Page 9 of 11

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:03 pm
by CrowsNest
Spot the fuckwits who have spent their entire lives assuming Wikipedia=Wikimedia.
Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Have we had a thread about Brian McNeil?
"Wikinews accredited reporter"! Presumably, "reporter" is one of those words that has an entirely different meaning in Wikiworld from its normal meaning.
It's not like this is stuff serious critics wouldn't know, like me they would have presumably watched him in action as he fought the precious

Didn't you panty sniffers at least research this issue when you posted that stuff about Laura and her free holidays a couple of weeks ago?

I mean, I'm laughing my ass off here, but isn't Jake hoping to sell you goobers to the news media as some kind of expert investigators? Gonna break the Laura story any day now right?



*tap tap tap*


Yeah dudes, keep pretending you can't hear me. That'll make me stop.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Stupid. Ass. Motherfuckers.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:27 pm
by CrowsNest
90210 wrote:PMC blaming the community for his own incompetence:
Incompetence like not checking the gender of the person you're attacking?


Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:34 pm
by CrowsNest
Mendaliv wrote:Honestly I find the whole idea that WMF are entitled to the same respect and privacy as some first-day editor to be especially ridiculous. When you climb that ladder and take that paycheck, you gave up something along the way. They're the enwiki equivalent of public figures, especially when they parade around with their (WMF) signatures.
You utter fucking mug.

The "(WMF)" appended to staff user names is there by edict of the community, who apparently didn't like the idea they couldn't quickly and easily tell who was a staff member, and who was a volunteer.

It's the Wikipedia equivalent of a yellow star. It identifies the people who it is OK for the volunteers to hate on, scumbags that you are.

Don't you have any people in that shithole who know this stuff? Or worse, are you reimagining your history on purpose?

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:20 am
by rog
The bitter taste of oversalted crow.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:36 pm
by CrowsNest
Poetlister wrote:People who want to spend all their time actually writing articles are rarely going to want the hassle of being an admin, still less being on Arbcom.
And that's the difference between the sort of whiny little bitch who is only on Wikipedia for selfish reasons, and the people who genuinely believe in the project.

If Wikipedia worked as advertised, everyone who reaches a certain level of experience would be capable of being an Administrator, and most would be one, if only to perform a few Admin actions a week.

And by now, rather than the same old faces, we would have seen hundreds of people having volunteered to serve on ArbCom, elected each year as the best ten from fifty or so eager candidates, doing their part, sacrificing one year of their wiki addiction for the greater good, solidifying all that case law as the valid precedent of the masses, not so easily decried as the incompetent ramblings of the "insane" few "haters" who don't speak for the "community" .

Basic stuff, this. Wikipedia theory 101.

Wikipediocracy would probably get somewhere if they appreciated it, rather than so often merely sympathizing with the whiny little bitches and their partisan gripes.

Wikipedia 101. If you don't like a policy, change it. If you are rebuffed, shut the fuck up or exercise your right to leave. People not down with this way of working, simply aren't Wikipedians, no matter how much content their addiction had driven them to create.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:44 pm
by CrowsNest
Poetlister wrote:52/52/8 - exactly 50%. It takes a pretty stubborn person to persist in the face of that. I expect that if he insists on going the full seven days, it will break some sort of record.
Oh purrlease.

How far is 50% from 63.7% really, in the grand scheme of things? And as we saw, RexxS and all of his massive support base of 163 would have quite happily ridden that train right down to 50% if they had to, if they knew at the end of it there was still going to be a Bureaucrat chat to declare that civility is not a major reason to oppose an RfA candidate.

There is no actual lower limit to the discretionary zone, that's what they argued. There is no point at which a numerical result is so shameful, so embarrassing, that you simply must withdraw. There is no future benefit to be had from such a withdrawal, your support will always have your back, your opposition will not be given a chance to be convinced after a period of problem free editing, they are to be defeated there and then, know nothing fucks that they are, all 92 of them.

To be assured of victory, the opposition has to keep going, keep piling on, to the very end. Trends don't matter. Neutrals don't matter. Only a result so inarguably a failure, is what counts. Is 50% a failure? Arguably no, because rounding errors don't count either, and you can make that an absolute majority here simply by declaring just three opposes carry zero weight. Zero weight now being applied not just to socks or obvious trolls, but to people with supposedly absurd opinions like disapproving of a candidate who shows contempt for the process by standing as a joke, only taking it seriously when he realized he might have half a chance.

Below 75%, there is only what the consensus says about their fitness to serve. No argument is too strong to be discounted, no support too weak to be amplified. You do not even need a nomination statement for simple no reason supports to be counted as 'per nom'.

Above 75%, it is a vote. Below 75%, it is an exercise in bribery and corruption. And the people who can be bribed to ensure their man wins at any cost? The Bureaucrats. Dweller coronated RexxS, and he coronated Floquenbeam. He used logic no more absurd than that which moves him to argue The Rambling Man would make a fine Administrator. So if any RfA was to pass at 50% by some sketchy means, it's the one filed by Dweller, convinced he has picked a good 'un.

These were all principles of RfA that were laid firmly down by the debacle that was RexxS. Who won. So they can hardly complain when other people live by them also, in their own desperate pursuit of victory.

There is nothing about RfA that can ever be called stubborn or dishonorable or vainglorious or unedifying or even farcical now. We have seen RexxS. He swept away all those concerns. Now there is only the result, as it stands, at the end of the full seven days.

That a Bureaucrat could be so lacking in judgement that their pick for a good second chance will in reality finish as low as Hawkeye probably will, in a process he has helped ensure has to pummel a candidate that low to be sure it is actually a defeat, is the real story here.

The Wikipedians will ignore it. So will you bunch of chuckleheads.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:33 pm
by CrowsNest
Floquenbeam was desysopped by some unknown knobhead at WMF T&S, which has no recognized authority or community mandate, so it was pretty meaningless.
Honestly, where do they find these spunkbubbles?

"Floquenbeam" is an unknown knobhead. Presumably for the same reason the person who ultimately blocked his ass protected their anonymity behind the oh-so mysterious pseudonym "WMFOffice".

His recognized authority is to be a Wikipedia Administrator, whose recognized powers did not, do not and likely never will include the power to undo office actions without permission. IAR does not apply. Consensus does not apply. For the same goddamned reasons - recognized authority.

He derives his mandate to be an Administrator from 325 also largely anonymous random dipshits, who want him to be a Wikipedia Administrator only because he has demonstrated his willingness to act without authority according to his own self-generated mandate, and more importantly, his complete and total lack of contrition or regret for deliberately and with malice having put people at risk of further harassment, or worse, because he's the exact sort of asshole who casts paid staff acting entirely within their recognized authority to actually protect users, as "knobheads".

Who knows, this knobhead could literally be Floquenbeam. Who would know otherwise?

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:22 pm
by CrowsNest
CrowsNest wrote:
Poetlister wrote:52/52/8 - exactly 50%. It takes a pretty stubborn person to persist in the face of that. I expect that if he insists on going the full seven days, it will break some sort of record.
Oh purrlease.
Now trending upwards, and not hard to see why. This isn't about sympathy votes, this is the clear and obvious fact that RfA really has nothing to do with properly assessing the fitness of a candidate going forward. People can see what scum like Drmies, Beeblebrox and Black Kite are doing, and as much as they accept Wikipedia's toxicity means such people usually get the outcomes they want, they don't all have to be happy with it.

Seriously, on what planet is this guy an unacceptable nominee, but RexxS, who had literally personally attacked a user hours before his nomination, or Floquenbeam, who doesn't create shit and wasn't even sure he was going to Administrate anything, were? They both received significant pushback, contrasting their fitness heavily with the ease with which most people are passing these days, and there is a reason for that. RfA isn't half as broken as people like to claim, it is just hard for good people with sound motives to be the ones who eventually succeed.

It is going to be a fact that RexxS and Floquenbeam finished closer to this guy, than the 95%+ scores being otherwise regularly seen. And yet they will never conduct themselves as if that was a basic fact of how the community sees them. And they don't need to, because it is only about the W, securing that job for life. Hawkeye is right to believe he is owed the status of Administrator, all the other less than perfect holders act as if they deserve it. RexxS' entire nomination was predicated on it being no big deal and something he was simply due for long service. And votes to that effect were given full weight by the same group of Bureaucrats whose number includes Hawkeye's own nominator!

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:46 pm
by CrowsNest
This is painful. ... 54#p246654

The job of ArbCom is to enforce policy, the institutional failing GW is addressing, is that.

As if she, or anyone who knows enough to get elected to ArbCom, needs to actually invent any new policy to ban Eric Corbett.


But hey, Wikipediocracy being used harass a women in power because she dares to not cower before them? That's so original for these people.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:30 pm
by CrowsNest
10920 wrote:One of my biggest pet peeves is that someone decided years ago that schools are inherently notable, so Wikipedia has thousands of high schools with articles that cannot be deleted, and exist solely as vandalism magnets.

They almost never attract any kind of useful edits and most of these schools are not actually notable. You will not find much, if any, coverage in the main stream media, so they're usually 'sourced' from primary sources like the high school's own website.
Someone tell this dickhead that there's no Wikipedia policy that says articles that attract vandalism should be deleted.

Wikipedia (and thus Wikipediocracy) is full of complete tits like this, who somehow, somewhere, picked up this idea that their inability to protect content or attract useful edits (both obviously due to their inability to persuade anyone but a few hundred freaks to devote their time to Wikipedia) should somehow influence their decision to have an article on any given subject.

Beyond stupid.