wrote:The bonus is this remarkable nugget.
-
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
CrowsNest wrote:I can't tell if she's claiming Guy redacted only her erroneous self-block (not a major issue, except to show Guy is a careless/cowboy admin, which is not news) or both blocks (a massively big deal). I'd ask, but you saw how she doesn't like nitpickers.Dysklyver wrote:The bonus is this remarkable nugget.
Hi JzG, I noticed that you used revision deletion to hide entries in GorillaWarfare's block log and your own block log – both of which involved an admin blocking oneself. I know that it's somewhat mortifying to have this in your log forever, but a line that says
09:42, August 25, 2018 (Username or IP removed) (log details removed) (edit summary removed)
is arguably more confusing to the community and will probably lead to more questions in the future. If it were unredacted instead, anyone looking at the block log can look at the reason for unblocking and immediately deduce that it was an erroneous entry.
Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction is the relevant policy here, which states that Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Essentially, it is not common practice to redact block logs for mistakes like this, and for these reasons, I think the block log entries should be unredacted. Mz7 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=857853894#Block_log_redaction
-
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
All material for the one question they don't seem willing to ask: Can you honestly say that an ordinary user would have been treated as leniently as you were?
-
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
CrowsNest wrote:I saw that, but was left none the wiser.
Ok bearing in mind the above, note:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Special%3ALog%2Fblock
09:09, 31 August 2018 JzG (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a log event on Special:Log/block: edit summary unhidden (thank)
09:08, 31 August 2018 JzG (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 2 log events on Special:Log/block: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy: Invalid block, should not be publicly visible.) (thank)
10:44, 25 August 2018 JzG (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 2 log events on Special:Log/block: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (I am an idiot.) (thank)
and undone as:
13:39, 3 September 2018 Callanecc (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a log event on Special:Log/block: content unhidden, edit summary unhidden and username unhidden (Not a valid revision deletion criteria) (thank)
13:38, 3 September 2018 Callanecc (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a log event on Special:Log/block: content unhidden and username unhidden (Not a valid revision deletion criteria) (thank)
13:38, 3 September 2018 Callanecc (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 2 log events on Special:Log/block: content unhidden, edit summary unhidden and username unhidden (Not a valid revision deletion criteria) (thank)
which seems to be both GW's block log and JzG's block log.
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
I think we're just confusing each other. The question is, did he hide both GW's block of herself and Fram's block of GW, or just GW's self block? I can't believe it was the former, but her blog can be read that way. I see nothing in the links that definitely settles it either way, although it certainly seems like they are talking only about the self-block. Then again, it looks like Callanecc had to undo four log events (1,1,2), which could be Guy's self block, GW's self-block, and the Fram block/Fuzheado unblock pair.
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
What's that thing where people use humour to hide their embarassment?
This thing....
To her credit, GW is persisting in returning to wade though it all.
This thing....
What's with the "we"? Moderating that forum has never been a job for a committee, and if there is ever a simple decision to be made, it's that. Is he genuinely afraid people will be upset their inane off topic ramblings will be cleared out of the thread?Jake wrote:Anyhoo, if we really wanted to be strict about keeping things on-topic, we could (and maybe should) split this thread so that all the GW vs. Kudpung stuff is off on its own. Then we could keep this original thread more focused on date-calculation strategies, which is probably what most people visit the site for in the first place. (I know I do!)
To her credit, GW is persisting in returning to wade though it all.
-
- Sucks
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:48 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard
It is annoying. But I try to return the annoyance in overly enthusiastic and happy posts at Ming and AndyTheGrump so they get annoyed in equal measure to my own annoyance at their aversion to change and new ideas. As long as you keep it light hearted and non-abusive over there, it's fine. You can get some good digs in.
Wikipedia Sucks! Justipedia doesn't and it's nice, comfortable and friendly there! https://justapedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_Bedson