Wikipediocracy

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:28 am**

thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?

Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:33 pm**

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".

I see what you did there, Jim. Several times over. Well played.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:45 pm**

thekohser wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".
I see what you did there, Jim. Several times over. Well played.

Meh. You're big on correct spelling. So am I, usually. So I pulled your leg a couple of times. That's all.

One very large forum I'm a member of actually has a rule that you can't correct other members' spelling errors, because folks used to do it just to rile each other.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:35 pm**

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".

[pedant]Jim: You missed something. It should have been "am I not?", not "aren't I?"[/pedant]

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:50 pm**

Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".
[pedant]Jim: You missed something. It should have been "am I not?", not "aren't I?"[/pedant]

You're right. I overlook things sometimes, and I'm grateful when folks point that out. Thank you. There's a thread here that looks like it might benefit from your input, by the way.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:06 pm**

Jim wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".
[pedant]Jim: You missed something. It should have been "am I not?", not "aren't I?"[/pedant]
You're right. I overlook things sometimes, and I'm grateful when folks point that out. Thank you. There's a thread here that looks like it might benefit from your input, by the way.

I might just implement that 'pedant' tag, just to amuse myself. Pray that I don't.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:31 pm**

Zoloft wrote:
Jim wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".
[pedant]Jim: You missed something. It should have been "am I not?", not "aren't I?"[/pedant]
You're right. I overlook things sometimes, and I'm grateful when folks point that out. Thank you. There's a thread here that looks like it might benefit from your input, by the way.
I might just implement that 'pedant' tag, just to amuse myself. Pray that I don't.

There's been a number of praying suggestions lately. I agree and propose we chose a patron God. I vote Crepitus, the Greek God of flatulence.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:04 pm**

Notvelty wrote:There's been a number of praying suggestions lately. I agree and propose we chose a patron God. I vote Crepitus, the Greek God of flatulence.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:53 am**

An interesting thing happened last week to my very first vandalized page. Along came an editor with an obvious (undeclared) conflict of interest, making some additions to the article. He didn't even notice my vandalism. Then, not 15 minutes later, a bot reverted his edits because the bot (seems to me) was malfunctioning.

My edit remains intact.

All is good on Wikipedia.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:12 pm**

Notvelty wrote:There's been a number of praying suggestions lately. I agree and propose we chose a patron God. I vote Crepitus, the Greek God of flatulence.

To Anacreon in Heav'n
As he sat in full glee
A few sons of harmony
Sent a petition
That he their inspirer
And patron should be....

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:14 pm**

SarekOfVulcan wrote:
Notvelty wrote:There's been a number of praying suggestions lately. I agree and propose we chose a patron God. I vote Crepitus, the Greek God of flatulence.
To Anacreon in Heav'n
As he sat in full glee
A few sons of harmony
Sent a petition
That he their inspirer
And patron should be....

*takes off hat and stands up*

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:28 pm**

Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Jim wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:C'mon, I'm better than this, aren't I?
Yeah - youd' never of mispelled "8 ball".
[pedant]Jim: You missed something. It should have been "am I not?", not "aren't I?"[/pedant]
You're right. I overlook things sometimes, and I'm grateful when folks point that out. Thank you. There's a thread here that looks like it might benefit from your input, by the way.
I might just implement that 'pedant' tag, just to amuse myself. Pray that I don't.
There's been a number of praying suggestions lately. I agree and propose we chose a patron God. I vote Crepitus, the Greek God of flatulence.

I've always had a soft spot for Petulia link http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Petulia[/link] myself I'm not really sure how she would really apply to this site though. .

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:18 pm**

The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:24 pm**

I think that this is a useful experiment. You can't emphasize too much that Wikipedia is not reliable. People rely on it like gospel and that's insane.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:35 pm**

thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.

It would be also useful for it to say whether the articles were randomly chosen or not, with, maybe, some sort of indication of number of daily hits and relative importance to various topics.

I say this because I seem to remember some effort years ago to autogenerate separate articles for every city in the US, and if any of the articles were clearly of a kind of minor nature like, for instance, Newell, South Dakota (T-H-L), most people would probably not unreasonably so something like, "so what?"

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:38 pm**

JCM wrote:
thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.
It would be also useful for it to say whether the articles were randomly chosen or not, with, maybe, some sort of indication of number of daily hits and relative importance to various topics.

I say this because I seem to remember some effort years ago to autogenerate separate articles for every city in the US, and if any of the articles were clearly of a kind of minor nature like, for instance, Newell, South Dakota (T-H-L), most people would probably not unreasonably so something like, "so what?"

The selections were sometimes random, other times targeted a little bit. I tried to get a good mix of lightly-viewed and heavily-viewed articles. And I put in a good mix of unsourced and (falsely) "sourced" content, as well as a mix of outlandish and subtle "facts". For instance, if you change the name of an architect of a building to the name of another architect who had nothing to do with the building, that's fairly subtle. But if you make a claim that an airline that was founded in 1928 was done so primarily to transport fried pork bellies and jelly beans to needy children in Bulgaria, that's fairly outlandish.

The final report will include a link to a spreadsheet that will document all of the pertinent data, including an estimate of "damaged views", as the old University of Minnesota study called them.

It's not a "scientific" study by any stretch, but then again, neither was the Nature report that the media held up as proof that Wikipedia was "more accurate" than Britannica.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:52 pm**

thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.

Was this one of them, or were they all in the past few days? Because that was one of the more creative edits I've seen lately...

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:14 pm**

SarekOfVulcan wrote:Was this one of them, or were they all in the past few days? Because that was one of the more creative edits I've seen lately...

No, I've never been to Syracuse University, but that edit is similar in style to a couple of my recent attempts.

Posted: **Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:21 pm**

Questionable material split to the "too embarrassing" section. Zimm2, watch it, fella.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:29 am**

thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.

Those who wish to follow along as the vandalism is undone may do so at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:31 am**

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.

Hell in a Bucket seems quite able to disrupt that process without any banninations. Perfectly predictably your "experiment" is reverted straight back in.

I'm sure, as a responsible Wikipedian, he checked the "source" when reinstating the material...

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:44 am**

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.
Hell in a Bucket seems quite able to disrupt that process without any banninations. Perfectly predictably your "experiment" is reverted straight back in.
I'm sure, as a responsible Wikipedian, he checked the "source" when reinstating the material...

South Park had an episode where the children had to choose a mascot. The had a choice between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. On Wikipedia, you don't have to make that sort of choice. You can have both.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:34 am**

Just the run of the mill vanity piece, yes?

DJ.JPG

Look at the "turnable".

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:52 am**

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.
Those who wish to follow along as the vandalism is undone may do so at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.

Who will be the Javert (T-H-L) to your Jean Valjean (T-H-L)?

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:01 am**

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.
Hell in a Bucket seems quite able to disrupt that process without any banninations. Perfectly predictably your "experiment" is reverted straight back in.
I'm sure, as a responsible Wikipedian, he checked the "source" when reinstating the material...

That's delicious stuff -- it will help flesh out the "big story" when I publish on the WPO blog.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:15 pm**

And when I publish, it will apparently come as a big surprise to Jimbo, thanks to the vigilant censorship of Smallbones.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:17 pm**

thekohser wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.
Hell in a Bucket seems quite able to disrupt that process without any banninations. Perfectly predictably your "experiment" is reverted straight back in.
I'm sure, as a responsible Wikipedian, he checked the "source" when reinstating the material...
That's delicious stuff -- it will help flesh out the "big story" when I publish on the WPO blog.

I figured you might quite enjoy that when I saw it.

It's just a shame he doesn't have one of those "This userpage has been vandalised x times" boxes on his userpage, or you could go there and just change x to x+1, to see if he could figure out what do about that...

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:35 pm**

thekohser wrote:And when I publish, it will apparently come as a big surprise to Jimbo, thanks to the vigilant censorship of Smallbones.

I assumed the lovely little guy was just joining in the April fool joke spirit when he did that, and it was the 2nd here, by now, anyway, so I laughed with him at his smashing little joke and restored your comment.
He could always just revert me if he disagrees...

Fred's on the case:

So long as he continues to revert vandalism please do not block him. Fred Bauder (T-C-L). 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Saint Kohser#Let him finish his work

Please do not block this user until he finishes correcting the errors he has introduced into the encyclopedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I love it.
One Thousand and One Nights (T-H-L)

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:12 pm**

thekohser wrote: Those who wish to follow along as the vandalism is undone may do so at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.

You're hustling through the restorations, but if you slowed down to just a few per day, you'd get more awareness among the Wikipedians, force some of the mindless revertatrons and blockatrons to stop and watch (and howl in agony at not being able to terminate your account) and maybe think a bit more.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:28 pm**

Triptych wrote:
thekohser wrote: Those who wish to follow along as the vandalism is undone may do so at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.
You're hustling through the restorations, but if you slowed down to just a few per day, you'd get more awareness among the Wikipedians, force some of the mindless revertatrons and blockatrons to stop and watch (and howl in agony at not being able to terminate your account) and maybe think a bit more.

Hmm... Personally, I think Greg has the timing just right here. He's been doing worthwhile things on wikipedia other than just decrying his unjust block for a long time now, so he has a feel for it. Some don't do that, and go off half-cocked.
Greg knows the balance. This one will be fun, and could have a bit of impact.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:42 pm**

And now at RFAR...

Sigh

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

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:46 pm**

Slow motion trainwreck...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Slow down and make them leave you unblocked for a year or two.

Be sure to have another account adding new ones to other articles as you go.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:08 pm**

charliemouse wrote:I think that this is a useful experiment. You can't emphasize too much that Wikipedia is not reliable. People rely on it like gospel and that's insane.

Ignorance about Wikipedia is still widespread. See e.g. this article published yesterday, stating that:

Following attempt to disrupt the 2015 Nigeria’s general election results announcement on March 31, Godsday Orubebe’s has succeeded in adding spices to his résumé on Wikipedia, as the internet giant just reportedly updated his profile.

The writer doesn't get that the "Internet giant" hasn't done anything. What's happened is that some person somewhere on the planet added a bit of unsourced material to a web page anyone with access to the Internet can edit. This is a Nigerian news website, but you still come across similar phrasings on US and European sites as well. As long as that is the case, there is a lot of work left to be done.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:37 pm**

Time to fess up: Which one of you is "Hell in a Bucket?"

The relevant AN/I thread is at WP:ANI#Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser. As evidenced there, Hell in a Bucket is disruptively restoring vandalism to articles that's being undone by the banned user who added it. This is insanity and HIAB deserves a whale for this one. The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Administrators states that administrators "are never required to use their tools". Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:BURO states, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." As I explained at ANI, if any administrator were to disagree with us they would be well within their rights to block the user in question, but attempting to punish us for not following a rule for the benefit of the encyclopedia is nothing short of utterly ridiculous and I won't defend myself against this absurdity further. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he really is ("Per arbcom banning policy this is a banned user removing the edit. feel free to fix it yourself.")

But he has an explanation.

Holy fuck User:Swarm you must have missed this part of that small paragraph let me help you by bolding it. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously Maybe it's just me not using common sense but leaving them unblocked lets them edit the encyclopedia, I must have missed that day in class where we don't block banned users or their socks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:WJBscribe, I agree with you fully that vandalism should not be restored but ther additions being removed do show that they are sourced. Are we going to argue the merits of a user that has been banned for disruptive practices and take them at their word? I certainly wouldn't and I think that anything sourced should be checked and the two examples you provide do have a source. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just another person who makes Wikipedia the loving, thoughtful and fun collaborative environment we all adore.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:43 pm**

And Jesus, Ira, are you one fatuous ass.

None of this, of course, means that I or anyone else find Thekohser's behavior acceptable. The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation. Conducting another "experiment" aimed at demonstrating it was neither necessary, nor authorized, nor ethically permissible. Significantly, the Arbitration Committee has also condemned a previous "breaching experiment" in which Thekohser deliberately vandalized BLPs (see, here). Thekohser also previously obtained unauthorized access to an administrator account, requiring an emergency desysopping (see here). If, as appears, the mechanisms available to the editing community are unable to control this individual's gross misconduct, it may be appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation Office to review the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:08 pm**

Hurrah for Fluffernutter.

And believe it or not, an intervention on Greg's behalf from Fred Bauder.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:17 pm**

Now blocked by Courcelles (T-C-L). And diffs being tossed down the memory hole as we speak.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:51 pm**

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:Now blocked by Courcelles (T-C-L). And diffs being tossed down the memory hole as we speak.

Well, Greg? Is that the only account you used to do the vandalism test?

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:26 pm**

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:Now blocked by Courcelles (T-C-L). And diffs being tossed down the memory hole as we speak.

Courcelles labeled the block "Oversight block." What was oversightable about what Kohser did? Or have we reached the stage where insiders say "oversight schmoversight, I'm erasing this."

Poetlister wrote:Hurrah for Fluffernutter.

There's not much there to say "hurrah" about. She reverted the idiot that reinserted Kohser's experimental vandalism after he came back to repair it.

Fluffernutter and Courcelles are Karen and Brad Ingraffea of upstate New York, USA, and each are known to use use real-sounding but fake pseudonyms.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:28 pm**

I assume that reverting the vandalism on this particular day was intended to find the April Fools.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:29 pm**

Triptych wrote:Courcelles labeled the block "Oversight block." What was oversightable about what Kohser did? Or have we reached the stage where insiders say "oversight schmoversight, I'm erasing this."

Nothing, and they reached that stage back in 2006.....

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:34 pm**

There are two types of people in the world.

The first type (to which I belong) will never cast his shadow anywhere it is not welcome. The moment it is made clear that my presence is no longer welcome, it is at that time I quit the place and don't look back.

Then there are the Kohsers of the world who, once formally kicked from a place, return again and again. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying I don't understand it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:36 pm**

spartaz wrote:And now at RFAR...

Sigh

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

Good lord! The idiocy! I think I have to go wash my eyes out now.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Banning_Policy_II (T-H-L)

It looks like most of the Arbs have made up their minds already. Despite their many, many flaws, at least they can all agree that Hell in a Bucket is dumber than a sack of potatoes.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:47 pm**

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:Good lord! The idiocy! I think I have to go wash my eyes out now.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Banning_Policy_II (T-H-L)

It looks like most of the Arbs have made up their minds already. Despite their many, many flaws, at least they can all agree that Hell in a Bucket is dumber than a sack of potatoes.

Again, this is the most incredibly stupid soap opera the world has ever seen. HiaB is trolling them and some of them are allowing themselves to be trolled.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:18 pm**

The Joy wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:The "seeding" stage of my experiment is complete. 30 articles have been vandalized by single-purpose IP addresses. Now I wait 30 more days, then assess how much of the damage remains. I'll write a nice story about the characteristics of the edits that were reverted, versus those that were not. But already I've proven that thousands of readers easily can be fed misleading information by someone determined to do so on Wikipedia.
Those who wish to follow along as the vandalism is undone may do so at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... int_Kohser

Of course, if that account should be blocked (it's a sock of a banned editor, of course), then that will unfortunately disrupt the process of "setting things right" on Wikipedia again.
Who will be the Javert (T-H-L) to your Jean Valjean (T-H-L)?

So long as he (or she) is in the bass-baritone range, I'm fine with whatever choice. Let there never be another tenor Javert!

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:55 am**

EricBarbour wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:Now blocked by Courcelles (T-C-L). And diffs being tossed down the memory hole as we speak.
Well, Greg? Is that the only account you used to do the vandalism test?

Eric, it's the only account from which I planned to correct the vandalism. The initial vandalism was performed from 30 different IP addresses. Now that they have blocked Saint Kohser, it looks like the nitwits will have to wait for my blog post to discover the other 22 vandalized pages, and they they can go fix them on their own.

As for the "oversight" aspect of one of my article Talk page notes about a vandalism, it boils down to ArbCom not wanting the general public to know (gasp!) that on Chenango Canal (T-H-L), shortly after my vandalism, an editor (Hlkliman (T-C-L)) made several edits to the article without noticing the vandalism. Presumably this was Harvey L. Kliman, webmaster of the Chenango Canal Association website. That's OUTING! The article was ultimately corrected by Wade lallier (T-C-L), and the ArbCom thinks it's greatly disruptive to speculate that Wade Lallier is a New York state corrections officer.

Marteau wrote:There are two types of people in the world.

The first type (to which I belong) will never cast his shadow anywhere it is not welcome. The moment it is made clear that my presence is no longer welcome, it is at that time I quit the place and don't look back.

Then there are the Kohsers of the world who, once formally kicked from a place, return again and again. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying I don't understand it.

Marteau, thank you for your 7th post here at Wikipediocracy. I understand your perspective, but really -- if you happened upon a bunch of self-righteous and arrogant fools who taunted and mocked you, and you then discovered that you can send a dozen of them into a day-long conniption fit by dropping by their secret clubhouse and simply dropping a lit cigarette on the floor and walking away, you wouldn't do that, just for entertainment purposes? Not to mention, what if other people in your town will pay you handsomely to write a few brochures that might look nice hanging on the clubhouse wall? Why should I walk away from that?

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:42 am**

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
spartaz wrote:And now at RFAR...

Sigh

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... rbitration
Good lord! The idiocy! I think I have to go wash my eyes out now.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Banning_Policy_II (T-H-L)

It looks like most of the Arbs have made up their minds already. Despite their many, many flaws, at least they can all agree that Hell in a Bucket is dumber than a sack of potatoes.

Hellinabucket says,

"HI MY NAME IS JAKE.

...
I AM MOST DEFINITLY 420 FRIENDLY AND A BIG DEAD HEAD TO BOOT."

What 20 Years Of Research Has Taught Us About The Chronic Effects Of Marijuana

Chronic Effects

Marijuana use is linked to adverse cognitive effects. In particular, the drug is linked to reduced learning, memory, and attention. It hasn’t been entirely clear whether these effects persist after a person stops using the drug, but there’s some evidence that it does. One study found a reduction in IQ of 8 points in long-time users, the greatest decline being in people who’d started using as teenagers and continued daily into adulthood. For people who began in adulthood and eventually stopped using, a reduction in IQ was not seen a year later.
Marijuana may change brain structure and function. There’s been an ongoing debate about whether marijuana actually changes the brain, but recent evidence has suggested that it is linked to changes in the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex. It’s unclear, however, how long these effects last, whether they’re linked to behavioral changes, and whether they reverse after a person stops using the drug.
Regular use is linked to an increased risk of psychotic symptoms. That marijuana is linked to increased psychotic symptoms (e.g., delusions, hallucinations, disordered thinking) is fairly clear. But again, it’s been a chicken-and-egg problem, since it’s hard to show whether causation is at play, and which way the connection goes. However, it’s likely that the relationship actually goes both ways: Marijuana may lead to psychotic symptoms, and early psychotic symptoms may increase the likelihood that a person will smoke marijuana (particularly if there’s a family history of psychotic disorders).
Marijuana is linked to lower educational attainment. When pot smoking begins in adolescence, people tend to go less far in school – but again, a causal relationship hasn’t been demonstrated.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:19 am**

For old farts:

420 friendly: This is a way to express the acceptance of smoking pot or accepting somone who does so, without overtly mentioning pot or marijuana.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... 0+friendly

I thought 'neckbeard' was an urban legend, but they really do exist.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:31 am**

Statement by Newyorkbrad: This situation that should be handled with discretion and, as others have said, with common sense, which contrary to popular belief is not actually against Wikipedia policy in any situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ewyorkbrad

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:08 am**

Newyorkbrad wrote: The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation. Conducting another "experiment" aimed at demonstrating it was neither necessary, nor authorized, nor ethically permissible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ewyorkbrad

Why not ‘ethically permissible’? That Wikipedia cannot spot subtle vandalism is not a ‘novel revelation [sic]’ to Brad, but the general public still do not properly appreciate this, due to the ’99.9% vandalism reverted within seconds’ myth that the media perpetuate. I would like to hear from Brad why it is not ‘ethically permissible’ to educate the public about this. Quite the reverse, surely. Ralph Nader was ethical, no?

Nader claims that GM responded to his criticism of the Corvair by trying to destroy Nader's image and to silence him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

Wikipediocracy

Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism

Re: Creative Vandalism