Darkness Shines
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 48
- kołdry
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Richardparker207 / ItsLassieTime
- Location: Maine
Darkness Shines
Anyone have opinions on him? I just reverted an IBAN vio and he wants to semi the page with no idea who I am.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Richardparker207 / ItsLassieTime
- Location: Maine
Re: Darkness Shines
And he has been banned.
- iii
- Habitué
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
- Wikipedia User: ජපස
- Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Re: Darkness Shines
Isn't this Marknutley (T-C-L)? I remember his worthless pestering during the great global warming nonsense of ten years ago.
- Earthy Astringent
- Banned
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:16 am
Re: Darkness Shines
Darkness Shines.... was he one of those political tag team editor types? If so, fuck him and good riddance. That kind of editor wasted more time at ANI and the notice boards than any other.
- Earthy Astringent
- Banned
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:16 am
Re: Darkness Shines
So I did a little poking, and yes DS was a politics editor. I found a link to Project Conservatism which had a virtual who’s who of the politics warriors. My favorite in the bunch is StillStanding-247 (T-C-L) who was a piece of work, even by Wikipedia’s standards. That guy lived on drama. Despite supporting the house POV, he was eventually community banned. He came back after a hiatus as MilesMoney, who briefly took to WO before getting bored after he realized Zoloft wasn’t going to let him run wild. I wonder where he is causing problems today.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9924
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Darkness Shines
Presumably the link you forgot to fill in there is to WikiProject_Conservatism|About_us|Members...? Mr. StillStanding isn't on the list but did post to that project's pages back in 2012. Mr. DarknessShines isn't on the list either, but obviously that doesn't mean much in itself.Earthy Astringent wrote:I found a link to Project Conservatism which had a virtual who’s who of the politics warriors. My favorite in the bunch is StillStanding-247 (T-C-L) who was a piece of work, even by Wikipedia’s standards...
Judging by the posting/enrollment dates on that list, it would certainly appear that this project peaked just before the 2012 election and has been somewhat (though not completely) moribund since. Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:53 pm
- Wikipedia User: MjolnirPants
Re: Darkness Shines
My rules of thumb with political views:Midsize Jake wrote: Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.
- Anyone who denies having a political view, but demonstrates any interest in politics is a liar who has an unmoderate and driving political view.
- Anyone who denies having an opinion on a BLP they've watchlisted has immutable opinions they will fight to the death to defend.
- The worst POV pushers are the ones who call others a "POV pusher" the most.
- With the right provocation, any POV pusher can be forced into a Chewbacca defense.I know there's a WP page, but this one defines it better.
- A rational, NPOV editor will never use a Chewbacca defense.
Re: Darkness Shines
Everything except the BLP one is correct. My watchlist is about 60% BLP's (and quite a few BDP's) and for a lot of them I have zero opinions on the subject whatsover. I would find it hard to have an opinion on hungarian chess masters for example, but someone somewhere likes to regularly spew shit on their article. They just happen to be the target of vandalism regularly. For the biographies where I do have an opinion about the subject (eg, Rolf Harris) the opinion is almost always negative, but they are on my watchlist not because I want to incorporate that opinion into the article, but because the article is particularly problematic and even rampant kiddie fiddlers deserve fair treatment.MjolnirPants wrote:My rules of thumb with political views:Midsize Jake wrote: Moreover, the people on this list are (by definition) the WP'ers who freely admit to being conservatives. Which is to say that I also suspect the really extremist types are mostly not on the list at all, because anything done openly under Wikipedia's auspices can't possibly be conservative enough for them.I've yet to be proven wrong, and I've been shown to have been right on numerous occasions.
- Anyone who denies having a political view, but demonstrates any interest in politics is a liar who has an unmoderate and driving political view.
- Anyone who denies having an opinion on a BLP they've watchlisted has immutable opinions they will fight to the death to defend.
- The worst POV pushers are the ones who call others a "POV pusher" the most.
- With the right provocation, any POV pusher can be forced into a Chewbacca defense.I know there's a WP page, but this one defines it better.
- A rational, NPOV editor will never use a Chewbacca defense.
- iii
- Habitué
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
- Wikipedia User: ජපස
- Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Re: Darkness Shines
[rant]MjolnirPants wrote:NPOV editor.
I demand we retire this Wikipedianism RIGHT NOW. The term only serves to virtue signal amongst those who have drunk the five pillars kool aid (wretch!).
I will even grant that a "neutral point of view" is a perfectly reasonable editorial perspective, but the term is still trash. We can reflect first on the asinine jargon that a user who changes the Wikipedia database is an "editor" (ha!) and then we can try to wrap our heads around a society that uses the four-letter-acronym NPOV is a fucking adjective. At that point, I'm spent. Sorry, I just can't take it!
[/rant]
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: Darkness Shines
Someone who edits an article is an editor. What other word can we use? I agree that NPOV is not a very meaningful concept and anyway makes an almost unpronounceable acronym.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9924
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Darkness Shines
"Alteration vector."Poetlister wrote:Someone who edits an article is an editor. What other word can we use?
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:53 pm
- Wikipedia User: MjolnirPants
Re: Darkness Shines
I should have said "Controversial BLP". It doesn't apply to Bob Ross, for example.Anroth wrote:Everything except the BLP one is correct...
I prefer "Idiot who needs a better hobby."Midsize Jake wrote:"Alteration vector."
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: Darkness Shines
MjolnirPants wrote:I prefer "Idiot who needs a better hobby."Midsize Jake wrote:"Alteration vector."
But for some people it isn't a hobby. Some people earn money from it, don't forget.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:53 pm
- Wikipedia User: MjolnirPants
Re: Darkness Shines
Okay: "hobby/job" then.Poetlister wrote:
But for some people it isn't a hobby. Some people earn money from it, don't forget.
That sounds dirty. "Hey baby, want a hobby job?"