Page 5 of 12

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:45 am
by CrowsNest
Hitchins has summarised his whole experience in a piece for the Spectator. ... wikipedia/

For those keeping score of just how stupid the Wikilessons really are, they're still claiming Hitchins is the bad guy, but somehow, as if by magic, the article has been fixed of all the problems he identified.

Now, wouldn't it have been better to stop being assholes for just a second and listen to the guy?? Because if you had, you might have come out of this with both a fixed article and without this glowing recommendation......
I was told I must humbly confess before anyone would listen to me. No Englishman of my generation would consider such a surrender, so I am out of Wikipedia for ever. While it lasted, and while I was inside it, it was a tiny, infuriating nightmare of totalitarianism.
That's the Spectator. People read that. Not as many as the Mail, not by a long chalk, but the sort of people Jimmy Wales likes to have wine and cheese with. And members of the Parlliamentary committee currently looking into whether the internet needs to be regulated or not.


Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:43 am
by CrowsNest
The Wikipedians now want to remove evidence of their desire to rebuff Hitchins....
(cur | prev) 21:57, 17 August 2018‎ Tarage (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,319 bytes) (-2,580)‎ . . (Undid revision 855378637 by Alanscottwalker (talk) Yes, it is.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 21:09, 17 August 2018‎ Alanscottwalker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,899 bytes) (+2,580)‎ . . (Undid revision 855377920 by Jytdog (talk) no it's not) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 21:02, 17 August 2018‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,319 bytes) (-2,572)‎ . . (→‎Fact and Opinion: inappropriate) (undo)
.....on the bizarre basis that it is unacceptable because it is merely a Wikipedian trying to argue with someone in a place they cannot respond. There's a simple way around that.......unblock him.

As they also hint at, but only rather cutely by claiming Alan isn't offering any suggestions for how the article can be improved using reliable sources, the real reason they don't want to let anyone know that this is how Wikipedians like to address external criticism from "opinion" givers. By rocking up at the article talk page, to give their rebuttal opinion.

It is odd that Jytdog doesn't seem to want to hide the previous talk page thread ( "Hitchens" ), which rather more explicitly showed how a Wikipedian typically responds to external criticism. Not much suggestion for article improvement there, and a a clear attempt to bait a blocked user into responding.

So why do they keep that up, but hide the later section? Well, I'm guessing the fact the first can be read as Hitchins yet again doing something wrong in their eyes (recruiting) has something to do with it. Then again, Wikipedians lacking any kind of cohesive or coherent moral compass to guide what they do on a day to day basis, is also a perfectly good explanation.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:46 pm
by CrowsNest
Carrite is reviewing Htichen's Spectator article at Wikipediocracy. ... f=6&t=9637

He willfully misinterprets the headline. Being banned from Wikipedia and choosing not to continue with it, are not mutually exclusive positions. That is just one aspect of the giant con-job that is Wikipedia.

He claims Hitchins never identified himself. That is a straight up lie.

He has presented the content of the Bell article as it is now, presumably to discredit Hitchin's criticisms of it. That is moronic (see prior posts).

Throughout his posts, he insults Hitchins as a "Daily Fail" hack. That is unsurprising.

What Carrite of course won't ever do, is address any part of the piece that he cannot misrepresent to the benefit of Wikipedia.

Well done Wikipediocracy. Brilliant effort, as usual. As happened with the Daily Mail ban "debate", what we have here is an arrogant ass of a Wikipedian doing everything they claim Mail people do, while criticising the Mail. And he's doing it on a supposed Wikipedia criticism site.

Maybe they see the irony and just don't care, maybe they are just morons. It is Wikipedia, so both are reasonable explanations for this nonsense.

Anyway, I'm sure someone will be along soon to correct him. Oh no, wait, they ban people for correcting idiots like Carrite. Good move.......

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:18 pm
by CrowsNest
Meanwhile, the Spectator piece has already been mentioned on Wikipedia's Admin Noticeboard as a heads up...... ... a_heads_up

Here are the selected highlights so far......

Administrator Ian Thompson insults all Daily Mail readers as likely too thick to do anything about it, and concludes "Five years from now, the site regulars are probably not even going to remember this". I love how he's not even embarrassed to say this.

Administrator Beeblebrox claims Hitchins received "due process". That he doesn't even clarify he means with respect to what that looks like on Wikipedia, makes this a hugely ironic comment. I wonder, do these people even realise there is a world outside of Wikipedia, where "due process" has a specific meaning to most normal people. i.e., it doesn't mean a group of fuckwads turn up to declare you an unperson, and all other considerations, namely fairness, impartiality, truth, mitigation and proportionality, don't even come into it.

Administrator Swarm claims he tried to do Hitchins a favour by attempting to forestall a community ban. He claims Hitchins is leaving out this crucial detail. I charge Swarm with leaving out a few crucial details of his own - merely telling someone like Hitchins to read and follow GAB was utterly pointless given at that stage, it was clear (as in really fucking obvious) he was clearly not going to get it, or didn't agree with it. So your offer of help was fucking moronic. And now it appears only to have been done to make yourself look good, rather than actually help Hitchins. And how exactly is there a fault with Hitchins wanting this to go for a full community review, come what may? Your argument essentially boils down to you knowing how fucked up Wikipedia can be, and you were simply trying to prevent him finding that out for himself, then writing about it.

Resident moron Beyond My Ken claims Hitchins was treated well due to having not been blocked before then (how the fuck is that down to him, and since when is an indefinite block as a first recourse remotely due process?), and then spins a lie about how Hitchins simply refused to understand what was being asked of him. The copious amount of words expended by Hitchins, and the relative lack of them coming the other way, show there was plenty of confusion, and nobody on Wikipedia's side was really all that bothered about telling Hitchins what was what (see earlier posts about the role of 331dot for example).

Overall, no surprises here. The Wikipedians are nothing if not consistent, and their reaction to anything like this is always to claim they did nothing wrong and the complainant is just stupid or angry or didn't try hard enough or just plain lying.

Never their fault. Not even partly.

For their sheer arrogance alone, they deserve everything they get as a result of bans like this. Ian and assholes like him might well be the only Wikipedians left in five years.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:05 pm
by AndrewForson
I think you gave too little space to one of the better bits.
Ian.thomson wrote: [...] Daily Mail readership, who I don't believe have the capacity to accomplish anything meaningful or lasting (otherwise they wouldn't be reading the Daily Mail).
I do hope this catches on ... the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit except Daily Mail readers because they're so stupid. Quite a compelling line.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:21 pm
by CrowsNest
This is a Redditor, most likely a did hard Wikipedian......
On Wikipedia you admitted to trolling, you said you wouldn't stop trolling, you tried to get external people involved, and you kept on blaming other people for what happened instead of taking responsibility for your behavior. Of course now you have a story to tell - you created your own dramatic controversy. Go you.
They'll happily write this crap all over the intenret, in service of their weird cult. Truth doesn't mean shit to them.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:37 am
by CrowsNest
Talk shit, get hit. --Tarage (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedians definitely don't get irony.

Speaking of talking shit...
Is calling someone crazy a bannable offense? --Tarage (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Now let's contrast this experienced user's inexplicable difficulty with understanding BASIC FUCKING POLICY, with the remarkably quick uptake of a novice like Hitchins......
I appear now to be on trial for actions many years ago, and for my supposed attitude, though the actual block was my punishment for being foolish enough to ask formally for editorial help in a dispute with 'Charles' who still goes unrebuked for calling me a 'loudmouth', and accusing me of 'rants' 'whitewash' and equally unrebuked for repeatedly ignoring my talk page requests for discussion and his autocratic, unexplained reversions of my explained and well-justified changes, for which I had been arguing on the talk page for more than *two years*. I should have thought my long-stretched patience with him, and my readiness to compromise show clearly that I *do* try to abide by the encyclopaedic spirit . Instead of help I got an *indefinite* block, which cannot possibly, in my view, have followed proper consideration of a dispute that had actually been simmering for more than two years.
So you just keep talking shit Tarage. I sense a proper beatdown in your future.

Rule #1 of Wikipedia. You don't blithely ignore policy without the cloak of immunity that is that shiny Admin badge.

Welcome to Hell...... ... f=19&t=745

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:45 pm
by sashi
CrowsNest wrote:
To remind people, this is how the discussion initiator Hillbillyholiday gloated..... ... ree-press/

Just ran across this from 2013.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:39 am
by CrowsNest
Look at this asshole.....
Oh please, this isn't a "public matter concerning Wikipedia's inner workings". This is an editor with a newspaper column who got banned from Wikipedia by the community via a public forum, in spite of our best efforts to afford him special treatment and all the "due process" in the world, even in spite of direct attempts to shield him from a community ban so that he could quietly negotiate an unblock. He insisted on making a big spectacle over his block, insisted the community review it, and then when that tactic backfired spectacularly and the community endorsed the block, he goes running to his audience (either in an attempt to save face or simply garner sympathy) with these bizarre claims that he was shadowbanned by some sort of faceless and soulless bureaucratic establishment or something. I assure you "the public" at large does not actually care about Hitchens' ban and Wikipedia will go on in spite of his whinging. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is how the Wikipedian who say they were trying to help you, speak about you after the event.

He wrote a column about Wikipedia because you are all fucking crazy.

You literally couldn't even agree what he was banned for, and you were quite clearly deliberately ignoring everything he said if it was inconvenient, so any suggestion he had a chance of being unblocked, is laughable. Your so called community is riven with dishonesty, corruption and frankly, outright nastiness.

And since when did anyone the world even know Hitchins was a Wikipedia editor, such that he somehow needs to save face after being banned?

You people frankly aren't right in the head. Proper mental cases. You know, as in Larry Sanger's belief that the lunatics are in charge of the project now. Hitchins saw it, he said it, you banned him for it, so he wrote an article about his experience. It's called being a good citizen. Ever heard of the concept?

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:47 pm
by CrowsNest
When Guy Macon provided nothing but random examples, personal opinion and argument by assertion to prove the Mail was unreliable, Guy Chapman, blocker of Peter Hitchins and all round Mail hater, said nothing. Both worked like two peas in a pod to achieve their common goal.

Now Guy Macon is on Jimmy Wales' page, using nothing but random examples, personal opinion and argument by assertion, to argue the SPLC is an unreliable source, well, Guy Chapman is losing his fucking mind.

Yet more reason to believe this ban was nothing but a political act, by a political group.