Wikipediocracy

Anyone have opinions on him? I just reverted an IBAN vio and he wants to semi the page with no idea who I am.

And he has been banned.

Isn't this Marknutley (T-C-L)? I remember his worthless pestering during the great global warming nonsense of ten years ago.

Darkness Shines.... was he one of those political tag team editor types? If so, fuck him and good riddance. That kind of editor wasted more time at ANI and the notice boards than any other.

So I did a little poking, and yes DS was a politics editor. I found a link to Project Conservatism which had a virtual who’s who of the politics warriors. My favorite in the bunch is StillStanding-247 (T-C-L) who was a piece of work, even by Wikipedia’s standards. That guy lived on drama. Despite supporting the house POV, he was eventually community banned. He came back after a hiatus as MilesMoney, who briefly took to WO before getting bored after he realized Zoloft wasn’t going to let him run wild. I wonder where he is causing problems today.

Earthy Astringent wrote:I found a link to Project Conservatism which had a virtual who’s who of the politics warriors. My favorite in the bunch is StillStanding-247 (T-C-L) who was a piece of work, even by Wikipedia’s standards...

Presumably the link you forgot to fill in there is to WikiProject_Conservatism|About_us|Members...? Mr. StillStanding isn't on the list but did post to that project's pages back in 2012. Mr. DarknessShines isn't on the list either, but obviously that doesn't mean much in itself.

Judging by the posting/enrollment dates on that list, it would certainly appear that this project peaked just before the 2012 election and has been somewhat (though not completely) moribund since. Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.

Midsize Jake wrote: Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.

My rules of thumb with political views:

• Anyone who denies having a political view, but demonstrates any interest in politics is a liar who has an unmoderate and driving political view.
• Anyone who denies having an opinion on a BLP they've watchlisted has immutable opinions they will fight to the death to defend.
• The worst POV pushers are the ones who call others a "POV pusher" the most.
• With the right provocation, any POV pusher can be forced into a Chewbacca defense.I know there's a WP page, but this one defines it better.
• A rational, NPOV editor will never use a Chewbacca defense.

I've yet to be proven wrong, and I've been shown to have been right on numerous occasions.

MjolnirPants wrote:

Midsize Jake wrote: Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.

My rules of thumb with political views:

• Anyone who denies having a political view, but demonstrates any interest in politics is a liar who has an unmoderate and driving political view.
• Anyone who denies having an opinion on a BLP they've watchlisted has immutable opinions they will fight to the death to defend.
• The worst POV pushers are the ones who call others a "POV pusher" the most.
• With the right provocation, any POV pusher can be forced into a Chewbacca defense.I know there's a WP page, but this one defines it better.
• A rational, NPOV editor will never use a Chewbacca defense.

I've yet to be proven wrong, and I've been shown to have been right on numerous occasions.

Everything except the BLP one is correct. My watchlist is about 60% BLP's (and quite a few BDP's) and for a lot of them I have zero opinions on the subject whatsover. I would find it hard to have an opinion on hungarian chess masters for example, but someone somewhere likes to regularly spew shit on their article. They just happen to be the target of vandalism regularly. For the biographies where I do have an opinion about the subject (eg, Rolf Harris) the opinion is almost always negative, but they are on my watchlist not because I want to incorporate that opinion into the article, but because the article is particularly problematic and even rampant kiddie fiddlers deserve fair treatment.

MjolnirPants wrote:NPOV editor.

[rant]
I demand we retire this Wikipedianism RIGHT NOW. The term only serves to virtue signal amongst those who have drunk the five pillars kool aid (wretch!).

I will even grant that a "neutral point of view" is a perfectly reasonable editorial perspective, but the term is still trash. We can reflect first on the asinine jargon that a user who changes the Wikipedia database is an "editor" (ha!) and then we can try to wrap our heads around a society that uses the four-letter-acronym NPOV is a fucking adjective. At that point, I'm spent. Sorry, I just can't take it!
[/rant]

Someone who edits an article is an editor. What other word can we use? I agree that NPOV is not a very meaningful concept and anyway makes an almost unpronounceable acronym.

Poetlister wrote:Someone who edits an article is an editor. What other word can we use?

"Alteration vector."

Anroth wrote:Everything except the BLP one is correct...

I should have said "Controversial BLP". It doesn't apply to Bob Ross, for example.

Midsize Jake wrote:"Alteration vector."

I prefer "Idiot who needs a better hobby."

MjolnirPants wrote:

Midsize Jake wrote:"Alteration vector."

I prefer "Idiot who needs a better hobby."

But for some people it isn't a hobby. Some people earn money from it, don't forget.

Poetlister wrote:

But for some people it isn't a hobby. Some people earn money from it, don't forget.

Okay: "hobby/job" then.

That sounds dirty. "Hey baby, want a hobby job?"