Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

[The End]

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

I do lament the old Wikipedia Review which would not have been afraid of causing chaos for an RFA.

[CrowsNest]

Their so called analysis of the ongoing (and crashing) Philafranzy RfA is almost laughable. Even the salient points are immediately undermined by the same person saying something monumentally stupid.

The cause is obvious, as identified here repeatedly, they simply lack the necessary distance and perspective to be able to say anything remotely useful.

What critic worth their salt looks at RfA as if it would ever be remotely possible to draw up sensible rules and procedures for how it should be done? Rules that are not subjective and not easily gamed. Given the fundamental and unchangeable nature of Wikipedia, such a thing is impossible. Hence why so called RfA reform remains as ever, loudly demanded but never arriving.

Start saying something useful, you sacks of shit. Be serious critics for once in your life. Pretend for a second you aren't Wikipedians of whatever stripe, but external consultants, with objectivity and COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

Why does anyone need to go to a supposedly independent critic site to read comments like this?

The way it’s trending it looks like he’s screwed, which is a shame because most of the opposes have fuck all to do with what we expect admins to do.

I think it's about time to go Full Corbett on all future RFAs until that system comes crashing down... We're on a pace for 10 new admins in 2018. It wouldn't take too many people Just Saying No to get it to zero for 2019.

Where are all the ppl complaining over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (T-H-L) about the "Unnecessary and disruptive opposes"?

Now, don't get me wrong, research is hard, and time-consuming, and the reality is that people have always relied on the research of those they trust, voting "per ThisUserItrust" without repeating the exercise for themselves - but [whiny complaint that someone did it, almost losing the salient point about their hypocrisy in all the whining]

I can read moronic gripes like that on Wikipedia itself, vacuous pseudo-criticism repeated endlessly.

This deserves special mention.....

The issue is not so much what we expect admins to do, but what we expect admins to be.

What is he even trying to argue? It would have benefited him personally if evident character/personality/beliefs were off the table when assessing what potential admin candidates might do, but surely be can see what a complete non-starter this is as an expectation of a process like RfA?

It isn't an accident that all of the above are Wikipedians.

Well done Zoloft. You wanted it. You got it.

[CrowsNest]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 88#p223588

Look, we all know User:Drmies is basically a complete wanker ... Nobody disputes this!

I regularly questioned just how many people on Wikipediocracy have a negative view of Drmies, it being both infested by his actual and former Arbitrator and Administrator colleagues, his BFF (Black Jew category), his BFF (ferret article writing category), and assorted Wikipedians of a certain bastard loving stripe. People like Carrite, who IIRC thought he had been a fine Arbitrator who should not have stood down, and people like Kingsindian, who keep insisting on approaching Drmies as if he is a nice and reasonable person, and being continually amazed when he ignores them, at best.

I'm that guy. And I got banned for my trouble. Sorry, "muted". A wanker's move if ever their was one. Not your kind of people. Making the regulars feel too sad. Making Wikipedians feel like they couldn't just swan in and out as they pleased. Embarrassing people like Kingsindian.

You've frankly got far more people on your forum who trend toward emulating Drmies and/or want to legitimise him, than ever trend toward condemning him. Those that do, confident and unapologetically, have a nasty habit of getting banned.

People are entitled to draw the conclusion, was this statement merely a self-serving lie?

[Graaf Statler]

No. Midsize Jack did the only thing what was right, being honest with me. And I thank him for being.

Look, we all know User:Drmies is basically a complete wanker, and all these people like Ymnes on nl.wikipedia are complete wankers.

Of course Jake, Carrite, Kingsindian and the rest know they are complete wankers, although it is not nice to name these guy's in this way. They are gamers, guys with a mental defect, addicted to Wikipedia because that is there world, social surrounding. They like the game, here one of them is saying Peekaboo!, here I am. And look to that talkpage, I did only a few edits there, it is rediciles all those templates. And here, Xxmarijn made even a special template in Dutch. Xxmarijn one of the most powerful sysops on WPNL, I have seen a picture of him of his back on a wikimeet. is he 11? 12? Something like that. I think it is the child from someone involved in wikimedia. Or better, I know that. And how do we keep these children, people with a mental defect happy? My dear digital friend suggested yesterday by organising a trip to De Efteling instate of the annual WMC. I said immediately I want to join, I love De Efteling. It is a kind of Dutch Disneyland.

Maybe it is a good touristically tip for the gender lady's too. One of them was already there to shake hands with a few wikipedians, I think it was Lidewij.



https://www.efteling.com/en

[CrowsNest]

This was the first time I recall even seeing Jake criticise Drmies. If Carrite and Kingsindian have a dim view of him, they certainly hide it well. Kingsindian has criticised him, sure, but only as part of a bizarre repeated cycle where he keeps approaching Drmies as if Drmies sees him as an equal and is remotely interested in what he has to say. No amount of being ignored, brushed off or basically lied to, seems to change Kingsindian's view of Drmies. It's laughable.

[Graaf Statler]

I promise later breaking news.

[CrowsNest]

Is there anything sadder than seeing Beeblebrox use the platform of Wikipediocracy to attack WikiTribune?

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 83#p223483

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 38#p223638

I mean, it fits the general pattern that Wikipediocracy is not so much a Wikipedia criticism site, as it is a venue for die hard Wikipedians to attack their perceived enemies. Which, for reasons that never really made sense, seems to be quite often, one Jimmy Wales. It perhaps made sense in the early years, but the intersection between the sort of things that sucks about Wikipedia, and the sort of things Jimmy has control over regarding Wikipedia, is now virtually nil.

It makes no sense when the thing you are attacking him over, has nothing whatsoever to do with things that suck about Wikipedia. On the tribal level that makes fanboys tick however, it makes perfect sense. They see a common ancestry, so they attack. I imagine the same thing happens on comic book message boards. I'm pretty sure it's a favourite pastime of Gamergaters. You did that thing once that I hate, so everything you do now SUUUUUCCKKKSS! #NotMySuperMan

It is actually pretty easy to make the case that for the purpose of fixing things that suck about Wikipedia, as a powerful Administrator with lots of influence, Beeblebrox himself has more opportunity than Jimmy. To take a recent incident, he clearly has more power to compel fellow Administrator Cullen328 to not make accusations about other editors without evidence, and not in an inflammatory manner at all, as their policy demands.

Jimmy isn't even allowed to block Cullen for that clear and obvious breach of policy. If he filed an Arbitration Case to force an inquest into his fitness to be an Administrator, there would be hell on. So Beeblebrox either thinks those things don't suck, or he thinks it should be someone else's job to fix it, because he's too busy attacking his own pet hates, which clearly includes the life's work of Teh Jimmy (jealous much, btw?). Which pretty much describes every Wikipedian who has joined Wikipediocracy ever.

Seriously, forget bona fide critics, who have just cause to, but have you ever seen an active Wikipedian who is also an active Wikioediocrat, say anything nice, or even really basically factually correct for the purposes of balance, about Jimmy Wales? In that respect, it truly is a hate site, for their purposes. You would think they could at least extend to a little bit of gratitude for having invented their favourite hobby, without which it seems like they'd not have much going on in their lives. Certainly those living in the frozen wasteland that is Alaska, as Beeblerox does.

It's even worse when you actually look at the things Beeblebrox is attacking WikiTribune for.....

- a poorly designed front page
- content that is out of date
- a search function that doesn't date order results
- having an apparently redundant purpose
- being of unclear public utility
- being tied to a platform rooted in yesterday's notions of information delivery

The fanboys of Wikipediocracy are unlikely to appreciate the irony. Beeblebrox certainly won't. The sad little drone.

Jake could shut this shit down with a single click of a button. "Per mission". Or " Per common sense". Or "Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? Get the fuck out of here!" If Zoloft is still alive, he could certainly pop by and do his version of that (politely point out the ironic nature and questionable purpose of these statements, in the hope the world does not mistake Wikipediocracy's acceptance of such posts as endorsement).

But he won't. Neither will he. Anything to keep the fanboys happy. All about the churn. Keep the thing looking alive, busy, relevant, a happening place to be. ZEITGIEST! Fuck. That. Shit.

It all only makes sense when you realise, Wikipediocracy isn't meant to be a platform for people to criticise the things that make Wikipedia suck with respect to the wider world. It is more correctly seen as platform for airing the grievances of actual die hard Wikipedia editors, active or lasped, but true believers nonetheless. These two things most definitely not overlapping.

By and large, Wikipedia editors go to Wikipediocarcy so they can complain about the things that they think suck and should be changed, with even more freedom and visibility to whine and cry and generally talk shite, than they are offered in their own little corner of paradise itself.

They go there, not for the benefit of wider humanity, but simply to whine their pathetic little fanboy asses off, all day long, in some vain hope or belief it will make their hobby a better experience. Better tools, nicer chairs, easier ways to smite ones enemies or the unbelievers/n00bs, more of the their sort of people in the positions of influence, or simply for a culture that better confirms to their ideas of what is correct and normal. Which as we know, is often at huge variance with what is actually correct and normal.

Naturally, it isn't all hopes and prayers, sniping from afar, or howling at the Moon. Fanboys make use of their platform to actively harass their enemies, intimidate actual reformers and unbelievers, and generally do bad shit. In that respect, hate site is the perfect moniker, as well as fan site. Gamergaters have their site, White Supremacists have their site, and in Wikipediocracy, True Wikipedians (not your crazy Jimmy Wales types, the *real* Wikipedians) have theirs. Because fandom isn't really fandom unless non-fans are made to pay for their foolishness. Even if that means turning on your former leader.

The people who hold staff positions of Wikipediocracy, all two of them now, their Administrator and their Moderator, claim not to be Wikipedia editors at all. I'll believe it when they run that site the way anyone who is not a Wikipedia editor, and no longer desires to be one if they ever were, would arguably run it.

Until then, accept the fact that at the very least, you seem intent on running a fan site first, a critic site second.

HTD & HTD.

[Dysklyver]

Yeah well until I can convince someone to actually use a modern forum software (a la discourse) it's unlikely to dawn on anyone just how bad PHPbb really is.

[AndrewForson]

So now would be a good time for WO to show some teeth. GorillaWarfare has turned up to the thread on the Signpost misogyny imbroglio, thanked everyone at WO for their support (?!?) and decided that it's really a discussion of the dress code at her place of work. Some obvious questions spring to mind if she is in a mood to answer them:

• Was your "misogyny" posting an objective comment on a feature of the Signpost article that you thought it important to discuss, or was it a personal attack on the editor in pursuit of an existing dispute between the two of you? Do you still think that it was a good idea and in keeping with the norms of WP?
• Would a mere contributor who reinstated a comment considered a personal attack and removed by an administrator -- that is, one who is not an admin and a former arbitrator -- have been treated in the same way that you were? Or do you think it overwhelmingly more likely that they would have been blocked for a longer time, a block that they would not have been let off? Assuming that you were treated more favourably than the majority of the volunteers would have been under the same circumstances, do you think that favouritism indicates a possible flaw in the project's governance?

Of course she is under no obligation to answer such questions if she chooses not to. But if no-one cares to ask, then I think that would speak volumes for WO's claim to be a critical site.

[CrowsNest]

Of course she is under no obligation to answer such questions if she chooses not to. But if no-one cares to ask, then I think that would speak volumes for WO's claim to be a critical site.

It's their official policy. Wikipedians, especially power users, can wander in and say and do what they like. Ask or don't ask, it's immaterial. If she's having a general conversation, just chilling out, then she is using Wikipediocracy the way they intend their site to be used. The official Wikipedia chill out room. The place to be if you had a hard day at the office.

As she admits.....

I don't feel particularly pressured to respond.

No surprise then, when she does not.

If Sashi/Dyk/Graaf/Bedson are feeling brave, if they think they won't get banned for it (and there is every chance they would), then they should extend our greetings to her, and express our interest in discussing matters that actually matter, asking her questions that would actually inform outsiders as to the realities of Wikipedia. Given she is, as Jake admits but doesn't seem to want to hold her to, a person of some prominence in the movement, who has often found the time to answer relevant questions elsewhere.

Asking her if she feels her comment was relevant or a personal attack, or if she was treated unfairly, seem pointess. We know the answers already. Let Wikipediocracy handle the softball fan 'questions', as is their role in life.

Here are the more relevant questions....

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how pissed are you at your recent experiences?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. Do you regret standing down from ArbCom, given it seems unlikely your replacement as one of the token women on the Committee (Opabina Regalia), hasn't exactly shown she has the same kind of outlook on policy and indeed what is morally right in general, as you did in your time on the bench

4. You said you chose not to seek reelection due to the pressures of real life, and it had nothing to do with the apparent futility of trying to achieve meaningful standards via that mechanism. If so, how are you finding the time to do what you do currently on Wikipedia, and do you think it is helping in any way, either to change the culture or improve the encyclopedia?

The day you see the leading lights of Wikipediocracy ask questions like that, is the day a snowflake will fall in Hades.

If she merely wants to discuss dress codes and solicit thoughts and prayers, and it seems like she does, as loyal fans (and frenemies) they will happily indulge her, seeing it as some kind of privelage to witter on mindlessly about the things prominent Wikipedians want to discuss in their clubhouse. Gather round children, Aunt Molly is here....hush now, she is imparting important information, and we must listen.

Do your duty Wikipeidocrats. 'member the knowins! 'member what they teached you

There'll be twenty more posts on that irrelevance by end of play today, whether she posts again or not.