Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by AndrewForson » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:09 am

Graaf in his avuncular way has asked what a nice girl like her is doing in a place like WP. I doubt that he'll get an answer, though if he does we might learn a few new words.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:39 am

Hard to know what she will be offended by more. Being referred to as madam, or being compared to the youthful looking Drmies (who must be twice her age if he's a day).

To illustrate the problem faced by people seeking answers on the fan board, consider the following. One recent disgusting episode at Wikipedia is how they just completely brushed under the carpet the obvious harassment of Sandstein, for doing nothing more evil than enforcing ArbCom's wishes. It is becoming a common theme, tacitly supported by countless Wikipedia Administrators.

I've documented it here, but as yet the Wikipediocrats seem not too bothered about documenting it there. That is perhaps because the harasser, Malik Shabbaz, and a good few other users who would do the same to Sandstein on Wikipedia if they had the balls (gendered insult alert), are all considered members in good standing over there. Carrite practically sleeps there.

You know who had the ovaries to shut stuff like that down hard? Gorilla Warfare. When she was in ArbCom, rather than doing what she does now. Sandstein is particularly hated on for enforcing the sort of sanctions she called for, on the sort of users she condemned from the bench. Whether she knows that's one of the basic purposes of Wikipediocracy, to give that sort of scum safe harbour and reinforcement, we can only guess.

Jake claims everyone on his board knows Drmies is an asshole, yet when he's giving Malik barnstars, when he's lamenting how Administrators failed him, there's not a peep out of them. When he disgracefully sought and secured the privilege of sitting on ArbCom alongside Gorilla Warfare, as he continues to pretend to people his is woke, they said nothing. Carrite was most pleased at his performance, having done his level best to ensure the status quo.

For as long as people like Malik keep on grinding away, reverting nationalists and worse, the fair game targets (this being defined as anyone from moderate Republicans to white supremacists), they have free reign to do as they like. As long as the highest levels of Wikipedia governance are in the hands of scum like Drmies, and Opabina Regalis, who is merely a female version of Drmies (with all the differences in strategy and effectiveness that implies).

What we do know, is they ban people like me, people who call this what it is.

A proper conversation between Malik and Gorilla Warfare is something that is technically possible on the fan board. It will never happen. They have no desire for it to happen. Not Malik, not Jake, not any of the members. Not even Gorilla Warfare wants that from them, because she already has a place she can challenge Malik if she so wished. She evidently does not wish, not any longer.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Graaf Statler » Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:18 pm

AndrewForson wrote:Graaf in his avuncular way has asked what a nice girl like her is doing in a place like WP. I doubt that he'll get an answer, though if he does we might learn a few new words.

That is the way it feels Crow. I see a lovely young lady with a cute cat when I look on here user page. When I look to that pickture of Drmies I see a nice, bright young man who has everything a man can wish in his life, see for instance on Metra that picture of a wolk van een baby . Is this wikifaust? Or the temptation of the wikidevil? What makes it these people change in this? That is what I am wondering.

User avatar
Dysklyver
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

Post by Dysklyver » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:53 pm

Graaf Statler wrote:
AndrewForson wrote:Graaf in his avuncular way has asked what a nice girl like her is doing in a place like WP. I doubt that he'll get an answer, though if he does we might learn a few new words.

That is the way it feels Crow. I see a lovely young lady with a cute cat when I look on here user page. When I look to that pickture of Drmies I see a nice, bright young man who has everything a man can wish in his life, see for instance on Metra that picture of a wolk van een baby . Is this wikifaust? Or the temptation of the wikidevil? What makes it these people change in this? That is what I am wondering.


To be fair it is a very good question, I am not holding out for an answer though.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:16 am

Well, Mister Midezise Jack didn't appreciate my posting very much because it's removed. But I hope molly and Michel will think about what I wrote.

He, Drmies, oude brievenbuspisser van me, kijk eens, speciaal voor jouw deze blogposting.
(Sorry guy's it is a complete mad and many times very cynical blog what is very hard to understand if you don't know the Dutch Wikipedia and if you are not a Dutch native speaker.)

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:10 pm

I did think there is any comparison at all to be made between Drmies and GW, on any level. They are night and day. I doubt there is much difference between how GW acts in real life. Drmies must be different in real life, otherwise he would look far uglier, due to all the beatings he would attract.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:49 pm

Jake wrote:.......maybe this incident has gotten too much of our attention already
:lol: :? :roll:

This incident is a prominent Wikipedian saying of another prominent Wikipedian, the outgoing editor of the Wikipedia community newsletter no less, has a "pattern of .... being sexist towards women in Wikimedia". That's a serious charge. That's something the media would write articles about.

So why does Jake want to shut it all down? Simple. The Wikipedians want to shut it all down. As a fansite, he prioritizes what they prioritise. Even when GW is remarkably showing some willingness to talk about the actual issue in a relevant way (but only because some stupid n00b is trying to align her words on Wikipedia with those on Wikipediocracy - n00bs not be familiar with their do's and dont's, as in don't be scrutinising prominent Wikipedians who grace their forum with their presence).

Ironically, just as he's postulating shutting it all down, Jake inadvertently raises an interesting question. Here is the precise wikicode that gave GW a "minor" concern, Kupdung's reaction to which escalated things markedly.....
It's perhaps best not to play with fire. Let's see what {{U|Ritchie333}}, {{U|Joe Roe}}, {{U|Boing! said Zebedee }}, {{U|Ad Orientem}}, and {{U|GorillaWarfare|Molly White}} from among our most experienced and respected admins say, and the many other admins who commented there.
So we can see, it was a specific choice he made, to use her real name when using user names for everyone else. As he made clear in his rather ludicrous response to GW's polite request to not do that, he was using her real name since she had used it herself sometimes (but not as her signature on Wikipedia), and he saw his use of it here as his "legitimate choice" to make. It seems odd that someone would make that choice when nobody would be confused who he was referring to, and it involves more work for them to use it (and potential confusion for anyone clicking that link).

The answer lies in the all important context. In making that choice, Kupdung was invoking her name when trying to rally support from fellow Administrators for his own accusation of "vile" mysogony directed toward another user. He must have thought the user in question would be intimidated by the call for support from a high profile woman of Wikipedia, one who has been outspoken on feminist issues and is "among our most experienced and respected admins".

Unfortunately for Kupdung, it seems GW, like any real feminist, was unwilling to sign off on a man's evident sexist behaviour toward her, even when being done as part of the feminist cause and in an otherwise most complimentary way. It is this casual and thoughtless behaviour from those claiming to be her allies, which must piss her off more than the random tidal wave of abuse she receives from other less prominent/powerful quarters. That he is doubling and even tripling down on it, must be what drove her to knowingly risk a block for calling him out during his retirement party.

And yet she has pulled back from the brink, seemingly unwilling to pull that pin to spark that schism, or at very least looking for someone else to be an agent for change. Hard to believe, but it is what it is. There is so much more to be written about this issue, specifically how it reveals the true nature of Wikipedia. Why it's so bad, and more importantly, since that is known somewhat, why it isn't getting any better.

Sadly, Wikipediocracy is not that place. No friend to women, no friend to victims, no use to journalists. If they had any integrity, they'd be embarrassed and ashamed. See the rest of this forum to see the truth of that proposition.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by AndrewForson » Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:09 pm

Joke wrote:maybe this incident has gotten too much of our attention already

Of course it has. An administrator launching a personal attack on another administrator, getting blocked for misconduct by a third administrator and unblocked by a fourth administrator on the grounds that, er, well, it isn't a personal attack if an admin says it. Why on earth would a critical site be interested in that? An egregious example of the admin class protecting their own? No, not interesting at all.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:04 am

:lol:
Poetlister wrote:it is possible for this site to live in harmony with Wikipedia.
Not if you're fulfilling your so called mission....
lying_bastards wrote:We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
Hard to think of any scenario where this mission statement is being properly fulfilled, but those doing it are still perfectly welcome at Wikipedia. Ironically, that scenario is if Wikipedia worked the way Jimmy Wales wants it to, open to and respectful of well founded criticisms. It does not. Can you imagine Jimmy placing a NOTHERE block? Or claiming journalists asking legitimate questions are paid editors? Ridiculous.

The luminaries of the fan site would have you believe Wikipedians are OK with being exposed for what they really are, and are fine with being shamed/embarrassed into action. Serious critics could give you a thousand examples of the complete opposite. Not Jimmy, but the people who really run the site these days. The scum they call the community. At best, they greet such things with the stony silence of an organisation in denial.

Postlister is as much a fan of Wikipedia as any of the die hard insiders. This is why he lies. This is why he cheats. This is why he is a cowardly piece of shit. Fanboys will do anything for their One True Love.

Destroy Wikipedia, and you destroy Poetlister's reason for getting up in the morning. Being a member of Wikipediocracy, posting there as if you don't know he's a disingenuous prick, gives him a reason to get up in the morning.

Why do it? Get some self respect, people.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by AndrewForson » Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:06 pm

Juke has apparently deleted posts and forbidden people to be mean to GW because asking her hard questions is just men being unable to deal with a woman being strong.

Post Reply