Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1402
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1467 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:27 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nd_loss%22

This is hilarious:
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
I have been blocked before for edit warning with only two reverts. Why? Because it's apparently about "intent". I guess that part doesn't apply to admins.
I don't care if was the "wisest" course of action; it clearly was the right action though. As clear and unambiguous a case of enforcing policy as preventing a copyright violation or an NFC breach. There simply cannot be a legitimate disagreement among good-faith Wikipedians whether it is legitimate to spam hundreds of user talkpages with political messages of opinion. It simply isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Now contrast this with how normal people are treated: https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/08/b ... pedia.html

FP was endorsed by none other than... Bbb23:
I endorse FP's actions. He said he was acting administratively, so I don't see how full protection makes him involved. More importantly, the project should not use Wikipedia resources to express opinions about controversial figures. They can report on things that affect their project, including the death of Bill Graham and the blurb posted to ITN, but they can't characterize Graham's legacy. It may not be in an article, but it's out of line, nonetheless.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
...who was the same admin who blocked the person in the linked article for:
Disruptive editing, including edit-warring, refusal to collaborate with other editors, claiming that scientific articles can only be edited by experts, e.g., the user
Good job, sire. Good job.

It eventually went to ArbCom. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ator_Tools
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Dr Mario
Sucks
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Post by Dr Mario » Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:26 am

3-Revert Rule

Was clearly invented to turn Wikipedia into an Online video game reliability and credibility was never the goal.

User avatar
Archer
Sucks Fan
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 5:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Post by Archer » Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:16 am

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:27 pm
Why? Because it's apparently about "intent". I guess that part doesn't apply to admins.
Accusing editors of bad intentions seems quite common. It's an attempt to lead the conversation away from what an editor has actually written and whether or not it's correct/valuable/appropriate and put them on the defensive with an unfalsifiable charge.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4948
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1289 times
Been thanked: 2034 times

Re: Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:22 am

Archer wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:16 am
Accusing editors of bad intentions seems quite common.
It's not "common", it's unwritten standard procedure. People you dislike for ANY reason, must be knifed in the back.

User avatar
Archer
Sucks Fan
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 5:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Do you want to see a fine example of how much of a sh*tshow Wikipedia is?

Post by Archer » Thu Nov 07, 2024 6:50 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:22 am
Archer wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:16 am
Accusing editors of bad intentions seems quite common.
It's not "common", it's unwritten standard procedure. People you dislike for ANY reason, must be knifed in the back.
The point is that well-intended editors should be aware of this rhetorical trick unsavory editors/admins might employ. One should recognize and point out the unfalsifiability and leading nature of such accusations. It won't necessarily prevent sanction, but will make it obvious who actually has honest intentions.

Post Reply