WPO makes post about SFR giving out CT warns to pro-Israel, all hell breaks loose, former admin/crat Andrevan goes crazy

[Bbb23sucks]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=13288

Nearly 100 posts in less than a day, nearly all of which are screaming at each other. I assume that is what they assume this forum supposedly is.

BTW, if you need any more convincing that "nableezy" is nothing more than a pro-Israel SPA, just look at their Reddit history. One post from SEVEN YEARS AGO. Can you guess what it's about?

Some missing comments can be found here: https://archive.ph/WT90V

Also continued here: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 07#p340170

[ChaosMeRee]

Moderators too busy sniffing underwear drawers to moderate, Beeblebrox calling someone an asshole, Vigilant begging Jake to HOLD HIM BACK from the designated outsider, thread absolutely unreadable even to experts in Wikipedia.

They call that a Tuesday over there.

Fucking dickwads.

The best of it all, as far as I remember, SFR is a member there. So why isn't it bringing them any benefit, having this direct line to the horse's ass mouth?

I would certainly like to know why SFR has all of a sudden decided that Wikipedia tolerating openly assholish editors like Nableezy is a problem.

Wikipedia has always had the policies to deal with these people for years, they just went unenforced. What's changed?

I mean, Jesus Christ, ask anyone. This has been the hallmark of Wikipedia for years (from Nableezy talk).....

Editors who's views align with one side or the other rush to back up allies. Then we start seeing a real battleground. Discussions almost immediately break along those lines, and there is even less chance of constructive discussion and compromise. Due to the huge, hostile discussions that arise the likelihood of anyone uninvolved taking part shrinks and you're left with the same editors having the same unproductive discussions. Since tensions are already needlessly high editors that try to join the topic area, especially those who don't have a strong emotional investment or POV, aren't likely to stay around because it's not worth the stress and bullshit.

It has ALWAYS been the case that you can tell who the assholes are by reading the whole nine yards, and they always get off by wikilawyering, or worse, Wikipedia Administrators who are on their team just give them a pass.

So what's changed? What is giving SFR the confidence to think he can pull this off?

And if he feels this strongly, if it does all come to nothing, is he just gonna take it lying down? Or will he stand his ground and file an Arb Case, or even resign his tools in protest. Because why have a hammer if you're not allowed to use it? Why be a Federal Agent if the government doesn't have your back?

As always, Wikipediocracy could give a tiny rat's ass about the view from fifty thousand feet.

They want to be down there, with the wikishits. Nableezy and all the other assholes who have cross pollinated the Wikipedia-Wikipediocracy ecosystem.

If Wikipedioceacy was a true critic's forum, SFR might benefit from a bit of Wikipedia history and learn that the only reason it is this complicated and bureaucratic to deal with asshole editors, such that he has to feel like he's putting his balls on the chopping block just to enforce a bit of decorum, is because Administrators like Black Kite took the absolute fucking piss and abused their authority to protect notorious asholes, as part of the general war against civility.

The history of Wikipedia is the history of Administrators abusing their authority in ways that would have horrified Jimmy Wales and generally saw decent people get treated poorly and assholes get rewarded. Jimmy delegated his authority to ArbCom, and they have consistently failed to use it. Sheer cowardice. No wonder, when scumbags like Beeblebrox genuinely seem to think they're better men than Jimmy, and the community was already so toxic they happily elected them.

You don't see that history debated on Wikipediocracy, because people like Black Kite consider that place to be a second home, and to them, Jimmy is the devil incarnate. And Vigilant gives them such good head when they're there. Being so old and worn out your teeth have fallen out has its advantages!

[ChaosMeRee]

And there you have it.....

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Ah yes. “pattern of editing”. It’s one of those amorphous, ethereal, vague pretexts that are actually an admission of “I don’t really have any real diffs but I need to manufacture a reason here”. Especially when the diffs that are provided are such weak milquetoast as this. Some people see patterns - dragons, turtles, Jesus himself - in the clouds, others just see white fluff. Usually the “white fluff” people are right.

The above applies to not just Nableezy but a few others that caught a sanction here. All of these, with one possible exception, should be rescinded. Volunteer Marek 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

SFR's reward for trying to dial down the toxicity in Wikipedia, is to be directly subjected to toxicity.

And not by just any editor, but a long term battler in this area, who the Arbitration Committee had the chance to site ban in May, and bottled it.

There would be a benefit in Wikipediocracy giving SFR an independent space to share his thoughts on whether this shows he is wasting his life or not.

There is absolutely no benefit in Wikipediocracy giving Marek a second front on which to be an even bigger asshole and an even bigger coward. It is already well known he is both.

But they quite happily choose to be the latter, and that's probably the best explanation why they aren't also the former.

[ChaosMeRee]

I think stuff like this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... -_edit_war

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 00#p340170

.....now shows quite well that Wikipediocracy has completely abandoned any intention of offering a view from 50,000 feet.

The Wikipediocracy that Jake built wants to be knee deep in the muck, a mirror of Wikipedia conflict, the two platforms virtually indistinguishable.

The view from 50,00 feet is crystal clear. This whole episode has shown Wikipedia is entirely unchanged in matters of dealing with BATTLEGROUNDing, and indeed things may simply be getting worse.

I think their error was probably in deprecating the rather simple but effective tool of the indefinite block, in favour of a myriad of complex but easily gamed lesser/partial sanctions.

It seems even less likely than it ever was, that editors like Nishidani, Nableezy, Andy or Andre ever being met with this simple but effective sanction. One that gets to the heart of the problem. One that acknowledges that whatever else might be going on, It is their behaviour that shows they are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. That they are more than willing combatants, whether that is as an aggressor, reactor or joiner inner.

That this is now seeing fights which can only be properly understood by uninvolved Administrators looking not just at Wikipedia but it's companion site Wikipediocracy, only shows just how deep the rot goes.

This is why, when you see people like SFR stating an aim to stop "long term patterns of battleground conduct" you can only really laugh, and wonder what Wikipedia he's been a part of all these years.

Absent the kind of major reset that was unlikely before FRAMGATE and is now totally impossible after it, things are not going to get any better.

Quite the reverse.

How can delegated ArbCom authority be the saviour of Wikipedia, when the authority of ArbCom itself has never looked so illegitimate?

[Bbb23sucks]

WWWAAAAAAHHHHHH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... wikibreak.

[ChaosMeRee]

This is why Wikipediocracy is fucking useless as a Wikipedia criticism forum.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p340376

How hard is it to see what is wrong about someone explaining their editing habits in these terms.....

My problem, and this has been true for me from the start, is I have a hard time not calling bullshit

No, your problem is clearly any one of these different things.....

* Your definition of "bullshit" is different from other Wikipedia editors, specifically the ones entrusted with using their powers to warn and block others to ensure Wikipedia is a civil environment

* You're too thick to know how to concisely explain to Wikipedia Administrators that editors you are are dispute with are deliberately spouting bullshit (presumably for the purposes of just winding you up)

* You're the kind of stupid cunt who arrived at Wikipedia, saw you were surrounded by bullshit in its most controversial areas, and the best you could think of doing after you read all the relevant Wikipedia policies on expected behavior, was just roll up your sleeves up and gladly engage in battle

None of these are good things. They are all clearly disqualifying when it comes to Wikipedia editing. To use the current parlance, you are either not competent, not there, or disruptive.

There's also this.....

I think lying with a straight face is way more uncivil than saying "youre making things up", I think insulting my intelligence is more uncivil than saying "bullshit".

How hard is it to respond to this kind of complete bullshit with the very correct point that ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE WP:UNCIVIL?

Fuck me. Where is the respect in saying someone is making things up (if they aren't). Where is the respect in insulting someone's intelligence (if that is what occurred). Where is the respect in using a word like "bullshit" anywhere in any context on Wikipedia if it is a reference to someone else's opinion?

Only an absolute fucking cunt plays these kinds of games.

Someone who absolutely doesn't deserve to be a Wikipedia editor.

And if Wikipedia Administrators aren't regularly agreeing with you when you present your evidence that any of these things actually happened, then see above for the likely source of your problems.

This is why Wikipediocracy serves no purpose. This shit isn't hard.

Calling out bullshit isn't hard.

You just have to know what you are talking about, and not actually be someone who has strong feelings for either team. It's Wikipedia. I could give a fuck who wins. Under the current shit show, whoever wins, has only done so by foul means. The place is just that corrupt these days. Totally in the grip of the BATTLERS.

But because Wikipediocracy is infested with the very people who are knee deep in this shit and are absolutely invested in who wins, they find it impossible to come to these very correct conclusions.

They prefer to blame the Administrators. Just not the ones who are members of Wikipediocracy, because how could they possibly be at fault?

Dickheads.

[ChaosMeRee]

I could make Nableezy crack pretty easily if I was a Wikipediocracy poster (and that is why I am banned lol!). The truth is enough to condemn him.

You can hardly believe that the person currently being hailed as one of the BETTER editors in this area, makes posts like this.....

And yeah, the edits to the lead of this article, along with Gaza Strip, and al-Shifa, and nearly every single article I see you trying to twist the lead into an IDF press release has been, in my view, low quality. Its just that Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit in such a way. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved. I wish WP had a way of dealing with it short of an actual arbitration case, but alas I have not found one yet. nableezy - 17:05, 28 November 2023 (

Wikipedia isn't able to deal with an editor who tries to twist the introduction of articles into an IDF press release?

I call bullshit.

I am quite confident that one of these things is true....

* These are gross mischaracterizations of one of Nableezy's opponent's editing, which is a definite violation of CIVIL, so Nableezy needs a topic time out (because apparently Wikipedia doesn't do indefinite blocks of established editors to enforce minimal standards anymore)

* These are unfair characterizations of a new editor's attempts to edit Wikipedia the right way, but because they are an ideological opponent of Nableezy, and people have given him the wrong impression he is some kind of Wikipedia appointed custodian of these articles, he isn't prepared to play nice and help them learn how to edit properly, which is a definite violation of CIVIL, so Nableezy needs a topic time out (because apparently Wikipedia doesn't do indefinite blocks of established editors to enforce minimal standards anymore)

* They are true characterizations, but Nableezy being temperamentally unsuited to Wikipedia, rather than deal with them the right way, prefers to be an inflammatory cunt, which is a definite violation of CIVIL, so Nableezy needs a topic time out (because apparently Wikipedia doesn't do indefinite blocks of established editors to enforce minimal standards anymore).

The fact Nableezy also seems to think there is some grand Administrator conspiracy or just mass incompetence to ensure his life as a Wikipedia editor is torture while his opponents can supposedly do whatever they like, is just yet more proof this guy is not and probably never has been a Wikipedia editor in any meaningful sense, and Wikipedia's well known inability expel toxic and combative editors if they simply master the relatively easy task of content editing and are prepared to do it for hour after hour, day after day, is the easiest explanation for his personal experience.

[Bbb23sucks]

There's already TWO arbcom cases against SFR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... y_Nableezy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _by_Iennes

This is where "doing the right thing" gets you on Wikipedia.

[ChaosMeRee]

Wikipedia is a farce. And Wikipediocracy are a compete joke for not calling it out.

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

His behaviour in that one single debate is totally unacceptable and completely inexcusable.

Why does it need anything more than a standard indefinite block explained with a few simple sentences to deal with?

Is Wikipedia so far gone that even this would be impossible, either for reasons of bureaucracy or real-politik?

Where is the leadership? Where is the integrity? Where is the accountability?

The view from fifty thousand feet.

Always clear.

Never compromised.

Deadly accurate.

HTD.

[ericbarbour]

Wikipedia is a farce. And Wikipediocracy are a compete joke for not calling it out.

As expected......

There's already TWO arbcom cases against SFR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... y_Nableezy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _by_Iennes

Which will probably go nowhere. The little bastard is being "groomed" for adminship. Insiders love their (pet) sociopaths.

PS, the "Radish" is bad news, and we've known that for a while:
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... 855#p20855