Page 10 of 11

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:33 pm
by Dysklyver
CrowsNest wrote:
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.

The reaction to me telling him to read your post was itself quite amusing. :roll:

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:37 pm
by CrowsNest
Jake sure can collect 'em. For what purpose, remains a mystery.

Hard times I guess.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:54 pm
by CrowsNest
I mean, this thread could have literally been made for him.....
If The Sun is so concerned about it, they need to go write the article themselves.
I was thinking people who 'retire' should be forced to scramble their passwords. Might make them think twice!
Just another brain dead believer.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:21 am
by CrowsNest
No source was provided for all of that.
Check again, dumbass.

See WP:GENREF, if your limited knowledge of Wikipedia is causing you difficulties.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:40 pm
by CrowsNest
I'm just saying that the bar is markedly different for schools than it would be for anything else.
Yeah, except all settlements, rivers, railway stations, candy bars, automobiles, network tv shows, etc, etc.

But hey, I'm the idiot, and Dysklyver can't read. :roll:

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:17 pm
by Ɱ2xCdac
Poetlister wrote:
10920 wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Right on cue, the village idiot shows up
I'm assuming that comment by the sock was sarcasm, but who knows?

Either that, or he's extraordinarily daft. Unfortunately, Wikipedia lacks the facility to add emoticons (such as the one we have to flag sarcastic posts) very easily.

What does {{Shrug}} do?


Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:00 pm
by CrowsNest
This is why these spunk bubbles can think of nothing to say to me except pretend like I'm the idiot.....
90210 wrote:It would not be the first time someone used the terminology "abusive socking" for something totally innocuous.

Seems outrageous to claim he was "abusively socking" and providing as your "evidence" that he used an account (while he didn't have access to his old account) to make legitimate edits.

Perhaps this was a legitimate block, but knowing this ArbCom as I do...
What the fuck do you actually know, you utter retard?

"Abusive" sock-puppetry is any sock-puppetry that is not permitted. All edits by unapproved socks are considered illegitimate, productive or otherwise, just like all edits by a banned user are considered exempt from 3RR.

That's WP:SOCK 101, you dumbass. A policy position handed down to assorted editors all day every day on stone tablets, from Wikipedia Administrative luminaries ranging from Bbb23 to Queen Bishonen. You're an idiot if you claim otherwise.

Eric is not the first little wank to think that somehow he can escape a sock block by not being disruptive or incivil while socking, it's a tactic used by many a disruptive user intent on making a point about their unblockability rather than benefiting Wikipedia. That's why you never see good people doing it, or even claiming they do it. It's always self-absorbed little assholes like Kumioko.

You also cannot retire an old account and start a new one if you are under current sanctions or facing an Arbitration Case. This would not under any circumstances, except the rampant corruption of a Wikipedia run by Black Kite, be considered a legitimate WP:CLEANSTART. You're an idiot if you claim otherwise.

People who deliberately lock themselves out of their old account, if we are stupid enough to even believe this is what Eric did, are given just one option for a legitimate return - contact the appropriate people to retain access to that account, or if not possible, be given a legitimate new account which meets all the requirements for disclosure. A WP:CLEANSTART is not and never could be a way to simply get around the fact you have locked yourself out of your old account but don't actually want to retire.

No ifs, no buts. No WP.IAR.

There is no "perhaps" about this at all, unless you are claiming Eric did not create that sock. That is why he has gone that route in an attempt to extend the drama, so you should really pay attention to what the scum you're trying to defend are actually doing to further their sad little causes, and if you're that way inclined, copy them.


What have you got to say to that? Go on, SAY SOME SHIT.

Or carrying on being the little bitch who has to hide behind Uncle Jake's skirts, protecting you from the harsh dose of reality that little pricks like you need, for the general improvement of humanity overall.

You know what to do, Dysk.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:09 pm
by Graaf Statler
You know what to do, Dysk.

Yes. Please shine your light of scrutiny into this dark crevice of wikipedia, Dysk! A Eric blogpost would be great!
What we of course will promote here on Sucks.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:50 pm
by CrowsNest
Mr_Ernie wrote:Arbcom calls it "borderline harassment," but apparently the WMF thought it was severe enough to drop the ban. Because Arbcom did not endorse the view that the WMF dossier showed clear harassment, I infer that the Laura Hale relationship with the Board Chair, and probably Fram's negative comments about WMF projects, were enough for the WMF to decide on a ban then find evidence that could support it

This case is going to make the T&S team look brutally foolish. There’s no easy way around that. They claimed Fram’s harassment was so bad it warranted a one year ban. None of the arbs can even bother to call it harassment
Can someone tell this gimp that T&S is empowered to ban editors for harassment, period. They made no claim it was serious, or that there is a non-banworthy form of harassment. All they said was that there were multiple instances, and as anyone knows, what always leads to a ban on Wikipedia, or should do, is a pattern of misconduct that continues after a conduct warning. A ban doesn't imply it was serious, arguably it is an utter nonsense for anyone to even utter a phrase like "borderline" in this context. Someone guilty of "borderline sexual harassment", whether their actions were merely misinterpreted or they fall under someone's entirely subjective view of what is a mild offence, has no business being on a website with a zero tolerance for sexual harassment, much less be in a leadership position.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:53 am
by CrowsNest
Does WP:BLP apply on Wikidata?

These people really don't know shit about shit is their local policy. Fram is gonna beat on them so hard when he finally joins.

You can only properly lie about your targets, when you properly know what the truth actually is.

I mean, Fram knows of those two links, it's just that his blog post celebrating English Wikipedia's adoption of a BLP policy in 2005 would have read a little differently had he not chosen to conveniently forget them.