Jytdog thread

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
suckadmin
Janitor
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:56 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by suckadmin » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:31 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:Would Cirt have had time to be Jytdog?

It's possible. I've seen SlimVirgin go on insane 48-hour-straight editing benders. Don't ask me how they do it. Trucker meth maybe.


They get high on their own supply.. :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:40 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:Would Cirt have had time to be Jytdog?

It's possible. I've seen SlimVirgin go on insane 48-hour-straight editing benders. Don't ask me how they do it. Trucker meth maybe.
But to run Jytdog she'd have to be on meth for years. That would show in the edits. It could be coordination with someone, if the other person was very trustworthy. Conspiracies of three or more people are apt to go awry though.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Thu May 17, 2018 7:14 pm

This is classic Jytdawg.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _mainspace

He reported a new user to AN/I, citing their abnormal style of editing. He got universal feedback that it wasn't remotely abnormal, with some even arguing it was preferential. Unwilling to accept that, he persisted, suggesting people weren't really thinking about it hard enough. He reiterated the issue - this user's way of editing wasted his time, and he doesn't like having his time wasted. After people generously gave him a few tips on how he could work more efficiently, he appears to finally let the issue go, only to depart the room still insisting that the user needed to at least in part, follow what he considered to be normal editing practice. Despite no support for that definition of normal having been registered.

Welcome to Wikipedia. You're in Jytdog's house, and don't you forget it!

As you might suspect, the real issue here was not the user's method of getting text into or out of Wikipedia, but the content of their actual edits. Jytdawg wanted them to adjust their approach, so he had time to review what they were doing, so he could, as seems likely, eventually get them blocked for being a woo-pusher, by simply linking to a couple of diffs, rather than have to do a lot of pain in the ass typing, explaining what people need to look at to see what he sees.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Sat May 19, 2018 12:07 am

Jesus, what an asshole. Since the above diff, Jytdog has had about three more attempts at convincing people they're wrong, that this isn't normal, and his time really is too precious to be wasted by it. Nobody is buying it. So he finally settled on a reason they're not - it is of course because nobody who responded works on the same articles he does, the really important medical articles where apparently there are different accepted practices that nobody at the Administrator's Noticeboard could possibly understand.

As such, he generously decided he would not waste an Administrators time closing this 'request for input' with a summary, which would categorically have told Jytdog he was wrong and should stop making the demands he apparently wants to make of other editors. He just closed it himself, lamenting that he had simply asked the wrong question, and thus he had yet again had his precious time wasted. Poor, misunderstood, Jytdog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _mainspace

If Wikipedia was a remotely well run project, if they had their eye on the ball, then this single example of a supposedly experienced and very full of himself editor getting it so wrong, and being so unwilling to accept they have it all back to front, would and should lead to an immediate indefinite block unless or until they can demonstrate they have the knowledge and attitude required for a collaborative project like Wikipedia, where reading the goddamn manual and being able to tell the difference between accepted standard practices and shit you just do to make your life easier, is considered a basic competency of someone with thousands of edits to their name.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:16 pm

I don't know how I missed it, but could Jytdog really be the new Eric Corbett?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=858624861#Jytdog_(yet_again)_and_Yakult

The issues are slightly different of course, but the overall themes are the same. He's causing massive conflict and division, and seems incapable of change. Perhaps he doesn't even want to change. The charge of seeing himself as the sole saviour of Teh Wiki certainly fits.

Like Eric, it definitely seems like Jytdog instigated conflict (they euphemistically call it drama, but it is conflict make no mistake) will run and run, because he has, like Eric, exposed the massive rift between those who think content matters more than behaviour, and those who recognise Wikipedia is a collaboration. And all around are those who think it will all go away if the just keep asking Jytdog to stop, as if it hasn't already been proven that he cannot. Just like Eric.

Perhaps worse for Wikipedia, unlike Eric, I really don't see Jytdog finally losing the will carry on after years of battle. I think he's prepared to quite literally make this his life's mission. Last man standing, the entire Wikipedia community ultimately divided between loyalists and people topic banned from even mentioning his name. Everyone ultimately forced to choose, none of that 'good people on all sides' bullshit.

Jytdog's habit of sometimes accepting criticism and not calling for the banning of his opponents, while ensuring they do insist there is a price to pay for anyone daring to challenge him, and properly keeping score, certainly seems like a more nuanced strategy for long term victory than Eric's rigid but haphazard approach.

Dare we hope Jytdog proves to be just as destructive to the very fabric of Wikipedia, as Eric was? Tantalizingly, Jytdog has even more potential to be a force for destruction, since he ranges widely across the content rather than being a sad little cabbage patch OWNer like Eric. He proudly claims fiefdom over the entire encyclopedia.

Silly Wikipedians. They never learn. Everything in this world has to adapt or die when faced with existential threats. So they will die.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:53 am

This is awesome. Queen Bishonen has seen Jytdog's cry for help, and formally proposed his critic be silenced, presumably putting Jytdog in her debt forever. It was of course a total coincidence Bishonen and said critic have a history, namely of doing this exact same thing before. She was nice enough to declare it, but not so nice she couldn't simply note the history and leave the decision to act on it to someone the complainant would accept as a neural arbiter. You don't get to be Queen of Wikipedia by being all proper.

People who remember the saga of Eric will be all too familiar with this sort of bullshittery.....
Andy Dingley needs to leave Jytdog alone, and if Jytdog screws up, there are plenty of other editors to intervene. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This project does not need you to be Jytdog's police officer. That has to stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone else will notice if Jytdog is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Eric violated policy on numerous occasions, and it was always remarkable how none of these mythical other editors ever noticed.

It's always amusing to see Wikipedia Administrators claiming there is something wrong with tracking someone's edits and reporting them if you see a violation. Half their workload comes from what is a perfectly legitimate activity. It is only harassment of the complaints are deemed frivolous, and the Wikipedians claiming these are frivelous, are conveniently forgetting that the very first diff cited in the report is a clear cut violation of policy, and that Jytdog has form for such violations, right up to an ArbCom admonishment.

This same pantomime act of seeing no violation in clear cut violations was the stock in trade of the corrupt Administrators and editors who kept rallying to the defence of Eric. They carried on doing it for years, not remotely caring what damage it did, and it does serious damage, because nobody likes being treated like a fool. It was no surprise it all landed at ArbCom's feet, multiple times.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by sashi » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:20 pm

Flip Flopped wrote:
ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:Would Cirt have had time to be Jytdog?

It's possible. I've seen SlimVirgin go on insane 48-hour-straight editing benders. Don't ask me how they do it. Trucker meth maybe.
But to run Jytdog she'd have to be on meth for years. That would show in the edits. It could be coordination with someone, if the other person was very trustworthy. Conspiracies of three or more people are apt to go awry though.


What odd convergences. Here I see Cirt being a jerk, after Jytdog has launched random accusations of sockpuppetry... no sign of SV yet though.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:26 am

Sashi, you seriously not bored of being treated like a fool by Jake yet?

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 53#p224853

Apparently he thinks you only posted a link to my thread because you just wanted them to discuss the latest instalment of tedious wikidrama.

I hereby grant you serialization rights, so you can make it clear to these stupid fucks that some of us in the critic space are capable of analysis and contextualization, even if they're not.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:49 am

Classic Jytdog, the Wikilaywer's wikilawyer......
[Andy has] Misrepresented my remark quoted at the top of this thread in his 1st comment (diff) and several since (diff, as "attacks on other editors", which, as several people have pointed out (diff, diff, diff) is not a personal attack (overly harsh criticism of edits and behavior, for sure, but not personal attacks)
Note the quote deliberate conflation of "attacks on other editors" as an accusation of "personal attacks" . It is deliberate, because Jytdog is not so thick or illiterate that he doesn't know there is a difference.

He draws this distinction because he knows fine well that what he said to instigate this report.....
This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in.
....is a clear and obvious attack on editors. Carefully phrased to not be a personal attack, but an attack nonetheless.

Deliberately pretending the only form of incivility is a personal attack, was of course a favourite tactic of Eric's defenders. They do it, because it works. Why? Because Eric laid the foundations for the non-personal.attack forms of incivility no longer being seen as a requirement at all.

Arguably it can and should be seen as a personal attack, since just because Jytdog is making predictions of identifiable editor's future behaviour, he undoubtedly thinks this is what they will do, so the insulting/disparaging nature of it is clear. Put simply, he absolutely meant this as a hurtful comment about his fellow editors, not on the state of the content or Wikipedia in general. An unprofessional example of the needless personalisation of a dispute that will inevitably harm any collaboration (the number of bytes it has needlessly spawned being proof positive of its harm).

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Jytdog thread

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:55 am

....When any editor, but especially paid editors, start talking about their "rights" it is clear that things are very far gone. ..... Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
:lol:

Sums up the climate that has built up around paid editing. I love how they think saying stuff like this would make people more inclined to openly declare.

What's even more hilarious, is that this "quote" is entirely misleading - the person in question had actually mentioned "user rights", and while his meaning was unclear, as detailed below, it is clear he was meaning his NPP user right. A perfectly standard Wikipedia nomenclature.

Why did Jytdog mirespresent this person's words to imply they were arrogantly claiming a "right" to do paid editing? Because Jytdog is currently engaged in an attempt to apply the yellow star to this editor. Why did he succeed in this blatant violation of WP:CIV? Because what he said, while not relevant to the post he was replying to, is nonetheless an accurate statement of how the community feels.

There's the usual fly in the ointment here. Jytdog is going on and on about how this person should not be editing directly, he needs to post his changes for review and approval. Like most people do, his target has spotted this is not a requirement, and Jytdog, as usual, has to resort to posting nonsense like this, with the inevitable reply.....
I laid out the procedure for paid editing above. What, exactly, is unclear about you being strongly discouraged from editing directly as a paid editor? That is a real question -- please answer it. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

What is unclear to you? I made the disclosure on talk, including using the template you recommended; I answered all of your questions here; I never made any attempt to hide that I had been contacted about editing the page; and I also submitted to New Page Patrol my intentions and told them that I would understand if that segment of the community didn't want me to have NPP. I additionally said that I would not do any paid editing in the future because it's a hassle. Please, tell me what is wrong here about my behavior--I already have a perspective on yours and how you've lied about what I did. ―Justin (koavf) 06:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
As usual, other people become confused because Jytdog can't tell the difference between discouraged and prohibited, or rather, doesn't want to. It is also not helpful that Jytdog did another thing he often does - after the user had said "I may do the {{requested edit}} thing but unlikely." Jytdog responded not with a clear comment about how believes they should not be doing that, but a bizarre parable about Salvidrim.

That was useful inside as it illustrates another sick aspect of how paid editing is dealt with, a two tier approach Jytdog seems entirely on board with - if you are caught as an Administrator, you get desysopped. Since ordinary users can't be desysopped, you get banned. Same crime, different punishment. Even though Wikipedia has a very clear page which says Administrators are trusted users, held to a higher standard, so there should be a different reaction here - the Administrator should be worse off than a regular editor caught doing the same thing.

Post Reply