Jbhunley

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.

Jbhunley

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:47 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s/Jbhunley
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/search. ... mit=Search

Thirsty bird indeed......
[Katherine Maher] is not stupid and knows that no one can quote the sound of crickets in the media. I am also of the opinion either her inner professional survival instinct and/or advice from council is whispering 'keep quiet and this will go away or at least pass you by'. Jbh Talk 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Then Jimbo Wales I strongly suggest that you spend the time to get up to speed on this so you can comment on it because the potential fallout from what appears to be misuse of Foundation processes and resources for personal gain is something that the public will care about. As opposed to the inside baseball that is FRAMGATE, even though it is set to fundamentally change how English Wikipedia is managed and governed, things get more real when one starts talking about financial controls, actual conflict on interest and money. Just say'n wiki-scandal is a far different beast from the potential of scandal-scandal. Jbh Talk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Scandal? Yeahright.

If you want the WMF higher ups to comment on a bona fide scandal, you might want to actually bring them something they need to defend. Something that actually looks like a scandal, not a conspiracy theory you imported from an external harassment site.

It is, after all, official Wikipedia policy, not to feed the trolls.

Of course, if you think either is falling down in their responsibility as Wikipedia editors to answer legitimate grievances from community members proffered the right way, then under WP:CIVIL you can of course seek restitution from the local Administrators.

:lol:

I'm starting a new thread in the Wikipediocracy section for this dude, because I think his days considering himself a Wikipedian are long gone (his article space work is still negligible) perhaps because he crashed and burned so badly at RfA (in part due to his lack of mainspace focus).......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=720

Always seems to do strange things to a certain type of Wikipedian, failing to attain what many keep insisting is no big deal. We saw from RexxS what a really big deal it is.

Other than current US politics, spreading conspiracy theories is of course the domain of the people who were never accepted by the mainstream to begin with.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jbhunley

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:22 pm

The claims that LH is not central to this and the outcome are simply not credible.
Does it hurt, having Vigilant's arm up you're backisde, operating you like a ventriloquist's dummy?

The unity of purpose between the Wikipediocracy and the shitheels of Wikipedia, writ large.

Cue the puppet master.....
Will ARBCOM realize where they are and do the right thing?
Indeed. I think they are all too aware of who is pulling the strings here, and what the ethical response is to such transparently obvious external manipulation of what are meant to be internal governance processes.

Kill the puppet. :twisted:
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jbhunley

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:27 am

What a fucking fruit loop.
The current proposed decision is creating a new precedent for desysop on English Wikipedia. One based on, essentially, repeatedly pointing out errors in an "abrasive" manner regardless of the nature of the errors. I can think of several current admins, all of which do good work to whom this description can be applied. Many of them are bulwarks against paid editing and whose removal would increase the profitability of paid editing schemes.

I do not know the going rate for a paid editor so I'll take as a baseline the $110,000.00 of the tender I linked to above. I am sure many paid editing companies make more than that in a year so spending $5000-$10000 to get rid of a troublesome admin or two may be seen as a good investment. That would pay for 50-100 hours of a pretty skilled worker to troll through someone's history and make a great case to present to ArbCom or, better, Trust & Safety. It will not matter that the issues are 'stale' or 'have already been discussed by the community'. Hell that is what this desysop is based on.

So, expect someone to register something like desysop.me and start offering their services as an anti-admin hit squad or maybe open a 'bounty board' on Patreon -- you know "Subscribe and save" or "We desysop on lay away".

Prior to this we had solid controls that could prevent this kind of thing -- public evidence and a common (if flawed) understanding of what was worthy of desysop etc. With this you take that away and if you do not know that there is a profit motive to, in general not saying this motive here, to remove those who are hardest on paid editing then you have not been paying attention. Same if you do not know those same people could be made to look to have a long history of being "abrasive" or "excessively pointing out flaws".

Laugh if you will but where there is a potential for profit someone will open a business. Jbh Talk 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No wonder they love him at Wikipediocracy. Absolute nutjob. Fits right on a site made for conspiracy theory propagators and panty sniffers.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to point out THE FUCKING OBVIOUS, but for those who don't live and breathe Wikipedia, you can rest assured, the biggest threat to undisclosed paid editors, is a cadre of meticulously polite Administrators who work as part of a team.

It isn't exactly hard to combat an abrasive hero warrior Asshole Protector of Teh Wiki. Just push their buttons, exploit their obvious personality defects, their sheer mental imbalance, and watch them go crazy. Even if they succeed in combating you, there's plenty more people who look at the way it was done and relish the opportunity to fight back. Shit, sometimes they just eliminate themselves, they're that batshit crazy, as seen with the hilarious demise of Jytdog.

The people who wrote the policies weren't thick, they knew what works best. But as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger lamented, the lunatics soon took over the asylum.

This dim bulb narrowly failed in his bid to become an Administrator. Which basically tells you what the problem with Wikipedia is.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm


Return to Wikipediocracy talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest