Wikipediocracy

Russavia is not welcome to upload to our sites, so there should be no reason for new copyright assignments, correct? I think there's no harm in accepting them, but I don't want to legitimize his participation. Downplay. Philippe (WMF) 21:33, 30 January 2015.

Cla68 wrote:POV warriors like Will Beback or Mantanmoreland would also wait for an editor to be banned, then go through and revert every single one of their edits, no matter how uncontroversial. People associated with WP manipulate or interpret the rules according to the dictates of their respective agendas.

I think they would sometimes justify it by citing the Amorrow precedent, in that banned editors needed to be completely ostracized because some of them were so dangerous in real life that they needed to be kept completely at arm's length from WP. However, a lot of the editors they did this to gave no indication of being dangerous in real life.

Triptych wrote:

Cla68 wrote:POV warriors like Will Beback or Mantanmoreland would also wait for an editor to be banned, then go through and revert every single one of their edits, no matter how uncontroversial. People associated with WP manipulate or interpret the rules according to the dictates of their respective agendas.

I think they would sometimes justify it by citing the Amorrow precedent, in that banned editors needed to be completely ostracized because some of them were so dangerous in real life that they needed to be kept completely at arm's length from WP. However, a lot of the editors they did this to gave no indication of being dangerous in real life.

The Wikimedia administrator "Scott" formerly known as "Scott Martin" formerly known as "Hex" also has been seen to do that. He did it to the guy that did the hoax on some university secret society, discussed at length here at Wikipediocracy somewhere. Did the hoax mean that every single edit the guy ever did should be undone? I dunno, and neither did Scott.

Zoloft wrote: Hex (Scott) is a member here and has given up his tools.

Triptych wrote:

Zoloft wrote: Hex (Scott) is a member here and has given up his tools.

He's hasn't "given them up" when he can drop back in at Wikipedia and get them back in a couple hours. To my belief, he'll do that. He prepares the conditions to do that, at Wikipedia and here, by emphasizing he left on his own terms and not under any cloud.

If he wanted to give up his tools permanently he'd leave a resignation message at Wikipedia that says something like "I don't intend to reclaim my tools without passing a fresh RFA (request for adminship) process."

PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?

Triptych wrote:

Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?

No, but your avatar did a couple weeks after Nimoy died.

Triptych wrote:Is it a controversial thing that the WMF wants to go ahead and use the work of those it bans? I don't know, but it seems ungrateful and wrong to me!

Colton Cosmic wrote:PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

Hex wrote:

Colton Cosmic wrote:PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

Whatever shit-for-brains here is trying to imply by this stuff about various user names I've had over the years, all of which bear prominent mentions of my real name alongside them, it isn't working.

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

Vigilant wrote:

Triptych wrote:

Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?

No, but your avatar did a couple weeks after Nimoy died.

QED

Zoloft wrote:

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

The Joy wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

Be careful. They could then block you under the username policy saying you are an advocate for the medicine "Zoloft." I know it sounds silly, but rules-lawyering or wiki-lawyering has always been a means for some hard-core Wikipedians to silence critics.

I often worry about Joy (T-C-L) getting accused of being me and obliterated by a trigger-happy rocket jog with a twenty-meg party crasher out to make the fat lady sing at the ball game.

Zoloft wrote: In a world where a prominent encyclopedia editor can be named ''BongWarrior' I believe I can safely claim 'Zoloft' as an alt. *drums fingers* I shall decide whether to ask before Monday.

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

Triptych wrote:Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

Zoloft wrote:

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

Will the real Randy from Boise please stand up, please stand up wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... it_summary
Black edit summary

Your "bwaa ha ha" edit summary was entirely inappropriate. You are a middle-aged man, not a 12 year old boy; edit summaries are not for taking potshots at others for their off-wiki comments (which is what I assume this was about). It's a BLP of a public figure — and a prominent WP critic, which you might have noted if you didn't delete the article link — and when you're writing shit like "I'm going to delete this article one comma at a time" and get the subject worked up about the motivations of the anonymous admin with a machete, that's well over the line. It's a sensitive bio, that stuff shouldn't be happening. If you've got something to say to me about my off wiki comments, welcome to my user talk, or send me an email (my email addie is posted on my user page), or sign in and go after me off wiki. Any of those things are fine. No links here to keep the drama down, if you think I'm being too oblique I will happily provide a diff. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (T-C-L) 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about, and you don't have to provide them with a diff, since I'm sure it's already been mulled over. It's a "sensitive" bio only because a couple of agitators made it one, and I don't give a flying fuck for what they think. You should know, as someone who used to be a good editor, that the criticism on "that" website of my editing the article is a bunch of crap. "Oh he must hate the guy". "Oh why doesn't he work on another article". "Oh it must be because he has a personal ax(e) to grind". Yeah, I'm a paid IBM operative trying to whitewash the company record.
It seems that you're suggesting that the subject in question is in contact with you and some of those "others", and that's an interesting thought, one which we'll not pursue any further today. If those others could find it in their hearts and their gullets to attempt to edit constructively, or at least criticize constructively, without outing, insulting, and invading the privacy of editors they don't like, it would be a different matter. But I'll take the "middle-aged man" thing as a compliment, since I don't really can't put much stock in anything else you say. I like the gift as I like the giver, and I don't like the company you keep, or the fact that you seem to chime in with their choir. If the choir shuts up, then I have no quarrel. (There's a few there with half a conscience or more, and they know who they are, and I respect them and their opinion.)
Thank you,
Drmies (T-C-L) 23:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I don't go after anyone. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, and to repeat what I've said before off-wiki which you may have missed — YES, he is in contact with me, adhering to Jimmy Wales' Bright Line like a disciple. That's how Wales' goofy doofy concept is supposed to work. People, particularly controversial public figures, have not only a right to monitor their own WP biographies — they would be completely foolish not to. If something goes haywire: I hear about it. If there's a new book out: I hear about it. If anything was wrong while I was rewriting it, factually wrong, I was corrected on it. Nobody told me what to write, but trust me that what I did write was carefully vetted. I'm pleased that you don't "go after" anyone. That has not been fully obvious to me and I will Assume Good Faith.
Carrite 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still a "good Wikipedian." Please never forget. Carrite 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll pardon me for being a little irked after reading all that crap about me, and those pretty desperate attempts to blacken my character. That's what bothers me about that company. I assume you have watched some of my edits, and you should know that, for instance, I rarely leave long, long lists of publications intact unless these are publications that have some proven notability, proven by reviews or so. I've edited articles on people that I actually know, and have pruned them the same way that I prune other articles: you are welcome to check my record, if you haven't already done so. Your subject is more than welcome to drop me a line; let there be no suggestion that they wouldn't know how to do that. And I don't know all the things you said off-wiki: I really have no interest in figuring out what other people say elsewhere. I am not a regular reader of Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review, and don't read it at all unless someone points me to something. Andreas has, for instance, and I'll follow those suggestions. Another kind and unfortunately banned soul [Shucks, , -KW] pointed out "my" thread to me, and I read it without pleasure. I know that Afadsbad comments on that website, but that has no bearing on for instance the recent ANI thread about them, even though I vaguely remember disagreeing vehemently with something they said (don't even remember what it was). As for "good", you'll recall that I supported your RfA, perhaps. Anyway, if it wasn't clear, I got nothing against your subject or what they wrote about, but that company over there doesn't care for what I say or do, only for what they think they can deduct.
Drmies 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well we'll just agree to differ then.
Randy from Boise (T-C-L) 05:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (link)

Triptych wrote:

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

It is correct that I thought the amount of time the account went inactive was around two years, as I said. I didn't think it was over a decade.

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

DanMurphy wrote:No. The answer is no.

Jim wrote:

Triptych wrote:

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

It is correct that I thought the amount of time the account went inactive was around two years, as I said. I didn't think it was over a decade.

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

Or you could just be full of shit... again...? Taking bets. No, to the alliterative one, the answer is "No. The answer is no. And fuck off. And stop it."

Triptych wrote:It would be interesting to know why he is privately communicating with Philippe Beaudette though. Is he just an editor that sees fit to do such, or is he a WMF employee that we didn't know about.

Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

Vigilant wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

I can hear you; I'm right here.