Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
kołdry
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:23 am

A solution is slowly percolating up through the community. :evilgrin:

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Tarc
Habitué
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Wikipedia User: Tarc

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Tarc » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:03 am

Captain Occam wrote:When you look at this whole situation, there's something basic that seems inconsistent about it. Here's the sequence of events:

1: Mathsci gets blocked for edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page.

2: The article gets protected as Mathsci's preferred version.

3: Mathsci gets unblocked, under the assumption that ArbCom will resolve the issue.

4: ArbCom then declines the case request, with the assumption that the issue should be resolved by the community. Meanwhile, although the community's desire on the article talk page remains clear, Mathsci has successfully thwarted it.

This is the one of situations for which ArbCom exists: where the community consensus is already clear, but due to one or more intractable editors, the community is unable to carry out that consensus. But in this case ArbCom is passing the buck back to the community, even though the community has already decided they can't handle this situation without ArbCom's intervention. Do the arbitrators really expect this exact same situation to not repeat itself when the article's protection expires?
The thing is, as soon as the Mathsci piece slides off the page, a lot of the brouhaha will die done. Just as the blacklist discussion faltered after a time.

To Beeblebroxs' credit, he tried to force Arbcom to look at the proverbial Big Picture. Didn't work.

As for Mathsci himself, there's always an out when one says one's actions are done in the name of BLP protection.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:32 am

There's some pretty self-serving and far removed from truthful accounts from various bad actors on the RFAR page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pediocracy
Statement by Andy Dingley
Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, a BLP AfD recently raised at the instigation of a Wikipediocracy editor claiming to be the subject,[1] nominated by another Wikipediocracy editor and most vehemently argued by a 3rd Wikipediocracy editor. As a result of this article, and my fairly minor role in it, I was one of 3 WP editors to be hounded at Wikipediocracy including outing and gross insults.[2]
I don't consider this to be acceptable behaviour, especially not when it's carried out by WP editors happy to use Wikipediocracy as a WP:CIVIL-free sandbox for things they couldn't say here without being immediately sanctioned. As an issue perhaps outside the scope of this ArbCom request, I would like to see clarity on WP:CIVIL as to whether behaviour at Wikipediocracy can be considered a factor for sanctions at WP under CIVIL/NPA, or an initial cause for such sanctions (i.e. should a cynical editor who keeps themselves in check at WP but violates the behaviour of WP:CIVIL at Wikipediocracy be sanctioned here at WP for that alone.)
That said, I think WP should link to Wikipediocracy from Wikipediocracy. Anything else just makes WP look petty. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You wrote some fairly nasty shit Andy.
If your wet dream about WO posts having an effect on WP, the only thing you would accomplish is to have everyone's account renamed to something random.
Statement by Scottywong
Arbcom would be wise to pause and consider this request. The actions of WO regulars (many of whom are former Wikipedia Review regulars) have directly led to the retirement of prolific editors and admins. I can say that with great confidence, because I am one of them. When several WO regulars outted me on their site, and threatened to contact my employer in an attempt to get me fired, and linked to it from all over Wikipedia, I wasn't genuinely frightened by it, knowing that the reality of the situation likely involves a harmless, pizza-faced teenager in sweatpants in his parents' dark, dingy basement. However, it did cause me to re-evaluate why I volunteered my time here, and whether it was worth it for me. The outting changed the equation for me, and I no longer contribute here with any regularity as a result. Even if it was only a symbolic gesture, blacklisting WO would minimally improve the situation, and make it impossible for someone to be blocked for accidentally linking to it. The opponents say "well, I can just tell people to go to Wikipediocracy instead of linking to it." Fine, then tell people to go there instead of linking, I don't give a shit. While I agree that having an external cite devoted to criticism of Wikipedia is healthy, this particular site oversteps those bounds quite a bit, by viciously going after people and attempting to affect their lives outside of Wikipedia, and this has a very real effect on the editor count here. I believe that Arbcom could, at the very least, make a strong statement here by taking on this case and taking some meaningful action to discourage the damaging misbehavior that has become such a regular occurrence on this external site. We cannot control what they do, but we certainly can assert some influence them in some ways. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm digging on this one.
Scott, you got caught and caught hard.
You were:
* Editing on company time
* Editing about your employer
* Behaving like a giant douche to people. Think mini-Qworty

You ran off butthurt and slinked back on.
It's a strange thing that you were able to keep your bits after such blatant COI editing.

You're such a bad liar Scott.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:07 am

Vigilant wrote:You're such a bad liar Scott.
That's always bothered me too - I remember this Scotty Wong guy, he was caught pretty much red-handed, and before that he made it very obvious that he was a dishonest, cynical manipulator and, well, just not a very nice person at all. This site's "obvious paid editors are obvious" thread had to be split because of how much more obvious he was than most of the others, not to mention his efforts to drive other paid editors off of Wikipedia just to clear out the competition.

So, why do liars keep lying, even after their lies have been revealed, showing them to be the liars they are? Clearly they can't help themselves, but Wikipedia should hardly be enabling this guy. Nobody should. Wikipedia encourages this sort of behavior, by virtue of its half-assed "AGF" and "NPA" rule-set. The entire site is a classic example of people allowing themselves to be hosed for no reason other than that they might someday want to be the ones doing the hosing, and don't want to risk not being allowed to when the time comes. That, or it's just purely masturbatory.

Oh well... :dry:

And yes, as if it wasn't obvious, only one person - namely Mr. Vigilant here - suggested (somewhat facetiously, I thought) that his employer should be contacted. But anybody who reads this site on a regular basis knows that Mr. Vigilant suggests that should be done with pretty much everybody, including me. Thankfully I'm self-employed, but in a way, that only makes it more ironic.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:46 am

Midsize Jake wrote:And yes, as if it wasn't obvious, only one person - namely Mr. Vigilant here - suggested (somewhat facetiously, I thought) that his employer should be contacted. But anybody who reads this site on a regular basis knows that Mr. Vigilant suggests that should be done with pretty much everybody, including me. Thankfully I'm self-employed, but in a way, that only makes it more ironic.
Where on earth did I suggest that about you?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:59 am

Vigilant wrote:Where on earth did I suggest that about you?
Who said anything about "earth"?

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Hex » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:18 am

Vigilant wrote:You're such a bad liar Scott.
Jeez, we're going to have to change the name of the club again!

Regards,
Scott.
(Secretary, The No Bibbies or Wongs Club)
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Moonage Daydream
Habitué
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Moonage Daydream » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:49 am

Zoloft wrote:A solution is slowly percolating up through the community. :evilgrin:
Who is this impartial character Widefox (T-C-L)? Oh look: all the usual WMUK players follow him on Twitter.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by DanMurphy » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:12 pm

Previous thread on Scott Wieser's (AKA "Scottywong (T-C-L)") involvement in paid editing (he was advertising for freelance PR writing gigs on Wikipedia) and editing his employer's article (and dissembling over all of it with the best of them!) is here.

Welcome to all our new readers! Good luck with the important work you're doing in the Arbitration request!

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by lilburne » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:51 pm

DanMurphy wrote: Welcome to all our new readers! Good luck with the important work you're doing in the Arbitration request!
I'm enjoying all the speculation about who wrote what etc over there. Can't wait for episode 2.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Zoloft » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:03 am

So... discussion has died down, a solution has been agreed upon, and the article is still fully protected.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:21 pm

Quote:

Statement by Andy Dingley

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, a BLP AfD recently raised at the instigation of a Wikipediocracy editor claiming to be the subject,[1] nominated by another Wikipediocracy editor and most vehemently argued by a 3rd Wikipediocracy editor. As a result of this article, and my fairly minor role in it, I was one of 3 WP editors to be hounded at Wikipediocracy including outing and gross insults.[2]

I don't consider this to be acceptable behaviour, especially not when it's carried out by WP editors happy to use Wikipediocracy as a WP:CIVIL-free sandbox for things they couldn't say here without being immediately sanctioned. As an issue perhaps outside the scope of this ArbCom request, I would like to see clarity on WP:CIVIL as to whether behaviour at Wikipediocracy can be considered a factor for sanctions at WP under CIVIL/NPA, or an initial cause for such sanctions (i.e. should a cynical editor who keeps themselves in check at WP but violates the behaviour of WP:CIVIL at Wikipediocracy be sanctioned here at WP for that alone.)
That said, I think WP should link to Wikipediocracy from Wikipediocracy. Anything else just makes WP look petty. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy, you ignorant slut.

You have spewed your sick boot-licking nob-worship all over Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion link
Being the descendant of a medieval war criminal doesn't convey notability. Being part of a contemporary socio-political system that still rewards descendants of medieval war criminals and grants them special status, that's what conveys notability. Britain does still work on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage link
It's still unclear whether the Roll of the Peerage defines whether someone is a duke or not. It defines whether they're to be recognised officially as one, but they have inherited some status (what?) before this. There's an unclear interregnum between being heir apparent, the death of their predecessor, accepting the title and finally being added to the Roll. Burke's and Debrett's already recognise Alexander Montagu as the 13th duke (although these have been conveniently blanked from the article as non-RS primary sources(!) ). Montagu has used the title personally. No-one else can claim to be the Duke of Manchester whilst Alexander Montagu still lives.
So if he's not a duke, what is he? If he's not the Duke, who is? – it's not an extinct title. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Usertalk:Nick link
Hope that explains it all, it's really horribly complicated and has probably got worse now that the AP seem to think he has sat in the House of Lords. A quick search I've just undertaken of Hansard turns up no evidence of Montagu having sat in the House of Lords under any subsidiary titles http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/peop ... s-montagu/ (his father) and he http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/peop ... r-montagu/.
Cheers, Nick (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems utterly implausible that the AP claim is correct. 2002 is too late for this, without it being recorded through the Roll. Yet no-one at the AfD was ever claiming this, as a reason for notability, so it just doesn't matter anyway.
There is still a serious problem in that no-one has reconciled the discrepancy between Burke's and Debrett's describing him as a duke without him having been listed on the Roll. Just what is his status? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2013
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard link
He may, or may not, be the 13th Duke of Manchester. This is controversial. He is recognised as such by some sources (Debrett's, Burke's, Who's Who, The Telegraph), but does not appear on the 2004 Roll of the Peerage. It is alleged that he has chosen to not be recognised as the duke. His precise intermediate status is thus unknown to me. He denies this title at times, but has also used it himself.[20]

He has appeared in several courts and has served prison time for a variety of incidents in a colourful life worldwide. He has been accused of bigamy (an important matter, when the inheritance of titles is at issue).

The Afd article is ostensibly about notability. Personally I consider that he is, because dukes (a very senior rank in the British peerage) and their heirs apparent are (IMHO) implicitly notable. Even if they were to renounce the title.

Why is this raised here? Wikipediocracy. This thread is raised by someone claiming to be Alexander Montagu, and the other two main contributors to that thread are the WP editors raising this AfD, and being the most vociferous in calling for its deletion. Clearly this is an embarrassing article to have to your name (even in its current truncated form - looking at its history can be illuminating too), but are we reduced to now deleting BLPs on demand, if they are first canvassed through Wikipediocracy? I see this as a substantial COI and a very bad precedent to set for BLPs in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That last post is where you crossed the line from being an ignorant slut to being a deranged stalker.

You found Mrs Montagu's Flickr account, and set up a permanent slide show of her personal photos, including photos of my 14-year-old daughter, on Wikipedia.

You sick fuck.

You have threatened to stalk and harass my 20-year-old son for the rest of his life: "The Afd article is ostensibly about notability. Personally I consider that he is, because dukes (a very senior rank in the British peerage) and their heirs apparent are (IMHO) implicitly notable. Even if they were to renounce the title."

Your aberrant behaviour, and your unmistakable threats, have been reported to all the relevant authorities.
former Living Person

Wer900
Gregarious
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Wer900

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Wer900 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:17 pm

Take legal action if you must, because we don't enforce Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats(T-C-F-L) policy as vigorously here, so long as there isn't a frivolous circus of threats. This is hardly frivolous.

EDIT: Good thing this Dingley character has been reported to the police.
Obvious civility robots are obvious

Lukeno94
Gregarious
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:34 pm
Wikipedia User: Lukeno94

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Lukeno94 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:38 pm

The irony of that last comment by Dingley was that several delete voters, including myself, either have never contributed to this site, or only joined after the debate.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:07 pm

Mancunium wrote: ... Andy, you ignorant slut ...
What's this guys problem with you? Do you know each other irl, is there something personal here. (my apologies if you've already answered this and I missed it). The guy definitely has a cockleburr shoved up his ass.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:45 pm

Take legal action if you must, because we don't enforce Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats(T-C-F-L) policy as vigorously here, so long as there isn't a frivolous circus of threats. This is hardly frivolous.
Nobody would bother to file a civil action against Dingley. As a pauper, he is judgement-proof.

He makes no secret of his whereabouts link, and it is up to the West Mercia Police link to investigate him, and to decide whether or not to bring criminal charges.
What's this guys problem with you? Do you know each other irl, is there something personal here.
No, his WP harassment is our only connection. He is one of those reactionary Brits who go all weak at the knees at the sight of a duke, and find it impossible to contain their excitement at even the online presence of one. As long as atavistic throwbacks to feudalism like him are running around, England will never be the long-promised "country fit for heroes".
former Living Person

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:00 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Take legal action if you must, because we don't enforce Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats(T-C-F-L) policy as vigorously here, so long as there isn't a frivolous circus of threats. This is hardly frivolous.
Nobody would bother to file a civil action against Dingley. As a pauper, he is judgement-proof.

He makes no secret of his whereabouts link, and it is up to the West Mercia Police link to investigate him, and to decide whether or not to bring criminal charges.
What's this guys problem with you? Do you know each other irl, is there something personal here.
No, his WP harassment is our only connection. He is one of those reactionary Brits who go all weak at the knees at the sight of a duke, and find it impossible to contain their excitement at even the online presence of one. As long as atavistic throwbacks to feudalism like him are running around, England will never be the long-promised "country fit for heroes".
Sounds like he's got quite the crush on you.
A failed bromance is a terrible thing for him to endure.

Hell hath no fury and all that...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:35 pm

OK, my "you ignorant slut" opening remark comes from here:
former Living Person

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Anroth » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:19 pm

I keep confusing Dingley with Mabbett.... When you throw in Andy the grump it can get confusing. One of them I respect, one of them I wouldnt piss on if they were on fire, and the other is a nobody.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:38 pm

Anroth wrote:I keep confusing Dingley with Mabbett.... When you throw in Andy the grump it can get confusing. One of them I respect, one of them I wouldnt piss on if they were on fire, and the other is a nobody.
I love how their names when mashed together make Dingbat.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:50 pm

:offtopic:
This is not a signature.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:11 pm

Agreed, Johnny. Now we're just trolling.
I love how their names when mashed together make Dingbat.
"Dingbat" has been his online handle for years, and if you type "dingbat" into Google Search its anticipatory algorithm presents these suggestions:
dingbat
dingbat andy dingley
dingbat fonts
dingbat crossword
The honest-to-gawd cover of his CV: Image
former Living Person

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Captain Occam » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:18 pm

Can anyone figure out what the "persistent BLP concerns" with this article are? It's now linking to the site map rather than the main page, which I thought was a compromise everyone could agree with.

User avatar
greybeard
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:21 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by greybeard » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:30 pm

Captain Occam wrote:Can anyone figure out what the "persistent BLP concerns" with this article are? It's now linking to the site map rather than the main page, which I thought was a compromise everyone could agree with.
We keep posting stuff the Wikipidiots don't like on the blog, so they don't want to link to the blog, which is on the main page. The hard-liners want no links, of course.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:08 pm

Barring non-autoconfirmed editors seems a tad odd, though. I suppose it is because a probable sock of somebody showed up and added the site map, but even Mathsci agreed to including the site map so that isn't really an issue.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:01 pm

Seriously though, is some good Wikipedia editor going to add some text to the Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) article to document Amanda Filipacchi's Wall Street Journal story?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by DanMurphy » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:36 pm

I don't care if Wikipedia's article on Wikipediocracy has links to here or not (I'd prefer there not be an article at all). But it is illuminating (yet again!) of their misplaced priorities and overweening concern for themselves rather than the subjects of their articles.

Earlier today, the Wikipediocracy article was placed on "pending changes level 1" (a rarely used tool that requires an experienced editor to approve edits made by inexperienced editors before they become visible to the general public). This was presumably because we discuss the identities of various Wikipedia editors on this website and, therefore, links to this website are bad. Very, very bad.

I got to wondering how many Wikipedia articles are on "pending changes level 1" at the moment to protect the reputations of article subjects. The answer is just 602 articles. Wikipedia has over 625,000 articles in its "living people" category (and this does not include the great many more articles that are not about individuals, but nevertheless discuss them at length).

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:10 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Earlier today, the Wikipediocracy article was placed on "pending changes level 1" (a rarely used tool that requires an experienced editor to approve edits made by inexperienced editors before they become visible to the general public). This was presumably because we discuss the identities of various Wikipedia editors on this website and, therefore, links to this website are bad. Very, very bad.

I got to wondering how many Wikipedia articles are on "pending changes level 1" at the moment to protect the reputations of article subjects. The answer is just 602 articles.
I don't think we should complain about being put under a Pending Changes umbrella, since many of us have been calling for that to be universally implemented on Wikipedia. It's a good thing.

I found it interesting that in those 602 PC-protected articles, they found Caesar salad, Hamburger, Hat, New Year's Day, Orange juice, Roller coaster, and Tiger versus lion to be needing assistance. But the article about Stephen Barrett is not protected in any way at all, despite him being found in 2011 to be one of the top 10 most contentious BLPs on Wikipedia.

Speaking of Tiger versus lion, how is it possible that Wikipedia's Liger (T-H-L) article makes no mention of its role in Napoleon Dynamite?
Last edited by thekohser on Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:12 pm

DanMurphy wrote:I don't care if Wikipedia's article on Wikipediocracy has links to here or not (I'd prefer there not be an article at all). But it is illuminating (yet again!) of their misplaced priorities and overweening concern for themselves rather than the subjects of their articles.

Earlier today, the Wikipediocracy article was placed on "pending changes level 1" (a rarely used tool that requires an experienced editor to approve edits made by inexperienced editors before they become visible to the general public). This was presumably because we discuss the identities of various Wikipedia editors on this website and, therefore, links to this website are bad. Very, very bad.

I got to wondering how many Wikipedia articles are on "pending changes level 1" at the moment to protect the reputations of article subjects. The answer is just 602 articles. Wikipedia has over 625,000 articles in its "living people" category (and this does not include the great many more articles that are not about individuals, but nevertheless discuss them at length).
Ironic how not only "pending changes" is rarely used, but also the "community" bitterly fought against the tool ever being available. It is a fig leaf for "WP:NOTCENSORED unless WP:WEDONTLIKEIT".

What is sadder is that this is as plain as a pikestaff yet Teh Communiteh apparently can't see it. Tools are for protecting Wikipedians, not protecting the world from Wikipedians.

So not complaining about its use per se, but how it is used for the advantage of Wikipedians and bitterly fought against when suggested against the abuse of articles about people in the real world.
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by DanMurphy » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:20 pm

thekohser wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Earlier today, the Wikipediocracy article was placed on "pending changes level 1" (a rarely used tool that requires an experienced editor to approve edits made by inexperienced editors before they become visible to the general public). This was presumably because we discuss the identities of various Wikipedia editors on this website and, therefore, links to this website are bad. Very, very bad.

I got to wondering how many Wikipedia articles are on "pending changes level 1" at the moment to protect the reputations of article subjects. The answer is just 602 articles.
I don't think we should complain about being put under a Pending Changes umbrella, since many of us have been calling for that to be universally implemented on Wikipedia. It's a good thing.

I found it interesting that in those 602 PC-protected articles, they found Caesar salad, Hamburger, Hat, New Year's Day, Orange juice, Roller coaster, and Tiger versus lion to be needing assistance. But the article about Stephen Barrett is not protected in any way at all, despite him being found in 2011 to be one of the top 10 most contentious BLPs on Wikipedia.

Speaking of Tiger versus lion, how is it possible that Wikipedia's Liger (T-H-L) article makes no mention of its role in Napoleon Dynamite?
I'm not opposing pending changes, I'm pointing out the enormous callousness and myopia and hypocrisy.
That Tiger versus lion (T-H-L) article is quite something, a classic article rescue squadron hodgepode.

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Captain Occam » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:24 am

Is there any reason why the Wikipediocracy article shouldn't cite this article by Dan Murphy? I didn't think there's usually a prohibition against citing articles whose authors are Wikipedia editors, when they're published in a reliable source.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:12 pm

Captain Occam wrote:Is there any reason why the Wikipediocracy article shouldn't cite this article by Dan Murphy? I didn't think there's usually a prohibition against citing articles whose authors are Wikipedia editors, when they're published in a reliable source.
There's no policy against citing the article. MathSci behaves irrationally around Wikipediocracy.

One could cite it for a description of misogyny at Wikipedia, although to mention Keyes or Gardner would take a second reliable source. I'm not sure that Kohser's article at The Examiner is a reliable source for wikipedia, so another reliable source is needed.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:29 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Captain Occam wrote:Is there any reason why the Wikipediocracy article shouldn't cite this article by Dan Murphy? I didn't think there's usually a prohibition against citing articles whose authors are Wikipedia editors, when they're published in a reliable source.
There's no policy against citing the article. MathSci behaves irrationally around Wikipediocracy.

One could cite it for a description of misogyny at Wikipedia, although to mention Keyes or Gardner would take a second reliable source. I'm not sure that Kohser's article at The Examiner is a reliable source for wikipedia, so another reliable source is needed.
I can't understand how MathSci aka Antony Wasserman hasn't been topic banned from "wikipediocracy, widely construed" yet.

He's as bad as Qworty aka Robert Clark Young when it comes to holding a grudge.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:00 am

Vigilant wrote:I can't understand how MathSci aka Antony Wasserman hasn't been topic banned from "wikipediocracy, widely construed" yet.
He's as bad as Qworty aka Robert Clark Young when it comes to holding a grudge.
Mathsci wasn't banned, but he came damn close a couple of times. Zoloft warned him to watch it.

I would say he's worse than Qworty, because Qworty knew when to quit. I guess Antony decided he wasn't going to bullshit or threaten
people here with any success, so he gave up and went back to WP, where he had allies. Last login was in July.

(BTW, he always used open proxies to access WO. One of them belonged to the US Navy. Going through life in that state of paranoia isn't good.)

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:56 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I can't understand how MathSci aka Antony Wasserman hasn't been topic banned from "wikipediocracy, widely construed" yet.
He's as bad as Qworty aka Robert Clark Young when it comes to holding a grudge.
Mathsci wasn't banned, but he came damn close a couple of times. Zoloft warned him to watch it.

I would say he's worse than Qworty, because Qworty knew when to quit. I guess Antony decided he wasn't going to bullshit or threaten
people here with any success, so he gave up and went back to WP, where he had allies. Last login was in July.

(BTW, he always used open proxies to access WO. One of them belonged to the US Navy. Going through life in that state of paranoia isn't good.)
Sorry, my fault for ambiguity.
I meant why isn't he topic banned from the en.wp article on wikipediocracy and all surrounding issues.
He's got an obvious COI and cannot compromise for the life of him.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:38 am

HRIP7 wrote:Speaking as a moderator, moderators (green) cannot see the IP address a post was made from. Admins (red) can.
EricBarbour wrote:(BTW, he always used open proxies to access WO. One of them belonged to the US Navy. Going through life in that state of paranoia isn't good.)
Given that Eric is green, either Andreas has bad eyesight or there's a leak somewhere.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by thekohser » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:43 am

Outsider wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Speaking as a moderator, moderators (green) cannot see the IP address a post was made from. Admins (red) can.
EricBarbour wrote:(BTW, he always used open proxies to access WO. One of them belonged to the US Navy. Going through life in that state of paranoia isn't good.)
Given that Eric is green, either Andreas has bad eyesight or there's a leak somewhere.
This suggests that Wikipediocracy has a rule that forbids admins from sharing IP information with moderators, or that HRIP7 was simply mistaken.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Aug 04, 2013 6:48 pm

:picard:

Actually several people are mistaken above, and I can't correct them without exposing more of our internal security measures than I'd like.

Let confusion reign.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:56 pm

Zoloft wrote:Let confusion reign.
That could be applied to PHPBB itself, as a catchphrase. The moderator control panel is, to be charitable, very difficult to decrypt or use.

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Captain Occam » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:52 am

EricBarbour wrote:That could be applied to PHPBB itself, as a catchphrase. The moderator control panel is, to be charitable, very difficult to decrypt or use.
I don't like PhpBB very much for forums that I host myself. When I used it for a little while at my own website in 2004 and 2005, I discovered how insecure it was: one particular person who wanted to get rid of the forum hacked it four times within the space of six months. This became less of a problem after I switched to SMF. I think PhpBB's security has improved in the time since then, but when there as many people with grudges against a forum as there are against this one, it's probably worth making an effort to use forum software that's as secure as possible.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:24 am

So MONGO (T-C-L) has suddenly decided to start fighting over the article, trying to insert how WO is full of ebil banned editors and is all doxxy and mean to people. Volunteer Marek and Malik Shabazz have taken it upon themselves to block his nonsense, but the discussion is raging on the talk page. Much silliness ensues.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:49 am

" It's not a crime to dox " So you think it's OK for Wikipedia editors and admins to dox someone, provided that they only talk about it on a different site?
How are you on another Wikipediocracy tactic, that of phoning their employer and accusing a WP editor of "facilitating pedophiles"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That settles it. Dingley is a completely loose cannon. And MONGO is still a slime.

So where's the WP:AGF now, assholes?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:50 pm

Yet these are part of the team arguing that what Phil Sandifer did wasn't so very bad.

You can't make this stuff up.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:06 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
" It's not a crime to dox " So you think it's OK for Wikipedia editors and admins to dox someone, provided that they only talk about it on a different site?
How are you on another Wikipediocracy tactic, that of phoning their employer and accusing a WP editor of "facilitating pedophiles"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That settles it. Dingley is a completely loose cannon. And MONGO is still a slime.

So where's the WP:AGF now, assholes?
Mr Dingley is approaching notability.

Five Minutes With Andy Dingley
South Wales Argus, 6 November 2013 link
FIVE MINUTES WITH Andy Dingley, member of Chepstow Association of Steampunk Gentlefolk.

If you had to be stuck in a lift with someone, who would it be and why?

I can think of a lot of people I wouldn’t like to be stuck in a lift with. But it would probably be Nick Clegg – he needs a damn ear-bending – and Cameron is beyond hope.

What is your biggest fear?

Range Rover petrol tanks – but that takes a while to explain.

Do you have any superstitions?

No. I’m a real scientist at heart. If someone told me there was a ghost in the room, I would run up to it and measure it.

If you could only listen to one song for the rest of your life, what would it be and why?

Given that he’s just died, it would be a Lou Reed song. Probably ‘Work’ from ‘Songs for Drella’ – it’s about what made Andy Warhol kick. A fantastic song to work to – driving you to get the job done.

What is the most expensive thing you’ve bought, not including property?

My new laser-cutting machine. I’ve just started a new business, mainly cutting wood. It took me a lot of time to save up the money and to find a good bargain on one. Hopefully I can make a living on it now.

What is the best piece of advice you’ve been given?

It’s a very common piece of advice – just do it. You will regret the things you didn’t do than the things you did do – you just go and do them.

What is your indulgence?

Books. I’ve got about 8,000 in the house.

What item could you not live without?

A rock and a piece of string. If you give me enough time, I can make everything I need.

If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Prevarication – not getting stuff started.

Where are you next going on holiday?

I’m going to drop myself in it now but Finland. Moomin World in Finland.
Image
Andy Dingley, notable Chepstovian
former Living Person

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:58 pm

If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
In the US, the verb "to prevaricate" means to try to hide the truth by equivocal speech; to seek to deceive. Does it mean something else in the UK or does Mr. Dingley just have a poor command of his native tongue?

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:19 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
In the US, the verb "to prevaricate" means to try to hide the truth by equivocal speech; to seek to deceive. Does it mean something else in the UK or does Mr. Dingley just have a poor command of his native tongue?
He is clearly thinking of procrastination. The UK shares the same Latin roots as the USA.
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:21 pm

He clearly means "lying".
DanMurphy wrote:
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
In the US, the verb "to prevaricate" means to try to hide the truth by equivocal speech; to seek to deceive. Does it mean something else in the UK or does Mr. Dingley just have a poor command of his native tongue?
Let's ask Wiktionary: link
Verb
prevaricate (third-person singular simple present prevaricates, present participle prevaricating, simple past and past participle prevaricated)

(transitive, intransitive, obsolete) To deviate, transgress; to go astray (from).

(intransitive) To shift or turn from direct speech or behaviour; to evade the truth; to waffle or be (intentionally) ambiguous.

(intransitive, law) To collude, as where an informer colludes with the defendant, and makes a sham prosecution.

(law, UK) To undertake something falsely and deceitfully, with the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
Freudian_slip (T-H-L)
former Living Person

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:26 pm

I have increasingly seen people use "prevaricate" when they mean "procrastinate", but it is a malapropism (T-H-L). I suppose it could lead to a charge of libel if you falsely accuse someone of lying.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:27 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
In the US, the verb "to prevaricate" means to try to hide the truth by equivocal speech; to seek to deceive. Does it mean something else in the UK or does Mr. Dingley just have a poor command of his native tongue?
He is clearly thinking of procrastination. The UK shares the same Latin roots as the USA.
Yes. I was trying to be a little more subtle than just saying - "when he uses words, he has no idea of their real meaning." This particular mistake was amusing since he called himself a liar without realizing it.
Last edited by DanMurphy on Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:30 pm

Poetlister wrote:I have increasingly seen people use "prevaricate" when they mean "procrastinate", but it is a malapropism (T-H-L). I suppose it could lead to a charge of libel if you falsely accuse someone of lying.
I have repeatedly accused Mr Dingley of lying, and will continue to do so: he is a liar.
former Living Person

Post Reply