Wikipedia Sucks!
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/

Volunteer Marek
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=489
Page 1 of 3

Author:  CrowsNest [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:14 am ]
Post subject:  Volunteer Marek

It says everything about Wikipediocracy that it allows a petrol bomb throwing mother fucker like Volunteer Marek to be a member of their safe space, yet bans serious and knowledgeable Wikipedia critics just because their cowardly membership cries about frequently being shown to be wrong using indisputable facts and sound reason, delivered in ways that are remarkably restrained under the circumstances.

In the last few hours, they memory holed a post where Marek called fellow member Captain Occam a lying racist. No ban, no warning of any kind. If you hadn't seen it in real time, you'd never know it even happened.

I can't recall ever delivering such a blatant attack on their forum, and overall their treatment of Marek is in stark contrast to me for my supposed infractions. If I had a choice between the public humiliation and deafness to complaints I had to endure, and the no fuss no censure no record approach Marek is being treated to now (and Zoloft stepping down from modding may be the reason for that), I'd have obviously chosen the latter.

It is undeniable that being disagreeable is Marek's default mode, as can be seen from how he conducts himself on Wikipedia. So much so that there's probably been several more unseen instances of them having to go on poop patrol because of him. You can tell he probably has to try real hard to even be able to make a post that doesn't contain a direct insult, and even then, he always seems to manage to make his point in an aggressive and condescending fashion. I was made to believe this was not accepted on Wikipediocracy, even though they seemed to really struggle to show I was even guilty of even a mild form of Marek disease.

After trying hard to find a recent post of his that wasn't venemous, I was amused to see it was one where he was making this observation......
Quote:
a non-trivial number of views appeared to be editors working on an article rather than actual readers.
This made me laugh, because this precious little fuck had put me on ignore a while back because apparently I don't know shit about anything. In reality he had done it because he couldn't handle the fact that because of my superior knowledge of Wikipedia and my advantageous position as an observer not a combatant, I had told him Sandstein was going to fuck him eventually - he didn't listen, didn't heed my advice, and so he got fucked. It hurt his pride, obviously.

Naturally then, because Wikipedians are conditioned to never admit when they were wrong lest they lose that precious commodity, social standing, he then pretended like it hadn't even happened, claiming his use of AE was all going swimmingly (I may even be correct in saying he hasn't dared file a report since being fucked by Sandstein).

I suppose I could have called him a liar there and then, but I didn't much want to spend the time going looking for the diff Zoloft would require for such a comment to stand (I seemed to be the only person on there who ever had to prove such claims there and then, even though as far as I can recall none of those precious fucks has ever caught me in a deliberate lie).

Anyway, as became an amusingly common sight when people over there began ignoring me and lying about the reasons why to protect their image and ego, it turns out I had made this exact point already in that very thread, and probably for the same reasons (an analysis of page view stats before and after main page appearances).
Quote:
It could be the case that the lost views are actually accounted for by the drop in editors, which was markedly increased this last year, as detailed in my decline thread. You do after all need to load and reload the same Wikipedia page multiple times to go about your daily wikifiddle, if that is your idea of fun.

I tentatively suggest there might be something to this theory, since page views seem to be cyclic, peaking in the winter months. Even Wikipedians might be less inclined toward indoor hobbies in summer months.
So there you have it Zoloft. You done fucked up. You banned someone who is almost always right (because it never pays to be caught being wrong in this game) and only occasionally objectionable (and justifiably so given your slack and hypocritical modding), because you were too afraid to tell people who are usually wrong (and only right when copying me) and almost always objectionable, to fuck off with their hypocritical complaining.

Author:  sashi [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

As it happens, I saw that Tarantino warned him publicly -- "that's one and I won't count to two" -- before both the attack and the warning disappeared.

In unrelated news have you noticed that Kingsindian has stopped writing over at WO? Do you think that's silent solidarity with a certain banned member (i.e. you) or just a coincidence?

Author:  Mutineer [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

Tarantino is a person that delights in cross-identifying Wikipedia editors, and exhibits Wikipedia administrative characteristics, but who is Tarantino?

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

Marek has run right into the off topic weeds as he argues about gun politics in a thread that was nominally meant to be about Wikipedia's coverage of the AR-15. It quickly degenerated into a generic debate about the AR-15, thence onto generic gun politics. This has happened even though several people have already noted its off topicness.

Still, good fun for us, as it inevitably brings up gems like this.....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 53#p216853
Quote:
I don't have a problem with guns. No more than I have a problem with, say, cars. I do have a problem with that 3% of wackos that is not just shutting down any reasonable gun policy, but also debate on the subject, and which appears to have less than benign motives.
Honestly, where is the value to Wikipediocracy of keeping around someone this thick, someone who has the gall to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about?

While you can undoubtedly make a convincing argument that the NRA is having a disproportionate effect on the public and political debate, the idea that it is just 3% of Americans who are blocking reasonable gun reform, even with the NRA's help, is laughable. Risible even.

The truth of his glaring error can of course be found in where he got the 3% figure from.....
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... ling-guns/
Quote:
Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.
So it can safely be assumed that a good proportion of the other 50% will make up the rest of the opposition found in this very recent poll.....
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2521
Quote:
American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll
And it's worth noting that half of gun owners fell into that support camp.

If the 3% figure has any meaning, it probably correlates with the same finding in that study, which says 97% of Americans support universal background checks.

Bizarrely, earlier in the same thread he even acknowledged that the roadblock to progress is ten times larger, but his understanding of the problem is similarly bizarre...
Quote:
There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx. But this is a national majority. Because of way that the Congress is elected and gerrymandering, this doesn't translate into a legislative majority.
On what planet is gerrymandering to blame for an inability to turn 97% public support into legislative adoption of universal background checks? The blame clearly lies in the partisan nature of Congress, where shrieking from both the left and right makes support for even widely popular measures like that seem like a bad idea.

Honestly, for a guy who insults people's intellectual abilities so frequently, on Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, the guy sure is thick. It is this exact sort of liberal shriekery that actually prevents serious debate - what right thinking moderate Conservative, gun owning or not, wants to sit down with people like that? He's not only ill-informed, he's insulting with it. Marek shrieks like this constantly on Wikipedia, while pretending all along that he is a defender of NPOV and a serious encyclopedist. He remains unblocked simply because he is on the correct side of the aisle for Wikipedia's/ns tastes.

But the question remains - where is the value to Wikipediocracy in keeping a specimen like this around? It can't be so he can be publicly shown up as a fool, because I showed what Marek does when he's actually challenged - he ducks and runs, delivering insults in his wake. People don't need Wikipediocracy to figure out that's how he rolls, they can see the same on Wikipedia. It is the role of Wikipediocracy to document it, not allow it to happen on their own turf.

Indeed I got banned because people like him complained that if I wasn't banned, they would leave. What the fuck is that about?

Author:  ericbarbour [ Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

Mutineer wrote:
Tarantino is a person that delights in cross-identifying Wikipedia editors, and exhibits Wikipedia administrative characteristics, but who is Tarantino?

Once again, I was told that he lives in Tennessee, doesn't edit any WMF website, has a massive database of WP dirt/history, and only accesses the web via TOR so he can't be traced. Otherwise he's as anonymous as any number of Wikipedians. Nothing you found out about him would surprise me, not even that he turned out to be a Wikipedia insider who was trolling WP criticism forums for "entertainment", or to spy on WP critics (no real difference).

Quote:
Indeed I got banned because people like him complained that if I wasn't banned, they would leave. What the fuck is that about?

WO today is no different from many other websites where rampant political correctness and intolerance of other opinions has become dominant--because the Wikipedians want it that way. Like Metafilter or Tumblr, there is a lot of talk about "free speech" but actual free speech is not tolerated. No one can reasonably claim that WO is an "independent community" anymore.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

The noose is tightening around Marek's scrawny little neck.

Now Admin Awilly (no laughing!) has imposed sooper dooper speshul sanctions on him, which state (my bolding).....
Quote:
On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, being uncivil, being disruptive, and so forth. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users. You may discuss user behavior in WP:space (including administrative pages) and on administrator talk pages.

If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologize/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.
Since Marek will be incapable of meeting this standard of conduct (so basic it is the actual basic standard of conduct every editor is held to, and which would be enforced without any need for this sort of bureaucratic nonsense, if Wikipedia governance worked), because he's a nasty little game playing prick, then together with the other tickets he's been racking up, it won't be long before he is topic banned from American Politics.

Drmies, of course, is horrified. He has his own view of how scum-in-arms like Marek should be governated......
Quote:
Awilley, in regard to #civility, allow me to point out that in the list of male Wikipedia editors who get harassed, VM ranks pretty high. See the recent revdeleted edit in their talk page history, and the SPI that I just opened, including blocks for editors who were ragging on Marek. And there's a thing or two that regularly pops up and warrants revdeletion. I know one shouldn't respond in kind, and it's always the guy who hits back who gets the flag thrown, but please keep in mind the context. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind the context? The context is, Marek usually deserves what he gets, and he likely wouldn't to get it at all, or not half as bad, if his opponents saw corrupt admins like Drmies treating him like any other editor. Marek probably knows deep down that his game playing and years long favourable treatment by the corrupt cops, more than his actual edits, is why he has become such a target. If he genuinely doesn't know, well, it isn't exactly a revelation that he lacks the brains most people are born with.

So there you go people. It's open season on Marek now. Fuck him up.

These idiots telling me I don't know shit about shit, are always going to regret it. I told Marek ages ago that he was on a glide slope, that he's overplayed his hand, got too confident. Idiot really should have listened. Should have taken corrective action. Should have kissed some butt. Should have disassociated himself from toxic enablers like Drmies.

When he finally gets shitcanned (and he should look into Drmies' habit of not ultimately stepping in and saving friends when their backs are against the wall), he'll claim he's not bothered, that he was sick of Wikipedia anyway. He'll be lying.

Author:  Dysklyver [ Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

CrowsNest wrote:
[...] Marek [...]


Funny how this one comment from Marek is enough to form my opinion of him being a total twat. I really don't see this going well for him.

Author:  Paul Bedson [ Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
[...] Marek [...]


Funny how this one comment from Marek is enough to form my opinion of him being a total twat. I really don't see this going well for him.


I've known Marek for a long time. The very fact that he is part of Wikipedia should be enough to convince most rational people to leave.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

Paul Bedson wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
[...] Marek [...]


Funny how this one comment from Marek is enough to form my opinion of him being a total twat. I really don't see this going well for him.


I've known Marek for a long time. The very fact that he is part of Wikipedia should be enough to convince most rational people to leave.
They have. I guarantee nobody here can name five Wikipedia editors who look like rational people.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Volunteer Marek

:lol:
Quote:
Volunteer Marek is topic-banned for six months....... Sandstein 07:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Quote:
Setting aside the main issue for a moment, I find Volunteer Marek's conduct here worthy of interest. They note that casting aspersions is prohibited, and that accusations must be backed by "actual diffs, not innuendo and bad faithed insinuations", and that if an editor "can't back up that attack, then he deserves a ban". I agree. But I intend to apply these principles to Volunteer Marek. In the same section, they write without providing evidence that "this is an obvious "payback report" for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked", and accuse another editor of being part of a "tag team", among other instances of vitriol and confrontative statements that have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request. This is inacceptable and disruptive conduct. I note that Volunteer Marek has a relatively long record of AE sanctions going back to 2011, both in the Eastern Europe and in the US politics topic area. This has got to stop. I am topic-banning Volunteer Marek for six months from anything related to Eastern Europe. I am leaving the thread open to allow discussion of the original request. Sandstein 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The combined efforts of no less than Bishonen, BlackKite, NewYorkBrad and Drmies were not enough to change his mind, Sandstein did not back down.

Despite insisting he had done absolutely nothing wrong, for some reason Marek then decided to apologise anyway, sort of, and so Sandstein finally showed some mercy on the wretch......
Quote:
I am not entirely convinced. Your appeal, above, acknowledges that "those one or two sentences were problematic" and you write that you will "refrain from discussing the possible motivations" at AE. That's a good start. But I am disappointed that you expected a warning first. You are an experienced editor and have been the target of multiple AE sanctions. You do not need a warning, particularly given that in the very post at issue you outlined the conduct expectations that you yourself violated with the same post. You know that the Arbitration Committee's expectation is that all editors are on their best behavior in AE topic areas. And you do not convince me that you understand why I considered it necessary to impose the sanction: that your intervention as a whole - beyond one or two sentences - was not helpful in resolving the AE request against Tatzref, but that it compounded and continued the problem of battleground-like conduct in the Eastern Europe topic area, in that it cast the existing disagreements as a conflict between ideologically opposed groups rather than as presumably legitimate differences in point of view.

Your intervention was disruptive and unnecessary. At AE, I do not care a whit about your or any other user's personal opinions about the conduct of the parties. The only kind of comments by third parties that I welcome at AE are those which help me as a reviewing admin assess the complaint at hand, by briefly providing new, relevant evidence in the form of diffs. Otherwise, you should stay out of AE, and you should certainly not further inflame a dispute.

For these reasons, I remain of the view that the topic ban remains necessary to prevent further disruption of this kind by you. But in recognition of your partial acknowledgment of your problematic conduct, I reduce its duration to one month. You remain free to appeal this reduced ban in the venues provided for at WP:AE#Appeals. Sandstein 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
All good stuff.

If Marek wants to remain on Wikipedia, he will need to up his game. Just like I warned him. Sandstein doesn't play.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/