Lugnuts
-
- Sucks Mod
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Lugnuts
It seems long time and high output editor lugnuts is the latest editor to get bullied out. He's had so many bullies and serial assholes up his ass for so long it was really only a matter of time. The fact that Cullen ended up being the hatchet man isn't much of a surprise, he's a complete narcissist.
Link to the block here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... e=revision
Link to the block here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... e=revision
#BbbGate
-
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
- Has thanked: 274 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
Re: Lugnuts
Lugnuts is just an average Wikipedia Wing Nut who has been pounding the keyboard for "high score" for sixteen years.
He basically "tilted the Wikipedia pinball game"
Lugnuts raises an important question; for every longtime Wikipedia user that gets consumed in a flame-out are there new power-users rising to replace them? We know the answer to that question is NO; fewer and fewer folks are editing Wikipedia.
In the earlier days Wikipedia lugnuts were creating articles left and right (lets say for old films). Wikipedia did not cover much ground in the early days so it was easy to find articles to create. It became harder for him to find un-plowed ground sort of speak.
He graduated to the rank of pinball wizard when he went on a rampage trying to get "high score" by creating pulp-articles in the form of stubs. ; then when everyone got pissed at him he moved on to creating user categories..
57,000th article created ... 93,000 articles created... 8000th category created
He literally kept score on his talk page!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... b_creation\
Support: full tban on new article creation. Between the autopatrolled thing, the repeated canvassing, and his comments above, one thing shines through: Lugnuts doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Obviously he believes Wikipedia is some geeky RPG where he's out to win Game High Score, and the canvassing and other antics are to defend the article creations no matter what. He's apologized for nothing, and none of this gives any notion that he can be trusted not to game any half-measures. If he wishes to continue buffing up his edit count, he can start cleaning up his own mess and adding substantive content to his own articles, instead of relying on others to do it for him. [54] Ravenswing 19:37, 21 December 2021
He basically "tilted the Wikipedia pinball game"
Lugnuts raises an important question; for every longtime Wikipedia user that gets consumed in a flame-out are there new power-users rising to replace them? We know the answer to that question is NO; fewer and fewer folks are editing Wikipedia.
In the earlier days Wikipedia lugnuts were creating articles left and right (lets say for old films). Wikipedia did not cover much ground in the early days so it was easy to find articles to create. It became harder for him to find un-plowed ground sort of speak.
He graduated to the rank of pinball wizard when he went on a rampage trying to get "high score" by creating pulp-articles in the form of stubs. ; then when everyone got pissed at him he moved on to creating user categories..
57,000th article created ... 93,000 articles created... 8000th category created
He literally kept score on his talk page!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... b_creation\
Support: full tban on new article creation. Between the autopatrolled thing, the repeated canvassing, and his comments above, one thing shines through: Lugnuts doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Obviously he believes Wikipedia is some geeky RPG where he's out to win Game High Score, and the canvassing and other antics are to defend the article creations no matter what. He's apologized for nothing, and none of this gives any notion that he can be trusted not to game any half-measures. If he wishes to continue buffing up his edit count, he can start cleaning up his own mess and adding substantive content to his own articles, instead of relying on others to do it for him. [54] Ravenswing 19:37, 21 December 2021
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."
-
- Sucks Mod
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Lugnuts
As someone who still believes in the goal of Wikipedia its sad to see a bunch of the same clowns that banned me now ganging up on Lugnuts. Most of which dont create content, stub or otherwise.
Having said that, his ban is another win as a critic and the loss of another high output editor. Personally i hope they delete all his content because that will be about 100, 000 less articles.
Having said that, his ban is another win as a critic and the loss of another high output editor. Personally i hope they delete all his content because that will be about 100, 000 less articles.
#BbbGate
-
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
- Has thanked: 274 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
Re: Lugnuts
Clowns = YES, they are all ass ClownsKumioko wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:14 amAs someone who still believes in the goal of Wikipedia its sad to see a bunch of the same clowns that banned me now ganging up on Lugnuts. Most of which dont create content, stub or otherwise.
Having said that, his ban is another win as a critic and the loss of another high output editor. Personally i hope they delete all his content because that will be about 100, 000 less articles.
High Output Editor = YES
Quality Articles On a Personal Basis = Today NO, In the Past Perhaps,
=== When Wikipedia was a blank slate he had articles to write
=== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugn ... ve_Created
Quality Articles = NO - In general almost every Wikipedia article is wrong in some material way
The goal of Wikipedia = what exactly is the "goal of Wikipedia - it's not WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
=== The goal of Wikipedia has nothing to do with its stated mission or its contributory nature
=== Wikipedia is a GRIFT: to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)
You still believe in Wikipedia = Why
Getting banned = Good, you annoyed them
Getting Permanently Banned = Even better - you have been saved, perhaps from yourself! hallelujah!
As to" lugnuts" he will move on to "polishing door-knobs, turning light switches on and off repeatedly, and other OCD and Autistic behaviors."
On a personal note; the Coast Guard removed nun buoys outside several natural inlets which I frequent which makes going into them a challenging experience; the rationale was that no marker is better than a wrong marker. Wikipedia has not figured out (nor will it) that wrong information is worse than no information.
Last edited by wexter on Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."
-
- Sucker
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
- Has thanked: 530 times
- Been thanked: 255 times
- Contact:
Re: Lugnuts
not a chance. the WMF is now a multimillion dollar globalist organization, and wikipedia being their raison d'etre is unlikely to go anywhere soon. unless the US reformed its charity laws, which wont happen in our lifetimes.
-
- Sucks Mod
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Lugnuts
In order for Wikipedia to go offline it would take an almost perfect storm. A multi year trend of losing funds, some massive scandal akin to tax fraud or copyright lawsuit to cause the community and the readers to lose confidence, changes in laws, etc. Their bleeding editors and admins and at some point the amount admins won't be enough to offset the volume of vandalism, trolling and spam. But we're not there yet.
#BbbGate