Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:47 am

NotJimbo yet again demonstrating quite spectacularly why he would make a terrible Jimbo......
Tryptofish, you have analyzed the situation quite persuasively, which includes the expectation that a bit of venting will take place in the wake of a sanction. Minor venting in this case. I recommend that this block be lifted because Ritchie has made enormous contributions to this encylopedia and is indisputably a net positive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
That minor venting consisted of, in the space of 60 hours, committing not one but two violations of an ArbCom placed interaction ban, the first an obvious attempt to force relitigation by eliciting community sympathy, in the process revictimising the person he had been banned from mentioning in any way, and the second a transparent attempt to get others to look at her contributions and get her into trouble, while cynically claiming he couldn't see how people doing that exact behaviour could be considered not OK.

The best part? All of that was being done not by a mere editor, much less a novice, but an extremely experienced Administrator - Ritchie333.

So, now we know what sort of egregious violations, and on what time scale, this guy considers "minor venting". You watch, I guarantee he will not adhere to this same generous standard for other supposedly less valuable editors.

He doesn't even bother to make clear which sanction the guy was supposedly venting about, the original iban, or the ridiculously short block for the second violation. Note that it matters, because the behaviour was seamless, at no point did Ritchie give the impression he was in control of his actions, let alone thinking clearly.

A block was warranted here, an indefinite one, not only because Ritchie is doing everything Administrators like this guy say blocked users should not do. He is not admitting his guilt, neither is he availing himself of the permitted appeals process. He is acting like a total selfish prick, an absolute drama queen, so as well as protecting others from him, a block would likely protect him from himself, since editing Wikipedia is clearly messing with his mental health.

It doesn't look like that is a concern of Cullen at all, he just wants the guy back at the coal face, and to send a message to the real victim that she doesn't matter, and of course send a giant fuck you to ArbCom, who voted unanimously for this interaction ban.

This endorsement of Tryptofish's analysis is typical of Cullen. Tryp wrote this bunch of nonsense......
Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this
Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this awful situation, I feel entitled to start a new section about it.

When I told Ritchie, above, that yes I think that a lot of people at Wikipedia have gone insane, I had no idea that I would see this much evidence of it the next day. And before anyone goes further over the top, no I am not literally calling Huon insane. But I am very much expressing concern that things have gotten wildly out of hand.

Before I go any farther, I want to tell Ritchie that what EEng said above is spot-on. Please don't let this get to you.

Now, that said, @Huon: I would like to try to clarify what I believe is going on here, and why I believe that Ritchie should not be considered to have violated the IBAN, and that you should please reconsider this block. I left a friendly message to Ritchie that everyone can see at the top of this talk page. Ritchie replied to me in the edit that Huon considers to be an IBAN violation. Here is what I think. It's very clear that Ritchie was replying to me (and I was quite glad to find that he had looked here and replied to me) in a way that is very clearly expressing his frustration. And he has plenty of good reasons to be frustrated over what has happened at ArbCom. He is telling me why he is upset. So he says "Has anybody asked Tjla12 (talk · contribs) how they felt about their new biography of a woman being template bombed and deleted? And I can’t believe people suggested SN reviewing the performance of an admin tool is “retaliation” and needs to be stamped on", and that's the part you object to. Now, I can see your point of view that the reference to template bombing and deletion was a reference to things done by the other editor in the IBAN. But please look at that in the context of the entire sentence. Ritchie is clearly doing two things: expressing sympathy for the editor he actually names, and expressing his unhappiness that his concern for another editor appears to have counted for little. The focus of the sentence is not on criticism of the IBANed person, but rather on Ritchie's point of view about the criticism that was leveled at him. To construe it as, instead, a dig at the IBANed person is really a stretch. And the second sentence, similarly, is about something that Ritchie himself had done, and why he feels it was unfair to have found fault with his doing it.

I then replied to Ritchie, and it never even crossed my mind that he was crossing any lines. I am aghast that I could have played a role in him saying something that would get him in trouble. I think that there is a general consensus among admins that sanctioned editors can let off a little steam, so long as they don't actually cause harm in the process. And in one fish's opinion, the very first thing that every admin should ask themselves before taking action is what is the best way to deescalate the situation, and certainly not to escalate it further if that can be avoided. The overall situation is very fraught, with an abundance of criticism of the entire process that happened at ArbCom, all the more so in the context of the recent Fram controversy. This block rubbed salt on the wound. And I do not see anything Ritchie said as being harmful, because he really wasn't reopening the conflict with the other editor. This was a bad block, and you should lift it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
......which is essentially a whole load of words to simply try and claim that there was no violation, while at the same time claiming the violation should not have received a block. Classic wikilawyering.

There was a violation, because interaction bans do not care about intent. About the best you can hope for is to plead an accidental breach, but neither of these two seems to have noticed Ritchie isn't saying he breached it accidentally, and it would be quite a surprise if this experienced Administrator did not know how interaction bans are meant to work, would it not?

A block was required because this was the second breach in as many days, Ritchie having ignored the warning that followed his first breach. It is odd to see Cullen agreeing with the idea that such a sequence of events doesn't merit a block, especially when it is an Administrator. Again, you can guarantee other less valued editors are not given such leeway by this guy. And that nonsense about rubbing salt into the wound? Since when was that ever a consideration in Wikipedia blocking?

It is telling that Cullen sees absolutely nothing wrong with sentences like this......
I do not see anything Ritchie said as being harmful, because he really wasn't reopening the conflict with the other editor.
.....the implicit assumption being that it is down to the perpetrator or his friends to decide whether or not a user is harming someone by breaching an interaction ban, not the proper authorities who placed it, much less the person it was placed to protect. The victim didn't want anything more to do with Ritchie, nothing. ArbCom granted their wish, unanimously. As Ritchie himself admitted after breaking it twice, he is under a gag order, all signed and official. So unless stated otherwise by her, it can be safely assumed that the sight of her attacker being allowed to continue mentioning her, with the complete endorsement of the Administration, would cause harm.

The truth of the matter is this. Cullen rejects the ban, and doesn't give a damn for why it was placed, what it is meant to stop and prevent. He just doesn't have the ability to remove it, or rather he doesn't want to unblock Ritchie and face the consequences, which would be swift and harsh. So he does this.

This is what the scummy Wikipedians call one of their very best Administrators. So, how and why the whole place is a toxic shithole, where nobody feels safe around the establishment figures, the old white dudes with power like Ritchie and Cullen, is hardly a mystery.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:55 am

Fuck me.......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 357#p11357

No surprise to see "one of their best" seeing no issues with posting as an "Uninvolved Administrator" to stop his Facebook friend getting blocked, in the process also having the brass neck to claim someone who you can guarantee has only ever interacted with the user on Wikipedia as an Administrator, was somehow involved. Didn't cite the relevant policy at any time. Understandably.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:01 am

So tedious. You could literally get a script to auto-generate these posts, they are so goddamned predictable......
Anyone who has tried to understand and get to know Eric as a person knows that he has a touchy or prickly personality, but also that Eric is a great Wikipedia editor when nobody is trying to pick a fight. And very smart. I will never forget the help he gave me on my first Good Article, an article that I really cared about. He has provided similar assistance on many, many other articles, when other editors were happy to work with him. In my opinion, any administrator who comments on his talk page (or the talk page of any recently blocked editor) should have a clearly articulated and valid reason to communicate. Poking at a person who has gone through such a tough experience is a very bad idea. Administrators should always try to keep caution and compassion in mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
These wannabe psychiatrists never seem to appreciate, if Eric was universally hostile to everyone, he would have been banned years ago. He is precisely the problem he is, because he knows that on Wikipedia, you don't have to be nice to everyone to avoid being banned, you just have to be nice to the people the community wrongly believe are their best Administrators.

This guy is not a good Administrator by any stretch of true imagination, even if we were to pretend he is commenting here as an uninvolved party, which we can now see he is not. If he was, he would know how easy it is to find examples of Eric being an asshole to people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it. Literally nothing. Just made a good faith edit that complies with policy, that he disagreed with. Something only the most obvious apologist would characterize as picking a fight. A literal example of 'he touched my stuff' as the only excuse proferred. In a place where, by law, Eric legally has no possessions.

Why? Because he considers it his stuff, and he is an asshole to anyone who he thinks deserves it, for exsmple, by touching his stuff without permission. And that is what happens when you indulge a person with continued excuses about how they are supposedly not responsible for their own actions, how it is supposedly always the other person's fault for triggering the monster inside him.

Wikipedia has literally thousands of good editors who have never been blocked, so clearly this idea being an easily triggered asshole is somehow an unavoidable much less accepted character trait of the species, even among hallowed ranks of the Featured Article writer, is faulty. Eric is the outlier. Eric is the complete psychopath on the ward where lesser conditions are there norm.

Where is the compassion for them? The vast majority of editors who can play by the rules, or at very least not be so much of an asshole they get blocked on Wikipedia, a place with an extraordinarily high bar to clear before someone will actually say, yep, that guy is being a douche. A place where being prickly is almost considered mandatory.

Eric doesn't follow the rules at all times, not because he can't, but because he doesn't have to. Administrators like Cullen are the reason why.

The term enablers was coined for a reason, because that is exactly what this is.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:34 pm

:roll:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 16#p247716

Didn't come as a surprise to me, but I guess that's the difference between our two forums.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Sucks Fanatic
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:58 pm

The only thing you can do is god op je blote knieen danken mendaliv isn't your lawyer. What a fool!

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:36 pm

Covering himself in glory again.....
Toa Nidhiki05, Eric Corbett told you quite clearly to stay off his talk page. Why did you return there? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
What you should have done is stay away Eric's talk page entirely, like he told you to do. Despite the comment above, the conversation had nothing to do with you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Conversations on Eric's talk page are of course treated as if they are private.

A scumbag like Cassianto saying shit like this......
This places ceased being an encyclopaedia a long time ago. Now, it's just a place where a bunch of silly snowflakes hang out and virtue signal to the other libtards around here.
......is nobody's business, according to this Wikipedia Administrator.

Fuck him.

It's thanks to him and his hypocritical approach to Administration that we know exactly who the editors that Cassianto is trying to insult and provoke here, actually are, because they get away with beefing with them openly, for years. Every single interaction he has in these wars is incivil, literally every one.

So naturally, one is going to see it, and react. When the tables are turned, this is of course known as baiting, and Cullen is of course only too happy to issue threats and blocks, for and on behalf of Cassianto (the only interpretation of his none of your business bullshit is that his Administrative acts are for the benefit of direct participants only).

Come on Timmy, defend your friend and his "serious" approach to Administration.

I fucking dare you.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:54 pm

Classic bully boy Admin.....
"Libtards?" Well that was obviously directed as someone, so Toa had a right to call that comment out for what it was, even if not mentioned by name.--JOJ Hutton 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am a liberal, so maybe the insulting term was directed at me. The general principle, Jojhutton, is that if an editor has been asked to stay off another editor's talk page, they should stay off unless posting required notices. This applies to blocked editor's talk pages, as should be obvious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Good for you, do you want a cookie? I actually agree with Cassianto's statement, at least in part. There is a general liberal bent on this project. However, I will support Toas's right to respond to statments that may seem offensive to him. And since what Toa said had nothing to with Eric Corbett or anything that indefinetly blocked user had said or did, there isn't anything wrong with what Toa said or did, even if asked not to comment at that page in the past.--JOJ Hutton 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could not possibly disagree more with your assessment regarding an editor commenting on another editor's talk page after being told to stay away, but since you seem firm in your opinion, I will refrain from trying to convince you, Jojhutton. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
When confronted with an experienced editor who clearly isn't going to take any shit just because it's Jim 'one of their best' Heaphy trying to shovel, you tuck your tail right in.

Post Reply