Wikipediocracy

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:41 am

lilburne wrote: Alternatively one could take the article on stuffing things up orifices and add a large section on the cultivation of cucumbers.

This must be done. Now.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:51 pm

lilburne wrote:Alternatively one could take the article on stuffing things up orifices and add a large section on the cultivation of cucumbers, and the production techniques of silicone molds.

That is one of the best ideas I've seen in a long time. Add a well-cited paragraph about the culinary history of biscuits to the [[Soggy biscuit]] article, and see how long it lasts!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:50 pm

In a nutshell, around the fucking bend.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=73036901

I find the table entirely irrelevant. Please do not insult our intelligence. There isn't a soul that does not know how Pieter Kuiper nominates files. His real reason is retaliation which makes commons a hostile environment. Justification becomes irrelevant with that intent. Otherwise non-controversial nominations become controversial and stress users out. This alienates good users. Copyright is neither the most important nor the only policy. --<small> [[User:とある白い猫/12|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫/12|ちぃ？]]</sup> 17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

They'd rather allow copyright violations to exist than have the mean old man point them out for discussion...

Just for shits and giggles
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/User_talk:Wnt

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:20 pm

Vigilant wrote:Just for shits and giggles
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/User_talk:Wnt

I should note that ED is part and parcel of the Wikipedia "experience". No one ever talks about it, and Wikipedia itself would rather die than admit it, but Wikipedians
have routinely used ED to abuse and mock each other and people they dislike. And even after Sherrod shut it down and a gang of Anonymous types took over,
it continues to be used in the same way, as a special "IRC channel" for trolling and lulz. Calling them "hackers" is absurd, as most of them don't know how to hack
anything--it's all just vaudeville.

This kind of person will be the death of Wikipedia yet.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:31 pm

The fact that Wnt is a major Ashley van HaeftEn supporter and rails against offsite conversations yet regularly contributes to Ed is even more hypocritical then ever.

It's staggering just how immature these people are.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:20 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498719763

Will he get the message?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:37 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498892060
Damn. So close.
Starts off with "what's goes on off-wiki, stays off-wiki", but ends up with "anyone who is made fun of off-wiki should get a free pass".

Signs of sanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498906503

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:07 am

From the last lets talk porn on Jimmy's page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... _censor.3F

Its not that children grow up believing the stork brings basbies, rather it is about children growing up believing that fisting is an activity practised by everyone's parents, or at least in the same proportion to those that do it doggy style. John lilburne (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we should only censor content about "deviant" sex acts? Or what are you saying? Wnt (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope I'm saying that if you have to include it, and had a halfway decent article on the subject then it will inevitable will mention that the vast majority of the world's population DO NOT do this, and then you can describe why they don't do it.

Ismail · Unread post by **Ismail** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:00 pm

lilburne wrote:Nope I'm saying that if you have to include it, and had a halfway decent article on the subject then it will inevitable will mention that the vast majority of the world's population DO NOT do this, and then you can describe why they don't do it.

Because they live in super-Christian fascist police states (like Saudi Arabia or Belize, or America) where the glories of fisting are unknown except to a small group of revolutionaries. That is the argument I've seen some crazy-about-sex types imply on Wikipedia concerning similar questions of "why isn't X sexual practice popular in (insert industrialized urban country), let alone the rest of the world?"

It is quite hard to talk to these people, and even harder when you have to take them seriously because of the way Wikipedia is built up. If you don't want to include obscure sexual acts in random articles or even have a gigantic article devoted to the subject with lavish amounts of photographs then it's either because you belong to Fred Phelps' extended family, are sexually repressed, or you're "Orwellian" (usually all of the above.)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:39 pm

The ends justify the means...as long as you're being mean to potential homophobes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =500228609

I disagree with the idea that "strident rhetoric" should be discouraged in arbitration proceedings. I don't see anything in WP:CIVILITY about being too 'strident', though there are some seemingly very seldom enforced provisions against rudeness and false accusations of impropriety. If we are to investigate whether an editor has a bias, particularly one for or against a minority group to which they might not readily admit and in all probability are truly ''unaware'' of, we need to be able to explore the issue logically, dissecting out the issues one by one until some conclusion becomes apparent. This can involve thought experiments, simple examples, strident rhetoric, and a certain degree of entrapment as we try to get at the core issues involved - and it is very disappointing, once one has ''arrived'' at a core question, such as whether an editor wrongly believes that it is unusually bad to add details about gay-related activities to an article as opposed to details about much more obscure things that are not (apparently) regarded as sexual and thus inappropriate, to have the discussion shut down and ruled out of bounds. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Goebbels would be proud.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:47 pm

Vigilant wrote:The ends justify the means...as long as you're being mean to potential homophobes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =500228609
I disagree with the idea that "strident rhetoric" should be discouraged in arbitration proceedings. I don't see anything in WP:CIVILITY about being too 'strident', though there are some seemingly very seldom enforced provisions against rudeness and false accusations of impropriety. If we are to investigate whether an editor has a bias, particularly one for or against a minority group to which they might not readily admit and in all probability are truly ''unaware'' of, we need to be able to explore the issue logically, dissecting out the issues one by one until some conclusion becomes apparent. This can involve thought experiments, simple examples, strident rhetoric, and a certain degree of entrapment as we try to get at the core issues involved - and it is very disappointing, once one has ''arrived'' at a core question, such as whether an editor wrongly believes that it is unusually bad to add details about gay-related activities to an article as opposed to details about much more obscure things that are not (apparently) regarded as sexual and thus inappropriate, to have the discussion shut down and ruled out of bounds. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Goebbels would be proud.

Yep, Wnt is suggesting that investigating thought crime is a good thing.

I guess he really is just trolling for effect (too many opinion pieces with outlandish positions to be a serious commentator), but the question ArbCom need to be asking is:

Would the project be a better place with Fae, PrioryMan and Wnt or would it be worse? Seems a pretty easy question to me. I'm surprised Wnt hasn't been the target of some ArbCom ire for interfering so much.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:22 am

Commons Village Pump discussion of Wnt's – in parts not uninteresting – research:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... ular_files

Also note link to an editor's comment in that Commons discussion on Jimbo's en:WP talk.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:31 am

Fox news will always hate us, because we give away stuff for free which people used to sell. Pornography is educational, if it promotes positive attitudes towards sexuality. We should host as much educational material as possible, and make sure that other sites liberally link to us. The reason why erotic images top that list is probably more to do with the shortage of pornography here rather than their content. Less files, same audience => more hits per file. --Claritas (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that the bandwidth spent on hotlinking is problematic. We always knew some of our hotlinked uses were not going to be educational or compliant, and there's no effective technical way to differentiate them from the kind of uses we wish to promote. If the file is in scope, it has legitimate potential educational uses, and hotlinking of it should thus be permitted. If the file is not in scope, it should be deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

More quotes for the Wiki gravestone. Ho hum, yawn.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:23 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Fox news will always hate us, because we give away stuff for free which people used to sell. Pornography is educational, if it promotes positive attitudes towards sexuality. We should host as much educational material as possible, and make sure that other sites liberally link to us. The reason why erotic images top that list is probably more to do with the shortage of pornography here rather than their content. Less files, same audience => more hits per file. --Claritas (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that the bandwidth spent on hotlinking is problematic. We always knew some of our hotlinked uses were not going to be educational or compliant, and there's no effective technical way to differentiate them from the kind of uses we wish to promote. If the file is in scope, it has legitimate potential educational uses, and hotlinking of it should thus be permitted. If the file is not in scope, it should be deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
More quotes for the Wiki gravestone. Ho hum, yawn.

Jimbo weighs in:

No, I think that's a pretty accurate summary. He argues that the reason specific pornographic files rank so highly at commons is that there is a shortage of them. If we had a lot more, they would drop in the rankings (individually) by competing with each other. I am unpersuaded by the argument because I don't think worrying about the ranking lists is a valid way to think about the situation there. It's the least of our worries. I am much more concerned about privacy issues, licensing issues, trolling, lack of ability for end users to manage their own experience as effectively as they could with better software - all are known issues. The rankings is just a side show.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:54 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Jimbo weighs in:
No, I think that's a pretty accurate summary. He argues that the reason specific pornographic files rank so highly at commons is that there is a shortage of them. If we had a lot more, they would drop in the rankings (individually) by competing with each other. I am unpersuaded by the argument because I don't think worrying about the ranking lists is a valid way to think about the situation there. It's the least of our worries. I am much more concerned about privacy issues, licensing issues, trolling, lack of ability for end users to manage their own experience as effectively as they could with better software - all are known issues. The rankings is just a side show.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If the users managing their own experience includes having an "adult" content filter, then I think JImbo is right on this.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:37 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501403903

Is there a :crybaby smiley?

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:49 pm

rhindle wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501403903

Is there a :crybaby smiley?

I haven't agreed with much that Wnt has written. However, I do think he is right about the terms under which Micahelsuarrez is to be banned and then constrained. ArbCom doing it because it can. I dislike everything about ED, but nothing on the Fae page rises to harrassment. Does ArbCom not remember those are Fae's photos, uploaded by him? Who is next to be banned because of ED work? What if you don't start the article but are a major contributor, for example? This is a dangerous, and self-protective, road to be on.

I also believe him to be right about how the NPA can/will be enforced against Fae, and all the drama that will surely ensue. I don't think it is intrinsically unjust though, just silly. The Michaeluarrez punishment is unjust.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:06 pm

Bielle wrote:
rhindle wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501403903

Is there a :crybaby smiley?
I haven't agreed with much that Wnt has written. However, I do think he is right about the terms under which Micahelsuarrez is to be banned and then constrained. ArbCom doing it because it can. I dislike everything about ED, but nothing on the Fae page rises to harrassment. Does ArbCom not remember those are Fae's photos, uploaded by him? Who is next to be banned because of ED work? What if you don't start the article but are a major contributor, for example? This is a dangerous, and self-protective, road to be on.

I also believe him to be right about how the NPA can/will be enforced against Fae, and all the drama that will surely ensue. I don't think it is intrinsically unjust though, just silly. The Michaeluarrez punishment is unjust.

Strangely enough, I agree as well.
This sounds like a precedent setting expansion of ARBCOM powers.
They can police people who post free licensed photos on an external website, but have no remit over a WMF project (commons)?!

The only thing this decision, if it stands, will do is to make people have different account names on wikipedia and all external sites.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:32 pm

rhindle wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501403903

Is there a :crybaby smiley?

I was looking for that too.

Vigilant wrote: The only thing this decision, if it stands, will do is to make people have different account names on wikipedia and all external sites.

You say that as if it would be a bad thing.

Yes the Michaelsuarrez thing is dumb but then what would one expect from someone that terms itself SirFozzie. What we have here is that there has been eight months of draema, a load of accusations of homophobia, none of which is really tenable. Fae is still 'one of them' so he's not going to be whacked and besides he's given up the mop, DC only made a minor mistake which was quickly rectified, that leaves MS and the ED page which at a push can be classed as gay bashing, and therefore that is the thing that the knobheads can focus on as worthy of puni5hmentZ.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:07 pm

Pretty much the result that I saw coming: MichaelS whacked hard, Fae formally demopped, and DC scolded and threatened.

The big news is actually the possibility of a formal Fae copyright investigation. I'm not sure that remedy will draw majority support, but it's a little unexpected and who knows where that road leads. If he has been Flickerwashing to fake copyright status (I have no knowledge and no opinion), it could have fairly serious ramifications...

RfB

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:15 pm

Now comes this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501457442

What I ''believe'' is that "civility" is Wikipedia's "War on Drugs" - the more that is done to enforce it, the more that people will be at each others' throats. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For the first time in my life I realized that the phrase "War on Drugs" is ambiguous. WP actually itself seems like a war on drugs in the other sense.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:24 pm

They really need a rule that mirrors 3rr for the drama boards.
If you make more than 50 contribs per month to any of the drama boards, you get a week off.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:20 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote:For the first time in my life I realized that the phrase "War on Drugs" is ambiguous. WP actually itself seems like a war on drugs in the other sense.

Yeah, clearly they need to switch to a better dealer who doesn't lace the herb with formaldehyde and stricnine.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:48 pm

Because you people on commons don't do your fucking jobs when it's one of your own...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =501462504

Is there some precedent for an image that people on Commons think is OK, but en.wikipedia ''bans'' because it is copyrighted? Is there a [[:Category:Commons images banned from Wikipedia]]? Is there any plausible reason to have two levels of review? What's so abhorrent about the notion of simply saying that "if copyright problems are suspected, please raise the issue on Commons"? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Wnt's vision of Wikipedia's future (my emphases).

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3960014

Enough!

Take a step back and look at the overall situation. At [24] we see a community representative, Ashley van Haeften, giving a basic, clear explanation of what Wikipedia is and how it works. And we an uninvited [ahem], Peter Cohen, making a big deal out of a tiny number of contributions because van Haeften "should have known" that it's unethical to take pictures of certain streets in Germany, or that it's wrong to illustrate certain private activities. If you believe in his position, then by all means, you can recall Fae, install some other officials. Maybe you can give the positions better names, elect Delicious carbuncle as Grand Inquisitor and Jayen466 as Chief Censor. You can make your organization a satrapy of ArbCom, which is in turn a tributary of Wikipediocracy, and validate tactics by which good editors are harassed about private details, then banned for trying to exercise their right to privacy even on other projects. Or. You can start looking for solutions.

The problem with Wikipedia is that we've assembled a gigantic treasure trove of content, not all of which is properly backed up and disseminated (as is evidenced by the frequent moralistic drives to delete material). And billions of dollars worth of site traffic, one of the largest in the world. And in charge of all that is ---- whoever doesn't get voted off the island! Even if the current threat were somehow rebuffed, someone else would want it. The situation is intrinsically unstable. Wikipedia is like a sinking ship, or an elephant brought down and torn apart by hyenas. Today its purpose appears no longer to be to document events, but to censor and skew their coverage, on behalf of whatever external elements manage to win the WikiLawyering Olympics.

What you can do in WCA is make a decision not to be a mere appendage of the far from infallible en.wikipedia ArbCom, not spend all your money on a Wealthy Personage in charge or lawyers or accountants, but instead, gather together volunteer resources and effort from all over the WMF universe, and use it to create new Wikis that go beyond the WMF's limited purview, and which are not subject to their control. Like a Wiki that covers recent news, not grudgingly, not under bizarre notions of "ethics" that rule out the main headlines and smoking-gun sources, not split in two different projects, but wholeheartedly. Or a Wiki that collects creative ideas and discussion in an attempt to formally document "prior art" for all those obvious things that get patented every day. Or a Wiki that works to nucleate creative projects like writing or music. Or one where patients are free to discuss one another's conditions and provide any interesting references, without being rudely shut down for daring to give "medical advice" even when they clearly are not pretending to. Wikis to cover all the things that Wikipedia makes a practice to throw away, run by all the editors Wikipedia wrongly bans for trumped-up offenses. And you can find ways to spread these wikis out, make them run by and controlled by the entire worldwide community in millions of different independent (but collaboratively indexed) web sites administered by the editors who are interested and care to get involved, not run on some central server waiting for the censors to pull the plug. Dare to dream, or else be irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:42 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Wnt's vision of Wikipedia's future (my emphases).

Quite a stirring speech, for any that watched Game of Thrones reminds me of Theon Greyjoy does a similar rabblerouser before one of his own clubs him over the back of the head.,

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:18 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Wnt's vision of Wikipedia's future (my emphases).

Like a Wiki that covers recent news, not grudgingly, not under bizarre notions of "ethics" that rule out the main headlines and smoking-gun sources, not split in two different projects, but wholeheartedly.

Wikinews is an absolute, unquestionable failure.

Or a Wiki that collects creative ideas and discussion in an attempt to formally document "prior art" for all those obvious things that get patented every day. Or a Wiki that works to nucleate creative projects like writing or music.

Wikibooks and Wiktionary attempted to offer that -- both massive failures. Wiktionary is more famous for its administrative battles than its content.

Wikis to cover all the things that Wikipedia makes a practice to throw away, run by all the editors Wikipedia wrongly bans for trumped-up offenses. And you can find ways to spread these wikis out, make them run by and controlled by the entire worldwide community in millions of different independent (but collaboratively indexed) web sites administered by the editors who are interested and care to get involved, not run on some central server waiting for the censors to pull the plug.

Sounds like an ad for Wikia. Success? Failure? Ask one of the venture capitalists who gave Jimbo millions of dollars to start it.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:35 pm

I love this man.

Yeah, unfocused waffle only. Like a working image filter someone happened to mention there. Which is absolutely a distraction, because the whole point of our new Wikipediocracy government is to tell us what images we're allowed to see and which not, which sources we can use and what we can't, which editors will be blackballed in a McCarthyistic campaign and which won't. We should just destroy Commons, ban all the good contributors, why not? The sooner that everyone on Earth has a visceral understanding that the sole purpose of Wikipedia is censorship, to conceal amid a seemingly comprehensive raft of user-contributed "facts" the minor defect that major swathes of information have been taken out according to somebody's political agenda, or somebody's bogus "ethics" about why we can't tell the truth about practically any topic, the sooner it is looked on with universal contempt as an example of the invariable progression of communism to totalitarianism, the sooner those who seriously love knowing the full truth about everything can try to build something new. Probably, completely from scratch, though I would have hoped for better. Wnt (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Porn

I am willing to contribute some money to help him set up a new wiki. Anyone else?

[edit] Some other beautiful comments there too

An encyclopedia is a compendium of all human knowledge, and that includes masturbation techniques. Count Iblis (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia bears little resemblance to other actual encyclopedias - Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:09 pm

What Wnt, Gerrard, Niabot, and the rest fail to realize is that they are pretty much irrelevant. If the WMF actually grew some balls they could impose a filter overnight. The opposition to it would bitch and moan and probably get a few articles on slashdot, reddit, gawker etc. But after a few weeks everyone will have forgotten what the fuss was about. There might be a few of the current names that take a walk, but the site will carry on, without the baggage that Wnt, Gerrard and the rest bring to it.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if pending changes isn't a forerunner for a filter imposition.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:26 pm

lilburne wrote:What Wnt, Gerrard, Niabot, and the rest fail to realize is that they are pretty much irrelevant. If the WMF actually grew some balls they could impose a filter overnight. The opposition to it would bitch and moan and probably get a few articles on slashdot, reddit, gawker etc. But after a few weeks everyone will have forgotten what the fuss was about. There might be a few of the current names that take a walk, but the site will carry on, without the baggage that Wnt, Gerrard and the rest bring to it.

Agreed. But the political will to do it is still "soft", meaning that someone has to force-feed WMF people Viagra. Nothing will happen until it's jammed down their throats.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:48 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
lilburne wrote:What Wnt, Gerrard, Niabot, and the rest fail to realize is that they are pretty much irrelevant. If the WMF actually grew some balls they could impose a filter overnight. The opposition to it would bitch and moan and probably get a few articles on slashdot, reddit, gawker etc. But after a few weeks everyone will have forgotten what the fuss was about. There might be a few of the current names that take a walk, but the site will carry on, without the baggage that Wnt, Gerrard and the rest bring to it.
Agreed. But the political will to do it is still "soft", meaning that someone has to force-feed WMF people Viagra. Nothing will happen until it's jammed down their throats.

There is nothing in it for them. All the trustees are there because people voted for them. Right now they know that being against the image filter gets them votes and that being for the filter gets you voted off the board.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:06 pm

ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong ''political'' decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would ''want'' to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:13 pm

lilburne wrote:
ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong ''political'' decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would ''want'' to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

What are the odds this guy listens to Alex Jones?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:21 pm

rhindle wrote:
lilburne wrote:
ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong ''political'' decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would ''want'' to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA
What are the odds this guy listens to Alex Jones?

What are the chances that he's just not a well boy and spends much of his day shouting abuse at fire hydrants.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:44 pm

lilburne wrote:
rhindle wrote:
lilburne wrote:
ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong ''political'' decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would ''want'' to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA
What are the odds this guy listens to Alex Jones?
What are the chances that he's just not a well boy and spends much of his day shouting abuse at fire hydrants.

What are the chances that he's just a really clever troll? Personally, I've never seen any point in it, but if I enjoyed trolling on Teh Internetz, AvH is precisely the sort of human trainwreck I would be seen backing to the hilt. With Ashley, the potential for Teh Lulz is practically endless.

Vocal · Unread post by **Vocal** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:00 pm

Cedric wrote:What are the chances that he's just a really clever troll? Personally, I've never seen any point in it, but if I enjoyed trolling on Teh Internetz, AvH is precisely the sort of human trainwreck I would be seen backing to the hilt. With Ashley, the potential for Teh Lulz is practically endless.

+1

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:14 pm

Cedric wrote:
lilburne wrote:
What are the chances that he's just not a well boy and spends much of his day shouting abuse at fire hydrants.
What are the chances that he's just a really clever troll? Personally, I've never seen any point in it, but if I enjoyed trolling on Teh Internetz, AvH is precisely the sort of human trainwreck I would be seen backing to the hilt. With Ashley, the potential for Teh Lulz is practically endless.

Perhaps, and I've wonder that myself. OTOH he does write an awful lot for trolling. The amount of bait he lays to the catch he receives is rather high.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:20 pm

Vocal wrote:
Cedric wrote:
lilburne wrote:
rhindle wrote:What are the odds this guy listens to Alex Jones?
What are the chances that he's just not a well boy and spends much of his day shouting abuse at fire hydrants.
What are the chances that he's just a really clever troll? Personally, I've never seen any point in it, but if I enjoyed trolling on Teh Internetz, AvH is precisely the sort of human trainwreck I would be seen backing to the hilt. With Ashley, the potential for Teh Lulz is practically endless.
+1

evil bastards

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:22 am

Clearly a troll.

Note that as per the first reference, and [40], and List of LGBT Jews, Quest's sexuality should also be mentioned in the article.

There is actually a 'List of LGBT Jews'? I need to start 'List of Jews-who-eat-pork'....

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:05 pm

Anroth wrote:Clearly a troll.

Note that as per the first reference, and [40], and List of LGBT Jews, Quest's sexuality should also be mentioned in the article.
There is actually a 'List of LGBT Jews'? I need to start 'List of Jews-who-eat-pork'....

Approximately 160:20 word troll:response. He hardly registers on the troll-o-meter.

Retrospect · Unread post by **Retrospect** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:16 pm

In 2008 Mr Quest was arrested in Central Park New York. He was in the park outside the hours of curfew for the park. ... I believe this item of information to be in the public interest

You couldn't make this up, could you?

this event clearly is true. An event can't be true. An account of it may or may not be true, but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

You couldn't make this up, could you?

Willbeheard · Unread post by **Willbeheard** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:12 pm

Here's even more you couldn't make up. WP is not allowed to mention the easily verifiable claim that Quest is Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =465896284

yet it can say elsewhere that he's gay and Jewish! Where's the logic, or am I a fool for expecting any shred of logic on WP?

And the source for putting him on the list says "Richard Quest of CNN said he turned down an offer on the grounds that being gay and Jewish might not be suitable." Quest doesn't say that he's gay and Jewish! Where's Jayjg ("being Chairman of Jewish Care and keeping a kosher kitchen doesn't prove you're Jewish") when you need him?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:30 pm

priceless, Pure drama gold.;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3960014

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:50 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:priceless, Pure drama gold.;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3960014

I dunno where he gets his nonsense from, I really don't. It can't be anything we've said.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:39 am

Someone, please RfCu this guy. He's like Joseph McCarthy on a witchhunt to rid the wikiverse of Wikipediocracy infiltration. The influence from this site goes all the way to Jimbo!

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:22 am

lilburne wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:priceless, Pure drama gold.;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3960014
I dunno where he gets his nonsense from, I really don't. It can't be anything we've said.

He is very odd, to put it nicely.

… exposure to the intense pheromones of a colony of breeding mice for 10-15 minutes made me start to have a quite distracting degree of sexual thought about two unquestionably unattractive women I worked with there at different times (I mean, one of them had ''severe'' acne scarring, and the other was of an ethnic group which ''at that time'' I perceived to be ugly), and while much of the effect wore off within an hour after leaving the environment, after several exposures they continued to seem moderately attractive to me even years later.

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:35 am

tarantino wrote: He is very odd, to put it nicely.

… exposure to the intense pheromones of a colony of breeding mice for 10-15 minutes made me start to have a quite distracting degree of sexual thought about two unquestionably unattractive women I worked with there at different times (I mean, one of them had ''severe'' acne scarring, and the other was of an ethnic group which ''at that time'' I perceived to be ugly), and while much of the effect wore off within an hour after leaving the environment, after several exposures they continued to seem moderately attractive to me even years later.

Is he some kind of biologist, then? http://www.stanford.edu/group/nusselab/ ... /wnt/mouse

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:38 am

tarantino wrote:He is very odd, to put it nicely.

… exposure to the intense pheromones of a colony of breeding mice for 10-15 minutes made me start to have a quite distracting degree of sexual thought about two unquestionably unattractive women I worked with there at different times (I mean, one of them had ''severe'' acne scarring, and the other was of an ethnic group which ''at that time'' I perceived to be ugly), and while much of the effect wore off within an hour after leaving the environment, after several exposures they continued to seem moderately attractive to me even years later.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 4:15 am

Scientists in Switzerland announced today that they have been able to make mice fart by holding them upside down and tapping them on the stomach with a pencil.
--George Carlin 1978

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:35 am

Sweet Revenge wrote:
tarantino wrote: He is very odd, to put it nicely.

Is he some kind of biologist, then? http://www.stanford.edu/group/nusselab/ ... /wnt/mouse

He seems to be either a porter of lab assistant at a teaching hospital in or near to Center Valley - probably LeHigh