Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1272 times
Been thanked: 2000 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:45 am

Mutineer wrote:The management there is actually blocking Tor IPs, not just from logging in, but from merely accessing the site.

Exceptions are made for a few TOR nodes that Tarantino wants to use. Because he NEVER accesses the web, anywhere, without TOR. He's doing a great job of hiding his real identity--just like an abusive Wikipedia insider. Since August 2007.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11135

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:16 pm

Poetlister bravely venturing out into the big wide world, just for the cause of digging up vital material for a Wikipedia criticism website......

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 93#p217993

What a trooper.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Wed May 30, 2018 10:51 pm

Carrite wrote:Anyone serious is going to register an account if they have to. If they choose not to do so, that's their decision — have a good life.
The Garbage Scow wrote:Exactly. It's a win-win for everyone. But suggest that and hoo boy... I have never seen any organization less open to necessary change.
Nothing screams Wikipedia fanboy than this ridiculous mindset. To believe mandatory registration is a "win win" and the obvious choice for "serious" people, you need to have been guzzling the Jimbo-juice for so long, you can no longer remember the time before you got addicted.

This is a warning to all fanboys out there - Jimbo-juice rots your brains. It works slowly, so slowly you don't even realise it. But soon enough, you will look as ridiculous to the people lucky enough to have never been addicted, as Jimmy himself. Actually, you look much worse, because Jimmy has always been smart enough not to use his own product, and smart enough to ensure there has always been a free and instant way for potential fanboys to access their first hit of Jimmy-juice (hint: as an IP editor).

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:31 pm

Stanistani wrote:Most of the IPs banned were spammers and persistent attempted exploits. If you PM me some IPs of Tor nodes you want unbanned, I can do that. I've done it before by request. Or you can use support @ wikipediocracy.com.

As far as IP snooping, the board permissions were set up that only the admins can see IPs, and our policy is that member IPs were only examined if they were attempting to compromise the board or were socking in an annoying fashion. This happened a handful of times.
What about when WO targeted readers of the site who they didn't like by blocking their ability to read it?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:52 pm

Just wow.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =14&t=9612

TNT wrote:I'm genuinely interested in what WPO thinks about the role of the "Wikimedia steward" - is the role needed, what exactly does a steward do, and are they any good at doing it?

I would ask that if you do have criticisms (if...?), that you also try to at least touch on how you'd improve.

Bonus points for any serious candidate suggestions for the next steward election...

Full disclosure for those who don't know, TNT is a steward.
The fuck? Where did she (Wikipedia User:There'sNoTime) get the idea Wikipediocracy is the place to solicit this sort of information?

Bonus points? What. The. Fuck.

Zoloft, you got a lot to answer for. This is beyond embarrassing.

It's bad enough you let them wander the halls, choosing what they do and don't answer, now they're telling you snivelling fanboys what would be good things for you to be telling them? Curious little harmless bunnies that they are.

There isn't a single word of her post that you should find acceptable, assuming you still care about your so called mission statement. "If" you have criticisms of the Steward role? If? No, you're grand darling, we've never had no issues........ :roll:

P.S. "Full disclosure" would be her filling out the field "Wikipedia User" on her profile.

Full disclosure: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 39#p210739

You gotta be some kind of sap to be giving this woman the benefit of your wisdom, when she wouldn't do me the courtesy of acknowledging her own job performance in a far less significant role, as a mere Administrator. I know what her role as an Administrator is, officially and unofficially. Which is why she'll never answer my questions in a million years.

The problem with the Steward role is the same problem with all the roles, you don't actually need to be any good at it to get it, not objectively. You just need to do what any politician does. A good move is to show utter contempt for any and all enemies of the cult. The fanboys won't get it, but this thread of hers, is dripping in contempt for their very existence. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this post used by her in future election statements as an example of how she reaches out to Wikipedia critics. Better than the approach Kupdung takes, but just as contemptuous.

All self-respecting fanboys should ask certain questions of her at the next Steward election. Do you support indefinitely blocking users who do not edit article space? Do you support Administrators unilaterally re-interpreting the Terms of Use in a way that assumes bad faith of people who do not supply their personally identifying information to Wikipedia? Let the curious little bunny answer those, before you help her ascent up (or rather, maintaining her position on) the greasy pole......

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:42 am

CrowsNest wrote:Just wow. [...] The fuck? Where did she (Wikipedia User:There'sNoTime) get the idea Wikipediocracy is the place to solicit this sort of information? Bonus points? What. The. Fuck.


There's quite a lot going on under the surface here you know, There'snotime to explain in detail but basically this is a thread for collected things from other threads, and for those that still enjoy interacting with Wikipedians this is a very useful thread for constructive criticism. It's ironic but I think reaching out like this shows enormous good faith on the part of TNT.

CrowsNest wrote:Zoloft, you got a lot to answer for. This is beyond embarrassing.


Zoloft is now MIA so there's nothing happening with him. He is just never there...

CrowsNest wrote:P.S. "Full disclosure" would be her filling out the field "Wikipedia User" on her profile. Full disclosure


There'sNoTime is well known by their cabal name, which is TNT. Not much mystery here really.

CrowsNest wrote:All self-respecting fanboys should ask certain questions of her at the next Steward election. Do you support indefinitely blocking users who do not edit article space? Do you support Administrators unilaterally re-interpreting the Terms of Use in a way that assumes bad faith of people who do not supply their personally identifying information to Wikipedia? Let the curious little bunny answer those, before you help her ascent up (or rather, maintaining her position on) the greasy pole......


What do those things have to do with the steward role in the slightest? Also supplying your personally identifying information to Wikipedia makes no difference whosoever.

Anyway who would be a better steward than TNT? Gotta get priorities in line here.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:53 pm

Dysklyver wrote:There'snotime to explain in detail but basically this is a thread for collected things from other threads, and for those that still enjoy interacting with Wikipedians this is a very useful thread for constructive criticism. It's ironic but I think reaching out like this shows enormous good faith on the part of TNT.
Odd way to enjoy yourself. But each to their own. More importantly, I see no such good faith on her part, much less a two way interaction. I see you telling people Stewards are a "carefully vetted group of trusted users.", and I see her use that platform to tell others you are right. Is that what you had in mind? As useful information, it sounds remarkable similar to what we are told by the cult about ArbCom members, and we already know that to be a sham.

People like Drmies breeze into that role, despite their obvious faults. If he wanted to, he could have been a Steward, I imagine a slew of votes from en.wiki hailing him as a trustworthy and competent person would see to that. Nobody would pay any attention to the fact he regularly admits himself that he is clueless when it comes to CU, regularly says the most disgusting things about his colleagues, etc, etc.

Why don't you offer that feedback to TNT, and see how she bullshits you? You've confused brass neck with genuine courage. She is shaping up to be another snake in he woodpile, a la NewYorkBrad. You know how that goes, unless I missed the part where he has meaningfully engaged with you on that platform? About your case of anyone else's. He's there to advance the usual party lines, and offer empty platitudes for serious failures. He is most certainly not there to reply to people like me, and you can probably tell why, because I don't see the opportunity to be ignored by these people as any kind of blessing on my house.
Dysklyver wrote:Zoloft is now MIA so there's nothing happening with him. He is just never there...
He announced his return a few days ago. If he objects to this as a thread, or the specific way she has worded it, he can say so. He will not.
Dysklyver wrote:There'sNoTime is well known by their cabal name, which is TNT. Not much mystery here really.
Do not assume that what is known to Wikipedians, is known to readers of the forum. This assumption merely reinforces the fucked up attitude that the only purpose of that place is to facilitate communication between with the cult and those temporary exiled from it.
Dysklyver wrote:What do those things have to do with the steward role in the slightest?
Demonstrably lacking competency and indeed basic ethics as an Administrator, disqualifies her for the role, surely? That's how it would work in real life anyway.
Dysklyver wrote:Also supplying your personally identifying information to Wikipedia makes no difference whosoever.
Demanding it in exchange for the right to edit, as the blocking Administrator did on that case, and therefore which she was lazily endorsing in her official act of declining to lift the block, is a basic and obvious violation of the ToU.

If I knew who she was IRL, something the blocker demanded of my supposed sock, she could be properly accountable for that unauthorized over-reach, and she would have to take her chances over whether or not the WMF wants to support her or not. I'm guessing they would not, and she'd be expected to issue an apology. As it is, she is as accountable for her acts as an anonymous coward breaking the rules as any other Administrator on Wikipedia is. You of all people, know how that goes.

The blocking admin, Dennis Brown's identity is well known, but as a dirt poor sap whose gambling addict wife cleaned him out and whose enthusiasm for the movement has waned due for their focus on horrible things like respect for women, it seems pointless and indeed almost cruel to go after him. Plus, he would enjoy it, a momentary time of undeserved notoriety.
Dysklyver wrote:Anyway who would be a better steward than TNT? Gotta get priorities in line here.
Boosting her ego is not a particular priory of mine. Neither is ensuring the Wikipedians identify the best people to fill their myriad of bureaucratic roles, in their NOTBURO sham of an encyclopedia project.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:35 pm

A, was nice to be there for a while. But no, not my cup of thee. Really, there absolute people who I like there, but in general it is to much Wikipedia for me. And to typycal American. Yes, Eric and Strelnikov are also Americans, but they are in a way much more "European" They are thinking in a much more "European" way, there mentality is different.
But OK, I was a guest there for a wile, I said thanks Jake for the hospitality and it is not fair to say anything wrong of your host.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:42 pm

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 23#p223223
Jake wrote:I guess my question is, could the very existence of this thread have a deleterious effect on his RfA, and would that be a bad thing?

I'm just thinking of the recent Jbhunley RfA, and how our thread on it might have contributed to his being disapproved by a very narrow margin, even after (and according to at least one person, because) we moved it to a non-public forum. Not that I'm overly concerned about the success or failure of any given RfA... I just don't want people to get the impression that we're deliberately trying to pick winners and losers here as though it's a form of entertainment or something. (I guess it could be for some of us, but surely we all have things like books, cable TV and Netflix for that.)
On what planet is any part of this comment, said by the site Administrator of a website supposedly dedicated to unearthing the hidden aspects of Wikipedia, remotely acceptable?

Every single person standing for RfA should be absolutely shit scared of what a supposed critic site is gong to uncover in their history. And by the same turn, every Wikipedian who tries to sneak unsuitable candidates past an unsuspecting voter base, should have the same fear. And everybody participating in it, should feel embarrassed and ashamed every time a flaw or failing in the process is identified by critics, using actual practical examples, studied in virtual real time.

Naturally, the point of the exercise is to expose and inform, but is there any reason why people on a site that is supposed to be independent of Wikipedia, not find entertainment in spoiling, influencing or even just commenting on one of their processes?

Only a fan board would be concerned how they are influencing their object of study, much less what the people who take Wikipedia seriously, think of them for doing it.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by AndrewForson » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:20 pm

Indeed. If discussing an RFA at a truly critical site were a guarantee of sinking it, then cry havoc and let slip the dogs!

Post Reply