View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:57 am




Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
:lol:
Poetlister wrote:
I've always considered Iridescent to be among the best people on Wikipedia. If there were a lot more people like that, this site wouldn't be needed.
Because Wikipedia would have died a death.

This is what a Wikipedia full of Iridescent's would look like......
Quote:
If WMF staff are able to talk to Toxic Personalities without bursting into flames, you might want to ask Eric Corbett, as he probably has more experience than anybody else when it comes to multi-editor collaborations at the higher quality levels. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The Foundation would be pissed off because they've never said a word to Eric, his reputation as a toxic has come primarily from his fellow volunteers, the Foundation have merely reflected this sentiment as they look for solutions, and they have been given the impression by the likes of Iridescent that interacting directly with the Precious is not their role.

Eric would be pissed off, because he's yet again being used as a meme for Wikipedia toxicity by his so called friends, and he's going to have to waste another half day viciously attacking the Foundation person asking him stupid questions.

The likes of Brianboulton would be pissed off, because this was yet another example of Iridescent acting like Eric Corbett is the only decent Wikipedia editor, based not even on hard evidence just an obvious personal bias, and there is yet again the inference that to be a high quality editor, being toxic, or doing the things that make others think you are toxic, is just necessary.


Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Mendaliv wrote:
Honestly, I think on some level T&S spent that month building that dossier because they knew they'd have to prove the ban was justified. Like I think it's really, really unlikely that document was what was produced as part of the original ban decision.
Why are you whining about it on Wikipediocracy then?

If you genuinely think this is what happened, as a Wikipediot, it is your right and privelage to ask your Board representatives or your your precious Committtee for self-governance to put these concerns to the Foundation, and not rest until they are given a full and complete answer.

You won't do it, because you know you are full of shit, and Wikipediocracy is only used by butthurt Wikipedians who just want to talk this sort of utter shit all day long.


Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
The genius bar now seem to think Trust and Safety investigations are instigated in the same casual way you might offer to help someone locate their office coffee cup.

Do I even need to say which out of work lawyer thinks that flies?

Oh, and of course, the GRAND CONSPIRACY now has another layer to it, the whole Elisa.rolle misdirection.

Absolute fools.


Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Confused_Uncle_Jake wrote:
Honestly, I think we're being bamboozled here.
Yes, you're doing it to yourselves!
Detective_Uncle_Jake wrote:
There's just nothing Fram did in this case that could possibly have warranted any kind of special action by the WMF, with or without a complaint from [ER]
Um, you sure about that skippy? Having been up in her face for a long time, he swooped in over the heads of two of his fellow Administrators who had already negotiated a way forward, to place a gotcha indef block, to which she unsurprisingly reacted with confusion, exasperation, and promptly retired. Then he gloated that nobody should entertain an unblock request unless she begged, which would be futile because in his opinion she had no chance. That to me seems to fit the criteria for a Partial Ban, given it was hardly unusual behaviour. We can surmise the Administrators didn't react because of the horrendous prospect of a dispute with Fram, then again maybe they didn't because they had already complained via another route? Ritchie being well known as a long time critic of Fram, who would have had a dossier of his own ready and to hand, and a temper that is not the greatest.
Suspicious_Uncle_Jake wrote:
But she's almost exactly the sort of person the WMF would put forward as a sacrificial piñata for Fram's defenders (i.e., us) to beat with a stick, so that the Faithful can engage in their usual holier-than-thou finger-wagging at them/us
I'm sorry, we're you under the impression people think you bunch of panty sniffers really need an excuse to target women who you think have entrapped Fram?
Deluded_Uncle_Jake wrote:
and distract people from the much more serious (not to mention credible) nepotism allegation
Yeah, about that. When's it hitting the newstands? Global story, if true. Surprised you've waited this long to publish. Things not quite stacking up? Realized you had a few more assumptions and a few more inconvenient facts than you thought? Well, I did try to warn you.
Kennel_Club_President_Uncle_Jake wrote:
I would strongly suggest that we not fall for it.
On come now. You know Vigilant only responds to sharp tugs on his diamonte encrusted leash. DOWN BOY! Don't hurt the little fella now. Remember, he's the money.
Betazoid_Uncle_Jake wrote:
What's more, if anything, I think SlimVirgin et al are doing a good thing by taking up her cause.
Aw gee, really? I'm sure they will love finding out you of all people, are their friend and ally. I hope the wimmin know how lucky they are to have an advocate like you against the wiki-meanies! Would you like to host a social gathering one evening? Sharing stories. Maybe show a few pictures.......

Earth to these freaks. Are you receiving us?

:?: :ugeek: :lol:


Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2436
Reply with quote
I am all the time wondering who is this Jake? A schoolchild of 13? Someone with a extreem low EQ and a mental defect like Down syndrome and his parents have given him a computer to play with? It is a minor, that is for sure, but should his parents know he is doing this on the internet?
Mustn't we find out who he is and warn his parents?

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:34 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Eagle wrote:
To me, defining a standard of conduct is essential.
Really? Really?

You. You're asking people to believe this is a concern of yours. You?

You're a fucking idiot.

Pretending the outside world doesn't exist, unless it confirms to your warped ideas, only reinforces that view.

Hey Jake. You ready to publish this idiot's theories yet? What's the hold up? Your lawyers got a few problems with it, yeah? Something about it not quite adding up, even as a mere possibility?

Stupid ass motherfucker.


Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
RickInBaltimore has resigned, offering zero reason. Cue the genius factory.....
Quote:
I’d honestly expect someone who was resigning because the Committee was doing something unethical to have made a public statement by now.
HEY DICKHEAD.

The last two resignations, Alex and Rob, went exactly this way - no reason given. As with those two, if it is ever coming out at all, you will have to wait several weeks before you find out if was for bad reasons.

He has subsequently said it was for personal reasons unrelated to the Committee, but one if not both of those two also said that, at first.


Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Hilarious to see MrErnie berating Rob for now ridiculous it is to have people leaving because the job is too much for them.

I said as much when the very first person to bale from this Committee did so - Alex Shih.

You know what the job entails, you go into it with your eyes wide open about the demands it places on your time and the difficult decisions you will be faced with. So if you stand for election, at the very least you owe people a full term, especially given temporarily checking out is somehow allowed. Especially in the rare case there is an actual choice, and someone chooses you over another candidate who may not have been such a selfish flake had they got the chance to serve.

I got no credit for it, obviously, and he just carried on posting on Wikipediocracy as if he was the victim, because Uncle Jake doesn't like upsetting the Wikipedians.


Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 246
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
You know what the job entails, you go into it with your eyes wide open about the demands it places on your time and the difficult decisions you will be faced with. So if you stand for election, at the very least you owe people a full term, especially given temporarily checking out is somehow allowed. Especially in the rare case there is an actual choice, and someone chooses you over another candidate who may not have been such a selfish flake had they got the chance to serve.


❄ Have the crats re-anointed ol' flocon-beam yet? ❄


Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:13 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Andy_The_Gimp wrote:
Last time I looked, there wasn't actually anything in Wikipedia policy that says you can't edit articles on people you hold contempt for.
On Wikipediocracy, this is what passes for informed comment.

For a start, if the reason you "hold contempt" for them is because of a real world connection, then you cannot edit their article, period.

Secondly, if the reason you "hold contempt" for them is because you are a racist or a pedophile or someone who holds similarly abhorrent views, then congratulations, you are indeed going to be prevented from editing their articles, and indeed any article.

But if those two criteria don't apply, then sure, there's no actual rule that prohibits you from editing their articles, but since "contempt" implies the strongest possible distaste, it is unlikely you will be able to edit neutrally, and so rather than being a douchebag who wastes everyone's time with your self delusions about the acceptability of your edits, a topical example being User:Tots & little ones matter!, you should probably consider yourself prohibited.

The actual case the gimp was talking about, was someone who exclusively edits to insert negative material about Republicans. In which case, regardless of the possible appropriateness of each individual edit, unlikely in of itself, because of their evident motivation, they can consider themself prohibited from editing. Sadly it technically means the gimp is only half wrong, because the rule that prohibits this (WP:TE) is not a policy, just a guideline. But since there would be no sensible reason to ignore it in this case, this exact sort of motivation being specifically called out in it, it can be considered a hard and fast rule.


Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:22 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.