This is WP not PeopleDoingorTalkingAboutWierdShitOpedia. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog thread
Re: Jytdog thread
Bet you can't say this over the phone and be understood.....
Re: Jytdog thread
This is true in most cases, but in this case, it makes absolutely no sense. Jy tdog is not a normal editor. He is arguably not human at all.Worm@Wikipediocracy wrote:I've known so many editors who just can't let go of Wikipedia, because of the injustice of their indefinite block. Give them the a little bit of control and they can move on with their lives.
I will admit I get it wrong with unblocks regularly - putting too much trust in what people say.
On helping people leave, through negotiated unblocks to allow renames, and for vanishing accounts etc, I have a much higher hit ratio.
Re: Jytdog thread
What the fuck is going on?
So many open questions, so little willingness to address any of them.
Perhaps we will just have to wait for Drmies to be elected. He is the "transparency" candidate, after all.
Why the subterfuge?The motion is enacted and will be closed by the clerks shortly. The requirement for confidentiality is quite high on this one and includes several submissions from Jytdog and others. We no longer have a means to communicate with Jytdog and he has confidentially provided us with his final statement. meta:Trust and Safety has been provided these emails and apprised of the situation. It is now in their hands if there is anything further. Mkdw talk 07:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
So many open questions, so little willingness to address any of them.
Perhaps we will just have to wait for Drmies to be elected. He is the "transparency" candidate, after all.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Jytdog thread
Yeh, vote for our Dutch protagonist! I want to create T-shirts, mugs, and even a Drmies kalander. With every day a other block of the professor and a Drmies fan
club, only to suport his election. Search for all your paswords of your old socks, and vote for him!
And make the complete fool out of yourself, bunch of corrupt fuckers! Show us your cards!
-
Dysklyver
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Jytdog thread
CrowsNest wrote:What the fuck is going on?Why the subterfuge?The motion is enacted and will be closed by the clerks shortly. The requirement for confidentiality is quite high on this one and includes several submissions from Jytdog and others. We no longer have a means to communicate with Jytdog and he has confidentially provided us with his final statement. meta:Trust and Safety has been provided these emails and apprised of the situation. It is now in their hands if there is anything further. Mkdw talk 07:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
So many open questions, so little willingness to address any of them.
Perhaps we will just have to wait for Drmies to be elected. He is the "transparency" candidate, after all.
I have been talking with a lot of Wikipedians privately about the possibility of having Jytdog event banned, and I suspect that the arbs have ended up speaking directly to the WMF Trust and Safety section (aka the sanfranban team) and are trying to get them to make a higher ruling than what Arbcom can achieve.
Re: Jytdog thread
I wouldn't have thought he goes to any events. He likes people not to know who he is.
We have no way of knowing why T+S are involved now. I'd say it was equally likely Jytdog is attempting to take ArbCom out of the equation. He is perhaps claiming he is the one who is being harassed (c.f. "dehumanized"), and is exploring his options as to how he can still do what he is so clearly addicted to doing, perhaps subject to a fair and proportionate sanction.
Let's not forget, for all the complaints, Jytdog has powerful supporters. The sort of people who tend to say very little on Wikipedia, but a hell of a lot over private channels, and indeed, events. It will possibly rest on whether one of them wants the hassle of being Jytdog's filter/controller. Because it is obvious he can't be allowed to operate all in his own.
Until proven otherwise, we have to assume the confidentiality in play here, is only for Jytdog's benefit. Guy Chapman knows the score. Just as religious people are not competent to edit, Jytdog is 'irreplaceable". He is part of their "core community".
It makes me laugh, all those people assuming they have an equal say, an equal share, in Wikipedia. They don't, not while Chapman has anything to do with it.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=926
You don't like that? Well fuck you. He's not going anywhere either. He's as "core" as they come.
You. Are. The. Replaceables.
Yes, you, dumbass.
H.T.D.
We have no way of knowing why T+S are involved now. I'd say it was equally likely Jytdog is attempting to take ArbCom out of the equation. He is perhaps claiming he is the one who is being harassed (c.f. "dehumanized"), and is exploring his options as to how he can still do what he is so clearly addicted to doing, perhaps subject to a fair and proportionate sanction.
Let's not forget, for all the complaints, Jytdog has powerful supporters. The sort of people who tend to say very little on Wikipedia, but a hell of a lot over private channels, and indeed, events. It will possibly rest on whether one of them wants the hassle of being Jytdog's filter/controller. Because it is obvious he can't be allowed to operate all in his own.
Until proven otherwise, we have to assume the confidentiality in play here, is only for Jytdog's benefit. Guy Chapman knows the score. Just as religious people are not competent to edit, Jytdog is 'irreplaceable". He is part of their "core community".
It makes me laugh, all those people assuming they have an equal say, an equal share, in Wikipedia. They don't, not while Chapman has anything to do with it.
You got that Wikipediots? You stupid fucks. You're the replaceable work units, not Jytdog. After all, what did he do anyway? Not a serious offence at all, according to Administrator Swarm....WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:Wikipedia does not need you are not always true, and I've been considering creating a WP:You are irreplaceable counter essay. You do so much for Wikipedia that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Flyer22 Reborn I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=926
You don't like that? Well fuck you. He's not going anywhere either. He's as "core" as they come.
You. Are. The. Replaceables.
Yes, you, dumbass.
H.T.D.
Re: Jytdog thread
What's not clear is, when Wikipediocracy replaced WP:AC/N?Wikipedia Arbitrator_Worm@Wikipediocract wrote:Perhaps it wasn't clear, but Jytdog has not communicated with the committee after disabling his account and email.
I mean, do you even intend to inform Wikipedia of this clarification?
Re: Jytdog thread
This makes me laugh. And feel sick.
Here's how Jytdog described what he had done.....
But given who Jytdog is, given everything he stood for, it would be crazy not to assume that unless or until Jytdog strikes these words from the record, they can and should be taken as his truth. He said it. Therefore, if you want to contradict it, you probably don't see the world the way Jytdog does, so you probably shouldn't be trying to claim kinship or affinity with him.
If you want to truly understand the Wikipedia community, you need to see for yourself just how many people reacted to this by doing one or more of the following things:
-ignored the seriousness of Jytdog's behaviour
-acknowledged but downplayed his bad behaviour
-ignored the likely outcome of that Arbitration Case (or wished it would go differently)
-remembered Jytdog for only his good works
-cast Jytdog as a victim of others
-urged him to just come back as a sock
Very few people, a literal handful, reacted to this the way a normal well balanced human being should, the sort of person you would happily entrust the building of a volunteer driven encyclopedia to, one where it theoretically matters when people have serious and persistent errors of judgement regarding their most serious policies (the prevention of Wikipedia generated harm on people's lives), and where there is theoretically a system of rules and norms to prevent it.
By all means, thank him for his positive contributions and express hope he might one day return (legitimately), but do not pretend like what he has done wasn't of the upmost seriousness, stuff which isn't really wiped out by good contributions (and there is a case to be made that this entire Wikipedia philosophy of allowing people to bank good edits so as to offset bad ones is morally bankrupt). And absolutely don't pretend like he doesn't have a case to answer, that he wasn't realistically facing a site ban, or worst of all, pretend that somehow he can just sneak back in (amazing how many people told told him to just totally violate the policy they arguably do hold most important - sock-puppetry).
It should disturb you even more, to realise how many of those people doing those things, are Administrators or higher, the so called trusted members of the community, the ones who exist to represent their principles and uphold the policies. The problem goes right to the very top, because their system of promotion doesn't select people based on things the real world considers admirable qualities. It seems to go completely over these people's heads that Jytdog never would have passed RfA, even in their screwy system where people happily give tremendous weight to the good things he did.
It was also remarkable how many people turned out to ONLY express sadness for Jytdog, showing no regard for his victims at all,.much less his impact on Wikipedia as a whole. Even Jytdog recognised he has done both individuals and the community wrong, and needed to face the consequences. His supoorters, not so much. Sick.
For all these reasons, you should not really expect the loss of Jytdog to markedly change the nature of the community. The are a really fucked up bunch of people. If anything, we might have simply seen in all this, how Jytdog was a far better person than most of them. A better way to condemn Wikipedia, I cannot think of.
Here's how Jytdog described what he had done.....
Here's how Jytdog described how he has been perceived....a very bad error in judgement [which followed an earlier] terrible error in judgement.......[I have] generally been pretty aggressive [in how I edit]
Here's what Jytdog thought his own record likely meant for his Wikipedia future.....[I have] caused some people here to dislike and distrust me ..... there is weariness in the community with me.......[my actions have caused] some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people.
These may not have been sincere words, they may have been a play for sympathy, they may have only been made when he was in a pit of despair, perhaps even having some kind of breakdown.It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if [sic] pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this......I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.
But given who Jytdog is, given everything he stood for, it would be crazy not to assume that unless or until Jytdog strikes these words from the record, they can and should be taken as his truth. He said it. Therefore, if you want to contradict it, you probably don't see the world the way Jytdog does, so you probably shouldn't be trying to claim kinship or affinity with him.
If you want to truly understand the Wikipedia community, you need to see for yourself just how many people reacted to this by doing one or more of the following things:
-ignored the seriousness of Jytdog's behaviour
-acknowledged but downplayed his bad behaviour
-ignored the likely outcome of that Arbitration Case (or wished it would go differently)
-remembered Jytdog for only his good works
-cast Jytdog as a victim of others
-urged him to just come back as a sock
Very few people, a literal handful, reacted to this the way a normal well balanced human being should, the sort of person you would happily entrust the building of a volunteer driven encyclopedia to, one where it theoretically matters when people have serious and persistent errors of judgement regarding their most serious policies (the prevention of Wikipedia generated harm on people's lives), and where there is theoretically a system of rules and norms to prevent it.
By all means, thank him for his positive contributions and express hope he might one day return (legitimately), but do not pretend like what he has done wasn't of the upmost seriousness, stuff which isn't really wiped out by good contributions (and there is a case to be made that this entire Wikipedia philosophy of allowing people to bank good edits so as to offset bad ones is morally bankrupt). And absolutely don't pretend like he doesn't have a case to answer, that he wasn't realistically facing a site ban, or worst of all, pretend that somehow he can just sneak back in (amazing how many people told told him to just totally violate the policy they arguably do hold most important - sock-puppetry).
It should disturb you even more, to realise how many of those people doing those things, are Administrators or higher, the so called trusted members of the community, the ones who exist to represent their principles and uphold the policies. The problem goes right to the very top, because their system of promotion doesn't select people based on things the real world considers admirable qualities. It seems to go completely over these people's heads that Jytdog never would have passed RfA, even in their screwy system where people happily give tremendous weight to the good things he did.
It was also remarkable how many people turned out to ONLY express sadness for Jytdog, showing no regard for his victims at all,.much less his impact on Wikipedia as a whole. Even Jytdog recognised he has done both individuals and the community wrong, and needed to face the consequences. His supoorters, not so much. Sick.
For all these reasons, you should not really expect the loss of Jytdog to markedly change the nature of the community. The are a really fucked up bunch of people. If anything, we might have simply seen in all this, how Jytdog was a far better person than most of them. A better way to condemn Wikipedia, I cannot think of.