New York Lawyer falsely claims there is a conflict between policies against outing and paid editing

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

New York Lawyer falsely claims there is a conflict between policies against outing and paid editing

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed May 05, 2021 12:27 am

Oh look, the day ends in Y, so it just be time for the supplicants of Wikipediocracy to extend the red carpet to one of the big hitters of Wikipedia, so he can talk utter shit.

Look at this bullshit....
Wikipedia policy allows people to edit anonymously and forbids any discussion of anonymous editors' real identities.

Wikipedia policy also forbids undisclosed paid editing and discourages mainspace COI editing, meaning that in some cases, whether a series of edits is permissible depends on who the editor really is.

Obviously these two rules are going to come into conflict with each other
What a load of shit. There is no conflict. The two policies, when read together, are clear, crystal clear.

If you think someone is engaged in undisclosed paid editing, and you still think that even after you have given them their mandatory welcome pack and asked them the mandatory Oh hai, DEA here, are you a drug dealer? type question publicly, then you are directed to email your concerns privately to the Arbitration Committee.

If nothing happens, you are to assume your esteemed and directly elected representatives on ArbCom did not, after questioning the user and discussing the case privately, conclude your concerns were actionable.

And that is that.

No conflict.

A dumb and largely unworkable policy if the goal really is to stop something that can only be stopped if you legit know who an editor is IRL, yes, but not internally conflicted in the slightest.

Directing people to use email for matters that cannot be discussed publicly, is eminently sensible in fact. What is not sensible, is them abusing that principle to extract personal information from users as a condition of allowing them to edit, but that will be a matter for the courts to decide, what with the ability to edit Wikipedia being a fundamental human right and all.

The only problem of course, is that Wikishits are horrible people, so they like nothing better than discussing people's identities in public.

So the claimed conflict is actually only the sort of inherent weakness that is familiar all across Wikipedia - how to stop popular and experienced Wikishits from doing things they already know are forbidden, but which they know make their lives so much easier?

It makes it so much easier to get rid of someone you only merely suspect is engaged in undisclosed paid editing, but just won't confess, if it becomes common knowledge why you suspect them.

Shit, it happened just recently. Wikipediocracy helped make sure it became common knowledge that editor X was real person Y, and lo and behold, suddenly the Wikishits had a reason to ban editor X.

All while claiming, to people's faces, like they're idiots, that it really didn't matter if they are Y or not, it merely looked like they were the sort of person who was editing for pay on behalf of Y and not telling anyone. I.e., it couldn't possibly be the fabled joe job, or a straight up nut job.

That wasn't to get around this alleged policy conflict, that was to get around the embarrassing reality that they had used Wikipediocracy as a means to nullify their policy that protects editors real identities being publicly discussed. This was signed off at the highest level, it being the Arbitration Committee no less who made use of the fruit of that poisoned tree, via the resident go between, ArbCom member and Wikipediocracy home boy, Beeblebrox.

So who wrote this piece of bullshit that the people of Wikipediocracy just gladly gobbled up, nom non non?

None other than NewYordBrad. The President Emiratus of the Arbitration Committee. And a fucking lawyer.

I wouldn't let that bastard get away with that shit, talking to supposed experts like they're fucking idiots. I'd nail him down with some very tough questions, and if he refused to answer, as he would do, as he has always done on that forum, I would call him a fucking bastard.

And THAT is why Wikipediocracy won't let me play with the wikishits.

Post Reply