View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:39 am




Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Beeblebrox 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
Does any other Administrator know less but talk more about how Wikipedia works than this guy?

From a recent visit of his to Wikipediocracy......
Quote:
The simplest way to avoid a block is to quietly return to editing without acting like an asshole.
The simplest way to avoid a block is to be an asshole that nobody can block.
Quote:
I did not start off by going for the throat. I presented what I had and let Kosh make a fool of himself, as I knew he would.
And he will be delighted to know that, I'm sure. In a different world, a parallel universe where Wikipedians aren't objects of hate, Administrators wouldn't even be able to comprehend being in such a mindset, let alone let it govern ow they approach another user.
Quote:
Most admin work is quite boring. If you get into it for the thrills, you’re going to suck at it.
The guy you were talking to was complaining about Bbb23, and if you paid attention and actually listened to critics, he does actually suck at his job. We can't all be making this shit up, can we? Every person I've heard talk about what Bbb23 does, tells a similar tale.
Quote:
Some people are just better in this role than they are at writing articles. We need both to keep this thing running.
Wikipedia has a quality rating system for articles. It shows just how few Wikipedians are good at writing excellent articles, even under their own standards. Received wisdom is that Administrators are even worse, as a group, at achieving excellence. Sadly there is no way of reviewing their performance, you just have to bite your lip and then do what you did to Kosh. Just like in any other smooth running organisation.


Wed May 23, 2018 12:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
Oh, I think it's pretty clear he knows he's talking nonsense.


Wed May 23, 2018 1:16 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
For the benefit of anyone looking to identify Beebs, he might have let this person know his real email address or even name, as a result of the communication described in the linked forum post....

https://mobile.twitter.com/VanessaP_NH1

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 5713#p5713

As should be obvious, she might already be minded to give him up, but if not, she might be persuaded when she is availed of all the pertinent details.


Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:55 am
Posts: 34
Reply with quote
He clearly seems to be one of those "neutral administrators" who'd rather find an easy "solution" to the problem rather go against the real trouble makers, because that poses more of a time consuming challenge, but it still easily doable. See this AN thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... r:NadirAli

He like the vast majority of administrators lacks judgement and seems to want to subjugate policy to his own weak interpretation rather than take it at face value.

I have a feeling i'm not the last or even anywhere being close to the last victim of his recklessness actions. He is clearly not fit to be an administrator and will only further drive away people from the project, leaving it to the trolls who WP:GAME the system and ban their opponents and turn Wikipedia into their propaganda machine.


Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:55 am
Posts: 34
Reply with quote
I commented on this guy in an earlier post. For some reason it didn't get through.


Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
Just noting this here in case Beeblebrox ever chooses to forget it ever happened.....
Wikipedia wrote:
Well, this proposal is complaining about people offering to mediate disputes, so calling a spade, a spade is just appropriate. The proposal's reason is, 'we don't like the way you mediate.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Every word of what you wrote is wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Every word is not only right, it's evident. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy wrote:
Anroth wrote:
ASW understands what you are saying. He is being willfully ignorant and would rather argue a different point to obfuscate that he cant actually argue against yours. Its his MO as anyone who has had to deal with him soon learns. Best way is short unambiguous sentences with only one point.
Beeblebrox wrote:
Yep. that’s clearly what he’s doing, if you look further up the same thread you can see a similar exchange with me, wherein he tries repeatedly to say that the whole proposal is about “not liking how some people mediate” when it is very clearly about medcom not doing anything at all. No matter how clear you are he just doubles down with his glaringly incorrect statements. It’s filibustering and nothing more, hopefully when the thread is closed it will be rightfully ignored
Boing! said Zebedee wrote:
Yes, I re-read it last night, and I saw that “not liking how some people mediate” thing when you made it very clear that was not the case. His tactics do seem pretty clear, and I'm sure they'll be clear to whoever judges the consensus too (well, I hope).
Alan is a lot of things, many of them bot nice, but on this occasion, he has these shitbags bang to rights. These were quite clearly comments meant to signal a dislike of how one person sees their role on Wikipedia (therefore a proposal to deny them that role isn't anything but personal).......
Quote:
For the last few years its chairperson has been doing pretty much all the work, which consists almost entirely of rejecting cases as premature. While other, nearly inactive users have indicated their willingness to return to help if a case were to be accepted, it is essentially a one-man project and has been for some time.

It is worth noting that the chairperson’s term expired some eight months ago but there apparently been no inclination whatsoever to either re-elect or replace them. In fact, it looks like the chair is the only member who has commented on the project’s main talk page in the last three years.

...it seems undesirable to have a process where, in the rare case that it actually takes on a case that case is decided either by the same person every time or by users who are mostly inactive on Wikipedia.
If you have to say, repeatedly, how you mean no disrespect, the it's pretty fucking obvious you know you are writing something disrespectful.


Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
Quote:
I’d also add that wall-of-text unblock requests pretty much never succeeed. If you need 11 paragraphs to explain why you should be unblocked, you probably shouldn’t be unblocked. There may be exceptions but generally these type of requests are wikilawerying at its worst.
Challenge, accepted.

--------

Paragraph 1 - setting the scene. Explain who/what/where/when. You need to do this because most Administrators are lazy fucks, and will automatically decline any request that does not include this basic background information.

Paragraph 2 - explain the policy violations. You need to do this, because obviously nobody gets unblocked without explaining what policy was violated in blocking you.

Paragraphs 3 to 5 - counter-narrative. Explain how and why your main critic's central arguments that you deserve to be blocked are incorrect. You will need to do this, with detailed reasoning, because the only time anyone even has a chance of appealing a block long enough to be worthy of appealing, is if there was some back and forth dispute. If the Administrator answering the appeal doesn't see this, he doesn't unblock. And if he doesn't ask for it, he isn't doing his job.

Paragraph 6 - contrition. Say the necessary words that account for whatever it is you did wrong to earn your block, because it is unlikely you would need to even appeal an obviously incorrect block where you did nothing wrong at all, either because it was a mistake or an abusive block.

Paragraph 7 - learning opportunity. Explain how you have learned from these mistakes and will not repeat them. Give concrete examples as to why you can be trusted to have learnt your much needed lessons. You will not be unblocked, if this content is missing.

Paragraph 8 - recommitment. Restate your commitment to Wikipedia, if, as is your sincere hope, the benign and merciful Administrator deems you worthy a second chance. Nobody gets unblocked if they do not say the magic words. Every unblock is considered by the cult to be a second chance, unless it was literally a mistake or an abusive block.

Paragraph 9 - negotiation. Lay out some possible terms under which you might be unblocked. You need to do this since the mere fact you were blocked will be used by the reviewing Administrator as evidence you cannot be trusted, and even though you had to include Paragraph 7, they will need to see you playing a good faith part in ensuring your rehabilitation. Also because they're lazy fucks, and taking the lead in any negotiation is not what they signed up for, even though they literally did by answering the request.

Paragraph 10 - apologies in advance. Apologise for any mistakes you will have made in how you have framed your unblock request. You need to do this, because in the Wikipedia cult, it is of course assumed that if you are dumb enough to get blocked, it isn't possible you could write a perfect unlock request. If they can't find a fault, they will invent one.

Paragraph 11 - farewells. Say goodbye to anyone you need to, express your gratitude at what a great time you had on Wikipedia, this unfortunate incident aside. You need to do this to show you are not a bad person, if only to leave the door open for a successful STANDARDOFFER. And you need to do it as part of your request because you may not get the chance afterward, since talk page protection is usually what swiftly follows a declined appeal.

--------

There, Beeblebrox. That's why Wikipedia block appeals can quite easily be 11 paragraphs long. Anything shorter, if it doesn't lead to a decline, simply means the remaining paragraphs get written outside of the little blue box, but they are required for the victim of a genuinely appealable block, to have any hope of success.

The only conceivable way it is ever shorter and is a success, is if corruption is involved, specifically friends unblocking friends, or back-channel negotiations were involved, or a power play (i.e. the poor user is being used by Administrators in a bigger game of which faction has control offer whatever issue of current dispute).

So in conclusion, fuck you.

And fuck you Jake for providing a safe space for people like this to continue to victimize the victims and patronize the knowledgeable.

Wikipedia is not rocket science, not the theory or the practice, it just takes time to see the wood for the trees. That is why they set such store in keeping those who know how it works but don't want to play the game, out.


Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:55 am
Posts: 34
Reply with quote
Quote:
There, Beeblebrox. That's why Wikipedia block appeals can quite easily be 11 paragraphs long. Anything shorter, if it doesn't lead to a decline, simply means the remaining paragraphs get written outside of the little blue box, but they are required for the victim of a genuinely appealable block, to have any hope of success.

The only conceivable way it is ever shorter and is a success, is if corruption is involved, specifically friends unblocking friends, or back-channel negotiations were involved, or a power play (i.e. the poor user is being used by Administrators in a bigger game of which faction has control offer whatever issue of current dispute).

So in conclusion, fuck you.

And fuck you Jake for providing a safe space for people like this to continue to victimize the victims and patronize the knowledgeable.

Wikipedia is not rocket science, not the theory or the practice, it just takes time to see the wood for the trees. That is why they set such store in keeping those who know how it works but don't want to play the game, out.


Thank you for writing out my comments for me. You saved me a lot of time. Well done.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
This guy really does talk a lot of bollocks.
Quote:
As soon as the target of the phone call put in their statement a ban was pretty much guaranteed, despite what all the well wishers on Mr. Dog's talk page are saying. He knew it, the committee knew it, and so would anyone paying attention here, so walking away was the smart move on his part, but it would not be the smart move on arbcom's part to just suspend the case forever. A full case isn't needed as the facts are not really in dispute and the evidence has already been presented. A simple motion for a siteban seems like the right answer to me.
Who seriously believes a ban from Wikipedia turns on the completely unverifiable claim of what one person said to another on a phone call?

Fucking moron.

Are you all watching, Wikipedians? This guy is your boss. He holds your ability to edit in his hands. Are you mad? Stop. Now.


Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3643
Reply with quote
Abuse of revision deletion, either to protect an asshole from himself, or as a cowardly alternative blocking an asshole who has more powerful friends than the Beeber.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7600#p7600

Either way, crap Administrator is crap.


Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:11 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.