View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:54 am



Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
The grand outing of Wikipedia Arbitrator 28bytes 
Author Message
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1263
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Hex wrote:
lilburne wrote:
And to the rear of the stage Russavia wants a byte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... er:28bytes

A desperate act by a slimy and contemptible little man.


Except, this raises a good point. In the recent blocking and unblocking actions we have:

  • Blocking Demiurge for a month for comments about Wikipediocracy.
  • Blocking Gwickwire for a week for comments about Wikipediocracy.
  • Reversing a block of Kiefer that was for comments made on Wikipediocracy.
  • Blocking Mathsci for edit-warring on the article for Wikipediocracy, where the edit-warring was him removing a link to the site that contained a post outing him.

When you throw that in with the AfD Russavia mentioned and the Earl AfD then, well, it doesn't matter one lick if he was right every time, and I do not believe that to be the case anyway. This sort of admin activity, at the very least, creates a serious appearance of impropriety. I have not looked to see if he personally commented on all of those cases before taking action, but that he took action so regularly on matters concerning Wikipediocracy in a manner that consistently favored Wikipediocracy is bad enough in itself.

The situation with Mathsci is particularly bad from appearances. Most of those pushing to keep the link to WO were members of WO and those reverting Mathsci to restore the link to WO all appear to have been members as well. For a member of WO, who was not publicly known to be a member, to have blocked Mathsci for the above is very bad. It does not matter what anyone here believes about that, because the perception of that situation was bad enough and is made all the worse by the fact that a covert participant on this forum, who was a well-respected and high-level admin on Wikipedia, blocked Mathsci for undoing what he believed was harassment directed at him by this site.

It makes Wnt's rantings about WO almost seem sane and that is not a good thing.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:10 am
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
I recommend an admin revoke talk page access.

WP:DENY.

I'd die of shame if Russavia were complementing me in the same sentence as DemiUrge1000.

_________________
Whiners!


Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:34 am
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
It makes Wnt's rantings about WO almost seem sane and that is not a good thing.


Wnt's ranting is always a good thing. Not only do we need more of it, but more of you in his camp too.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:01 am
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
blather...

So that's you, Demiurge, Wnt, Russavia and Mathsci?

Only 5 so far, but I'm sure you can sign up another 6 at least, which should give you enough for a dream team at most sports.

Try to get it televised - I have a choice of channels then...


Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:50 am
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 846
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.



I agree. Even I knew nothing about 28bytes himself, it would have been enough just to look at an angry, dirty mob who is attacking him: Jehochman, Russavia,demiurge1000, fae. Do I need another proof that starting this topic was a very bad idea?

_________________
Albert Einstein: "I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." That day has already arrived


Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:29 pm
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 846
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ur_comment
Quote:
Removed your comment

I read, and then removed your comment about me. It's not relevant to the case. If you agree to leave it out, we are done. If you want to restore it, I'll go hassle the clerks to do something about it. Jehochman Talk 01:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, read my lips: FUCK YOU. And keep off my page, I don't want to see you here again. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that's very civil. I shall not post here again. Bye. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll speak about you as I wish, just not there. Where I've never been nor have any interest in going, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)



BTW the comment that Jehochman wants to be removed so desperately is this one:
Quote:
@ Jehochman: "Wikipedia is not a battleground." You're a funny guy. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Jehochman calls it "blatant personal attack"

Carrite, you were wrong to post this comment. Of course Jehochman is not a funny guy. He's a very, very stupid guy, and as we all know "There is no sin except stupidity"

_________________
Albert Einstein: "I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." That day has already arrived


Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:29 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1263
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Vigilant wrote:
I recommend an admin revoke talk page access.

WP:DENY.

I'd die of shame if Russavia were complementing me in the same sentence as DemiUrge1000.


lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing. Not only do we need more of it, but more of you in his camp too.


Jim wrote:
So that's you, Demiurge, Wnt, Russavia and Mathsci?

Only 5 so far, but I'm sure you can sign up another 6 at least, which should give you enough for a dream team at most sports.

Try to get it televised - I have a choice of channels then...


All right you three, how do you think things would have played out with any of the above actions if 28bytes had been known to be Mason at the time? I do not think you have to put much thought into it to realize most of those actions would have generated serious ill will towards 28 and WO. Most likely he would not have taken all those actions were his ties to WO public knowledge, mainly because just one of those actions would have caused enough controversy to compel him to not perform any of the others. Had he performed all the above actions while his WO identity was known then he likely would have been subject to an arbitration case where he would be lucky to avoid desysopping. I imagine that Mathsci, who would undoubtedly have realized the significance once 28bytes was revealed as Mason, is already filing this away as "further" evidence of "harassment" from WO.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:44 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Actual Name: Scott Martin
lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing.

You have got to be kidding.

_________________
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:46 pm
Profile WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am
Posts: 1093
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
[*]Blocking Mathsci for edit-warring on the article for Wikipediocracy, where the edit-warring was him removing a link to the site that contained a post outing him.[/list]

The situation with Mathsci is particularly bad from appearances. Most of those pushing to keep the link to WO were members of WO and those reverting Mathsci to restore the link to WO all appear to have been members as well. For a member of WO, who was not publicly known to be a member, to have blocked Mathsci for the above is very bad.


It would look bad if I had blocked Mathsci. But I didn't. I unblocked him.

When I blocked or unblocked someone, it was because (1) I believed it was the right thing to do and (2) there was a policy basis for doing so. I have never toed the WO line. Search the archives here, you will find an equal number of cases where WO regulars were angry at me taking "anti-WO" admin actions.

My mistake (well, one of them, anyway) was in adding running commentary here to my thought process about taking such admin actions there. Elonka (and Russavia) are right to point that out, and if I had that to do over again, I wouldn't.


Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:56 pm
Profile
Habitué

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Posts: 1423
Hex wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing.

You have got to be kidding.


Do you think he could understand himself if he had to read that six months later?

:blink:


Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:52 pm
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
enwikibadscience wrote:
Hex wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing.

You have got to be kidding.


Do you think he could understand himself if he had to read that six months later?

:blink:

Only if he were just as drunk as he is today.

Sort of like Dwarvish Runes.

_________________
Whiners!


Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:54 pm
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Hex wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing.

You have got to be kidding.


Embrace the surreal.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:43 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2867
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Vigilant wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
Hex wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing.

You have got to be kidding.


Do you think he could understand himself if he had to read that six months later?

:blink:

Only if he were just as drunk as he is today.

Sort of like Dwarvish Runes.


That's what I write like when I'm stoned. Then in the morning it's all "what the fuck was that?" and it all goes away.

Just sayin'...


RfB


Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:24 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Posts: 6210
Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Randy from Boise wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Hex wrote:
I spoke too soon, an arbitration request by Tryptofish (T-C-L) is brewing.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dan_Murphy (T-H-L)

Lame. Congrats, Dan, you're now forever entombed in the Museum Of Idiotic Arbitration Crap.

Did anyone ever study that Tryptofish person in detail? For a "scientist", he spends precious little time on Wikipedia doing
science content these days, and far more time mush-mouthing on noticeboards. Another "rising star".


This is a fucking absurd request and it has me thoroughly pissed.

RfB

Addenda:
tldr: show
Here is Tryptofish's top 10 edited articles, per WP's edit counter:

352 - Atheism
342 - People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals
311 - Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
279 - Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
276 - Religion
246 - Human_brain
239 - Crucifixion
227 - Aquascaping
217 - Christian_terrorism
205 - Urination

Good old Tryptofish muses philosophically on his talk page:
Code:
To Wikipediocracy

First, please let me make it clear that, unlike many other people, I do not regard you as a monolith. Like Wikipedia, you are a collection of people, and not everyone is the same. It's obvious to me that there are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent people there, who sincerely want to make Wikipedia a better place. Indeed, I recently saw someone there tell other users not to hate on anybody, that no one had died. That was a very good thing to say, and I respect it.

Those of you who are trying to accomplish some good might want to give some thought to the graphic interface of your discussion sections. The heavy use of avatars and other graphics tends to get in the way of intelligent conversation. It reminds me of Something Awful.

But: at the same time, some users at that site are mostly there for the trolling. And some of you seem to have taken a recent interest in me. Thanks! The page view statistics on my talk page here have soared! Some of you expressed an interest in finding out who I am, so you can out me. (I'm looking directly at you, Randy from Boise.) Go for it. I dare you. You know you want to. (Or you could just take a deep breath and calm down, up to you.) Look for the bread crumbs (here??). I'll be watching, with popcorn. (Well, actually, I won't be watching that closely, because I don't really care, but I'll look in from time to time, for the laughs.) While you're at it, take a look at something I said earlier in my editing experience, when my fan club really was at Something Awful. Especially the last paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 1:52 pm, Today (UTC−8)

_________________
♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪


Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:55 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1263
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Mason wrote:
It would look bad if I had blocked Mathsci. But I didn't. I unblocked him.

When I blocked or unblocked someone, it was because (1) I believed it was the right thing to do and (2) there was a policy basis for doing so. I have never toed the WO line. Search the archives here, you will find an equal number of cases where WO regulars were angry at me taking "anti-WO" admin actions.

My mistake (well, one of them, anyway) was in adding running commentary here to my thought process about taking such admin actions there. Elonka (and Russavia) are right to point that out, and if I had that to do over again, I wouldn't.


All right, I misread the logs there, but that only lessens the cause for concern. For instance, looking back at the Demiurge block, people actually suggested you were involved because of comments you exchanged with him on-wiki. At the time, I argued that this was not sufficient reason to call you involved. Suffice to say, I was wrong to suggest that as well since you clearly were involved and I find it quite absurd of you to suggest that there is no policy issue with you being a regular poster here, concealing that connection, and then taking action as an admin on Wikipedia against people who are criticizing WO.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:25 am
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Posts: 1724
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy
Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Hex wrote:
I spoke too soon, an arbitration request by Tryptofish (T-C-L) is brewing.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dan_Murphy (T-H-L)

Lame. Congrats, Dan, you're now forever entombed in the Museum Of Idiotic Arbitration Crap.

Did anyone ever study that Tryptofish person in detail? For a "scientist", he spends precious little time on Wikipedia doing
science content these days, and far more time mush-mouthing on noticeboards. Another "rising star".


This is a fucking absurd request and it has me thoroughly pissed.

RfB

Addenda:
tldr: show
Here is Tryptofish's top 10 edited articles, per WP's edit counter:

352 - Atheism
342 - People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals
311 - Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
279 - Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
276 - Religion
246 - Human_brain
239 - Crucifixion
227 - Aquascaping
217 - Christian_terrorism
205 - Urination

Good old Tryptofish muses philosophically on his talk page:
Code:
To Wikipediocracy

First, please let me make it clear that, unlike many other people, I do not regard you as a monolith. Like Wikipedia, you are a collection of people, and not everyone is the same. It's obvious to me that there are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent people there, who sincerely want to make Wikipedia a better place. Indeed, I recently saw someone there tell other users not to hate on anybody, that no one had died. That was a very good thing to say, and I respect it.

Those of you who are trying to accomplish some good might want to give some thought to the graphic interface of your discussion sections. The heavy use of avatars and other graphics tends to get in the way of intelligent conversation. It reminds me of Something Awful.

But: at the same time, some users at that site are mostly there for the trolling. And some of you seem to have taken a recent interest in me. Thanks! The page view statistics on my talk page here have soared! Some of you expressed an interest in finding out who I am, so you can out me. (I'm looking directly at you, Randy from Boise.) Go for it. I dare you. You know you want to. (Or you could just take a deep breath and calm down, up to you.) Look for the bread crumbs (here??). I'll be watching, with popcorn. (Well, actually, I won't be watching that closely, because I don't really care, but I'll look in from time to time, for the laughs.) While you're at it, take a look at something I said earlier in my editing experience, when my fan club really was at Something Awful. Especially the last paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 1:52 pm, Today (UTC−8)


video: show

_________________
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Now my tears are fallin' like pigs from a big ol' tree and this storm within my spleen is drownin' me!" -Pinky and the Brain


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:28 am
Profile
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Posts: 2042
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Some dude on Wikipedia wrote:
...And some of you seem to have taken a recent interest in me. Thanks! The page view statistics on my talk page here have soared! Some of you expressed an interest in finding out who I am, so you can out me. (I'm looking directly at you, Randy from Boise.) Go for it. I dare you. You know you want to. (Or you could just take a deep breath and calm down, up to you.) Look for the bread crumbs (here??). I'll be watching, with popcorn. (Well, actually, I won't be watching that closely, because I don't really care, but I'll look in from time to time, for the laughs.) While you're at it, take a look at something I said earlier in my editing experience, when my fan club really was at Something Awful. Especially the last paragraph.

They never seem to realize how incredibly narcissistic they are, do they?


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:45 am
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Midsize Jake wrote:
Some dude on Wikipedia wrote:
...And some of you seem to have taken a recent interest in me. Thanks! The page view statistics on my talk page here have soared! Some of you expressed an interest in finding out who I am, so you can out me. (I'm looking directly at you, Randy from Boise.) Go for it. I dare you. You know you want to. (Or you could just take a deep breath and calm down, up to you.) Look for the bread crumbs (here??). I'll be watching, with popcorn. (Well, actually, I won't be watching that closely, because I don't really care, but I'll look in from time to time, for the laughs.) While you're at it, take a look at something I said earlier in my editing experience, when my fan club really was at Something Awful. Especially the last paragraph.

They never seem to realize how incredibly narcissistic they are, do they?

video: show


Dare me.
I double dare you, motherfucker.

video: show


video: show

_________________
Whiners!


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:35 am
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Posts: 959
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
Do you think he could understand himself if he had to read that six months later?

:blink:
Only if he were just as drunk as he is today.

Sort of like Dwarvish Runes.
That's what I write like when I'm stoned.
Then in the morning it's all "what the fuck was that?" and it all goes away.

RfB

video: show

_________________
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:10 am
Profile WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2867
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Fuck this dude. Seriously. Who cares who he is? The punch line is that the jolly fellow has put in 205 edits on the topic [[urination]].

That is funny, is it not?

RfB


Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:16 am
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Posts: 959
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Mason wrote:
It would look bad if I had blocked Mathsci. But I didn't. I unblocked him.

When I blocked or unblocked someone, it was because (1) I believed it was the right thing to do and (2) there was a policy basis for doing so. I have never toed the WO line. Search the archives here, you will find an equal number of cases where WO regulars were angry at me taking "anti-WO" admin actions.

My mistake (well, one of them, anyway) was in adding running commentary here to my thought process about taking such admin actions there. Elonka (and Russavia) are right to point that out, and if I had that to do over again, I wouldn't.


All right, I misread the logs there, but that only lessens the cause for concern. For instance, looking back at the Demiurge block, people actually suggested you were involved because of comments you exchanged with him on-wiki. At the time, I argued that this was not sufficient reason to call you involved. Suffice to say, I was wrong to suggest that as well since you clearly were involved and I find it quite absurd of you to suggest that there is no policy issue with you being a regular poster here, concealing that connection, and then taking action as an admin on Wikipedia against people who are criticizing WO.

Demiurge1000 had been smearing Volunteer Marek as a "boxcutter crewmember" because of his participation here. Per WP:NPA, each aware administrator had the right to block him.

_________________
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:52 am
Profile WWW
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
I recommend an admin revoke talk page access.

WP:DENY.

I'd die of shame if Russavia were complementing me in the same sentence as DemiUrge1000.


lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing. Not only do we need more of it, but more of you in his camp too.


Jim wrote:
So that's you, Demiurge, Wnt, Russavia and Mathsci?

Only 5 so far, but I'm sure you can sign up another 6 at least, which should give you enough for a dream team at most sports.

Try to get it televised - I have a choice of channels then...


All right you three, how do you think things would have played out with any of the above actions if 28bytes had been known to be Mason at the time? I do not think you have to put much thought into it to realize most of those actions would have generated serious ill will towards 28 and WO. Most likely he would not have taken all those actions were his ties to WO public knowledge, mainly because just one of those actions would have caused enough controversy to compel him to not perform any of the others. Had he performed all the above actions while his WO identity was known then he likely would have been subject to an arbitration case where he would be lucky to avoid desysopping. I imagine that Mathsci, who would undoubtedly have realized the significance once 28bytes was revealed as Mason, is already filing this away as "further" evidence of "harassment" from WO.


And this has what to do with Wnt ranting - Hmmm?

As far as I can see whatever 28bytes did over there was righteous and well deserved. All the rest is fucked up bullshit that emanates from the corrupted systems and morality that you commentards over there ascribe to.

The active admin corps over there partial to man and woman. Many of them take money for edits, Jehochman for example admitted doing so the other month, wifione is almost certainly an associate of IIPM. Others act in accordance with their political bent (David Boothroyd was not the only one), some whilst acting as delegates for the party, check out Orangemike's edits. Then there is Cirt, and Gerrard.

They are all at it and mostly they get away with it, because in most cases you DO NOT know who the fuck they are. Current when an Admin takes or doesn't take some action, you do not know whether it is because (s)he has a pecuniary, political, or social interest in the outcome.

And as for Wnt we have no desire to say who else was elected from the WO slate in this round, you'll just have to figure that out on your own.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:49 am
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
I recommend an admin revoke talk page access.

WP:DENY.

I'd die of shame if Russavia were complementing me in the same sentence as DemiUrge1000.


lilburne wrote:
Wnt's ranting is always a good thing. Not only do we need more of it, but more of you in his camp too.


Jim wrote:
So that's you, Demiurge, Wnt, Russavia and Mathsci?

Only 5 so far, but I'm sure you can sign up another 6 at least, which should give you enough for a dream team at most sports.

Try to get it televised - I have a choice of channels then...


All right you three, how do you think things would have played out with any of the above actions if 28bytes had been known to be Mason at the time? I do not think you have to put much thought into it to realize most of those actions would have generated serious ill will towards 28 and WO. Most likely he would not have taken all those actions were his ties to WO public knowledge, mainly because just one of those actions would have caused enough controversy to compel him to not perform any of the others. Had he performed all the above actions while his WO identity was known then he likely would have been subject to an arbitration case where he would be lucky to avoid desysopping. I imagine that Mathsci, who would undoubtedly have realized the significance once 28bytes was revealed as Mason, is already filing this away as "further" evidence of "harassment" from WO.


:rotfl: Oh. my. word. Do try not to judge others based on your own propensity for shit-stirring and attempted petty political maneuvering, there's a good chap... First of all you're not any good at it, so it makes you look even sillier than your default level of "apologist clown and town wannabee", and secondly 28bytes has more honesty, integrity and propriety in his little finger than you could ever aspire to.

Some people don't treat it as the MMORPG game you do, and choose, when that nonsense is attempted to be forced upon them, by those of your ilk, to walk away honourably rather than descend to the level of your blather. Good decision, I reckon. Hopefully he'll return sometime when playtime is over. Maybe, however, he's soured for good. One could hardly blame him were that the case. He can hold his head high in any event.

I realise I've used a lot of words like honour, propriety and integrity, and I also quoted "shame", all of which concepts I fear you're likely to struggle with, and I apologise for that.

Anyway, I wasn't after a debate with you - just wanted to wish you true happiness with your new friends. You may know a man by the company he keeps. :grouphug:


Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:55 pm
Profile
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Posts: 3050
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.
Being in the "hasten the day" camp would seem to be inconsistent with maintaining an active account at Wikipedia, which Mr. Murphy does.

_________________
"We've always been at war with Eastasia"


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:18 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Hersch wrote:
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.
Being in the "hasten the day" camp would seem to be inconsistent with maintaining an active account at Wikipedia, which Mr. Murphy does.


I disagree. Jimbo has an active account too, and nobody can hasten the day like he will. :o


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:26 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Actual Name: Scott Martin
Tryptofish wrote:
Those of you who are trying to accomplish some good might want to give some thought to the graphic interface of your discussion sections. The heavy use of avatars and other graphics tends to get in the way of intelligent conversation. It reminds me of Something Awful.

Yet strangely, I've seen enough unintelligent conversation on Wikipedia to last me a lifetime, and it came without the assistance of any kind of graphics at all.

_________________
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:32 pm
Profile WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Actual Name: Scott Martin
Hersch wrote:
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.
Being in the "hasten the day" camp would seem to be inconsistent with maintaining an active account at Wikipedia, which Mr. Murphy does.

Do as I say, not as I do.

_________________
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:33 pm
Profile WWW
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Hersch wrote:
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.
Being in the "hasten the day" camp would seem to be inconsistent with maintaining an active account at Wikipedia, which Mr. Murphy does.


"hasten the day" would have been to keep shtum for as long as possible. Think of it as a volcano where the magma chamber is blocked. As each day passed the eventual release of WP commentardary would have been truly explosive.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:34 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Hex wrote:
Hersch wrote:
cyofee wrote:
I believe Mr. Murphy is in the "hasten the day" camp. Getting rid of a sensible arbitrator and a moderate critic would probably be what he wanted, if not what he planned.
Being in the "hasten the day" camp would seem to be inconsistent with maintaining an active account at Wikipedia, which Mr. Murphy does.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Dumb as dogshit in the back seats here, I'm afraid. Please explain, Mr Hex.


Last edited by Jim on Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:39 pm
Profile
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Posts: 3050
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky
The Adversary wrote:


Better put some of that popcorn away.

_________________
"We've always been at war with Eastasia"


Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:41 pm
Profile
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Posts: 2042
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Okay, so every single one of the Arbcom members declined the case against Mr. Murphy (except for one who recused). At the same time, they all professed to agree with Mr. Newyorkbrad that what Mr. Murphy did was "a gratuitous, indefensible act of hostility and unkindness." (At least I assume that's what they're agreeing with.) I suppose it might have been moderately hostile, and to the extent that any kindness was owed (this is dubious), maybe that too - but hardly "gratuitous" or "indefensible." Obviously the Wikipedians value their own anonymity above all else, and by now that's well-established and that's expected. The problem is that they expect the rest of the world to not only support them, but to respect and admire them for it. That's just not gonna happen.

I guess this is yet another example of their doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but at least they did the right thing - that's better than previous Arbcoms would have done, IMO. And once again I'm forced to admit (FWIW) I was wrong, up above in this thread - I really thought there was a pretty good chance they'd try to make an example of him.

I also can't understand the attempts to conflate this case with that of Phil Sandifer, since the circumstances were completely different, but it doesn't surprise me that some of them would try.

All in all, I'd have to say it's time to start consigning this whole business to the "unusual incident that was interesting for a few days but ultimately meant relatively little" bin. I can agree that everybody looks bad on both sides, but not really that bad. (Not much worse than usual, anyway!)


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:07 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Midsize Jake wrote:
All in all, I'd have to say it's time to start consigning this whole business to the "unusual incident that was interesting for a few days but ultimately meant relatively little" bin. I can agree that everybody looks bad on both sides, but not really that bad. (Not much worse than usual, anyway!)

I'd agree - except you missed out the bit where the Devil's Wotsit made an arse of himself by quoting shit he hadn't checked, and pontificating at everyone else regardless, and hilarity ensued.

I mean, really, you're right in the grand scheme of things, but I dislike that particular tool a lot, and I think it's worth celebrating his idiocy here just because it makes me happy when it's so apparent - so just sayin...


Last edited by Jim on Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:13 pm
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Quote:
EENg, happy new year, and no phone calls needed (well, actually, I'd be curious who answers the phone at 666). This is fun: I even got some 14 year old white boy so emotional that he created User:Dare me, Tryptofish!, now reverted and blocked. Carrite, you are really too smart a guy and too talented an editor to be spending so much thought and energy being hung up on me, as you are, but I'll note that you recently said this: [5]. In that context, you were correct, and I agree with you. But in this context, I'm turning it around and saying the exact same thing to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that qualifies.

Game on.

_________________
Whiners!


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:17 pm
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Hersch wrote:
The Adversary wrote:


Better put some of that popcorn away.

Quote:
Comment by Herostratus

Obviously you can't have people like this in your organization. Dan Murphy is not a person engaged in constructive criticism of the Wikipedia. Dan Murphy is a "hasten the day" advocate and has repeatedly said so (on Wikipediocracy). (For those who don't know the term, a "hasten the day" advocate is someone of the mind "It will be a good day for mankind when the Wikipedia no longer exists, and I will advocate and perform actions intended to hasten the day when that occurs").

The current contretemps aside, and also putting aside the question "is it a good idea for an organization engaged in the business of publishing an online to encyclopedia to offer membership to a person who is dedicated to the failure that business and says so", it's asking an awful lot to ask your fellow editors to work in good faith with a person who hates the organization and wishes it destroyed. I think it goes without saying that no other organization on this earth would do that.

Regarding the current issue, the presumption has to be Dan Murphy went after 28bytes precisely because he would have been a good arbitrator, and an effective ArbCom is anathema to a "hasten the day" advocate like Dan Murphy. The presumption has to be that he chose his timing for maximum disruption to the ArbCom. Apparently one result of the timing may be that the ArbCom will now be short-handed. This is probably intentional.

And we volunteer editors should be expected to engage in collegial teamwork with this person because... ? Herostratus (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's like waiting for the very last kernels to pop.

_________________
Whiners!


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:39 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Vigilant wrote:
Hersch wrote:
The Adversary wrote:


Better put some of that popcorn away.

Quote:
Comment by Herostratus

Obviously you can't have people like this in your organization. Dan Murphy is not a person engaged in constructive criticism of the Wikipedia. Dan Murphy is a "hasten the day" advocate and has repeatedly said so (on Wikipediocracy). (For those who don't know the term, a "hasten the day" advocate is someone of the mind "It will be a good day for mankind when the Wikipedia no longer exists, and I will advocate and perform actions intended to hasten the day when that occurs").

The current contretemps aside, and also putting aside the question "is it a good idea for an organization engaged in the business of publishing an online to encyclopedia to offer membership to a person who is dedicated to the failure that business and says so", it's asking an awful lot to ask your fellow editors to work in good faith with a person who hates the organization and wishes it destroyed. I think it goes without saying that no other organization on this earth would do that.

Regarding the current issue, the presumption has to be Dan Murphy went after 28bytes precisely because he would have been a good arbitrator, and an effective ArbCom is anathema to a "hasten the day" advocate like Dan Murphy. The presumption has to be that he chose his timing for maximum disruption to the ArbCom. Apparently one result of the timing may be that the ArbCom will now be short-handed. This is probably intentional.

And we volunteer editors should be expected to engage in collegial teamwork with this person because... ? Herostratus (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's like waiting for the very last kernels to pop.


Oh my word: Hero fucking Stratus himself.

What more could we wish for? A genius of this magnitude is seldom seen,,,

You couldn't order this from any take-out I'm local to. Self-absorption with chips, anyone? What a prick.

Do the fuckwits really and truly have no idea how the world sees this (in the unlikely event it cares)? (don't answer)


Last edited by Jim on Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:41 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2271
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Quote:
Okay, so every single one of the Arbcom members declined the case against Mr. Murphy (except for one who recused). At the same time, they all professed to agree with Mr. Newyorkbrad that what Mr. Murphy did was "a gratuitous, indefensible act of hostility and unkindness." (At least I assume that's what they're agreeing with.) I suppose it might have been moderately hostile, and to the extent that any kindness was owed (this is dubious), maybe that too - but hardly "gratuitous" or "indefensible." Obviously the Wikipedians value their own anonymity above all else, and by now that's well-established and that's expected. The problem is that they expect the rest of the world to not only support them, but to respect and admire them for it. That's just not gonna happen.


What a bunch of buffoons.

Here's what happened: Will Nicholes (who goes by "28bytes" at Wikipedia and "Mason" here) wrote a retro video game in 2010 (Duck Attack! (T-H-L))and he was seeking publicity for it. He decides a Wikipedia article will be helpful. Good call. The third google hit for "Will Nicholes" is the Wikipedia article he authored on his product; the first two hits are to his own website. How'd he do it? He calls his college buddy at the local paper in Ft. Wayne Toledo and gets him to generate a "reliable source" for him. He calls up the local paper in Ft. Wayne and gets them to write something too (local papers will write just about anything about locals). Presto, two "reliable" sources and evidence of "notability." Yay! And then he writes an article about his product (under the undisclosed, at the time, alias of "28bytes") on Wikipedia.

This is not the end of the world but it's dodgy behavior - and a grand piece of evidence of why the editorial non-structure of Wikipedia does not and can not work. Self-dealing (whether for profit, vanity, political advantage, or etc...) is entirely too easy. It is carried out by their most powerful insiders. After all, Nicholes (as "28bytes") was the runaway winner of the arbitration committee election.

Someone here figured all this out. So in one of the private areas there was discussion about writing a blog post and how to handle the matter. "Mason," who was thoroughly anonymous at the time, was monitoring all this and engaged. So as "28bytes" he went to Wikipedia and admitted some, but not all, of his violations of their paid editing and conflict of interest polices. In the process he explicitly identified himself as "Will Nicholes" - since he said he was the designer of the Duck Attack game and since "28bytes" had edited the Duck Attack article in 2010 to say that the designer was Nicholes.

When it became clear that Mason=28bytes it was time to put all this together.

There is no hostility in presenting these basic facts. Meanwhile, as to "unkindness" I've been subjected to various slanders on that page (the worst is the lying piece of scum Hochman, who was repeatedly allowed to lie and attack my professional life and character without a peep of protest from any of them). I don't really care. They're of no consequence.

But this is all highly instructive about Wikipedia's core problems. Ira is as bad as any of them. What could be gratuitous about laying bare the truth that a vital, core principle of writing educational material (avoiding conflicts of interest) was being violated by one of the 12 or so most important people at the place?

Part of the problem for Nicholes, who seems like a decent guy, is that he doesn't have the educational or professional background to be guiding the writing of an encyclopedia. I honestly believe him when he says it didn't occur to him that it would be a problem to use Wikipedia to promote himself and his work.

But anyone who did have the appropriate background wouldn't consider it for half-a-second.


Last edited by DanMurphy on Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:33 pm, edited 5 times in total.



Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:50 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
DanMurphy wrote:
But anyone who did have the appropriate background wouldn't consider it for half-a-second.

I failed.
Well, I didn't consider it, but I spent time berating the tossers who did.
I plead mitigating circumstances - one particular tosser needed my wisdom, and will continue to get it.
Arseholes are arseholes are arseholes...
You're right, though...
Again.


Last edited by Jim on Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:54 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2271
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Jim wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
But anyone who did have the appropriate background wouldn't consider it for half-a-second.

I failed.
Well, I didn't consider it, but I spent time berating the tossers who did.
You're right.
Again.


Well there are of course people who know better and go ahead and do it anyway. But you don't really want them around either.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:57 pm
Profile
Gregarious

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 858
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
DanMurphy wrote:
Jim wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
But anyone who did have the appropriate background wouldn't consider it for half-a-second.

I failed.
Well, I didn't consider it, but I spent time berating the tossers who did.
You're right.
Again.


Well there are of course people who know better and go ahead and do it anyway. But you don't really want them around either.


Indeed I do not.

Long may they avoid this place.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:59 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1263
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Demiurge1000 had been smearing Volunteer Marek as a "boxcutter crewmember" because of his participation here. Per WP:NPA, each aware administrator had the right to block him.


I am well aware of what Demiurge was saying as he was saying it to me as well. His comments to me, in fact, are indirectly what led to 28 blocking him. That is, Demiurge made such comments towards me on Gwickwire's talk page, 28 objected to Demiurge's comments, and the subsequent exchange led to Demiurge being blocked.

lilburne wrote:
And this has what to do with Wnt ranting - Hmmm?

As far as I can see whatever 28bytes did over there was righteous and well deserved. All the rest is fucked up bullshit that emanates from the corrupted systems and morality that you commentards over there ascribe to.

The active admin corps over there partial to man and woman. Many of them take money for edits, Jehochman for example admitted doing so the other month, wifione is almost certainly an associate of IIPM. Others act in accordance with their political bent (David Boothroyd was not the only one), some whilst acting as delegates for the party, check out Orangemike's edits. Then there is Cirt, and Gerrard.

They are all at it and mostly they get away with it, because in most cases you DO NOT know who the fuck they are. Current when an Admin takes or doesn't take some action, you do not know whether it is because (s)he has a pecuniary, political, or social interest in the outcome.

And as for Wnt we have no desire to say who else was elected from the WO slate in this round, you'll just have to figure that out on your own.


This is the old "ends justifies the means argument" and that "using their own tactics against them" is the best way. I do not ascribe to such a notion. Most of the people you mention likely believe just as much that their actions were "righteous and well-deserved" and have more than a few supporters who feel the same way. When you endorse this sort of activity for some you effectively endorse it for all. As to how it relates to Wnt's ranting, well, this sort of issue gives him the excuse to speculate about "covert admin abuse of WO dissenters" by members here and all the paranoid aspersions that come with such an allegation.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:18 pm
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Demiurge1000 had been smearing Volunteer Marek as a "boxcutter crewmember" because of his participation here. Per WP:NPA, each aware administrator had the right to block him.


I am well aware of what Demiurge was saying as he was saying it to me as well. His comments to me, in fact, are indirectly what led to 28 blocking him. That is, Demiurge made such comments towards me on Gwickwire's talk page, 28 objected to Demiurge's comments, and the subsequent exchange led to Demiurge being blocked.

lilburne wrote:
And this has what to do with Wnt ranting - Hmmm?

As far as I can see whatever 28bytes did over there was righteous and well deserved. All the rest is fucked up bullshit that emanates from the corrupted systems and morality that you commentards over there ascribe to.

The active admin corps over there partial to man and woman. Many of them take money for edits, Jehochman for example admitted doing so the other month, wifione is almost certainly an associate of IIPM. Others act in accordance with their political bent (David Boothroyd was not the only one), some whilst acting as delegates for the party, check out Orangemike's edits. Then there is Cirt, and Gerrard.

They are all at it and mostly they get away with it, because in most cases you DO NOT know who the fuck they are. Current when an Admin takes or doesn't take some action, you do not know whether it is because (s)he has a pecuniary, political, or social interest in the outcome.

And as for Wnt we have no desire to say who else was elected from the WO slate in this round, you'll just have to figure that out on your own.


This is the old "ends justifies the means argument" and that "using their own tactics against them" is the best way. I do not ascribe to such a notion.


You are so intoxicated by the bullshit, you fail to see the point being made. 28bytes was right, there is no debate about that, there is no question of tactics or ends justifying means, the actions were correct.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Most of the people you mention likely believe just as much that their actions were "righteous and well-deserved" and have more than a few supporters who feel the same way.


And they will be wrong. Many people who are wrong, believe themselves to be right, but that doesn't make them any less wrong, simply deluded.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
When you endorse this sort of activity for some you effectively endorse it for all. As to how it relates to Wnt's ranting, well, this sort of issue gives him the excuse to speculate about "covert admin abuse of WO dissenters" by members here and all the paranoid aspersions that come with such an allegation.


Now we are dealing with tactics, and ends justifying means, and the more paranoid commentards there are on WP the better.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:50 pm
Profile
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Posts: 817
Location: Troll country
The page has been archived, here is permalink:
permanent popcorn :popcorn:


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:03 pm
Profile
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 3254
Midsize Jake wrote:
the "unusual incident that was interesting for a few days but ultimately meant relatively little" bin.

You mean there should be a Wikipedia article with 20 references? :blink:

_________________
No connection with anyone else of the same name!


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:21 pm
Profile WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1263
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
lilburne wrote:
You are so intoxicated by the bullshit, you fail to see the point being made. 28bytes was right, there is no debate about that, there is no question of tactics or ends justifying means, the actions were correct.


And they will be wrong. Many people who are wrong, believe themselves to be right, but that doesn't make them any less wrong, simply deluded.


I know the "point being made" quite well. You seem to think that the "correct" result arising means the action is "correct" and that is fundamentally saying the ends justify the means. As long as you are doing the "right" thing there are no other considerations that matter by your reasoning. When you make "correctness" the barometer by which an action is judged, you naturally create a precedent whereby various different views on the "correct" action allow for abusive actions to take place. Perhaps if you or those with whom you agree were the sole arbiters of "correctness" you would never perceive that an abusive action has taken place, but that is not the case. Even with a group of generally like-minded people you are going to have certain situations arise where there is dispute as to the "correct" action and a person may very well presume others will agree a certain action is correct, only to find that this is not the case after having taken action.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:33 pm
Profile
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Posts: 2869
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny
DanMurphy wrote:
Part of the problem for Nicholes, who seems like a decent guy, is that he doesn't have the educational or professional background to be guiding the writing of an encyclopedia. I honestly believe him when he says it didn't occur to him that it would be a problem to use Wikipedia to promote himself and his work.

But anyone who did have the appropriate background wouldn't consider it for half-a-second.

I stopped being bothered by that sort of thing when I realized that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather a unique phenomenon that records and describes the interests of modern-day eclectics, and since being "eclectic" has been rather fashionable over the past couple decades, that pretty much means everyone who buys into eclecticism being fashionable.

There are of course people out there that don't realize that Wikipedia is something other than an encyclopedia, but those people are no fun at parties anyway.

_________________
This is not a signature.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:36 pm
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
The Devil's Advocate wrote:

You have to have been corrupted by wikipedia bullshit to even consider that there was anything abusive in the actions, there wasn't.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:39 pm
Profile
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Posts: 2869
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
I know the "point being made" quite well. You seem to think that the "correct" result arising means the action is "correct" and that is fundamentally saying the ends justify the means. As long as you are doing the "right" thing there are no other considerations that matter by your reasoning. When you make "correctness" the barometer by which an action is judged, you naturally create a precedent whereby various different views on the "correct" action allow for abusive actions to take place. Perhaps if you or those with whom you agree were the sole arbiters of "correctness" you would never perceive that an abusive action has taken place, but that is not the case. Even with a group of generally like-minded people you are going to have certain situations arise where there is dispute as to the "correct" action and a person may very well presume others will agree a certain action is correct, only to find that this is not the case after having taken action.

Do you actually believe this crap and the creeps you defend, or are you just playing the devil's advocate?

_________________
This is not a signature.


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:46 pm
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
SB_Johnny wrote:
Do you actually believe this crap and the creeps you defend, or are you just playing the devil's advocate?


He's been running variants of this crap on various venues.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:56 pm
Profile
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
lilburne wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Do you actually believe this crap and the creeps you defend, or are you just playing the devil's advocate?


He's been running variants of this crap on various venues.

It' pretty tedious stuff.

_________________
Whiners!


Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:04 pm
Profile
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3554
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
As daft as Wnt without the humour.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EricBarbour, m0riarty, Sitush, thekohser, Volunteer Marek and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.