View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:22 am




Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Jbhunley 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4420
Reply with quote
Not sure if this says more about the lack of standards of the Wikipedians these days as they trawl ever deeper depths for admin recruits, or the general lack of influence of Wikipediocracy, but the guy who said this in their forum......
Quote:
I really do try not to be an ass but I do slip up now and again. Sometimes unintentionally, sometimes because that is just how a particular interaction is going to end up and sometimes because I'm dealing with another jerk and feel like allowing myself a bit of a scrap.
......is on course to pass, with there being just as much opposition over his lack of content creation than his feistyness.

I'd vote for him simply because anyone who calls Opabina Regalis out on her bullshit and sees that Future Perfect is as corrupt as they come, has got to be of sound mind. But why bother, when Wikipedia is already a place which lets her get within a million miles of the top table and keeps him at the larger but still pretty exclusive table. With that kind of moral leadership, it really doesn't matter who the rest of the ordinary admins are.


Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 266
Reply with quote
Interesting how quickly Wikipediocracy has become an annexe of Wikipedia. A candidate for admin-ship openly canvassing there -- although I doubt it will do him much good. Whatever happened to shining the light of scrutiny? At the very least they should be giving Hunley a hard time about his real views on his fellow admins, the corruptions of power and other things that WO denizens used to complain about.


Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:55 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 372
Reply with quote
It would probably have been best if JBH hadn't joined in an off-wiki debate on his RfA. His doing so gives it a certain legitimacy it wouldn't have had otherwise.

No one was bothered about my thread about Sro23 is running in RfA for example, but then Sro23 isn't on the forum so didn't comment on it. But then I do another thread about JBH and a kind of flame war erupts.

Perhaps this is an example of how people running for RfA should be careful with what they do on and off wiki during their RfA period, and how problems (or at least arguments) that would otherwise occur can result.

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:02 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4420
Reply with quote
Dude is crashing and burning.

Turns out they no like the scrappy scrappy after all. Well, in a large enough minority, anyway. Can't really call it evidence that the community as a whole now has principles and standards. Regardless, it is proving to be another spectacular misread by Ritchie. I wonder if he will update his stats, or just stop claiming he's the RfA whisperer? It is also arguably another case of a candidate looking at the people who oppose and thinking, you bloody hypocrites, you've done far far worse, and paid no price at all. Literally none.

You can tell Wikipedia has a long ways to go before it really gets this idea of standards and ethics. This really low blow, coming at a critical point, has raised no eyebrows at all.....
Quote:
Oppose I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I just can't support yet. Lots of good stuff, to be sure, but I keep coming back to the arb case. If you can't keep your head in a formal setting when you're criticized, the informal admin confrontations will really make you nuts. There's a way to disengage, and it's not by calling one of my colleagues 'despicable' and it's not by running away from something you started in the first place. I could support in a few months, perhaps, but not now. Katietalk 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There is something quite unseemly about an Arb opposing an admin candidate in a way that merely reads as defence of the honour of a colleague. A rather disreputable colleague, one who happily advocates for user's rights to express themselves in a frank manner, in ways many call disrespectful, and has consistently defended users who do so, so it isn't even a morally consistent defence.

Indeed, it is a defence which fails to acknowledge said colleague admitted at the time to have used "rhetorical excess" in the comment that triggered his reaction, and that extremely opinionated comment was really a mild example of what she is capable of in that role.

There is also something unseemly about Arbs bringing their considerable weight to RfA at all, but for some reason it is still allowed. I thought precedent has been set, via Gorilla Warfare at AE, that no, for reasons of separation of powers and influence, they are no longer entitled to be seen as ordinary Admins who can do ordinary Admin stuff, like vote in RfA.

Above and beyond those two issues, is the fact her oppose relates directly to how the candidate reacted to a decision she made as an Arb, which he vehemently disagreed with. That is what makes it look like more than just being too casual with roles and responsibilities. Plenty of hopefully neutral observers had already had their say on it, so it isn't like she can even claim to be raising an unknown issue, or a unique perspective.

To put some clarity on her likely motivation to squish this guy's candidacy, here's the context:
Admin_Candidate wrote:
I firmly feel this needs to be directly addressed by the committee [not of a a motion]........The last time was handled by motion too and contained warning that further problems could result in a desysop......Jbh Talk — 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Sitting_Arbitrator wrote:
I don't think this requires a full case, and I don't think it rises to the level of a desysop. I would be open to a final warning to FPaS to avoid the appearance of INVOLVEment. Katietalk 21:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline. A motion is in the works. Katietalk 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The barb about "running away" is particularly cold, given the Administrator he was seeking to have an Arb Case about, simply said this.......
Quote:
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
I stand by every word I said yesterday on the noticeboard and I'm not planning to engage in any further discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It makes you wonder why Administrators are even allowed to essentially brush off an Arb Case request against them, given WP:ADMINACCT at al. Surely a substantive rebuttal of the request fits Katie's definition of what is required of a cool head in such a formal setting?

No standards. Dude is lucky. It's a fast track to an ulcer for anyone who actually has standards, to volunteer to work in conflict resolution, in this environment.

If or when Future Perfect is finally, justifiably, desysopped, it will hopefully turn Jbh against Wikipedia for good. Shit like that tends to have a transformative effect. Knowing you were right, and being proven right much later, but far too late to have a second chance at being all the Wikipedian you could have been, well, that'll turn a dude to the Dark Side as much as anything.

We here on the Dark Side, we likes us a new recruit with a bit of the scrappy scrappy.....


Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4420
Reply with quote
Quote:
What gets me though are all of the people who somehow think I it is OK for a long term respected editor to make filthy insinuations about me and, instead of calling him on it, decide I 'should just ignore it'.
As shit as it is, it can't really be a surprise, can it? In the relentless pursuit of the undermining of WP:CIV, "grow a thicker skin" is an almost ever-present phrase on Wikipedia. If you're not OK with that, you were trying to join the wrong group, since the establishment Admins are the ones with the power to stop it. They choose not to.
Quote:
I hope it turns around but I'm pretty sure many have ceased to see me as a person and the pile-on will continue – I mean how can they see me as a person if they think I should be OK with that kind of accusation from an RfA participant. I tried my best to be open and honest but got chastised for that as well but…
How does one spend that much time on Wikipedia, and not realise dehumanization is a feature, not a bug, or that honesty an openess is almost never rewarded?
Quote:
Regrettably I see a consensus emerging from a significant portion of the community that an administrator must be bound by Wikipedia rules and norms even when off of Wikipedia.
Regrettably? It is surely worse to see the sham of a Wikipedia Administrator going off wiki to specifically do things he knows he would not get away with on-wiki, to people and about things that are exclusively Wikipedia related. They vote stack and worse in IRC, and will happily lob abuse at you, if not just plain ignore your perfectly legitimate queries, on a shitheel friendly platform like Wikipediocracy.
Quote:
I refuse to accept the premise that, outside of things like harassment etc, the community has any claim on how I deal with my life off of Wikipedia. If this RfA fails I strongly feel the improper delving into my off-wiki life (I had never linked my account here with my account there prior to another editor commenting on it on the RfA talk page. Things only got worse when I tried to be transparent about what I said there for those who could not see it. I guess I could have gone to ANI about OUTING but that would have probably been seen as worse.) was what pushed it over the edge.
Quote:
What was completely unacceptable to me is Collect went over to Wikipediocracy and made a shit stirring accusation. I responded to the off-site matter. He then brought up the off-wiki material in a false light to stir shit at the RfA talk page. I had previously thought that was a pretty big no-no here – tying an off wiki account to a Wikipedia editor. I continued to deal with the off-wiki stuff off-wiki and he continued to use it to stir things here. I suppose I should have gone after him for OUTING but that would have derailed things just the same. So there I sat with Collect, a supposedly respected editor, stirring shit by using insinuation and out right lies and allowing the barrier of information flow to stir the pot more and more yet I'm the bad guy for providing everyone the information they were breathlessly speculating about.

Maybe people let Collect continue because they somehow think what he was doing was OK or maybe no one had the guts to put a stop to it or maybe no one was paying attention to the OUTING - I had not tied my WO account to WP on-wiki.
Dude, the only person who loses by trying to claim the accounts were not the same person, is you. Someone has posted 84 times to Wikipediocracy as "Jbhunley" since 2015, and the Wikipedians have never been big fans of people who try to abuse OUTING to put the genie back in the bottle. It's a privilege afforded only to the cabal, namely those with the power to block and mute users based on private evidence, i.e. in ways that cannot be easily challenged

It sucks that he said what he did, but once he had, if you knew anything at all about the Wikipedia community going into this process, you'd have realised your only play there was leaving it all out in the open. You royally screwed up requesting Wikipediocracy move it, and they screwed you by not telling you what inevitable result would be. You'll have got a ton of unspoken opposes for that.
Quote:
the community seems to have decided they want people who will allow themselves to be attacked
No, not really. The policies are all there. Everything they need to dissuade people from seeing Administrators as legitimate targets, as people who need to accept a certain level of abuse as part of the role, is there. They just lack the will to use it. And I'll grant you, that is in large part over a fear of, or affinity with, a hard-core group of users known for their toxicity. But they'd be nothing without their Admin enablers and protectors.

Everything went to shit after Jimmy Wales failed in his bid to hold Bishonen to account for what was, at the time, still classed as a serious violation of Admin standards. Now, a repeat of that incident is something that would barely raise an eyebrow, even from an admin, and would be dismissed as inevitable if directed at an admin. But what's worse, if it is politically expedient, if it allows you to eliminate an enemy or assist a friend, it can magically be interpreted how it used to be, how the policies still describe it as.

That's just a small window into the fucked up club you were auditioning to join. As such, now you've had a lucky escape, maybe it's time you reassessed this view....
Quote:
I think Wikipedia is a great project but it is a comparatively minor part of my life.
The disconnect between yourself and your supposed peers, will never be clearer than it is now. It is never going to change, there's no RfC or WMF initiative that's gonna reform this hell on Earth.

You stay, then you stay on their terms. Come here, to the Dark Side, and you get to spend your days reminding them who they are and what they do. And they fucking hate it. Embrace the Hate. Or go live your best life. Just do anything more useful to humanity than sliding back into that dopamine chair, their compliant slave, nothing but a worker bee.


Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4420
Reply with quote
It turned out to be exciting in the end, but he ultimately bombed.

We at least have confirmation Opabina Regalis is a witch. How else do you explain how she manages to be the main reason he fails, but somehow managed to convince him to state afterwards, that she is not the person he reacted to there (she so fucking is), and that she is not the sort of person who expects people to grow a thicker skin (again, she so fucking is).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source

Supporting the RfA of someone you so publicly accused of abusing RFAR in the most unprofessional of ways, in a manner you just had to know was going to push their buttons, and only doing so late in the day with some bullshit excuse ("I was pinged early on in this discussion but haven't been able to catch up till now. "), cutely adding it wasn't even going to be a support, that is probably the most OR thing OR has ever done. Total witchcraft.

He must have run over her cat way back when, well before that RFAR, and she's waited all this time to totally fuck with him.


Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:50 pm
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Posts: 553
Reply with quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbhunley/Letter_to_WMF_Ombudsman_Committee


Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:58 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.