Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:26 pm

Graaf Statler wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
sashi wrote:"Yes", said the green geek.
Formula E dude. And before that, Audi @ Le Mans.

Did you? Me Mini Cooper S and later Rover on the Tulpenrally. Still working on a VW Corrado 93 and an Scirocco 16V 87. Next spring I hope to start again because now I have to much blood thinners. I need to change the gear, but one little scratch and it doesn't stop bleeding. But only local stuff.
Old man stuff. A beer, fun, talking about our cars. And slow....
I wish! No, just using them as an example for Sashi. My career as a racing technician was confined to much smaller vehicles. Although it was pretty cutting edge, and funnily enough, also very much geared to furthering the green agenda.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:01 pm

Must be difficult stuff. If I see how complex only a stupide battery toy train is the real stuff must be extreem complex.
But Eric and I are are stuck in the analoge stone age with our vacuum tubes and other nonsens. Although the new electric Mini is attractive.

Hope they are not as poor quality as the old Mini Cooper with it's gear box as a carter, double SU carburettors with needles and vacuum pisons and........electric fuel pumps from Lucas, the prins of the darkness. Those things had some mechanical contact breaker, so you had to beat them first with a hammer often before you could start.

Yes, English cars of British Strike Land, BMC, they had a reputation in that time. The Trump Stag, from stagnation for instance. It where great cars! If they drove.
I had built in my Trump Spitfire a Fiat 125 engine with the gear....

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:27 am

Anyone here remotely able to get their head around being so addicted to Wikipedia that you schedule your RfA for your Christmas holidays because that is when you will have the necessary time off work to properly answer all the questions?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7726#p7726

Madness.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:21 am

I want to know why Jess Wade thinks it is important that we know she edits Wikipedia constantly. Are we supposed to be happy for her? Impressed at her achievement?

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 2646098946

Just another example of how she is no role model for children.

I am singularly unimpressed. I am definitely not inspired.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 6810#p6810

Just say no kids.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:06 am

Think of all the scenarios you might imagine someone ever saying this......
The New Year will really feel new now
Did you include the scenario of an indefinitely blocked Wikipedia editor being given a second chance?

As good as this addict feels, as positive as he is about the year ahead now that he can jack in again courtesy of a unilateral unblock by that other not really all there editor Boing!, when he is rejected again, the despair might just kill him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =875987311

He was blocked all the way back in July. Rather cruelly, the Wikipedians let him continue to feed his addiction by letting him edit his talk page for months, for reasons other than appealing the block. Even more cruelly, one of their very worst dungeon masters, Floquenbeam, was quite explicit about what this was all about.
You simply cannot criticize other editors, in any way, while you're blocked. Not even if they criticize one of your articles. Not even if you're criticizing what you consider unfair criticism. Not even if they don't care. That's pushing IAR too far. If it feels unfairly one-sided - that we'll accept content-related comments from you, but not criticism - that's 100% true. Being indefinitely blocked is inherently one-sided. Being blocked does not mean you're confined to sniping from the sidelines, it means you're confined to not sniping at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Fucked up, right? But you have to see it from their perspective. They were trying to keep him hooked, without letting him OD, until such time as he could be properly let back in the crack den. And it worked. We can't know what he said to get himself unblocked, since in classic Wikipedia fashion, it has all been done behind closed doors. But if I said he had offered to suck dick, you wouldn't totally not believe me, right?

His new supplier, Boing!, has gone to some lengths to try and portray themselves as someone doing them a kindness, at great personal risk. He done a number on them alright. In September they were quoting the wisdom of Eric Corbett and Lord of the Flies. Now they're just another cock-sucker.

Sick sick sick sick sick.

Did you ever see a sadder sight than a Wikipedia editor revealing, quite subconsciously I am sure, that they see Wikipedia as their world......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =875987643

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:09 pm

Dweller wrote:I'm afraid I suspect my activity levels will remain low for a little while, which is bad news for Wikipedia, good news for my bank balance and probably the result of very bad news for my stress levels.
Not really sure what this means. Has he just got the stressful news that he has no money left because he spends all his days on Wikipedia? Wanted to post it anyway because of the way they casually assume that them not being able to edit Wikipedia, is bad news for Wikipedia. Another entry in the ledger 'things normal people should struggle to visualise themselves even saying'. Was it meant to be humorous, self-deprecating perhaps? I doubt it. Dweller has been a Wikipedian for over a decade, so I think he genuinely means it. At this point I think he basically sees the other Wikipedians as his family....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =877863378

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =877857563

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =877632213

...there are sentiments expressed in there that most normal people likely don't use very much even in real life, not even toward their nearest and dearest. This isn't just overexuberance, this is clearly real emotion being committed to the page. If this is how he is toward random strangers on the internet over issues as trivial as what happens on a website which admits quite plainly that you cannot and should not trust a single word that is written on it and everyone here could quite possibly be a dog, then what on Earth would he be like around his actual nearest and dearest? Assuming they are even still in the picture. It can be stressful having multiple competing families in your life, so the temptation to ditch the one you didn't choose, can be quite high.

Perhaps the best proof Dweller sees his Wikipedia friends as members of his family, is the way he staunchly defends The Rambling Man, whose offences against others in the community have ranged from the mindlessly petty to the downright malicious. He is another old timer, whose ability to see Wikipedia in perspective has been completely lost due to their all encompassing addiction. For him, his life is now about winning battles on that website, under the cover of believing a reader seeing even a trivial error in the Main Page, is a calamity. If he was that concerned with Wikipedia's public image, he would have reflected on his toxic personality and hostile acts years ago.

His lack of perspective aside, Dweller does seem to understand the theory of Wikipedia all right, if comments like this are anything to go by......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =877857759

....there is just something about The Rambling Man that makes him forget it all. He defends him like you would defend a drunken uncle. TRM has yet to do the Wikipedia equivalent of pissing on his niece's wedding dress, but he comes close often enough that, if this were real life, he would have been ostracized already. Their lack of perspective of course makes them think that the trifling consequences of TRM's conduct already amount to an ostracism. Dweller speaks of it as if he really has been subject to the most terrible of punishments. In reality, he is under a 'do not piss on people' Order, and even that is not being enforced.

To any outsider, who appreciates the incredible liberty TRM still has to be all the drunken uncle he can be, Dweller's statements are ridiculous. Hence why they get little support, not even from Dweller's friends. TRM metaphorically wandered off into the woods recently, quite conceivably to put a bullet in his brain, and virtually nobody cared. Partly because of who he is, and party because they knew it was a bluff, a pathetic cry for attention, which it proved to be. Dweller looks past all of that, or maybe cannot even see it. Sad really.

It is hard to imagine someone like this being able to hold down gainful employment. And that could either be because they would happily neglect their duties in favour of Wikipedia, or their real work would suffer as the personality defects that are being amplified by Wikipedia, namely this complete lack of perspective or emotional balance, begins to affect his real world performance. We've all worked with people like this, and they can be a real pain in the ass.

It would be such a relief to think the terrible effect Wikipedia has on the addicts it creates, does not and can not spill over into real life. We have no such relief.

HTD.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:36 pm

Look at this specimen......
WormThatTurned@Wikipediocracy wrote:Seems the fact that I don't work weekends has caused some consternation amongst some members here. Well, tough. I do my best to switch off from Wikipedia during the weekend - to spend it with my family. The fact that I didn't do so during my last term is a large reason I came close to burn out.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT YOUR "WORK". :roll:

Fucking hell. This reminds me of people who say they're getting "paid" on Thursday, when what they mean is that is the day their benefits land in their bank account. It's the product of his warped sense of reality, resulting from his addiction. It is becoming a common theme. Can anyone here imagine themselves describing their Wikipedia activity as "work"? It's not normal. It would jar the ears of a normal person, people who would never describe their hobby as work. Even "I'm off to the den to some work" doesn't even sound right if what you're doing is not personal paperwork (bills, taxes), but fucking around on Wikipedia, even if that fucking around feels more of an obligation than a choice. It is an obligation that resulted from their choice to take on the role.

Being a Wikipedia Arbitrator is not remotely something any well adjusted person can become "burned out" from. If you can't handle the burden it places on your time, then don't fucking stand for the role. There is no mystery to how much time it takes, it is a theme in every election, plenty of people relate with real figures, what the role entails. Unless you are an idiot, you know fine well it is not something you can put aside for the weekend. Not without causing undue stress and worry for people whose participation in Arbitration matters is entirely unwanted.

This fucker got elected back onto the Committee in 2017, when it famously was a case of only being eight viable candidates for eight seats. But let's fantasize for a moment that it was a year when people had a genuine choice. Does his candidate statement.......
Surprise! I'm sure no one expected to see my name here, I've been away for most of the year and have had some pretty low opinions of serving on Arbcom in the past. Well, times change and they've certainly changed me. As to my absence, I've been working hard - I was offered a contract position which has now come to an end. My free time, I spent with my family, and Wikipedia got left by the wayside. The year prior to that, I did my utmost to stay away from the "negative" areas of Wikipedia, focusing instead on writing content and I'm still chuffed with how that year went *cough*Sabrina Sidney*cough*. Today, I can firmly say, I believe in the project again.
So why return to Arbcom? It's changed for the better and I hope to help it change further. During my last stint, I did my utmost to ensure that the committee was responsive and reasonable sounding where possible, two things I hope to bring to the committee again. The parts I hated most strongly have been moved elsewhere.
......give any indication he planned not to do any committee related work on a weekend? No, it does not. Quite the reverse, it suggests he is going to be working hard to ensure the Committee is "responsive". Just not at weekends though, eh?

Lucky old family though. Get to see Dave at the weekends. Me, I like to spend time with my family whenever they happen to be around. Never in my life have I decided to do anything related to Wikipedia, if it meant neglecting family time. That is the mark of an addict.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:22 am

These people really need help.
I too might be interested in an "I edit Wikipedia" shirt. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd proudly wear a "Defender of the Wiki" t-shirt to work, maybe it would start a conversation and spark interest in more people becoming contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see a T-shirt that says "I edit Wikipedia - you can too!" -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think its going to go viral. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Worst of all, the comment that kicked it all off....
Hee Jimbo, so in this amazingly good mood I was, I openend the Wikipedia Store, but there wasn't a fancy "I edit Wikipedia" T-shirt in kids size.. Now I can't wear one of those fancy t-shirts to school. '‑( Are there any plans for kid sized "I edit Wikipedia" shirts?
.....and when they said school, they meant it in the British English sense.......
Thanks for all the replies, the shirt is actually for my self, let's just say for someone under the age of 16
Names not included, for obvious reasons.

Do they really have no idea how mental they sound? You can't even rationalise this stuff even in the context of geek being sort of cool now.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by Dysklyver » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:44 am

Wikipedia is currently "cool" for some inexplicable reason. :?

Wikipedia branded products, memes about Wikipedia, etc. all cool.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:36 pm

Yeh, Artuhr, when I was young LSD was very cool, with as result my youth friend Hans tried to stop the train in Wolfheze, where was the clinic where he was hospitalised. He was convinced he was stronger than that train, at least that is what the witnesses on the nearby station has told. And Heroine was soooooo cool later! Well, both my friend Andre and the well know Dutch artist Herman Brood jumped from a high building because they where to ill to live at the end.

And after that was cocaine soooo cool, because it was absolute not dangers. A party drug they called it, HA! And what to think of alcohol, what has killed my dear friend the musician John? And the combination of drugs and alcohol what has killed my dear youth friend Olav?
Every, every addiction is a danger, without any exception. Because the danger is not only the physical part, but also what it change in your brain. And the last part is absolute the most dangers part. Because it makes you can't stop. Something what is much stronger than you makes you go on and on.
Crow is right, these people need help and I wish there was a expert who could tell us more about this wiki side effect..

Post Reply