Wikipedia Sucks!

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy to post a comment like this....

He is pursuing a crank agenda.

.....on Wikipedia, as Jimmy alleged Cullen has done. Furthermore, is it an aggressive and insulting remark, an obnoxious insult, that cannot ever be justified, as Jimmy argues?

If you look at how the Wikipedians lost their minds and rallied around Cullen, you might assume Jimmy was wrong on both counts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328&oldid=857040302#I've_removed_your_obnoxious_comment_from_my_talk_page

Sadly for Cullen, he is clearly not wrong. There is clear Wikipedia policy which says posting this sort of accusation of this sort of behaviour (which we can politely reframe as "advocating for fringe science") without supporting evidence (ironic) and not in an appropriate forum, is not permitted. The Arbitration Committee no less, has reaffirmed this basic principle on numerous occasions.

Furthermore, since I just proved it is perfectly possible to put the same message across without using an explosive word like "crank", Jimmy is perfectly correct in describing the nature of Cullen's comment, and thus its broad unacceptability on Wikipedia, anywhere, for any reason. If anyone is actually confused about the pejorative nature of the word "crank", consult a dictionary.

Or better yet, simply look at how the Wikipedians use it. I'm reminded of the now infamous formulation, 'if you don't want to be called a c-word, don't act like one'. It works just as well here. No doubt some of those supporting Cullen lament that that historic comment attracted so much criticism. If he is concerned he potentially attracts that kind of support, he didn't show it, pointedly thanking everyone for their support. Everyone. Except Jimmy. Zing! Tough guys, these Administrators. Except Jimmy. Get it? GET IT!

The other way you can tell Jimmy had Cullen bang to rights here, is how nobody, not Cullen or any of his supporters, made any attempt to justify the comment along the above lines, or disprove Jimmy. What they did do, was all rather pathetic really.

Firstly, there was a lot of whattaboutism all round, Cullen included. Which only goes to show that tactic really isn't the preserve of Trumpistas, as the Wikipedians so like to pompously claim. There was a request from Cullen that Jimmy go do the legwork to prove the polite form of Cullen's statement is the truth, which is both not policy, and still rather obviously sidesteps both the issue of its tone and location.

There were also simply the insults lobbed back at Jimmy. Par for the course on Wikipedia. There was also the sorry sight of Bishonen trying to revive her blood feud with Jimmy again, which is also sadly par for the course.

Above all, there was this hilariously ironic outpouring of moral indignation of the form 'how dare you accuse Cullen of being obnoxious, he simply wouldn't do such a thing, he is one of our best and most valued Administrators'.

I hate to break it to the Wikipedians, but I fear Jimmy is acutely aware of just how easily pleased you all are, how low your standards have fallen, and how blind your loyalty can be. I think he regrets it every single day.

To turn one particular cheerleader's comment on its head, if anyone's looking for a full and frank explanation of this comment by Cullen, from Cullen, one that addresses the points made above, you will be waiting a very, very, long time. Being a self-protecting arrogant ass, incapable of defending their actions using the methods they were taught in the academy, is well within reach of even Wikipedia's best and brightest.

To cap it all off, Cullen essentially responded to a firm request to stay of another user's page, with the masterstroke of sophistry that is the idea that Jimmy has no such rights because of his "open door policy". To prove his point, or is that WP:POINT?, he went and posted again. I feel it necessary to remind Cullen that Carrite has first dibs on protesting Jimmy in this way.

Although I expect, just like him, Cullen's willingness to tweak the lion's tail will evaporate like the morning mist. No courage of their convictions, these people. If you want to take Jimmy on, then do it already. We here would all be genuinely interested in the outcome.

As for you Jimmy, just learn the lesson already. These people are scum. Wikipediastan, they're not sending us their best and brightest. They cannot be brought back into line, if they were ever really in line. They cannot be reasoned with, guilt tripped, brow beaten. There is but one law to these people. If you can get way with it, do it.

They've made up. Although it appears to me they are not exactly on the same page regarding the details.

Now that three days have passed, I want to request that you please read the entire thread that you started on my talk page. Please read the comments there by quite a few experienced editors. I did not intend to insult anyone but rather to briefly summarize what many other discerning editors had concluded about this particular editor's behavior. I was commenting on his recent contributions not on him as a person. It was not intended as a personal attack and others are not reading my comment that way. Of course, a four word summary lacks nuance but I was prepared to engage in a more substantive discussion, and I still am willing to do so. I do not want to be your enemy, Jimbo, which is in no small part due to my deep respect for your profound and enduring contributions to human knowledge in creating and shaping Wikipedia. I love this project from the bottom of my heart. When I criticize, which is not often, I strive to do so in a responsible and thoughtful way. I hope that you can see that this type of criticism is necessary and useful. So, I extend this olive branch to you. Please soften your heart. Let's discuss this encyclopedia and this free knowledge movement. Just as you have devoted your 21st century to it, so too have I devoted my last nine plus years, inspired at least in part by you. Thank you for considering my request. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgive you. It's just - when a user of long standing is obviously feeling emotional pain about something, I think we can do better than a 4 word snipe. I also think that words like "crank" should never be used for the work or agenda of another respected editor. But yeah, you're one of the good ones. We all get upset sometimes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How is Cullen "one of the good ones" when he, like every other Wikipedia Administrator it seems, is so ready to always trot out the time worn 'I wasn't calling him a cunt, I said his behaviour is like that of a cunt' excuse for not really having a basic fucking clue what they're saying or doing, much less any intention to comply with basic policy. An insult is an insult, whether you couch it as a description of behaviour or deliver it as a straight up insult. And it's a violation of policy regardless, if you don't provide the evidence that would show a non-insulting interpretation was true.

"I do not want to be your enemy Jimbo [but I have amassed an army of supporters ready to dethrone you at my command]" . His comment frankly reeks of insincerity. You respect Jimmy? Then have a fucking word with all those who flocked to your banner, saying all sorts of shit, with no hint of irony, delivering personal attacks as their way of supporting the idea you were not guilty of a personal attack.

And this whole idea Jimmy was even alleging a "personal attack" is a clearly dishonest reframing of the issue. Presumably because "personal attack" is a higher bar than "obnoxious and insulting" commentary. He has graciously accepted his comment lacked nuance and he was willing to expand on it. Pretty pointless saying that three days later, when all the damage that it had the possibility to cause, has already been done.

An Administrator is supposed to deescalate and avoid conflict, when the conflict is happening. Not three days later. He showed he had no intention of staying off Jimmy's page at the time, yet somehow wasn't much bothered about using it to engage in more substantive discussion. He simply used it to attack Jimmy. One of the best? Fuck off. An animal brained reactionary like all the rest.

Like a coward, he waited for the community to predictably rally around him, like he doesn't know Jimmy is an outcast to most of them these days, and plenty of editors and even Administrators will happily call him a fool whatever he says or does, no matter how right he is, because they're assholes like that. He waited for the support and reassurance of assholes, the now infamous hemegony of assholes that the media long ago identified as a flaw of Wikipedia, rather than simlly justify his own behaviour. Some Administrator. Not even basic bitch standards, that.

That's your talk page they're doing that on Cullen, so it is implied you consent. All still there, given pride of place. So, Mr. finest Administrator Wikipedia ever had (TM), clean your fucking house, or maybe someone will come over and apply your "open forum" standards......

I do not really care about an apology or getting Jimbo to admit that he is wrong. Of course, I would like him to read all these comments and reconsider how he treated me but he has barely edited in recent days. So, I will move on and reserve the right to comment on his talk page when I believe that I have something useful to say at that open forum. Let Jimbo be Jimbo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume that Jimbo is behaving rationally in accordance with some kind of plan to achieve some kind of objective. As figurehead of Wikipedia he gets lucrative speaking appointments, luxury foreign travel, honours and awards, basically for doing nothing; and people offer him large sums of money for his various ill-thought-out and ill-fated ventures. As chair of the Board of Trustees he gets to influence the WMF spending of $100M a year, and as member of the Endowment Board he gets to influence the accumulation and use of another $100M capital. The price he pays is to occasionally play a few rounds with some of the more stupid players of an MMORPG. Why on earth should he care whether he wins or loses some chicken-feed fight? It means nothing to him. Crazy like a fox.

AndrewForson wrote:Let's assume that Jimbo is behaving rationally in accordance with some kind of plan to achieve some kind of objective. As figurehead of Wikipedia he gets lucrative speaking appointments, luxury foreign travel, honours and awards, basically for doing nothing; and people offer him large sums of money for his various ill-thought-out and ill-fated ventures. As chair of the Board of Trustees he gets to influence the WMF spending of $100M a year, and as member of the Endowment Board he gets to influence the accumulation and use of another $100M capital. The price he pays is to occasionally play a few rounds with some of the more stupid players of an MMORPG. Why on earth should he care whether he wins or loses some chicken-feed fight? It means nothing to him. Crazy like a fox.

^ Sum total of Jimbos life.

He still cares. Why even bother getting involved if he didn't.

All these people who make Jimbo their figure of hate, blame him for everything, clearly haven't realised just how little influence he has left. If you tracked everything he has said the last five or even ten years about what he wants from Wikipedia and the Wikipedians, you'd see it. Not one thing he wants to change, happens. They disappoint him at every turn, and the WMF isn't much better.

He got angry at Cullen because he's pissed the project has turned to such shit, they think a guy like that is one of their best Administrators. Cullen is a fucking asshole, a dishonest, insincere, cover his own ass, doesn't know what he's doing, basic bitch motherfucker, asshole. Jimmy had higher hopes for Wikipedia. He had higher hopes for Administrators. That sack of shit is their best? Fuuuuck.

The Wikipedians hate Jimmy because they know, they can literally see it because they live this shit, that they are a disappointment in his eyes. They want him to go away so they can forget they ever were under any expectations other than this idea that what Cullen did is OK, and how he handled the reaction from the guy who was the first ever Wikipedia Administrator, was OK.

I have tremendous sympathy for Jimmy. There's no amount of money or prestige that can compensate for the sort of disappointment he must feel. The guy is so desperate not to give up hope, he praised Cullen as one of the good guys and tried to rationalise his behaviour as a one time aberration. That's sad.

Wikipedia is so bad, someone like Cullen finds it easy to stand out. How? By being bang average. This one single incident proved he doesn't have the integrity, the intelligence or the composure that would garner him real respect in the real world. So he devoted his life to Wikipedia. Calls Jimmy Wales his inspiration. Inspiration for what? Is being a Wikipedia Administrator the sum total of his efforts to bring knowledge to the world?

This garbage would make you vomit if it came from a millennial. Cullen is older than Jimmy, and his real world accomplishments sound remarkably similar to Dennis Brown's, Ritchie's and Drmies', all failed old white dudes trying to find some self-worth through being bang-average on Wikipedia, and then having the gall to act like they're better than Jimmy, like they know how to treat people better, understand the rules he laid down better.

These people claim to be encyclopedists. They're frauds, living a lie, a desperate escape from their miserable lives. Jimmy never claimed to be an encyclopedist. He was quite open about the fact he just built a platform that a bunch of ordinary people might one day turn into something that might resemble an encyclopedia.

He believed that would happen by people coming together and not treating each other the way Cullen thinks is acceptable (indeed Jimmy's ideal version of Wikipedia is that actual proven pushers of fringe science are shown the door quickly but respectfully, not subjected to a year's long whispering campaign by scum like Guy Chapman and rest). Raise each other up, not create a swamp.

If Jimmy was back in the saddle, if he was given his time over again, then you can bet your life nearly every piece of shit that lined up to show their support for Cullen, would have never made it six months on Wikipedia, they are that bad. Some of them are genuinely mentally ill. Others turned up merely out of revenge. Doesn't bother Cullen. He'll take whatever he can get, and is proud they love him so. That's who he is. That's who Wikipedians are.

Jimmy still being able to make a living off their backs because the rest of the world still thinks Wikipedia operates the way Jimmy intended, is actually karma in action. What's Cullen gonna do, actually admit to the world it doesn't run as advertised, that the policies mean nothing and the Administrators are largely to blame? Hell no. He likes his hobby, so he's gonna keep lying to the world, and keep organising rallies against the guy he has the brass balls to say he admires. Jimmy is the guy who admitted long ago there was a problem with falling standards, and has been trying to fix it ever since. To no avail.

Cullen is the guy who is capable of talking down to his own colleagues about their inability to deescalate.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =857363922

This from the same guy who not days ago, walked into Jimmy's page (like that's his God given right because OMFG open door policy!), saw that post from Hardy, and thought, I know what, this is the comment that will de-escalate the shit out this situation. And then sulked for three days before issuing this sorry not sorry bullshit. Cullen's given Fram the luxury of an hour or two to reflect. Cullen was still grandstanding at Jimmy five hours after Jimmy gave him the opportunity to reflect.

One of their best?

ONE OF THEIR BEST!!!????!!?!1

Fuck him. Fuck them all. Bang average pieces of shit.

A timely example of the toxic effects of the Wikipedians creating false idols. Basic policy flew right out of the window here, in so many simultaneously hilarious and disgusting ways. Just as it did in this spat between Cullen and Jimmy.

With their collective embarrassment laid fully bare, it is no surprise it was quickly brushed under the carpet. Anything to preserve the fantasy that these are momentary abberations, not a symptom of the fact they are all lacking in the competency department, even those who point out their fuckups (but never hold anyone to account for said fuckups).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Jim_Heaphy

One of their best? This silly fucker didn't even have the good sense to blacklist his real name. Is that really someone who the Wikipedians think has good judgement and institutional knowledge?

For this, and so many other reasons, he wouldn't last five minutes in a real job. Yet he's hailed on Wikipedia.

Is there a single Wikipedian who sees this farce for what it is? You would think not. Just a bunch of basic bitches, that's for damn sure.

Cullen talking to a blocked editor, an editor who has literally no chance of ever being unblocked (their blocker Queen Bishonen is all powerful, after all) ......

.....I believe that a review of my editing history shows that I try hard to be helpful and polite, ....My goal is always to work towards ending the disruption without losing an editor....... Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Try harder.

Every single Wikipedia Administrator trots out this sort of self serving nonsense, not remotely caring if the claims can be verified. As seen above, his claims are false.

One of their best? Bang fucking average.

By "one of their best" I think they are actually saying, "I supported his RfA".

Because his RfA was the most massive group festival ever on Wikipedia.

Dysklyver wrote:By "one of their best" I think they are actually saying, "I supported his RfA".

Because his RfA was the most massive group festival ever on Wikipedia.

No doubt. That's the flaw of RfA. They've had so many clear opportunities to realise RfA success isn't a reliable predictor of future admin performance, yet they persist with it because they're shit out of ideas as to how to accurately predict it (psychometric testing perhaps).

Then again, the community is so rotten, he'd have likely sailed through even if he had been honest and had literally said, 'if Jimmy Wales ever has the temerity to tell me what is and is not good Admin behaviour, I'll fucking do him, and you will all have my back, right? AMIRIGHT!? Although of course, three days later I will quietly apologize and tell him I respect him, and you'll all be cool with that right, because you will have forgotten all about it by then, right? AMIRIGHT?!! WHOOP WHOOP!'

These are the people who gave a similar walkthrough coronation to Ealdgyth, even though she was honest about the fact she had no real need for the tools, she just thought she should have them so she could continue to undermine WP:CIV with more authority, through ANI commentary. That she was a woman and a content creator meant you could have discovered she strangles puppies and buries them in her yard, and people would still say, 'meh, it doesn't suggest she would abuse the tools, support'.

These people are not right in the head. Not the candidates or the voters. Seriously, you've got to be properly fucked in the head to want to play any part in it and still look yourself in the mirror. She knows, he knows, they all know. It's just a giant game to them, their one chance to feel important, significant. It's the rest of the world who have to suffer the consequences.

It's amusing to note the garbage that spews out of "one of their best" may have inadvertently seriously damaged Wikipedia.

Cullen wrote this in the AfD.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... bitability

Delete This is a massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research. Any acceptable article would be no more than one-tenth this length and would concisely summarize secondary sources. The article is full of essay-like language and I see no way forward to salvage this and convert it into an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

......that led to Robert Walker being banned, after which he has gone on to create several smaller encyclopedias that apparently now outrank Wikipedia on Google.

A copy of the deleted article can be seen here....

http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability

Even if we accept his claims at face value (worth noting here that "one of their best" can't even be bothered to give diffs for claims like this), he is basically admitting his total ignorance of WP:PRESERVE. Not a single problem he identifies, is not fixable through editing. He literally cannot conceive that on Wikipedia, editing an article is a "way forward" here. That doesn't even imply the current article has to stay in the encyclopedia, it can be parked in userspace while being edited. But "one of their best" is apparently ignorant of all of that.

An article on this topic can clearly be salvaged using secondary sources, such as this.....

https://www.space.com/19928-mars-habita ... sible.html

Searching for coverage like that is what every AfD voter is supposed to do, but unsurprisingly, it seems even "one of their best" doesn't actually do it if he has formed an opinion based on the state of he article as found (which is literally the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do).

The outcome here was that the editor felt like he was in an Alice in Wonderland type situation. You can see why.