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.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)
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....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 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.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?li ... tart=&end=
......is 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....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 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.....
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.Don't let the incivility of others make you incivil
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) .....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/search. ... 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.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =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.