Page 1 of 1


Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:36 pm
by CrowsNest
The next person being submitted for Adminship..... ... andnumbers

In contrast got their glowing nomination, which of course speaks of oodles of clue and good character, it didn't take me more than five minutes to find this......
User Jytdog Misconduct.
I wish to report misconduct by user Jytdog in the Articles for deletion:Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine ([239]).

Jytdog nominated this page for deletion upon his request for speedy deletion being removed by another editor who disagreed with this action (expressed on user's Talk Page). The ensuing deletion discussion page generated counter-arguments and a lengthy back-and-forth. Jytdog subsequently hid all counter-arguments using the allegation of WP:OFFTOPIC. This change results in only pro-deletion arguments being visible. Attempts to revert these edits resulted in allegations of edit warring ([240]). Jytdog has not shown intention to compromise on this matter on his Talk Page after I reached out directly.

I am requesting administrator intervention to address this misconduct to ensure the community can see all arguments related to this case.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Wikiuser5991, could you outline for us your reason(s) for becoming a Wikipedia editor? You've been here all of two days, and have – as far as I can see – made no edit that does not relate to the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Are you here to build an encyclopaedia, or just to promote that institution? If the former, why not visit the Teahouse and ask for suggestions as to what you might do to start being useful? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It should be immediately obvious to anyone that Wikipedia really doesn't need any more administrators whose first thought is to respond to a complaint in this fashion.

He is superficially polite, sure, but there is nothing actually respectful about his comment at all. The Wikipedians long ago forgot this is the case, but there is actually nothing in policy that says turning up to only edit one article is a problem, you do actually have to go the next step and prove it is a problem. Even then, it isn't ever helpful to focus on their singularity of focus, rather than the evidence of however this is manifesting as bad edits or behaviour.

Even though it is sadly common cultural practice, demonstrating your loyalty to the cult by editing a wide range of topics before you can even be given the basic respect that is theoretically due to all editors, is a sick, toxic, mindset, totally counter to the actual stated policies and the aimed for culture. All it serves to do is actually reinforce the idea Wikipedia is a cult, that the actual rules don't matter one bit.

What's more significant for the specific matter of assessing fitness to be an Administrator, is that he makes absolutely no effort to address the user's complaint. It could be complete garbage, although we know from Jytdog's history of pushing boundaries, there also could be something to it. And yet he ignored it completely.

On this one example alone, this is not someone whose suitability for Adminship is as evident as the voters in his RfA are making out. But they are desperate for warm bodies, and their ideas of good practice long ago diverted from actual policy, so he's going to breeze in. A true HTD candidate. Another cancerous cell, and a white blood cell at that.


Re: Justkettersandnumbers

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:00 am
by CrowsNest
They've admitted misusing rollback multiple times, as recently as last month. He's also said Administrators are not moderators. More evidence he is not fit for the role.

The Wikipedians are, of course, unmoved, he's totally the change they can believe in. What it must be like to have such low expectations.

Still, if it was a choice between him and his past nemesis Montanabw, there's really no contest. You know you're not fit to be an admin when you turn up at your former nemesis' RfA to register a neutral. What a cowardly move. If you want to oppose, have the guts to oppose (and have everyone see you for what you are). Or better yet, show you can let bygones be bygones and support. If neither, then have some class and don't try and make it about you at all.

A huge total of 128 Wikipedians thought Montanabw was Admin material. People like Iridescent, Laser Brain, Ealdgyth, Casliber, Cullen, Eric Corbett, John, Floquenbeam and Drmies, basically all the people who have historically shown little to no regard for the fact Administrators have to follow WP:ADMIN.

Disturbingly, she was also the pick of all the prominent women editors currently famous for their efforts in gender areas. So that shows where their priorities lie (content rather than culture - c.f. my recent thread "pipe down wimmin (2018)" ).

That's the real problem with RfA. They let people who hold WP:ADMIN in contempt and/or have other agendas vote. Kupdung doesn't want to solve that problem. He wouldn't even know how to.

Re: Justkettersandnumbers

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:23 pm
by CrowsNest
Eric Corbett claims on Wikipediocracy that this is only a landslide because.....
those who would in the past have opposed such an arse-licking candidate have left the project in disgust.
Oh really? Who might that be then? Because I can see Begoon, Carrite, Casliber, Ealdgyth, Ritchie333 and SchroCat in the support column. And as said, Montanabw apparently hasn't got the guts to oppose. People like Iridescent and Laser Brain are active, but evidently not willing to make their views known. Even Pedro is still moderately active, enough to oppose Sanddoctor recently. Those are all people who have in the past enthusiastically joined Eric on his sad little anti-Admin crusade.

So what's the deal, you little ferret fucker? Are they SELL OUTS? And who has really retired who could have swelled those ranks? Cassianto, Pesky Commoner and Sagacious Phil are the only names that come to mind who belong in that group. I am pretty sure I'm not forgetting a hundred or so names, probably not even ten.

This fucking mug. You wouldn't believe he has only been retired from Wikipedia for a few months. His idea of the size and importance of TEH RESISTANCE has always been massively over-inflated, like his own ego. His recollection of Wikipedia history has always veered to the mythological.

I'll tell you how Wikipedia has changed. Take a look at Eric's last attempt to become an Administrator... ... Fatuarum_2

I've not run the numbers, but on a quick scan, more people from the oppose column have retired, than the support column.

The reality is, and arguably always has been, his former comrades in arms are happy to support any candidate who is able to meet the basic standards expected of an editor, and is prepared to do the admin work they can't be bothered to do, or are too thick/angry to do. They've never had higher expectations than that. They arguably have lower standards than that, being willing to support a scumbag like Eric for Adminship.

They're not opposing this candidate for one obvious reason - despite JLAN being a model editor themselves (by the community's own meagre standards, not that of objective policy), there's no sign from their history that they pose any threat to the idea that people like Eric, the highly problematic but otherwise loved editors, need to be dealt with. They will probably treat people like Eric the way Ritchie does. Or rather, did.

The community may live to regret it, since if you really were the sort of person who thought people like Eric and Montanabw need to be dealt with, then you'd be smart and realise there's no point even trying until you are an admin. This fits their history of having taken a year off to reflect on how Wikipedia really works.

Re: Justkettersandnumbers

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:20 am
by CrowsNest
This is a very bizarre statement....
The policies to which we should attach the most importance are those with legal considerations. Non-discrimination, no libel, privacy, child protection, no legal threats – these define not the detail and mechanics of the encyclopaedia, but the social fabric of the environment in which it is created.
While there is of course a social component to some of those policies, it is hard to see how they add up to something that defines the social fabric of Wikipedia. That is largely left to policies which are not marked as having legal considerations and are left entirely to the Wikipedians to define and enforce (which perhaps explains why they are ignored so much). Which reminds me, why is WP:HARASS not considered a policy with legal considerations? If the Wikipedians suddenly decided tomorrow that they officially don't have a problem with, for example, what Malik Shabbaz did to Sandstein, rather than just tolerating it unofficially, would WMF Legal not be more than a little concerned? I suppose we could take the view it is, by virtue of the Terms of Use being so classified, but then why no Global Ban for Malik?