Page 1 of 2


Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:53 am
by CrowsNest
I'm gonna depart from my long standing position and recommend this guy spend more time on Wikipedia, for his own sake...... :?
Note that, at least in my not-so-humble-yet-occasionally-self-deprecating opinion, editing Wikipedia should be a hobby. As in, it's something you do for the fun, sense of accomplishment and entertainment value. If you find yourself lacking in those things while on vacation (or with sufficient free time to notice the lack on a business trip), I'd say you're getting traveling wrong. I've been to quite a few exotic and mundane locales, and I assure you that there is always something worthwhile to do, even if it's as simple as watching the local kids playing soccer and rewarding the winning team with candy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
And not that it even really needs saying, but if this guy thinks what he does on Wikipedia comes across as a hobby, something he finds a sense of accomplishment from, he's not right in the head. And while I guess he himself probably finds what he does there is fun and entertaining, he really should appreciate that it is not remotely part of what anyone would reasonably class as building an encyclopedia.

The only way he can justifiably argue that he treats Wikipedia as a hobby, is by virtue of his relatively low edit count, which of course doesn't include reading time. So he is either immune to the addictive nature of the cult, or he has other far more addictive things in his life. Given the above, the mind boggles as to what they might be.

It's worth noting, something that is clear from anyone who studies the cult, this guy is only really free to do what he does on Wikipedia because what he finds fun and entertaining, serves the purposes of Queen Bishonen. So she protects him, giving him opportunities to play that simply wouldn't be available to people with different outlooks on the world, different ideas of what is fun and entertaining, different ideas of what an encyclopedia is.

Here's some statistics which show just how remarkable it is that this guy has even lasted on Wikipedia this long......

Talk 2,145 (30%)
Wikipedia 1,797 (25.1%)
User talk 1,713 (24%)
Main 931 (13%)
User 264 (3.7%)
Wikipedia talk 200 (2.8%)

If you're not doing what others want you to be doing, to the point they actively protect you, then those simply aren't the sort of numbers that stops you from being singled out as a problem user by your enemies, someone whose objectives are unlikely to align with the goals of Wikipedia.

If you're thinking, ah, no, well, he might be one of those users who drops whole articles or rewrites in one edit, think again. This is not the editing profile of someone who does that.... ... tart=&end=

It is, unsurprisingly, a pretty good example to show that the people who revert and obstruct changes to Wikipedia's more serious content, tend to only be the writers of their less than serious content. Hobbyists, in other words. People who find it easier and more rewarding to impose their opinions others, rather than being foolish enough to view the creation of serious content as a worthwhile use of unpaid volunteer time. If we assume he is even capable.

And if you thought, well, his focus on the back-office areas might indicate he is one of these deep thinkers who sets their mind to the serious task of the constant refinement and improvement of Wikipedia governance, I bet to differ again. This..... ... tart=&end= not that. It isn't the sort of minor but necessary stuff you would expect to see being done by a capable and competent Wikipedia Administrator either, since if it was, he would have been dragged through RfA long ago.

Nonetheless, he is the primary author of this.... ... ssing_bias

....and it is merely get more proof that Wikipedia is way too lenient in the process it goes through to convert a personal essay in user space to a personal essay in Wikipedia space, with all the attendant assumption of acceptance and indeed general correctness that shift in location implies.

And as if Wikipedia really needs any more guidance essays that are simply attempts by people to supplant the existing policies and their common sense application with their pompous supplementary "advice" on how people should edit. The primary purpose of that essay seemingly being to be to tell people that if they see bias, they should not attempt to directly fix the problem via editting, but negotiate with people like him, who very clearly want to position themselves as their intellectual superiors simply by virtue of time served and buzzwords learnt. This is, of course, contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for, but you can understand why he takes this position given how much of his time is spent undoing the edits of others.

Wikipedia certainly doesn't need any more essays written by people who so clearly can't even practice what they preach in those egotistical pamphlets of nonsense.....
Don't let the incivility of others make you incivil
The fucking brass neck of someone with his record writing that. Still, yet more proof that Wikipedia is the natural home of hypocrites and people with an extremely skewed sense of their own abilities.

Related to this particular hobby horse of his, this guy famously said on Wikipediocracy that Larry Sanger's vision of neutrality and how to achieve it was "stupid". It was a typically dumb comment in a sadly all too short posting history (sucks when even this guy thinks your forum is a waste of time) ..... ... mit=Search

Well, for my own personal entertainment, I for one would love to the two of them sit down and debate the merits of edits like this..... ... =713179582

.....but I fear his sense of fun and entertainment would soon disappear when Larry confirmed my suspicions that he's the exact sort of person he had in mind when he said the lunatics took over the asylum.

Overall, what we have here with this fellow, is an example of what happens when editors turn up at Wikipedia and actually treat it as a hobby. They get opinionated, even mouthy, and if that concords with what people like Bishonen want the encyclopedia to say, they'll have free reign, even be protected. It won't matter one bit that their actual editing record gives nobody any real basis to believe they have the necessary experience or insight to be telling others what's what. It certain won't matter that they routinely break the very basic conduct rules that supposedly form the bedrock of their claimed collaborative effort.

I'm sure he thinks his Wikipedia edits matter beyond being merely a useful idiot (and in the comment above, court jester) for the likes of Bishonen, but that is sadly all he is. And being a useful idiot doesn't sound like much fun to me, whether you are doing it as part of what you think is just a hobby, or something which in reality is far more serious than that. If we take the view, as this guy clearly does, that Wikipedia matters insofar as people read it.

I shall sign off with the amusing thought of Bishonen ever lowering herself to writing supplementary guidance essays (although the tiny few she did create in the early days were a scary indicator of what she was destined to become). She knows that's not the name of the game. These poor fools she manipulates so easily, they really can't see it.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm
by Dysklyver
The stats are way worse if you count the time he spends editing Wikipedia while pretending to do some other job.

Unless "MPants at work" is not an indication of him diddling his employer. :roll:

Namespace Count
Talk 2,547 (32.7%)
User talk 2,134 (27.4%)
Wikipedia 1,689 (21.7%)
Main 868 (11.2%)
WP talk 288 (3.7%)
User 183 (2.4%)

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:08 am
by CrowsNest
For your information, it was another IP that you told to "read the fucking article". Maybe you should try reading the fucking ANI noticeboard a bit more carefully. (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, Dynamic IPs are really common. If you expect me to whois every IP that responds to my comment like they are the same IP I was just talking to, you're out of your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Says it all really.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:37 am
by CrowsNest
How do you go from.....

why won't you let me add this to this list? ... =861233918

OMFG delete this list because it is "trivia by definition"

.....even though it has already survived AfD three times, and if you really did think that, why were you attempting to add to the trivia hosted by Wikipedia?

In addition to just being an idiot, it happens when in the interim, said idiot gets no help when he tries to eliminate his opponent by reporting him to AN/I for OWNing the list. You can't OWN what doesn't exist. Smart Wiki Warrior. :ugeek:

If this muppet wasn't a well known courtesan of queen Bishonen, someone would have blocked him for BATTLE/POINT by now, surely.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:03 pm
by ToneRat
Here's another hot take from the Hammer Pants:

@Slatersteven;, you really need to learn to stop reacting and start reading better. Go back and read my comments in the context in which they were written and stop fucking looking for drama for once in your goddamn life. My comments gave solid advice to the IP, were limited to the comments they were making and the subjects of discussion. It's not a fucking insult or even uncivil to point out that someone doesn't know what they're talking about when it's completely fucking obvious that they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Your idea of civility is one that gets rejected almost every time you haul someone to ANI. One would think you'd have figured out by now that you should put more thought into this shit, but nope. Here we are again. You know what's uncivil? Your high-handed condescension every fucking time you think you see something uncivil. So fuck off. If you ever post any such warning to my talk page again I will drag you to ANI over it, because I've made it clear time and time again that I don't have the patience for this teenage drama bullshit you and others like you take so much pleasure in constantly stirring up here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I swear there's some secret contest to see how many people some of these in-clique editors can tell to fuck off. The last sentence is somewhat ironic given how much time Pants spends at the drama boards slinging mud.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:26 am
by CrowsNest
OK, I read the context, and it seems pretty clear the IP was not as ignorant as this dickhead was claiming. On the face of it, who would you believe more about whether or not "conspiracy theory" has always been a derogatory term, someone who got the book "21st Century Words" published by the Oxford University Press, or the guy who got this.......
The oldest example you are likely to find in an OED definition is unlikely to be the first time the word was used. It might not even be the first time that the word was written down.
...published on Skeptical Inquirer? I'm inclined to believe the guy who seems to know how dictionaries work. Their general argument that someone who is an expert in a subject, will of course know more about the history of its terminology than people who specialize in the origins of terms, is of course patent nonsense. It is surprising how often subject experts completely overlook obvious stuff like that.

The less said about his claim that "You don't know enough about the subjects in question to even understand how ignorant you are, judging by your comments." was not invicil, the better.

The real issue here, for those concerned with ignorant people being allowed to edit Wikipedia, is that the subject expert does seem to have looked into the origin of the term, but only as a result of lots of other people doing so as well, since it is highly disputed as to when it was first used and why. So the question has to be asked, why is Wikipedia presenting it merely as a 'he said but he said' issue?

We may never get to the bottom of this, because of course, perennial friend of the assholes of Wikipedia, Drmies, blocked the IP for being disruptive, while completely ignoring the civility violation of the person who should know better.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:00 am
by CrowsNest
I'm not even reading your comments because I have absolutely no faith in your good intentions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I am reading yours, and this response reflects poorly on your own competency. Your intentions were made abundantly clear when you gave two different accounts as to who this essay is supposedly aimed at, adjusted each time to benefit the case you were trying to make. Not being able to present a coherent argument to your peers, is also evidence of a lack of competence. If we assume no ill intent of course. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I read this and it made me laugh, so maybe I should have been reading your comments all along, just for entirely different reasons [link to Schadenfreude] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The reason Pantsman changed his tune, is because the user was banned by shitbird Bbb23 (who was nice enough to not even pretend he was colouring outside the lines when he did so). Still didn't acknowledge the basic point of course. Not capable, obviously. Morally or intellectually.

There are others now also pointing out that he is defending a clearly misleading and contradictory essay, he wants to have his cake and eat it in the way he is interpreting this essay to detractors, because he seems to think Guy Chapman will reward him with a place at the top table if he shines his cock well enough.

Some people, you just would not shed a tear if they got stabbed. Literally if you saw them in the street getting stabbed repeatedly and they were begging for your help, you would not even intervene. Even if you had a gun. Not even to put him out of his misery.

Or maybe it's just me. That would be my idea of Schadenfraude in this scenario. A quick or peaceful death is too much for some of these peope. jesus, I might even go so far as including the cowards who stand around and watch, she well as those who merrily join in. Notably, no-one joined in here, so they either don't care, or see something in it that even they don't want to be associated with.

You would not believe all of this occurred right in front of several admins, in a debate about what qualities make you unfit to edit Wikipedia. Or rather, you would. This is their level now.

It's you, Pantsman, you're unfit. Even among the Wikipedians, who are not known for an ability to be nice upstanding people, you come across as a cave dweller.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:56 pm
by CrowsNest
Pudeo gets butthurt by the thought of anyone having a liberal POV and lashes out at them every chance he gets. Give it time, eventually they'll get theirs. MjolnirPants 14:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
MjolnirPants has agreed to treat fellow editors with respect ..... and has been warned that any additional commentary suggesting a threat of violence will be met with an immediate block.......

Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The weakness of Wikipedia Administration, writ large. The above warning wasn't even issued as a result of this comment, and if you believe this asshole agreed to change his ways in the space of four hours, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:17 am
by CrowsNest
This guy is properly retarded. ... =866020446
I'll find you a whole slew of RSes using that exact phrase the moment you find the part of WP:V that says we're supposed to be using the exact same words as the sources, instead of summarizing them.


this is not a BLP issue unless and until you dig up reliable sources refuting it.


Claims are not contentious simply because an editor insists they are. You have to show them to be contentious before you get to demand supporters of the claims have the burden of proof.
Using this guy's warped logic, I could pick a random article and add the claim they are a child molester. Since I made it up, there would be no sources out there refuting it, the only people calling it contentious would be other editors, the ones with brains.

It wasn't all that long ago that certain Wikipedia Administrators were perfectly happy to beat the living shit out of people who demonstrated such an utter lack of clue when it comes to BLP. Either they have all retired, or they are unwilling to act when the moron in question is such an enthusiastic member of the #RESISTANCE, as this fuckstick is.

What's really iconic in all this stupidity - if this.... ... =865451377 what this retard thinks is the supporting source for "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists", then how come they are brushing past the fact he clearly also used Wikipedia for "inspiration" as well? Because we know for damn sure he wasn't including it because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Re: MjolnirPants

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:13 pm
by CrowsNest
Retarded. Terminally.
I'm trying to figure out how people reconcile "treat other with respect and civility" and "block anyone who uses curse words too often". 05:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you failed to accurately represent the position of your opponent. Which is, of course, a violation of WP:CIVIL.........
Do not ignore the positions an of your fellow editors. Present coherent arguments.
If context matters, then sure, feel free to assume this wasn't the product of mental retardation, but a deliberate choice to ignore WP:CIVIL so it can be further undermined, by someone who was just days ago, reminded to treat his fellow editors with respect (translation: follow WP:CIVIL). That is your context, and he makes no effort to hide it, except perhaps by burying it in a disproportionate multitude of posts in what is theoretically a collaborative project.

So clean house, Wikipedia Administrators, or others will do it for you, people not so bothered about the way they do it, the ends well and truly justifying the means. This guy has a target on his back, because he is a legitimate target. We critics aren't in the business of targeting the innocent or the misguided, we're critics because all too often that's what Wikipedia Administrators seem to do, instead of dealing with the people who are the real problem.