The cowards of Wikipediocracy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:48 pm

Anroth wrote:Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...
What a shame the you're such a coward you won't come here to expand on this. As anyone can see, the substantive part of the thread is the revelation that you are the Wikipedia user Only in death, which you have finally admitted, having repeatedly and quite deceptively talked about yourself on Wikipediocracy in the third person. So already you look like a fucking mug, a manipulative game playing little snot rag.

Other facts in there are 100% true as well, unless I missed the time you disavowed the juvenile practice of joke user categories. Do you even know the trouble they cause for people who are actually trying to maintain/improve Wikipedia? Were you genuinely unaware, like that willingly ignorant prick Drmies. Or are you more of a do not give a shit you can't stifle my right to free expression kind of guy, like Queen Bishonen?

It's a joke the Zoloft protects little snowflakes like this, people who create their own self-serving bubbles of reality, and scream when their narrative is challenged. What are you afraid of, Zoloft? That people might find out Wikipediocracy is just a drop in centre for snowflake Wikipedians, a place they can talk their shit and play their games, never once being bothered by the staff......

Zoloft claims it is enough that serious critics can simply point out when these snowflakes are wrong, and somehow it won't matter if they simply react like a Wikipedian and either run away or double-down. Well, I showed good faith and happily did that, didn't respond to their games the way normal people would, and even then they cried, threatened to leave, tried to remove me from their field of vision, and so he banned me. What's that about?

You claim you respect some of these people, Zoloft, that this ban is for them. So presumably not all of them. So name names. Do you respect Anroth? Are you happy to call this guy a respected member of your forum? Did you ban me to ensure this fantasist doesn't have to keep being exposed for what he is? Let's all find out where you stand on bullshit and etiquette, for once.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:18 pm

Ming wrote:Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.
Ming is just another Wikipediocracy snowflake, whose cowardice in the face of the Krähennest and fearful posture in general makes a mockery of his supervillain schtick.

Since Ming repeatedly stated he tends to lose interest in things he doesn't (want to) understand, and defaults to an assumption the purpose of such things is to troll him, even when no fucker was even talking to him, Ming has been spared a dedicated thread.

If Ming doesn't like it, Ming can fucking lump it. I'm sure Zoloft has a jam packed program of intellectually stimulating threads for Ming to contribute to. Maybe Ming can entertain himself in the meantime by writing something for their blog based on his body of knowledge of Wikipedia. Oh no, that's right, he doesn't have any! He's a demon with Google though. Always useful, I guess.

I tell you who Ming is. He's the type of lightweight inattentive fuck who starts a thread about a supposedly new (it really isn't) technique the Wikipedians have adopted for creating an "unassailable article". Now, there are times when a serious and experienced critic can make hay out of writing about an AfD before it has concluded, one where the outcome doesn't matter, but this was not one of those times.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9160

Unsurprisingly, the conclusion (for Lynch, the only AfD that is going to be truly representative) was "no consensus", and quite comfortably so, which most people familiar with Wikipedia will know does not make the article unassailable (and most critics would have foreseen as the likely outcome at the time of his posting).

Not for the first time, Ming's status as a mere amateur in this endeavour, was on full display. Ming is safe though, his little snowflake ass doesn't have to worry about serious critics finding the flaws in his positions anymore. He's got Poetlister, Carrite, Carcharoth and Brille to debate his observation with. I'd rather stab my eyes out with a fork.

You want a thread here Ming, a non snide one, you better wise up and not take people for fools, and cease making ridiculously arrogant but entirely misguided assumptions about your opponents. I can do what you laughingly call Wikipedia criticism with my eyes shut, and you fucking know it, you cowardly little fuck. You had your chance to prove this belief false, you chose a different path.

I mean seriously, how many warnings did you need? I gave you every chance, you flubbed every single one. So now you're stuck there in snowflake city with those muppets, as you stare blankly at the screen doing not much of any use, and I'm here, laughing at you for having been stupid enough to think that was ever going to work out for you.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Kumioko » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:10 pm

I just commented over at WPO that it really is funny that Anroth and some others so quickly rush in to defend and justify the conduct of Wikipedians. The only criticism he does on that Wikipedia criticism site is the criticize the criticism of Wikipedia critics.
#BbbGate

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Oh, he's much worse than that. Using Wikipediocracy's dime, he defends his own actions as a Wikipedian in the face of criticism registered there, speaking about himself in the third person using a different identity. There's not really even many Wikipedians who are that deceitful. The truly hilarioius part is that the staff let him get away with it, as if it won't further tarnish their image by letting the worst conduct seen on Wikipedia seem like just a Tuesday on their board.

He's now expressing amazement that I blame everyone else, as if somehow my ban is justifiable. He also cliams to know my history, something I doubt very much. Just another example of just how much of a Wikipedian is to his core. As anyone can see, I don't blame everyone. I'm careful to name who I think is to blame, and describe in detail what they did. If they're too gutless to address it, either by facing me here or addressing it there, on their heads be it.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:27 pm

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 82#p217582
Carrite wrote:Is there anybody out there yet that doesn't grasp that WMF's Friendly Space™ horseshit is nothing more than a cudgel for crushing dissent? A perfect tool to help bureaucrats keep being bureaucrats....
And as a denizen of Wikipediocracy, he'd know all about crushing dissent, he sees it all the time. Not that I was ever actually agitating against the leadership of Wikipediocracy. I just said and did things which gave the regulars a bad case of the sads. Never been called a troll more than by these fragile sods.

Carrite got particularly sad when I pointed out he didn't know what axiomatic meant, and if he stood by his meaning, it showed he wasn't open to evidence that Wikipedia isn't as successful as he likes to claim on that so called discussion board.

Poor little lamb put me on ignore for that. If that doesn't make him a Friendly Space Policy supporting motherfucker, I don't know what does. Did I threaten him, insult him, abuse him? No, I did not. Just made him sad. At least Wikipedia interprets 'unfriendly' as insulting/abusive speech.

The regulars of Wikipediocracy are as allergic to the truth, and as willing to suppress it by reaching for the old Friendly Space derived 'community harmony' excuse, as the worst of the Wikipedians. Seriously, these shitbirds think people can't see it. Zoloft thinks people are fucking idiots. They see it.

It's why they could fit their active membership in a toilet. Carrite, Poetlister, and whatever loser Wikipediot was feeling bored that week. Singing along, not all the same words, but in perfect harmony, because they all feel nice and safe in their little space. Their very, little, closed, space.

Come out, come out. The big bad wolf has something to say.......

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:24 pm

I note that Erika's latest imbroglio is a tangle with Andy Mabbett, who seems to have made a career of being a Wikipedian-in-Residence, the one form of paid editing that Wikipedians turn a blind eye to, presumably because they are waiting for their own turn to get their snouts into the trough. The extent of Mabbett's self-promotion on Wikipedia is breathtaking -- his sole claim to fame appears to be to have edited a fanzine about Pink Floyd and coauthored a book, published by an outfit that he started the article for. This little nexus of self-dealing seems more worthy of attention than the state of his beard. Erika will get chewed up by the machine for this, but she cannot say she has not been warned.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:56 am

No mercy for Erika. I warned here many times the compete gender approach of WMF is bull only to impress the donors, but twice she ran to Zoloft to ask to mute me and named me a sexist. She want and to be a part of the system and defend and criticize it, but who is warning her is the enemy. Erika is a typical Wikipediocrazy user, half in the system and a bit of criticism, but no choices.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:36 am

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 51#p217651
AndyTheGrump wrote:Personally, I prefer to base my opinions on actual evidence.
Literally nearly fell off my chair when reading this.

Still, it's good that Wikipediocracy has a culture where people are allowed to disprove such statements with their own evidence, without the discredited person then going on a months long mission of revenge. Oh no, wait, I think I got that wrong......

I ask against an Zoloft, do you really think people are fucking stupid? Do you really think they can't see what goes on? The whole premise of your website's mission is that people aren't that inattentive. So they must see it.

Hence why you can only attract and retain members who will tolerate it........perhaps who don't even recognise it as the rank shit-baggery it really is. I don't doubt that Andy himself believes this statement to be a true one.

Your board is full of people who can't handle their beliefs being contradicted with evidence. Coincidence? Or are you actively seeking to create a haven for the deluded? Do you feel some kind of motherly instinct to protect these clowns from themselves?

Yours, the Big Bad Wolf.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:34 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:Was Russavia ever an admin anywhere?
Only on Wikipediocracy would that occur as a query from a member with hundreds of posts to their name. And that is assuming it was even a genuine question, it being more likely posted by this pathetic specimen in the manner/context he seems to relish (to catch a perceived enemy, a brother poster, in a faux pas). Missed the mark here though, because Russavia was indeed an admin on Commons. And more besides. It takes mere seconds to check.

Such a shame that the Wikipediocracy management's deliberate choice to not only look the other way, but actively support, people like this, over actual experienced and knowledgeable critics who know how to behave to those designated as peers even if they dislike them, has led to this.

To those in the know, including their nominal enemy (or potential partners, to take Zoloft's position), it makes them look incredibly tolerant of lazy ignoramouses with questionable agendas. And to casual observers and members of the press, they just look like people quite undeserving of the reputation of being Wikieodia experts and investigators.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:38 pm

Mmmmppfff. In my opinion Wikipediocracy has become a part of the snake pit named the Wiki mouvement. It is weird. First it was a Greg side who was bashing Jimmy, Greg sailed away on a boat, bye bye Grec, never heart anything of him, everybody was welcome to come back on WO, and all of a sudden it became a part of the Village pump and wikiidiots were protected. And no it's a dead echo chamber with some babble.
The same with Erika. She was screaming and shouting, kicking to everybody, suddenly she was loyal to the system, and disappeared. Except one twitter about Maher as a hint here Twitter account is neutral now.

What is going on here? Proboard boards disappear, Wikipediocrazy is like a ship in the storm and going in devery direction, Greg en Erika shut suddenly up, Alexander is blocking around, it is like I said weird!

Post Reply