View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:31 am




Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Michael Z. Williamson (author) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3602
Reply with quote
In an astonishing display of negligence, despite the article having already survived one AfD, the Wikipedia Administrator Fabrictramp speedy deleted the Wikipedia entry for sci-fi author Michael Z. Williamson, based on "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", at the behest of an anonymous coward likely up to good.

The whole thing has since exploded as these things sometimes do, but it's hilarious how none of the Wikipedians has bothered asking why Fabrictramp could be so negligent. I mean, everyone can make mistakes, and missing a prior Afd is a big one, but it's beyond insane that he could have thought a pretty sizeable article about an author which listed several books that obviously wasn't a hoax, could qualify as A7.

Purely because of their screwup, and the Wikipedians general inability to keep calm and behave dispassionately, and the general daftness of their notability rules, the outcome looks likely to be the article being deleted, the author being banned from Wikipedia, and an entire fan base further convinced Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by libtards.

All because they can't do basic shit like make sure their Administrators aren't absolutely fucking useless, EVEN AFTER TWELVE YEARS IN THE ROLE.

Autonomous self-government in action.


Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 164
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
In an astonishing display of negligence, despite the article having already survived one AfD, the Wikipedia Administrator Fabrictramp speedy deleted the Wikipedia entry for sci-fi author Michael Z. Williamson, based on "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", at the behest of an anonymous coward likely up to good.

The whole thing has since exploded as these things sometimes do, but it's hilarious how none of the Wikipedians has bothered asking why Fabrictramp could be so negligent. I mean, everyone can make mistakes, and missing a prior Afd is a big one, but it's beyond insane that he could have thought a pretty sizeable article about an author which listed several books that obviously wasn't a hoax, could qualify as A7.

Purely because of their screwup, and the Wikipedians general inability to keep calm and behave dispassionately, and the general daftness of their notability rules, the outcome looks likely to be the article being deleted, the author being banned from Wikipedia, and an entire fan base further convinced Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by libtards.

All because they can't do basic shit like make sure their Administrators aren't absolutely fucking useless, EVEN AFTER TWELVE YEARS IN THE ROLE.

Autonomous self-government in action.

OMG, another shitty AfD, full of comments by Keep users who are unclear on the basic requirements, using utterly bankrupt arguments. If this author is so notable, there would in fact be independent reliable sources, but the Keep voters continue to claim "well-known," but not putting real sources in the article. I used to work on Article Rescue, and that's what we would do. OtherStuffExists is a classic argument not to use. Wiki theory is that policies are established, and that they are not always followed does not make it legitimate to not follow them. And, yes, bias can appear through this. But what stops these users from becoming knowledgeable and working to create balance, for example, by arguing for the deletion of articles on "liberal authors" which have shitty sourcing? What stops them is it is a lot of work, for a project that they probably dislike -- which I can sympathize with -- but if these users were to cooperate, they could freaking take over the place. But if they try that before they know enough, they would fail spectacularly. It's much easier, to be sure, to just carp about how unfair Wikipedia is. But Wikipedia is what the users make it. Unfortunately, they have made it a litter box, too often. It's also beautiful in places. Kinda like life, only dimmer.


Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:55 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 164
Reply with quote
HINT: if you want your article deleted, encourage a pile of clueless SPAs to argue for Keep, demonstrating how ignorant they are of how Wikipedia works, and making all kinds of accusations about anyone supporting Delete. The Wikipedians -- and all administrators are "Wikipedians" will delete the article out of spite, being thoroughly pissed off.
The only way to avoid this is to make sure that the article is properly sourced, and shut up about bias (because even if you manage to properly source the article, many Wikipedians will vote out of spite, and some will outright lie.

This strategy has often worked: if the article is deleted, ask an admin to restore it, we used to have articles moved to user space. The point is to create an bulletproof article, which might be quite stubbed, and then arrange for it to be moved to mainspace. Now, I think, Draft space can be used. Or the wikitext can be worked on off-wiki.

Fans rarely manage this because they want to put in all kinds of "interesting" detail that is poorly sourced. A stubbed article that meets minimum requirements with no fluff is far likelier to be recognized as proper. Less is more, for surviving AfD. *Then* it becomes possible to expand the article with less solid stuff.

There was an old paradox. An article is under threat of AfD. Who is motivated to improve it? The work might entirely disappear, quickly. I remember AfDs where there were lots of delete votes. I found reliable sources and fixed the article. And it was then deleted. See, all those delete votes are still there, based on what the article *was*, not what it *is.*

Structural defects, they abound on Wikipedia. Really, I was totally relieved when blocked.


Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:06 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1520
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
demonstrating how ignorant they are of how Wikipedia works, and making all kinds of accusations about anyone supporting Delete. The Wikipedians -- and all administrators are "Wikipedians" will delete the article out of spite, being thoroughly pissed off.
The only way to avoid this is to make sure that the article is properly sourced, and shut up about bias (because even if you manage to properly source the article, many Wikipedians will vote out of spite, and some will outright lie.

That was always the operating rule. Going right back to 2004, when folks like the David Gerard Nut Squad and Theresa Knott started abusing admin power to shit on their enemies.

Even though she left Wp in 2011, it's worth recounting her "valuable work"....
Quote:

Showed in February 2003, and started grinding on science articles, quickly became notorious for her short temper and tendency to harass opponents relentlessly. 50 to 100 edits a day was not unusual. Requested adminship in June 2003--only four people voted for her. By early 2004 she was patrolling with great ferocity, making her one of their first "evil patrollers". Ruthless at blocking anyone she didn't like. She saw the evil sockpuppeteers Willy On Wheels and Grawp everywhere. Because she permablocked and removed talkpage access, it is difficult to find noticeboard or talkpage complaints about her. Her personal talkpage, despite being heavily censored, is still a large repository of evidence of her past abuses.

In February 2004, she was in a dispute with an editor who attempted to insert "new age woo" into health-related articles, which Theresa attempted to revert as being "anti-scientific". The result was the first-ever Arbcom ruling, which helped to establish the aggressively pro-science community "bias" of Wikipedia, later played to by people such as William M. Connolley and his climate-change mafia, plus many others. Theresa was also involved in Arbcom's fourth-ever case, in a related area.

Another important "first" for Theresa: she was the first person to post a photograph of a human penis in a Wikipedia article, in November 2004. See Commons#Penis.

Theresa ran for Arbcom in the first proper election, December 2004. She came out on the top of the vote, with 51%. She served until December 2006, and continued to display her unique "style" in arbitrations. She lost her oversight privileges in October 2007, for refusing to identify herself to the WMF.

Theresa was the principal figure in the "Fascistopedia" flap of February 2007. Wikien-l post, WR thread. "Truth Beholder" was mocked on the mailing list, then blocked by Knott as a "sockpuppet", with no evidence given.

She continued her reign of terror[1] until summer 2011, when she simply gave up and walked away.


Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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.