Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:23 am
A solution is slowly percolating up through the community.
The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
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.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?
You wrote some fairly nasty shit Andy.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)
I'm digging on this one.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)
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.Vigilant wrote:You're such a bad liar Scott.
Where on earth did I suggest that about you?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.
Who said anything about "earth"?Vigilant wrote:Where on earth did I suggest that about you?
Jeez, we're going to have to change the name of the club again!Vigilant wrote:You're such a bad liar Scott.
I'm enjoying all the speculation about who wrote what etc over there. Can't wait for episode 2.DanMurphy wrote: Welcome to all our new readers! Good luck with the important work you're doing in the Arbitration request!
Andy, you ignorant slut.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)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage linkBeing 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)
Usertalk:Nick linkIt'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)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard linkHope 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
That last post is where you crossed the line from being an ignorant slut to being a deranged stalker.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)
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.Mancunium wrote: ... Andy, you ignorant slut ...
Nobody would bother to file a civil action against Dingley. As a pauper, he is judgement-proof.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.
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".What's this guys problem with you? Do you know each other irl, is there something personal here.
Sounds like he's got quite the crush on you.Mancunium wrote:Nobody would bother to file a civil action against Dingley. As a pauper, he is judgement-proof.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.
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.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".What's this guys problem with you? Do you know each other irl, is there something personal here.
I love how their names when mashed together make Dingbat.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.
"Dingbat" has been his online handle for years, and if you type "dingbat" into Google Search its anticipatory algorithm presents these suggestions:I love how their names when mashed together make Dingbat.
The honest-to-gawd cover of his CV:dingbat
dingbat andy dingley
dingbat fonts
dingbat crossword
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.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.
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.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.
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".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).
I'm not opposing pending changes, I'm pointing out the enormous callousness and myopia and hypocrisy.thekohser wrote: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.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 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?
There's no policy against citing the article. MathSci behaves irrationally around Wikipediocracy.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.
I can't understand how MathSci aka Antony Wasserman hasn't been topic banned from "wikipediocracy, widely construed" yet.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:There's no policy against citing the article. MathSci behaves irrationally around Wikipediocracy.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.
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.
Mathsci wasn't banned, but he came damn close a couple of times. Zoloft warned him to watch it.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.
Sorry, my fault for ambiguity.EricBarbour wrote:Mathsci wasn't banned, but he came damn close a couple of times. Zoloft warned him to watch it.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.
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.)
HRIP7 wrote:Speaking as a moderator, moderators (green) cannot see the IP address a post was made from. Admins (red) can.
Given that Eric is green, either Andreas has bad eyesight or there's a leak somewhere.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.)
This suggests that Wikipediocracy has a rule that forbids admins from sharing IP information with moderators, or that HRIP7 was simply mistaken.Outsider wrote:HRIP7 wrote:Speaking as a moderator, moderators (green) cannot see the IP address a post was made from. Admins (red) can.Given that Eric is green, either Andreas has bad eyesight or there's a leak somewhere.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.)
That could be applied to PHPBB itself, as a catchphrase. The moderator control panel is, to be charitable, very difficult to decrypt or use.Zoloft wrote:Let confusion reign.
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.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.
That settles it. Dingley is a completely loose cannon. And MONGO is still a slime." 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)
Mr Dingley is approaching notability.EricBarbour wrote:That settles it. Dingley is a completely loose cannon. And MONGO is still a slime." 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)
So where's the WP:AGF now, assholes?
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.
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?If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
He is clearly thinking of procrastination. The UK shares the same Latin roots as the USA.DanMurphy wrote: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?If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
Let's ask Wiktionary: linkDanMurphy wrote: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?If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
Freudian_slip (T-H-L)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.
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.dogbiscuit wrote:He is clearly thinking of procrastination. The UK shares the same Latin roots as the USA.DanMurphy wrote: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?If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Prevarication – not getting stuff started.
I have repeatedly accused Mr Dingley of lying, and will continue to do so: he is a liar.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.