Is BrownHairedGirl the last truly neutral Wikipedia editor?

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Is BrownHairedGirl the last truly neutral Wikipedia editor?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:23 pm

So, for reasons that aren't hard to fathom (sexism), BrownHairedGirl is receiving different treatment at the hands of Teh Communtah than other more infamous rude editors, who were all male. Even though in comparison to those fucknuts (none of whom EVER got banned for civility reasons), she is right on all her substantive content issues, which is what usually underlies these fights, while they were simply pushing for a personal preference, and usually a fucking lame one at that (stylistic issues).

With Larry Sanger's totally correct judgement that Wikipedia is biased fresh in our minds, and his earlier statement that this is basically because the lunatics overtook the asylum, the underlying dispute here is informative as to the deep bias problem in Wikipedia.

Polish idiot Piotrus has been quite the dick, feigning complete ignorance to the idea that categorizing Bobby Sands et al as political prisoners, would cause major problems. BrownHairedGirl has rightly got fed up of his transparent bullshit, and been quite rude to him as a result. And so he has of course filed a civility complaint, in the sure fire knowledge that if she is removed from the arena, he will get his wish by default.

How to prevent that sort of thing? Identify and prevent / correct the sort of fucknuttery by the likes of Piotrus of course. Too hard for Wikipedia. Total non-starter. Requires intelligence and backbone. A respect for the quality of debate, BEFORE it descend into rudeness.

This is not entirely unrelated to the fact Wikipedia Administrators are unpaid. Cowardice and self interest is way easier to justify to yourself when you're not being paid. People with moral character don't tend to join or stay on Wikipedia, not once they've realised the original sin - it's not an encyclopedia.

That's the high level view anyway. The simpler way to look at it, is that it's pretty hard for Wikipedians because, well, like Larry said, the lunatics are in charge. They're fucking EVERYWHERE. Baked right into the system.

Why she bothers, I don't know, but BHG's attempts to educate morons, has inevitably led to one of them, the very long established S Marshal, revealing the problem......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 1_August_4
NPOV doesn't stand for "no point of view." When you say an approach involving adopting the view of one particular source is hardly neutral, in fact, there are plenty of times when we should prefer one source over another. It is not, actually, controversial to say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. I know there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise, but Wikipedia does not represent them and I don't know why we would care what they think.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Nelson Mandela that definitely makes sense, but in that case we're not relying on the opinion of one particular source, but rather on near-universal agreement. In a more typical case we're more likely to just have one source or a small number of sources which describe the subject as a political prisoner. If that source is used as the basis for adding the subject to Category:Political prisoners then we're effectively putting the opinion of that source in Wikipedia's voice, which is not neutral. The existence of sources labelling people as political prisoners isn't in itself a solution to the neutrality problem. Hut 8.5 16:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise. That statement is true, but also thoroughly POV. "Horrible people" is a wholly subjective concept, and dismissing views solely because editors don't like the people who hold them is the complete opposite of WP:NPOV. In the example of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, there is a wide body opinion in Ireland elsewhere who regard those prisoners as horrible people who shot and bombed others. There is another wide body of opinion which regards the British government as horrible people who backed a sectarian statelet that suppressed peaceful civil rights demonstrators, ran an illegal shoot-kill policy, and ran state torture centres. It is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgement on those views of Northern Ireland, and is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgements on the apartheid regime in South Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I am disappointed by that question, because my personal view is no more relevant than your personal view, or that of any other editor. (I do have strong personal views on this, but I will not disclose them on this or other matters: WP:NOTFORUM.). The South African govt viewed Mandela as a violent criminal, who had been convicted of criminal offences. The anti-aprtheid movement regarded him as a political prisoner, whose turn to violence was a political act since all paths to non-violent change had been brutally blocked. As in Northern Ireland, both sides had fact and reason to underpin their stance, and both had wide support globally (though the balance of global opinion swung heavily agisnt apartheid in the 1980s). Wkipedia's role is to dipassionately report the views of the players and of significant third parties and of scholarly sources, and let the reader decide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll look you in the eye and say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, according to the recent reliable sources and the recent academic consensus. I don't see any ambiguity there at all. What source would you cite for the view that he was a "violent criminal"?—S Marshall T/C 19:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am even more disappointed to see that an editor thinks that a) this is a suitable forum to weigh the sources on such a well-covered topic; b) that they have pronounced a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To your first point, I'd say that it's necessary to weigh sources in order to move forward. Your position is that it's not possible to use this category in an way that complies with NPOV; my position is that it is; and therefore the burden of proof is on me to show how it can be. By the normal rules of reasoned debate, only an example can meet that burden; but any example suffices. I've chosen to use Nelson Mandela as my example of a person who is, according to reliable sources, a political prisoner. You've said no, there are sources to say he's a violent criminal. I've asked you to produce them.pronouncing a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. I've read sources that convince me that Mandela was a political prisoner. Once again, I respectfully invite you to produce sources to the contrary.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Like most Wikipedia editors these days, retsrds that they are, they really have misunderstood this idea that YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. What the fuck is he even doing framing this as an issue of what an editor thinks?

It's a nonsense point too. So you can find a person for whom there is universal (modern) agreement in reliable sources that they were a political prisoner. So what? That's going to stop endless wars claiming Bobby Sands was a political prisoner and any sources that claim different are unreliable how exactly?

That sounds mad, but you know what? Deprecating sources like the Daily Mail because you don't like their opinions, will pretty quickly get you to a place where you do actually have a surfeit of "reliable" sources saying Sands was the Irish Mandela, and very few that say he was a convicted terrorist.

Well all know what this bullshit is about. Trump. It's a loyalty test for Wikipedia editors. Do you think Trump is a fascist? If you agree, you can probably edit Wikipedia. If you don't, you probably can't.

It's not the opinion of sources that matters, it's your opinion. You have ALL seen the essays. You have ALL seen how many Wikipedia ADMINISTRATORS have come out and straight up said, if you vote for Trump, you're not competent to edit Wikipedia.

Your personal agreement with certain sources on certain fundamental viewpoints, is required. And it better be the right one. And you know what that opinion is - put simply, if you're out of step with the incredibly opinionated CNN, then you're probably out of step with the present idea of what's the "neutral" viewpoint on Wikipedia.

I knew Wikipedia was permanently fucked regarding bias, when I started to see people saying that stuff about the competency of Trump, and NOBODY was standing up and saying, dude, you're fucking crazy. Administrators weren't pushing back, they were the ones saying it!

The wisdom of having Ritchie333, the Administrator who proudly wears his political bias on his user page and writes articles squarely within that realm like he's ever going to be capable of a neutral article, handpick future Admins, is already clear. Or not, depending on your idea of what Wikipedia is.

This is the Wikipedia of 2021. And probably ever since 2016. Your ability to edit Wikipedia, which is governed by the Administrators after all, through your perceived ability to adhere to the NPOV policy, is judged not by your ability to correctly balance the use of competing reliable sources and KEEP YOUR PERSONAL OPINION OUT OF IT, which was Larry Sanger's original vision, it's judged on your personal opinion.

Madness. Pure idiocy. Makes as much sense as measuring a car mechanic's ability to fix cars based on their opinion of the build quality of BMWs. But if you wanted to run an anti-German garage, you'd be interested in such things.

S Marshall is not a Wikipedia Administrator, but he's as established as they come. They're all guilty of this utter blindness of a fundamental founding principle of Wikipedia.

All except perhaps BHG, at least in terms of users who might be prepared to go to the mat over the issue. To refuse to apologise to ignorant (or perhaps POV pushing) wankers like Piotrus UNLESS it is acknowledged that they are wrong. But it's Wikipedia. Men are allowed to be wrong. Men aren't required to admit their mistakes and humble themselves.

One of the leaders in this movement to change how Wikipedia operates at such a fundamental level, to start placing value judgements on editors, not their edits, is the scumbag Drmies.

It was no surprise to see him rocking up to try and get BHG banned.......
I will add that I do think many of the comments directed at Piotrus are pretty plain personal attacks, and I'm sad that BHG chose to make them. Calling a troll a troll because they are, supposedly, a troll is just not a good thing--and it is clearly not that obvious that P. was trolling. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is also the Wikipedia of 2021, and this shit started long before 2016. Becuase what's the problem here? There is history between Drmies and BHG. He has historically shown zero respect to BHG's valuable work in categorization, to the point of even flaunting the fact he is somehow allowed to get away with dismissing an opinion of hers on a category maintenance issue, even though he literary admitted he didn't know AND DIDN'T CARE why she was taking that specific position.

Men. Arrogant, selfish, egotistical Jackbooted pieces of shit like Drmies are the real problem. Always comes back to that. As one of those who loves to flaunt his anti-Nazi stance and his preparedness to block editors who hold Nazi views, which Wikipedia allows, he actually quite regularly slips into the entirely forbidden practice of simply calling someone a troll and acting like his opinion on the truthfulness of that statement is all that matters.

Nobody gave him that power. That's not in the remit of being an Administrator. He just took it. The things people will do because their real lives suck. And he's not an outlier, his style of male pattern aggression in all things, was so popular he was elevated to the ruling council. He was demoted simply because he was a lazy bastard, only willing to help his close friends like the psychotic Malik Shabazz, and the rank and file knows there are far more committed people prepared to do the work that is necessary, as Wikipedia becomes unrecognisable to Larry and of little interest to Jimmy. People like the Wikipediocracy candidate, Beeblebrox.

The Wikipedia of 2021, where the mere opinions of powerful and yet often very stupid men, control pretty much everything.

BHG already lost her power parity with this piece of shit Drmies due to the judgements of pieces of shit like Beeblebrox. That's apparently not good enough for him. Wants to properly put her in her place. Probably get her off Wikipedia once and for all, so that there's nobody left who even remembers a basic thing like the irrelevance of a Wikipedia editor's personal opinions when it comes to a neutrality issue. Least of all a woman.

And he's done it in a very evil way (he's entitled to register his opinion, but he is obliged to note it is not that of an Admin with no pre-existing conflict with this user). He doesn't care. This is not his first rodeo at using AN/I to settle grudges, and his prior dispute with BHG, in a roundabout way, stemmed from his long term support and protection of the notorious women hater, Eric Corbett.

If that sounds to you like what a fascist sexist would do, good catch.

The basic rule, as always, is that if it gets wide support on Wikipediocracy, a women is probably getting shafted and the encyclopedia is becoming biased.

Post Reply