G'day Cobb,
Mark Gallagher
wrote:
Oh, yes? I assume you have an example at the ready, because surely no-one
would have the gall to pull a statement like that out of their arse with
no proof of it being true.
Proof about being wiki-stalked and hassled by organised groups?
Are you actually stupid, or being deliberately stupid, or have you just
woken up
and don't know about the Wikiedia Review fiasco? Interested parties would
like
to know.
The people targetted by Wikipedia Review posters and Daniel Brandt were
not new editors who came across a part of Wikipedia where editorial
standards were lax and attempted to improve matters. They also weren't
wiki-stalked or blocked for vandalism. Do you actually know what the
big deal about WR *was*? The offending Wikipedia Review members are not
the long-standing, representative Wikipedians you were talking about in
your last post.
If you're going to make mocking replies, please do so under less
fraudulent circumstances. I have no doubt there are plenty of times
when you or any other poster here could attempt to trip me up; however,
if you're going to attempt such a thing, you can at least do so after
accurately representing the actual discussion, rather than brazenly
changing tack and then using insults to try to cover it. That's a hack
trick, and a clumsy one.
Do you think WR are alone, or just the most
high-profile?
Wikipedia Review are definitely not alone. This is in part a
consequence of our size and influence on the Internet (we attract the
less stable elements of society), but also partly because of the way we
treat some users (disaffected users attracted by the chance to discuss
"what's wrong with Wikipedia"). However, they and their ilk (Brandt's
"people who I think were mean to me" Hive Mind project and "people I
want to be mean to" Hive2; WikiTruth) are definitely not relevant to
what you were talking about, and you know it.
As for
knowledge of the Wikipedia rules, that's rot, too. Knowing how to
behave appropriately in a collaborative environment is useful (hint: don't
be a dick), and having respect for our core principles, like neutrality
and respect for copyright, even more so. Wikipedia has too many rules,
true, but you can get by quite happily without them if you just use common
sense and keep in mind our principles.
Lovely sentiments. It's just a shame they don't have anything to do with
the actual reality of Wikipedia for a newbie editor.
I suppose it's theoretically possible you're right here, in that I'm not
a newbie editor at the moment. But I was, once, and at that time "don't
be a dick", "be objective" (I didn't know about NPOV, but objectivity
sounded like an obvious goal for this sort of project), and "don't
violate copyrights" (again, not stealing is hardly an unusual
philosophy) worked just fine, as it has for thousands of other editors.
I suspect, from
what (admittedly little) I've seen from you, that you
have neither the backing of policy nor common sense when you
ride out on your high horse desperate to delete someone else's hard work.
Well, of course you don't dear... but what does this have to do with
anything?
I assume you think "dear" is meant to impress upon me your intellectual
superiority. Well, it impresses upon me your wish to impress upon me
your intellectual superiority, which will have to suffice.
What this has to do "with anything" is quite simple: you complain about
the treatment of newbies, when the only experience of such treatment
you've bothered to offer us as evidence so far are your attempts to
delete others' hard work and how you reacted when they objected.
Despite this
minor issue, which others would consider crippling, you still
insist on
stamping your foot and complaining that you never
get your own way. And
as for "consensus building", well, it's a beautiful dream, but you
actually have to talk to people (as opposed to ranting at them for being
too stupid to agree with you).
As opposed to long, patronising lectures full of misrepresentations from
blowhards like you?
At last, an argumentative gambit that isn't completely fatuous!
Certainly, you're still a long way from convincing anyone that anything
you have to say is remotely credible, but --- at least you've said
something that can't be easily countered. What does one say to "you're
a blowhard?" "I'm not" lacks style, and is hardly convincing. Any
attempt to mount a convincing argument that one is *not* a blowhard, of
course, merely cements the idea further.
Frankly, it's still argument-by-insult, but at least it's a reasonably
well-thought-out insult, as opposed to your "stupid" --- which you
worked so hard to disingenously insert --- above.
As for the time
it takes to run a checkuser, well, there are certain
people who consider privacy important. Crazy, I know. What, do they have
something to hide? All right-thinking, red-blooded human beings owe it to
themselves --- and us, damn it! --- to look under the beds of these people
immediately, in case a Commie is hiding there.
Your IP address is all over the internet; so is your user agent string
(operating
system and browser). You are talking a complete a total load of old bollocks
- and that doesn't come as a surprise given some of your other confused
messages on this list.
You point to *my user agent string* as proof that I don't care about
privacy --- a classic case of missing the forest for trees. My *real
name* and *university* are sent out in *every single message I post to
this list*! When did I say I jealously guarded *my* privacy?
All I said was that there were certain people who considered privacy
important. Guess what? Some of them edit Wikipedia. Guess what? I
don't want to see them forced to leave when we have no reason to do so
other than Cobb being concerned that he can't Checkuser whomever he wants.
<snip/>
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse