Wikipediocracy

Vigilant wrote:Who the hell is this guy?

His "contributions" to this conversation become more and more unhinged as it progresses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... s#Fox_news

I not sure whether to laugh at his utter stupidity or to applaud his sublime trolling skillz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496534420
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496585001
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496533090

He can't be serious. It must be a troll.

Vigilant wrote:Who the hell is this guy?
He can't be serious. It must be a troll.

lilburne wrote:The little monkey is a believer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496593986

:::: BTW, it's Feyd Huxtable, not Fred. Don't know if he's the sort to get pissed off if you get his name wrong. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:Who the hell is this guy?

His "contributions" to this conversation become more and more unhinged as it progresses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... s#Fox_news

I not sure whether to laugh at his utter stupidity or to applaud his sublime trolling skillz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496534420
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496585001
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496533090

He can't be serious. It must be a troll.

oscarlechien wrote:FWIW, I don't think that Wnt is going to have a very long career on EN:WP. Read this warning on his talkpage. Note this remark by an Arb :

:::: BTW, it's Feyd Huxtable, not Fred. Don't know if he's the sort to get pissed off if you get his name wrong. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the hidden message is that you are being watched by the enemies of the LULZ...

Maybe he'll be listed in the Fae case, finally?

HRIP7 wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Who the hell is this guy?

His "contributions" to this conversation become more and more unhinged as it progresses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... s#Fox_news

I not sure whether to laugh at his utter stupidity or to applaud his sublime trolling skillz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496534420
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496585001
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496533090

He can't be serious. It must be a troll.

One of the best. A faithful and accomplished servant of Eris.

Remember that Commons emerged right here in America, as a celebration of ''our'' values. Don't forget that anarchy started ''here'' - it's what ''our'' revolution was called, what was copied in 1789 and 1848 and only much later interpreted, in less effective forms, by the offspring of the [[First International]]. We're the country of [[Henry David Thoreau]] and [[Lysander Spooner]]; the very first political May Day was our [[Haymarket Square protest]]. America is the place where the workers stood up for their 40-hour week and their right to unionize and got the good wages and the time off to do cool projects on the Internet. So don't tell me that this successful, ongoing, triumph of our values is something that can only exist in "Somalia".

Request for comment on biographical issues including WP:BLP

Template:RFCbio

I'd like to see an experienced biographical editor make sense of this article, especially those parts which put the "Kanka family" in a bad light. I am not very familiar with the topic and I'm not sure who is a "living person" or which people are included by this phrase, but some of this seems rather strongly worded against them. However I appreciate it is a controversial topic, and while I have no idea WHAT the source is, the quote "They all knew what Joe Cifelli did" does pull up a mystery URL that I can't access.[1] I don't actually approve of the law on constitutional grounds, but this savaging of a victim's family, even one that has been used as a political football, seems pretty terrible. Please figure out how to fix it. 70.15.116.59 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

The Wife wrote: Currently he's interested in the Magnotta murderer's page.

lilburne wrote:

The Wife wrote: Currently he's interested in the Magnotta murderer's page.

He seemed to be more interested in the murder video and then rather disappointed that the actual murder wasn't filmed, and then went off looking for a snake killing a cat video. Something like that anyway. Fellow is not atypical of many on Commons which is where I have the impression he was most active, until transferring his attention to "Talk Wales" and Arbcomm.

BTW the Anarchist credentials he gives himself is bollocks. He's really quite authoritarian in his outlook.

oscarlechien wrote:This is just a hunch....but I can't stop myself from wondering if this guy might not be a sock of Benjiboi who's somehow slipped through.....

EricBarbour wrote:

oscarlechien wrote:This is just a hunch....but I can't stop myself from wondering if this guy might not be a sock of Benjiboi who's somehow slipped through.....

He's obviously a sock of someone. Yet another admin sockpuppet to throw on the pile--the pile of Things We Can't Prove.
He's thought to be from Pennsylvania, though. Definitely not Benjiboi. And yes, he's got that smell of a hacker troll about him.
I think he's probably a Chinese-ethnic college student. Some of WP's worst crackpots have been turning out to be young
Asian males, including Betacommand and Fastily. Don't ask me what it means....

Vigilant wrote:He's sure a weaselly little guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496671083

The Wife wrote:

Vigilant wrote:He's sure a weaselly little guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496671083

I know he started with an interest in a five-year-old video game, I'm not sure if he was a weasel then.

I wonder if it's common to grow into a weasel.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

The Wife wrote:

Vigilant wrote:He's sure a weaselly little guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496671083

I know he started with an interest in a five-year-old video game, I'm not sure if he was a weasel then.

I wonder if it's common to grow into a weasel.

Interesting insight. People can certainly go down different paths in life.

I just read a book about Paul Farmer - what's interesting is what he said about the rich elites he went to college with; "they almost had me".

To quote the newest continuation of this discussion, reputedly made more civil by Fae's departure ...

• ... conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496918404

''conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids'' is a statement of fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496934475

It sounds like an "extraordinary claim", considerably stronger than "promoting a bestiality video", which I maintain was not an allegation of criminal activity, at least in the U.S., ... [more dissembling bleating]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =496934602

While we're looking for laws that Seraphimblade can campaign about ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 070#UK_law

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

HRIP7 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edia_world

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

Vigilant wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edia_world

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

Can we please get someone to throw his ass overboard now?

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edia_world

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

Can we please get someone to throw his ass overboard now?

He's one to talk. The Great Ship has been sinking for five years, and now he notices that his ankles are wet.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edia_world

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

Can we please get someone to throw his ass overboard now?

He's one to talk. The Great Ship has been sinking for five years, and now he notices that his ankles are wet.

I am deeply disappointed by this surrender, and I have no doubt that many of the same parties who have criticized Fae and many others in previous proceedings will continue to make their case here against other editors in the future. But the time for argument has passed - now, the time has come to recognize that Wikipedia's design, which permits an effectively self-selecting group of admins and officials to control the accumulated content and traffic, is simply not viable in the long term. Once sufficient monetary and political value is accumulated, the even keel of academic freedom is forgotten, and a mad squabble ensues over control of the site's "editorial discretion". Too many good editors and admins have fallen to processes like this, in which Wikipedia's bureaucratic battleground leads to them being denigrated for political advantage as nothing but trouble-makers despite years of good service. The question now is whether we can design and launch effective life-boats before this great ship sinks forever beneath the waves. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:What a great girl's blouse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498188158

I am deeply disappointed by this surrender, and I have no doubt that many of the same parties who have criticized Fae and many others in previous proceedings will continue to make their case here against other editors in the future. But the time for argument has passed - now, the time has come to recognize that Wikipedia's design, which permits an effectively self-selecting group of admins and officials to control the accumulated content and traffic, is simply not viable in the long term. Once sufficient monetary and political value is accumulated, the even keel of academic freedom is forgotten, and a mad squabble ensues over control of the site's "editorial discretion". Too many good editors and admins have fallen to processes like this, in which Wikipedia's bureaucratic battleground leads to them being denigrated for political advantage as nothing but trouble-makers despite years of good service. The question now is whether we can design and launch effective life-boats before this great ship sinks forever beneath the waves. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he could be more melodramatic if he tried.

The Wife wrote:I wonder if he reads here.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edia_world

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

Can we please get someone to throw his ass overboard now?

He's one to talk. The Great Ship has been sinking for five years, and now he notices that his ankles are wet.

I see nothing wrong with the edit you cited. It ''is'' a well known use of Crisco. Just offhand I remember reading in ''[[And the Band Played On]]'' about guys lying around in the old San Francisco bathhouses with a can of Crisco by them, giving a quick nod to welcome a visitor. (Such use of Crisco is not healthy, but then again, neither is eating it. We should also quote the uses described for it in ''[[The Help]]''.^{[http://frugivoremag.com/2011/08/the-hel ... of-crisco/]}) To me, the desire to ''exclude'' this very well sourced, commonly known information from an article is very difficult to explain without supposing that an editor simply doesn't think we should cover gay-related content matter, i.e. is anti-gay. And you're saying that if I were to call that "a concrete example of problematic anti-gay editing", ''that'' would be one of these punishable extraordinary claims, but yours is not?? This is highly unfair to Fae, Benjiboi, and all other editors. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Wow. Emphasis mine.

I see nothing wrong with the edit you cited. It ''is'' a well known use of Crisco. Just offhand I remember reading in ''[[And the Band Played On]]'' about guys lying around in the old San Francisco bathhouses with a can of Crisco by them, giving a quick nod to welcome a visitor. (Such use of Crisco is not healthy, but then again, neither is eating it. We should also quote the uses described for it in ''[[The Help]]''.^{[http://frugivoremag.com/2011/08/the-hel ... of-crisco/]}) To me, the desire to ''exclude'' this very well sourced, commonly known information from an article is very difficult to explain without supposing that an editor simply doesn't think we should cover gay-related content matter, i.e. is anti-gay. And you're saying that if I were to call that "a concrete example of problematic anti-gay editing", ''that'' would be one of these punishable extraordinary claims, but yours is not?? This is highly unfair to Fae, Benjiboi, and all other editors. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Wow. Emphasis mine.

To me, the desire to ''exclude'' this very well sourced, commonly known information from an article is very difficult to explain without supposing that an editor simply doesn't think we should cover gay-related content matter, i.e. is anti-gay[[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What it sounds like you're saying to me is that (a) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for ''normal people''. It does not cover weird and interesting details of topics. (b) Homosexuals are not normal people; the readers don't care about what any product might be associated with in ''their'' minds. (c) Homosexuals who try to use Wikipedia to write about the kinds of things they have in mind should be shown the door. Now that may be many things, but what it's ''not'' is NPOV. NPOV means you cover every detail about a product that any contributor comes forward to provide reliable sources to document. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:He should get added to the case along with prioryman.

Vigilant wrote:He should get added to the case along with prioryman.

Vigilant wrote:I wonder their total word count for all pages is combined.
The two of them put together have to dwarf the rest of the contributors combined.
While Wnt is sticking it out out of sheer tenacity, like a poodle locked on to a chew toy, I think PrioryMan pretty much gave up the fight after Ashley resigned the tools.

The [[gerbil]] article does not presently have an 'in popular culture' section, which is where a sentence about [[gerbilling]] would belong, as it is a fictional practice. It would be far less obscure and far more relevant than many, probably most, of the "in popular culture" stuff that trails at the end of many articles. For example, I would suggest it is far more relevant than the last sentence of [[Apollo]], about 1940s Batman comics. Even I would agree that sometimes "popular culture" wanders into spam territory on occasion, but certainly I do not advocate throwing anyone out of Wikipedia for how they think articles should be written, or for trying to cover significant, factual information. I think it is appropriate to ask, point blank, whether you would favor that people adding sentences about Batman to articles about Greek gods should also be "shown the door", or is your disapproval limited only to those who include what you describe as irrelevant information about certain topics? And if so, how are those topics chosen? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There are legal mysteries here I can't answer - my assumption would be that if a photo was taken outside the U.S., 2257 doesn't apply to it. I also assume that if a foreign citizen uploads an image and ''doesn't tell you'' it was from the U.S., that you can't be expected to keep 2257 paperwork. And American citizens uploading U.S.-made recent images are already warned by the WMF counsel of the possibility that this unconstitutional law might be used against them. But one of two things should be true - either any American photo should be 'washable' (copyright licensing permitting0 by some foreigner stripping out the 2257 crap and posting it on some server, or else using any random foreign photo puts unknowing Americans at great risk of 2257 prosecution. I'm thinking the former. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc wrote: This is truly a McCarthyist "have you no decency, sir?" moment for the Fae Brigade.

Randy from Boise wrote:

Tarc wrote: This is truly a McCarthyist "have you no decency, sir?" moment for the Fae Brigade.

The correct term, my friend, is "The Faethful."

Vigilant wrote:What the fucking fuck?
And from Jimbo's page, an exhortation to violated copyright law right there in plain text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498519037

There are legal mysteries here I can't answer - my assumption would be that if a photo was taken outside the U.S., 2257 doesn't apply to it. I also assume that if a foreign citizen uploads an image and ''doesn't tell you'' it was from the U.S., that you can't be expected to keep 2257 paperwork. And American citizens uploading U.S.-made recent images are already warned by the WMF counsel of the possibility that this unconstitutional law might be used against them. But one of two things should be true - either any American photo should be 'washable' (copyright licensing permitting0 by some foreigner stripping out the 2257 crap and posting it on some server, or else using any random foreign photo puts unknowing Americans at great risk of 2257 prosecution. I'm thinking the former. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:What the fucking fuck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =498588950

The [[gerbil]] article does not presently have an 'in popular culture' section, which is where a sentence about [[gerbilling]] would belong, as it is a fictional practice. It would be far less obscure and far more relevant than many, probably most, of the "in popular culture" stuff that trails at the end of many articles. For example, I would suggest it is far more relevant than the last sentence of [[Apollo]], about 1940s Batman comics. Even I would agree that sometimes "popular culture" wanders into spam territory on occasion, but certainly I do not advocate throwing anyone out of Wikipedia for how they think articles should be written, or for trying to cover significant, factual information. I think it is appropriate to ask, point blank, whether you would favor that people adding sentences about Batman to articles about Greek gods should also be "shown the door", or is your disapproval limited only to those who include what you describe as irrelevant information about certain topics? And if so, how are those topics chosen? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooooookay then.
If you added a batman section to an article about Greek gods, you get a vandalism warning. Try it.
If you add a section about anal fisting to the Crisco article and someone tells you to knock off the stupidity, then "Help! Help! Ah'm bein' oppressed!"?