View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:12 am




Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Tortuous justifications for incivility 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Another one for the hall of fame.....
Quote:
He probably should not have called Sandstein a piece of shit, Ill grant you all that, but are we really not allowed to criticize admins as admins? If one thinks an admin is incompetent they should do what? Sit on their hands? And seriously, why does anybody care what is said on a user's talk page? Yall have entirely too much time on your hands if you are reporting people for attacks on other parties on pages you have no reason to even see. nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a single word of this post that wasn't either a total misrepresentation of the campaign of harassment this scumbag is trying to justify, or a direct contradiction of basic policy.

It was said on the Administrator's noticeboard, plain as day. Outcome? Not blocked, censured or warned in any way. If you can believe it, he is being talked to as if he has a legitimate role in what happens to the actual offender next.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Wikipedia. The one they don't out on the brochure.


Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:57 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Dumbasses....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e_language


Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:04 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 303
Reply with quote


Yeah that one's a real beauty. I added it to the ten pound sledgehammer thread on WO, but really it's just another example of favoritism.

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal.


Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1#Civility

Reported to Administrators......
Quote:
No case to answer. Keep up the good work Greyfell. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Proper thick, these people. Proper thick.


Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Reported to Administrators......
Quote:
.......I could train an orangutan to solve these sort of problems. ...... --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Dismissed because it was funny, and a grammatically correct use of "an orangutan".

As an aside, no notice was taken of the fact that no, it isn't possible to train people to solve the problems being talked about (Wikipedia-Wikidata interfacing bugs), because they would shoot themselves in the head first. That's what normal people would do. I assume an orangutan would too, since they are quite intelligent. Die-hard Wikipedians like RexxS, they're the only people who pride themselves in becoming masters of this fucking useless bullshit. Can you imagine putting it on your CV? You'd be laughed out of the interview, assuming you even got one.


Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Said on the Administrators Noticeboard.....
Quote:
it's not your place to be insulted on someone else's behalf....

. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
As anyone knows, this is garbage, and has absolutely no basis in policy. So you might assume this person is an idiot n00b. In fact, they have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and claim to be a lawyer in real life. So you now probably appreciate how Wikipedia governance is so fucked up when it comes to dealing with incivility (nobody corrected them, as you might have guessed).


Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 1395
Reply with quote
O, Arthur is a exception, but most lawyers are extreem stupide. It costed me as a bare feet lawyer most times five minutes to let them leaving crying a court room. Not much longer. They don't know there case, the don't read there files, and in general they don't know the law. I don't really know what they learn in law school, maybe Arthur has a answer but for sure not much.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
So, is telling your fellow editors to "fuck off" treating them with respect or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=865873471&oldid=865871918

As usual, the Wikipedia community, through their Administrator representatives, have officially refused to answer this basic question, because "yes" means they lose a very productive partisan editor who would be furious at being denied his God given right to get "salty", "pissy" or any of the other descriptions he uses to avoid saying "be a cunt to those I think deserve it", and because "no" means you can tell your fellow editors to fuck off and nothing will happen to you, which they understandably want left off the Induction Pack.


Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:30 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Further to above....

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not![/url]

It was a simple question......
Quote:
Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?
....and the responses of the Wikipedians was entirely predictable.

Many believe context matters. They think you're the kind of person who thinks a Wikipedia Administrator would enforce this sanction literally and robotically. If you don't know btw, a Wikipedia Administrator is someone selected by the community for their good judgement and cautious disposition.

An ever present sub-text to the context matters argument is of course the idea that it is acceptable to repeatedly tell other editors to fuck off if you think it is justified, such as if you felt provoked, or you have anger issues, or you were protecting freedom and democracy. The relevant context being if you can convince enough people you were jusitified, you would escape sanction. Of course, they ignore the context that the policy already says rudeness on Wikipedia is never justifiable, that you can only ever ask for mitigation of the sanction not a nullification of the charge.

Some of course invoked the terrible spectre of this being the first example of Wikipedia banning usage of a word. They're not into banning stuff. Except the Daily Mail. Fuck off Daily Mail and all those who read it, as I'm sure some editor of limited imagination has said at one time or another on Wikipedia.

Some stated their view that this proposal had no business being made because this is the internet. If you are offended by repeatedly being told to fuck off, or think those who do so are rude, then you are not strong enough to survive on the internet. These people apparently didn't get the memo that Wikipedia is not the internet (even though the proposal is being made on the talk page of that very memo).

Some claimed this was a ridiculous proposal because the behaviour was already sanctionable, this was just unnecessary creep. It was presumably to fool those people that Softlavender demanded the evidence that this was currently not considered sanctionable, be removed from the proposal.

Some argued this proposal was not needed because it is possible to be rude without telling people to fuck off. These people didn't seem to realise the proposal is an addition to the policy which (theoretically) already empowers Administrators to sanction editors for being rude without telling them to fuck off. The proposal merely saught to close an apparent loophole where somehow, Wikipedia and the rest of the world have diverged as to whether or not repeatedly telling someone else to fuck off is rude or not.

Some simply said fuck off.

Finally, there was this.....
Quote:
No I have on more than one occasion used "Fuck off" and similar expressions quite deliberately, to draw the attention of the community (Admins really) to the repeated poor behaviour of other editors, ultimately leading to those other editors being sanctioned. There is a strategy used by some POV pushers here of seemingly remaining within the rules of civility (and other rules) while all the time subtly adding bigoted and biased content to articles. I have found that using "Fuck off" gets more reasonable editors to finally notice this stuff. Now, in a perfect Wikiworld, this tactic would not be necessary, but we haven't got close to that level of perfection here yet. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
All in all, just another reminder that Wikipedia has absolutely no intention of growing up and becoming a mature and responsible project.

Wikipedia is, in reality, a place where someone can say this......
Quote:
Considering a large proportion of admins and even Arbs or former Arbs routinely use this phrase on their talkpages when dealing with trolls or disruptive editors, we're going to have a lot of blocked admins under this proposed shutdown of free speech.
.....and they are neither asked for evidence to back it up (extraordinary claims and all that), nor are they reminded that on Wikipedia, you have no Free Speech. This was of course the same person who demanded the examples of this behaviour not being sanctioned be removed from the proposal, presumably because the person in question isn't and never could be an Administrator (because of this sort of behavioural problem), and they are someone who routinely tells people to shut up if they don't like their opinions.

It is "debates" like this which have ensured that the majority of nasty behaviour in the Wikipedia community comes from a hard core minority of experienced editors. There is simply no desire to stop them.


Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Always fun to see how equally ashamed and proud the Wikipedia are of their true nature.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =866018763

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =866056381

Also quite fun to see a novice Administrator edit warring to further her own agenda. Nice to see RfA is weeding out those who lack the judgement required of an Administrator....but what do we expect from those chosen for greatness by Ritchie333?


Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:24 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 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.