Jytdog

[johnthedinosaur]

You might like to look at this before it gets deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarawood123

[LynnWysong]

Am I missing something here? Somebody makes an account and writes an article about, basically, a neighborhood. Nothing alarming that I can see maybe not notable, but what the hell? What is it hurting? Next thing you know, the new editor is in the middle of a hornets nest. Really? Is there no sense of proportion on WP? No, "yeah it's got issues, but I got bigger fish to fry"? That is WP. Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

[johnthedinosaur]

The thing you are missing is that Jytdog (T-C-L) and his friends are unable to conceive that there might be any valid point of view other than theirs. This has been going on for months and Wikipedia's administrators just turn a blind eye. Jytdog seems to spend most of his life Wikilawyering. Have a look at his contributions page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Jytdog

[Poetlister]

If everyone who wrote about their own neighbourhood got accused of COI, there would be hundreds of incidents like this. Milowent's comment needs to be preserved for posterity:

As a resident of Earth, I am often claimed to have a conflict of interest when I write about locations here, as opposed to many Wikipedia editors, who I have to reason to believe live in outer space. They deny conflicts in asteroid AfDs, but I am still unsure. If this housing development is notable, it will retain a separate article; if not, any worthwhile coverage can go into whatever article is about the next highest political subdivision. Please know that we appreciate your contributions Clarawood123, though there can be growing pains for new editors, unfortunately.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There are curious comments on the AfD:

* "Very weak keep, but only if User:Clarawood123 agrees not to revert other users in the future. Otherwise, delete as being waste of time for the people involved. LK (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)"
* "Keep - Agreed with LK, keep and develop as long as Clarawood123 doesn't take a WP:OWN approach. 86.130.124.145 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)"

Either the place is notable or it isn't; silly behaviour by the author shouldn't be relevant. As the second one is from an IP editor, I expect it will be ignored by the closer.

[mendaliv]

Honestly the reaction here seems more suitable for someone who's making promotional edits about a new real estate development. I was surprised to notice that the neighborhood concerned is, in fact, quite old.

Of course, my general opinion is that neighborhoods normally should be merged up to their towns, and individual schools to their school districts for that matter... but I'm straying off-topic.

[Capeo]

It's funny, I generally don't have an issue with Jytdog when it comes to how he deals with fringe editors but he needs to back the fuck off COIN. You see this kind of stuff all the time when an editor sees themselves as the protector of some area of Wikipedia. They lose all perspective and see everything through the lense of their adopted projects and misapply policy. If COI is that far reaching then I'd conservatively guess more than half of all editors weren't in compliance with the policy at some time or another.

[LynnWysong]

It's funny, I generally don't have an issue with Jytdog when it comes to how he deals with fringe editors but he needs to back the fuck off COIN. You see this kind of stuff all the time when an editor sees themselves as the protector of some area of Wikipedia. They lose all perspective and see everything through the lense of their adopted projects and misapply policy. If COI is that far reaching then I'd conservatively guess more than half of all editors weren't in compliance with the policy at some time or another.

Yep. There's one editor in particular that I want to ask: "If you were to get hit by a truck tomorrow, just what do you think would happen with all these articles you spend so much time and effort obstructing others from editing? A lot of them would be improved, and nothing substantive would happen to the rest. And you would have wasted a lot of precious time accomplishing nothing."

[Randy from Boise]

It's funny, I generally don't have an issue with Jytdog when it comes to how he deals with fringe editors but he needs to back the fuck off COIN. You see this kind of stuff all the time when an editor sees themselves as the protector of some area of Wikipedia. They lose all perspective and see everything through the lense of their adopted projects and misapply policy. If COI is that far reaching then I'd conservatively guess more than half of all editors weren't in compliance with the policy at some time or another.

Yep. There's one editor in particular that I want to ask: "If you were to get hit by a truck tomorrow, just what do you think would happen with all these articles you spend so much time and effort obstructing others from editing? A lot of them would be improved, and nothing substantive would happen to the rest. And you would have wasted a lot of precious time accomplishing nothing."

Timbo's Rule 4.

"Starting articles on Wikipedia is like building sandcastles on the beach. Down by the surf the sand is nice and wet and the building is easy, but your work will soon be wiped out by an incoming wave. For your work to last, build farther up the beach." (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 11.

"Starting an article at Wikipedia is like raising a kid. You try to set them up on a good foundation and hope they'll develop and progress in the right way, without getting mixed up with the wrong people and getting themselves killed. Ultimately, however, all you can do when you post a piece is wave goodbye and hope for the best." (Feb. 2012)

[LynnWysong]

It's funny, I generally don't have an issue with Jytdog when it comes to how he deals with fringe editors but he needs to back the fuck off COIN. You see this kind of stuff all the time when an editor sees themselves as the protector of some area of Wikipedia. They lose all perspective and see everything through the lense of their adopted projects and misapply policy. If COI is that far reaching then I'd conservatively guess more than half of all editors weren't in compliance with the policy at some time or another.

Yep. There's one editor in particular that I want to ask: "If you were to get hit by a truck tomorrow, just what do you think would happen with all these articles you spend so much time and effort obstructing others from editing? A lot of them would be improved, and nothing substantive would happen to the rest. And you would have wasted a lot of precious time accomplishing nothing."

Timbo's Rule 4.

"Starting articles on Wikipedia is like building sandcastles on the beach. Down by the surf the sand is nice and wet and the building is easy, but your work will soon be wiped out by an incoming wave. For your work to last, build farther up the beach." (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 11.

"Starting an article at Wikipedia is like raising a kid. You try to set them up on a good foundation and hope they'll develop and progress in the right way, without getting mixed up with the wrong people and getting themselves killed. Ultimately, however, all you can do when you post a piece is wave goodbye and hope for the best." (Feb. 2012)

Heh. Yep. Just like what happened with Jedediah Smith (as discussed here. But, I write pieces for my own benefit, not because I'm deluded that I'm building a brick house. WP only allows one to build your house out of straw, so when the big bad wolf comes an blows it down just shrug your shoulders and go build another one.

[dial]

As long as we're talking about Jytdog and COI, I think it is worth mentioning that his past edits include by far the most edits to a narrow range of related articles including Monsanto, Glyphosate, Genetically Modified Food, and Genetically modified crops. I pointed this out in the relevant arbcom case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nvolvement

[The Garbage Scow]

Jytdog is a relentless article owner who long ago progressed from making sure medically-related articles were based on mainstream science to trying to remove and bury everything even slightly related to alternative medicine. Or in some cases even mainstream stuff that he doesn't personally support. He has a team of supporters who always show up to back him in all disputes and AfDs. The worst part is that he constantly misleads and misrepresents policy to new editors to win content disputes.

He's a POV warrior if I ever saw one.

[johnthedinosaur]

Jytdog is so prolific that I am finding it difficult to keep up with him. Here are some recent examples: (1) Refusing to answer a legitimate question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716573974 (2) Deleting talk page information which does not support his case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716589213 (3) Disruptive editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716724107 Is there no end to this man's talents?

[Poetlister]

This is why there needs to be some proper mechanism for sorting out content disputes. It is hard to imagine how there could be one within the "experts aren't wanted" culture on the English site, but setting one up would definitely be one of the best ways to improve the site.

[The Garbage Scow]

Jytdog is so prolific that I am finding it difficult to keep up with him. Here are some recent examples: (1) Refusing to answer a legitimate question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716573974 (2) Deleting talk page information which does not support his case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716589213 (3) Disruptive editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =716724107 Is there no end to this man's talents?

He is absolutely flagrant and does this crap with impunity. He deletes stuff from talk pages claiming he can do so because he thinks it's a comment by a sock of someone who was banned. He moves stuff from one talk page to another. He abuses IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And he seems to have the ear of such luminaries as David Gerard.

I know of no greater abuser of WP:FOO stuff than this asshole in order to to own articles, particularly medical stuff. The truly galling part is that he makes liberal (near obsessive) use of COI in medical cases while simultaneously admitting a COI on his own userpage. The guy works for some sort of biomedical/pharma startup and he relentlessly shuts down any attempt to cover alternative medicine in any kind of non-confrontational way, even when it's just a run-of-the-mill bio about some minor person in the alternative or complementary medicine field. I encountered his obsessiveness on the AfD for Randolph Stonelinkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history[/link]. His obsession with these topics and addiction to editing is Betacommandesque.

[Jim]

His obsession with these topics and addiction to editing is Betacommandesque.

And herein lies the problem. Obsession.

To use one of my bad analogies: dropping litter on the street is wrong, and antisocial. If I felt strongly enough about it to get a few of my friends together to go out a couple of times a week, as volunteers, and pick some up, I'm sure nobody would object. We could even have nice little t-shirts made, and a logo on our trash collecting bags. Folks would probably think "that's nice that people care enough". Some folks might smile and privately think we were "do-gooders" or a bit eccentric, but I don't think we'd upset anyone. Some might even admire us.

The problem would come when we started asking people to turn out their pockets so we could see if they had items corresponding to the trash we had found, looking for "repeat offenders" or berating others who we saw drop something whilst presenting them with detailed copies of the statutes they were violating and explaining what could happen if they "did it again".

[Kumioko]

You could just do what Wikipedia does and start posting banners all over the place so that other people will do the work.
Or maybe something like this?

[LynnWysong]

The collapsed thread.

[The Garbage Scow]

The collapsed thread.

Montanabw has since deleted that but here's the old version.

Good comments from Montanabw and spot on regarding what's wrong with Jytdog, the MEDRS nazi.

[iii]

The collapsed thread.

Montanabw has since deleted that but here's the old version.

Good comments from Montanabw and spot on regarding what's wrong with Jytdog, the MEDRS nazi.

Meh. Montanabw is a devotee of what I call the Church of Lar, believing that what matters at Wikipedia is "BALANCE" and "RESPECTING EVERYONE'S OPINION". This means making room in Wikipedia for marginal proposals, pop idiocy, wild-eyed conspiracy theories, or just plain nonsense as part of the gospel truth.

I generally find the tenets of their religion to be maudlinly guileless. Their antagonism towards anyone who edits Wikipedia from the dreaded EXPERT point of view is also noteworthy. In this particular situation, Montanabw's comments seem right in line with the dogma of "Anything that is Googleable is". Arguments over whether sources can be counted as verified by SCIENCE largely distract from the real dispute: whether mushy ideas and ideologically driven studies deserve promotion in Wikipedia, but Montanabw is incapable of engaging with that. Instead, expect a sermon to be delivered on how the Church of Lar is the one and only True Church of Wikipedia.

[Anroth]

Montanabw is basically clueless on anything except maybe horses. Her recent asinine comments on free speech should show that.

[Kumioko]

Montanabw is basically clueless on anything except maybe horses. Her recent asinine comments on free speech should show that.

This statement is true of a lot of people on the project including more than a few admins.

[LynnWysong]

What I see are two editors shamelessly bashing each other for behavior they are both guilty of. It's nice to see them directing their negative energies at each other instead of harassing others.

[LynnWysong]

Montanabw is basically clueless on anything except maybe horses. Her recent asinine comments on free speech should show that.

Here she deletes Jytdog's parting shot with the edit summary "Best to not call another user 'vile.' I think that's a personal attack." A complete failure of reading comprehension, (or a deliberate twisting of the facts) of calling behavior vile to calling the user vile.

[JCM]

His obsession with these topics and addiction to editing is Betacommandesque.

And herein lies the problem. Obsession.

To use one of my bad analogies: dropping litter on the street is wrong, and antisocial. If I felt strongly enough about it to get a few of my friends together to go out a couple of times a week, as volunteers, and pick some up, I'm sure nobody would object. We could even have nice little t-shirts made, and a logo on our trash collecting bags. Folks would probably think "that's nice that people care enough". Some folks might smile and privately think we were "do-gooders" or a bit eccentric, but I don't think we'd upset anyone. Some might even admire us.

The problem would come when we started asking people to turn out their pockets so we could see if they had items corresponding to the trash we had found, looking for "repeat offenders" or berating others who we saw drop something whilst presenting them with detailed copies of the statutes they were violating and explaining what could happen if they "did it again".

I actually somewhat like Jytdog, even though I think we have had words more than a few times. His primary goal seems to be ensuring that the existing content reflects first last and foremost the prevailing scientific view of any topic, and, so far as I can tell, that is in accord with policies and guidelines. He does seem to have occasionally a bit of a blind spot to the idea that there are at least a few very good reference works which deal with dubiously scientific topics which are also, generally, considered reliable, and so once in a while acts somewhat hastily on topics which might be roughly encyclopedic, but not necessarily one which would appropriately be given a lot of discussion in a scientific encyclopedia.

But, honestly, hell, a lot of editors in the fields of philosophy, religion, and "pseudoscience" think pretty much the opposite, that stuff from less empirical reference works should get priority over similar material from more empirical reference works, and they more or less outnumber Jytdog about 10 to 1, so he has a lot of work to do in that area, and can understandably, once in a while, act a bit quicker than he should.

[thekohser]

Three important notes about Jytdog:

1. In trying to modify Wikipedia's Harassment policy, Jytdog has pushed for a carve-out that would leave COI and paid editing an exception to the outing rules. In other words, if you're a paid editor, no courtesy of privacy should be extended to you.

2. When he asked the community for evidence of the prevalence of paid editing on Wikipedia, when he was given a carefully-documented exercise that evaluated paid and COI editing on 100 random articles about businesses, he called the evidence "bullshit" because it wasn't published in a reliable source.

3. After Sharyl Attkisson's story about "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", he summed it up with, "Attkisson, in my view is a sloppy-thinking anti-vaccination hack and not worth an iota of anyone's time here."

He's a trademark Wikipedian with a sense of superiority, who doesn't handle himself well when presented with views that suggest his thinking may be wrong or misinformed.

[Drijfzand]

maunus and Jytdog make the argument that MEDRS applies to genetic studies (or at least genetic studies related to ethnic groups) diff

I think it would make sense to adopt a strict sourcing policy for genetics sections - possibly MEDRS. There are so much unreviewed terrible genetic/ethnicity stuff out there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
..
BAsically I think the argument can be made that MEDRS actually applies to this topic already and just needs to be enforced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
..
Yes, a geneticist published in a MEDRS can overrule a historian on the topic of genetic history. We are talking only about the genetics sections in ethnicity article, not on the entire topic of the ethnicity. Genetics sections are basically biomedical sections within aarticles on culture historical topics, and MEDRS can be and should be applied to those sections- though not to the rest of the article (here WP:HISTRS should apply). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
..
I've been following along. I think this content is arguably "biomedical" and MEDRS could be argued to apply. If all content about this kind of genetic analysis and what it means were sourced to high quality reviews, and never to the primary source where the results were first published, a lot of the problems would likely go away. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
..
User:Andrew Lancaster what is being proposed with regard to MEDRS is only the discussion of the genetic study and its interpretation. (reviews are where the field validates or invalidates analyses and conclusions presented in research papers) Other kinds of historical evidence could never be subject to MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

..
I think you are missing what I am saying. If we require that when somebody wants to use evidence from actual genetics work (e.g sequencing) to make an historical argument, they have to source that per MEDRS, the rank speculation would be stopped in its tracks. That is what raising source quality does. Right? This is not talking at all about handwavy bullshit about "descending from" - just the genetic studies, per the OP. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Haplogroup population genetics is in no way a biomedical topic, it's a bogus argument to make it easier to remove controversial content.

[Randy from Boise]

Three important notes about Jytdog:

1. In trying to modify Wikipedia's Harassment policy, Jytdog has pushed for a carve-out that would leave COI and paid editing an exception to the outing rules. In other words, if you're a paid editor, no courtesy of privacy should be extended to you.

2. When he asked the community for evidence of the prevalence of paid editing on Wikipedia, when he was given a carefully-documented exercise that evaluated paid and COI editing on 100 random articles about businesses, he called the evidence "bullshit" because it wasn't published in a reliable source.

3. After Sharyl Attkisson's story about "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", he summed it up with, "Attkisson, in my view is a sloppy-thinking anti-vaccination hack and not worth an iota of anyone's time here."

He's a trademark Wikipedian with a sense of superiority, who doesn't handle himself well when presented with views that suggest his thinking may be wrong or misinformed.

I had never seen Attkisson before the Kohs piece but spotted her show while channel surfing yesterday. I was hugely entertained with her fluffy promotional piece intimating coordinated "censorship" of the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.

Behind every simple-minded ad hominem attack there is a grain of truth.

"Vaxxed was directed by Andrew Wakefield, and I would say that he shouldn't give up his day job except that he no longer has one. He's the British gastroenterologist who was one of the dozen authors of a study about the link between vaccination and autism published in a British medical journal in 1998. The study was retracted in 2010 and has been widely discredited. He's since had his medical license revoked over various ethical and financial improprieties, although not surprisingly you don't hear about that in the film."

linkhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... ilm-879960[/link]

RfB

[iii]

Behind every simple-minded ad hominem attack there is a grain of truth.

Crucially, Sharyl Attikisson got interested in Wikipedia because her biography included (and still does include) criticisms of her support for anti-vax positions. This did not sit well with her, but she steered clear of that angle in her Wikipedia-piece to what I would argue is good effect.

[Randy from Boise]

Behind every simple-minded ad hominem attack there is a grain of truth.

Crucially, Sharyl Attikisson got interested in Wikipedia because her biography included (and still does include) criticisms of her support for anti-vax positions. This did not sit well with her, but she steered clear of that angle in her Wikipedia-piece to what I would argue is good effect.

She is highly agenda-driven and pretty obviously right wing.

RfB

[johnthedinosaur]

I just noticed this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =719813469 Jytdog berating Irene000 because she might have a conflict of interest in future. Anybody might have a COI in future. Why not wait until it happens? Note the usual patronising "Do you understand?" at the end.

[mendaliv]

I just noticed this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =719813469 Jytdog berating Irene000 because she might have a conflict of interest in future. Anybody might have a COI in future. Why not wait until it happens? Note the usual patronising "Do you understand?" at the end.

Damn. We should all stop editing any articles about Wikipedia. The Foundation might ask one of us to make some change to that article, at which point there would be a "Conflict of Interest", which would require a declaration!

Preposterous.

[Kingsindian]

The user said that they "represent" the model earlier, but then they backtracked and said they are just a fan. They also said that this is their "first job", but again backtracked by saying that they mean this is their first account. Something fishy is going on. Perhaps they are just someone with a weak command of English, but it's probable that they do have a COI.

From what I can see, Jytdog is, for the most part, trying to help the user with COI issues and the bright line rule. Of course we know that the rule is violated all the time, but that is Jimbo's fault.

[Poetlister]

Very clearly, Jytdog is saying that while there is no COI yet, it is quite possible that there will be one in future and advising what to do if so. That seems eminently reasonable.

[johnthedinosaur]

I make no apology for criticising Jytdog because I think he is the most destructive force I have seen on Wikipedia. He used to just own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... of_content medical articles but now he seems to be trying to own the whole of Wikipedia. The procedure is (1) accuse another editor of conflict of interest (2) instruct him/her to discuss all edits on the talk page (3) engage in endless filibustering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ilibusters to ensure that the other editor's edits never make it from the talk page to the article. Here are some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swam ... %28guru%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euro ... ate_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarawood I know Wikipedia needs protection from vandals but Jytdog is just massively over-zealous.

[mendaliv]

The user said that they "represent" the model earlier, but then they backtracked and said they are just a fan. They also said that this is their "first job", but again backtracked by saying that they mean this is their first account. Something fishy is going on. Perhaps they are just someone with a weak command of English, but it's probable that they do have a COI.

From what I can see, Jytdog is, for the most part, trying to help the user with COI issues and the bright line rule. Of course we know that the rule is violated all the time, but that is Jimbo's fault.

Ah, I see. Concealing a COI. Jytdog honestly ought to just call it out, that the flip-flopping raises concerns and there's a reasonable worry about a COI, so it would be a good idea to cut out whatever the editor is doing.

[thekohser]

And I'm sure Jytdog discloses all of his current and future COIs?

[Liz99]

And I'm sure Jytdog discloses all of his current and future COIs?

Actually, on his user page, he talks about the field he works in and the kind of articles he'll stay away from because of a potential conflict-of-interest. He offers more personal information than most editors, many of whom won't even reveal which continent they live on.

Saying that, Jytdog can be pitbull-like once he latches onto an article, editor or issue. When it's getting rid of problematic, bogus edits, it's great for the project. but having that intensity unleashed on a new editor, well, it frankly can be frightening and overwhelming for most people.

[The Garbage Scow]

His righteousness and paranoia about COI and MEDRS goes way past the point of trying to ensure neutrality and well into topic ownership and abuse of process. It's a great example of someone constantly enabled because he "means well" and "is trying to protect the wiki".

He's just really good at passive-aggressive battleground behavior, well disguised with plenty of lipstick and perfume. And when he needs help, alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back him up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages.

I argue that his regular ownership of pseudoscience and alternative medicine stuff is a COI, given that he works for a pharmaceutical company.

Regardless, he's toxic and a self-righteous douchebag of the first order.

[johnthedinosaur]

alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back him up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages.

This is interesting. Heavyplantcrossing edited Clarawood on 11 May 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =718893559 Rhododendrites then came off a Wikibreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhododendrites to revert the edit. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi clearly suspects that Heavyplantcrossing is a sockpuppet and posted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ntcrossing , including:

Is there any reason you would like to tell us of that made it so important?

I'd like to ask the same question. What made it so important for Rhododendrites to come off his Wikibreak? Is there some collusion here?

[Anroth]

argue that his regular ownership of pseudoscience and alternative medicine stuff is a COI, given that he works for a pharmaceutical company.

Regardless, he's toxic and a self-righteous douchebag of the first order.

Still a 1000 times better than the deluded ignorant idiots who would infest the alternative medicine area otherwise.

[Poetlister]

argue that his regular ownership of pseudoscience and alternative medicine stuff is a COI, given that he works for a pharmaceutical company.

Regardless, he's toxic and a self-righteous douchebag of the first order.

Still a 1000 times better than the deluded ignorant idiots who would infest the alternative medicine area otherwise.

This is a good debating point. Is a nasty POV warrior who is doing the right thing better than a well behaved deluded ignorant idiot? Depends whether you regard Wikipedia as a game or as an influential reference work.

[Randy from Boise]

argue that his regular ownership of pseudoscience and alternative medicine stuff is a COI, given that he works for a pharmaceutical company.

Regardless, he's toxic and a self-righteous douchebag of the first order.

Still a 1000 times better than the deluded ignorant idiots who would infest the alternative medicine area otherwise.

This is a good debating point. Is a nasty POV warrior who is doing the right thing better than a well behaved deluded ignorant idiot? Depends whether you regard Wikipedia as a game or as an influential reference work.

This gets back to one of the fundamental philosophical problems relating to WP — how to value positively-contributing content people who exhibit antisocial behavior in one form or another. I'm inclined to give the jackasses a long leash, but for me it is about the encyclopedia, not the game... I have no illusions about WP being a touchy-feely grouphug rainbow sunshine commune. It's all costs and benefits.

RfB

[mendaliv]

Right. There's a real economic game at play in determining just how far we let good editors with bad attitudes go, and how much slack we cut bad editors with good attitudes. Consider the recent Wikicology case, and just how far so many people were willing to go for a downright awful editor who could at least talk the talk (even if he had a bad attitude at times as well). Just when is someone a "net minus"?

Something I've noticed in recent years, too, is the argument that the good editors with bad attitudes have a cost that's difficult to measure in terms of their driving away inexperienced editors. And there's a damn good point there, insofar as good editors are only going to be around so long: They'll get a job and retire, get sick and die, or get banned after one too many edit wars. There does need to be turnover. I have seen the argument used to counter someone pointing to an editor's good deeds. It's really seductive. I think I've even used it myself a few times.

[The Garbage Scow]

alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back him up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages.

This is interesting. Heavyplantcrossing edited Clarawood on 11 May 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =718893559 Rhododendrites then came off a Wikibreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhododendrites to revert the edit. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi clearly suspects that Heavyplantcrossing is a sockpuppet and posted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ntcrossing , including:

Is there any reason you would like to tell us of that made it so important?

I'd like to ask the same question. What made it so important for Rhododendrites to come off his Wikibreak? Is there some collusion here?

Hmmm... this is intriguing. Will need to investigate.

[Disgruntled haddock]

alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back him up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages.

This is interesting. Heavyplantcrossing edited Clarawood on 11 May 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =718893559 Rhododendrites then came off a Wikibreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhododendrites to revert the edit. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi clearly suspects that Heavyplantcrossing is a sockpuppet and posted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ntcrossing , including:

Is there any reason you would like to tell us of that made it so important?

I'd like to ask the same question. What made it so important for Rhododendrites to come off his Wikibreak? Is there some collusion here?

Well, we may have some more information sooner rather than later: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clarawood123 (T-H-L).

[johnthedinosaur]

alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back him up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages.

This is interesting. Heavyplantcrossing edited Clarawood on 11 May 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =718893559 Rhododendrites then came off a Wikibreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhododendrites to revert the edit. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi clearly suspects that Heavyplantcrossing is a sockpuppet and posted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ntcrossing , including:

Is there any reason you would like to tell us of that made it so important?

I'd like to ask the same question. What made it so important for Rhododendrites to come off his Wikibreak? Is there some collusion here?

Well, we may have some more information sooner rather than later: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clarawood123 (T-H-L).

The Wikipedia cabal are monitoring this thread on Wikipediocracy so I have a message for them. Heavyplantcrossing is one of my sockpuppets but it has no connection with Clarawood123. They should therefore unblock Clarawood123 and give him an apology for finding him guilty without a shred of evidence. I don't suppose they will because they will never admit to being wrong.

[johnthedinosaur]

Disclaimer: None of the editors on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HempFan are my sockpuppets but, amid the current hysteria, I would not be surprised if they are labelled as such.

[Kingsindian]

Are you Biscuittin (T-C-L)?

[greybeard]

The Wikipedia cabal are monitoring this thread on Wikipediocracy so I have a message for them. Heavyplantcrossing is one of my sockpuppets but it has no connection with Clarawood123. They should therefore unblock Clarawood123 and give him an apology for finding him guilty without a shred of evidence. I don't suppose they will because they will never admit to being wrong.

We'd really rather you didn't use this forum to send quasi-private messages to Wikipidiot admins, especially ones asking to get back onto WP. Our advice is almost always to get a new hobby.

[johnthedinosaur]

Are you Biscuittin (T-C-L)?

I'm not going to answer that. Would you believe anything I said anyway?