Sanctimony

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Sanctimony

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:54 pm

Larry and I have been having an email chat about sanctimony. "Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness."

Examples would be welcome, from any period of Wikipedia's history. See the one below from Dan's talk page for a nice example. Also welcome are examples of ridiculous self-importance, or high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders.
This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =516251643
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:50 pm

'Sanctimony, righteousness, hypocritical devoutness, high-mindedness'
emotional impetus or justification for one's actions, mistaken for rational thought at Wikipedia, particularly appealing to the weak-minded who enjoy feeling smug and superior.
Peter Damian wrote:... Examples would be welcome...
I had a whole bunch on WR (example), damn. David Gerard is an endless supply, especially with the hypocritical element.
TungstenCarbide wrote:That's not the half of it :blink: He goes on rants and raves about 'Jesusland' when people mention editorial judgement, raging against the evils of censorship, and then proceeds to censor left and right when it suits him, abusing his administrator powers along the way. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... t&p=207580
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:31 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Larry and I have been having an email chat about sanctimony. "Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness."

Examples would be welcome, from any period of Wikipedia's history. See the one below from Dan's talk page for a nice example. Also welcome are examples of ridiculous self-importance, or high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders.
This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =516251643
I do believe that Frank Zappa had an appropriate response to the above in 200 Motels:
FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE NITWIT!
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by thekohser » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:56 pm

I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. I’m doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him. But for this child, a website on the Internet is not enough; we need to find ways to get our work to people in a form they can actually use.

And I’m doing this for my own daughter, who I hope will grow up in a world where culture is free, not proprietary, where control of knowledge is in the hands of people everywhere, with basic works they can adopt, modify, and share freely without asking permission from anyone.

We’re already taking back the Internet. With your help, we can take back the world. -- Jimbo Wales
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4681
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by tarantino » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:52 pm

Jimmie Wales in August 2006
The idea here is that Assume Good Faith is really important, and
WikiLove is really important. Being harsh and feeling sanctimonious
about battling idiots is a temptation that all good people can fall
into, especially when tired. But it dehumanizes others and causes them
to behave worse, not better.
Steve Bennett replies
Hear, hear, hear.

Being sanctimonious with anyone never achieves *anything* good, other
than the dubious value of team bonding amongst those mocking them.
This was the same month when Jimmie announced that he'd come to a "very favorable agreement" with MyWikiBiz.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12061
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:09 pm

tarantino wrote:Jimmie Wales in August 2006
The idea here is that Assume Good Faith is really important, and
WikiLove is really important. Being harsh and feeling sanctimonious
about battling idiots is a temptation that all good people can fall
into, especially when tired. But it dehumanizes others and causes them
to behave worse, not better.
Steve Bennett replies
Hear, hear, hear.

Being sanctimonious with anyone never achieves *anything* good, other
than the dubious value of team bonding amongst those mocking them.
This was the same month when Jimmie announced that he'd come to a "very favorable agreement" with MyWikiBiz.
And, for the record, here's Jimmy Wales' Summer 2006 take on COI from the thread that you cite:

I just got off the phone with MyWikiBiz and reached what I think is a
very favorable agreement about this sort of thing.

The big problem with paid editing on wikipedia is NOT that someone is
getting paid to write, but rather that this causes a rather obvious
conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. This was my
problem, and they immediately saw why this was not in our interest or
theirs.

Rather, what we brainstormed about as a nice mutually beneficial ground
would be for them to charge customers for writing high quality NPOV
articles about their companies, with sources and verifiability, but for
them to work with well known and respected wikipedians who are NOT being
financially compensated to actually enter the articles into Wikipedia
upon their own independent judgment. This will avoid, for MyWikiBiz, a
lot of sad fighting with us which is likely to be ugly and unproductive
all around.

This preserves our independence as a volunteer editing body, while at
the same time supporting the creation of high quality NPOV content. I
am very pleased with this idea.-- (Jimmy Wales)

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:20 pm

Hah.

Just go thru Newyorkbrad's contribs. Done.

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:01 am

No such discussion would be complete without a line or two from good old SchuminWeb (T-C-L):
This is regarding your comment, "obviously some people enjoy being disruptive and getting a rise out of irritating others" on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 3#File:SA Army General rank.jpg (T-H-L). Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. My rule of thumb is that you should not say something to someone online that you wouldn't say to them in person. You do not endear yourself to others when you make comments like that, and it may cause your comments to be discounted when administrators close deletion discussions if they read your comment with the personal attack as unproductive.
Of course we want advice from Benjy on how to be endearing!

(edit) I didn't look at the deletion discussion referenced before posting. Schuminweb closed it as keep and then went to the guy's talk page to hassle him about his tone. Looking at the few days around September 3 it seems that Schumin's closing lots of these as delete, even if there's no discussion whatsoever. Maybe this is normal, but if he's involved, I have to wonder.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:10 am

Sweet Revenge wrote:No such discussion would be complete without a line or two from good old SchuminWeb (T-C-L)
You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:17 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Sweet Revenge wrote:No such discussion would be complete without a line or two from good old SchuminWeb (T-C-L)
You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.
That's hilarious. His edit summary is priceless. I would have thought it would be considered a bug in the mediawiki software that a blocked admin can self-unblock, but now I can see that it's a feature.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:25 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Sweet Revenge wrote:No such discussion would be complete without a line or two from good old SchuminWeb (T-C-L)
You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.
Schumin and his family are the very definition of ugly American, writ large.

Ignorant, stupid and fat.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Daniel Brandt
Critic
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:16 pm

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Daniel Brandt » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:38 am

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
Jimmy Wales, July 28, 2004

culeaker
Contributor
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:55 am
Wikipedia Review Member: culeaker

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by culeaker » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:59 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.
There has been much speculation about how that could have happened. It isn't easy to block yourself.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:19 pm

culeaker wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.
There has been much speculation about how that could have happened. It isn't easy to block yourself.
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked himself for 10 years.

MuZemike, that paragon of competence and thoughfulness, blocked himself as a "vandal".

Jéské Couriano blocked and unblocked himself repeatedly.

So did Zack Harden.

Why are these people still administrators? There's your "sanctimonious" crap for today.

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Mason » Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:10 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
culeaker wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:You can usually tell the really incompetent admins. Sooner or later, they end up blocking themselves.
There has been much speculation about how that could have happened. It isn't easy to block yourself.
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked himself for 10 years.

MuZemike, that paragon of competence and thoughfulness, blocked himself as a "vandal".

Jéské Couriano blocked and unblocked himself repeatedly.

So did Zack Harden.

Why are these people still administrators? There's your "sanctimonious" crap for today.
Happens a lot. MZMcBride has a giant list someplace of all the admins who've blocked themselves.

Retrospect
Critic
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Retrospect

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Retrospect » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:22 am

EricBarbour wrote:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked himself for 10 years.
He has a clean block log. However, the block log for his number 2 account is a fucking riot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... rpington+2

Glen blocked him by accident then immediately unblocked. The other block must be a test block on a discarded sock.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:50 pm

Mason wrote:MZMcBride has a giant list someplace of all the admins who've blocked themselves.
I remember that, looks as thought it was removed.

But I did find this staggering mess. A poll that ran from January to September 2006. The results, all of which are still widely violated today:
Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers 95% Agree *******************
Requests for comment is not taken seriously enough 93.8% Agree *******************
Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email 92.5% Agree *******************
The ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules 86.8% Agree *****************
Admins should be held more accountable for their actions than they are now 83.3% Agree *****************
Sanctimonious indeed. :angry:

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:35 am

Caught one
If Malleus promises to interact with other editors in a proper manner, I would be minded to pursue some remedy other than a site-ban. For Malleus' benefit, this is the sort of thing that has broken my patience (and, I presume, that of my colleagues who support this motion). Whether or not an editor's challenge of your changes or comments is correct, you owe it to less incisive or experienced editors to phrase your responses in such a way that the interaction is not made disgustingly unpleasant. You know how to speak to other editors; we only want you to make a credible effort to do so. AGK [•] 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =518922637
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Reaper Eternal
Contributor
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:57 pm
Wikipedia User: Reaper Eternal
Actual Name: Brian Phillips
Location: Ohio

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Reaper Eternal » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:53 am

EricBarbour wrote: I remember that, looks as thought it was removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=359971907

There you go.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:37 pm

More sanctimony in the absurd deletion discussion for the category 'Wikipedians who are not a wikipedian'. This was created by supporters of Malleus in protest at his being declared 'not a Wikipedian' by a member of the Committee.

Note the use of the royal 'we'.
Nominator's rationale This is an attack category, which we do not allow. It was created to show solidarity with one editor in a dispute with another editor. It exist for the purpose of increasing divisiveness and division within the wikipedia community, which is the exact opposite of what categories should do. It also seems to exist to prove some sort of perverse point, which is another thing we do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... wikipedian
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

lsanger
Critic
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:36 pm
Wikipedia User: Larry Sanger

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by lsanger » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:06 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:David Gerard is an endless supply, especially with the hypocritical element.
Agreed! He's about the worst/most ridiculous.

Jimbo is another one very much given to sanctimony; in fact, he might be the source of the enormous amounts of it in Wiki-land:

http://www.quora.com/log/revision/10301377

My reply: http://www.quora.com/log/revision/10303513

The trouble with finding examples of sanctimony is that there are so many and they are so banal. The "high-handed virtuous bureaucrat" attitude is the typical approach taken by so many Wikipedians to people who merely have disagreements...

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by iii » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:56 pm

lsanger wrote:The trouble with finding examples of sanctimony is that there are so many and they are so banal. The "high-handed virtuous bureaucrat" attitude is the typical approach taken by so many Wikipedians to people who merely have disagreements...
I think the sanctimony has evolved from an initial "culture" which eschewed authority. What happened was that those who invoked authority in spite of the egalitarian nature of the internet-based community were afforded a status by the virtue of their invocation because somebody needed to make decisions. Those who "read" consensus were those who would speak for the entire community as a monolith. Then came the gaming access where people traded different kinds of status at Wikipedia for other kinds of status in the hopes of being able to climb the social ladder to reach some sort of pinnacle of perceived success (administrator, arbitrator, bureaucrat, functionary, board member).

But its manifestation today is pretty universal. Whenever I read a comment from an "uninvolved" on a dramaboard, I see it as fairly dripping with the ego-boost that is gained from someone who sees a conflict and feels holier than thou....

Which I think is somewhat interesting in light of this community. I see this group as being the elitist outcasts who are too cool for school. I tend to like such kinds of mavericks myself, but let's be honest: most Wikipediocracy members are pretty sanctimonious in their own right, maybe even rivaling that of many Wikipedians. It's an escalating arm's race of sanctimoniousness.

I have to admit that I am a part of it, even by making this very comment.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:22 am

Right below that (extremely stupid and self-parodying) CFD for "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian", there were:

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and therefore are Wikipedians because that's the way Wikipedians like us roll
and
Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians, and who think this is a great idea, but possibly not, and who are not being indecisive

Many of those people have some kind of obscure brain damage. I'm not sure they know what "humor" or "satire" mean.

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Mason » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:11 am

Peter Damian wrote:More sanctimony in the absurd deletion discussion for the category 'Wikipedians who are not a wikipedian'. This was created by supporters of Malleus in protest at his being declared 'not a Wikipedian' by a member of the Committee.

Note the use of the royal 'we'.
Nominator's rationale This is an attack category, which we do not allow. It was created to show solidarity with one editor in a dispute with another editor. It exist for the purpose of increasing divisiveness and division within the wikipedia community, which is the exact opposite of what categories should do. It also seems to exist to prove some sort of perverse point, which is another thing we do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... wikipedian
That discussion is fascinating. I get why the category was created, and why other people want to kill it, but the amount of time, effort and emotion being spent on whether the link to that category should be blue or red pretty much defines "arguing over the color of the bike shed", doesn't it?

It's not like you can't add yourself to a deleted category and be listed there anyway.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:47 am

iii wrote:
lsanger wrote:The trouble with finding examples of sanctimony is that there are so many and they are so banal. The "high-handed virtuous bureaucrat" attitude is the typical approach taken by so many Wikipedians to people who merely have disagreements...
I think the sanctimony has evolved from an initial "culture" which eschewed authority. What happened was that those who invoked authority in spite of the egalitarian nature of the internet-based community were afforded a status by the virtue of their invocation because somebody needed to make decisions. Those who "read" consensus were those who would speak for the entire community as a monolith. Then came the gaming access where people traded different kinds of status at Wikipedia for other kinds of status in the hopes of being able to climb the social ladder to reach some sort of pinnacle of perceived success (administrator, arbitrator, bureaucrat, functionary, board member).

But its manifestation today is pretty universal. Whenever I read a comment from an "uninvolved" on a dramaboard, I see it as fairly dripping with the ego-boost that is gained from someone who sees a conflict and feels holier than thou....

Which I think is somewhat interesting in light of this community. I see this group as being the elitist outcasts who are too cool for school. I tend to like such kinds of mavericks myself, but let's be honest: most Wikipediocracy members are pretty sanctimonious in their own right, maybe even rivaling that of many Wikipedians. It's an escalating arm's race of sanctimoniousness.

I have to admit that I am a part of it, even by making this very comment.
Interesting and insightful.

There was a documentary a while back about group behaviour and how we signal our intentions and status. In one part, they compared organisations which were notionally 'flat', one of which was a 'cool' technology company, the other of which was the Royal Navy. The take was that in the hierarchical organisation, there were almost no behavioural 'tells' which marked status. An officer would quietly give an order, the person would do it. In the 'flat' organisation, people behaved in all sorts of ways that marked out their territory or status.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:22 am

Peter Damian wrote: The take was that in the hierarchical organisation, there were almost no behavioural 'tells' which marked status. An officer would quietly give an order, the person would do it. In the 'flat' organisation, people behaved in all sorts of ways that marked out their territory or status.
Particularly in a 'flat' organization that has nominal rules against incivility.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Willbeheard
Retired
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm
Wikipedia User: Arniep
Wikipedia Review Member: jorge

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Willbeheard » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:52 am

I see User:Randy from Boise is in that category. Is that our Randy? I thought he called himself Carrite on Wikipedia.

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Mason » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:19 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Right below that (extremely stupid and self-parodying) CFD for "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian", there were:

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and therefore are Wikipedians because that's the way Wikipedians like us roll
and
Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians, and who think this is a great idea, but possibly not, and who are not being indecisive

Many of those people have some kind of obscure brain damage. I'm not sure they know what "humor" or "satire" mean.
And now we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian‎.

It's on track for being deleted as an attack page, because (as an IP editor points out there) ArbCom members are above the law, and criticism of one is by definition an attack. (An ArbCom member criticizing you, though, is merely "an opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee [sic]".)

Malleus
Habitué
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Malleus » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:15 am

Mason wrote: And now we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian‎.

It's on track for being deleted as an attack page, because (as an IP editor points out there) ArbCom members are above the law, and criticism of one is by definition an attack. (An ArbCom member criticizing you, though, is merely "an opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee [sic]".)
It's an interesting blind spot the Wikipedia "elite" seem to have; they can say whatever they like about another editor, but if anyone criticises them it's an "attack". It's now got so bad that not only am I forbidden to comment on the RfA process, but I've been warned that even to criticise an administrator could be construed as criticism of the process by which they were elected to power, and might result in a block for a breach of my topic ban; there's a deep sickness at the heart of the project. But then you knew that already.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by lilburne » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:14 pm

Malleus wrote:there's a deep sickness at the heart of the project. But then you knew that already.
The trick is to provoke an Autoimmunity (T-H-L) reaction within the administrators ranks.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Mason » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:44 pm

Mason wrote:And now we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian‎.

It's on track for being deleted as an attack page, because (as an IP editor points out there) ArbCom members are above the law, and criticism of one is by definition an attack. (An ArbCom member criticizing you, though, is merely "an opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee [sic]".)
...aaand now we have a deletion review.

For someone who repeatedly claims not to give a shit about the whole "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" business, it's strange how Scott MacDonald pops up in every single discussion about it.

Clearly he underestimates his a-shit-giving skills.

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:19 pm

Mason wrote:
Mason wrote:And now we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian‎.

It's on track for being deleted as an attack page, because (as an IP editor points out there) ArbCom members are above the law, and criticism of one is by definition an attack. (An ArbCom member criticizing you, though, is merely "an opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee [sic]".)
...aaand now we have a deletion review.

For someone who repeatedly claims not to give a shit about the whole "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" business, it's strange how Scott MacDonald pops up in every single discussion about it.

Clearly he underestimates his a-shit-giving skills.
Alison could probably say a thing or two about how dense and defiant Scottywong is.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:39 am

Mason wrote:...aaand now we have a deletion review.
As usual, one gets the feeling that some of these little boys need to be spanked more frequently by their mommies.

FlossMore
Contributor
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:50 am

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by FlossMore » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:29 am

Just came across this gem, a training session for flies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt

It includes training and tests on (wait for it!) becoming a fly.

"One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for."

"This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way..."

I was hoping for one based on answers, but "right thinking" is important, so creds.

"3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world ... Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! ..."

"A- Thus, I'd say that either of these tidbits should be included. Go Phightins! 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)" (He meant "neither.")

I think this training will improve article quality at Wikipedia, as, once you have the butternut squashes straightened out, you can move on to important articles, like The Elephant House.

Wikipedia is sanctimonious. Too easy.

User avatar
Willbeheard
Retired
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm
Wikipedia User: Arniep
Wikipedia Review Member: jorge

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Willbeheard » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:43 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Mason wrote:...aaand now we have a deletion review.
As usual, one gets the feeling that some of these little boys need to be spanked more frequently by their mommies.
Mods! Objection! This forum isn't Spankingpedia! :D
FlossMore wrote:Just came across this gem, a training session for flies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt
In fairness it is just in userspace and maybe is just intended as a joke.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13965
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Zoloft » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:49 pm

Willbeheard wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Mason wrote:...aaand now we have a deletion review.
As usual, one gets the feeling that some of these little boys need to be spanked more frequently by their mommies.
Mods! Objection! This forum isn't Spankingpedia! :D
FlossMore wrote:Just came across this gem, a training session for flies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt
In fairness it is just in userspace and maybe is just intended as a joke.
I suspect we'll find out today.. Rcsprinter just signed up.

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


User avatar
Angela Kennedy
Critic
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:41 am
Wikipedia User: Angela Kennedy
Wikipedia Review Member: Angela Kennedy
Location: Essex, UK
Contact:

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Angela Kennedy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:04 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:'Sanctimony, righteousness, hypocritical devoutness, high-mindedness'
emotional impetus or justification for one's actions, mistaken for rational thought at Wikipedia, particularly appealing to the weak-minded who enjoy feeling smug and superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... the_tigers

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

Re: Sanctimony

Unread post by Anroth » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:23 pm

I have seen that before, then I realised it was probably you who linked it, THEN after reading the Simon Wessely talkpage I worked out why you probably have it bookmarked....

Thats 20 mins I wont get back....

Post Reply